British Airways, "Get over it".

[Cool-Beans]

I said this on the other thread, but I agree with the airlines. What the hell were they supposed to do with the body? Open the hatch and toss her out? Let her get tossed about with the luggage? Stick her on the public bathroom floor? Cram her into the fridge? Ugh.

The airline didn't do anything wrong. If I'd been a stewardess and grown-up peple were freaking out because somebody died, I'd have said, "Yeah, it ruined her day, too." IMO, "Get over it" is the appropriate response.

The only people who get to complain that a person's death has inconvenienced them are those who plan not to die.

 

[DancingBear]

The disagreement is whether or not the airline acted properly, and/or whether or not the airline should pay compensation to the first class passenger who was across the row from where the deceased was moved. My point was that what the airline did was proper, and there was nothing that the airline could do in that scenario that would have been better, and that no passengers are owed anything when the airline does things properly as in this case.

This is a fundamental issue: "Stuff" happens, and sometimes that causes upset. However, there is not necessarily fault. Some people do feel that whenever anything goes bad someone or some thing has to be at fault. If it makes someone feel better, I suppose they could hold God at fault. We're all at the mercy of the nature of the Universe. Any compensation necessary, in such cases, should be sought from that source, not at the most convenient, terrestrial deep pockets.

First, if in fact the flight attendants were not sensitive to the other passenger's discomfort and rudely told him to "get over it," I'd say there was some "fault" here. But of course that is an open question of fact.

But in any event I think it's a very limited concept of customer service to say that "fault" has to be the driving concept for any thought of compensating a customer for being inconvenienced. If a pipe bursts and floods my hotel room in the middle of the night, I think it would be appropriate for the hotel to go above and beyond to compensate me for my inconvience. Sometimes customer service means doing something that they "should" do rather than just what they "have to" do.

 

[Mr. Malaprop]

But in any event I think it's a very limited concept of customer service to say that "fault" has to be the driving concept for any thought of compensating a customer for being inconvenienced. If a pipe bursts and floods my hotel room in the middle of the night, I think it would be appropriate for the hotel to go above and beyond to compensate me for my inconvience. Sometimes customer service means doing something that they "should" do rather than just what they "have to" do.

I believe that another poster pointed out the problem that Disney encountered when they tried to follow that pattern. Word quickly got around and Disney was targeted as an "easy touch" for any inconvenience, however minor or insignificant. The abuse got so bad that they eliminated that program completely.

Airlines could find themselves in the same boat with passengers demanding compensation for every slight, perceived or real. There are few in the sound financial condition to afford such a policy. It's nice to talk about it, but not to practical in the real world.

 

[DancingBear]

The specific post you're talking about by Bicker had to do with "taking the customer's word" as to the facts of a situation, so it's not directly applicable to this situation.

Every company has to balance these issues, but I don't think any of them in practice live by a strict "only when we're at fault" system.

And a high-service model is not doomed to failure--see Nordstrom.

 

[Mr. Malaprop]

That's exactly what this discussion is about -- taking a single customer's word of what happened against what the airline said. People are saying the customer is entitled to compensation for his alleged "disturbance" or inconvenience.

For that matter, the flight attendants who had to handle the dead woman's body should get bonuses. Those in coach who were near the woman when she died should be compensated for their disturbance. Those who saw the body being carried to first class -- compensate them. Compensate the family of the dead woman for their trauma.

We could find reasons to compensate just about anyone and everyone on that particular flight. But in the end none of them suffered anything truly traumatic. At most there was maybe a little "ick" factor. The airline handled this in the best way -- maybe the only way possible.

Those expecting or demanding compensation for this are just showing their greedy nature.

 

[DancingBear]

That's exactly what this discussion is about -- taking a single customer's word of what happened against what the airline said.

I think the discussion is beyond that. I'm saying that it might be a good customer service for BA to compensate a passenger who was disturbed by being in close proximity with the body, not because BA was at "fault," but because it's certainly reasonable to expect that folks (who paid a premium price for the flight) might legitimately be upset about the circumstances, and might feel more positively about BA if that were acknowledged with some gesture.

People are saying the customer is entitled to compensation for his alleged "disturbance" or inconvenience.

I'm not saying he's "entitled," I'm saying it might be a good idea.

The airline handled this in the best way -- maybe the only way possible.

The airline may have handled the body and such in the best way possible, but that doesn't necessarily mean they handled the discomfort of other passengers in the best way possible--and certainly not in the only way possible.

