Re: Are we passengers or customers?

[Santosh Bhat <santosh@student.unsw.edu.au>]

Ted Gay wrote:
> 
> "Santosh Bhat" <santosh@student.unsw.edu.au> wrote in message
> 3A272604.FBCB9AD4@student.unsw.edu.au">news:3A272604.FBCB9AD4@student.unsw.edu.au...
> > Here's an interesting subject I'd like to raise. When travelling on a
> > bus or a train or a fery etc..
> > Do you regard yourself as a passenger or a customer?
> >
> Both!  As a tram driver I consider that all my passengers are customers.  Mr
> Oxford in part defines a customer as  "person with whom one is concerned" .
> I'm concerned with the safety and comfort of all my passengers, who are or
> were  boys or girls, many though are not ladies or gentlemen.  Hence my
> greeting on the P/A,  "Good morning/afternoon ladies, gentlemen, boys, girls
> and others, the next stop is...."

Don't suppose you give results of the cricket /footie like I;'ve heard
some train gaurd do you?


> > The difference between the two as I'd say it are that a passenger is
> > someone who uses a transport system, whereas a customer is one who is
> > using a business product or service.
> 
> A fare dodger is a passenger but a ticket holder is a customer.  Mr Oxford
> again,
> customer = "one who buys, esp. from one seller".
> 

I think a fare is neccessary, I'm not implying that transport should be
free. Its in the attitude of the transport provider - do they treat us
like customers and milk as much profit as possible, or do they treat us
like passengers and say "you're using a transport services, there are
costs involved, but we'll do our best to get you to where you want to
go".


> You state that the customers of CityRail "should accept that things can and
> do go wrong".

No, If they regard us as passengers, then yes we should be prepared for
the problems that passengers on a transport service can expect. However
if they are going to treat us as customers then we expect good customer
service. 

I know it seems a bit pedantic, but If I'm called a customer then I know
all they're interested in is getting my money anyway possible, and by
providing a better service they'll get more of my money. However if I'm
called a passenger, then I know they're just interested in getting me
from A to B so I'll put up with the problems faced in providing that
transport.


> > To give an example: I was stuck for two hours on the M4 motorway as a
> > result of Thursdays storm and an accident on the motorway. I then STILL
> > had to pay a toll, this is poor service if you ask me, should I really
> > still have to pay?
> 
> But as a customer of the M4, an alternate transport service to CityRail,
> you expect to receive perfect service.  A double standard?

No comparison between different types of transport (modal choice) is not
the issue. Had I chosen Cityrail that day, I'd have known roughly how
long It would take me to get home (I would've been badly wrong on that
day because of the storm) and what level of service cityrail provides.

My argument is that the tollroad didn't provide an adequate service to
me. I wouldn't have used their service if I'd known it would take them
so long to get their act together. Therefore why should I pay full price
for poor service? Now If it wasnt a toll road, and therefore its purpose
is just to get people from A to B, then I'd have put up with it.

I don't think I'm explaining myself that clearly. Apologies if it sounds
confusing.

Santosh
 

NOTE: This email address will no longer be available after December 2000