Re: SAA wants Customers Input!

11 November 2004, 03:17

/

10 November 2004, 21:05

Dungbeetle

Tell them that when I look forward and into the Cockpit, I want to see a white hand on the controls.

That should get a reply.

Dungbeetle

10 November 2004, 18:22

H T

Here is my email. I hold out very little hope, by the way.
-----------------------------------

My wife and I together have made 10 roundtrip flights from the US to Africa on SAA, and my relatives have made another 4. The decline in comfort with the Airbus was notably steep. Further the professionalism of the flight attendants has shown a slow and steady decline. My suggestion is that you reconfigure the legroom on the Airbus. Additionally, the managing of the flight attendants should be redirected toward customer service of the highest level. Like it was when we first flew in 1999.

Failing to make substantive changes in both passenger comfort and staff attitude will surely result in further loss of revenue. I would add that my dissatisfaction is so strong at this point that if there is any reasonable alternative for us to get to Johannesburg next summer, even if it's both longer and a bit more expensive, we'll take it. Perhaps your initiative will accomplish something in the meantime to change my mind. Surprise me!

Yours truly,

H T
San Diego, California

11 November 2004, 14:34

Dungbeetle

All International, long flight carriers might could take a clue from EVA airlines. For example, they have an "Evergreen Service" (I think it's called)that is a 747 totally seated with seats that are a little larger than Coach (not as large as Business), lean back a little farther and have a little more leg room. No Business, No First Class, all the same. A little more expensive (not much) than Coach fare but a far cry away from and less than what Business Class cost.

Maybe Kathi or others could step in here and enlighten us a little better on it. It really helps with the flight from Houston to Taipei versus a regular Coach seat.

11 November 2004, 06:01

BFaucett

Quote:

Poster: ALF

An open question to all:

What makes SAA's woes any different to any other airline? I see no one uttering a word about any of US carrier's who's service, planes and about every aspect of flying sucks.

........<snip>.............

ALF,

I agree that the U.S carriers are nothing to brag about. The major difference, from my point of view, is that I don't have to spend 18 to 20 hours on a U.S. domestic flight. Crappy seats and service can be tolerated a lot better when the flight is only 2 to 4 hours long or so.

-Bob F.

11 November 2004, 06:10

mbogo375

Quote:

An open question to all:

What makes SAA's woes any different to any other airline? I see no one uttering a word about any of US carrier's who's service, planes and about every aspect of flying sucks.

Even with the airbus SAA still beats any of the US carriers hands down, not to mention Canadian air.

Alf,

The eighteen and a half hours that we have to spend in purgatory on the trip each way is the difference

. Even the South African Airlink service on small commuter jets is MUCH more comfortable than the Airbus. An extra one to two inches of seat pitch, plus individual airvents, would make the flight bearable. I can put up with the less than friendly and helpful flight crew, but my knees can not put up with being jammed into the seat in front of me, or the horrid box for the entertainment system taking up half the footroom.

Chasing potential passengers away with these discomforts is not the way to improve their shaky financial situation, and if they think that is the way to profitability then I believe that they are wrong.

One of the mantras of most successful businesses is "the customer is always right". SAA, on the other hand, takes the position that they are right and the customer doesn't know what is "correct" (like seat pitch).

To use hunting related analogies, Leupold and RCBS built a large and loyal customer base by offering a good product at a reasonable (but not cheap) price, and with great customer service.

On the other hand, Winchester did the same thing until the late fifties and early sixties. Then they tried to cut corners with the post '64 Model 70, pressed checkering instead of cut, poor bedding, poor quality control, etc, under the guise of maintaing a low cost point to remain competitive with the other gun companies. During the 60's and 70's you could buy a low cost Winchester, but you certainly got no more than you paid for (often less). Eventually their policies led to such a financial mess that the company had to be sold. They didn't start to recover until they got away from the "lowest unit cost" mentality, and are still not completely recovered.

Jim