Super 80 Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 This past Thursday (21st), I was flying out of Calgary on Air Canada. A particular Air Canada employee really went out of his way to help me and I would like to send a letter to his supervisor. Back in 2000, a client put in a good word about me to my boss and I managed to survive several rounds of layoffs as a result. So if someone could tell me either the name of the Air Canada supervisor for ticket agents in YYC or the name of whoever is in charge of Air Canada at YYC I would really appreciate it. Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 Super 80; Re the YYC Air Canada agents...I had the same experience. The agents were handling the aftermath of the East coast power failure and doing their best to handle the delays, (in our case, 225 to YVR...a full A340). The agent made clear, polite, informative and intelligent announcements and turned what could have been a "media event", (although for Canada's media that only takes a hang-nail caused of course by Air Canada) into an orderly, well-handled departure. Late yes, but that wasn't Air Canada's fault. The agent was fabulous and many passengers took the time to tell her so. These aren't rah-rah stories designed to boost AC. These stories are the truth about what goes on at AC every day...the truth that newspapers and television don't print or broadcast. That the media choose to ignore AC's successes and the employees' dedicated hard work is a travesty and plainly unfair. By and large, the passengers I say good-bye to off my 340 are cheery, pleased and genuinely happy to have flown with AC. What I'm seeing is a far cry from the media's portrayal of disaster after disaster for AC. Shame on the Toronto Star, the Asper Canwest National Post, the Asper Canwest Vancouver Sun, the Asper Canwest Vancouver Province, the Asper Canwest Calgary Herald, the Asper Canwest Montreal Gazette, the Asper Canwest Ottawa Citizen and so on, ad pluribus nauseum. How about getting off our backs and giving the employees at Air Canada a fighting chance Izzy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 Well said, Don! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrick Bergen Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 email me at patrickbergen@commodore.ca and I will give you some info I agree with Don's post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aBusDriver Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 Don, maybe the Liberals could "step in" and reduce Izzy's market share. I've heard that they have targeted certain other large corporations in the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 Hello Patrick...great to see you here! That agent who handled 225/16Aug was terrific. She was never, ever rude, she had a smile in her voice, she handled the few grumpy people with calm reassurances, she never lost her cool and she let people know she really cared about the delay's inconvenience to her customers. That's been my consistent experience in most stations but especially in Calgary. Speaking of consistency, the media has yet to acknowledge that Air Canada's traffic has rebounded from the disastrous April numbers of around 39,000 per day to around 80,000 per day now. This is due in part to the summer sked, but the numbers puts the lie to those doom-and-gloom predictions so often seen by airline "experts". (Who hasn't encountered an "expert" in one's own field and realized how misplaced the term, "expert" really is?). With the layoffs and different work schedules, such an increase in business is bound to produce some difficulties for everyone, but no one can plan on east coast power outages and sobig viruses. The one thing we know is that the Toronto Star and the Canwest people will never miss an opportunity to sell newspapers on Air Canada's back. Media "convergence", firings (intimidation?) of editors and a consistently anti-Air Canada editorial stance: three more great reason of a thousand to not read or subscribe to newspapers, magazines or watch television, especially Global. Didn't mean to hijack the thread Super80 and Patrick, but these kinds of issues tie in to the one we all wish to focus on: the unreported good work done day in and day out by 99% of AC employees. My crews on our overseas trips have done great work caring for our passengers even if we're going one or two F/A's short. Cheers, Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 aBusDriver; Like merger-mania, convergency of ownership of all means of media is a characteristic of our times. Independance from advertisers is a luxury which almost no newspaper or television station can afford. Fifty years ago, there were hundreds of labour "newspapers" supported by working people which were free to express unpopular and controversial social opinions. Today that is, except within a narrow "arranged" band of difference, impossible and, to address your comment regarding the Liberals stepping in to "reduce" Izzy's market share, unassailable. It will never happen with the kind of money, power and connections involved. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted August 26, 2003 Author Share Posted August 26, 2003 The way the media works for this generation is sensation driven. My flight from Ottawa to Toronto this morning, (although in a flying heap of British scrap metal) arrived about 10 minutes early, everyone got off the plane and went on with their lives. That isn't news, no one except the people who arrived in Toronto safely cared. When you have a psycho woman standing on a chair and screaming at people, that will make the news. The Air Canada ticket agent who spent 45 minutes helping me out and switching me over from several awful stopovers to some non-stop flights isn't going to make the news, Me and my dear old mom I was traveling to Ontario with for a visit are the only ones who care. Air Canada has been in trouble the last while, that makes them an easy target. Westjet is seen as the golden boy, they would have to crash a plane into Izzy