Rubbish "Customer Relations" response
May 5, 2008 | 12:54 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: YYG
Programs: Air Canada SE
Posts: 132
Rubbish "Customer Relations" response
I've read a number of threads here lately about Customer Relations - I just wanted to get an opinion on this one. I happened to receive a customer comment card on check-in last summer on a flight that turned bad. I submitted my comments to Customer Relations, and they told me that some of the events on that flight did not actually happen.
Here is the actual thread:
Discussion Thread
---------------------------------------------------------------
Response (Anke du Preez) - 08/15/2007 05:26 PM
Dear Mr. xxxxxxxxxxx,
Thank you for your email. We appreciate the time you have taken to write to us and are pleased to address your concerns. On behalf of Air Canada, I offer my sincere apologies for the lack of information from the flight deck regards the mechanical issue.
I have checked with our Maintenance department and according to them, when the flight arrived in Toronto it had to have the ECU replaced which is a common occurrence. This issue would not cause flames to come out of the engines, and there is no record or evidence of this happening.
Thank you for choosing Air Canada. We look forward to welcoming you on board in the near future.
Sincerely,
Anke du Preez
Customer Relations
Customer (xxxxxxxxxxxx) - 07/24/2007 08:07 PM
I received a comment card on check-in, which requested feedback on my travel.
The check-in process was fine, as was the service in the Maple Leaf lounge in LAX. However, about three hours into the flight, there was a strange noise from the starboard engine. The engine was immediately throttled back. There was some commotion at the rear of the cabin, and two flight attendants met beside my seat, where one told the other that the passenger "saw flames shooting from the engine and is in a panic". This caused some considerable tension, however no cabin annoucement was made until we were on final, when the captain announced that there was an issue with the engine and that we would be met by emergency vehicles in Toronto.
I felt that we passengers should have been informed sooner than later, as there was obviously a problem for a couple of hours before landing. It was stressful to know that there was a problem and not have any information from the flight crew.
Upon discussion of this experience with my coworkers on the day after the flight, I discovered that one of my colleagues had a similar experience just a couple of months ago. Being a private pilot, I would like to know what the problem was with the engine on this flight, and what Air Canada's record is with these failures. I've flown hundreds of flights with Air Canada, but I was disappointed to see how communication was lacking in this situation.
I look forward to hearing from you.
-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Now, it was obvious to everyone onboard that something was not right when the engine suddenly started making a loud grinding noise and a passenger at the back started screeching.
What really got me worked up was that the CSR told me that "This issue would not cause flames to come out of the engines, and there is no record or evidence of this happening", when I had just provided him a record that a passenger reported it to the FAs, and the FAs verbally acknowledged it in-flight. I didn't see the flames, but someone at the back sure as hell reported seeing them. I didn't want evidence, as I already had plenty! I wanted answers on what actually went wrong, and how often this might happen.
I responded to this unacceptable message from Customer Service and let them know that this was not a satisfactory response, but never heard another thing.
Has anyone else had a CSR tell them that "that didn't happen" after they personally experienced an in-flight incident?
Here is the actual thread:
Discussion Thread
---------------------------------------------------------------
Response (Anke du Preez) - 08/15/2007 05:26 PM
Dear Mr. xxxxxxxxxxx,
Thank you for your email. We appreciate the time you have taken to write to us and are pleased to address your concerns. On behalf of Air Canada, I offer my sincere apologies for the lack of information from the flight deck regards the mechanical issue.
I have checked with our Maintenance department and according to them, when the flight arrived in Toronto it had to have the ECU replaced which is a common occurrence. This issue would not cause flames to come out of the engines, and there is no record or evidence of this happening.
Thank you for choosing Air Canada. We look forward to welcoming you on board in the near future.
Sincerely,
Anke du Preez
Customer Relations
Customer (xxxxxxxxxxxx) - 07/24/2007 08:07 PM
I received a comment card on check-in, which requested feedback on my travel.