 

[Mr. Malaprop]

IF BA "acknowledges" this passenger's disturbance with some gesture, where do they stop? What happens when the next passenger who is disturbed by something decides to take his/her issue to the media?

What you suggest leads directly to the sense of entitlement that plagues businesses today. The complaining passenger received exactly what he paid for: travel between two points. His contract with BA did not include any clause guaranteeing that the travel would be "disturbance free."

 

[Cool-Beans]

I think the discussion is beyond that. I'm saying that it might be a good customer service for BA to compensate a passenger who was disturbed by being in close proximity with the body, not because BA was at "fault," but because it's certainly reasonable to expect that folks (who paid a premium price for the flight) might legitimately be upset about the circumstances, and might feel more positively about BA if that were acknowledged with some gesture.

Of course they'd feel more positively about the airline. I would, too. I'd also feel more positive about the grocery store if someone died there and I got my groceries for free. And about WDW if someone died there and I got my vacation for free.

I'd always feel extremely positive about any company that gave me stuff for free...especially if I didn't deserve it!

But, the fact that somebody dies doesn't mean you are owed money.

I'm not saying he's "entitled," I'm saying it might be a good idea.

I think it would be a terrible idea to start giving people the idea that they should be paid for someone else's death.

The airline may have handled the body and such in the best way possible, but that doesn't necessarily mean they handled the discomfort of other passengers in the best way possible--and certainly not in the only way possible.

The fact that someone is uncomfortable with death has nothing to do with the airline. The airline did nothing wrong, and shouldn't pay money to people because they are uncomfortable.

Next you'll have vegetarians claiming that they should get refunds because they had to see a chicken sandwich or homophobes asking for refunds because they saw two guys holding hands.

Just because you are uncomfortable with something doesn't mean someone should give you money. It is your problem, either get over it or sit there all pissed off. But don't start claiming you ought to be paid for your own issues.

 

[DawnCt1]

The specific post you're talking about by Bicker had to do with "taking the customer's word" as to the facts of a situation, so it's not directly applicable to this situation.

Every company has to balance these issues, but I don't think any of them in practice live by a strict "only when we're at fault" system.

And a high-service model is not doomed to failure--see Nordstrom.

Absolutely. No one is saying that the situation was unavoidable or that the airline did anything wrong with its placement of the body but all of this could have been handled discreetly by approaching the passenger (s) that were inconvenienced, thanking them for their tolerance and offering to give them free passage on a future date. Airlines do this all of the time when they have a request for passengers to voluntarily give up a seat. I grab those opportunities and also negotiate a first class seat in addition to a voucher. I have been successful at snagging a first class seat on the next flight,at least one third of the time. Do they have to do that? No but it certainly gives me a greater incentive to fly with them the next time and give up my seat when the opportunity presents itself.

 

[eclectics]

Just because you are uncomfortable with something doesn't mean someone should give you money. It is your problem, either get over it or sit there all pissed off. But don't start claiming you ought to be paid for your own issues.

I think this speaks to the higher issue of the mentality of us wanting to get something free for every inconvenience. How much no cost stuff can we squeeze out of so and so. And we justify this mentality by thinking "Oh, now we'll probably use them again in the future". And perhaps we might, or more likely than not, we'll jump at the better deal across the street. Just seems to me to be a little greedy on our part. And I blame the companies also for caving in most times and giving services away that do not warrant it.

 

[DawnCt1]

I think this speaks to the higher issue of the mentality of us wanting to get something free for every inconvenience. How much no cost stuff can we squeeze out of so and so. And we justify this mentality by thinking "Oh, now we'll probably use them again in the future". And perhaps we might, or more likely than not, we'll jump at the better deal across the street. Just seems to me to be a little greedy on our part. And I blame the companies also for caving in most times and giving services away that do not warrant it.

You know, sitting beside a dead body for a first class flight isn't the same type of "inconvenience" that running out of merlot would be. There are degrees of "inconvenience". On a scale of one to ten, this was a 13.

 

[Mr. Malaprop]

You know, sitting beside a dead body for a first class flight isn't the same type of "inconvenience" that running out of merlot would be. There are degrees of "inconvenience". On a scale of one to ten, this was a 13.

You've latched onto this misconception that the complaining passenger was seated "next to" the dead woman. Try re-reading the story. He was in the same ROW, not the seat next to her.

Inconvenience doesn't make you deserving of anything. This whining passenger should be thankful he is still alive and able to complain about this "horrific" treatment. Instead he wants to try to rack up some freebies over nothing. Some people's greed knows no boundaries.