Aspers mansion to get any bad ink. The media is lazy, they aren't going to go looking for stories when they fall in their lap. And when they don't have to work for the stories they are less likely to be choosey. have I ever had a bad flight on Air Canada? Sure did, I had two in November 1996 that were straight out of the bowels of hell, but the four Air Canada flights I have had in the last month were all great. But that isn't exclusive to Air Canada, I flew an Alaska Airlines flight this past Feburary that was horrible. My breakfast was literally still frozen solid, the flight attendants were rude and the plane was full of screaming kids going to Disney Land. Air Canada is far and away the largest target on the scene, it is only natural that they are going to be the easiest target. Back when CP was in it's final days atleast in Calgary you couldn't pickup a newspaper or turn on the TV without a CP is dying, CP is horrible, CP stranded Japanese tourists, CP sucks, CP lost my lugage, I hope they burn in hell, and all the other stories on TV. I hope Air Canada comes out of this, after my experiance with Air Canada in the past month I will certainly fly Air Canada more often than I have in the last few years. Next time I goto Los Angeles I will probably fly Air Canada, whereas I usually fly Alaska Airlines to California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innuendo Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 I can't help wondering if some of the "Journalists" keep a "bash an airline" column in reserve on their hard drives to cover themselves when they are going to have trouble with a deadline. In the last while the National Post's Sondra Gottlieb, Noah Richler and Rebecca Echler have all trotted out air travel horror stories. Some of it is ludicrous, eg. Richler's seatmate stood up and hit her head on the overhead movie screen, this was given as an example of how AC treated their pax. Really,I'm not making it up. I guess they think it makes them look like the terribly sophisticated world traveller accustomed to the finest things in life. Personally I think it is the journalistic equivalent of shoving a couple of socks into a sagging jockstrap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrick Bergen Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 Hi Don, In my former life I had the privelege of managing the gate and ticket agents in YYC. They consistently made me look good because they cared a great deal about the passengers. As a broadcaster years ago used to say " that's not news but that too is reality". Cheers, Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrench Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 "a flying heap of British scrap metal" Obviously a real aircraft expert! Just a fact to add to your inventory..........the stab has never fallen off one of these, good scrap metal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrench Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 IDEA!!!! Let's transfer the YYC agents to YYZ where it would do our image some good. Or at the very least, train them (up) to the standards of the YYZ CSA's. Even grumpy people like a smiling face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 Wrench; I think I'll leave the notion of "transfer" out of this... Re "Even grumpy people like a smiling face." When someone spends a lot of money out of their pocket its a conscious choice made, if you will, by the "ego". People like to feel as though the choices they make are good ones and with folks who spend a lot of money which usually involves bigger choices, the ego gets involved even more. When someone with whom we are discussing our problem with makes one feel as though the choice we made wasn't a good one, we begin to get angry, first at oneself for having made the choice and then at the "mirror" who is reflecting back our bad choice and who quickly becomes the displaced target of anger. Our first goal as employees on the front line is to make as many customers as possible feel they made the right choice by flying with Air Canada and that their hard-earned money was well-spent. A smile is body language and usually the first signal that someone else agrees with one's decisions. Its hard to be grumpy in the face of a smile and if one is downright abusive, a smile is a mirror reflecting one's own behaviour back to oneself, leaving the "smile-ee" untouched. Mirrors are like that... Harboring anger and avoiding solutions becomes difficult because a smile signals a subtle change in the dialogue...non-engagement in the anger but engagement with the problem. Those are difficult personal qualities to sustain within systemic (almost institutionalized) problems such as massive change, insecurity, perceived lack of support or when one's normally smooth-running business doesn't, (or can't)... but remarkable and wholly unsung employee actions take place daily, reinforcing our customers' decision that they spent their money wisely. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 Wrench; I think I'll leave the notion of "transfer" out of this... Re "Even grumpy people like a smiling face." When someone spends a lot of money out of their pocket its a conscious choice made, if you will, by the "ego". People like to feel as though the choices they make are good ones and with folks who spend a lot of money (to them... whether they a family with moderate income or a wealthy CEO...the "number" doesn't matter), which usually involves bigger choices, the ego gets involved even more. When someone with whom we are discussing our problem with makes one feel as though the choice we made wasn't a good one, we begin to get angry, first at oneself for having made the choice and then at the "mirror" who is reflecting back our bad choice and who quickly becomes the displaced target of anger. Our first goal as employees on the front line is to make as many customers as possible feel they made the right choice by flying with Air Canada and that their hard-earned money was well-spent. A smile is body language and usually the first signal that someone else agrees with one's decisions. Its hard to be grumpy in the face of a smile and if one is downright abusive, a smile is a mirror reflecting one's own behaviour back to oneself, leaving the "smile-ee" untouched. Mirrors are like that... Harboring anger and avoiding solutions becomes difficult because a smile signals a subtle change in the dialogue...non-engagement in the anger but engagement with the problem. Those are difficult personal qualities to sustain within systemic (almost institutionalized) problems such as massive change, insecurity, perceived lack of support or when one's normally smooth-running business doesn't, (or can't)... but remarkable and wholly unsung employee actions take place daily, reinforcing our customers' decision that they spent their money wisely. