I think you are overestimating the powers of telephone agents with respect to website errors. Their abilities tend to be extremely limited and anything like you describe would have to be escalated to a dedicated team that would not be responding in real time like you describe.
> 3- that the agent or someone was going to pocket out the 56 EUR difference.
Definitely not the agent. Could you imagine if agents had the ability to pocket any money from customers? I think the “or someone” you describe is AirFrance and the system wasn’t fully showing the CSR the right info.
I'm guessing the original commenter just hit a bug. They should have retried some database call, but didn't in that one codepath, and it cost them the entire request. It happens.
The general state of airline IT reliability is atrocious.
What they described seemed plausible if one assumes malice (not that they should). Naively, I suspect your take is more accurate but nothing as explained requires escalation if Air France is indeed engaging in the described behaviors.
IT for every airline, creaks and groans loudly.
Then we can further observe the possibility for a third form of the apparent dilemma: organisations tacitly and systematically weaponising their incompetence.
However, a legitimate bug/lack of attention to detail coupled with a dysfunctional remediation process will effectively achieve the same outcome without leaving conclusive evidence for a regulator to prove malice.
In this case there was a bug that got sidestepped when the CSR looked up the account (maybe a cache got flushed?), the bug is most likely known but is rotting away in some Jira backlog because making the system work well (the work they should’ve done in the first place) wouldn’t give anyone any promotion (or worse - will expose their incompetence) while “raise spam letter frequency by 10% to increase engagement” is scheduled into the sprint because the product manager wants their praise for their upcoming promotion.
I think we can probably exclude malice (from the agent at least), like many commenters pointed out. It is, however, infuriatingly shady for AirFrance to not address these issues. Doubly so because at the end of the day it benefits them.
Many many customers aren't tech savvy, won't place a call, will pay the fees, or downright abandon trying to get their money back because of how difficult AirFrance (and other airlines) make the process. And at what point should _not_ fixing these issues be labeled "malice"?
Funny enough, it’s even worse when abroad, and easily fixed by using a VPN that exits in France.
Qatar also offers a “5% premium” when you request a voucher instead of a refund. But hey the premium is on the price before some base fees, so the voucher total is almost exactly what you paid, not 105% as you’d expect.
Recently they had a bug where once you selected a seat for one flight in a booking you were blocked from any later seat selection in that booking. The only way to fix it was to call customer service.
I'm lucky enough to have access to the platinum line. You get to talk to people who are pleasant, competent and have sufficient authority to actually get things done. This should be the experience for every call to customer service but I guess it would be too expensive.
This summer, I needed to change my Flex ticket. So I went online and found a new flight that would cost me just 13 EUR in airfare difference.
As I was about to pay for the fare, the website told me "a technical error happened" and that I needed to call customer service...
So I called customer service, told them my issue and the flight I was looking for. The agent on the phone told me there was indeed an issue and that he fixed it and that my total fare was 69 EUR. To which I answered that on the website the fare was 13 EUR and not 69 EUR.
The agent insisted that the fare was 69 EUR and there was no other possibility. So, as I was talking to him over the phone, I went on the website and tried purchasing the 13 EUR fare... and it went through.
I am now convinced that 1- AirFrance is purposefully preventing people from changing their fare online (unless someone on HN tells me they had a different experience) 2- that the agent on the phone did something that allowed me to pay for the fare 3- that the agent or someone was going to pocket out the 56 EUR difference.
I might be wrong on all 3 points, and these might just be pure coincidences, but I am used to airlines being scummy, so I'll easily believe my current narrative.