23 November 2011
05 April 2011
Mumbai Airport vs my boarding pass
The recent journey home had taken me onboard Jet Airway, an airline owned by the mighty country of India. To be frank, I had only chosen to fly with Jet for one reason; it was much cheaper than the next best alternative. I had many reasons to be reluctant about flying with Jet. There was the notorious curry smell stereotype attached to anything Indian and there simply was not enough people I know who I can get proper reviews from. As it turned out, it was much better than expected. The level of unfamiliar smell was much less than some flights I've taken with more popular Middle Eastern airline. The plane from London to India was comparable to any modern airlines and each individual seat was equipped with wide-screen IFE system. Good experience overall for the first 9 hour flight, there was nothing to complain about.
The pleasant experience took a turn upon arriving at the Mumbai airport. I was greeted with an accented shout the moment I stepped off the plane, "transfer to Bangkok or Hong Kong!". Along with a mixture of young Brits I presumed taking a mini Easter 'gap yah', a bunch of tattooed ageing white men, a group of hyper Indian Brits looking forward to "Banging Kok" and a few offended/amused Thais after hearing such jokes, we were taken to the international transfer area. Little had I expected to have several furious battles with my backpack scrambling to fetch out my passport and boarding pass in the next two hours.
I was surprised to be taken to the transfer counter which we do not usually have to visit when transferring at other airports. The lady asked for my boarding pass and noted down some of my details then directed us to the security check area. The security process was painfully tedious, uncomfortable and slow. In one corner was a soldierly-dressed man clinging on to his war rifle, the other corner stood a suited man inspecting the overall safety. When it was my turn to scan my belongings, much to my surprise, the guard firmly asked me to take the boarding pass with me when I go through the metal detector. I managed to walk past it without any beeping noise as usual but a female guard decided to to conduct a detailed inspection anyway. The lady showed particular interest in the goodie bag where I keep my passport, boarding pass, some cash and etc. Upon stamping my boarding pass, I was allowed to go through and collect my bags. I hurriedly packed these essentials securely back in my backpack only to be asked to take them out for another check when I was about to leave the security area which was literally five steps away from where I had my boarding pass stamped. I expressed my annoyance as I scrambled for it "Do you really need to check it three times?" and without saying a word she gave me a "that's how we roll" smirk.
The airport terminal bore close resemblance to the good ol' Don Meung airport, albeit being slightly smaller, cramper and damper. "At least it is not as crowded as the Doha or Abu Dhabi airport", I thought as I settled at a modern-looking cafe. It felt much closer to home after seeing that my tuna sandwich was served with two sachets of ketchup and the side salad way overdressed.
The battle between me and my boarding pass resumed after a momentary pause as I made my way from the boarding area to the plane. It was first checked by two kind gentlemen who confirmed my seat. Two steps further and I was met with a lady who, once again, looked for the security stamp on my boarding pass. Before reaching the plane, another gentleman made sure the name on my boarding pass was the same as my passport. Finally, the air-hostess took a standard peek at the ticket and directed me to my seat.
In total, I had my boarding pass inspected seven times in the period of two hours at Mumbai airport - a new personal record set. All other airports I have transferred at had three checks at most.
The plane from Mumbai to Bangkok had nothing to boast about. It was no different from a low-cost airline plane, but because the flight was less than 4 hours I did not mind much. The service was standard and carrier was even equipped with IFE. Considering I was paying almost £200 cheaper than the alternative, it was worth the money saved.
In sum, airline: very satisfied; airport: nightmare.
The pleasant experience took a turn upon arriving at the Mumbai airport. I was greeted with an accented shout the moment I stepped off the plane, "transfer to Bangkok or Hong Kong!". Along with a mixture of young Brits I presumed taking a mini Easter 'gap yah', a bunch of tattooed ageing white men, a group of hyper Indian Brits looking forward to "Banging Kok" and a few offended/amused Thais after hearing such jokes, we were taken to the international transfer area. Little had I expected to have several furious battles with my backpack scrambling to fetch out my passport and boarding pass in the next two hours.
I was surprised to be taken to the transfer counter which we do not usually have to visit when transferring at other airports. The lady asked for my boarding pass and noted down some of my details then directed us to the security check area. The security process was painfully tedious, uncomfortable and slow. In one corner was a soldierly-dressed man clinging on to his war rifle, the other corner stood a suited man inspecting the overall safety. When it was my turn to scan my belongings, much to my surprise, the guard firmly asked me to take the boarding pass with me when I go through the metal detector. I managed to walk past it without any beeping noise as usual but a female guard decided to to conduct a detailed inspection anyway. The lady showed particular interest in the goodie bag where I keep my passport, boarding pass, some cash and etc. Upon stamping my boarding pass, I was allowed to go through and collect my bags. I hurriedly packed these essentials securely back in my backpack only to be asked to take them out for another check when I was about to leave the security area which was literally five steps away from where I had my boarding pass stamped. I expressed my annoyance as I scrambled for it "Do you really need to check it three times?" and without saying a word she gave me a "that's how we roll" smirk.
