Singapore Airlines: The Art of Charging Customers for NOT Flying
A masterclass in corporate policy, commercial opportunism and why common sense apparently costs $667.
Singapore Airlines has built a global reputation for exceptional service, premium travel and customer care.
Unfortunately, my recent experience suggests that somewhere between the champagne, hot towels and beautifully presented meals, someone may have misplaced the concept of fairness.
Allow me to explain.
My family of four booked return flights from Perth to Singapore for our October holiday.
Unfortunately, a sporting commitment meant my husband and son needed to travel one day later than originally planned.
My daughter and I weren’t changing anything. Same flights, same dates, same destination.
We simply needed to make alternative outbound arrangements for the boys while retaining their already paid for return flights.
A relatively straightforward situation, one might think.
Apparently not.
We purchased two new one way tickets through Scoot, Singapore Airlines’ own subsidiary.
We weren’t asking Singapore Airlines for a refund on the original outbound flights. We accepted that we had paid for those seats and wouldn’t be using them.
But when we contacted Singapore Airlines to advise that the boys would no longer be taking their original outbound flights, we discovered that simply not boarding an aircraft could have some rather extraordinary financial consequences.
We were advised that if they failed to take their original outbound flights, their return flights could be cancelled.
Yes. The return flights we had already paid for.
The solution?
Pay another AUD $667.
At this point, I think it’s worth putting the corporate policy manual aside and applying a little basic commercial logic.
Let’s follow the money. Because this is where it gets interesting.
Transaction 1: Singapore Airlines receives the original fares.
My husband and son purchase return flights from Perth to Singapore.
Singapore Airlines receives payment for both outbound and return journeys.
Transaction 2: Singapore Airlines Group receives another two fares.
We purchase two replacement outbound flights through Scoot, Singapore Airlines’ own subsidiary.
More revenue for the airline group.
Transaction 3: Singapore Airlines retains the original outbound fares AND has the opportunity to resell those seats.
We aren’t asking for our money back.
We aren’t asking for compensation.
We are advising the airline that two passengers will not be occupying seats they have already paid for.
Singapore Airlines retains the original payment and has the opportunity to sell those seats again, potentially generating additional revenue from the very same seats.
Transaction 4: And then comes the $667.
Despite all of the above, Singapore Airlines demands another $667 simply to preserve the return flights we have already purchased.
Let’s think about that for a moment.
The airline has already been paid for the original seats. Its subsidiary has been paid for the replacement flights. The original seats can potentially be sold again.
And the customer who has generated all this additional revenue is then charged another $667 for the privilege of NOT occupying seats they have already paid for, or risk losing their return flights, which they have also already paid for.
In other words, Singapore Airlines wants to charge us for NOT flying, having already charged us for flying TWICE, while reserving the right to sell the very seats we won’t be occupying to someone else.
You really couldn’t make it up.
But what about the corporate values?
Singapore Airlines proudly lists Integrity and Customer Focus among its core values.
Its own definition of integrity? “We go out of our way to do the right thing.”
Customer Focus? “We understand our guests so we can truly delight them.”
Every time, apparently.
I appreciate that airlines have fare rules and automated booking systems. But a policy can be correctly applied and still produce a fundamentally unfair outcome.
Integrity is what happens when a company has the contractual power to do something, but stops to consider whether it should.
In this case, Singapore Airlines has received the original fares, its subsidiary has received the replacement fares, and the airline has the opportunity to resell the original seats.
Yet it still wants another $667.
Perhaps someone at Singapore Airlines could explain how this outcome reflects its stated commitment to integrity, customer focus and doing the right thing.
Because from where I’m sitting, the only thing being truly delighted here is the airline’s revenue department.
If exceptional service ends the moment a customer needs common sense, what exactly are we paying the premium for?