The check-in process was fine, as was the service in the Maple Leaf lounge in LAX. However, about three hours into the flight, there was a strange noise from the starboard engine. The engine was immediately throttled back. There was some commotion at the rear of the cabin, and two flight attendants met beside my seat, where one told the other that the passenger "saw flames shooting from the engine and is in a panic". This caused some considerable tension, however no cabin annoucement was made until we were on final, when the captain announced that there was an issue with the engine and that we would be met by emergency vehicles in Toronto.
I felt that we passengers should have been informed sooner than later, as there was obviously a problem for a couple of hours before landing. It was stressful to know that there was a problem and not have any information from the flight crew.
Upon discussion of this experience with my coworkers on the day after the flight, I discovered that one of my colleagues had a similar experience just a couple of months ago. Being a private pilot, I would like to know what the problem was with the engine on this flight, and what Air Canada's record is with these failures. I've flown hundreds of flights with Air Canada, but I was disappointed to see how communication was lacking in this situation.
I look forward to hearing from you.
-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What really got me worked up was that the CSR told me that "This issue would not cause flames to come out of the engines, and there is no record or evidence of this happening", when I had just provided him a record that a passenger reported it to the FAs, and the FAs verbally acknowledged it in-flight. I didn't see the flames, but someone at the back sure as hell reported seeing them. I didn't want evidence, as I already had plenty! I wanted answers on what actually went wrong, and how often this might happen.
I responded to this unacceptable message from Customer Service and let them know that this was not a satisfactory response, but never heard another thing.
Has anyone else had a CSR tell them that "that didn't happen" after they personally experienced an in-flight incident?
May 5, 2008 | 1:00 pm
#2
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,393
Did you see flames?
I'm sorry, but we know how unreliable eyewitness accounts can be, and since YOU didn't see flames, but are repeating hear-say twice removed - you didn't even talk to the passenger who allegedly saw flames - I don't assume that the flames actually happened.
I'm sorry, but we know how unreliable eyewitness accounts can be, and since YOU didn't see flames, but are repeating hear-say twice removed - you didn't even talk to the passenger who allegedly saw flames - I don't assume that the flames actually happened.
May 5, 2008 | 1:09 pm
#3
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: YXE
Posts: 3,050
Ummm, do you really feel that you are entitled to a detailed engineering response from Air Canada when one of their engines has a malfunction?
Seriously, the flight deck would have saw a rise in the EGTs, and maybe an EGT alarm, if there was a tailpipe fire. Quite frankly, the flight deck wouldn't have had much more knowledge than anyone else until maintenance opened the engine up and discovered the fault. Meanwhile the pilots would have been busy doing the various checklists and briefings that accompany a single engine emergency landing, many of which are not trivial.
Maybe it was a mechanical fault, maybe it was just a FADEC fault. Flames from the engine is a fairly common occurrence when there is a compressor surge (these have been known to occur during fairly strong crosswinds). There are many possible reasons why you could have seen flames. Sometimes flames even erupt from an engine during start when there is residual fuel left in the engine (a 'wet start')
BTW, pilots themselves are not give much training on powerplant mechanical issues. The A&P's and AME's on the ground are the experts in maintenance and diagnosis, not the pilots.
Seriously, the flight deck would have saw a rise in the EGTs, and maybe an EGT alarm, if there was a tailpipe fire. Quite frankly, the flight deck wouldn't have had much more knowledge than anyone else until maintenance opened the engine up and discovered the fault. Meanwhile the pilots would have been busy doing the various checklists and briefings that accompany a single engine emergency landing, many of which are not trivial.
Maybe it was a mechanical fault, maybe it was just a FADEC fault. Flames from the engine is a fairly common occurrence when there is a compressor surge (these have been known to occur during fairly strong crosswinds). There are many possible reasons why you could have seen flames. Sometimes flames even erupt from an engine during start when there is residual fuel left in the engine (a 'wet start')
BTW, pilots themselves are not give much training on powerplant mechanical issues. The A&P's and AME's on the ground are the experts in maintenance and diagnosis, not the pilots.
Last edited by pitz; May 5, 2008 at 1:14 pm
May 5, 2008 | 1:16 pm
#4
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: YYG
Programs: Air Canada SE
Posts: 132
No, I didn't see the flames. I never claimed to see the flames. That is not really the point of my question.
