Cal 'stinks'
 

My daughter missed her flight due to an evil ex-wife. CAL would not even work with me to keep the ticket open to move it 24 hours.

Ended up paying a 'walk up fare' (yes, it was that important) 'cuz they were the sole carrier with a nonstop on the route.

I hope word gets around that CAL has nice people but terrible customer service rules. On-plane service is great but getting there is not too pleasant.

You subsidized all the people that flew that flight for only $99. You may have been one of the only people that the airline made a profit on for that whole flight.

Sorry Spanky, you bought that ticket knowing it wasn't refundable. You could have bought a refundable or changeable ticket, but you wanted to go cheap. And now you want CAL to give you a "do-over" because your ex screwed you. Sorry, not CAL's problem. Send you ex-wife the bill and quit blaming CAL for your own decisions.

Why didn't you have a ZED ticket as a backup if you're an airline employee?

The is a perfect example of the American public getting EXACTLY what they want. You want it cheap, you get it cheap.

GOOD FAST CHEAP
Pick 2.

Thats what I was going to say. Every airline has these rules. Why pick on CAL?

Now, had they smashed your guitar.....you may have had something to complain about.

YouTube - United Breaks Guitars

I feel your pain. No two ways about it, that sucks....

However, in todays world I find it funny that "it's always" somebody elses fault. Don't take your frustration out on CAL, you obviously booked a ticket that had prearranged restrictions. Take a look at where the problem started....even you stated the fact for yourself....your "evil ex-wife" as you yourself put it:cool: Unless CAL's your ex-wife, there's your answer.

Devil is in the details....always.:eek:

I could not said it better .... good job

You apparently havent experienced the value menu at Wendys :cool:

The "good" part of that is in question.

"Caveat Emptor". Let the buyer beware.

Is she hot? :D

She's already BURNED him.........so whaddya think???? ;)

Looks like it may be time for a new ex-wife....

Not all airlines are the same. I've purchased a tx on SWA a week before my intended departure and SWA changed the tx with only a minor additional charge. All of you who think the airline did the right thing, YOURE BRAINWASHED. The right thing would have been TAKE CARE OF THE CUSTOMER. I also must say, it shows your weak character to put this guy down for expecting good customer service. Even if he received bad service from his ex ;)

Well said.

"Fat, Drunk, and Stupid is no way to go through life son....." comes to mind.:rolleyes:

Brainwashed?? The rational that you display is just about as weak as the person in question not buying an 'unrestricted' ticket at time of purchase!! It is quite obvious that this customer knew who he was dealing with.....the child's "evil ex-wife". With that self proclaimed fact, why not CYA and pay a bit more to have that insurance incase she decides to be an 'idiot' when the big day of travel comes about??

Bottom line, I ASK again, in today's world why is it always the 'other persons' fault...in this case the airline?? Using the easy out and blaming the airline for your mistake is such the mantra for todays traveling public. NO one made the customer buy the restricted ticket!! If he/she wanted the luxury of being able to freely change the travel plans w/o penalty, I'm sure he/she had the option to partake in a unrestricted ticket when the travel plans were made....plain and simple.

As touched on earlier in the thread, a Zone Fare would have been a great back up on a single leg flight. In the end (flight loads permitting), the Zone Fare most likely would have been cheaper than the 'restricted ticket' and had all the perks of a 'unresticted ticket'. A lesson for us all riding off-line as rev pax on restricted fares.

Lets just say this is not an isolated case and in fact CAL is taking this approach with a lot of its customers. So the company saves the trouble of not rebooking. This warm and fuzzy feeling of being right vs. piissing off customer after customer after customer, etc and having those customers find a better fit with another airline that realizes losing multiple customers on a steady basis over the life of the operation (not to mention friends and family of said piissed off customer leading those people to speak with their wallets in favor of another airline) is not worth it. In business this strategy has proven to be a loser over the long haul. One piissed off pax can also hit dozens of website messsage boards inflicting even more damage (if you know how to sing and play a guitar the damage could be multiplied by many millions....see story on "United breaks guitars").

Again, if you want to run a business that caters to people who most of the time have a lot of choices, sometimes its better to be wrong and flexible than right and losing business. This is true of all businesses, not just CAL.

Well, all airlines WILL change an restricted ticket BEFORE the flight, but if you are a NO SHOW for your flight and you have a restricted ticket, I doubt that any airline will necessarily honor the expired ticket.

If you need flexibility, BUY AN UNRESTRICTED TICKET.

Short and simple, I understand what your saying.