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shibui Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 The passengers you say good-bye to are cheery and genuinely happy? From whence are you sub-contracting your cabin crew? Last week a colleague of mine got off 'your' 340 in YYC. He is accustomed to Emirates' level of service and so was ill-prepared for the survivalist tactics required of Air Canada customers - he had forgotten to bring a water bottle. Three hours in to a nine hour flight he opitimistically asked one of the rapidly-passing cabin crew if he could have a drink of water, to which the back-passed response was "I'm too busy just now". She then dissappeared behind THE CURTAIN for the remainder of flight. Perhaps to conduct a customer service seminar. In any case, my colleague was "genuinely" unhappy. Sooner or later, there will be an Emirates 777-300ER on the YYZ ramp and experience suggests that this means your notions of service and genuine happiness are doomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkavafian Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 Flights are supposed to leave and arrive safely ontime. Just the achievement of that goal is no reason for accolades or celebrations. I did a YUL-LHR flight on August 10 in a brand new A330 and the flying experience was terrible. We couldn't wait to get off the aircraft at Heathrow. After that, we did four segments on Emirates. You want service? Fly on Emirates and learn what service is all about. Fantastic looking aircraft interior, individual enetertainment centre at each seat even in trash class, soft blankets, restaurant quality food. Compare their smiling flight attendants to the bossy bunch we had out of YUL and you wee how lousy service passes for good in Canada. Another example, we flew Toronto to Narita via Vancouver on July 27 on a 747-400. I think it was an ex-CAIL aircraft. It is plain shameful to have that aircraft in service. Dirty interior and the video screens did not work properly amongst other shortcomings. We were eight people flying together including kids and the flight experience would have been only worst if we had flown Northwest. The return flight was just as bad. The crew were pleasant, polite and professional. The media overall may exaggerate some nightmare stories but overall the flying experience on AC is sub-par. We fly it just because we have to. I wonder how many people would fly AC to Narita if ANA was flying to Toronto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 What company do you work for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicoChico Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 Thanks for another charming aneqdote! If I didn't get water for 9 hours on a flight and the crew "disappeared" I would sue. I'm sure its possible your friend might not have gotten his water the second he demanded it (ala Emirates where EVERYONE is served immediately if not sooner)) but the rest of his story is questionable. Just another slinger of mud towards AC IMHO! I carried about 1000 passenger in the past week and stood to say goodbye to most of them. My impression is that they were treated well and were pleased with their flight. Now, no doubt, the odd one wasn't pleased but the point is that the vast majority were. Cheers Chico Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AME Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 He's an Aviation "Expert" :S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JakeYYZ Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 No, AME. Daggerboy is the Aviation "Expert". Jacques Kavafian, is an air industry analyst at Octagon Capital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shibui Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 I've never really felt the need for "charm" - (there are some who may say that's obvious) but may I refer you to jkavafian below? Mene, mene, tekel upharsin.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 Hi Jacques; What are the ticket-price comparisons between Emirates and AC (and for that matter, other "shining" examples like ANA)? Also, is Emirates privately owned or is it forced to consider "low-cost" before it is a "legitimate" player in its own country? I'm not attempting to deflect criticism where it may be deserved nor am I trying to downplay Emirates which I am sure put out an excellent product. I'm trying to examine all factors which bear on each airline's final product and, being a recognized expert for many years, you'll recognize that such factors are important to consider. "Low-cost" has been the local mantra for some time now, (although in the end I wonder what it really means). "Fantastic looking aircraft interior, individual enetertainment centre at each seat even in trash class, soft blankets, restaurant quality food.", doesn't come at "low-cost" ticket prices. What would you have paid for an equivalent service at AC? That's the basis of my question to you. Does Emirates have an unlimited source of unfettered funds or are they similarly forced to "low-cost" absolutely everything? As far as Emirates flight attendants go, I suspect (but do not know, so someone can help out here) that the way employees