That's not my job!

 
I came across this serendipitously as I have been recently banging my head against a brick wall trying (and failing) to get traction from a group of people organising a project who just don't want to listen or take ownership for their own actions, or more particularly, their lack of action (or communication). Witty and apt description of how I'm feeling, but... ARRGH!

===============

This is a story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody.

There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.

Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody's job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it.

It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.
 

The Green Thing

 
Interesting look at the issue of eco-conservation from the perspectives of the different generations.

===============

In the line at the store, the cashier told an older woman that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.

The woman apologized to him and explained, "We didn't have the green thing back in my day."

The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment."

He was right – our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.

But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.

Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts – wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that old lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house – not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?) not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us.

When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.

Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water.

We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But we didn't have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service.

We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then? Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smartass young person.
 

Management vs. Engineering (or any other technical discipline)

 
The Balloonist

A man in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. He reduced altitude and spotted a man out walking below. He descended a bit more and shouted: "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago but I don't know where I am."

The man below replied: "You're in a hot air balloon hovering approximately 30 feet above the ground, between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude and between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude."

"You must be an Engineer," said the balloonist.

"I am," replied the man, "how did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist: "Everything you have told me is probably technically correct. But I've no idea what to make of your information and the fact is, I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help at all. If anything, you've delayed my trip by your talk."

The man below responded, "Ah, you must be in Management."

"I am," replied the balloonist, "but how did you know?"

The man replied: "Well, you don't know where you are or where you're going. You have risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise, which you've no idea how to keep. You expect people beneath you to solve your problems. The fact is you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met. But now, somehow, it's all supposed to be my fault."
 

Fun for lexophiles

 
I have learned a couple foreign languages in my time with varying degrees of success - I found French pretty easy but struggled with German grammar rules (and Irish was just awful). That said, I don't envy ANYBODY having to learn English as a foreign language and contend with so many subtleties, nuances and exceptions. Here are just some examples :-)

1. A bicycle can't stand alone; it is two tired.

2. A will is a dead giveaway.

3. Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.

4. A backward poet writes inverse.

5. A chicken crossing the road; poultry in motion.

6. When a clock is hungry it goes back four seconds.

7. The guy who fell onto an upholstery machine was fully recovered.

8. You are stuck with your debt if you can't budge it.

9. He broke into song because he couldn't find the key.

10. A calendar's days are numbered.

11. A boiled egg is hard to beat.

12. He had a photographic memory which was never developed.

13. The short fortune teller who escaped from prison; a small medium at large.

14. Those who get too big for their britches will be exposed in the end.

15. When you've seen one shopping center you've seen the mall.

16. If you jump off a Paris bridge, you are in Seine.

17. When she saw her first strands of gray hair, she thought she'd dye.

18. Santa's helpers are subordinate clauses.

19. Acupuncture: a jab well done.

20. Marathon runners with bad shoes suffer the agony of de feet.

21. The roundest knight at King Arthur's round table was Sir Cumference. He had too much pi.

22. I thought I saw an eye doctor on an Alaskan island, but it turned out to be an optical Aleutian.

23. She was only a whisky maker, but he loved her still.

24. A rubber band pistol was confiscated from algebra class because it was a weapon of math disruption.

25. No matter how much you push the envelope, it'll still be stationery.

26. A dog gave birth to puppies near the road and was cited for littering.

27. Two silk worms had a race; they ended up in a tie.

28. A hole has been found in a nudist camp wall. The police are looking into it.

29. Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

30. I wondered why the baseball kept getting bigger. Then it hit me.

31. A sign on the lawn at a drug rehab center: "Keep off the Grass."

32. A small boy swallowed some coins and was taken to a hospital. When his grandmother telephoned to ask how he was, a nurse said, "no change yet."

33. The soldier who survived mustard gas and pepper spray is now a seasoned veteran.

34. Don't join dangerous cults; practice safe sects.
 

Not there yet

 
A delightfully cynical view of Dublin's public transport system - but alas there is truth in every second of it :-( Anybody from or living in London or Sydney should be able to relate to some of it too!


 

An economic stimulus story

 
An interesting but cynical view of the Australian Government's proposed economic stimulus package. If you're not aware, in February 2009 Kevin Rudd's government announced plans to begin handing out cash payments totalling AU$42 billion (approx. €22 billion at the time) to Australian workers and families with the first payments due in March.