Again.....a Customer has a choice to purchase a ticket from "A-B". When doing so, it is no secret that there are choices on different ticket classes/prices. The point that I was making is that if the Customer is going to pay the "Blue Light Special" on a restricted class ticket, DONT expect to have all the freedoms of flying outside the stipulated rules/restrictions that the Customer chose to fly on when they purchased the fare. If that's what he/she expects, they pay the $$ for an unrestricted fare and have at it....or fly with another airline who 'may' let you make 'fee-free' changes on a multi-leg journey to your final destination. There are choices for the Customer to make.

Your right, the key word, it's a business.

Your full of it. Airline tickets are not home renovations. Airline seats are perishable commodities like a carton of milk. Very little difference between them. When Joe Sixpack goes to buy an airline ticket, he clicks on the lowest fare regardless of airline 85% of the time. The rest are frequent fliers or corporates. All that blabber about "I'm never flying on your airline again" is a bunch of laughable BS. Next time they fly, all that's forgotten and it's "click on the lowest fare" AGAIN.

That's what the American public wants, and that's what they're getting . . . cheaper than bus travel prices, with bus travel service.

My bet is that guy with the roughed up guitar, clicks on United if they have the lowest fare again next time he has to fly. His musical diatribe may get his band a few gigs, however . . . . depending on if he's the cheapest available, of course.

Just to be sure, I understand what you are saying as well. I own a business and every once in a while I get a customer who is so ridiculously off base, didn't bother to read the rules, etc its all I can do to bite my tongue but I will tell you I do bite my tongue. For my business that involves a premium product, it is far better to lose even a couple thousand dollars once in a while than to be blasted on an industry message board scaring away hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of potential customers. This is the age of business where information travels at the speed of light as they like to say.

Here's a couple paragraphs from an article RE the "United breaks guitars" protest video that is traveling the world over right now:

Social Media Effect: Brands beware: disgruntled customers with large MySpace or Facebook followings, such as those who belong to bands, can be a social-media nightmare … especially if they can express themselves with a dose of creativity. This is Jeff Jarvis vs. Dell Computers translated into the YouTube genre. The number of views and comments posted in just three days—e.g., "My Brother worked for United as a baggage Handler and on the first day He watched othe Handlers open bags and steal the contents. He quit within the hour! Scum Bums!"—tells a greater story than one protest song. Unlike Dell, United issued an apology within days.
***
YouTube BrandWatch is The Big Money's exploration into how the world's best-known businesses, so adept at managing their images offline, are being perceived online, where control is harder to come by. Every week, The Big Money features a corporate-themed video that's had significant viewership on YouTube: some approved, some unapproved, some mashed-up combinations of the two. And we'll ask our readers to vote on how the video affects the brands. We think the responses will surprise you, and provide a window onto what is fast becoming the most important playground for corporate games. (Note: This feature has no official relationship to YouTube or its owner, Google.)

I think you are mostly right regarding the bottom of the scale (Joe Blow and his family going to Disney World) but people who fly legacy carriers more than a couple times a year make very calculated decisions on who they are going to go with, especially as it pertains to frequent flyer miles. These aren't necessarily first class type people but they fly enough that there is a loyalty to one airline UNTIL you show your lack of flexability and stuff it in their face. Just had this conversation with a friend of mine yesterday who is a die hard American flyer even though he lives in a Delta hub. He primarily goes with American due to his now accumulated FFM but also an incident where Delta piissed him off (could have rectified the situation with little cost but didnt) 7 years ago. I tell him there is new management and things have gotten somewhat better, he doesnt care. He will be with American until someone over there finaly screws him over and he will look to switch. What is the cost to Delta for not having this guy due to the incident 7 years ago.....conservatively I would say about $140,000 in lost revenue, and much more than that in good will when my friend tells all his friends and family about how Delta screwed him 7 years ago.

"He will be with American until someone over there finaly screws him over and he will look to switch."

EXACTLY THE POINT lather, rinse, repeat.

As someone pointed out, this is what is left of the airline industry. The consumer spoke years ago and now we are left with a career becoming joke fodder for late night tv and youtube. What would you expect when it is run by accountants, lawyers and bureaucrats.

Customer service is not, generally, valued by joe sixpack. He likes to be treated like someone important when he flies but is unwilling to pay. He buys non-refundable tickets and then when he misses a flight he simply badmouths his experience at the next family bbq and buys the cheapest ticket next year on his way to Vegas. Southwest has wonderful service and liberal change policies but if a LUV ticket is $5 more or stops in Oakland he flies non-refundable CAL.

