In talking with Henry Harteveldt about the latest Forrester Research report on travelers' dissatisfaction with the online booking experience, I was reminded of my first flight on Southwest Airlines. I was sitting in the first row, and when the plane arrived at the gate, the door opened almost immediately. Having grown accustomed to standing in the aisle and cooling my own jets for several minutes, I was stunned. I asked the flight attendant, "I'm free to go?"
A few days later, I was talking to a friend at another airline. I asked him why it takes most airlines so much longer to hook up the jetway and open the door. He said, "That's because whenever one of our planes lands, it's a surprise. Southwest wants to turn its planes around quickly, so it pays attention."
You have to wonder how much money travel companies are leaving on the table — maybe even actively pushing away — because they are not paying attention to the right things. These are difficult times (I so look forward to never saying those words again), and it's hard to stay focused on customer satisfaction when staffing is at minimum levels and costs are being cut like Yul Brynner's hair. But maybe travel companies could spare a tiny bit of energy for thinking of ways to boost customer satisfaction.
This doesn't necessarily entail throwing tons of money at a problem. Sometimes, just focusing a bit more attention on a particular thing, and making it a priority, can result in some significant improvements.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The naked truth
I seldom get into “write your Congressman” mode – we’re all busy people, after all – but I have written to mine (even though I can’t stand him) to urge him to support H.R. 2027.
This bill reads in part: “Whole-body imaging technology may not be used as the sole or primary method of screening a passenger under this section. Whole-body imaging technology may not be used to screen a passenger under this section unless another method of screening, such as metal detection, demonstrates cause for preventing such passenger from boarding an aircraft.”
Yes, the Transportation Security Administration wants every single airline passenger – that’s you, your mom, your teenage daughter and everybody else who wants to get on a plane – to get naked first. They call it “virtually naked” – the technology allows the screener to see through your clothes – but the result is the same as if you were told to go to a room, take your clothes off and allow some unseen person to check out your goods.
The TSA is in love with these machines. At first, it claimed they would only be used for secondary screening; now they want to replace all airport metal detectors with this virtual strip search. The concept of “probable cause” is tossed out the window.
H.R. 2027 also would make it illegal for anyone to store one of these images. In the past, the TSA has claimed that storing is impossible, but in truth there is an “on-off switch.” Theoretically, a naked picture of your teen could end up on the inside of a screener’s locker door.
We have behaved like sheep long enough, allowing our rights to be trampled. Let’s get behind this bill.
This bill reads in part: “Whole-body imaging technology may not be used as the sole or primary method of screening a passenger under this section. Whole-body imaging technology may not be used to screen a passenger under this section unless another method of screening, such as metal detection, demonstrates cause for preventing such passenger from boarding an aircraft.”
Yes, the Transportation Security Administration wants every single airline passenger – that’s you, your mom, your teenage daughter and everybody else who wants to get on a plane – to get naked first. They call it “virtually naked” – the technology allows the screener to see through your clothes – but the result is the same as if you were told to go to a room, take your clothes off and allow some unseen person to check out your goods.
The TSA is in love with these machines. At first, it claimed they would only be used for secondary screening; now they want to replace all airport metal detectors with this virtual strip search. The concept of “probable cause” is tossed out the window.
H.R. 2027 also would make it illegal for anyone to store one of these images. In the past, the TSA has claimed that storing is impossible, but in truth there is an “on-off switch.” Theoretically, a naked picture of your teen could end up on the inside of a screener’s locker door.
We have behaved like sheep long enough, allowing our rights to be trampled. Let’s get behind this bill.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Jobs!
In the next issue of Travel Technology Update, we will introduce a new feature: Jobs.
The name says it all. There are a lot of "unaffiliated" and very talented people out there, and many of them read TTU. If you have an opening within your organization in the field of distribution, revenue management and/or related technologies and disciplines, you can submit the details to me. If space becomes an issue, listings will appear on a first come, first served basis.
There is no cost for running a listing, no fees for snagging a great employee, no cost to respond to a listing. This is simply an extra service that we are providing exclusively to our subscribers, both employers and job-seekers. Employers will be reaching a very qualified group of potential employees at no cost and at no risk. The only requirement is that the employer must be a subscriber.
The name says it all. There are a lot of "unaffiliated" and very talented people out there, and many of them read TTU. If you have an opening within your organization in the field of distribution, revenue management and/or related technologies and disciplines, you can submit the details to me. If space becomes an issue, listings will appear on a first come, first served basis.
There is no cost for running a listing, no fees for snagging a great employee, no cost to respond to a listing. This is simply an extra service that we are providing exclusively to our subscribers, both employers and job-seekers. Employers will be reaching a very qualified group of potential employees at no cost and at no risk. The only requirement is that the employer must be a subscriber.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Oink
May I nominate Michael O’Leary as the biggest swine on earth? The Ryanair chief’s latest pathetic bid for attention came in the form of a pronouncement that swine flu is “only a tragedy for people living in slums in Asia or Mexico.” People who live in other parts of the world aren’t going to die, he stated.
