Air New Zealand vs. Qantas
Feb 22nd 2004, 7:26 pm
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air New Zealand vs. Qantas
Hilary wrote:
> Ansett *was* in Star Alliance.
Ansett's entry into Star Alliance was a defacto membership due it it being
wholly owned by Air New Zealand. Its is Air NZ that had done all the leg work
to get its admission into Star. Had Ansett not been under the Air NZ umbrella,
it is unclear if it would have been admitted or not.
Even Air NZ had to do a lot of hand waiving, even spill some blood to get
Star's attention. (Well before it got accepted, NZ cannabalised it canadian
routes when it broke off relationship with a carrier that competed against a
star alliance member)
I personally think that Ansett should have been in Star whether by itself or
due to Air NZ. It was logical for Star to have a domestic network in
Australia, even if Ansett contributed little to Star's international routes.
But I am not sure that Ansett would have been a good business case for Star
alliance (woudl it have drawn more resources than it put in ?)
> Ansett *was* in Star Alliance.
Ansett's entry into Star Alliance was a defacto membership due it it being
wholly owned by Air New Zealand. Its is Air NZ that had done all the leg work
to get its admission into Star. Had Ansett not been under the Air NZ umbrella,
it is unclear if it would have been admitted or not.
Even Air NZ had to do a lot of hand waiving, even spill some blood to get
Star's attention. (Well before it got accepted, NZ cannabalised it canadian
routes when it broke off relationship with a carrier that competed against a
star alliance member)
I personally think that Ansett should have been in Star whether by itself or
due to Air NZ. It was logical for Star to have a domestic network in
Australia, even if Ansett contributed little to Star's international routes.
But I am not sure that Ansett would have been a good business case for Star
alliance (woudl it have drawn more resources than it put in ?)
Feb 22nd 2004, 8:16 pm
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air New Zealand vs. Qantas
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:40:11 +1300, steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>james_anatidae wrote:
>> All other things being equal (price, time, route) which would you prefer
>> to fly?
>Air NZ.
>We own it.
I presume from you must be Singapore Airlines?
Cheeers Alan, Oz.
>james_anatidae wrote:
>> All other things being equal (price, time, route) which would you prefer
>> to fly?
>Air NZ.
>We own it.
I presume from you must be Singapore Airlines?
Cheeers Alan, Oz.
Feb 22nd 2004, 8:27 pm
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air New Zealand vs. Qantas
Alan wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:40:11 +1300, steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>james_anatidae wrote:
>>> All other things being equal (price, time, route) which would you prefer
>>> to fly?
>>Air NZ.
>>We own it.
>
> I presume from you must be Singapore Airlines?
>
> Cheeers Alan, Oz.
They own a tiny share. The NZ Govt owns over 80%.
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:40:11 +1300, steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>james_anatidae wrote:
>>> All other things being equal (price, time, route) which would you prefer
>>> to fly?
>>Air NZ.
>>We own it.
>
> I presume from you must be Singapore Airlines?
>
> Cheeers Alan, Oz.
They own a tiny share. The NZ Govt owns over 80%.
Feb 23rd 2004, 2:09 am
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air New Zealand vs. Qantas
"BTMO" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news
[email protected]...
> "Blue Lagoon" <> wrote
> > What about the purchase of Hazelton Airline between Qantas and Ansett
> where
> > after Ansett purchased Hazelton?
> No idea. Don't remember that one.
> However, it is worth remembering that businesses do fail. And it shouldn't
> be the job of goverments to prop them up.
It should be if it's in the public good.
news
[email protected]...> "Blue Lagoon" <> wrote
> > What about the purchase of Hazelton Airline between Qantas and Ansett
> where
> > after Ansett purchased Hazelton?
> No idea. Don't remember that one.
> However, it is worth remembering that businesses do fail. And it shouldn't
> be the job of goverments to prop them up.
It should be if it's in the public good.