===============


It is the month of June - a resort town sits next to the shores of a large lake. It is raining, and the little town looks totally deserted. It is tough times, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.

Suddenly, a rich, fat-cat tourist comes to town. He enters the only hotel, lays a $100 bill on the reception counter, and goes to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one.

The hotel proprietor takes the $100 bill and runs to pay his debt to the butcher.

The butcher takes the $100 bill, and runs to pay his debt to the pig raiser.

The pig raiser takes the $100 bill, and runs to pay his debt to the supplier of his feed and fuel.

The supplier of feed and fuel takes the $100 bill and runs to pay his debt to the town's prostitute who, in these hard times, provided her "services" on credit.

The hooker runs to the hotel, and pays off her debt with the $100 bill to the hotel proprietor to pay for the rooms that she rented when she brought her clients there.

The hotel proprietor then lays the $100 bill back on the counter so that the rich tourist will not suspect anything. At that moment the rich tourist comes down after inspecting the rooms, takes his $100 bill saying that he did not like any of the rooms and leaves town.

No one earned anything. However, the whole town is now without debt and looks to the future with optimism.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the Australian Government is doing business today also.
 

When a soldier comes home

 
This is an excerpt of something that arrived in my email this morning - and I will admit that it would ordinarily be trashed as spam without a thought - but for some reason today I am moved by its words.

Lately I've been reflecting on life, particularly my own and it's recent dramas, trying to put some perspective on things. This was a timely reminder that just made me stop and think - not about soldiers per se or trying to draw direct comparisons with them - but more generally about how in western society most of us are preoccupied with acquiring wealth, living comfortably and "problems" that if we really think about them are rather trivial in the greater scheme of what's happening in the world.


===============


When a soldier comes home, he finds it hard...









...to listen to his son whine about being bored.









...to keep a straight face when people complain about potholes.









...to be tolerant of people who complain about the hassle of getting ready for work.









...to be understanding when a co-worker complains about a bad night's sleep.









...to be silent when people pray to God for a new car.









...to control his panic when his wife tells him he needs to drive slower.









...to be compassionate when a businessman expresses a fear of flying.








...to keep from laughing when anxious parents say they're afraid to send their kids off to summer camp.









...to keep from ridiculing someone who complains about hot weather.









...to control his frustration when a colleague gripes about his coffee being cold.









...to remain calm when his daughter complains about having to walk the dog.









...to be civil to people who complain about their jobs.









...to just walk away when someone says they only get two weeks of vacation a year.










...to be forgiving when someone says how hard it is to have a new baby in the house.









The only thing harder than being a soldier... is loving one.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

MasterChef Australia

I'm a closet chef... somebody who loves to create good food but doesn't because I don't enjoy cooking just for myself and don't stock up on ingredients because half of them usually end up in the bin. (I really HATE seeing food wasted - there are too many starving people in the world so it's objectionable to me that the Western world discards so much with little thought.) So I really like this TV show, both as "entertainment" and as somebody who simply enjoys food. I get to soak up new gastronomy ideas, the majority of what gets cooked is done as something resembling an individual portion and because I learn by observing/doing the show (Ready Steady Cook is another example) particularly resonates with me. I'm so much more likely to experiment myself... and do.

Masterchef Australia gives cooking/cheffing the reality TV treatment and it WORKS. Take twenty aspiring and talented amateur chefs - regular people with regular jobs and no professional cooking experience but hold dreams of breaking in - put them through a series of group and individual challenges as well as professional "master" skills classes with two of the Australia's top celebrity/executive chefs as mentors and gradually whittle them down to one.

It's SO much better than it's British ancestor - three people cooking in a quiet studio kitchen with judges watching (and occasionally interviewing) quietly - admittedly good for the audience of its time but lacks variety in today's market. I don't know if the show still runs and/or if they've updated the concept. Admittedly I'd also rather watch Sarah Wilson over Lloyd "we've ruminated, cogitated and digested" Grossman any day. As with many of these type of shows today, she's simply the host with the pretty face who makes cameo appearances come challenge or eviction time and has variations of about 4 scripted lines to speak - that's it - and it's a good thing because it keeps the focus on the cooking.

The other reason I like Masterchef Australia better than almost any other show in this genre is the elimination guidelines. In other shows, for example The Biggest Loser, contestants are invited to vote out the person "they'd like to see go home" or words to that effect, the result being tactical voting, alliances and betrayal. In Masterchef Australia, the contestants are repeatedly reminded to cast their vote for the person "who contributed least to the team" or "performed the worst"in the relevant challenges, and as Gary Mehigan (one of the celebrity executive chefs mentoring the contestants) advised last night:"You've got some hard decisions to make... think carefully... we want the right people to stay in this competition."

