So a few weeks ago, I was in Amsterdam and about to fly to London.
I was quite excited because apart from going ‘home’ for the first time in well over a year – even if it was just for 18 hours – I was going to fly into London City airport for the first time and I was interested to see it.
OK, that’s not why I had chosen to pay the higher fair – I had to be in the city at a specific time – and so that airport made things super convenient for me.
About 30 minutes before we were going to board, a member of British Airways came up to me and asked …
“Mr Campbell, would you be interested in catching a later flight that lands at Heathrow. We will provide you with a €25 voucher if you do.”
Now for those of you who don’t know, Heathrow Airport is not in the middle of London and while it is obviously well served with transport links, it’s a much longer journey and probably costs more than the €25 they were offering.
Because of this, I asked …
“Does anyone ever accept that offer?”
The representative looked at me rather sarcastically and said …
“Yes, lots of people actually”.
Now maybe I was a bit jet-lagged.
Or maybe I just didn’t choose the right words.
But I found myself replying with …
“That must explain why you’re no longer the World’s favourite airline”.
OK, that was a majorly dick move, but I still can’t work out how an airline thinks it’s OK to offer an alternative flight that goes to a completely different airport and a voucher that doesn’t come close to covering the higher price I’d paid for my ticket [so I could fly to that specific airport], let alone the probable cost of getting into the city from this new destination.
I get things change and alternative plans have to be made, but brands need to remember that the best way to deal with screwing up is to offer a genuine level of compensation, not something that literally rubs salt into the wounds.
Have they learnt nothing from their war with Virgin?