I was, however, rudely awakened by the flight attendants having a very "forced" conversation by my seat where one said "that passenger saw flames coming from the engine" before running off to the flight deck.
Maybe the passenger just made up the story in the middle of the night, coincidentally just as the starboard engine lost power.
And pitz, YES. I do feel that I am entitled to more information. I feel that we should have had an announcement in-flight sometime in the hours before final approach. Everyone knew there was a problem, but the crew made no attempt to tell us that there was nothing to worry about. The lady beside me was crying, for christ sakes, and she was not the only one.
And, I feel that customer relations could tell me about how often that type of event happens.
I was, however, rudely awakened by the flight attendants having a very "forced" conversation by my seat where one said "that passenger saw flames coming from the engine" before running off to the flight deck.
Maybe the passenger just made up the story in the middle of the night, coincidentally just as the starboard engine lost power.
And pitz, YES. I do feel that I am entitled to more information. I feel that we should have had an announcement in-flight sometime in the hours before final approach. Everyone knew there was a problem, but the crew made no attempt to tell us that there was nothing to worry about. The lady beside me was crying, for christ sakes, and she was not the only one.
And, I feel that customer relations could tell me about how often that type of event happens.
May 5, 2008 | 1:37 pm
#5
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: YYG
Programs: Air Canada SE
Posts: 132
Oh yes, before you apologists hop on the "doubt by default" wagon any more, the CADORS number is 2007O1433.
Event information: Declared emergency/priority Engine Malfunction - other
Narrative: The Air Canada Airbus A-319 aircraft (operating as ACA794) was on a scheduled IFR flight from Los Angeles International Airport, CA (U.S.A.) (KLAX) to Toronto (LBPIA) (CYYZ). The aircraft landed on runway 23 with one (1) engine at idle thrust only. ARFF services stood by for the landing. Ops. impact -- unknown.
Back to the original question:
Has anyone else had a CSR tell them that "that didn't happen" after they personally experienced an in-flight incident?
... we already know that folks will tell you "that didn't happen" on Flyertalk all day long.
Event information: Declared emergency/priority Engine Malfunction - other
Narrative: The Air Canada Airbus A-319 aircraft (operating as ACA794) was on a scheduled IFR flight from Los Angeles International Airport, CA (U.S.A.) (KLAX) to Toronto (LBPIA) (CYYZ). The aircraft landed on runway 23 with one (1) engine at idle thrust only. ARFF services stood by for the landing. Ops. impact -- unknown.
Back to the original question:
Has anyone else had a CSR tell them that "that didn't happen" after they personally experienced an in-flight incident?
... we already know that folks will tell you "that didn't happen" on Flyertalk all day long.
May 5, 2008 | 2:10 pm
#7
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: YQR
Posts: 2,783
From what I can tell from what is posted above, the CSR told you what is reported in the maintenance information he or she received. I am not sure how the CSR could tell you anything different unless it was reported in the maintenance logs, etc. CADORS shows that the engine was at idle when the plane landed, so it was clearly running. I do not think that anything that will cause flames to come out of an engine under most circumstances in flight would allow the engine to still be running (on startup sometimes there is excess oil that burns off, though that is usually seen in a cloud of smoke and not flames, but flames are possible). The CSA is right here to refute what you offer as "evidence". Where you have a good complaint, however, is in the fact that the FA's were talking about this within earshot of passengers, which clearly created unneeded tension. I have been in the opposite situation where a CRJ I was on was struck by lightning and the bolt went right through the cabin (down the aisle) and the cabin smelled acrid. A number of people were upset, but the FA came down the aisle and told us this happened frequently and that there was nothing at all to worry about, which calmed us all. Once on the ground, maintenance had to be called in as the cargo door had been welded shut by the strike, so clearly it had not been insignificant.
May 5, 2008 | 2:15 pm
#8
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YYZ
Posts: 6,141
It is debatable whether you personally experienced an engine fire, which is what AC is claiming didn't happen.
If second-hand accounts count as personal experience, then by definition I have experienced VE Day, the 1967 Stanley Cup playoffs and Woodstock.