Of all my flying and jumpseating around the world in the past 15 years I would rank my personal favorites in no order as TWA, United, Southwest and Delta. Sure many would dispute some of those choices.

I'll be the last one to justify CAL's customer service. I work there and I think it's consistantly average to lousy. You have to wonder about a company that sets it's own bar at clean, safe and reliable air transportation. Seems pretty low to me.

Point is, write a letter to the CEO, tell him you are an airline employee and you feel wronged. Tell him what lousy agent wouldn't help you in your time of need. Tell him how much you value CAL customer service and that you are willing to pay for it. Tell him how to improve things. Make management aware of the train they are slowly steaming towards mediocrity. That said, take some blame for not holding up your end of the deal (missing your flight) and stop whining on an internet message board for pilots. It will get you nothing but an inbox full of trash.

I agree with you, this is the "age of info at light speed transfer", however, you are beyond apples vs oranges in comparing the UAL debacle vs a person who bought the "cheap ticket" and not the "unrestricted" ticket that he/she needed in their case of poor planning.

You tell me in your business of high end retail that you cited above, that you would bite your tongue time and time again as 9 out of 10 Customers came back to you wanting things changed/refunded when they up front, did not read the terms of agreement?? I think not!! In an isolated case as you pointed out, great good on you!! In a small nitch market that I assume you operate, that may work great. Where does the airline draw the line in a MUCH MORE VAST arena?? If they should extend it to everyone regardless of fare class, what is the purpose of a full fare unrestricted ticket vs a restricted "Super Saver"???:confused:

In today's airline industry, airlines are roughly "giving away" 75%+ of all seats on each flight to make $$ margin on the premium fare & last minute traveler....that's a fact without secret. If each airline in todays economy just "bit their tongue" to 9 out of 10 "Super Saver" fare passengers so that the customer can make 'free' changes at will (further reducing revenue in an already bleeding market), they might as well just hand out FREE ticket vouchers to all those people up front as they walk into the airport.

Even though your idea sounds great in a rosey world, there are SO MANY other factors that you are not taking into account such as marketing/planning that each air carrier lays out to run their business model to make it work as far as fares vs seats vs routes ect...(looking at today's industry, I use that term loosely). All though I can appreciate your isolated analogy of running your personal business, I don't think you can make that comparison in this case with something so much deeper and fluid on a business scale. With all do respect, If EVERY person received that 'change your plans at will' courtesy....your idea of running a business would not get off the ground.

That guy is an insignificant exception. Most are lowest price clickers and the rest have their tickets bought by their corporate travel departments, are semi-captives of FF programs that they have a lot of miles invested in, or have few choices due to their schedule and destination.

As far as service goes, I don't think there's a lick of difference between the major carriers, and that includes Southwest. In the industry recognition awards, I think CAL is one of the higher rated airlines.

You guys ever notice that Spanky is a 737 FO??? As a 737FO and with a daughter he is doing his best to see combined with a divorce, how can anyone blaim the guy for buying the cheapest ticket possible? Now, if our dear management could start paying us normal wages again, maybe the guy would not be forced to buy cheap tickets. Give the guy some slack fellas, he is one of us...

As I said in my first post on this thread....it sucks that it came to this. Stepping aside and looking at the facts that you pointed out, your right, take care of our own may have appeared to have been lost in the translation.

Like myself, I'm sure others were looking at it in the same light, when you buy a fare under a particular class, expect to get what you purchased under "terms & conditions' of the ticket you bought.....like it or not, pretty black & white.

Besides....we are ALL assuming that this customer bought the "super saver" fare, maybe he did not....thus he may have every right to be PO'ed about the situation if that was the case and the agent was just being a D-Bag for not rectifying his unfortunate situation....I'm sure we have all seen this happen before.

When the rubber meets the road, I'm sure if anyone of us were behind the computer at the gate, we would have all taken care of this cat like one of our own.....your right, hands down.

This guys right on. Customer service is everything. The flying public has a choice and if your company gives the ********** to a paying passenger, they've just lost that business forever. is it worth the extra hundred bucks? Your too buried in something if you don't believe this. My suggestion to Spanky, fly SWA, it appears they actually care about their customers.

Is this in reference to flying on CAL? Yikes!!:eek:

I don't think anyone is blaming him for buying a cheap ticket. (if that is actually what he bought) They're saying he got what he payed for and he can't blame others.

Since the guy is one of us he should have known the rules better then others. He should be complaining to his ex wife and not bashing CAL for following policy. Now it would have been nice if they put his kid on a different flight but I'm sure they hear excuses all the time. If he bought a ticket that allowed for a change then he has a point.

