Service Fariness for CRM Modern

Service Fariness for CRM

Modern airline travel has become so commonplace that it is very similar to the crowded train system of the 1920s and 1930s. The issue at hand, though, deals with the issue of fairness when SW Airlines required that a large passenger purchase two seats or not fly. Of course, as with most controversial issues, there are layers of issues surrounding this controversy: are Americans becoming larger? Are SW seats smaller to squeeze more profit into a flight? What are the safety ramifications of a larger person in a single seat? Is the comfort of other passengers an issue? Are there moral and ethical principles at work here, or is SW Airlines just selfish and greedy?

The concept of fairness has numerous meanings as well. It may refer to the equity in law, social justice, or a system of principles designed to respect the needs of all people, of the individual as well as the group. Procedural fairness defines that laws and rules apply to everyone and are designed for the benefit of the larger group. Distributive fairness examines what is socially fair based on the allocation of goods, services, and issues for society. Outcome fairness focuses on the result that occurs, not so much the path to get there (Leventhal, et.al., 1980). These views of fairness are really moral/ethical issues based on the principles of utilitarianism and deontology.

Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical thing one can do is any action that will maximize the happiness within an organization or society. . In utilitarianism, the focus is on outcomes, or the ends of an action; in deontology the actions themselves must be ethical and moral, or the outcome is moot. Deontology argues that there are norms and truths that are universal for all humans; actions then have a predisposition to right or wrong, moral or immoral. When using the principles of ethics, one first asks three questions about the issue:: 1) is the action to be taken morally good and done from duty? 2) Is the action judged by a principal of a moral maxim for society or 3) is the action not in respect for morals or law, but for the imperative of reason that goes beyond our other interests. Further, when one is using an individual situation to define fairness or morality, one must ask:

Reversibility. Would the person taking the action be willing to have that action done to him or her if the roles were reversed?

Universalizability. Would the person taking the action in question be willing to have everyone act that way?

Is the person taking the action treating others with respect?

Is the person taking the action treating others in ways that they have consented to be treated? (Carroll, 2000; Velazquez, 2005).

Analysis-

SW, and most of the major airlines, have not reacted with fairness with their seat sizes; Americans are growing larger, but seat distance and sizing remains equal to, or smaller, than 3-4 decades ago. This is unfair and unethical because it punishes everyone, not just the obese.

Airlines regularly charge for excess baggage based on their own rules; excess girth or weight is not so different. Tickets are based on clients comfortably and safely filling a seat- if either issue is off, then the process becomes unfair.

It is not just the obese passenger's considerations that must be addressed, but the other passengers who also paid for a seat. Allowing an extremely obese person to "squeeze" into a seat would further discomfort the other passengers in the aisle, and even cause safety and accessibility issues.

There is a tremendous amount of greyness in some decisions flight attendants must make; people and luggage are both shaped differently, hardly universal, so issues must be put into context for the larger good of the passengers (adherence to schedule, comfort, and safety).