Why don’t airlines call us customers?

by Tom Johansmeyer on

Language shapes reality – there’s no way around it. It is evident in the general absence of profanity in children (at least in front of their parents), forgoing certain expressions except among friends (or, for some people, completely) and the selection of particular phrases for impact. Words have meaning, and thus they have power. So, it makes sense for a major company or industry to develop its lexicon around the turns of phrase that will work to its advantage: if words are inherently powerful, then a company should try to harness that power to pump up its revenue and profits.

With all this linguistic engineering, from hotels to coffee shops, airlines still haven’t gotten on board. Rather than even acknowledge the exchange of payment with an appellation like “customer” – and without having to use a word that implies a high level of service like “guest” – the airline industry clings to the relationship-agnostic “passenger” to identify the person who provides payment in exchange for the use of a tiny seat for a specified number of miles to a particular destination. And among the insiders, it often gets shredded down to “pax,” an expression used in public, not just behind the galley’s closed curtain.

Given that the realities of air travel – heavily influenced by market, regulatory and infrastructure constraints – are unlikely to change anytime soon, could an end run via language provide at least a little relief for employees and pax passengers customers?The Power of “Guest”
Perhaps the most famous story of choosing words for a reason is that of Starbucks, which eschewed “customer” in favor of “guest.” It signals the company’s commitment to treating well the people who keep it in business and deliver for its shareholders. Not only is this word, “guest,” a tool for managing internal perspectives, you hear it every time someone steps away from the cash register, when the barista calls for the “next guest.”

The use of “guest,” of course, is reminiscent of the hotel business, which usually has a higher standard than other consumer-focused businesses for customer service. Especially as you move up-market, hotel service levels are the gold standard for every other sector, with guests expected to be greeted by name and the smallest perceived shortcoming remedied immediately.

When I was a hotel software consultant, on one of my first projects, I remember getting a “when in Rome” lecture from my boss while we were in the hallway at the Renaissance Orlando Resort: “Say hello to any guest who’s within six steps.” When I asked why, he explained that that was the hotel standard, and since we were there on business with the hotel, we had to show the same courtesy to guests that hotel employees would.

Oh, and we had to smile – not a natural gesture for me, I confess.

We did this because the property’s employees did this, and I’m sure they had their share of bad days, personal stresses, sleepless nights and compensation complaints. The hotel staff found a way to overcome all that could get in the way and still delivered an outstanding guest experience.

So, “guest” has taken on a life of its own, with powerful implications, thanks to the hospitality industry, that have spread to other corners of the business (and consumer) world. The word indicates to the person writing a check or whipping out a credit card that there is an exchange of payment for services, and that the organization on the receiving end of the payment is more than happy to provide the services – in a manner that is made as enjoyable for the guest as possible.

What the Airlines Have Been Missing
The erosion of amenities and increasing of fees have made an already unpleasant experience worse. Yet, the airlines are doing something we’ve found in hotels for years, from internet access to gym use to spa and resort amenities. It’s starting to feel like there’s a double standard … what’s the deal?

Well, simply, the hotel business has done a better job of making the consumer feel like he’s in charge. Think back to the whole “power of language” discussion above. Would you rather be guest or a passenger? It doesn’t take long to determine which feels better.

The changes in hotel amenities and fees have not gone unnoticed – and they certainly have not passed without criticism. Yet, they haven’t sparked the outrage triggered by similar developments in the airline sector. Some of this, doubtless, is the result of an advantage that hotels have. They aren’t bound by the same regulatory restrictions as airlines, allowing them to deliver a slightly more comfortable and efficient experience (think of how bad it would be to have to go through the equivalent of an airport just to get to your hotel room!). Also, you can leave your hotel room whenever you want, while you’re stuck on a plane until you’re told you can get off.

On the other hand, there are areas where airlines have the space to improve and could. Customer (passenger?) service training for anyone coming close to the consumer should be mandatory, extensive and a major part of how employee performance is evaluated. It must be made a priority, with consequences for falling short (as there are in any other profession). Even when a customer is resisting the rules (e.g., not putting up the tray table right away), there are many ways to respond. The first approach doesn’t have to be curt.

Airlines definitely start out behind the eight ball, but it doesn’t mean they are out of options. There are plenty of small steps that can be taken to make the flying experience a little better … for the customer. And, this starts with how employees think and speak.


Take Control of the Language First
If I were still in the business of collecting a large fee (most of which went to my employer, not me) for giving advice – and were hired by a major airline – I would start by suggesting a simple word swap. Stop calling us passengers, and start calling us customers … or guests. I might even recommend throwing in words such as “valued” and “appreciated” a bit more. It sets the tone for all subsequent interaction.

This is a small step, but that’s often where transformation starts. To carry the concept forward, the airline would then have to realign its services with this concept. Tone of voice, addressing the guest by name and making him feel welcome would implement the linguistic change, keeping it from becoming an empty gesture.