I do wonder though, why the producers use Katy Perry's "Hot and Cold" (great track that it is) as the show's theme music. I mean, aside from that food can be hot or cold, what's the connection? Perhaps a thinly veiled reference to stereotypical chef temperament?


 

Leinster for the Heineken Cup!

 
In about an hour, Leinster will contest the Heineken Cup final for the first time, having smashed Munster off the park in the semi-final 3 weeks ago - something that gave me much satisfaction. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Munster at all. Munster is the heart & soul (not to mention proclaimed/propaganda crown jewel) of Irish rugby and I will happily and passionately support them, and Ulster & Connacht for that matter.

But many Leinster folk have morphed into fairweather supporters of our own provincial side, instead jumping on the winning bandwagon, claiming Munster is "their team", which bothers me. I'm confident those people will be back wearing blue today and it gives me satisfaction to say truthfully that blue was always my primary colour.

Allegiances aside though...

Ireland are Six Nations champions and Munster recently took the Magners/Celtic League (claiming Leinster's crown). It would be just FANTASTIC if Leinster could win the Heineken Cup (claiming Munster's crown in return!) to complete a clean sweep for Irish rugby and cap our greatest ever season.
 

Anti-speeding advertising campaigns

 
For years, road safety authorities in Ireland and UK have attempted to use "shock" tactics in advertising campaigns against speeding and drink-driving, displaying graphic images of destruction and painful injury. In the new age of digital special effects and reality TV though, people have become desensitised to these types of visuals. I reckon the Aussies have cracked it though, particularly when it comes (as these campaigns often do) to targeting the young male demographic.


 

Keeping the air fair - part 2

 
Sometimes I wonder how certain people manage slip through recruitment filters undetected.

A six-year-old girl was recently banned from taking her teddy bear (wrapped in the plastic bag to keep it dry from the rain) aboard an easyJet flight in the UK after a check-in clerk deemed it "excess baggage". Tearful Alba Apreciado-Peris was told by the clerk that Bebe the bear was too big to join her in the cabin on a flight from Glasgow to Stansted. The female clerk then told Alba's stunned mother she would have to pay £9 (€12/AU$20) to put the teddy in the hold. She ended up posting the bear home.

Are you fcuking KIDDING me? I can appreciate that the employee was following company policy but it's a six-year-old child and surely common sense should have prevailed here. This is a perfect example of what's wrong in the world and I'm stopping before I get started. Jeez...

Addendum:
Full article from the Daily Mail.
 

Penalty shootouts

 
The penalty shootout has finally managed to blight itself on rugby. Damn.

Last weekend saw one of the (Heineken) European Cup semi-finals decided on a penalty shootout. This was certainly the first time in this has happened in Heineken Cup history and possibly rugby history. I've struggled to find another game that has been decided like this (the 2003 World Cup Final came within seconds of it) and unsurprisingly it's given rise to much discussion & debate.

It is a LOUSY way to decide a game... and I've always thought so.

Penalty shootouts are most commonly seen in football, generally follows a dour period of extra time (which has often itself followed a 90-minute snorefest) where teams have decided to sit back and take their chances with the penalty lottery. FIFA, to their credit, did attempt to experiment with alternatives such as "golden" and "silver" goal: golden was sudden death, i.e. first team to score won, while silver gave the team who conceded until the end of the half to equalize otherwise the game was over. But both concepts failed due to teams more concerned with "not losing" the game rather then winning it. How often do you hear post-match reaction fob off the shootout inferring it's a lottery? The game wasn't really lost and I'm sure that's saved many a coach/manager job in the past.

At least in football all the players are (loosely) doing the same thing - attempting to kick a ball through a target - so it can be argued there isn't much different about what they're trying to accomplish with penalties.

Rugby union is completely different - yes there is kicking involved but it's not the core of the game nor core skill for every player. Rugby union is incredibly specialised - players need have a very different physiology and skill set depending on the position they play. A winger doesn't pack down in the scrum and you don't see a front row forward punt the ball 50 yards down field and chase down the catcher (Keith Wood being the exception). Martyn Williams, one of the greatest back row forwards to ever play the game, missed what turned out to be the decisive kick and I feel for him - he's there to win ball and be creative with it in hand, NOT to kick goals.

