At far too many companies IT departments are tools, and act like such. (Nothing derogatory, they get asked to do something by another department and they do it.) The problem is the people who ask them to do something don’t think at the level of detail that the IT folks need to actually make something intelligible.

I think airline emails should be managed by a department that sits under the same umbrella and very close to the call center folks. Let me give you an example:
I recently got an award ticket from JetBlue – unlike other airlines their award tickets are awarded online then you have one year to redeem them. So online and in the email it said I had until October 25th to redeem them.

I decided during the week of October 25th where I was going to fly, but on October 24th I was tired and though I’d redeem the ticket online on the next day.

I attempted to redeem it and the award was gone!

I called and had them book the award for me, and by the sounds of it they do this a descent amount. The supervisor who took the call said the expiration date/time was October 25th at 12:01 am!

So because whoever designed the actual site didn’t think in usability and from a customer’s perspective they’re generating expensive phone calls.

Its not the IT guy’s job to set that up properly, its the Customer Operations’ folks job to properly describe the needs to the IT guy. The fix for my problem is likely about four hours of coding, which would have a pretty high ROI..

You automatically assume that it has a negative impact on fliers when that’s not necessarily the case. I would argue that you’re the one thinking inside the box here, because not charging fees is the way it’s always been. That doesn’t mean it’s the right way to go.

What about the person who doesn’t want to check a bag? Why should he have to pay a fare that includes that checked bag if he won’t use it? The same thing goes for almost any fee. As I’ve said, the problem here is that airlines need to make it easier to pay the fee up front if you want that product or service, and if you want an “all-in” fare, you should be able to pay for that as well. This type of structure allows people to pick and choose what they want, and there’s nothing wrong with that idea at all. Some people will prefer it, and more will like it once they get used to the idea.

> I fly to the tune of $20,000+ a year and no longer have
> a preferred carrier. Is it wise for a carrier to
> understand me and my needs in order to better compete
> for my dollars?

Before airlines actually try to understand your needs, they need to figure out who actually is a good customer. You may spend $20,000 a year but that might be full of $200 cross country flights. On the other hand, someone else may spend $20,000 a year on two flights in First Class. Who is a better customer for the airline? The latter, because that’s a profitable customer. The airlines don’t even know how to decide if someone is a good customer or not, and that makes it very hard to justify working to serve their needs.

Once they do that, then they absolutely should be making a better effort to learn about and recognize the needs of their best customers to keep them coming back. We have no argument there, and if someone is truly a good, profitable customer for the airline, then maybe they do want to make sure that you get an exit row because you’re tall. But first they need to figure out what it means to be a good customer.

> Finally, Brett and I both recognize that change is
> hard. But hard does not equate with should not do it.
> My experience is that significant change within an
> industry comes from those outside the industry. Did the
> music industry create music downloads and MP3 players?
> Did video rental stores create rental by mail or VOD?
> No, Apple and Netflix did. Experience within an
> industry, while making us clearly more knowledgeable
> overall, too often prevents one from being able to see
> outside of their experience.

Ok, so if this is the case, then why hasn’t it happened in the airline industry yet? Consumer behavior shows that it’s insanely difficult to start a successful airline. Think about it. What was the last true success that started from scratch? JetBlue. Was it successful because it had TVs and it was cool? Despite popular belief, the answer is no. It was successful because it scored itself a huge number of slots at JFK and was able to create a strong niche in the largest market in the US before competitors could take it down. The TV was a great marketing piece, and now the legacy carriers have started to adopt it as well, but it hardly guaranteed JetBlue’s success.

Look at most of the other airlines that have tried to come in and do something different. It hasn’t caught on. You can look at Virgin America now for a good example. They’ve got televisions, on demand food ordering, a sensible frequent flier program, and more. But they’re already on their third round of funding and clearly running through cash quickly. Why aren’t people catching on? Because they tend to fly based on price and schedule, and they are addicted to their mileage programs. Time and time again, we’ve seen new airlines come in to being, slash fares, and watch the legacy carrier match. What happens? People flock to the legacy carrier to get those low fares and then complain when they go up after the new carrier goes under.

There have been airlines like Eos that treated their customers like kings and received rave reviews, but they could never make it work out economically and they folded. If people were willing to pay a hefty premium for this type of service, an airline like that could have survived.