May 5, 2008 | 2:34 pm
#9
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Body in Downtown YYZ, heart and mind elsewhere
Programs: UA 50K, refugee from AC E50K, Marriott Lifetime Plat
Posts: 5,149
The CSR says there were no flames so I think we can accept that. I think, however, that the CSR should have responded to the final paragraph of the OP's original query instead of ignoring it. Even saying something like "We don't discuss maintenance records publically" would have been OK. The questions were quite specific yet they weren't even acknowledged - that to me is bad customer service.
May 5, 2008 | 2:42 pm
#11
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: YYG
Programs: Air Canada SE
Posts: 132
By that logic, if you were not at the 1967 playoffs, then they did not occur.
Back to the original question, please.
May 5, 2008 | 4:23 pm
#12
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Richmond, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,511
Some things to consider:
- AC is unlikely to release full details of maintenance records to customers.
- "Flames from the engine" and "engine on fire" are very different things.
- Perhaps the FA didn't make the Captain aware that one or more passengers were in a state of panic and therefore no announcement until just prior to landing when it would be necessary.
- Since the engine was at idle upon landing, I'd have to assume it wasn't a major engine failure (ECU=Engine Control Unit?) and there was no danger - another reason for no announcement.
However, I would agree that communications and crisis management (not by the crew's but by passenger definition) can be weak at AC from almost any department. On the other-hand, I've seen some passengers panic over smoky engine-starts, moderate turbulence, "unusual noises/vibrations", etc, and you can't convince them that there are professionals onboard that really do know that these are not indicators of imminent disaster.
- AC is unlikely to release full details of maintenance records to customers.
- "Flames from the engine" and "engine on fire" are very different things.
- Perhaps the FA didn't make the Captain aware that one or more passengers were in a state of panic and therefore no announcement until just prior to landing when it would be necessary.
- Since the engine was at idle upon landing, I'd have to assume it wasn't a major engine failure (ECU=Engine Control Unit?) and there was no danger - another reason for no announcement.
However, I would agree that communications and crisis management (not by the crew's but by passenger definition) can be weak at AC from almost any department. On the other-hand, I've seen some passengers panic over smoky engine-starts, moderate turbulence, "unusual noises/vibrations", etc, and you can't convince them that there are professionals onboard that really do know that these are not indicators of imminent disaster.
May 5, 2008 | 6:10 pm
#13
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 24,078
OK, I would say the following:
1. The record does not appear to contain any information about flames out of the engine. I would think apart from the passenger who saw flames, no one else knew, in particular not the pilots. It's not a major issue, just hot fuel/air mixture left in the engines that's burning as it gets out. So I would think they are correct when they say "there is no record or evidence of this happening."
2. Now on the statement that "it had to have the ECU replaced which is a common occurrence. This issue would not cause flames to come out of the engines." I would say here these folks are starting to get into stuff that they are clueless about. My guess is ECU stands for "electronic control unit" or something like that, which sounds like the Fadec. Can anyone seriously claim that no failure mode is possible which would result in some unburnt fuel getting through the engine and eventually burning?
Probably they asked someone at a more technical level, got some vague reassuring answer that they didn't really understand, and translated it into the thing they served you. But then, expecting them to understand the issues is arguably asking too much. I would say, the answer is probably in good faith, but coming from people whose business is spin, some what can you expect?
3. Losing an engine, even if this was a contained failure, while not a major accident, is still a serious event. That there were some flames in the process, although spectacular, is not. We are long past the time of IC engines which did burn and could easily lead to the whole plane to burn. Modern engines just don't burn. The only thing to burn is the fuel; a fuel leak can burn, as in the CDG Concorde crash, but that's not what led to the plane crashing as it did.
The thing that might be of concern is that they continued to destination on only one engine. I would have expected a diversion. Except of course if they were close enough for the destination to be the equivalent of a reasonable diversion.
Anyway, don't be too harsh on these customer relations people in this instance.
1. The record does not appear to contain any information about flames out of the engine. I would think apart from the passenger who saw flames, no one else knew, in particular not the pilots. It's not a major issue, just hot fuel/air mixture left in the engines that's burning as it gets out. So I would think they are correct when they say "there is no record or evidence of this happening."