Does it work?

Well, I remember being called “Mr. Johansmeyer” (somehow pronounced correctly, to my surprise) at the Ritz-Carlton Naples back in June 2008. It’s stayed with me. Also, when I was doing my weekly runs from Boston to Omaha in 2002, the gate agent, who had become accustomed to seeing me on Friday afternoons, would greet me with a smile and the sentiment, “Going home, Tom?” It made my flight home even better. If it can reach a perpetually annoyed business traveler (which is what I was in 2002), then I’m sure it would resonate with just about anybody.

By moving from passenger to guest, and delivering on the service obligation implied by the latter, the airlines could make considerable progress toward remedying their reputations with their customers. Before long, small measures accumulate, and real change takes hold. It may sound trivial, but this is a foothold that airlines (and airline employees) could use immediately.

Treat us like customers, and the rest will begin to fall into place.

[photos by joiseyshowaa via Flickr, swanksalot via Flickr, Tom Johansmeyer, Tom Johansmeyer]

Four reasons airlines blame passengers for their current woes

by Tom Johansmeyer on

It would be so much easier if we’d just pay more, right? That’s what the airlines seem to believe. It’s impossible for them to turn consistent profits because we just won’t accept higher prices. And, kicking the poor off the plane doesn’t seem to be an option.

I got up this morning and read George Hobica’s hilarious “interview” with Wilbur Flywright, CEO of BrokenWings Airways. In it, I was treated to one airline industry cliché after another. To see them all in one place, it was either eye-opening or strangely reminiscent of an ambitious gate agent’s Twitter account.

Here are the four reasons, according to “Flywright,” airlines blame us – the people who pay their bills – for their inability to run well, despite the fact that some (e.g., Southwest and JetBlue) have actually found a way to thrive.1. We won’t pay more: Of course, I don’t know any industry in which customers pay more than is necessary … at least, not purposefully. You may get suckered at the used car lot, but you don’t go to your local grocery store, demand to see the manager and explain to him, as though he ate too much paste in his youth, that eggs really should cost 34 percent more.

2. We have alternatives: When air travel is inconvenient or expensive, we can take any number of cheap bus services or even drive. Frankly, it takes a strange turn of events to get me on a plane to Boston or Washington, DC.

3. “We” deregulated the industry: It’s the law of the land, and in theory, passengers are voters (we’re indirectly responsible). So, we “imposed” a free market on the airline industry … the nerve of voters in a free society! It may have happened more than 30 years ago, but we still hear airline people gripe about it, even if they were of single-digit age when the transformation occurred.

Hint to airlines: Don’t blame passengers for deregulation – I was only a year old at the time. I assure you, I had nothing to do with it, likewise most of my friends. If we could have done something about it we would have. Also, don’t talk about it as something that killed (or at least maimed) your industry. It was 30 years ago, you need a new lamentation. How about poor customer service levels?

4. We made the airlines cut stuff: Since we won’t pay a “fair” fare, the airlines have had to make cuts. Routes, employee compensation, amenities (if you can call them that) … we now have to pay for what we want in the form of fees.

Taking fees and deregulation together, I just loved this:

So what did we do? We eliminated service. We cut salaries and benefits. No more little plastic wings for the kiddies; if you remember those, then you remember that the cheapest roundtrip coach fare from New York to Los Angeles in 1959 was $231, or about $1,800 in today’s dollars. And if you remember that, then could you please shut up about the fees?

And occasionally, there’s a good point:

Ah, the fees. Can we agree on just one thing? If your neighbor moves, you aren’t going to pay for it, right? No, of course not. Not unless you really wanted him gone. So why should you pay for the jet fuel consumed by some moron who’s flying a 100-pound steamer trunk across the country in our baggage compartment?

[photo by leafar. via Flickr]

Airlines: Take the poor off the plane

by Tom Johansmeyer on

My recent post on passenger rudeness and airline employee customer service generated a considerable amount of discussion. What really struck me was the number of readers who cited the overlapping factors of deregulation, lower fares and increasingly crowded flights. Basically, because flights are cheaper, more people can afford them, and service levels can’t be sustained in light of both increased passenger traffic and ostensibly lower revenue per available seat mile.

So, it seems to me the solution to fear and loathing in the skies is to boot the poor – to make air travel unaffordable. In doing so, you reclaim the regulated-industry experience that everyone seemed to enjoy, whether or not regulation itself is actually necessary.

What I’ve learned from many readers – and airline industry employees – is that we need to return to the days of getting dressed up to fly, dignified behavior and a higher cost for better service. Translation: we need the “right” people in seats … even in coach. And that means setting up financial barriers to entry. If we restrict travel to the elite, the experience, I seem to be hearing, would be far better.Make no mistake about it: every complaint about the impact of low fares on the industry, especially when compared to the days of airline regulation, is a tacit admission that a specific group of people should be excluded from air travel based on disposable income. Of course, any price does this, as you need to have the funds available to purchase an item that’s for sale, but the notion that air travel is too cheap implies that, like an upscale restaurant, it should be inherently exclusive.

