Startup Lessons, Courtesy of United Airlines’ Crappy Customer Service
blog.wepay.com
blog.wepay.com
Then don't. Ever. Here's why:
It's standard knowledge that your second leg will be canceled if you miss your first leg. It's been that way for 30 years.
You have just demonstrated your inability to deal with a standard curve ball. No big deal. As individuals, we all run into that from time to time.
You also complained about customer service (in the airline industry, no less). That's like complaining about the weather. I suppose you deserve a pass on that, too.
But your mistake was using your company blog, unintentionally transferring your ineptness to your company. Big mistake. Now people might think, "If he can't navigate a weekend trip, can't handle his vendors, and then complains about it publicly, why should I trust him with my money."
Please do yourself a big favor and delete this blog post before too many of your potential customers see it. Don't make a bad experience worse by threatening your business. With all the hard work already invested, it deserves better.
Guess what industry is even more regulated, rule-bound, complex than the airline industry? Banking and payments. A startup already has a high hurdles related to people being conservative with their money; being an iconoclast isn't exactly what people want when it comes to a finance manager.
this blog is completely justified, and it shows that wepay stands behind its commitment of customer service. you know they won't screw up customer service because 1) they blogged expressing dissatisfaction against bad customer service, 2) people will start calling them "UnitedPay.com" as soon as their customer service slips.
I've flown on some airlines where they send mail encouraging online checkin which also includes "miss your flight" information. And, I've flown others where if you miss you flight, they call or email or SMS you and try to work with you on rebooking to a later flight (either standby for free or a small fee, or rebooking for $50-150), plus any difference in fare. This would still support price discrimination and market segmentation.
The vast majority of people who miss their outbound leg are still wanting travel on the outbound leg at a later time, not to burn the outbound leg and take the return leg. That is the failure mode to try to optimize, not the return leg.
that's an aside. the point is: they told him to check-in. their system is flawed. they took the time to hire someone to program the ability to cancel the whole flight, but they ignored the part where they tell him to check-in. to make things worse, they treated him terribly when he tried to and didn't realize his "mistake."
Terms of Carriage/Fare Rules are actually quite important. I absolutely do check things like change fees, reroutability, fare class, etc. when I buy a ticket, and will often pay the 5% premium to get a more changeable ticket.
This is much more like reading the tech specs for a new laptop (does it have a linux-supported wifi chipset? discrete graphics?) than a EULA.
A useful fact you may not know: most "legacy" carriers will interline you onto another airline if they can't accommodate your scheduled travel -- for instance, if they cancel a flight, they will put you on another airline's flight if it will get your there faster. This is a VERY BIG DEAL internationally, where they don't always even have daily flights -- if a flight is canceled, it could be 2-3 days before the next flight with the same airline to your destination. Low cost carriers (e.g. Southwest) won't.
It also shows that wepay (through this blog rant) is not saavy in some pretty standard ways of the world. Which is a real big fucking concern for anyone who's thinking about trusting them with their money.
OP says it himself with his very first "lesson", "Don’t optimize for the edge-case." Then he violates his own first lesson.
By complaining about customer service, he just got a small set of sympathetic people to passionately agree. And accidently got a huge set of potential customers to go away.
OP had a difficult experience. He got bitten by a software bug and horrible customer service. We've all been there. We understand.
My point is not that I don't sympathize with him. My point is that he's using his corporate blog to make a small point, potentially costing him huge unanticipated problems on the other side of this. He may pick up a few raving customer service fans, but how many people will think twice before trusting their money to someone either too green or too lazy to understand a standard airline contract?
OP may win this battle, but lose the war. I imagine he, his co-founders, and his business partners have worked way too hard to risk so much for so little.
i can't remember the last time i've actually read a company blog. i don't read them because they're boring. they usually have nothing worth reading, and i don't consider myself attracted to sensationalist material either.
the fact that it's a trivial mistake in the eyes of experienced travelers can probably go dismissed here because wepay primarily caters to college students and roommates.
Now.