2. Now on the statement that "it had to have the ECU replaced which is a common occurrence. This issue would not cause flames to come out of the engines." I would say here these folks are starting to get into stuff that they are clueless about. My guess is ECU stands for "electronic control unit" or something like that, which sounds like the Fadec. Can anyone seriously claim that no failure mode is possible which would result in some unburnt fuel getting through the engine and eventually burning?
Probably they asked someone at a more technical level, got some vague reassuring answer that they didn't really understand, and translated it into the thing they served you. But then, expecting them to understand the issues is arguably asking too much. I would say, the answer is probably in good faith, but coming from people whose business is spin, some what can you expect?
3. Losing an engine, even if this was a contained failure, while not a major accident, is still a serious event. That there were some flames in the process, although spectacular, is not. We are long past the time of IC engines which did burn and could easily lead to the whole plane to burn. Modern engines just don't burn. The only thing to burn is the fuel; a fuel leak can burn, as in the CDG Concorde crash, but that's not what led to the plane crashing as it did.
The thing that might be of concern is that they continued to destination on only one engine. I would have expected a diversion. Except of course if they were close enough for the destination to be the equivalent of a reasonable diversion.
Anyway, don't be too harsh on these customer relations people in this instance.
May 5, 2008 | 7:46 pm
#14
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: YYG
Programs: Air Canada SE
Posts: 132
Stranger, thanks for the comments.
Your guess is just off a bit. ECU in this case is the engine control unit. Either way, as you mentioned - can anyone tell me 100% that a failure of the ECU could not possibly cause unburnt fuel to pass through the engine and ignite in the exhaust flow? No, I didn't think so either.
Once again, it doesn't matter, as that is a minor detail and not really critical to the question in the OP.
The point of the OP was that AC asked me for feedback on their performance on a flight that happened to terminate with a declared emergency landing, complete with ARFF callout. When I provided feedback, they dismissed the feedback, and did not provide answers to my questions.
I was just wondering if others had responses to that effect, or if AC's normal response to a question about an in-flight emergency was any better for the victim... er, I mean passenger. I've had several similar experiences with AC in the last year, so I'm guessing that some other members might have some experience in discussing these disconcerting events with AC Customer Relations.
That's all.
Your guess is just off a bit. ECU in this case is the engine control unit. Either way, as you mentioned - can anyone tell me 100% that a failure of the ECU could not possibly cause unburnt fuel to pass through the engine and ignite in the exhaust flow? No, I didn't think so either.
Once again, it doesn't matter, as that is a minor detail and not really critical to the question in the OP.
The point of the OP was that AC asked me for feedback on their performance on a flight that happened to terminate with a declared emergency landing, complete with ARFF callout. When I provided feedback, they dismissed the feedback, and did not provide answers to my questions.
I was just wondering if others had responses to that effect, or if AC's normal response to a question about an in-flight emergency was any better for the victim... er, I mean passenger. I've had several similar experiences with AC in the last year, so I'm guessing that some other members might have some experience in discussing these disconcerting events with AC Customer Relations.
That's all.
May 5, 2008 | 7:55 pm
#15
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: YXE
Posts: 3,050
Sounds like they left the engine running to avoid the situation of shutting down the wrong engine, or just as bad, needing the shut down engine later in the flight if another fault developed. If the vibration is not excessive, and EGTs are not elevated, there is no reason to shut down an engine with 'flames coming out the back', unless, of course, the flames were not rectified by setting the engine to flight idle.
The goal of not shutting down the engine would have been along the lines of avoiding a (totally avoidable) disaster such as this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegworth_air_disaster
Of course, if the engine had excessive vibrations, as is the case when there is internal mechanical damage or imbalance in the rotating machinery, a shutdown would have been occurred.
The goal of not shutting down the engine would have been along the lines of avoiding a (totally avoidable) disaster such as this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegworth_air_disaster
Of course, if the engine had excessive vibrations, as is the case when there is internal mechanical damage or imbalance in the rotating machinery, a shutdown would have been occurred.