With higher fares, limiting air travel only to those who could afford it, fewer people would experience different parts of the country or the world. Some currently flying would have to turn to cars or buses instead. It’s easy to see how these travel experiences, without access to flights, could turn ugly quickly. The flights themselves, however, would be far better, comprised only of passengers with the means to purchase higher-priced tickets.

I, frankly, have no stance on whether air travel should exclude large portions of the proletariat. Rather, I support pricing that is driven by an efficient market (which also means that I’m not a fan of regulation). Yet, I do see the implications of what some would consider to be “appropriate” fares – rather than the cheap stuff we encounter out in the market now – as turning the airlines into a transportation equivalent to a private club.

Is this what people intend through their lamentations about flight pricing?

So, we can solve the customer service problem, it seems, by taking the poor – and perhaps the lower middle class – out of the equation. Those left will have to pay a bit more, but at least they’ll be surrounded by “desirable” travelers. The rest of us? Well, we’ll have plenty of leg room at home, I suspect.

[photo by stevendepolo via Flickr]

Hidden airline fees under attack, industry pushing back

by Tom Johansmeyer on

It isn’t so much the airline fees that are being targeted these days: it’s the extent to which they are hidden. Three advocacy groups are pushing for airlines to do a better job of disclosing how they’ll nail passengers for extra cash. So, a battle of paper is emerging. On one side, advocates are pushing a petition to get airlines to open the kimono a bit more. And on the other, airlines are looking to protect the paper they’re stacking from ancillary fees.

The stakes are high: last year, the airline industry pulled in a whopping $8 billion for extra charges. They stand to do even more this year, thanks to a recovering travel market.

The American Society of Travel Agents, Business Travel Coalition and Consumer Travel Alliance are getting together to push for fee transparency and to “allow travel booking companies access to fee schedules, making comparisons easier among airlines by third parties.”
According to the Dallas Morning News:

Travelers “are tired of arriving at the airport and finding huge unexpected costs for travel services they thought were part of the ticket price,” said Kevin Mitchell of the Business Travel Coalition, which lobbies for corporate travelers. “It’s time for consumers, corporate travel managers and travel agents to stand up and say, ‘We’re not going to take it anymore!’ “

Meanwhile, the airline industry is marking its territory:

“We remain confident that the level of transparency that some opine doesn’t exist, in fact, does exist,” said Air Transport Association spokesman David Castelveter, who points out that coverage of airline fees has become ubiquitous and that even casual travelers are likely aware of fees. “I went to the websites of all our members, and there isn’t one of our carriers that didn’t have bag fees prominently displayed when you book.”

The goal is to drop the petitions to the Department of Transportation on September 23, 2010.

[photo by williamcho via Flickr]

Five business travel factors for Obama and the midterm elections

by Tom Johansmeyer on

Leisure travel is irrelevant during the election season, but the woes of business travelers seem to resonate. With the midterm contests two months away, all eyes are on the White House … and President Obama‘s success rate with road, rail and runway repair.

This is the one time business travelers make the presidential agenda, according to Portfolio.com: “Presidents (or people campaigning for any office) only talk about business-travel infrastructure during election season. Our issues almost never seem to rate presidential attention at any other time in the cycle.”

Well, let’s take a look at what Obama’s done for the white collar travel crowd. Here are five business traveler issues that could attract some attention in November:1. Secretary of Transportation appointed: With passengers’ rights considered and a solution implemented (and one that seems to be working), Ray LaHood seems to have been a savvy secretary. And, airlines have been slapped with some hefty fines, proving that they need to take responsibility for their actions.

2. Not so much at the TSA, though: While Portfolio.com gives Obama high marks on behalf of business travelers for LaHood, it’s a little tougher on his choice for top dog of the TSA. The president waited a year to tap someone for the job, suffered through Senate procedural tricks and eventually had to go with his third nominee.

3. Security is solid: The system is relatively safe, Portfolio.com opines, but expect some rancor over the body scans that are set to be implemented, as “the TSA is about to ratchet up the security kabuki at airport checkpoints.”

4. Travel consumer rights on the rise: It took 47 passengers getting stuck overnight on a Minnesota runway, but passengers finally got some rights. The airline industry warned of (self-servingly) of unintended consequences … which have yet to materialize. The Obama administration has airline fee structures on the agenda now.

5. Merger-mania managed: Despite the fact that the “balancing act is tricky,” the administration has done a decent job of facilitating healthy competition without impeding too much of the urge to merge.

[photo by jurvetson via Flickr]