Tiger Airways: How customer service killed the cat
7 Jul
Last call for Tiger Airways? Photo: fox2mike (Flickr)
As a sometime customer of Tiger Airways and someone who has been affected by the prolonged grounding of the budget carrier’s fleet (I have a booking on 15 July), I could well consider myself entitled to write a hot-headed rant about risking passenger lives, the slow pace of refunds, or whatever catcall is fashionable while we await real news on the airline’s fate. But instead, I’d like to take the even tone of eulogist for a moment – for even if this recent safety fiasco blows over, the one thing that will eventually do them in is a total disregard for their customers.
Some voices in the media have penned customer care as being an obvious first casualty in a low cost carrier’s attempts to cut costs. After flying with profitable LCCs like AirAsia and Cebu Pacific in the highly-competitive East Asian market, I absolutely disagree that this is the case. On my journeys with both these carriers, I’ve had nothing but attentive service, even when the proverbial has hit the fan. In one instance involving a flight retime, I even received an email form the office of Tony Fernandes, AirAsia’s CEO, which promptly rectified what could have escalated into a tricky situation.
Many may regard AirAsia as a wonder child in this regard – not only are they profitable, but their front line – spread across airports, email newsletters, social media properties – actually seems to care. Why Australian customers can’t expect the same from domestic airlines is simply a matter of complacency. After all, Tiger Airways is in a strong position to not only learn from Singapore Airways’ experience in delivering courtesy, but benefit from their big pockets when making it real.
In retrospect, one could say that as the beneficiary of many non-critical $29 flights between Sydney and Melbourne and relatively few delays in the process, I’ve had a pretty good run with the flying tiger. However, there have been moments when the mindless culture that has undoubtedly resulted in the recent safety breaches, has also manifested itself in shonky customer policies. Policies that seem almost intentionally designed to upset and belittle customers, delivered by contractors instead of accountable employees of the airline.
I can source an example from less than a year ago, when the check-in policy changed from being, ‘yes, you can get in queue and check-in at the airport’, to, ‘no, you must check-in via the web a considerable amount of time before your flight, otherwise we ping you $25 for a boarding pass at the airport’. Sadly for all involved, this was not explained clearly via email or even SMS, so by the time our fate dawned on us at the airport, it was too late to check-in via our smartphones. There was no point arguing over the fee with the check-in staffer – she was an employee of a 3rd party services company, who agreed that it was silly that she could print boarding passes free-of-charge for checked-in customers, however had to charge $50 in total for ‘rule breakers’ like my husband and I (not her words). She was genuine and sympathetic. Unfortunately, the airline that she was beholden to is not.
Policies like this make a lot of sense from an accountant’s point of view. Discouraging the use of check-in counters means reduced staffing costs and potentially, faster turnarounds at the airport as customers attend to their arrangements online. However when not communicated properly, or worse, applied to ‘penalise’ travellers (as if we had paid to take part in some martial system), they generate anger, bad press and kill off repeat business.
I believe that most leisure travellers have moved beyond simply wanting the cheapest fare. If you look at how consumers spend their discretionary income (let it be on branded gadgets, dinners out or holiday travel), in many cases price point takes second place to experience, function or reputation. For this reason, I can understand why they have only captured 5% of domestic air travel market share after almost 4 years of operation, despite offering hands-down the cheapest airfares. If Tiger had tethered their business on providing on-time service, pleasant customer relations, or, heaven forbid, putting the glamour back into air travel, they could have comfortably charged an additional 20% without complaint.
The message here is relevant to all industries. If a company’s sole selling point is low prices, it is doomed to fail. A race to the bottom is one that cannot be won – either the cash will run out, corners will get cut, customers will feel alienated and vote with their feet, or in Tiger’s case, all of the above. Even if CASA’s grounding isn’t the final call for the ailing airline, their attitude has certainly put them on their last leg.
