The few times I watch television these days is either when the footy’s on or the rare occasions that I surface from my interweb connected man cave and stumble into a room where someone has a TV running.
And so it was tonight when I happened to wander out to witness a terrible airport “reality” show – this one being an unoriginal, third rate Australian effort where Tiger Airlines shows how it stuffs around and humiliates its passengers. In Australia, Channel Seven considers this to be prime-time TV “entertainment”.
What was striking about the show was how Tiger Airlines’ check in staff humiliated a pensioner and her young son who hadn’t printed out their boarding passes.
The “fee” for not carrying out a basic task which reasonable people would expect would be part of an airline’s service is $25 a head at Tiger Airlines – one could ask what the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s position is on excessive fees being used to pad airlines’, or banks’, profits but that would be asking too much of Canberra’s worlds best practice doughnut munchers.
As result the poor lady was expected to front up with another $50 – money she didn’t have. So Tiger Airlines’ check in staff wouldn’t let her board and Channel Seven’s camera crew gleefully filmed her desperate tears and shocked son.
Eventually a bystander took pity on her and gave her $60. At least someone in the terminal had some decency and compassion, qualities neither the Tiger Airlines staff or Channel Seven camera crew have in the tiniest way.
No doubt somewhere in an anonymous glass tower some arsehole has a job as a manager at Tiger Airlines and has a KPI that includes how many poor mothers they can reduce to tears.
When the arsehole Tiger Airlines manager gets its annual bonus for making the required number of victims passengers weep, it no doubt goes to lunch with the Channel Seven executives – another bunch of arseholes – to slap each others’ backs and tell themselves what great heroes of capitalism they are.
The question that bugs me is when did it become acceptable to humiliate your customers? No doubt Tiger Airlines think it’s good publicity and Channel Seven think it is good entertainment.
We live in interesting times when our business leaders think it isn’t good enough just to take customers’ money but that it’s also necessary to humiliate them as the managements of both Channel Seven and Tiger Airlines seem to be rewarded for doing.
Fortunately in these corporatist days we still can vote with our wallets and turn off the muck we find offensive – that’s why decent people shouldn’t choose to fly Tiger Airlines or watch Channel Seven.
Very entertainingly written, Paul.
Like JG’s recent Parliamentary tirade, you have the advantage of the fluency of anger.
I like flying and I know that the people around me have to make a living. It’s just that, I agree with you, there’s a limit. An overriding belief in ideology does not make up for the disregard of impoliteness and humilty.
I agree Phil. I accept that a low cost airline isn’t going to have the quality of service or frills that a legacy carrier will have, but that is no excuse for humiliating people particularly more vulnerable members of our society like that lady.
I suspect though this is what we have become as a society – that the weak and the disadvantaged are to be mocked and publicly humiliated. As long as the Channel Seven watching masses believe they are in a position of strength, I guess that’s what we’ll get.
Although my guess is that most of those sneering at the lady from their couches would be the first to go crying to Today Tonight if they were on the receiving end of such treatment.
The Hegelian finagling switching point? Is that a cricket position? Will we see Ponting assume it?
I need to pay John Laws to say fro me “You know what I mean”. Paul!
I don’t disagree with your suspicions but it’s possible that I might be able to swat that googly and ‘pick the gap’ (seeing’s cricket season is nearly upon us and the first Test team against the Saffies is about to be picked, Paul.)
My difference between fielders would be ‘the masses’ and C7 ie the ideological ‘position of strength’ you mention – should be, with a bit of luck, the Hegelian finagling switching point, once ‘they’ get a little poorer and feel excluded ‘en masse’ themselves.
—
I dunno about Ponting though. He needs a good year, otherwise, it’s going to get embarrassing for all concerned.
Hasn’t Virgin just acquired a controlling stake in Tiger? One hopes this will lead to a bit of customer service training – Virgin to Tiger, not vicky versa!
And you’re quite right about the ACCC. How is issuing a boarding pass (without which of course one cannot board the aeroplane) not simply part of the carrier’s cost of transacting business? Ticketek wanted to gouge a shedload of money from me recently to pick up a ticket for the Swans/Pies match – my printer’s bust. I didn’t go. Surely to God if you’re a TICKETING AGENCY the cost of issuing the ticket is something the business bears??? My head hurts – Rod Simms come on down!
Dave, I doubt very much that you’ll ever see Rod Simms come down.
I do have some sympathy for the ACCC as successive Australian governments have done everything they can to make consumer protection legislation confusing, contradictory and – most likely – largely unenforceable.
However many of the ACCC staff are absolutely numpties. I’ve had conversations with them where they are just utterly and blissfully clueless about industry practices and consumer behaviour. Personally I think the ACCC could lose 75% of its staff and we wouldn’t notice the difference. I suspect the same is true for many state and Federal government agencies.