On a flight I was taking the other day, passengers were asked to fill out a survey. I question the utility of such an instrument given that the feedback was mostly about satisfaction with the crew who likely knew that the survey would be administered and thus may not have been going about their business as usual. I took one to fill out, because I am always curious to see how surveys are constructed.
I found the following question puzzling:
The survey was only available in English as far as I could tell. They cetainly didn’t announce any alternatives in English or any other language. This question was on the third of four pages. Assuming the question is about one’s English abilities, does it make sense to assume that anyone needing language assistance would’ve gotten to the third page of the survey? And even if they had, how reliable would their responses be?
Or am I missing something and is there some other type of language assistance one might need? I doubt that if a hearing-impaired passenger needed some type of assistance they would refer to that as “language assistance”. So what’s the point of this question?
{ 24 comments }
Kevin Donoghue 04.09.06 at 1:22 pm
Perhaps they had in mind travellers who can read English but can’t understand spoken English. That’s surely quite common? But it does remind me a bit of web pages I’ve seen where the FAQ discuss what to do if you can’t access the internet.
tom @whimsley 04.09.06 at 2:33 pm
– or literacy surveys sent out by mail.
But seriously, I think such customer satisfaction surveys, which are increasingly common, are attempts to get customers to monitor workplace performance — that is, to offload disciplinary and monitoring tasks that the company would otherwise have to do.
My response is always to write that everyone serving me has been doing a great job, but to add a complaint about the survey itself. I’m sure it doesn’t get past customer relations, but it makes me feel better.
g 04.09.06 at 4:05 pm
It’s not clear to what extent the company can perform the monitoring task effectively. It could hire people to go on flights and report back on their experiences, but that gives you only one data point rather than hundreds. Even when passengers’ time is taken into account, a survey could tell you more per unit cost and effort.
Then again, if you’re trying to maximize the information you get per unit cost and effort, putting a bit more thought into the survey from the outset would seem to be a good plan.
Nearest thing to an excuse I can find for that question: maybe cabin staff are told that when they provide any “language assistance” to a passenger, they should then be sure to explain to them when the survey comes round that they need to tick that box.
abb1 04.09.06 at 4:35 pm
Corporation has a customer service departmen. In this department there is a ‘customer surveys’ group (or more likely it’s contracted out to another company). There is a guy in this group who writes these surveys. He will copy and paste some other survey, of course, but he’ll shuffle the questions, rephrase some and add some to make his survey original. He’ll spend a half-hour making a new survey and he’ll bill the airline for 5 days of work. Later a bunch of smart people here will be analyzing his work. Life goes on.
Alan 04.09.06 at 5:29 pm
This question is not designed to gather useful information. It is part of the company’s PR effort. The question is designed to give the passenger a warm glow of satisfaction at their intellectual superiority over the lumpen wage slaves who operate the airline.
mainsailset 04.09.06 at 7:12 pm
Two thoughts come to mind. 1. this is how Bush has taught society to think. Wait until you’re in trouble before someone thinks to ask if you belong on the page & 2. I drive a 4×4 and learned early on to put it in 4 wheel drive before I drive over the cliff. Oh, maybe a 3rd, they simply asked the question to ask the question not to engage their brains.
wickedpinto 04.09.06 at 7:20 pm
Jay Mohr has a bit about flying to Canada and having to fill out a customs questionaire. On the questionaire it asked if he intended to visit any farms while in Canada, he immediately checked “no” but then he goes into a stream of consciousness bit about “what does canada have on their farms that they don’t want me to see?” the punchline is him turning to his friend in the seat next to him and asked about the questionaire, the friend is dubious, and Jay finaly says conspiratorialy “What did you put down for the farm question?” to which his friend responds “I checked no, but I’m SO GOING!”
The point? voluntary participation taints outcome of these stupid things, and there is no reason to even distribute them.
Brett Bellmore 04.09.06 at 7:42 pm
If that flight was anything like the ones I’ve taken lately, the whole issue of what the questions were would be moot, because they wouldn’t have any pens or pencils with which to fill out the survey. On an international flight where there are customs and immigrations forms that have to be filled out enroute, yet.
ogmb 04.09.06 at 8:06 pm
He will copy and paste some other survey, of course, but he’ll shuffle the questions, rephrase some and add some to make his survey original. He’ll spend a half-hour making a new survey and he’ll bill the airline for 5 days of work.