Feb 23rd 2004, 5:02 am
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air New Zealand vs. Qantas
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:16:25 +1100, Alan <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:40:11 +1300, steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>>james_anatidae wrote:
>>> All other things being equal (price, time, route) which would you prefer
>>> to fly?
>>Air NZ.
>>We own it.
>I presume from you must be Singapore Airlines?
>Cheeers Alan, Oz.
The New Zealand government is the majority shareholder
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:40:11 +1300, steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>>james_anatidae wrote:
>>> All other things being equal (price, time, route) which would you prefer
>>> to fly?
>>Air NZ.
>>We own it.
>I presume from you must be Singapore Airlines?
>Cheeers Alan, Oz.
The New Zealand government is the majority shareholder
Feb 23rd 2004, 6:26 am
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air New Zealand vs. Qantas
"BTMO" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Blue Lagoon" <> wrote
> >
> > Can you please refute them?
> I think you are confusing a couple of issues here.
> I don't remember the 767 incident you mention above, but my understanding
of
> the situation was:
> Air New Zealand bought into Ansett on the understanding that it would have
> access to Australian air routes,
snipped
And more to the point, ANZ would not have been in the market for Ansett, had
the Aus govt not reneged on the "Open Skies" agreement.
Currently we have Qantas and other Aus airlines who can and do enter our
domestic market at will while NZ carriers are shut out of Australia's, which
unfortunately has become quite typical of the way Australia does business
with nZ
news:[email protected]...
> "Blue Lagoon" <> wrote
> >
> > Can you please refute them?
> I think you are confusing a couple of issues here.
> I don't remember the 767 incident you mention above, but my understanding
of
> the situation was:
> Air New Zealand bought into Ansett on the understanding that it would have
> access to Australian air routes,
snipped
And more to the point, ANZ would not have been in the market for Ansett, had
the Aus govt not reneged on the "Open Skies" agreement.
Currently we have Qantas and other Aus airlines who can and do enter our
domestic market at will while NZ carriers are shut out of Australia's, which
unfortunately has become quite typical of the way Australia does business
with nZ
Feb 23rd 2004, 7:40 am
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air New Zealand vs. Qantas
"geezer" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>And more to the point, ANZ would not have been in the market for Ansett,
>had the Aus govt not reneged on the "Open Skies" agreement.
More to the point, Brierley and Cushing got greedy - a 50% share
of an entity tightly run/controlled by the neighbours up north-west,
would have been far better than a 100% share of a shambles.
That their gamble/subtle blackmail backfired on them is past history.
The saddest part of the whole sorry affair is this - had NZ let SQ get the
other 50% of AN on offer, both NZ and AN would more than likely be very
healthy beasts right about now, and a significant force with the muscle and
knowhow of SQ behind them. NZ in particular would have been HUGE
winners.
As for reneging on open skies, Part 3 of SAM was the only reneging,
although that was rectified 4 years ago between Anderson & Gosche.
NZ does indeed have the rights to fly domestically in AU as well as unlimited
oncarriage from AU to third countries. Hardly "restrictive", what??
That they don't currently do so is probably understandable given the
amount of animus toward them still prevalent on this side of the puddle.
>Currently we have Qantas and other Aus airlines who can and do enter our
>domestic market at will while NZ carriers are shut out of Australia's, which
>unfortunately has become quite typical of the way Australia does business
>with nZ
Absolute & complete utter rubbish.
If NZ wanted to operate Oz domestics in it's own right, it has the permissions
to do so, and has had so for some time now - 1996 from memory. That they
took the easy option and opted for 50% of AN instead, was probably a
sensible move originally, given the amount of capital and infrastructure
NZ would have had to invest in to start Oz domestics.
The same domestic carriage rights is true for any N.Z. airline, even Origin
Pacific if they wanted to enter here.
NZ tried to do the oncarriage thing, creating a mini-hub in BNE, but that
failed miserably, and they haven't tried anything similar since. The fact
that they don't, along with the fact that they don't currently serve Oz
domestic, doesn't mean that they "can't".