This is a great idea that, if executed properly, can be so much more. I guess that's why I was so concerned with what I saw as negative corporate blog energy.
Whining about vendors, especially when you are partially or technically somewhat at fault, is something you do on "friends-only" posts, personal facebook, etc.
Really? This is the first time I've ever heard this.
> But your mistake was using your company blog, unintentionally transferring your ineptness to your company
I think it makes WePay seem human. Furthermore, whether or not it's true, this blog post makes me feel like WePay is saying 'we value our customers; we will never treat you like UAL does, and we will try to act as much like Zappos or Virgin as possible.'
Human yes, but also young and inexperienced. The cool kid who hasn't been around the block yet.
Really. It also ties in to why the airlines want you to show proof of who you are.
Back before they did both of these it was common for people to buy round trips and sell the legs individually for well below what the airline was willing to sell them for.
Why, you ask? The fundamental problem is that airline pricing is insanely complicated. The principle is simple, put a plane in the air, fill it with passengers, try to make a profit. The problem is that there are huge fixed costs to having the flight (time on airplane, fuel, employees, airport fees) and much lower variable costs (incremental cost of baggage, incremental fuel). Only a small fraction of people are willing to pay their share of the true cost of the flight. Some of those are willing to pay much more. Most are willing to pay less than their share of the total costs (not worth having the flight for them) but more than the marginal cost (worth letting them on the flight).
The result is that airline pricing becomes all about pushing people who are able to pay more into actually paying more, while allowing people who are not willing to pay more to get on cheaply. For instance if someone does a round trip and has a layover that includes a weekend, that's probably not a business trip and so they can pay less. Someone who flies somewhere then flies back the next day is probably on a business trip and can be charged more.
One way trips are generally bought by someone who is going A to B to C ... because those are business stops. People flying on business are generally willing to charge more, so airlines happily charge them more.
Likewise, this left me feeling somewhat positive about WePay. It was a rant about the ways they want to always help you, and how your problems are more important to them than "policy".
I thought that was standard as well, but I fly usually fly United or other big carriers.
I flew JetBlue recently, and did something just like what this guy did. I called up expecting to have to rebook, but they said that wasn't necessary, and even refunded the money for the first leg.
I can see how someone used to Virgin, JetBlue, et al. could make this mistake.
I guess I don't fly enough, because I had no idea. I haven't tried to game their pricing model, either, for that matter.
That said, he and several others here have convinced me to avoid United if at all possible.
I had it happen to me where I booked an itinerary going from NYC -> London -> Berlin, but then I had to be in London a week earlier. It was cheaper for me to buy a new one way ticket from a different airline, but then I showed up for my London -> Berlin flight and they said it was canceled since I didn't do NYC -> London. I said, "Umm, okay, I don't mind forfeiting that, but I already paid. Can you let me go London to Berlin? I don't have any other arrangements here."
They overrode the cancel and let me in. I think this is an easy error to make, because most people don't ever travel in a way where they'd miss their first leg and take the second. I know it took me by surprise. Agree about not ranting on a company blog though, it doesn't give people the warm fuzzy feeling about doing business with you.
I think he should leave this in his blog since it's very helpful information for prospective vendors and customers. They should know that he doesn't read contracts when he makes a purchase and simply assumes that the contract favors him. When the vendor does not honor the contract he imagined, he'll create a scene at the vendor's business demanding that their customer service agents honor the imaginary contract. When they don't do so he'll publish a screed in his company blog saying that it's all the vendors fault and their customer service reps are just so rude.
I'd say this is valuable information for anyone who's thinking of doing business with this guy.
You should try Southwest. I started flying with them because of their rates. Now I'll stay with them forever because of their customer service.
Airline pricing is incredibly complex because...it is a complex product. It's a perishable product, and they are trying to price discriminate multiple classes of people, dealing with competitors, etc. It is very common to have the case he considers rare (XXX-YYY-XXX costing >2x what YYY-XXX-YYY costs -- especially international, where different currencies, taxes, etc. apply). XXX-YYY often costs 4-8x the cost of XXX-YYY-XXX or YYY-XXX-YYY r/t, too.
