Confusion and poor service on Ethiopian Juba-Addis Ababa flights

By Jacob K. Lupai

November 7, 2011 — On Sunday 30 October, in the late afternoon there were two Ethiopian flights from Juba to Addis Ababa, ET493 and ET495. As Juba International Airport still has neither a system of announcing departures through microphones nor a system of announcing through computerised screens, an official of Ethiopian came to the lounge and announced to passengers to start moving for departure to Addis Ababa on Ethiopian flight ET493. Some passengers who did not know there were two flights were a little bit confused. Passengers who were on ET495 were confused and asked the official for confirmation. The official indeed confirmed there were two flights and the first was ET493 followed by ET495.

The interval of the two flights to Addis Ababa was about 15 minutes. It really didn’t matter much because the passengers on both flights were expected to arrive in Addis Ababa simultaneously within the hour. One noted difference, though, was that the passengers on the first flight ET493 were on an aircraft that looked like a Boeing 736 while those on the second flight ET495 were on a tiny 2-propoelled engine aircraft similar in appearance to a Fokker which is the focus here.

When passengers were boarding Ethiopian ET495, a flight attendant announced at the entrance that the flight was “free seating,” which passengers understood to mean a passenger could be seated anywhere in the cabin. Indeed, passengers helped themselves to the front seats towards the cockpit. However, an Ethiopian official walked in and demanded to inspect the boarding passes of those passengers who sat in the front seats. After inspecting the boarding passes the official gave some passengers marching orders to vacate the seats. Passengers were confused. One even protested that the number on his boarding pass was within the numbers of the front seats. The official was adamant and claimed the numbers on the boarding passes meant nothing. He refused to entertain any complaint even though some of the front seats remained vacant until the final destination.

The point here is the apparent confusion between the official and the flight attendant in their conflicting messages to passengers. It seems there was poor communication in the arrangement for flight ET495. How could the flight attendant welcome passengers on board flight ET495 and advised it was a free seating flight only for the official to harass passengers by ordering them out of what was their given free choice. If this was not confusion on flight ET495 one couldn’t know what was it. To confirm the confusion a passenger accommodation voucher in Addis Ababa showed the passenger was to have flown on ET493 but the passenger instead flew on ET495. Again if this is not confusion it is difficult to know what it is.

The Ethiopian flight ET495 took off from Juba exactly at 5.45 pm and landed in Addis Ababa at 7.30 pm. The flight time was precisely one hour forty-five minutes. When the aircraft was climbing to the expected altitude flight attendants started arranging for services to passengers. In the meantime something that caught the eye was a pair of curtains partitioning what was supposed to be the business class from the economy class. The curtains were attached to the roof of the cabin with some self-adhesive material. However, the curtains were falling off from the roof repeatedly such that flight attendants had to duck when crossing from business and economy class and vice-versa in providing services to passengers. One flight attendant, who was visibly fed up of the nuisance caused by the poorly fixed curtains, tore off the curtains altogether from the roof and used the overhead lockers to press them down. This kept the business and economy classes for the rest of flight without any partition.

Shortly after takeoff a flight attendant announced that snacks would be served for a meal. Indeed tiny snacks were served on a flight of one hour forty-five minutes. There was no choice because the snacks were mainly of beef ham and mayonnaise-like cream, and nothing more. There was neither tea nor coffee. For a drink there were only fruit juices, soda and water provided. There was no alcohol provided as though Ethiopian was operating a strict Islamic Sharia flight on its Juba-Addis Ababa route.

In contrast, Kenya Airlines provides meals with a choice not merely snack. On Juba-Nairobi flight Kenya Airlines provides tea and coffee in addition to the provision of alcohol on a flight time of about one hour twenty minutes which is less flight time than that to Addis Ababa. Also, the Kenya Airlines ticket from Juba to Nairobi seems to be cheaper that Ethiopian ticket from Juba to Addis Ababa. Asked why there was no alcohol on ET495, a flight attendant answered because the distance from Juba to Addis Ababa was shorter. It was not clear whether the distance was measured in hours or miles. At any rate that was a very strange answer indeed in contrast to services provided on Kenya Airlines flight.

It can be seen that there was confusion and poor service on Ethiopian flight ET495 from Juba to Addis Ababa. For the comfort of passengers they should not be sent mixed messages. Services should not be poor to passengers who pay so much. One other observation is the use of 2-engine propelled aircraft on international route such as Addis Ababa-Juba route. Such an aircraft should be for domestic destination within Ethiopia. For Ethiopian Juba is not a domestic destination so that a 2-engine propelled aircraft should be used. We expect the likes of Boeings as passenger carriers to land in Juba International Airport on their international routes.

South Sudan is an independent country and a lucrative destination for many foreigners seeking greener pastures. It is therefore important that foreign investors are considerate in investing in South Sudan. The level of services provided should be competitive. It is regrettable that Ethiopian services on its Addis Ababa-Juba route are below standard. This is unexpected of Ethiopian which claims of providing quality services worldwide.

In conclusion, despite Ethiopian’s confusion and poor services on flight ET495 on Juba-Addis Ababa route, I would still fly on Ethiopian. This is because courtesy on Ethiopian is simply second to none. Also, on transit as may be appropriate, Ethiopian provides excellent hotel accommodation with a high level of service. This all makes the choice of flying on Ethiopian memorable. The only advice to give Ethiopian is that it should improve services and use wider jet engine aircraft on Addis Ababa-Juba route as part of its international route. For now Ethiopian seems to use Addis Ababa-Juba route as though it was a domestic one within Ethiopia. Hopefully things will change soon for the comfort of passengers.

The author can be reached at [email protected]