SAA customer care not a pretty picture

22 October 2011 - 21:34 By The Power Report
Megan Power
subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now
Megan Power
Megan Power
Image: Sunday Times

No matter how obvious or simple something appears, never assume it's cut and dried. It seldom is.

Take Centurion reader Andre van Vuuren's gripe with South African Airways.

It couldn't have been more straightforward: his wife Rietjie's digital camera was stolen in August en route from Johannesburg to Cape Town after she'd been assured by an SAA official - who removed her hand luggage from her as she boarded because the plane was too full - that her valuables would be safe and returned to her on the tarmac at her destination.

Instead, on arrival, the unlocked carry-on bag was thrown onto the carousel with the rest of the checked-in baggage and the 48-year-old stock controller was told to collect it from there.

When she did, it was minus her treasured R3000 Olympus camera. Despite her immediately lodging a claim at the airport, it took SAA more than a month to tell the Van Vuurens their claim had been rejected. It said the items listed on the claim form - the camera, its R459 memory card, and a compensatory return trip to Cape Town to take the photographs she lost out on - were not covered.

SAA offered R864.99 "as a gesture" and requested banking details to make payment.

Van Vuuren, quite rightly, rejected the offer.

"The loss is in excess of R3000 caused by your staff who persuaded my wife to hand in her hand luggage ... saying it would be safe and returned to her at the bottom of the airplane stairs at her destination. Both statements were incorrect. This is out and out SAA's fault," the 61-year-old business consultant wrote in reply to SAA.

"If you do not reimburse the loss in full, I will have no alternative but to take this matter further ... this will re-enforce the perception that you do not care about your passengers," he wrote.

The next day he e-mailed me and I forwarded the complaint to SAA spokesman Dilisent Koetle, but got no response.

A few days later, a baggage claims "team leader" e-mailed Van Vuuren to say his claim had been reviewed, but "regrettably there will be no further settlement due".

An airline needed to operate according to "sound business principles and policies", Van Vuuren was told.

Van Vuuren responded, again pointing out SAA's failures and demanding compensation. At the same time, I asked Koetle when I could expect her response. Turns out she hadn't been aware of my request and asked me to resend.

Two days later, Koetle finally shed some light on the case.

"The customer should have been asked to remove all valuables from hand luggage and place them in a clear plastic bag before leaving the hand luggage at the bottom of the aircraft stairs ... SAA has concluded to reimburse our customer."

And that was it. No explanation as to why the staffer hadn't followed procedure or why the bag wasn't returned at the stairs. No mention of why the claim had been rejected or whether other passengers had suffered theft on the same flight. All these questions had been asked. All went unanswered.

So I asked again. Two days later, I was sent the airline's Conditions of Carriage and an e-mail which described Van Vuuren's experience as an "isolated incident where internal operational procedures were not fully adhered to".

Again, Koetle failed to answer my questions. So I repeated them, and third time around I got lucky. According to Koetle, bags taken at the aircraft door are delivered at the baggage belt at the arriving station and never at the bottom of the aircraft stairs. Handing luggage back at the stairs at destination has never been an SAA service.

That the staff member did not offer plastic bags in which to place valuables is "clear transgression of our procedures", Koetle said. Disciplinary action was being taken against the staff member.

She said one other claim, for a damaged bag, on the same flight had been received and it would be fixed. And why hadn't SAA automatically reimbursed Rietjie van Vuuren? She was told the turnaround came after they established that the claim didn't relate to checked-in luggage. Funny that, because the distinction was clearly made in the claim.

When I queried the change of heart, I was told that after a "thorough" investigation, "it was only fair that we favourably reconsider our decision".

So SAA took a month to reject the claim, only to review it when Van Vuuren protested, and then reject it again. Seems the fear of negative publicity prompted SAA to eventually honour the claim. Well, part of it. The claim for the return flight was simply ignored. I questioned this and was also ignored. As were my follow-up questions on baggage rules.

Said Van Vuuren: "SAA, instead of graciously and expeditiously settling, stretched the process out through stonewalling and terrible communication, fighting every step of the way."

The couple's experience is a far cry from the advert on flysaa.com, which reads "Think special, feel special. Fly South African Airways."

  • Good news for consumers: the National Consumer Commission website is up and running: visit nccsa.org.za

Sunday smile

At Rosemary Mofokeng, manager of Jenni Button at Clearwater Mall, Johannesburg, for organising a birthday gift for a customer on behalf of a reader based in Durban. Mofokeng used her own money to pay upfront, accepting an EFT later. And she threw in free wine, strawberries and chocolate!

Sunday snarl

At fraudsters with fake names like "Mr Davis" or "Joe Soap" (take your pick) who promise cell users thousands in winnings via fictitious SMS competitions - like "Nokia yearly promotion" - then con "winners" into paying them! Never respond to such messages. Ever.

subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now