From the DOTRS website:
THE AUSTRALIA/N.Z. OPEN SKIES AGREEMENT AT A GLANCE
The main provisions of the ratification and MoU are:
· Australian and New Zealand international airlines will be able to operate
unrestricted international services across the Tasman and continue those
services beyond to third countries.
· Australian and New Zealand owned airlines will be able to operate unrestricted
services across the Tasman and domestic services in both countries, subject
to safety approvals.
· Australian and New Zealand international airlines will be able to operate
dedicated freight services from either Australia or New Zealand to third
countries. For example, a New Zealand international carrier could operate
a freight service from Australia without flying through a New Zealand port
at any stage of the journey.
· All international services will continue to operate to and from designated
international airports. The existing customs, immigration, and quarantine
restrictions will not be affected by the agreement.
· Airlines will make commercial decisions on the number of services they
operate and the destinations they serve. Airlines will no longer have to obtain
government approval for their airfares, subject to Australia’s legislative
processes.
· Australia and New Zealand will examine the possibility of introducing
seventh freedom traffic rights for passenger services. The introduction of
seventh freedom rights would allow (for example) an Australian international
carrier to operate from New Zealand to a third country without flying to an
Australian port at any stage of the journey.
All of the above were contained in a joint statement from Anderson (AU)
and Gosche (N.Z.) as Transport Ministers of the time.
>And more to the point, ANZ would not have been in the market for Ansett,
>had the Aus govt not reneged on the "Open Skies" agreement.
More to the point, Brierley and Cushing got greedy - a 50% share
of an entity tightly run/controlled by the neighbours up north-west,
would have been far better than a 100% share of a shambles.
That their gamble/subtle blackmail backfired on them is past history.
The saddest part of the whole sorry affair is this - had NZ let SQ get the
other 50% of AN on offer, both NZ and AN would more than likely be very
healthy beasts right about now, and a significant force with the muscle and
knowhow of SQ behind them. NZ in particular would have been HUGE
winners.
As for reneging on open skies, Part 3 of SAM was the only reneging,
although that was rectified 4 years ago between Anderson & Gosche.
NZ does indeed have the rights to fly domestically in AU as well as unlimited
oncarriage from AU to third countries. Hardly "restrictive", what??
That they don't currently do so is probably understandable given the
amount of animus toward them still prevalent on this side of the puddle.
>Currently we have Qantas and other Aus airlines who can and do enter our
>domestic market at will while NZ carriers are shut out of Australia's, which
>unfortunately has become quite typical of the way Australia does business
>with nZ
Absolute & complete utter rubbish.
If NZ wanted to operate Oz domestics in it's own right, it has the permissions
to do so, and has had so for some time now - 1996 from memory. That they
took the easy option and opted for 50% of AN instead, was probably a
sensible move originally, given the amount of capital and infrastructure
NZ would have had to invest in to start Oz domestics.
The same domestic carriage rights is true for any N.Z. airline, even Origin
Pacific if they wanted to enter here.
NZ tried to do the oncarriage thing, creating a mini-hub in BNE, but that
failed miserably, and they haven't tried anything similar since. The fact
that they don't, along with the fact that they don't currently serve Oz
domestic, doesn't mean that they "can't".
From the DOTRS website:
THE AUSTRALIA/N.Z. OPEN SKIES AGREEMENT AT A GLANCE
The main provisions of the ratification and MoU are:
· Australian and New Zealand international airlines will be able to operate
unrestricted international services across the Tasman and continue those
services beyond to third countries.
· Australian and New Zealand owned airlines will be able to operate unrestricted
services across the Tasman and domestic services in both countries, subject
to safety approvals.
· Australian and New Zealand international airlines will be able to operate
dedicated freight services from either Australia or New Zealand to third
countries. For example, a New Zealand international carrier could operate
a freight service from Australia without flying through a New Zealand port
at any stage of the journey.
· All international services will continue to operate to and from designated
international airports. The existing customs, immigration, and quarantine
restrictions will not be affected by the agreement.