Mr. O’Leary should stick to what he knows best: running a very bad airline. He is not an epidemiologist or a member of the medical profession. Flu viruses are highly unpredictable; they can start out mildly, then roar back with a vengeance, as did the 1918 version that infected a third to a half of the world’s population. In 1973, the so-called London flu, a mutation of the Asian strain, hit Northern California very hard. I came down with it and developed pneumonia. I was out of commission for a month. I consider myself lucky, since many who developed pneumonia died. Let the record show that I was not a slum-dweller.
Mr. O’Leary also needs to be reminded that not all people in Mexico are slum-dwellers. And even those who live in poor neighborhoods are human beings, which is more than I can say for him.
Mr. O’Leary should stick to what he knows best: running a very bad airline. He is not an epidemiologist or a member of the medical profession. Flu viruses are highly unpredictable; they can start out mildly, then roar back with a vengeance, as did the 1918 version that infected a third to a half of the world’s population. In 1973, the so-called London flu, a mutation of the Asian strain, hit Northern California very hard. I came down with it and developed pneumonia. I was out of commission for a month. I consider myself lucky, since many who developed pneumonia died. Let the record show that I was not a slum-dweller.
Mr. O’Leary also needs to be reminded that not all people in Mexico are slum-dwellers. And even those who live in poor neighborhoods are human beings, which is more than I can say for him.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Prudence vs. panic
Whether or not swine flu reaches pandemic status, the airlines are already bearing some of the economic pain it causes. There’s no clear line of demarcation between prudence and panic in these situations. Was it premature for the European Union to advise travelers to avoid visiting not only Mexico but areas of the U.S. where this strain of flu has been identified? We will never know.
Here is what we do know: The Spanish flu of 1918 spread so far and wide because of the unprecedented movement of people all over the world in the waning days and aftermath of WWI. At least a third of the world’s population – some estimates put it at half -- became ill, and somewhere between 20 million and 100 million died. Travel plays a role in spreading viruses, and air travel can spread them farther and more rapidly.
The airlines are waiving change fees for travel from the U.S. to Mexico, but that’s a bit like closing the barn door after the horse is gone. What might make a real difference is waiving change fees for people who feel ill or have been exposed to the virus. That will dry up some badly needed revenue in the short term, but it’s nothing compared to what would happen in a full-scale pandemic. Now is not the time to quibble over doctors’ notes.
Since the best way to avoid getting the flu is to keep your hands clean, the airlines also could distribute antibacterial wipes at the beginning and end of each flight and enforce their use as rigorously as they enforce seatbelt rules.
My mother never knew her father. He died before she was born, in the 1918 pandemic. For me, a flu epidemic is not just theoretical; it’s part of my family history. We are not yet anywhere near the time to panic, but we can take a few simple steps to avoid reaching that point, like staying home if we are sick. The airlines can and should do their part as well.
Here is what we do know: The Spanish flu of 1918 spread so far and wide because of the unprecedented movement of people all over the world in the waning days and aftermath of WWI. At least a third of the world’s population – some estimates put it at half -- became ill, and somewhere between 20 million and 100 million died. Travel plays a role in spreading viruses, and air travel can spread them farther and more rapidly.
The airlines are waiving change fees for travel from the U.S. to Mexico, but that’s a bit like closing the barn door after the horse is gone. What might make a real difference is waiving change fees for people who feel ill or have been exposed to the virus. That will dry up some badly needed revenue in the short term, but it’s nothing compared to what would happen in a full-scale pandemic. Now is not the time to quibble over doctors’ notes.
Since the best way to avoid getting the flu is to keep your hands clean, the airlines also could distribute antibacterial wipes at the beginning and end of each flight and enforce their use as rigorously as they enforce seatbelt rules.
My mother never knew her father. He died before she was born, in the 1918 pandemic. For me, a flu epidemic is not just theoretical; it’s part of my family history. We are not yet anywhere near the time to panic, but we can take a few simple steps to avoid reaching that point, like staying home if we are sick. The airlines can and should do their part as well.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
LUV is the answer
If you thought Wall Street types had learned anything over the last year, put that right out of your mind.
During a conference call to discuss Southwest Airlines’ first-quarter financial performance, the Street’s airline analysts badgered CEO Gary Kelly with the same question phrased in different ways: Why isn’t Southwest charging fees to check bags?
I could almost hear the ghost of Gordon Gekko whispering, “Greed is good.”
I suppose the analysts can be forgiven for second-guessing what is arguably the least stupid airline in America. After all, Southwest just reported a first-quarter net loss of $91 million, the bulk of which was due to charges related to fuel hedging. (American, meanwhile, reported a first-quarter net loss of $375 million.)
