What AirAsia could have done differently?

The recent incident of AirAsia denying Izan Suhaila Mohamad Ali and her 14-month-old baby, Maryam Sofea, on board a flight home to Kuala Lumpur, has highlighted a few issues.While AirAsia was right in their call to deny both passengers on board the flight to minimise the spread of a contagious disease, the airline could have gone a step further to assist the mother and child with on-ground provision of assistance services such as accommodation and food.But the airline failed to do so, allowing competitor Malaysia Airlines to quickly step in and offer its services.A day later, MAS issued a press release capitalising on its brand values of ‘Malaysian Hospitality' in assisting those in plight.Jonathan Tan, associate director at Cohn & Wolfe XPR Malaysia, said AirAsia has the right to deny passengers in accordance with protocol and health safety standards, however the move lacked compassion."What AirAsia failed to demonstrate in this scenario was the initiative to pro-actively go the extra mile to aid the passenger. The airline could have exercised some initiative to aid the passenger's plight, whether a second opinion at a different doctor (given that MAS' physician cleared the passenger). Post-incident, the airline should have taken a more compassionate tone, apologising for the predicament that transpired (as opposed to the ‘we were right according to protocol' stance) and then proceeding to underline the need for an investigation and review."Janitha Sukumaran, consulting director and founder of Rantau PR, who is a mother herself, said, the decision made was for the benefit of the majority."In running any business, we occasionally have to enforce regulations that may seem uncaring or lacking in compassion, but ultimately, we have to make a decision for the benefit of the majority even if it inconveniences specific parties. In the case of AirAsia, the staff were complying with standard health regulations, although it would have helped if the child's illness was spotted before any of the luggage was checked in, to save the family the hassle."Peter Pek, group managing director of Mercatus+, lauded AirAsia's health safety measures and in issuing the statement to clear the air. The statement explained that it offered arrangements to fly back the mother and baby as well as two accompanying adults for free, once the child is declared fit to fly by the doctor.While MAS did not do anything wrong in capitalising the situation (as healthy competition is good for consumers), Pek questioned its safety measures."Is MAS saying that it will fly a contagious passenger, knowing full well that it could infect other children on the flight? If MAS had offered free accommodation, that would be a different story. But I do hope that the offer is only for when the baby is medically fit to fly (an offer already put forward by AirAsia). If the airline actually flew an infected child on its flight, then I think that this offer might do more damage than good in the eyes of the average consumer," Pek said."In any situation, businesses that are alert, observant and quick to act can often find good opportunities to highlight their positive attributes or generate positive publicity in general - in the face of controversy involving competitors or other companies," said Sukumaran.Tan also said MAS took advantage of the situation to their credit and it was a bold and timely move to exude the company's "Malaysian Hospitality" brand values.Now that the dust has settled on this case, the lesson to take away from this is the importance of follow-through after-sales service, particularly for brands that are in the service industry.