There are certain routes which are run as "air shuttles" -- you can buy a ticket, and then walk on and get on any available flight. SIN-KUL, IAD-NYC, etc. Some airlines have very simple routing and fares (Southwest, for instance) and can more easily be used for flexible travel. First Class or Full Fare Coach tickets are also used by businesses or other travelers who demand extreme flexibility -- the $170 r/t SFO-LAX-SFO was a discounted coach fare where price discrimination in terms of restrictive terms applies.
Additionally, airlines are highly regulated, some by international treaty (read the back of a ticket jacket sometime).
As for "not screwing a major customer over", a frequent flyer would be 1K or GS and worth $50k+/yr to the airline, and would probably have been able to easily get his ticket changed. Yes, price discrimination and market segmentation sucks when you lose the game, but it maximizes revenue for the carrier.
Btw, the "hacker news" of "airline hacking" is flyertalk.com. There are people who craft amazing itineraries and maximize frequent flyer points in ways which seem absurd (scheduling 4 r/t back to back flights across the US to Hawaii just to get miles, or flying SFO - Taipei - LAX for the cost of SFO-LAX to get huge extra miles).
Thats no excuse.
I think the low hanging fruit in the airline industry is to hire staff from outside the airline industry in all customer-facing roles (cabin crew, gate staff), which is what Virgin America has done (they largely recruited from hotels vs. other airlines. Hotel/hospitality staff are generally fairly awesome at customer service, even when enforcing rules). That is going to be way more appreciated by customers than doing a billion dollar ticketing overhaul.
United is definitely aware of how to sell tickets which are fully changeable and rerouteable. They also know how to run shuttle service. They just choose not to do so for the cheapest coach ticket price.
I do agree they should have been better at customer relations, even while enforcing the same policy (although if it turns into "please leave or we will call security", there are probably two parties behaving suboptimally). In their defense it's a heavy travel period, and if I were waiting behind him in line, I would have been pissed as well if they had devoted huge amounts of time to explaining their ticketing procedures in depth to him and trying to console him.
I just meant that saying "my online system sucks and you shouldn't care (or should be complacent) because its just a hack on top of some legacy system" isn't an excuse you should accept.
Just because you do not feel its worthwhile to replace the underlying system (and I'm not arguing over whether it is or isn't), doesn't make it alright that the end result is bad and certainly does not mean people should accept that reason as an excuse.
Somebody made a judgement call and decided that X was more cost effective than Y. Somebody else is inconvenienced by this decision and complains about it. Saying that the complaint is invalid because X is a dirty hack is not, IMHO, a valid excuse. Saying (as you have) that it was decided that X was more cost effective than Y and that is why X was chosen is a valid excuse.
The only reason I'mpushing the point is because I hear those kinds of excuses all the time, applied to all sorts of things.
I think the system specifically told him that his flight was okay; he got the advance check in. To me, that's more of a flat out lie than a bad job of explaining the situation. I guess what I'm trying to say is, the sentence I quoted should say "do a job at explaining", not a "better" job.
They are a mess and they are outright hostile to their customers much of the time. I realize that travelers get stressed out and yell a lot and it can be frustrating, but laughing at a customer should never be acceptable.
As the article points out, there are structural problems with their pricing, their policies (and how they communicate them), and most importantly their customer service culture (or lack thereof).
Here's what they should do. You miss your first leg, they send you an email/text/call saying, "Hey you missed your first leg. As you know our policy is that you must fly all legs. To fly the second leg, please pay $XYZ".
And $XYZ is maximum arbitrage opportunity that existed for the flight (you can also be more generous and just do it for the time the flight was booked). If there was no arbitrage opportunity there is no cost, but then the query is just to see if you're coming to the next leg, otherwise they can use the seat.
This would solve the issue the airlines have with people gaming their game. And solves the issue that less regular flyers have with getting caught off guard. And I bet a good amount of the time $XYZ is $0 or very low.
