時事20170412 全文 美聯航

美聯航該怎麼道歉？
Shaming of United shows saying sorry is never enough

來源：FT中文網 2017-04-12

        Oscar Munoz is “upset” about what happened on United Express flight 3411. The United Continental chief executive “deeply regrets this situation arose”. Well, of course he is and of course he does. The video of a screaming and bloodied passenger being dragged forcibly off the overbooked flight from Chicago to Louisville is upsetting, and the “situation” was highly regrettable.         

奧斯卡•穆諾茲(Oscar Munoz)對聯航快運(United Express) 3411號航班發生的事情感到“不安”。這位聯合大陸(United Continental)首席執行官“對這一情況的出現深表遺憾”。嗯，他當然會感到不安，他當然會感到遺憾。一名尖叫並流著血的乘客被強行拖下超量預訂、從芝加哥飛往路易斯維爾的航班的視頻令人不快，這個“情況”非常令人遺憾。

        At first glance, it seems the path of least resistance would have been for Mr Munoz to issue a full and complete apology. I struggle, after all, to think of a case where saying sorry to a customer ever got a chief executive into more trouble than delaying doing so. But it is not quite as simple as that.            

乍看之下，最小阻力路徑似乎是由穆諾茲作出一個充分和完整的道歉（編者註：穆諾茲已作出“無條件的道歉”）。畢竟，我怎麼也想不出有哪一個案例顯示，對客戶說道歉會讓一個首席執行官陷入比拖延這麼做更大的麻煩。但事情並不是那麼簡單。

        Airlines should be expert at the apology business simply because they have so much to apologise for. Lost luggage, missed connections, cancellations, poor food, inadequate legroom. When disappointment or pain is inflicted on demanding, stressed and often jet-lagged customers sitting at deoxygenated close quarters, there is bound to be a backlash.           

航空公司應該是道歉專家，因為它們有這麼多事情可以道歉。行李丟失、錯過轉機、航班取消、糟糕的食物、座位空間狹小。如果把失望或痛苦強加到已經擠在狹小且空氣不好的客艙裡，要求較高、壓力大、往往承受著時差之苦的客戶身上，難免會遭遇反彈。

        But instead of writing the manual on how, when and to whom an apology should be made, airlines are top of the list of case studies on how not to do it. United alone has a chapter to itself. Mr Munoz was only just emerging from “leggings-gate”, after the airline barred two teenage girls from flying in leggings. United pointed out the girls had infringed the dress code for the programme of free tickets it offers to employees and dependants.         但是，航空公司非但沒有寫出關於如何、何時以及向誰道歉的手冊，反而在如何不道歉的案例研究清單上名列前茅。穆諾茲剛剛擺脫“緊身褲門”——前不久美聯航曾禁止兩名穿緊身褲的少女登機。美聯航指出，這兩名少女違反了該公司為僱員和家屬提供免費機票的計劃的著裝要求。

        When a company violates the public's trust, an apology can be the first step to restoring confidence. This was a lesson that most banks failed to learn after the 2008 crisis. But corporate leaders also need to take responsibility for mistakes — and sometimes responsibility is hard to attribute.           

在一家公司失去公眾信任後，道歉可能是恢復信心的第一步。這是多數銀行在2008年金融危機後未能汲取的一個教訓。但企業領導還需要為錯誤承擔責任——而有時責任很難認定。

        Before baying for a full apology from Mr Munoz, then, let's establish what he should apologise for. The boss's email to staff laid far too much blame on the passenger, and not enough on the Chicago airport security officers who extracted him from the plane. He should have apologised for the mistakes for which United was accountable: the airline reportedly needed to fly four crew on flight 3411, perhaps to join another flight whose cancellation would have inconvenienced even more customers. It was, therefore, up to the airline to try to “bump” passengers before they boarded the aircraft, confining any unpleasantness to the departure gate.           

那麼，在厲聲要求穆諾茲作出全面道歉之前，讓我們先確定他應該道歉什麼。這位老闆發給員工的電子郵件把太多過錯歸咎於那名乘客，而對把乘客強行拖下飛機的芝加哥機場保安人員過於客氣。他應該為美聯航要承擔負責的錯誤道歉：據報導，該航空公司需要讓四名工作人員搭乘3411班機，也許是因為他們要執行另一個航班，如果那個航班被取消將給更多顧客帶來不便。因此，航空公司有責任在乘客登機之前嘗試阻攔他們，把任何不快經歷局限在登機口。

        I strongly believe companies' responsibility extends to the behaviour of the people who supply them and offer services under their name. But airline chief executives face the challenge that while their brand sells the entire service, many of the elements that contribute to the user's unhappiness are out of their hands.           

