If u were to do a "forensic" study of the commentators when anonymous postings were allowed, u will recognize that there are only 3 anonymous posters who r regulars on the blog.
One is incoherent in his postings and don't seems capable of writing logically all the time.
Another anonymous poster is very against anyone joining the CC.
Finally the 3rd anonymous is into presenting the cons of being a CC.
The situation here is that they will never change their positions in their ideas of the CC job because unfortunately they are not blessed with emotional intelligence and therefore do not have the capability & capacity to understand and accept any other thoughts and reasonings coming from others except themselves, more like those with egocentric and narcissistic personalities.
On the flip side though, their presence with their "cons" views of being CC does create an environment for others to rebuke them in the comments section, thus contributing to an increase in the number of comments, commentators and alternate views.
So allowing comments anonymously may still not be a bad idea if u still reserved the right to remove those that are extreme and disrespectful in their comments.
BT: I fully agree with Sunny. The incoherent poster's longwinded comments will not be published. I will allow to some degree publish the "cons" views if they are respectful and realistic.
Hi, Anonymouse of 5/1/23. I also noticed and share your sentiments. Hmmm…. Let me see if I can analyse the comment and give my views appropriately. The comment was that BT cannot accept criticism made against CC life. In my humble opinion, he is not alone in this situation as there are plenty out there who will do likewise in various organisations and for different reasons
As we all know, there are many types of former-employees/retirees and, just to name a few, here’s some:-
i) The happy and tireless – they are always on the go with an ongoing list of things to do;
ii) The unhappy, disgruntled and lost – they probably did not have a smooth transition into retirement.
In my view, BT fell under (i) above. He was happy with his stint in SQ, which explains why he always disagreed with adverse comments against CC life and respond with his views based on personal experience. We must also note that BT joined SQ at an era when there were not many jobs of such nature around. Also, his generation was one which many worked in a single job till retirement and were always proud of their job.
I do not know BT personally and, hence, cannot comment on his likes and dislikes of CC life. Therefore, could it be a case where those comments he objected to were his “pet” areas, i.e. those which he viewed favourably. In other words, if there’s a comment on another matter which was not his “pet” area, and he disagreed with, would he object to it? Let's say, for example, he is not happy with Management's strong emphasis that the passenger is always right. And if someone post this, will be disagree and say it was a wise decision or disagree and give his reasons. He will have to tell us.
We can agree OR disagree or agree TO disagree, but one has to be honest and truthful.
My humble views.
KayPoh aka BusyBody
The moto that 'passengers are alway right' is good for revenues and business,but it hurt the service giver thru assault,violence as seen in reports.It give rise to mental health issues to crew,witness the peeing case in Indian air ,the disorderly conducts affecting flight routines and many other cases reported.Issuing warning are the current procedures,it a toothless response discouraging peace of mind on whether all other passengers are protected on their journey on board. Persecuting them via FAA directives will encourage them to go for sensible and protective airline enjoying to the max,it's like unsafe airlines should be avoided thru words of mouth and other sources.Thus,no nonsense crew provide better service to all ,when the passengers got drunk or worse,especially alcohol effects.Given a choice,one would patronise and rate a better airline depending on their handling of misbehaving lout on board.bigger and stronger crews are a godsend presence ,so the adage of pax is always right Dead Right a better meme !