I watched a dozen people in a row vow to never fly United again in the span of 20 minutes. Amazing that they can survive except in a landscape where every other airline is just as bad.
In our case, we'd actually booked our flight through a different airline with a sane baggage policy clearly stated on their website, and took extra steps to make sure we fell within the free allowance. Only on arriving at the airport did we discover that we were "code sharing" with United and thus subject to their extra fees.
One day somebody will take Southwest & Virgin's attitude towards customer service and apply it to a major airline. And they'll dominate.
QR, EY, EK are actually VERY price competitive on their routes. They're mainly transit airlines, but to fly from e.g. random US to Australia, it's probably cheaper to go via the middle east on one of those carriers vs. over the Pacific. There are a lot of political concerns in places like Canada that the middle eastern airlines are dropping prices so low on profitable long-haul routes that the national flag carriers can't compete.
As to why they are better, it's probably that they focus on the inherently profitable long haul high capacity high frequency market, have little or no "legacy" costs (US carriers paying pensions and healthcare for retirees), supportive governments (for things like expanding their hub/transit airports to accommodate more flights). Allegedly they are not massively subsidized by the foreign governments.
When I buy a plane ticket, I have a specific route I need to fly on a particular date. I want the flight with the fewest stops. The price difference is often hundreds of dollars. I've had good experiences with Virgin and JetBlue, but I often wind up flying United or Delta anyway, even though I hate them.
In that circumstance, it's rational for large carriers with monopolies on important routes to cut costs on customer service.
I always wondered why frequent flyers don't claim about all the stuff normal travelers face. It turns out they are exempt from the horrid experience.
People who the airlines care about - and will move heaven and earth for - are their top-tier frequent flyers, guys who fly 100K+ miles per year. If someone picks up that many flights, it means they do most of their flights for business (very few people fly for pleasure that far), which means they're buying much higher-priced tickets than people who are traveling for pleasure, and are the ones whose presence makes a flight turn a profit.
An example: if you're Super-Elite on Air Canada (95 flights or 100K miles per year) you have guaranteed flight availability up to six hours before departure. What does that mean? If you want to fly on a flight that's fully sold out - any flight - and call AC more than six hours before take-off, they will kick someone (or two people, as you can bring your companion too) off the plane so that you can get on. You will also get different call-center numbers, access to more rewards flights, more upgrade certificates than you can possibly use, and free upgrades when you choose not to use a certificate.
Legacy carriers, for the most part, do treat their frequent/loyal customers quite well. It's just that when you have that many routes and that many flights "frequent" is a lot more than most people who aren't business travelers think it is.
When I miss a flight I stand in line waiting for someone to help me.
Every single time, I'm shocked at how rude the people ahead of me in line are. They've missed their flights, and they're being rude to the United rep.
I'm really not surprised when I read stories of horrific customer services any more. I know how rude people are, and they often deserve how unaccommodating customer services may be.
Be nice. Or even, just don't be rude, and you'll get good customer service and they'll do all sorts of awesome stuff for you.
A lot of these companies, if they were a person and not an entity, would probably be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder.
They spend a lot of money on loyalty programs, but I think the best way to engender loyalty is to actually treat people like human beings.
Companies like JetBlue, Virgin, and Southwest are equally conniving, but they certainly work a LOT harder to hide it. And for that reason, I'll always take a flight from one of them, even if it's a little bit pricier. I know there will be less surprises and things that piss me off. I feel like they're actually working to try to earn my business.
After mulling it over, my second thought was that air travel is a BIG DEAL to most people -- it's stressful and expensive, and the rules are opaque. I agree that United could have made this MUCH better by sending the OP a notice within, say, 12 hours of missing his first flight explaining the situation and his future options.
Straying from the customer experience, on a systems side, airline yield management is a TERRIFIC problem to think about. By forbidding passengers from skipping flights in an itinerary, you effectively remove the restriction that the total itinerary price must be the sum of the legs that it comprises. This opens up all kinds of new possibilities to use economics to balance load across the system.