Peter Wheeler, Leicester's chief executive, summed it up well: "Let's not get involved in the blame game here because this was unchartered territory for rugby and we are all learning, but I found that very uncomfortable to watch. Just imagine if it had gone on for a couple more kicks. For all I know Martin Castrogiovanni or Gethin Jenkins might be useful goal-kickers, but almost certainly not, and how humiliating and illogical it would have been for two of the best in the world at what they do, having to decide a European Cup semi-final by attempting something that they never do."

Rugby union continues to have an ethos/code of gentlemanship, respect and honour about it. Players will pummel each other on the field and occasionally things flare up but generally once it's all over they will shake hands and say "good fight" regardless of winning or losing. Most if not all post-match reaction from Leicester (who won) conveyed a message of "we didn't want to win it like this." So Wheeler's choice of words - humiliating and illogical - is pretty appropriate.

Solutions? Let's look at some other sports.

In basketball and ice hockey, the concept of a tie game doesn't even exist. Extra time periods are played (as many as are necessary) until the game is decided. In basketball this is determined by the score at the end of each period while in ice hockey it's sudden death, first goal wins.

In the sport of Touch (Touch Rugby / Touch Football) an elimination game is decided by a "drop-off." It's still plain ol' extra time but each side plays with a player less - that is instead of 6 players they play with 5, with a further player from each side dropping every 2 minutes until it's 3-on-3. Meanwhile it's sudden death rules - the first team to score a touchdown wins but both must have had possession before the game can end. (I should probably mention though that in Touch unlimited rolling substitutions are allowed - thus teams can continually get fresh legs on.)

I love the drop-off in Touch and think it's a brilliant way to decide a game. There is no difference between normal and extra time in what a team has to do to win the game, i.e. score touchdowns. It's urgent and exciting: teams know that there is an increasingly higher chance they will concede that sudden death touchdown - fewer players, same size field - so they go out gung-ho to score it themselves. You always know when and where there's a drop-off at a Touch event because spectators and players who've only just finished their own game literally flock to that field - and the atmosphere is always, ALWAYS electric.

I can accept that maybe the drop-off maybe doesn't directly translate to rugby but I can certainly see a variation of it being a viable solution - after all, the Sevens version of the game is established and strong. With football too, there is 5- and 7-a-side, albeit on a smaller playing field. So we're not talking about breaking new ground here, just applying modifications of pre-existing concepts. Drop some players off, say down to 10-a-side, disallow all kicked goals and make teams score a TRY to win.

Ultimately, games should be decided though by playing the core of that game. Anything that gets closer to that - even if it's still imperfect - surely has to be a good thing?
 

Miss USA vs. gay marriage

 
What the hell is so wrong with what Carrie Prejean said, or even how she said it?

Prejean was competing as Miss California in this year's Miss USA pageant. She said: "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage... I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman... No offence to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

The press, however, referred to how her "outspoken opposition" to gay marriage "cost her first place in the competition." Here's one news article as an example, I assume many others ran with a similar line.

Re-read Prejean's words. "Outspoken opposition" is a pretty strong term - generally used in reference to demonstrations/protests, strikes or intensity in difference of opinion - and I am struggling to associate it with what she said. She stated her view genuinely, eloquently and politely. She didn't deny people of their right to choose or vilify anybody who had a different opinion to her.

"Her remarks drew a mixture of booing and applause from the crowd."

Let's make a reasonable assumption this reaction was split 50-50. It's also not an unreasonable assumption that the audience was at least loosely representative of (a) California where she's from, (b) other cities and states, including where the pageant was held, and (c) America as a country.

FACT: just four US states currently allow gay marriage while many others have passed legislation outlawing it. If you sought supporting evidence for the assumptions I'm proposing, there you have it.

Carrie Prejean believes in marriage between a man and a woman. SO WHAT? From what I can make out, so does America. Personally I want, if and when it happens, to marry a woman. SO WHAT? I have gay friends who want a man and lesbian friends who want a woman. SO WHAT? Why shouldn't somebody who wants a same-sex marriage have the right to be as happy (or miserable!) as somebody who wants a hetero' one? Does it have any impact on my or your personal happiness as an individual who somebody else you may or may not know wants to be married to?

But I'm not writing to debate her, my or anybody's personal preference or belief. It's the bigotry and hypocrisy of the "system" and the people JUDGING that's triggered me.