Ben Domenech got a new job?
jacob 04.09.06 at 10:37 pm
In line with Alan’s response, but slightly different: I think that surveys like this are designed to make customers feel better about crappy service. This way, rather than leaving an airline thinking “This airline is crap, and I’ll never fly on it again,” you leave saying, “Boy, those people really care what I think and at least I got to complain.” It’s cheaper to give out a survey than to actually fix anything.
Belle Waring 04.09.06 at 11:39 pm
it’s like when clytamnestra says to cassandra “if you can’t understand me, at least make a sign with that foriegn hand of yours…”
wickedpinto 04.10.06 at 12:52 am
WHOAH! Belle quoting something form 2600 years ago (not correct dating but close enough) how about Agammemnon to Clyemnestra “honey? did you let your nails grow?!”
(blatant lie of a quote)
Ginger Yellow 04.10.06 at 4:27 am
It’s no more silly, surely, than the US immigration forms which ask
chris y 04.10.06 at 5:58 am
Ginger,
The broadcaster Gilbert Harding once responded to an earlier version of that US question by writing “Sole purpose of visit”. He got in unchallenged.
bigboss 04.10.06 at 6:28 am
Perhaps the suggestion that one needs language assistance applies to those who feel so frustrated, that they are inclined to use politically incorrect superlatives to describe their flying experience. Maybe its sarcasm???
Michael Kremer 04.10.06 at 7:32 am
Years ago I received a letter from the Social Security Administration — I don’t recall what it was informing me about — but I do remember that at the bottom of the page there was a notice:
“if you cannot read English, please call…”
Matt 04.10.06 at 8:11 am
I would have asked them to parse the phrase ‘on board this flight’, so I guess I do need language assistance.
Cranky Observer 04.10.06 at 4:51 pm
> On the questionaire it asked if he intended to
> visit any farms while in Canada, he immediately
> checked “no†but then he goes into a stream of
> consciousness bit about “what does canada have on
> their farms that they don’t want me to see?â€
With the memory of essentially every cow in the UK being slaughtered and burned in giant pyres still fresh, one would think the reason for this would be clear. Not that anyone ever puts an honest answer of course.
Cranky
Stentor 04.10.06 at 5:30 pm
I hate to take the fun out of a bit of corporate-bureaucracy-bashing, but I would imagine the survey writer assumed that anyone getting language assistance on the flight would also have language assistance while filling out the survey (eg someone to translate the questions and mark the appropriate answers).
Kenny Easwaran 04.10.06 at 8:53 pm
13 – I believe the reason for that sort of question is so that when they get a visa, or become a permanent resident or even citizen or something, if they ever commit one of those crimes, then they can revoke citizenship or residency or whatever and punish the person more strictly and more easily.
cm 04.11.06 at 12:52 am
ginger, kenny: It’s called “lying to a federal officer”, or something to that effect. You will note that the small print on top of virtually every signature line on a federal document has the phrase “under penalty of perjury”. Deportation or other administrative actions can then be based on grounds that illicit entrace to the country was obtained by misrepresenting facts or intentions to a federal agency.
Ginger Yellow 04.11.06 at 4:51 am
Whereas genocide isn’t a crime?
It would make more sense if the US didn’t refuse to systematically test slaughtered cows for BSE. Of course it’s a lot cheaper to get someone to fill out a questionnaire, but it doesn’t take a conspiracy theorist to think that the USDA fears what it might find.
marine mammal 04.11.06 at 4:01 pm
22 – the mass slaughter of cows in the UK wasn’t due to BSE, it was due to foot and mouth disease, which is easily spread via a person’s shoes. When foot and mouth was on in the UK, all footpaths were closed, so pedestrians couldn’t spread the disease.
cac 04.11.06 at 11:12 pm
I’m not sure if it’s apocraphyal or not but I have heard that immediately following the question on US immigration about whether you are a terrorist or genocidist it says “Answering yes may not mean that you are denied entry to the US”.
Comments on this entry are closed.