 

[eclectics]

You know, sitting beside a dead body for a first class flight isn't the same type of "inconvenience" that running out of merlot would be. There are degrees of "inconvenience". On a scale of one to ten, this was a 13.

I guess my point really is pointing out the difference between being pleasantly surprised and gratefully accepting a freebie when inconvenienced and whining and throwing a hissy fit when you "expect" a freebie and don't get it. I read and see a lot of the latter, and a lot of times on these boards. And what is really interesting to me is that a lot of times the "inconvenience" was something totally out of the control of the company. I'm sorry, but I don't get the sense of entitlement I see so much, and no Dawn, this is not directed at you personally.

 

[bicker]

Absolutely. No one is saying that the situation was unavoidable or that the airline did anything wrong with its placement of the body but all of this could have been handled discreetly by approaching the passenger (s) that were inconvenienced, thanking them for their tolerance and offering to give them free passage on a future date.

As I mentioned before, I don't have a problem with the airline acknowledging the inconvenience with a token. "Free passage" isn't a token. That's hard-core, fault-based compensation. For something that isn't the airline's fault, a $50 voucher towards a future purpose is appropriate recognition for inconvenience.

Airlines do this all of the time when they have a request for passengers to voluntarily give up a seat.

That, by contrast, is the airline's fault. They deliberately overbook. Their fault; so free passage is a reasonable compensation for that. (Note that they don't overbook first-class, because the never intend to offer free passage in first-class as compensation for involuntary bumping.)

 

[bicker]

You know, sitting beside a dead body for a first class flight isn't the same type of "inconvenience" that running out of merlot would be.

Running out of Merlot is worthy of no recognition beyond a polite apology.

There are degrees of "inconvenience". On a scale of one to ten, this was a 13.

That would put being bumped due to overbooking at between 100 and 150 on the scale.

 

[pokemon_master]

During a transatlantic flight, an elderly man died after exhaustive attempts to resusitate him. A first class passenger who said that he paid $3000 for his first class seat found himself with a new seat mate. The dead body was moved from economy class to first class and propped up beside the reluctant passenger. On the radio this morning he reported that the body kept slipping and he was horrified. Complaints were met with "get over it". I for one would expect a full refund and first class passage on any BA flight to make up for this. Here is one link. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=420484&in_page_id=1770

This is very interesting. You see, this is exactly what the book "Air Babylon" say! According to the book, THIS IS ALL THEY CAN DO!!!

They should of at least aplogised to the man in my opinion.

 

[DancingBear]

But, the fact that somebody dies doesn't mean you are owed money.

I didn't say anybody was "owed" anything--in fact, you quote me yourself when I distinguished the gesture from entitlement.

I think it would be a terrible idea to start giving people the idea that they should be paid for someone else's death.

He wouldn't be "paid for someone else's death"--he'd be compensated for his inconvenience.

 

[DancingBear]

IF BA "acknowledges" this passenger's disturbance with some gesture, where do they stop? What happens when the next passenger who is disturbed by something decides to take his/her issue to the media?

What you suggest leads directly to the sense of entitlement that plagues businesses today.

I don't know about you, but I seem to see a dearth of competent customer service plaguing businesses today.

As I said, it's a balancing that each business has to make judgments about.

Do you think that the appropriate response, then, is always "unless you can prove that our company is at fault, we will provide you with no compensation."

 

[Patty3]

I have not read all of the posts, so if this has already been mentioned, I apologize. As I said in a previous post, I would be one of the passengers freaking out if a dead body was placed in the seat next to mine. But, what I do not understand, since this was a trans atlantic flight why was the corpse not placed in the crews quarters? Usually on these flights there is an area where the crew closes the curtain to take naps. Under the circumstances, I think that the dead person would get more respect there and this would not upset the passengers.

 

[gina2000]

Clear the row if possible and offer a good will gesture to each passenger who has been moved to a lower class or who cannot be moved. And a free ticket to the airline is merely that....good will. It's tax deductible. This is an unfortunate circumstance and no one's fault but choosing a seat near another customer who was not a member of the family puts that passenger in an uncomfortable and horrific position. They weren't seated next to the deceased to begin with so by choosing that postion on the airplane, the airline has inconvenienced and upset a passenger (or passengers) who have nothing to do with the event. In effect, the passenger has been forced to accept the situation which the rest of the plane does not have to endure. That's worth compensation/good will in my book.