我強烈認為，企業的責任延伸至向它們供應和以它們的名義提供服務的人員的行為。但是航空公司首席執行官們面臨的挑戰是，儘管他們的品牌銷售整個服務，但導致用戶不快的許多元素並不在他們控制之下。

        Airlines must try, therefore: to be resilient enough to cope with unforeseen problems; to admit to it if something goes wrong; to apologise for the part for which they are responsible; and, crucially, to avoid repeating the error. Saying sorry over and over again does not, in the long run, help very much. Over time, it may add to a sense that the company is insincere.          

因此，航空公司必須嘗試做到：有足夠的彈性來應對不可預見的問題；在出現問題的情況下勇於承認；為他們要負責的那部分道歉；至關重要的是避免重複錯誤。長遠而言，一遍又一遍的道歉不是很有幫助。隨著時間推移，這可能會加劇公司不真誠的印象。

        I commute daily on a train service that, after every delay, runs a recorded announcement in which it “apologises for the inconvenience caused”. Believe me, after a while such messages wear very thin indeed.          

我每天乘坐的通勤列車服務每次誤點都會播放一個錄音公告，稱其“對由此造成的不便道歉”。相信我，在一段時間之後，這樣的公告對乘客變得毫無意義。


 第一級  第二級  第三級  第四級  第五級  第六級

Shaming of United shows saying sorry is never enough
Oscar Munoz is “upset” about what happened on United Express flight 3411. The United Continental chief executive “deeplyregrets this situation arose”. Well, of course he is and of course he does. The video of a screaming and bloodied passengerbeing dragged forcibly off the overbooked flight from Chicago to Louisville is upsetting, and the “situation” was highlyregrettable.
At first glance, it seems the path of least resistance would have been for Mr Munoz to issue a full and complete apology. Istruggle, after all, to think of a case where saying sorry to a customer ever got a chief executive into more trouble thandelaying doing so. But it is not quite as simple as that.
Airlines should be expert at the apology business simply because they have so much to apologise for. Lost luggage, missedconnections, cancellations, poor food, inadequate legroom. When disappointment or pain is inflicted on demanding, stressedand often jet-lagged customers sitting at deoxygenated close quarters, there is bound to be a backlash.
But instead of writing the manual on how, when and to whom an apology should be made, airlines are top of the list of casestudies on how not to do it. United alone has a chapter to itself. Mr Munoz was only just emerging from “leggings-gate”, afterthe airline barred two teenage girls from flying in leggings. United pointed out the girls had infringed the dress code for the programme of free tickets it offers to employees and dependants.
When a company violates the public's trust, an apology can be the first step to restoring confidence. This was a lesson thatmost banks failed to learn after the 2008 crisis. But corporate leaders also need to take responsibility for mistakes — andsometimes responsibility is hard to attribute.
Before baying for a full apology from Mr Munoz, then, let's establish what he should apologise for. The boss's email to stafflaid far too much blame on the passenger, and not enough on the Chicago airport security officers who extracted him fromthe plane. He should have apologised for the mistakes for which United was accountable: the airline reportedly needed to flyfour crew on flight 3411, perhaps to join another flight whose cancellation would have inconvenienced even more customers. It was, therefore, up to the airline to try to “bump” passengers before they boarded the aircraft, confining any unpleasantnessto the departure gate.
I strongly believe companies' responsibility extends to the behaviour of the people who supply them and offer services undertheir name. But airline chief executives face the challenge that while their brand sells the entire service, many of the elementsthat contribute to the user's unhappiness are out of their hands.
Airlines must try, therefore: to be resilient enough to cope with unforeseen problems; to admit to it if something goes wrong; to apologise for the part for which they are responsible; and, crucially, to avoid repeating the error. Saying sorry over andover again does not, in the long run, help very much. Over time, it may add to a sense that the company is insincere.
I commute daily on a train service that, after every delay, runs a recorded announcement in which it “apologises for theinconvenience caused”. Believe me, after a while such messages wear very thin indeed.