Money line from the article.
First, I'm very surprised that you were not aware of the policy that if you don't take the first part of an itinerary, you won't be able to catch up half-way. I guess it's something everyone learns very quickly.
Second, your proposal that United should fix their prices is disingenuous. They would if it didn't mean bankruptcy for them. The reason they do that is that most of their income comes from business travelers who can expense expensive tickets in economy class. The way to detect a business traveler versus a tourist is whether they spend the Saturday at their destination. The business traveler flys on a Tuesday and return the next day or so, never stays over. So they get charged 3X more.
If United just "fixed" their prices, it would be a complete collapse. A handful of airlines have chosen the "per-segment" price approach (Southwest, JetBlue, Virgin).
So recognize the cool hack for what it is: Saturday night stay equals deep discount.
Why are you surprised at this? The airline itself specifically told him he could do this: he got the early-check-in email saying his flight was okay. It seems reasonable for him to believe that his flight was okay.
If you want even worse, try Ryanair. They actually pride themselves on treating their customers like cattle, dumb-ass sheep to be fleeced at every opportunity.
http://www.ryanair.com/en/news/ryanair-half-year-profits-ris...
Looks like they've found a formula that works for them.
Ryanair are rude and uncaring, but damn, they made flights cheap amd available.
However, the flight experience is OK - comparable with your usual charter flight carriers and the value for money is exceptional.
Their booking process is held up as a textbook 'how not to do usability' case study. The amount of money they can potentially milk from you in the "services" section of the booking process (stuff listed by default as €0.00 like the SMS booking confirmation) is almost funny.
1) Is he OK?
2) Does he still want to use the second leg of the flight (and maybe check in now)? With the default being that he will want to use it?
With a simple bit of communication, that could have been completely automated, they managed to annoy a paying customer.
So if they let him keep his return flight, they wouldn't really be preventing anyone from doing that.
They should have sent him an email letting him know the return flight had been canceled, so he had more advanced warning. End of story.
Many airlines have complicated pricing models that attempt to capture market demand.
For example, I just looked up flights from Portland, ME to Los Angeles, departing on Jan 19 and returning Jan 26. If you take US and connect through Philadelphia, the cheapest price is $309. If you were to fly from Philadelphia to Los Angeles non-stop on that same day, it's $399 - 30% more expensive! If US were to allow you to skip the first and last part of the Portland-Los Angeles trip and get on and off at Philadelphia, they would receive substantially less revenue.
The asymmetric information barrier that airlines have setup is going to disappear soon. There are plenty of site working on breaking it down.
In the case of the author of the post, he now has a preference for an airline. I bet he would now pay extra for a flight on Virgin. When is the last time someone became a fan of United AA or Delta?
Pricing is not based on how much it costs the airline to get you to your destination (i.e. distance and fuel). Airlines long ago figured out how to extract the most money for various flights based on where they fit in the big picture of WHY someone is traveling.
This is why a round trip that includes a Saturday stay over is usually cheaper than a round trip leaving on Monday and returning Wednesday. Airlines know the second traveling is most likely a business person and willing to pay more.
I was recently planning two trips. I needed to go to Las Vegas on one trip and to Atlanta on another (both from Virginia). On the same day, the Las Vegas trip was twice as expensive as the round trip to Atlanta and back, EVEN THOUGH, the Las Vegas flight had a layover in Atlanta. Could I have just booked a flight to Las Vegas when I wanted to go to Atlanta and just not gotten on my second flight? I could, but then the airline would cancel my return trip. They would say its because they assume I never made it to my final destination and didn't need my return flights, but really, it is because they want to prevent this sort of thing.
Airline prices are not logical (to us). They are based on extracting the most amount of money from a schedule.
(of course, this doesn't excuse crappy treatment, but, just so we're all clear...)
Secondly I think there can't be a more appropriate place to criticize a business than on a business blog. I've had interactions with businesses in high throughput high stress situations that have been great and ones that have been terrible. If your business strives to give good customer service it's valuable to demonstrate your awareness of bad practices and make a public commitment to do better.
