Cathay Pacific: "service makes all the difference"

In fairness to Qantas staff, they don't exactly have a happy work environment, with relations between senior management and people in the front line often fraught.

VA doesn't suffer the same problem, which no doubt helps keep a positive attitude. If I had to choose between Borgetti or Joyce as my leader, I'd know who'd I choose.

There's no specific academic studies I'm aware of that get to that depth in the airline business (although I imagine that internal studies with an airline have been done by various managements), but there are plenty of more generalised customer service studies that point to huge benefits of unexpected gestures (which are often no-cost/minimal-cost) to customer retention/loyalty.

You see this used by some airlines in interactions with their elite FFs, such as cabin crew giving elites sitting in Economy things such as wine from premium cabin menu, premium class headphones, etc.

But, by and by, this incredible customer service leveraging technique doesn't get used enough, or as appropriately as it should.

gippsflyer,

I'm talking more about the cabin crew's motivation and eagerness on field. Some people rightly point out that cabin crew may just go through the motions.

I want to identify the factors that make them tick and I want to help airlines understand how to emulate these factors. I doubt it comes down to pay, as much as the cabin crew unions would like you to believe.

I would imagine this to be a topical research area for organisational behaviour experts.

Hi TheRealBabushka,

You are right about pay not being a motivating factor, the research shows salary is more of a hygiene factor (that is, it is an aggravator if too low, but excessive amounts rarely motivate and can even trap unhappy people in jobs, such as noted in the Fly In-Fly Out mining industry).

If you are particularly interested in motivational factors for cabin crew (rather than efficiency factors), it'll reflect those shared in all other industries:

• Individual input is valued, and job design and procedure is a shared task (not just top down controlled);
• Recognition is based on performance and skill only; and
• Underperformance is addressed, with no sacred cows, and disruption to social cohesion of team is also given intervention priority.

Work can be fun and rewarding without sacrificing efficiency or quality (indeed, fun and rewarding often leads to outstanding efficiency and quality). This is especially so in the cabin crew world, which tends to attract fun loving, outgoing people. OB research is oft poorly implemented in the workplace sadly, because it's hard for entrenched powers to share some of their real decision making powers.

Thanks gippsflyer,

What a thoroughly insightful post! 

What are your thoughts of shareholder agitation to compel management to review their OB practices, in the face of entrenched powers?

Given the real benefit to a business' bottom line, should institutional shareholders be at the forefront of OB improvements, instead of allowing traditional power brokers (the unions) intervening and corrupting the debate and direction of change towards their self-serving ends?

The difficulty is that board composition and retention is generally controlled by institutional shareholders (who make up the bulk of the share register), and generally institutional shareholders don't rock the boat unless profits are diving, or there is gross incompetence.

Individual shareholders generally can only be mildly annoying at AGMs, at best, and usually are unable to influence corporate strategy. And ultimately, even with board pressure, groupings within organisations often resist reform if means they might have less control than they traditionally had.

It's an often cited problem, that anti-competitive practices get entrenched because "it is considered all too hard" to implement cultural change in the face of vested interest groups within organisations. There is often much benefit from being a new organisation, because you can get it right first time, rather than trying to reform existing organisational structures in a mature entity.

Unions, too, put their interests before than of any member or group of members. And it's easier to say (and prove) I got you a $2 an hour raise, than I've helped make your work environment more enjoyable.

I acutally like the rushed service..... and both legs were overnight (from SYD to HKG and back).... make time for sleep....

Also i flew EK from BKK to SYD, and dinner wasn't served untill 3 hours into the flight, and then breakky 2 hours before landing, unlike CX which is was like an hour after take off....

I didn't sleep at all on EK, but i had decent sleep on CX

Was thinking exactly the same thing . The absence of any reference to PE confirms that the cabin is a total afterthought by management  , it certainly feels that way on board .Certainly confirms what most of us think about CX PE  ... Basic !

CX has always been a two class system - those at the back and those at the front (premium cabins). It tends to focus its efforts on its Business, First, and Elite FFs.

It was a latecomer to PY, and it still considers it Y+ rather than J- like some other airlines do (again CX's historical regard for premium and non-premium pax was influential here). I think the only reason CX came to the PY party was that it became a demand-driven necessity, but they are still very wary of cannibalising Business class sales.

If you are considering a J fare on CX you will most certainly not be tempted by the PE/PY offering!  I'm still scratching my head as to why they imagine it warrants twice the price of Economy!

It's usually price conscious leisure travellers who can't bear to go basic Y, and businesses seeking to curb their travel budgets by putting mid and low level employees into a class that isn't a huge increase in full Y fares (and certainly cheaper than J fare).

Who ever pays full Y fare? There are plenty of options before you need to do that.

Large Businesses and Governments often do (well, minus their corporate discount, but then that corporate discount also applies to J fares too), so that bookings can change without penalty (and can be cancelled, if necessary). I frequently flew on full fare working, and occasionally do when travelling privately (if I need flexibility).

Oh, forgot to add, if CX had a more J- PY (which is priced much lower than standard J fare) they'd have leakage rates from J (which is the last thing they want). Qantas, for example, has suffered some J leakage to PY, because it's PY has a number of J style benefits (indeed, it is modelled on old J style seating, offers J style meals, has an intimate cabin feel with a cut above FAs).