   初級       中級      中高級   

Shaming of United shows saying sorry is never enough
Oscar Munoz is “upset” about what happened on United Express flight 3411. The United Continental chief executive “deeplyregrets this situation arose”. Well, of course he is and of course he does. The video of a screaming and bloodied passengerbeing dragged forcibly off the overbooked flight from Chicago to Louisville is upsetting, and the “situation” was highlyregrettable.
At first glance, it seems the path of least resistance would have been for Mr Munoz to issue a full and complete apology. Istruggle, after all, to think of a case where saying sorry to a customer ever got a chief executive into more trouble thandelaying doing so. But it is not quite as simple as that.
Airlines should be expert at the apology business simply because they have so much to apologise for. Lost luggage, missedconnections, cancellations, poor food, inadequate legroom. When disappointment or pain is inflicted on demanding, stressedand often jet-lagged customers sitting at deoxygenated close quarters, there is bound to be a backlash.
But instead of writing the manual on how, when and to whom an apology should be made, airlines are top of the list of casestudies on how not to do it. United alone has a chapter to itself. Mr Munoz was only just emerging from “leggings-gate”, afterthe airline barred two teenage girls from flying in leggings. United pointed out the girls had infringed the dress code for the programme of free tickets it offers to employees and dependants.
When a company violates the public's trust, an apology can be the first step to restoring confidence. This was a lesson thatmost banks failed to learn after the 2008 crisis. But corporate leaders also need to take responsibility for mistakes — andsometimes responsibility is hard to attribute.
Before baying for a full apology from Mr Munoz, then, let's establish what he should apologise for. The boss's email to stafflaid far too much blame on the passenger, and not enough on the Chicago airport security officers who extracted him fromthe plane. He should have apologised for the mistakes for which United was accountable: the airline reportedly needed to flyfour crew on flight 3411, perhaps to join another flight whose cancellation would have inconvenienced even more customers. It was, therefore, up to the airline to try to “bump” passengers before they boarded the aircraft, confining any unpleasantnessto the departure gate.
I strongly believe companies' responsibility extends to the behaviour of the people who supply them and offer services undertheir name. But airline chief executives face the challenge that while their brand sells the entire service, many of the elementsthat contribute to the user's unhappiness are out of their hands.
Airlines must try, therefore: to be resilient enough to cope with unforeseen problems; to admit to it if something goes wrong; to apologise for the part for which they are responsible; and, crucially, to avoid repeating the error. Saying sorry over andover again does not, in the long run, help very much. Over time, it may add to a sense that the company is insincere.
I commute daily on a train service that, after every delay, runs a recorded announcement in which it “apologises for theinconvenience caused”. Believe me, after a while such messages wear very thin indeed.

   初級       中級      中高級   

Shaming of United shows saying sorry is never enough
Oscar Munoz is “upset” about what happened on United Express flight 3411. The United Continental chief executive “deeplyregrets this situation arose”. Well, of course he is and of course he does. The video of a screaming and bloodied passengerbeing dragged forcibly off the overbooked flight from Chicago to Louisville is upsetting, and the “situation” was highlyregrettable.
At first glance, it seems the path of least resistance would have been for Mr Munoz to issue a full and complete apology. Istruggle, after all, to think of a case where saying sorry to a customer ever got a chief executive into more trouble thandelaying doing so. But it is not quite as simple as that.
Airlines should be expert at the apology business simply because they have so much to apologise for. Lost luggage, missedconnections, cancellations, poor food, inadequate legroom. When disappointment or pain is inflicted on demanding, stressedand often jet-lagged customers sitting at deoxygenated close quarters, there is bound to be a backlash.
But instead of writing the manual on how, when and to whom an apology should be made, airlines are top of the list of casestudies on how not to do it. United alone has a chapter to itself. Mr Munoz was only just emerging from “leggings-gate”, afterthe airline barred two teenage girls from flying in leggings. United pointed out the girls had infringed the dress code for theprogramme of free tickets it offers to employees and dependants.
When a company violates the public's trust, an apology can be the first step to restoring confidence. This was a lesson thatmost banks failed to learn after the 2008 crisis. But corporate leaders also need to take responsibility for mistakes — andsometimes responsibility is hard to attribute.
Before baying for a full apology from Mr Munoz, then, let's establish what he should apologise for. The boss's email to stafflaid far too much blame on the passenger, and not enough on the Chicago airport security officers who extracted him fromthe plane. He should have apologised for the mistakes for which United was accountable: the airline reportedly needed to flyfour crew on flight 3411, perhaps to join another flight whose cancellation would have inconvenienced even more customers. It was, therefore, up to the airline to try to “bump” passengers before they boarded the aircraft, confining any unpleasantnessto the departure gate.
I strongly believe companies' responsibility extends to the behaviour of the people who supply them and offer services undertheir name. But airline chief executives face the challenge that while their brand sells the entire service, many of the elementsthat contribute to the user's unhappiness are out of their hands.
Airlines must try, therefore: to be resilient enough to cope with unforeseen problems; to admit to it if something goes wrong; to apologise for the part for which they are responsible; and, crucially, to avoid repeating the error. Saying sorry over andover again does not, in the long run, help very much. Over time, it may add to a sense that the company is insincere.
I commute daily on a train service that, after every delay, runs a recorded announcement in which it “apologises for theinconvenience caused”. Believe me, after a while such messages wear very thin indeed.