Sunday, January 1, 2023

The highlighted sentence in red..was it necessary?


Anonymous said...

SQ tickets are too expensive than pre-Covid.

Recently, news has it that aircraft are in shortage all over the world and unable to meet the increasing travel demand with decreased supply.

Dont waste time being CC. The pay has been the same for
past 20 years. No wonder turnover is high.


Kaypoh aka Busybody said...

I would not want to say that it was unnecessary, so as not to offend Anonymous, as he is sharing his views which is the purpose of this blog. So, let me share my humble views as well. Here goes"-

1. I am sure any CC wannabe going for the job can decide for himself/herself.
2. I am not a CC but I am doubtful that the pay had been the same for the past 20 years - Perhaps slight increment, but unlikely a stagnant situation.
3. This is not unique to SQ. Let's look the others in the service industry, particularly, the lower-ranking jobs, namely, waiting staff & clerks. A waiting staff or clerk would probably earn about $900 or $1500 respectively 20 years ago. Now, a waiting staff will probably earn slightly above $1000+ and clecks around $1800 - $2000+. The list goes on. But, of course, there are some whose annual increment goes up in leaps and bounds.

What I am trying to say is that, over the years, respective employers will offer a package to commensurate with qualifications and experience, and I am pretty sure there's some increase from the past. The problem is whether the employers' (increased) package can meet the employees' needs. We are living in an open market and the job applicant is free to reject or accept any offer. At the end of the day, it is up to them, CC wannabe included, to take all factors into account before going for the job. Once done, it is equally important to live within one's means. A waiting staff cannot hope to live the life of a CC, and a CC cannot hope to live the life of a high-flying executive they always meet on board. I am sure we have seen how the various levels of wage-earners live their life with different lifestyle. In summarising, let me refer to a popular Taiwanese singer, Chen Lei, and one of his signature song is 欢喜就好 (in Hokkien, its "Hua Hee Tio Ho").

My humble views.

KayPoh aka BusyBody

SUNNY GALE said...

Nicely analysed and thought out viewpoints. Indeed factual and as real-time as it can get.
Mr Kaypoh aka BusyBody apparently has got a high level of emotional intelligence to be able to have the capacity to reason intelligently.
You see, the importance of EQ is very critical in running a big organisation.
Any CEO lacking EQ will not make a good high level leader.
However so sad to add, EQ happens to be a genetic feature that u are born with.
If u have it, you have it and if you don't, u can't acquire it.
This is why from the posting you can gauge the EQ of a person.
If a person is lacking EQ, he or she will not have the capacity to be able to digest and understand logical reasoning.
It is like a color blind person, he don't have the capacity to see the correct color tone.
Go watch Riot island, now showing on CNA.
Why did Supt Dutton failed in his quest to set up his prison Island?
Very simple, he was lacking in emotional intelligence. He was too strict and bec he lacked EQ, was unable to gauge the harsh limit that the prisoners can handled.
It ended with the prisoners rioting and burning and killing him in the process.
A good leader must have a mix of IQ and EQ, without which he will not be a good leader.
Likewise in the CC context, a terrible IFM will only have IQ in him (will be strict and unreasonable and worst of all he can't even tell his flaw ) bec he lacks EQ and therefore crew will not like to fly with this person.
Unfortunately, EQ is a godsend genetic feature of a human.
IQ can be acquired and trained but EQ you can't.

Anonymous said...

Hello Kaypoh aka Busybody,

Youre indeed one of the better level headed commenter I've ever met in this blog.

Kaypoh aka Busybody said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
KayPoh aka BusyBody said...

Blogger Kaypoh aka Busybody said...
Hi, Sunny Gale & Anonymous of 2/1/23, many thanks for your kind words. I was merely voicing my observations over the years, and I am sure any of you would have been able to outline your thoughts in a similar manner, if not better.

Hi, Sunny Gale, you have also outlined your views on IQ and EQ very well, and I agree with your thoughts on Supt Dutton.

With BT's permission, I would like digress a little and share my views on the Pulau Senang case. I was particularly interested in the case because one of the condemned prisoner, Robert Black, was the brother of my CSM in the army.

The trial was quite interesting in a sense that (some of) the prisoners were found guilty based on the evidence and testimony of witnesses who had a vested interest. The witnesses were prison warders and other prisoners, all of whom had an axe to grind and cannot be said to be fully impartial. For example, the prison warders were not the best of pals to some of the prisoners, whilst the other prisoners could be members of rival gangs. And the trial was via a jury system which was also not very satisfactory. Just wondering if the results could have been different if the trial was fully heard by a Judge. The late Mr LKY, in his memoirs said that the jury system was not an ideal system. Jury members were usually white men, or women, as most locals were not literate at that time. He referred to a 1950 case, when Singapore was a British Colony. A RAF Corporal, Nonis, (at that time, the British had their armed forces based here) was charged with raping and murdering a young gal at Pasir Panjang. He had confessed to the crime. At the trial, his lawyers argued that he was pressurised to sign the confession and that his family had testified that he was at home at the time of the alleged crime. The Jury acquitted him. Not surprising, because no white man will want to see a fellow white man hanged in Singapore. But in the Pulau Senang case in 1963, they were prepared to send 18 men to the gallows based on testimonies of people with an ax to grind. The late LKY decided to abolished the jury system. I read about this in Alex Josey's book on the case.

Coming back to Sunny Gale's comment on IQ and EQ, the situations he mentioned can be found everywhere and I am sure cabin crew members would have met many of them as passengers. I once met a Chief Steward on board who told me he met many high-level executives but behaved as though everybody owed them a living. He said, "how can anybody who is up there (high IQ) have so low EQ?". I told him, "that's how it is. But consider yourself lucky because, most probably, you won't see the same peson again. Think of those who had to work under him". I went on to add, "endure your anger for a while (duration of flight) and you will be free from worries, if any".

My humble views and sorry for being so long-winded and going out of topic.

KayPoh aka BusyBody

Anonymous said...

You are forgetting about inhouse terrors aka Sexcy,Queenie from compliance and complain.How many junior crews were traumatised by their at all cost,no 1 or bust ,no eq and merciless seniors.Only death will set CC free,witness the 8th case,VY etc and many other due to ineptitude of manager.Payback time is when Sars,Covid,all employee at risk.The hands of God will mope up the rest,to bring them for redemption.

Anonymous said...

Depending on 2 comentators will limit views leading to lopsided agenda much like Trump and Putin.It will discourage all other alternate views.

Kaypoh aka Busybody said...

Hi, Anonymous of 3/1/23, I don't think Sunny Gale and I have any intention or thoughts, whatsoever, to dominate this blog. Please don't get us wrong. Our comments were made with similar intention of the others, which is to learn and share.

I hope other posters will not feel discouraged, and I am sure it is a sentiment Sunny Gale will share with me.

Moving forward, let us all have a happy New Year 2023.

KayPoh aka BusyBody

SUNNY GALE said...

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.
Thank you.