The airport terminal bore close resemblance to the good ol' Don Meung airport, albeit being slightly smaller, cramper and damper. "At least it is not as crowded as the Doha or Abu Dhabi airport", I thought as I settled at a modern-looking cafe. It felt much closer to home after seeing that my tuna sandwich was served with two sachets of ketchup and the side salad way overdressed.
The battle between me and my boarding pass resumed after a momentary pause as I made my way from the boarding area to the plane. It was first checked by two kind gentlemen who confirmed my seat. Two steps further and I was met with a lady who, once again, looked for the security stamp on my boarding pass. Before reaching the plane, another gentleman made sure the name on my boarding pass was the same as my passport. Finally, the air-hostess took a standard peek at the ticket and directed me to my seat.
In total, I had my boarding pass inspected seven times in the period of two hours at Mumbai airport - a new personal record set. All other airports I have transferred at had three checks at most.
The plane from Mumbai to Bangkok had nothing to boast about. It was no different from a low-cost airline plane, but because the flight was less than 4 hours I did not mind much. The service was standard and carrier was even equipped with IFE. Considering I was paying almost £200 cheaper than the alternative, it was worth the money saved.
In sum, airline: very satisfied; airport: nightmare.
20 March 2011
Our differences
I have figured out that the difference between a libertarian and social democrat lie under one disagreement: social democrats do not take the harm of government failure seriously, libertarians do.
Here's why a libertarian does not take government failure for granted.
When you are spending your own money on yourself, you think about the value of money and your own happiness.
When you are spending your own money on someone else, you think about the value of money and not so much about the other person's happiness (think buying present for a friend you are not close to - if it's someone you love you would be happy when the one you love is happy right?).
When you are spending other people's money on yourself, you only think about your own happiness and not the 'worthiness' (think a spoiled teenager shopping in Paragon).
And lastly, and most evil of all, when you spend other people's money on people you don't know, you do not think about the the value of money nor the happiness of the recipient. This is the case where bureaucrats are spending taxpayer's money fulfilling government's projects.
When bureaucrats have their hands on capital which they do not own, and are not obliged to use it efficiently, not only do they not care about how they spend money and what the resulting welfare will be, they also bring along vested interests such as union politics, family/group benefits, and propaganda. Find out more about the state of State Railway of Thailand (union and corruption), the 23 billion Baht sewage project (pure self interest), or more recently, a meaningless Bangkok Art and Culture Centre in the heart of Bangkok (the picture might look nice but I dare you go have a walk in it and look me in the eyes and tell me you enjoyed it).
What then, justifies governments and bureaucrats pursuing their interests over giving opportunity for ordinary people own these enterprises? The privately owned railway may not be able to serve everyone (although government can fill in the gaps), but at least it is not making taxpayers pay for unworkable rail networks and trains. The sewage project may not have been built or may not be as large, but at least no money have been transferred from poor tax payers to fat cats. For the museum, if the land was sold or lease to private hands, it could become another department store and can generate hundreds (possibly thousands) of jobs!
A developed country might be better off with state owned enterprises. But developed countries are tiny faction in this world. Most countries still have to put up with corrupted governments who DO NOT care about their citizen's welfare. So why let them continue?
Thank God governments fail, hopefully we will see less of it in the future and these countries can finally be set free.
Here's why a libertarian does not take government failure for granted.
When you are spending your own money on yourself, you think about the value of money and your own happiness.
When you are spending your own money on someone else, you think about the value of money and not so much about the other person's happiness (think buying present for a friend you are not close to - if it's someone you love you would be happy when the one you love is happy right?).
When you are spending other people's money on yourself, you only think about your own happiness and not the 'worthiness' (think a spoiled teenager shopping in Paragon).
And lastly, and most evil of all, when you spend other people's money on people you don't know, you do not think about the the value of money nor the happiness of the recipient. This is the case where bureaucrats are spending taxpayer's money fulfilling government's projects.
When bureaucrats have their hands on capital which they do not own, and are not obliged to use it efficiently, not only do they not care about how they spend money and what the resulting welfare will be, they also bring along vested interests such as union politics, family/group benefits, and propaganda. Find out more about the state of State Railway of Thailand (union and corruption), the 23 billion Baht sewage project (pure self interest), or more recently, a meaningless Bangkok Art and Culture Centre in the heart of Bangkok (the picture might look nice but I dare you go have a walk in it and look me in the eyes and tell me you enjoyed it).
What then, justifies governments and bureaucrats pursuing their interests over giving opportunity for ordinary people own these enterprises? The privately owned railway may not be able to serve everyone (although government can fill in the gaps), but at least it is not making taxpayers pay for unworkable rail networks and trains. The sewage project may not have been built or may not be as large, but at least no money have been transferred from poor tax payers to fat cats. For the museum, if the land was sold or lease to private hands, it could become another department store and can generate hundreds (possibly thousands) of jobs!
A developed country might be better off with state owned enterprises. But developed countries are tiny faction in this world. Most countries still have to put up with corrupted governments who DO NOT care about their citizen's welfare. So why let them continue?
