Slashdot Mirror
A New Way to Tell Your Airline You Hate It (bloomberg.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Airlines -- an industry not known for stellar customer interactions -- are joining the party, and not just to break the bad news about your flight. They're inviting you to ask questions, and maybe even complain. Two airlines have dipped their wings into the waters of two-way texting. Hawaiian Holdings's Hawaiian Airlines is adding the feature while JetBlue Airways took a stake in a software startup that will allow its call center staff to start texting customers in the coming months. Texting, technically called SMS (which stands for short message service), is arguably the world's most favored form of communication, but much of corporate America has been slow to adapt. The few that have -- including Verizon Wireless retailers, British telecom company Sky UK, and Nestle SA's frozen foods division -- are dwarfed by an array of local commerce, from insurance agents, veterinarians, air conditioning techs, and auto dealers who have already jumped in to conduct their business.
Hawaiian is one of the better airlines. Wake me when I can text United about how much they suck.
That is all.
Send a piece of S**t to the HQ - http://en.shitexpress.com/
I got a request for feedback from my last flight, I ignored it, and then they started nagging me for feedback.
OK, you want feedback? What is going on with your operations out of Atlanta? I was in an older twin-engine jet not known for its acceleration (MD-88, JT8D-200 engines). Looking out the starboard window, as soon as I saw the same kind of jet from the same airline start laying down kerosene smoke for it takeoff roll, we swung onto the active runway right behind it. I thought we were doing a "position and hold", but we immediately powered up our engines and started our takeoff roll.
I asked in the comments section if this was standard procedure at Atlanta and if this were OK, explaining that I read that the military would conduct such rapid takeoff drills during the Cold War, but this type of thing was recognized as having the potential for a really bad accident if one of the jets on the runway had to abort its takeoff, but the military did such things because men and women in uniform assume risks for our common defense.
This started some kind of investigation, and I was called to the telephone to repeat my comments orally and answer questions about "my story", some of the questions hinting that I was a stupid non-pilot. "Look, I saw the jet ahead of us down the runway through the cloud of the engine smoke on those older MD-80's just as we swung onto the runway and immediately went to full power to start our takeoff." "Did you still see the other plane during your takeoff." "No, not after we lined up on the runway, I can't see that way out my passenger window."
The person on the phone got all "corporate" on me that yes, they will investigate this internally but they volunteered without my asking that they would not share what they found. No, "our crew followed all relevant safety procedures, and if you have questions about operations at Atlanta Hartsfield you can contact the FAA at 555-1212" or "thank you for your input, we are putting the word out to our crews reminding them to maintain safe separation from other aircraft." Don't worry your pretty little head, they tell me -- fine! You nag me for survey feedback and you then don't want to hear what I have to tell you. This is this corporate garbage "admit nothing, nothing! on anything safety related because 1) the passenger doesn't need to know and 2) we might get sued."
Well, if you're not a pilot, then you probably are mistaken about procedures then. I hold a private license. I was on a commercial flight one time where our plane rolled straight from taxiway, onto the runway and immediate takeoff without even slowing down. A guy in front of me freaked out and told the guy next to him that it was illegal. Sheesh... The controllers know what they are doing (though the pilot is the primary safety - fly the plane first, otherwise follow instructions and procedures). You can be on a taxiway when the controller tells you "clear for takeoff". When that happens, you just go - and sometimes they need you to go in a reasonably short time because somebody else is coming in for a landing on your runway. The controllers and pilots understand these procedures. If you're not a pilot, then you probably don't know this. If you see something obvious (fire coming out of the engine, perhaps) then speak up, otherwise take some pilot training and chill out. I had to tell the guy in front of me the same thing.
There's a rule of thumb about voter feedback to Congresscritters. A hand-written letter is worth about 10 phone calls. A phone call is worth about 10 faxes. And a fax is worth about 10 emails.
The idea is that the more effort you had to put into the feedback, the more you must care about the issue. If your level of concern is so low that you can only be bothered to type in your name and email address on a website form letter and click "send", then the issue must not be very important to you. OTOH if you take the type to write a letter by hand and physically mail it to your representative, the issue must be very important to you, and they'll treat it as such.
Same goes here. If your complaint with the airline can only get you to expend enough effort to shoot off a text, then your level of outrage must be very low. They're not going to treat it very seriously. If it gets you to write a nasty (non-form) email, your level of outrage must be higher and they'll take you a bit more seriously. If you're outraged enough to call them and suffer the wait time on hold, then they'll take you even more seriously. And if you spent the time to write a hand-written letter and paid for a stamp to mail it to them, you must really be angry with them, and they'll take your letter very seriously.
So championing the easiest-to-use form of feedback isn't really the best way to get your complaint heard by the higher-ups.
Aviation is one of the industries where the customer is almost never right. You don't know what happened, and you don't know what you're talking about.
"That door is open," it does that.
"That engine is turning," wind.
"The engine is clanking," wind.
"There's a hole in the wing," there's supposed to be.
"There's a fuel leak," it's water.
"That other plane was REALLY close," no it wasn't.
"That turbulence was REALLY bad, is the plane ok?" It was light turbulence, you'll break before the plane does.
"You didn't do a run up, you're supposed to do one," no we're not.
"Nice landing," actually it was terrible.
"Wow, that was a bad landing," actually it was perfect.
"The flaps aren't set for takeoff," yes they are.
"You took off too close behind that plane," no we didn't.
I could go all day.
Cleared for immediate takeoff with an under-powered jet still on the runway straight in front of you?
When SAC did this back during the Cold War, they were conducting a drill to get their bombers in the air during the time they had before a Soviet sub-launched missile on a depressed trajectory could wipe them all out on the ground. The author of the Web page describing this told of how the families would gather at the fence by the end of the runway to see the spectacle of one jet after another roaring by. The author also suggested that it was not a great idea for the families to watch this because one engine failure could result in a flaming pile-up of their family members serving on those crews. This was not a safe mode of operation, but it was done because our service members sacrifice their safety for the common good, in this case, maintaining the condition of deterrence during the Cold War.
Yeah, yeah, I am just a dumb airline passenger and the MD-88 ahead may have reached its V-1 no-abort speed prior to the MD-88 I was on reaching full power. All I know is that a couple of weeks later at O'Hare International a jet blew up an engine midway down the runway, the news media was questioning what this column of black smoke at O'Hare meant for a story, and we later found it took a formation of fire trucks to put out the flames to get the passengers safely off that plane. Another jet sequenced too closely could have ploughed into that wreck. I just get this vibe that the way business is conducted at World's Busiest Atlanta Hartsfield is shaving some corners and no one wants to admit to nothing. Yes, the controllers know what they are doing, the pilots know what they are doing, and you changed in Atlanta to get the flight you wanted so keep quiet?