Miss USA - Miss Anywhere in fact - is at some level a representative of her country. Prejean's answer was in line with the politics and attitudes of most of her own most of America (not to mention many other countries she'd have been fortunate to visit during her reign). Otherwise there would surely there be propositions, ballots and legislation not just appearing all over the place, but being passed? That's not to say there aren't pockets of society fighting for it, they're more than likely not being listened to or even heard. She gave a politically correct answer that is socially acceptable to the majority only to be shot down for it by people who probably actually share her view but hide it, which stinks of hypocrisy and double standards.

Prejean, as things stand, doesn't seem like an inappropriate choice to me. Again, she simply stated her own personal belief. What's wrong with that? She didn't dump on anybody else for not sharing them or dispute their right to choose (though I'd like to be a fly on the wall for that conversation). So she'd be justified in feeling that her answer cost her the crown. She could have been three times as "good" as all the other contestants in every category but this answer would still have ruined her chances despite it being a representative of the nation. Freedom of speech, my arse.

Popular culture ridicules beauty pageants, stereotyping these girls as airheads obsessed with diet, cosmetics and wishing for world peace. They even made a movie - actually two - about it. All joking aside they're onto something with the world peace thing, something I'm certain I won't be alive for, but it'll continue to be a long and slow journey towards it while "society" (at whatever level you choose to think of it) continues to be reluctant / unwilling / scared to think outside the box, step outside its comfort zone and at least tolerate differences.

Actually, tolerance probably isn't enough. Try acceptance.
 

Susan Boyle

 
I'm generally cynical of reality TV, but I do have time for Britain's Got Talent because it occasionally produces moments like this which charm the heart.

Susan Boyle appeared on the show's TV auditions the other night. As the judges did their initial chit-chat with her, I thought back to Paul Potts' audition from a few years ago, which still gives me chills when I watch, hoping I'd be about to witness something similar...

This clip tells a great story on many levels. Judging books by covers - go on own up it you did too and fair play to Amanda Holden for admitting it - Susan was written off within seconds of walking on stage and even mocked during her introduction, but by the time she'd sung about 4 bars she commanded a standing ovation and it was difficult to hear her over the cheering audience. Watch the judges' faces too while Simon's comments provide a real LOL moment in what was (I suspect) a heavily veiled apology / admission he too was wrong.

Goodonya Susan, congratulations and good luck to you.

Addendum:
Here's a great news digest from the BBC on the worldwide coverage this has seen in just a few days.
 

Small gestures

 
Today I observed an elderly lady exiting the main building here at Sydney's Royal North Shore Hospital, where I've been working the last week or so. She was on one of those underarm crutches while her other hand/arm balanced a full tray of something and held both a shopping bag and her handbag.

"Excuse me Ma'am, can I help you get where you're going or are you ok?"

She looked up and smiled.

"What a delightful young man you are. Thank you but I'm an independent, stubborn old woman and I'll be just fine."

I'm reminded just how gratifying a simple, polite gesture can be.
 

Obama's first gaffe

 
More of a thoughtless comment than an overtly stupid "Bushism" but I suppose it's sobering to know the man can gaffe it up with the rest of them if he doesn't have his teleprompter.

Addendum (following debate with a US friend):
Note I inferred "lacking thought" rather than "calamitous". I like Obama and didn't personally think there was anything hard/cold in what he said or how he said it - but many people did (as the press reported). I'm questioning why would he even chance "going there" by even attempting to joke about what is a sensitive topic in today's society. There are so many things people will and already do attack him over - does he really need to give them ammunition, however subjective/perceptive it may be? That's where the gaffe is for me - and for what it's worth I do hope it blows over for him.


 

Maccers - I'm (really) lovin' it

I admit it: I'm "officially" a fan of McDonalds.

Their food tastes good, I understand their employees are treated well, I applaud that they do a lot of charitable sponsorship and get involved in communities. Sure they've shot themselves in the foot a few times but name me another company so much in the public eye that hasn't done so at some stage.

They're also easy targets given that they serve up fried, highly calorific food, especially in America where obesity is a problem (but is clearly increasing elsewhere). Take that "Super Size Me" movie, for example. Now I haven't seen it but I have read multiple synopses of it. Why did Spurlock choose to publicly pursue McDonalds and apparently only them? What about Burger King, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Wendys, KFC, Panda Express and all the rest*? Why not eat on donuts for a month? Or deep fried chicken?