· Airlines will make commercial decisions on the number of services they
operate and the destinations they serve. Airlines will no longer have to obtain
government approval for their airfares, subject to Australia’s legislative
processes.
· Australia and New Zealand will examine the possibility of introducing
seventh freedom traffic rights for passenger services. The introduction of
seventh freedom rights would allow (for example) an Australian international
carrier to operate from New Zealand to a third country without flying to an
Australian port at any stage of the journey.
All of the above were contained in a joint statement from Anderson (AU)
and Gosche (N.Z.) as Transport Ministers of the time.
Feb 23rd 2004, 7:56 am
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air New Zealand vs. Qantas
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:30:23 -0500, "james_anatidae"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>All other things being equal (price, time, route) which would you prefer to
>fly?
It would depend on what class of travel and which aircraft was being
used. I would easily choose a QF 744 over a NZ767 since the Qantas
flight would have a decent in flight entertainment system for example
Dave
<[email protected]> wrote:
>All other things being equal (price, time, route) which would you prefer to
>fly?
It would depend on what class of travel and which aircraft was being
used. I would easily choose a QF 744 over a NZ767 since the Qantas
flight would have a decent in flight entertainment system for example
Dave
Feb 23rd 2004, 9:28 am
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air New Zealand vs. Qantas
devil <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected] >...
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:48:06 +0000, Uncle StoatWarbler wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:30:23 -0500, james_anatidae wrote:
> >
> >> All other things being equal (price, time, route) which would you prefer to
> >> fly?
> >
> > Neither. Cathy Pacific beats them both hands-down.
>
> Who is she?
Having flown about 50000 miles a year for the last 12 years IMHO Air
NZ has the worst service I've ever encountered. It's expensive. The
service can only be described as sullen and the food/IFO is rubbish.
Having them delay a flight to Singapore so they could go via Sydney
because the earlier Sydney flight was cancelled, arriving 6 hours late
in Changi having missed my connecting flight to Amsterdam and being
told by the ground staff that my ticket didn't gurantee me a flight or
an arrival time and not being given any compensation has permanently
alienated me. Cathay Pacific or Singapore Airlines for me everytime.
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:48:06 +0000, Uncle StoatWarbler wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:30:23 -0500, james_anatidae wrote:
> >
> >> All other things being equal (price, time, route) which would you prefer to
> >> fly?
> >
> > Neither. Cathy Pacific beats them both hands-down.
>
> Who is she?
Having flown about 50000 miles a year for the last 12 years IMHO Air
NZ has the worst service I've ever encountered. It's expensive. The
service can only be described as sullen and the food/IFO is rubbish.
Having them delay a flight to Singapore so they could go via Sydney
because the earlier Sydney flight was cancelled, arriving 6 hours late
in Changi having missed my connecting flight to Amsterdam and being
told by the ground staff that my ticket didn't gurantee me a flight or
an arrival time and not being given any compensation has permanently
alienated me. Cathay Pacific or Singapore Airlines for me everytime.
Feb 23rd 2004, 9:28 am
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air New Zealand vs. Qantas
devil <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected] >...
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:48:06 +0000, Uncle StoatWarbler wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:30:23 -0500, james_anatidae wrote:
> >
> >> All other things being equal (price, time, route) which would you prefer to
> >> fly?
> >
> > Neither. Cathy Pacific beats them both hands-down.
>
> Who is she?
Having flown about 50000 miles a year for the last 12 years IMHO Air
NZ has the worst service I've ever encountered. It's expensive. The
service can only be described as sullen and the food/IFO is rubbish.
Having them delay a flight to Singapore so they could go via Sydney
because the earlier Sydney flight was cancelled, arriving 6 hours late
in Changi having missed my connecting flight to Amsterdam and being
told by the ground staff that my ticket didn't gurantee me a flight or
an arrival time and not being given any compensation has permanently
alienated me. Cathay Pacific or Singapore Airlines for me everytime.
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:48:06 +0000, Uncle StoatWarbler wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:30:23 -0500, james_anatidae wrote:
> >
> >> All other things being equal (price, time, route) which would you prefer to
> >> fly?