"I ended up skipping my the flight from SFO to LAX because a friend of mine was driving down the night before; I figured I would keep him company on the drive, and I would get to spend an extra night in LA."
In my experience, that basically canceled his set of flights ,and he was no longer a customer. That's been my experience for at least 10 years of flying.
I didn't read the rest of the article, but I presume he discovered, the hard way, on a thanksgiving weekend - that he had no ticket whatsoever and was SOL.
That's really nothing to do with United, and to call it Customer Service, when you aren't actually a customer, is stretching it.
Now - My story of Taking a Greyhound Bus from Reno (Amtrak was sold out), (I had a ticket for the 9:50 AM, but they oversold it, and I didn't get on until 12:45 - after arriving at the Greyhound station at 9:00 AM in the morning) could have been negative, but, I'm traveling freaking thanksgiving weekend! I figure it's even odd's I don't even make it back home Sunday, so anything better than that is an Epic Victory. :-)
Other prohibited things include: buying a one-stop "A->B->C" ticket and then getting off in B, because you really wanted to go A->B, but it was priced higher; and buying two opposite-direction interlocking round trips, in order to make two short trips appear to be two overlapping longer trips (thus avoiding the "short trip" fare penalties).
Basically airlines are trying to run a purposely inefficient market, and as always happens in such markets, market participants attempt arbitrage strategies, and here the airlines are attempting in turn to prohibit the arbitrage strategies.
Burning the return leg of a roundtrip is usually also totally penalty free.
Getting off at a stopover is much more borderline, and it's almost impossible to get your luggage checked only to the stopover destination.
A story I have is years ago at Continental. I came to the desk to check my suitcase. It was over some weight and so the lady said I had to pay, I believe $75. I had some swag in the bag that I could throwaway that would bring me under. Of course she makes me leave the line to throw it away, although there was a trash can not 15 feet away.
I get back in line, get to the desk and its her again. She weighs my bag... it's under the weight limit. Great! Wait, she still wants $75?! Huh? Apparently I just threw the items away, but the bag was originally weighed more than the limit and her claim was their policy was not to allow reweighings. And certain I've seen people do it before and I ask to see the policy. She says I have to contact customer service, but probably won't make my flight if I do -- and she's probably right on that point.
I'm pretty irate at this point, and ask to see the supervisor and she says she is. She says if I have a problem to take it up with the corporate office, or get out of line. I pay the $75, get on the plane, write a letter to Continental and never hear from them again.
To this day, I refuse to fly Continental.
A one way ticket nearly always costs more than half the amount of a round trip ticket. So to prevent people from using one half of a round trip, they cancel your entire ticket.
Even better: when Delta had a huge hub here in Cincinnati, they owned something like 80 - 90% of the flights at the airport. They jacked the prices up to the point this was the most expensive destination in the country. However flights out of the Dayton airport 50 miles away were $100s cheaper - including on Delta. And the Delta flight would connect in Cincinnati! When I asked what would happen if I just flew out of Cincinnati and ignored the Dayton - Cincy leg, I was told they would cancel the entire ticket. Same thinking as the first example.
A study at one point showed something like 1,500+ people a day were flying out of Dayton rather than Cincinnati because of the cost difference. While the lost jobs hurt when Delta merged with Northwest and pretty much moved their hub away, I was happy to see them go.
If they did not refund his money, he was still a customer - a customer who was denied his product, certainly, but a customer nonetheless.
If you buy my product, and I don't deliver it to you for reason X, that doesn't mean you're not my customer. It just means I suck at delivering my product.
Better would be: If you rented me an apartment and I didn't move in right away. It would be unfair for me to demand a refund for the time I didn't move in, but it would also be unfair for you to rent the apartment to someone else if I already paid you for it.
For the first shipment he basically said to throw in the trash, now you as a business could throw it in the trash, or resell it since it's going to waste.
The customer was there for the second shipment yet you were not there to deliver.
