How technology has failed to improve your airline experience
Thread Starter
How technology has failed to improve your airline experience
Interesting points from Farhad Manjoo on what Silicon Valley has done to the product we offer. Not in agreement on all his points of course, but it least it as an attempt to look at things differently.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/t...ype=collection
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/t...ype=collection
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Customer service — that is, how the airline treats you — isn’t often part of the transaction.
Look, Once Upon A Time, to buy an air ticket you physically transported yourself to something called a "travel agent", then you waited in a queue, then when you finally got to talk to someone it typically took longer than the flight was going to be to actually buy the ticket.
I prefer the current system, so I dispute the claim that the tech has failed us.
Little in there that I can agree with. I've not flown in America or with a US carrier for some time. As for Europe, off peak to Spain cost me around £110 return in the late 80's, pretty much the same today. The staff on any airline seem more friendly than the jobs for life BA CC that just held economy passengers in disregard. Booking a ticket is easier and much more transparent.
And if he really wants to talk technology, lets look at aircraft reliability and punctuality in the 80's and today - its a different world. And lets not forget the technology in the ATC and navigation world that allows far more aircraft to fly in the same space in safety.
Marking his homework 2/10.
And if he really wants to talk technology, lets look at aircraft reliability and punctuality in the 80's and today - its a different world. And lets not forget the technology in the ATC and navigation world that allows far more aircraft to fly in the same space in safety.
Marking his homework 2/10.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Marston Moretaine, UK
Age: 58
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The article's premise is that flight search engines rank only on price, which may well be true. The one I use certainly does, but it offers many filtering options.
Following on from that, although the article doesn't say it, is the presumption that the overwhelming majority of passengers simply accept the search engine's ranking, and they are therefore driven by price alone.
Again, that may well be true for the great majority of passengers; I don't really know.
However, there is plenty of information available from the same web about how well or badly airlines deal with the overall customer experience, if you want more information than price alone.
So if we assume that price is indeed the dominating factor for the majority of passengers, then the article is no doubt correct in that technology has allowed access to price information with an ease which was never there in the past. I suppose I don't fit into the "majority of passengers" which the article assumes.
Following on from that, although the article doesn't say it, is the presumption that the overwhelming majority of passengers simply accept the search engine's ranking, and they are therefore driven by price alone.
Again, that may well be true for the great majority of passengers; I don't really know.
However, there is plenty of information available from the same web about how well or badly airlines deal with the overall customer experience, if you want more information than price alone.
So if we assume that price is indeed the dominating factor for the majority of passengers, then the article is no doubt correct in that technology has allowed access to price information with an ease which was never there in the past. I suppose I don't fit into the "majority of passengers" which the article assumes.
Last edited by chrissw; 15th Apr 2017 at 19:58. Reason: Correction to punctuation,.
I beg to be different. In a former job I had a very attractive colleague with a chemistry degree (thus fairly intelligent) and good at her job. A good reliable person after all (not my type though). She is a very strong supporter (and frequent user) of Ryanair. Her point was that Ryanair was as good as any airline to move you from point A to point B, faster than using a coach and the two bags-in-the-cabin policy was very practical. And to a great extent she is right from the perspective of person not carrying about planes, SOP and all that stuff we care here.
Actually, even the unbundling of services associated with travel (like no free meals/soft drinks and no free checked bags) may be quite acceptable as people prefer lower prices rather than additional services. Bad customer service can happen in any airline and organization. Obviously some are better to handle them than others but with people traveling only few times a year this capacity may be less important than for those traveling every week.
I do hope it makes sense.
Actually, even the unbundling of services associated with travel (like no free meals/soft drinks and no free checked bags) may be quite acceptable as people prefer lower prices rather than additional services. Bad customer service can happen in any airline and organization. Obviously some are better to handle them than others but with people traveling only few times a year this capacity may be less important than for those traveling every week.
I do hope it makes sense.
It depends on circumstances what style of flight I choose. If I'm on my own I'll go for cheapest flight on a reputable airline. Some I wont touch with a bargepole. So, find a flight at a moderately convenient time, eliminate the companies I won't use, then pick the cheapest of those that remain. Often enough it's a low cost. Surprise, surprise.
Travelling with my husband I'll be more fussy. He can't cope with sitting in an poor seating position for a long time and needs help walking. So we travel in far greater comfort, and may take an overnight stop to break a long journey. It's about informed choice. Something that technology has made possible.
In fairness, all the airlines seem to do well on helping disabled passengers. Although sometimes I end up trotting to keep up with the wheelchair pusher...😀
Travelling with my husband I'll be more fussy. He can't cope with sitting in an poor seating position for a long time and needs help walking. So we travel in far greater comfort, and may take an overnight stop to break a long journey. It's about informed choice. Something that technology has made possible.
In fairness, all the airlines seem to do well on helping disabled passengers. Although sometimes I end up trotting to keep up with the wheelchair pusher...😀
Search engines allow filters such as number of stops, length of stopover, arrival and departure time, wide/narrow body aircraft, airline alliance, total flight duration and airline name. Finding a suitable flight wouldn't be too difficult and you can even see how much you can save if you remove an item such as non stop only.
I've looked at some of the cheaper, unfiltered results that top the list and scrolled straight past. Multiple airlines with unprotected transfers, long layovers, multi sector flights aren't worth the bother for a small saving.
Flexible within 3 days either side can result in a much lower price and if your intended date of travel falls into peak time.