> >
> > Neither. Cathy Pacific beats them both hands-down.
>
> Who is she?
Having flown about 50000 miles a year for the last 12 years IMHO Air
NZ has the worst service I've ever encountered. It's expensive. The
service can only be described as sullen and the food/IFO is rubbish.
Having them delay a flight to Singapore so they could go via Sydney
because the earlier Sydney flight was cancelled, arriving 6 hours late
in Changi having missed my connecting flight to Amsterdam and being
told by the ground staff that my ticket didn't gurantee me a flight or
an arrival time and not being given any compensation has permanently
alienated me. Cathay Pacific or Singapore Airlines for me everytime.
Feb 23rd 2004, 12:03 pm
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air New Zealand vs. Qantas
On 23 Feb 2004 14:28:09 -0800, [email protected] (Wonderferret)
wrote:
>Having flown about 50000 miles a year for the last 12 years IMHO Air
>NZ has the worst service I've ever encountered. It's expensive. The
>service can only be described as sullen and the food/IFO is rubbish.
I wonder to what extent the service you receive reflects your attitude
to them. I have never had anything but cheerful friendly service from
Air NZ. I don't do anything like your mileage, but in my experience
with Air NZ staff, they treat you in a friendly and courteous way. The
food was neither much better, nor much worse than other lines.
wrote:
>Having flown about 50000 miles a year for the last 12 years IMHO Air
>NZ has the worst service I've ever encountered. It's expensive. The
>service can only be described as sullen and the food/IFO is rubbish.
I wonder to what extent the service you receive reflects your attitude
to them. I have never had anything but cheerful friendly service from
Air NZ. I don't do anything like your mileage, but in my experience
with Air NZ staff, they treat you in a friendly and courteous way. The
food was neither much better, nor much worse than other lines.
Feb 23rd 2004, 1:21 pm
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air New Zealand vs. Qantas
On 23 Feb 2004 14:28:09 -0800, [email protected] (Wonderferret)
wrote:
>devil <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected] >...
>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:48:06 +0000, Uncle StoatWarbler wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:30:23 -0500, james_anatidae wrote:
>> >
>> >> All other things being equal (price, time, route) which would you prefer to
>> >> fly?
>> >
>> > Neither. Cathy Pacific beats them both hands-down.
>>
>> Who is she?
>Having flown about 50000 miles a year for the last 12 years IMHO Air
>NZ has the worst service I've ever encountered. It's expensive. The
>service can only be described as sullen and the food/IFO is rubbish.
>Having them delay a flight to Singapore so they could go via Sydney
>because the earlier Sydney flight was cancelled,
And this makes sense.
Cargo makes more $$ for the airline than passengers.
> arriving 6 hours late in Changi having missed my connecting flight to Amsterdam and being
>told by the ground staff that my ticket didn't gurantee me a flight or
>an arrival time and not being given any compensation has permanently
>alienated me.
Must have been a real cheap fare basis ticket if you could not be
moved over to another airline.
A ticket *does not automatically* guarantee you to be moved to another
airline.
A ticket is a contract to get you from point a to point b.
They can put you on a slow boat and as long as it got you there, they
have fulfilled their part of the contract.
Out of curiosity, do you carry travel insurance?
> Cathay Pacific or Singapore Airlines for me everytime.
Cath
wrote:
>devil <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected] >...
>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:48:06 +0000, Uncle StoatWarbler wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:30:23 -0500, james_anatidae wrote:
>> >
>> >> All other things being equal (price, time, route) which would you prefer to
>> >> fly?
>> >
>> > Neither. Cathy Pacific beats them both hands-down.
>>
>> Who is she?
>Having flown about 50000 miles a year for the last 12 years IMHO Air
>NZ has the worst service I've ever encountered. It's expensive. The
>service can only be described as sullen and the food/IFO is rubbish.
>Having them delay a flight to Singapore so they could go via Sydney
>because the earlier Sydney flight was cancelled,
And this makes sense.