Also, in regard to me not being a "customer" (and that justifying their attitude): how do you define "customer"? If I don't have an active ticket with them, am I no longer a United customer? What if I bought one in the past, and have every intention of buying another on in the future?
So, you wouldn't say "they lost a customer"?
So he should have learned from your experience?
Perhaps it's because you stopped reading that you missed the point of the post, which is how crappily the United employees treated him on a human level, how much better the Virgin people were, and the implications of this for running a business.
That's not how it works. If you pay for something you do not receive, it doesn't cease making you a customer. Now, maybe for the past 10 years you've been paying for things you don't get. In that case, I hate to tell you buddy, but you've been scammed.
I think a great deal of the success of ycombinator type companies, consists of people who have not yet accepted (or refuse to accept) that poor customer experience should be the norm. Mint arose from a team that realized they could do better than Intuit. Google came about _even when it was clear to everyone_ that search was a solved problem, with little reason for new entrants - except for the fact that search results were crappy.
The Meta-Meta lesson here is that one way of deciding what to do for a new business, is look for through your daily experience of disappointments, and poor customer service, and ask yourself "How could I make the pain go away and get paid to do so."
So, Okay - I get it. Rich Aberman, is not the type of person to accept, as granted, a poor customer experience. I am. But, then again - one of us founded WePay, the other is an Enterprise Network Manager.
If you get a package deal though - it's a package.
But nobody wants to pay full-fare - they want to pay about a quarter of that. Sure, we may all be saying "Well that's just how it is"... but you know what? That's just how it is.
He bought the tickets, so how does not using them make him no longer a customer? If they gave him a refund (ha!), then yes... otherwise, no.
Also, people would start the ticket from a low-cost city hub so they can take advantage of the cheap return fare.
Pricing probably doesn't work that way anymore, but the policy still exists. Any seasoned traveler should already have experience with this. To avoid the problem, you can call the airlines BEFORE you miss your outbound flight and they will provide options for you if you are nice.
I'm guessing the moment he booked his flight, a script somewhere inserted two rows into a database, and a daily cron slurped up each one to send the automated emails. So few people miss the first legs these days that they haven't bothered to make the "cancel entire itinerary" cron stop the return leg email from sending.
I still think that complaining to customer service might get him a flight voucher if he plays his cards properly.
A bunch of US airlines are just as bad. That tag line of "we know you have lots of choices, and we're pleased you chose us" shouldn't be empty words, it should govern the experience from end-to-end.
I wonder if airlines have ever put seriously delayed passengers up in a first class or other special lounge, to distract them from potential stewing.
But it really is a problem that the thing we buy from airlines is called a "ticket". This noun conjures up what you purchase for a bus or a train, a right to a seat on a segment, an anonymous token which should be transferable to somebody else. That is not what you get from an airline these days. You enter instead into a complicated agreement that only applies to you.
So I think it is fair to expect the inexperienced to be confused by this terminology.
fake stat is fake.
We get it, flying is frustrating. Sometimes you have to wait four hours in an airport. Sometimes, the airlines don't treat you like the important person you are convinced you are. Write your rant, and delete it. Just don't publish it under the color of "advice", it makes you look like a whiney little kid.
With one, he was surprised by an unfortunate, not-well-known policy and OFFERED NO HELP, versus the other where they went above and beyond what he expected from them (sell him a ticket to get home).
I think this is a great example of how some companies "get it" and are going to keep and grow their customers, while other companies don't "get it" and it will lead to their demise.
We're so used to being treated like crap that we take it for granted and accept it.
If you have six widget, and you sell seven, you have to give the 7th a refund, otherwise it's fraud.
When an airline has six seats and sells 8, the extra two buyers get the shaft, and that's ok?
So it's not really fraud. They don't just strand you at the airport.
Notice that a search for "Virgin" on this page yields zero results.
Being the David and being the Goliath involve completely different strategies.
*edit: HN trims the apostrophe from "World's". Manually add it if you want to visit the page.
and thanks for putting in the effort to comment, but not search for the page that DOES exist.