Thank God governments fail, hopefully we will see less of it in the future and these countries can finally be set free.
16 February 2011
Yogi Bear: the other side of the coin
On last rainy Sunday I spent time with my good friends watching a children's favourite Yogi Bear. It never fails to strike me how films and the media in general depicts the concept of capitalism. In this case the topic concerned was profit and loss (and in my opinion Yogi serves as mere decoration for story line i.e. it does not really serve the film's purpose but it is there for its cuteness). The 'villain politician' was trying to close down a loss-making public park which is (surprise!) ran by one of the most lovely man you will ever come across. How evil he was trying to destroy the environment and tear down public spaces - is the expected reaction from a normal person. But I beg to differ.
The content of this film is primarily aimed towards children and the message it is trying to convey are: first, we should defend politicians from tearing down public parks under whatever circumstance. Second, we should let the park caretaker keep his job because he is a genuinely nice guy who really loves the environment regardless of his managerial performance.
And here are why I find the principle of the film questionable:
1. How can the park caretaker ('good guy') not get sacked a long time ago if he is turning the once profit-making park in to a wasteland. We all accept that he is a nice person - trying to save the environment and all - but surely there must be a more competent environmentally-loving person to replace him. If he had been replaced by a more innovative person then maybe the park will be making profit and no evil politician can make excuses to close down the park in the first place. Perhaps another mishap of governmental management?
2. Does the people protesting that the park should stay opened even though it is making a loss know that it is not the 'government' paying for the losses. It is the stakeholders, the consumers, the taxpayers - or in other words, you - who are bearing the cost of losses. Is it not immoral for the government (or IRS or etc) to forcefully take your hard earned income from you and subsidise the ill-managed park which you do not even use, let alone paying the wages of the dismal park caretaker. If the park is worth operating then you would have been its customer in the first place and it would not be making such losses.
3. People need to make hard decisions in order to move forward. What would have happened if the politician were not looking at which businesses were making a loss? He would have never identified this park as a liability and the park would continue to waste hard-earned taxpayer's money. It was only after the politician told the caretaker that the park will be closed down that he started coming up with attractive events. After all, maybe the park caretaker can take care of the park well, and perhaps a little threat from time to time is healthy. Imagine if he had owned the park and all the losses would mean a deficit in his own bank account, he would never let the park's account go red in the first place. Indeed, no body spend your money better than yourself.
Children are being taught only one side of the coin. The film neglects the concept of social responsibility so upheld these days. I contest that the general public - that's you and me - should not be paying the incompetent park caretaker for the failed management of the park. Where is his sense of social responsibility then? Does he know that by not generating new ideas for the park he is unnecessarily causing hardship to other people?
Whilst I accept the politician's intention (to gain POWER) is questionable, the unintended outcome of his actions were that the public is enjoying a newly refurbished park. So while we condemn him evil, we should also thank him for giving the park caretaker a massive reality check.
The content of this film is primarily aimed towards children and the message it is trying to convey are: first, we should defend politicians from tearing down public parks under whatever circumstance. Second, we should let the park caretaker keep his job because he is a genuinely nice guy who really loves the environment regardless of his managerial performance.
And here are why I find the principle of the film questionable:
1. How can the park caretaker ('good guy') not get sacked a long time ago if he is turning the once profit-making park in to a wasteland. We all accept that he is a nice person - trying to save the environment and all - but surely there must be a more competent environmentally-loving person to replace him. If he had been replaced by a more innovative person then maybe the park will be making profit and no evil politician can make excuses to close down the park in the first place. Perhaps another mishap of governmental management?
2. Does the people protesting that the park should stay opened even though it is making a loss know that it is not the 'government' paying for the losses. It is the stakeholders, the consumers, the taxpayers - or in other words, you - who are bearing the cost of losses. Is it not immoral for the government (or IRS or etc) to forcefully take your hard earned income from you and subsidise the ill-managed park which you do not even use, let alone paying the wages of the dismal park caretaker. If the park is worth operating then you would have been its customer in the first place and it would not be making such losses.
3. People need to make hard decisions in order to move forward. What would have happened if the politician were not looking at which businesses were making a loss? He would have never identified this park as a liability and the park would continue to waste hard-earned taxpayer's money. It was only after the politician told the caretaker that the park will be closed down that he started coming up with attractive events. After all, maybe the park caretaker can take care of the park well, and perhaps a little threat from time to time is healthy. Imagine if he had owned the park and all the losses would mean a deficit in his own bank account, he would never let the park's account go red in the first place. Indeed, no body spend your money better than yourself.
Children are being taught only one side of the coin. The film neglects the concept of social responsibility so upheld these days. I contest that the general public - that's you and me - should not be paying the incompetent park caretaker for the failed management of the park. Where is his sense of social responsibility then? Does he know that by not generating new ideas for the park he is unnecessarily causing hardship to other people?
Whilst I accept the politician's intention (to gain POWER) is questionable, the unintended outcome of his actions were that the public is enjoying a newly refurbished park. So while we condemn him evil, we should also thank him for giving the park caretaker a massive reality check.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)