The money is there for the taking, the analysts argued.
“I would argue that our revenue results demonstrate that we are doing something better,” Kelly said. “Our load factor and revenue production is better in comparison to the legacy carriers.”
It’s low-hanging fruit, the Wall Street boys argued.
“We are virtually alone in not charging a bag fee,” Kelly said. “Based on all our research, there is a meaningful impact” in taking that approach. Besides, he said, in times like these, an airline is more dependent than ever on price-sensitive travelers. If you lose just one customer, you need 10 or 12 bag fees to make up for it.
Another analyst asked, what’s the matter, don’t you have the technology to do it?
Not at the moment, Kelly said. “We have the ability to charge fees at the airport, but think about the number of customers who would have to dig out their credit cards. I don’t know if that would be the right customer experience.” Down the road, Southwest will have the ability to collect fees online, but the bag fee is “not on our technology agenda.”
The analysts persisted: But everybody’s doing it!
Patiently, Kelly explained that Southwest loves having customers who love the airline. “You can’t find customers who like the fees,” he said. If Southwest charges bag fees, “We become just another airline.”
Maybe that’s what the Wall Street guys want: an airline that doesn’t fuss too much over whether its passengers are happy. An airline they can understand.
During a conference call to discuss Southwest Airlines’ first-quarter financial performance, the Street’s airline analysts badgered CEO Gary Kelly with the same question phrased in different ways: Why isn’t Southwest charging fees to check bags?
I could almost hear the ghost of Gordon Gekko whispering, “Greed is good.”
I suppose the analysts can be forgiven for second-guessing what is arguably the least stupid airline in America. After all, Southwest just reported a first-quarter net loss of $91 million, the bulk of which was due to charges related to fuel hedging. (American, meanwhile, reported a first-quarter net loss of $375 million.)
The money is there for the taking, the analysts argued.
“I would argue that our revenue results demonstrate that we are doing something better,” Kelly said. “Our load factor and revenue production is better in comparison to the legacy carriers.”
It’s low-hanging fruit, the Wall Street boys argued.
“We are virtually alone in not charging a bag fee,” Kelly said. “Based on all our research, there is a meaningful impact” in taking that approach. Besides, he said, in times like these, an airline is more dependent than ever on price-sensitive travelers. If you lose just one customer, you need 10 or 12 bag fees to make up for it.
Another analyst asked, what’s the matter, don’t you have the technology to do it?
Not at the moment, Kelly said. “We have the ability to charge fees at the airport, but think about the number of customers who would have to dig out their credit cards. I don’t know if that would be the right customer experience.” Down the road, Southwest will have the ability to collect fees online, but the bag fee is “not on our technology agenda.”
The analysts persisted: But everybody’s doing it!
Patiently, Kelly explained that Southwest loves having customers who love the airline. “You can’t find customers who like the fees,” he said. If Southwest charges bag fees, “We become just another airline.”
Maybe that’s what the Wall Street guys want: an airline that doesn’t fuss too much over whether its passengers are happy. An airline they can understand.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
A human experiment
Butterfield & Robinson is a Canadian tour operator that does some lovely trips, with an emphasis on bicycling, hiking or riding horse- or camelback. They believe in getting you out of the car and into the life of your destination. They do it with class and style, and the price tag reflects that.
Just about every travel company on earth is offering a “Stimulus Package” right now, but B&R’s has a twist: Here’s what they say:
“The special offer invites B&R travellers to pay 80% of the trip price in advance of their departure, with the balance to be charged two weeks following their return. However, the final charge will be reduced or waived for any client who determines the experience not to have been worth the full price tag.” For any reason, the company added.
This is the sort of human experiment that I love. Will people say, “Hey, I’ll take the trip and come up with some complaint or other”? Does B&R anticipate that? Is this simply a 20% discount dressed up in a cuter outfit?
Then I thought: B&R appeals to a nice demographic. It’s not mass market. Maybe its customers are above behaving like weasels, and when it comes to the moment of truth, they’ll admit they had a fabulous time.
We shall see. B&R has promised to share the results.
Just about every travel company on earth is offering a “Stimulus Package” right now, but B&R’s has a twist: Here’s what they say:
“The special offer invites B&R travellers to pay 80% of the trip price in advance of their departure, with the balance to be charged two weeks following their return. However, the final charge will be reduced or waived for any client who determines the experience not to have been worth the full price tag.” For any reason, the company added.
This is the sort of human experiment that I love. Will people say, “Hey, I’ll take the trip and come up with some complaint or other”? Does B&R anticipate that? Is this simply a 20% discount dressed up in a cuter outfit?
Then I thought: B&R appeals to a nice demographic. It’s not mass market. Maybe its customers are above behaving like weasels, and when it comes to the moment of truth, they’ll admit they had a fabulous time.
We shall see. B&R has promised to share the results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