For Busybody info,it pax complaint does not work that way.Complaint and compliance Queenie,a tough technocrat,will call up on certain flight.Based on the premise that the paxs are and were always right.If certain shortcomings report by pax especially pp,hell on earth will happens.Every complains will always end with chocolate bars a letter of apologise,the cc operating fully wrong etc even though they are slightly wrong due to fatigue,demanding pax especially South Asian,Pan Arabic and Jehody.In totally non Christian country,corruption and mistreatment make them vent on board.So the query will lead to entrapment,more said,turn the description around,and implied guilty,and the expected points deduction for promotion expected.Gradually the words got on the grapevine,and countermeasures or reaction s to these entrapment.It include,speaking on the phone while driving and one ifs took other steps.Complaints ranged from why no individual drink order on jkt sin flight on j class by the crews and toilet rolls not shaped vee.Obviously one can answer it's not possible due to flight time the AC have to fly on for two hours long when the flight time is 1 10min. just for the meals,drinks to be served on j c.Yet such as query can be sent in current time it's called trolling.Yet they will aim that pax is always right and,the situation,impossible state,the operating crew always wrong,even though the crews were right !There,the defensive crew will be seething especially those who cannot write back and point out the finer details.In fact one have to reply,couched with the service procedures ,cause and effects similarly to a CI or DI until the AO will back down.How to respect the whole set of dysfunctional officers?The current medias allows bigger and widespread arguments to be exposed,especially crowdfund and argument to the nth degrees,well versed and ex cc can spot recaltant behaviours lout to our them.Sorry I have to be detailed otherwise it does not explain,most legal cases have 1000 rebuttals to any allegation,especially in these cases.
Hi, Anonymous of 6/1/23, I am one of those who do not think that the customer is always right.
Some are plainly unreasonable whilst some others can be really horrifying & demanding.
Since this is a CC blog, let me relate an on-board incident. Many years back, when I was on an US domestic flight, the Capt had requested the CC to prepare for arrival. The CC then followed up with an announcement that no request for in-flight service would be entertained as they were preparing for arrival. There was this middle-aged passenger who walked up towards the galley. One of the CC told him in a loud tone, "Can you go back to your seat!". The passenger explained that he wanted a drink. The CC replied, "Sorry, no more services. We are preparing for arrival". I related this to a SIA cabin crew in one of my flights and the latter told me that, most likely, a SIA CC will accede to the request to avoid a complain. I guessed it's because of the view that SQ always placed passengers interest first. Just wondering if there was any instance which a SIA CC did what the US CC did, followed by a complaint and SQ's response. Anybody know?
Now coming back to Anonymous of 7/1/23 and BT's response. My humble views on both posts as follows:-
1. Anonymous of 7/1/23 - There is no right or no wrong in your post. You voiced an opinion and it is up to others to accept/reject or clarify it. Your challenge for someone to sue you was uncalled for because it might create a breeding ground for disputes and counter-challenges. As it is, BT responded with a harsher counter-challenging tone. We all know a law suit is impossible. So, what next?
2. BT - I know you have a perfectly legitimate reason to clarify his omission of your background as a CC. Replying gracefully to correct that omission, and rebut his allegations on the other matters would've put in a better light. Otherwise, your tone might cause many to agree with Anonymous of 5/1/23 that you cannot take criticsm. I am not saying you cannot reply but there are many ways of doing it. Let me borrow a latin legal term "res ipsa loquitor" used by lawyers in English courts. In English, it means "The thing speaks for itself". When one counsel is so sure of his case, and want to rest his case, he will cite this so as to prevent further argument.
My humble views.
KayPoh aka BusyBody
PS: In case anybody is wondering why I am so kaypoh and long-winded, its because I am a retiree (in late 60s) and I want to keep my mind active so as to avoid senility, ha ha.
Thank you Busybody for your thoughts on my 'thesis',or whatever it implied.Guess I cant fool you,even though in your case,I can vouch you do not missed much in your present vocations and missing out. No need to envy current cc,they have the monika of covid carrier courtesy of covid paxs from you know where.Dont forget,covid injected into Sin here due to not closing air travel when grapevines were flooding the china airwaves.How many pass due to covid,and billions used to counter it.Of course ,these early warning system though unorthodox ,a precursor to full blown covid were ignored.Witness the Prata skill of response ,"Wealthy no need to Mask" on the newt.Cant blame them it's a noveau pandemic ,even WHO misses the sign,the good side effects ,it trims the world's population down a notch, just like the great flu after ww1.
