WAS THE ARIK AIR REJOINDER ENOUGH FOR ITS REPUTATION?

WAS THE ARIK AIR REJOINDER ENOUGH FOR ITS REPUTATION?

Arik Air recently impressed with their rapid response to a trending WhatsApp narrative predicting doom for the airline over allegedly old aircraft. No less an authority than the Managing Director of Arik rolled out a counter. One effect is that it kept it from continuing to trend.

I was so impressed that I shared the counter to three groups where posters shared the initial report, noting that fairness demands hearing the other side. I then got a stinging retort.

A friend who is also a communications director wrote back.

“Noted. But Arik is still a shit airline. My sister went to PH last month, and her flight back was 7 pm. It was shifted to 9 pm and then at 10 pm. It was around 11 pm they were told it would be the next day. Eventually, they were told it would depart the next day at 8 am. They could not find her luggage that night. She travelled back to Lagos without her luggage. It was later they found her back in Lagos. The luggage was vandalised, and her cancer drugs stolen. They are playing games with compensation. The drugs are worth N70 000.’

Barrister R. O lsenalumhe Esq shared the trauma of flying Arik Air to Abuja on 7 and 8 March. The craft wobbled and the pilot dithered. They hung in suspense and fright. “Two passengers confirmed that they had two previous experiences with the same aircraft. Another narrated how one of the aircraft engines had failed to start an aborted Lagos - Abuja flight. I have not recovered from the trauma. I am told that the particular aircraft is still flying.”

He then canvassed the view that Arik Air is “a disaster waiting to happen” unless they drop some old aircraft such as he flew on the two legs of that trip.

Captain Roy Ilegbodu, Chief Executive Officer, admitted in a statement that the incident Isenalumhe mentioned happened. He differed from the interpretation the passenger gave the actions of the pilot. “It is unfortunate that one R. Isenalumhe, a trained lawyer who raised the alarm, displayed an unprofessional approach to this issue as he is not an expert to declare an aircraft unsafe. We had expected him to go the extra mile to investigate and ask probing questions from professionals in the industry or refer the incident to the appropriate regulatory body, the NCAA, if he felt so concerned about air safety. We wonder what his motive may be, and Arik reserves the right to take action on this libellous and unprofessional conduct.”

The Arik Air boss then tooted the horns. He claimed outstanding safety records in 14 years and assured that the airline would never operate a frail craft.

There were a few comments on the rejoinder, but the topic tapered off.

Is this proof that a prompt and measured response works? What did Arik Air get right?

1.      They responded in quick time.

2.      They admitted the incident and then offered a different technical explanation.

3.      They ensured to share their version on the same WhatsApp platform.

However, my friend's response shows that public statements cannot replace passengers' experience. They store them and then juxtapose the views with what they or their friends and family know in real-time.

In the light of the above, did the Arik Air rejoinder succeed? Is it enough? What else should they do? Has it left the communication realm to customer service, and what can communication do to bridge any gaps between the two?