*Here's a quiz of the top selling fast food chains in the US - see how many you can name.

It doesn't take a genius or a Hollywood movie to figure out that constantly eating that sort of food will be detrimental to your health. I don't ever recall McDonalds promoting themselves as everyday food or even regular food. Society has given such these fast food companies this image because we choose to eat there so often. I remember as a child that Maccers was the ultimate once in a blue moon treat. But there was a time a few years ago when I was consistently working long hours in Berlin - I had to pass both a McDonalds and Burger King going home when changing trains, so inevitably grabbed a couple of cheeseburgers. Of course I had my rationale and justifications (read: excuses) but it still comes back to choice.

Back to my original theme. I like McDonalds, I do. This will sound like an odd thing to say but Maccers has made a "positive contribution" in my life and I'm happy to admit it.

Ireland, pre-Euro conversion, so late '90s. Maccers ran a promo offering two cheeseburgers for a pound. A friend and I would go in, one of us would sit down while the other went to order: "6 (sometimes 8!) cheeseburgers and a large coke please." Yes, we shared the coke but you miss the point which was for staff to think all that food was for one person. Inevitably they'd stare at us quizzically like you'd grown a giant McNugget as a second head, said curious stare turning to daggers once they realised they'd been cleaned out of cheeseburgers for a while with lots of other customers ordering them.

Is breá liom é.

Germany, just a few years ago, the €1 cheeseburger. Coming home late (see story above) I'd grab one or two at the station and have them gobbled before my connecting U-bahn arrived... quick, convenient, cheap, no washing up and no food wastage which inevitably comes with cooking for one.

Ich liebe es.

Australia, 2009. You gotta give them props, Maccers do cater to local environments. Ice cream cone for 30c, anyone? And that's Australian money too, remember. The only thing bad about this particular promo is the resulting queue on a hot day! Next, like in the US, they offer free and open Wi-Fi to customers - obviously there are limits, e.g. 50MB bandwidth per session, but that's ample for a quick surf and email check and should you exceed that you just re-connect and go again. Finally though, and this is the clincher. Walking "home" in Sydney after dinner (in a restaurant!) with a visiting friend - we'd skipped dessert as she wanted cheesecake but none was on offer - and McCafé to the rescue! Not one, not two, but three varieties on offer ready to take away. Brownie (or rather cheesecake) points for yours truly and yes we did try all of them!

I'm lovin' it.
 

Keeping the air fair

 
While browsing for air travel routes around Australia I discovered Virgin Blue, one of the country's low fare / budget / no frills (delete as appropriate) airlines. Okay so I admit there's nothing novel about that given these airlines seem to be a dime a dozen these days - even Aer Lingus, the Irish national carrier, re-structured itself and its business & pricing models to compete with (read: avoid getting wiped out by) Ryanair and others of their kind.

The pricing model and strategy for such airlines seems to be that they publish a really low fare to get your attention (and your arse in the seat). Then as you advance through the booking process you realize that every passenger cost you can think of has been stripped out - handling charge or booking fee, airport tax, baggage fee, fuel surcharge, credit card fee - the list goes on. The latest one I've seen is the airport check-in fee. Some of these are more irritating than others.

When I originally started writing, I had intended simply to pose some rhetorical questions around fuel surcharges vs. the price of oil - but now that I'm thinking about it I feel a bit of a general industry rant coming on once I get done with that.

Fuel surcharge. As the price of oil began soaring to an all-time high of $147 a barrel last year, just about every airline was threatened and as a counter measure they sportingly passed the cost onto the consumer. Now, while Ryanair were implemented the model that others copied and I'll point the finger at for a lot of things, the fuel surcharge is one thing they did not do, though having said that I'm they covered it with some other charge - but I digress until later. I can accept the fuel surcharge in principle - if the cost of providing a service increases it's natural that the consumer purchase cost increases too. Here's where it gets interesting though. The price of oil has since plummeted, trading in the $33-$50 range at the time of writing. So shouldn't that generate the opposite impact on cost, with travel service providers lowering or even abolishing the fuel surcharge since oil prices are as low or lower than they were when it started? Last December, Virgin Blue announced that it was ending its fuel surcharge on domestic flights and reducing it on international flights for (it claims) the "second time in as many months". I wonder if and how many others will do the same...

