

Lessons learnt from Tiger Airways' Cancellation Procedure - wakeless
http://wakeless.net/archive/2009/10/tigers-cancellation-procedure

======
JacobAldridge
I respectfully disagree that Tiger Airways, and others of their ilk (same
stripes?) around the world, need to care about your problem.

(The respectfully is because I would like these companies to do so. The
disagree is because I don't think they should have to or that customers are
entitled to act indignantly when it doesn't happen.)

Tiger are clearly positioned in the marketplace around lowest cost. That's
almost certainly why wakeless and everyone else on this flight booked with
them, as opposed to Qantas, Virgin etc - Tiger was cheaper. Qantas (I believe)
would have paid for accommodation due to a cancellation (and possibly avoided
the cancellation to prevent the expense of that policy) - but when you chose
to pay $100 less for a flight, you waived that entitlement.

Why are Tiger cheaper? Because they have stricter policies and fewer, perhaps
less-trained or experienced staff, and they build a business model on those
factors, not around caring for you. If you want somebody to care, be prepared
to pay for it.

Obvious exceptions to this rule apply when a business engages in misleading
conduct. And I reiterate that I would like to see more companies caring.

But if I buy the cheapest shoes, drive the cheapest second-hand car, and fly
the cheapest airline, I'm not in a position to complain about cheap customer
service.

Edit: None of this means wakeless shouldn't have complained in the way he did,
or even cried blue murder at the airport. By all means push for change, just
don't expect it.

~~~
Maxious
>Why are Tiger cheaper? Because they have stricter policies and fewer, perhaps
less-trained or experienced staff, and they build a business model on those
factors, not around caring for you. If you want somebody to care, be prepared
to pay for it.

Exactly. That's Tiger's position in the australian budget airline market.
Absolutely minimum cost - less staff, less service but they get you from point
A to point B for cheap when it's economically sensible for them (they have a
minimal number of services depending on seasonal demand). They have been
getting a very high level of complaints this year (and apparently only allowed
communication via post until recently!!!) [1].

Jetstar and Virgin can afford a couple more amenities/services and Virgin at
least has tiered pricing that might allow them to offset some of those costs
(including flexibility in cancellations/flight changes etc.).

1: [http://www.watoday.com.au/travel/travel-news/airline-
complai...](http://www.watoday.com.au/travel/travel-news/airline-complaints-
head-skyhigh-20090805-e9ny.html)

------
wakeless
That's not my point. My point is that once the flight was cancelled they
handled it from that point badly. I just booked my flight with Jetstar, waited
in line for ages to apply for the refund and then went on my merry way. The
problem was that they could have saved the 100 or so people a lot of time by
being far more upfront about what they were going to provide and how to get
that.

~~~
JacobAldridge
Agreed - they could have been clearer and it wouldn't have been as painful an
experience for all involved.

I'm not trying to disagree with that point ("they handled it badly"), I'm
trying to make the case for the fact that their business model makes those
snafus more likely, and we should expect that.

If they trained or paid their staff better, it may have been handled better.
But if that adds real dollars to the price of seats, then people start
choosing another carrier.

@ brucini, please understand I wasn't saying cheap cost = lack of _basic_
customer service, just that it likely equates to _cheap_ customer service. In
an airline example, it probably also equates to cheap planes, cheap
maintenance workers and pilots, and lower standards of maintenance quality. I
would hope there were never any crashes - that would be an absence of _basic_
maintenance - but equipment faults, delays, and cancellations due to cheap
maintenance? Well, it's a risk you take (and, frankly, which I'm willing to
take in some situations) when you decide to buy the cheap option.

------
brucini
It's not logical to suggest, as JacobAldridge does, that the cost of a flight
= a lack of basic customer service. Sure you might have to pay for your meals
on flights now, but an airline should still ensure its customer service
standards to deal with these cancellations. If anything budget airlines should
be trying harder to maintain customer loyalty. As Wakeless says, he's not too
bothered by the flight was cancelled (it happens to everyone) it's how it was
dealt with. You shouldn't expect more cancellations of flights just because
the average flight cost is generally cheaper than full-service airlines.
Otherwise the argument would run that you should expect more crashes, and not
complain, because you bought a cheaper flight ticket.

------
jrockway
I think the US airlines have this sorted out. When my flight is canceled, I
usually get an automated phone call saying that I'm booked on the next flight.
(This is on AA, but I imagine it's the same for everyone else.)

When this doesn't happen, and I'm at the airport, I find it's easier to call
Reservations from my cell phone and have them rebook me than to wait in line
to speak with the gate agent. This is faster, saves waiting in line, saves
listening to the people in front of you whine about how it's critical that
they were there yesterday (yeah, they're going to uncancel the flight if you
really need to see your mom...), etc.

------
wakeless
Sounds much less painless than what I experienced. They didn't even announce
that you could call reservations and have them sort it out.

