| Note: There’s a bit more to this story, so see my updated reporting here. |
While I think many of us have low expectations when reaching out to airline customer service, this might just take the cake as the worst response I’ve ever seen…
SWISS blames issues on a plane it doesn’t fly
X/Twitter user @maxdiamondny was on a SWISS flight from New York (JFK) to Geneva (GVA) in mid-May that was canceled due to a technical fault. While most people don’t like to have their flight canceled, there was a silver lining — the cancelation qualified for EU261 compensation, entitling him to €600 in cash compensation.
So he submitted the request with the airline through the appropriate form, only to receive a denial. When he followed up, the SWISS representative doubled down, and wrote the following:
Thank you for your response. Please accept my apologizes for the delay in my response.
I regret my message of 04 June 2024 did not meet your expectations.
Your flight has been reviewed and as advised previously, your flight was cancelled due to a result of Rudder Servo Fault due to vulnerability of the 737 main rudder servo valve to causing uncommanded reversals was indeed a significant concern. I hope you can understand we have no control over such circumstances.
Therefore, I regret that you are not eligible for compensation in accordance with the regulation EU 261/2004.
Although I well understand your irritation in view of your experience, I hope you understand that I cannot grant a favourable to your request for the reasons explained.
I’m sorry, but what?!? There’s so much wrong with this that I don’t even know where to begin:
- The flight in question was operated by an A330, and not a 737; for that matter, SWISS doesn’t even have the 737 in its fleet
- In the 1990s, the 737 did have a rudder issue that caused fatal accidents, though that was fully corrected *checks notes* over two decades ago
- Even if this were caused by a technical issue with the aircraft, that absolutely would qualify for EU261 compensation
How do you even come up with such a lie?!?
The above response is so bad that it borders on being comical. The worst part is that this isn’t even the company’s first response to the customer, but rather it’s the second response, after he called them out for their first poor response.
I wish it were an isolated incident for an airline to try to deny paying out government mandated compensation. Unfortunately it’s not, and these kinds of lies are all too common. The only thing that’s surprising here is just how absurd the lie is, blaming it on an aircraft the airline doesn’t even fly, with a problem that existed 30 years ago and caused fatal accidents. What’s next — in a few years, will SWISS be blaming flight cancelations on 9/11?
Obviously it would be easiest for customer service agents to just, you know, provide customer service, and issue the compensation that the government mandates. So how do we get to the point where an A330 cancelation is blamed on a 737 rudder failure from decades ago?
- Does management just tell employees to make up literally any excuse they can come up with, no matter how nonsensical?
- Even worse, how can an agent claim they reviewed the file, and confirmed that this was indeed the correct reason?
- Are customer service employees paid a commission on how many claims they can deny?
Could any airline employee who has knowledge of these kinds of situations (anonymously) share how this happens? Are customer service agents just told to make up whatever excuse they’d like, or does the airline provide a list of made up reasons that they can copy and paste?
This is highly unethical at best, and illegal at worst. For the jurisdictions that have consumer protections and mandate compensation, it would be nice if there were an enforcement mechanism for ensuring airlines don’t try to violate laws.
Bottom line
While it’s common for airlines to try to make up excuses to deny compensation, blaming an A330 cancelation on a 737 rudder issue that happened in the 1990s must be a new low. Even worse is that this was the response after the customer questioned the initial email, but the agent confirmed that information was correct. There really needs to be more accountability for these kinds of situations.
What do you make of this SWISS denial?
Membership is free and takes no more information than commenting as a guest. Earn status points for good contributions, and see fewer ads as your status grows.