In Reply to: Mini JBR sort of. posted by Melanie on Thursday, 23. October 2008 at 16:11 Bali Time:
I guess this just proves the theory that cheapest isn't always cheapest. The so-called budget airlines capture sales through red-hot prices but then recover far more margin through user-pays for eveything, and, letter-of-the-law policies on issues such as weight allowance.
In reality rules are rules and while Melanie's problem was amplified because it involved an infant. More weight means more power requirement which, of course, means more fuel consumption to deliver the power.
Unfortunately, though, the poor traveller is slugged - 20% for the extra fuel and 80% for the profit opportunity to the airline! It's rather galling when you remember that as oil hit $140+ per barrel we were slugged a fuel levy as the airline cried poor (even more galling when you consider the airlines had already hedged their fuel prices a year back!)
And now, with oil at less than half price that price there is no talk of the levy being dropped. No surprises there. Sadly.
The airline spin doctors would argue that our falling dollar has negated the drop in oil pricing...but even blind Freddy can see through that tissue-thin argument. This is called making hay while the sun shines - pure and simple.
But, I digress: back to Melanie's issue. It has to be acknowledged that airline policy on weight allowance is well documented - regardless of which brand you fly with. As a customer, our responsibility in the deal is to ensure we are compliant with the terms and conditions of passage - we can't simply expect a better deal just because we are catering for an infant. After all, who's to say the needs of a parent with infant are any more important than someone without.
Melanie knew she was going to be over allowance before she got to the check-out counter - in fact it would appear she may have been up to 15KG overweight - which is almost 50% of her original allowance.
In reality she either needed to review her luggage checklist, fly Business with Garuda, or be prepared to pay a fee.
But I get a sense that the fee is not what Melanie is aggravated about here. It's the way things unfolded that have offended her - and rightly so.
Regardless of whether payment was due or not, Jetstar could have - should have - handled her situation much more professionally and diplomatically. That it didn't is a sleight on its customer service policies and training.
In many regards I think supermarket check-out operators are better trained and supported by their management. That's not meant as a criticism of airline check-in staff - far from it because they can only work within the system given to them. The same can't be said of the executive line, I suspect. Melanie's issues could have been handled so much better.