The reality is that starting an airline and succeeding is something that rarely happens. Now that many airlines are moving toward the fee-based structure, it does leave open a hole for someone (besides Southwest) to try to move in and create an all-in experience with excellent customer service. But unless they can match price and schedule of the other airlines, they aren’t going to succeed. And that can’t happen without massive capital to purchase a huge fleet of airplanes, access to airports, and a willing competition to allow them get started without pressure. That’s not going to happen.

We’ve seen the big, successful pioneers of the past go down in flames, but that was due to a fundamental shift in the way the industry operated. Deregulation made all airlines adapt, and the old line guys weren’t able to do it so they failed. Even then, very few upstarts actually succeeded. It was the more nimble traditional carriers that stepped up and filled the void. Southwest was the biggest exception to this rule, and they came up with a fantastic model that had never been tried before. They kept their costs low and succeeded at a time when others didn’t know how to compete.

I think it will take something completely radical, like teleportation, to allow a new carrier to come in and really make an impact today. Ok, maybe teleportation is a bit extreme, but you get my point. Just offering better customer service is not going to be enough to change behavior, IMHO. Please prove me wrong, because it would certainly make for a more pleasant experience!

Anyway, I was wrong in blaming Delta for my bad email experience, because the flight number update emails actually came from Expedia. Which makes it even worse — Expedia is primarily an internet company, and should be a leader in harnessing the power of the internet to deliver a good customer experience.

Of course, Delta is still responsible for changing the flight numbers in the first place :-)

First and foremost, the main point of my post was that as a marketing professional who specializes in customer experience, my experience and analysis indicates that the airline industry has little to rare focus on this. And as industry examples (Southwest) and outside industry analogs suggest (Best Buy, Netflix), companies that are able to create and deliver a complete, quality customer experience win.

I think Brett misses this point wildly. This is not about crying about being charged by baggage fees or drinks… it is about the thoughtlessness that goes into the decision to charge for baggage and charging for drinks. It has an impact of fliers. We can debate whether it should or not. Or we can be grown up and recognize that it is the reality of business- decisions impact a customer experience and that impact can result in a change in behavior that may OR may not benefit a company.

I fly to the tune of $20,000+ a year and no longer have a preferred carrier. Is it wise for a carrier to understand me and my needs in order to better compete for my dollars?
Of course it is… And while that does not mean they do everything I say, it does mean that it should be thoughtful and comprehensive in its evaluation and make an informed decision. Do you think that happens?

Finally, Brett and I both recognize that change is hard. But hard does not equate with should not do it. My experience is that significant change within an industry comes from those outside the industry. Did the music industry create music downloads and MP3 players? Did video rental stores create rental by mail or VOD? No, Apple and Netflix did. Experience within an industry, while making us clearly more knowledgeable overall, too often prevents one from being able to see outside of their experience. I think Brett is not different from most in that he demonstrates this well. Read through the post again and you will notice:

“Well, it’s hard”
“…not something an agent can change.”
“… no way to handle the flood…”
“That’s not easy either.”

In simple terms, if one cannot challenge widely held assumptions then the range of thinking will be dramatically limited. And someone else will win- plain and simple. The only “No” that exists are the ones we place on ourselves and result in limited thinking.

The company that can balance business goals with customer needs in a way that is transparent and consistent will win- regardless of industry.

I had a friend who got a Delta flight notice that her flight was leaving one minute later. While I’m sure from a scheduling perspective that one minute was important, from a customer perspective it doesn’t really matter. This is fixed by thinking about it from the customer perspective, what changes are important to them, sure the change from 1473 to 1433 is important, but you would’ve caught that anyway when you checked in. (Hell, I don’t usually remember what flight I’m flying until I check in!)

From a operations perspective this is pretty easy to fix: set thresholds, what is important to customers? a 5 minute change? a 15 minute change? a 30 minute change? an hour change? then program the computer to follow that.

This is where Joel’s approach actually works: figure out what your customers want then give it to them.

As much as we all love or hate US Airways they’ve done this thinking and have implemented it.

And why their IT department can’t produce less alarming subject lines?

If something like that happened in my company I’d at least sling an email, or open a ticket to whomever could fix it.

I wonder how much of this is a problem with outsourcing? Since an employee at an outsourcing company wouldn’t have access to send that info on.

CF – Does eponymous coward’s IP address belong to Virgin America?

Regarding funerals in particular, expenses like flowers and venues often cost *more* for funerals than comparable arrangements for events of a more discretionary nature. People’s emotional distress and need for urgency present an opportunity for profit that many businesses in a variety of industries are happy to take part in. Airlines are also businesses, and they too need to turn a profit at the end of the day (or quarter).