I bet he doesn't. American screwed me while traveling on gov't business 6 years ago. I won't travel on them. I've changed positive space dhd tickets to not ride on them. And, to not be a hypocrite, I don't even JS on them. Nothing against the AA flight crews, btw. So there are people out there with long memories.

No. It's in reference to all purchases made by consumers.

Sorry, there is no "tongue in cheek" smilie, fully understood your post, just having some fun.:D

No problem, that is what I thought. :D:D

CAL sold Spanky a valid ticket with restrictions. CAL was prepared to honor the terms and conditions of Spanky’s ticket. Spanky’s wife the reason for his daughter missing her flight. Spanky was hoping to receive some form of relief from CAL. Unfortunately, as they have the right to, CAL would not yield even for one of their own. Thus Spanky incurred additional expenses because of actions of his former spouse.

At the end of the day, is Spanky’s issue really with CAL? Perhaps Spanky should consult with his matrimonial attorney to see if he can recover the expense for the “walk up ticket” as a result of the behavior of his former spouse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yawdamp http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/im...s/viewpost.gif
Not all airlines are the same. I've purchased a tx on SWA a week before my intended departure and SWA changed the tx with only a minor additional charge. All of you who think the airline did the right thing, YOURE BRAINWASHED. The right thing would have been TAKE CARE OF THE CUSTOMER. I also must say, it shows your weak character to put this guy down for expecting good customer service. Even if he received bad service from his ex ;)


I'm going to agree with the above posts. Customer service is woefully inadequate in this country, and is largely the result of people just not caring. Companies try to stiff the customer just because they are legally in the right. They should probably consider that it may not be the best policy to live by.

For Example, I used to have my car insured w/Geico. My wife rear ended somebody. The damage was $1200.00. Geico covered it, and then when it was policy renewal time, jacked my rate up another $130.00 a month! It would have been cheaper if I had payed the guy out of pocket. What do I have insurance for anyway? I promptly switched insurance providers. What I (and Geico) didn't know at the time was that the driver of the other vehicle was going to sue for the obligatory "severe back and neck injuries" caused by the 3 mph impact. According to NJ law, the claim was filed with Geico, so they have to pay the attorney's fees, and if I lose, they have to pay the other driver. So far, Geico has lost out on 2 years worth of premiums, and they are stuck with the aforementioned fees, all because they tried to squeeze a little extra out of me. Serves 'em right. And I tell everyone I can about it (as you can see.)

The point is, THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT used to be policy at a lot of companies. Not anymore, and it shows. They should have given him another ticket, because they could have. Put his daughter on standby if you want, but give him some kind of ticket.

Your example has nothing to do with this scenario. They are 2 completely different things.

If this guy bought a ticket to a sporting event or play and missed it should he be given another ticket at a different time or date?

The guy supposedly bought a non refundable ticket and his ex wife screwed up not CAL. If the guy should get a free flight, should CAL refund money to all of it's customers who purchased more flexable tickets?

Just send the ex wife the bill !:)
I,m glad I don't have one of those.


Fred

refundable fares
 

I also had a nonrefundable ticket last year for family London-MSP-home and could not use the tickets. Northwest, to their credit, let me keep the residual value of those tickets which we used last month for a domestic ticket to visit relatives. The fares structure is very complex so I have no idea how my fare basis compared to Spankys and why CO would not let him do same.

No, they're not 2 completely different things. They're both about companies trying to stiff customers. Comparing it to a sporting event is comparing apples to oranges. It's not like CAL didn't have another flight going to that destination later on - they did - they made him buy another ticket. Why should he have to buy another ticket? He already had one! How many non revs were on the next flight? If there were any, that guy's daughter should've had a seat at no extra charge. He wasn't asking for a refund. There were extenuating circumstances that would merit a ticket on the next flight. Give her standby at least. Who does that hurt? Are you arguing that CAL did everything within their power to satisfy that customer? They didn't even come close. The only answer a lot of companies train their employees to give is "No." I've had jobs where I'm the person the customer deals with, and if I had acted the way I've seen a lot of "customer service professionals" act, I would've been out the door in a heartbeat! Companies (Airlines included/especially) need to wise up. If you don't have customers, you don't have a business. If everybody did what that musician did to United, we'd have better service in this country, that's for sure.

Calling something a non-refundable ticket is just a way to stick it to the customer if something beyond their control happerns. It's the result of greed and nothing more.