Not coming to coherent or incoherent,one do not get brownies or incentive whatever don't think I need to buy or use a pc just to rebut fake news or righteous entitled Karen,or Karl on his selfish views,they need to be bought down by words,cogent argument,and unbeatable viewpoints,enough to shame those to put it "stupidity".
On the other hand one can be insulated when 'pogba' rules applied,we have not seen any case worldwide that anonymous comments can be pursued in any court of law,for defamation,or libel,unless it's a terrorism related and incitement to terrorism,short of using CIA,FBI,by tracing ip markers,using Israeli techs.It seems a good defence strategy,words said were a joke etc,in moment of weakness swearing ,in the wrong context,blah blah blah,I rest my cse. Most incoherent words are actually auto correct ,hardware issues,small screen effects and lastly eyesight problems,so don't claim otherwise,don't claim that you are smarter when words seem out of sync.How do one claim to be hurt,libelled,slandered when it's misspelled ?
Now back to the subject,let me state that do not agree to whole retrenchment retirement by SIM.The good babies were thrown out with the bathwater among them BT do not deserves such treatment.He was and still in my prayers,those unprayed include Mapco Mike Jelly Long ,Fatso Lo.Hopefully reincarnated as a better person,doing good deeds for better karma.Secondly ,I would not make much of Sunny,'s partake of f,c goodies in his travel to uk.Ha,ha,why not ?
Ah... u see, by allowing anonymous postings with alternate views have resulted in more comments which makes your blog interesting.
Just censor those that r disrespectful and everything will be ok.
When u do this kind of censoring, strange enough eh...it results in more intelligent comments coming through, even from those who have been on the "con" side of things.
For partaking in the FC goodies, ya why not?
When u r doing something which comes as no loss to the establishment but results in better welfare then, why not?
The caviar is an open can after the pax has been served. It will be thrown away after the flt.
It would be rather wasteful and sinful to dispose of it, isn't it?
So why not pass it on to poor pax like me, hehe?
Addressing the motto of the "customer is always right".
Strange enough again, everybody is getting it wrong and out of context.
Let me explain: simply put, when u handle a situation whereby the pax is wrong, but bec of this motto stating that customer is always right -
what it means is that even though pax is wrong - you are NOT TO SCREAM AT HIM but to diplomatically and politely put him in his place.
Therefore as long as u r not rude, aggressive or unreasonable in your handling of the situation at hand, no company will penalize u lah.
Basically, this is what customer is always right really mean.
Everybody is getting it this way: no matter what, the customer is always right and if u take action when the customer is wrong and he complains, the company will penalize u instead.
So go ahead and correct the pax, but do it politely and with good reasoning thrown in and you will be alright.
The complaint dept will investigate and back you if u put into practice the above.
I rest my case.
Hi, Anonymous of 8/1/23, when I mentioned that I envied the CC, I was referring to the 70s. At that time, 3 of my personal friends were able to clinch the job but I wasn’t so lucky. Moving forward, I ended up in another sector till my retirement. But I still meet up with them from to time to talk cock sing song.
Hi, Sunny Gale, yes, SQ should not penalise a CC if the latter is right and should give full support. I suppose some might want to be avoid a situation of having to explain his decision to Management why he stood firm firm to an unreasonable request or to a request at a wrong time. To him, probably just to get on and over with it. I only spoke to a couple Chief Stewards about the incident on the US domestic flight and, therefore, it is not representative of what a CC would do. For all we know, some might also said no, but in a polite manner which, as you said, is the right way to do it. In the US domestic flight incident, the CC was shouting from the galley when he saw the passenger approaching. Well, Americans are not known for good customer service, not even in the airlines. If you ask any of the SQ pilots of their experience with Air Traffic Controllers, they will tell you dealing with them is a nightmare, especially JFK controllers.
KayPoh aka BusyBody
Post a Comment