are hired, treated, rewarded and, should the "need" arise, dismissed, is handled somewhat differently than in Canada and, similarly perhaps, labour laws may differ between the two countries as well. This is a big topic, not uncontroversial, as I'm sure you sense... In other words, if all factors are about the same, then Emirates has got a secret we need to learn about. But lets make sure we're comparing everything on an equal footing first. Otherwise, although "shining" examples can be easily found, they could be hollow ones. Cheers, Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 I'll set your unwarranted sarcasm aside. I'm sorry your colleague had a bad experience. Certainly it is unrealistic to claim that everyone on every flight won't have a problem and we all handle such disappointments in different manners. Has your colleague travelled on any US carriers after de-regulation where flights under four hours are almost bare and dry and food is non-existent? Our service is stellar compared to most US carriers, yet that is the model we are constantly compared against. Please see my response to Jacques down below. Cheers, Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkavafian Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 Don, Emirates has an interline deal with AC so I presume they have similar fare structure. ANA being part of Star Alliance has a similar fare structure as AC does. So I think their average yield may be very comparable to AC. Labour at Emirates or ANA do not come cheap, the first because they have to hire many expatriates based in London or Paris and the latter because living cost is so darn high in its home country. On the low-cost issue, the money has to be spent where it has to be spent, such as in the products that is for sale. For an airline, that's seats and hopefully comfort. Making good tasting food does not cost more than making bad tasting food. I don't know Emirates all that well because that was my first flying experience with them but I think their cost advantage comes from a very high utlization of their fleet. As we had to make a connection at 2 a.m. Dubai time, I noticed that they have many departures in the middle of the night. I made a quick calculation on some of the aircraft and I came up with an average daily utilization of 16 to 18 hours on the six aircraft I worked on. I think they have a total of some 45 aircraft so I presume the theory could extend to the whole fleet. Figure if AC's average daily utilization is around 10 hours, Emirates gets 60% to 80% more hours with the same aircraft. That should translate into lower operating cost and in turn they can afford to give you a better service. My point is, instead of being defensive about AC's service, one should be looking at improving it. I know some people have unrealistic expectations of service when flying AC (for some reason people become extremely demanding when they fly or stay in hotels)and much of the criticism is not justified. On the other hand, you cannot constantly pat yourself on the back and be satisfied with your product because the product in my opinion is sub-par. If you acept this and say so, people's expectations get adjusted accordingly and complaints stop. I bet you Tango gets a lot fewer complaints than AC because peoples' expectations are low from the get go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 Thanks, Jacques...re "My point is, instead of being defensive about AC's service, one should be looking at improving it." Absolutely...cannot disagree. I don't believe in patting oneself on the back, especially where there's no reason to do so. I do believe in taking credit where its properly due, and correcting imbalances in public perceptions. If I err on the enthusiastic side, that still doesn't offset the opposite enthusiasm by the media. I'm realistic about what we do and how we do it. Interesting notions about fleet utilization and the ability to make money. I'll have to do some research. We're utilizing our 340's much higher than 10hrs every 24...having flown full months since June, I think we're at least as high as 18hrs/day. Let's take a look: YYC-LHR Depart 1900 MDT say on the 22nd 9:45hrs door-to-door flight or so Arr 10:30 London time 23rd Depart 13:00 LHR time 23rd Arr YYC 15:00 MDT 23rd, (less than 24hrs later) Depart for LHR/FRA @ 19:00 MDT again. In less than 24hrs, that airplane has put in about 20hrs, perhaps a bit less. Same utilization on the VR-HNL-SYD routes, VR-HKG etc. I wonder if that alone would make the difference, as you mention that expat costs are high etc. Dunno. I would think that the midnight departures are more to do with curfew and connection factors than raw high utilization. We always arrived/departed Bombay (now Mumbai) around the same hours and arrived in SIN or LHR in the morning. Its complex to be sure... That's averaged by the domestic utilization which is lower simply because the stage lengths are shorter in relation to the station time and scheduling (Marketing's) requirements so maybe AC's total avg fleet util is around 10hrs...I don't know, but again its important to compare equals. I'd like to see Emirates' (or others...not picking on them, just staying inside the example offered) on-time performance as well, not because that isn't to be expected, (I agree with your previous comment...that's what a customer buys first whenever s/he flies: Time) but because other factors like MEL issues must be dealt with and of course, under the heading of making hay while the sun etc.., with such high utilization, finding time to fix instead of defer MEL items is at a premium. Doesn't mean fixing isn't done, it is, but judgement as to what and when is under more pressure during the high utilization periods. For that matter, so is grooming...to see a dozen people arrive on a 340 and "clean house" in under 50 minutes is remarkable, but yes, the cabins suffer a bit during these peak periods and so do seat amenities...no excuse, but perhaps a reason. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.