I've looked at some of the cheaper, unfiltered results that top the list and scrolled straight past. Multiple airlines with unprotected transfers, long layovers, multi sector flights aren't worth the bother for a small saving.
Flexible within 3 days either side can result in a much lower price and if your intended date of travel falls into peak time.
Paxing All Over The World
Sorry, another of my long posts but it's a holiday afternoon and I've got time on the sofa...
Others have stated two key points: that younger generations have grown up with the unbundled pricing scheme and see it as normal. Also, that those of us in this forum view the selection of carriers/routes/aircraft differently.
Further, the article is a little simplistic with regards to filters. Starting with the lowest cost is as good a place as any to start and the world has consistently proved that it likes low prices! The writer is, himself, fairly young (38) and understands that the Net does simplicity very well.
I think that he has not researched just how much the airline business has changed in the last 40 years. There has been constant change from the airline structure and govt control (that he may not know about) to the dog-eat-dog of today. The benefits to Pax have been manifold and can be listed by anyone of us in here. As a technology writer, he has overlooked the remarkable improvements in technology (as others have said) of fuel economy, navigation, etc all reflecting in the seat-per-mile price. He seems to think 'technology' is just about what is in the hand of the customer.
He sees UA failing to give immediate abject apology as a further failure of price-rush-to-the-lowest. But it isn't. In all my life one of the consistent things is that corporate entities start off by rejecting all criticism and blame. They might be a department store, or an on-line store, they could be a political party and a President/Prime Minister or a multi-billion corporate like Pepsi/UA/IBM but they ALL reject the first accusation for reasons that are, I suggest, self evident. They have done so from long before the current litigious world.
In fact, they do what any 5 year old child does: "It wasn't me, Dad!" So, I think the writer has not read his history of the airline world, nor the way that corporates function.
The level of technology that I, as a pax, have at my disposal is enormous and I'll only quote one example. On more than one occasion, whilst waiting in departure for a flight that was delayed I have been able to look up details of the inbound flight and trace the location of that aircraft. I have read the details on the departure board of the originating airport and seen where in the sky the machine is!! So I was able to make my own decisions about what to do next - irrespective of what the airport was telling me. Increasingly, you can do this with trains and busses etc.
Lastly, he says:
He conflates the failure of the airlines to change with technology 'failure', On the one hand the airlines are just like any other modern corporate - they place their shareholders first and customers second. Since the writer works in NYC he should understand this.
Secondly, technology has given customers the choice of high cost and lovely service - and they have consistently chosen the reverse. The fact that ALL corporates have steadily reduced their customer service over the last 20 years stands as witness. Some carriers made a feature of it and STILL made Millions.
The failure in UA last week was not technology but the failure of human beings to carry out a process that is used thousands of times every day across the world.
So I think he is wrong on all levels but is a technology writer who wanted/needed to come up with a column that would be up to the minute.
Others have stated two key points: that younger generations have grown up with the unbundled pricing scheme and see it as normal. Also, that those of us in this forum view the selection of carriers/routes/aircraft differently.
Further, the article is a little simplistic with regards to filters. Starting with the lowest cost is as good a place as any to start and the world has consistently proved that it likes low prices! The writer is, himself, fairly young (38) and understands that the Net does simplicity very well.
I think that he has not researched just how much the airline business has changed in the last 40 years. There has been constant change from the airline structure and govt control (that he may not know about) to the dog-eat-dog of today. The benefits to Pax have been manifold and can be listed by anyone of us in here. As a technology writer, he has overlooked the remarkable improvements in technology (as others have said) of fuel economy, navigation, etc all reflecting in the seat-per-mile price. He seems to think 'technology' is just about what is in the hand of the customer.
He sees UA failing to give immediate abject apology as a further failure of price-rush-to-the-lowest. But it isn't. In all my life one of the consistent things is that corporate entities start off by rejecting all criticism and blame. They might be a department store, or an on-line store, they could be a political party and a President/Prime Minister or a multi-billion corporate like Pepsi/UA/IBM but they ALL reject the first accusation for reasons that are, I suggest, self evident. They have done so from long before the current litigious world.
In fact, they do what any 5 year old child does: "It wasn't me, Dad!" So, I think the writer has not read his history of the airline world, nor the way that corporates function.
The level of technology that I, as a pax, have at my disposal is enormous and I'll only quote one example. On more than one occasion, whilst waiting in departure for a flight that was delayed I have been able to look up details of the inbound flight and trace the location of that aircraft. I have read the details on the departure board of the originating airport and seen where in the sky the machine is!! So I was able to make my own decisions about what to do next - irrespective of what the airport was telling me. Increasingly, you can do this with trains and busses etc.
Lastly, he says:
Yet the airline industry has not just stubbornly resisted innovation to improve customer service — in many ways, technology has only fueled the industry’s race to the bottom.
Secondly, technology has given customers the choice of high cost and lovely service - and they have consistently chosen the reverse. The fact that ALL corporates have steadily reduced their customer service over the last 20 years stands as witness. Some carriers made a feature of it and STILL made Millions.
The failure in UA last week was not technology but the failure of human beings to carry out a process that is used thousands of times every day across the world.
So I think he is wrong on all levels but is a technology writer who wanted/needed to come up with a column that would be up to the minute.
Last edited by PAXboy; 17th Apr 2017 at 21:19. Reason: clarify my words.