Cargo makes more $$ for the airline than passengers.
> arriving 6 hours late in Changi having missed my connecting flight to Amsterdam and being
>told by the ground staff that my ticket didn't gurantee me a flight or
>an arrival time and not being given any compensation has permanently
>alienated me.
Must have been a real cheap fare basis ticket if you could not be
moved over to another airline.
A ticket *does not automatically* guarantee you to be moved to another
airline.
A ticket is a contract to get you from point a to point b.
They can put you on a slow boat and as long as it got you there, they
have fulfilled their part of the contract.
Out of curiosity, do you carry travel insurance?
> Cathay Pacific or Singapore Airlines for me everytime.
Cath
Feb 23rd 2004, 2:51 pm
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air New Zealand vs. Qantas
"Brian Harmer" <> wrote
> I wonder to what extent the service you receive reflects your attitude
> to them. I have never had anything but cheerful friendly service from
> Air NZ. I don't do anything like your mileage, but in my experience
> with Air NZ staff, they treat you in a friendly and courteous way. The
> food was neither much better, nor much worse than other lines.
While what you suggest is very human Brian, good customer service should be
independant of the customer...
Cheers,
Brenton
> I wonder to what extent the service you receive reflects your attitude
> to them. I have never had anything but cheerful friendly service from
> Air NZ. I don't do anything like your mileage, but in my experience
> with Air NZ staff, they treat you in a friendly and courteous way. The
> food was neither much better, nor much worse than other lines.
While what you suggest is very human Brian, good customer service should be
independant of the customer...
Cheers,
Brenton
Feb 23rd 2004, 3:10 pm
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air New Zealand vs. Qantas
"james_anatidae" <> wrote
> > However, it is worth remembering that businesses do fail. And it
shouldn't
> > be the job of goverments to prop them up.
> >
> It should be if it's in the public good.
Define "public good".
Everytime a business fails, people loose their jobs, and of course this is
an issue for them.
However, Australia still has air travel, and it is actually *cheaper* now
that Ansett is gone.
I am failing to see the problem for the *public* here....
Cheers,
Brenton
> > However, it is worth remembering that businesses do fail. And it
shouldn't
> > be the job of goverments to prop them up.
> >
> It should be if it's in the public good.
Define "public good".
Everytime a business fails, people loose their jobs, and of course this is
an issue for them.
However, Australia still has air travel, and it is actually *cheaper* now
that Ansett is gone.
I am failing to see the problem for the *public* here....
Cheers,
Brenton
Feb 24th 2004, 2:05 am
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air New Zealand vs. Qantas
BTMO <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Brian Harmer" <> wrote
>
>> I wonder to what extent the service you receive reflects your attitude
>> to them. I have never had anything but cheerful friendly service from
>> Air NZ. I don't do anything like your mileage, but in my experience
>> with Air NZ staff, they treat you in a friendly and courteous way. The
>> food was neither much better, nor much worse than other lines.
>
> While what you suggest is very human Brian, good customer service should be
> independant of the customer...
No it shouldn't. The 'customer' from hell should get the bare minimum
or less. Normal/'nice' customers should get more. Sadly enough, in
reality it is sometimes the reverse, because staff is 'afraid' of TCFH.
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt (both ways).
Frank "Who has been in customer service all of his working life." Slootweg
>
> "Brian Harmer" <> wrote
>
>> I wonder to what extent the service you receive reflects your attitude
>> to them. I have never had anything but cheerful friendly service from
>> Air NZ. I don't do anything like your mileage, but in my experience
>> with Air NZ staff, they treat you in a friendly and courteous way. The
>> food was neither much better, nor much worse than other lines.
>
> While what you suggest is very human Brian, good customer service should be
> independant of the customer...
No it shouldn't. The 'customer' from hell should get the bare minimum
or less. Normal/'nice' customers should get more. Sadly enough, in
reality it is sometimes the reverse, because staff is 'afraid' of TCFH.
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt (both ways).
Frank "Who has been in customer service all of his working life." Slootweg