Handling charge / booking fee. It's become generally accepted that being able to purchase tickets (of any kind) early and not having to queue is classified as a privilege or premium service. I get that. Let's consider for a moment the flip side of this, why businesses invest in technology, it's to reduce the demand on, or for, human labour. In this particular case, if a business deploys a web site able to service X number of concurrent ticket purchases, they avoid needing to have (and pay for) Y people to front counter or phone sales, etc. The majority of ticket sales are now done online, not necessarily anymore because people CHOOSE to but because they NEED to if they're to stand a chance of getting a ticket at all. I put it to you that the premium service I alluded to earlier is now the standard/regular service, not to mention that businesses must surely recoup the development costs reasonably quickly from savings on wages and income from booking fees. That being true I wonder why punters still foot the bill for it a purported benefit that actually no longer exists.

Airport check-in fee. GRRRRR! This one is Ryanair-specific unless I've not spotted another airline doing it. Ryanair now charges you to check in at the airport, which you *must* do if you have luggage, which you also get charged for, so it's a double whammy. And there was no attempted explanation or justification as there was with the introduction of baggage charges. Let's do some simple maths. In 2008, Ryanair carried 58.7m passengers. The capacity of a "single class" Boeing 737-800 aircraft, of which makes up mostly if not entirely comprised, is 189 passengers. Keeping the calculations simple and the numbers conservative, let's round up to 200 passengers per [one-way] flight and assume that just a *quarter* of them must check in at the airport due to baggage - in reality the number checking in at the airport for one reason or another is higher (just ask any passenger standing in line to check-in while staff deal with passengers who've not prepaid their baggage). So that's 58.7m passengers * 0.25 airport check-in ratio * €5 charge = €78m! That's a lot of extra money earned through charging for a facility that is core to service delivery. I find it unfathomable that this hasn't been challenged by European bureaucracy yet, but even if it was, they [airline] would probably just invent another method to get this money...

Baggage charges. When these charges were introduced, they were heralded as a saving for a purported majority of passengers who allegedly travelled with cabin baggage only and were "subsidising" those who did have checked baggage. General seat prices would be reduced, with those who chose to bring checked baggage paying for the extra service. I actually did think this was a great thing, until my cynicism took over when I didn't see a difference. There's a conspiracy theory that a chef only needs to dip the [red wine] cork in the gravy to call it red wine sauce - in the same way I suppose an airline needs to make just one seat available at a cheaper price to be able to claim a price reduction. Then we come to the charges, X when you register your bag (online) before travelling otherwise it's Y which can be up to double the cost. I don't believe for a second that the labour, technology or any other cost, varies depending on the timing of when a customer deciding to check in a suitcase - the suitcase still goes on a conveyor belt, loaded on a trolley, then on the plane and offloaded at its destination. Oh but there's the staffing and effort required to process the bag at airport check in. GARBAGE! The customer is already PAYING for their airport check in, so I wonder what other spin can be put on it.

My parents visited me in Berlin from Dublin last year, flying with Ryanair. The charge for a suitcase each (don't forget the mandatory airport check in) came to €52 - that was €8 per baggage piece and €5 check-in fee per person per flight. I sent them off to Dunnes Stores to buy two small cabin sized suitcases at a total cost of €40 that they can use over again. At the time of writing, Ryanair now charges €10 for pre-booked baggage.

Card payment fee. This is the other one that really grates with me - it actually doesn't only apply to airlines anymore - it seems every merchant is doing this now and in my opinion it should be considered unfair business practice. In addition to all the booking and handling charges, airlines (and increasingly other sellers) have started charging a fee for using a card to pay them. I am fine with passing on reasonable cost of sales to the customer, but I have two issues with this. Firstly, the charge (around €5 or equivalent) isn't per transaction, it's per sector per person. Consider a family of 4 taking a return flight, that's an additional €40 charge for paying with a credit card. This might go up or down if you travel with Virgin Blue, as apparently (in a similar vein to baggage charges), there's additional effort in accepting payment for international flights than domestic if you read between the lines of their fees schedule. Which brings me to my second issue... for many airlines, payment by card the only option, particularly when purchasing online. If you're going to do that then GIVE CUSTOMERS AN ALTERNATIVE OPTION. Ryanair (and others I'm sure) renamed their credit card fee to read "payment handling fee", which to me reads like they'll charge regardless of payment method: so for example if you were to walk into their reservations center (assuming you can find one) and pay cash you might want to bring an extra couple of notes. It's a bit of a paradox really. A consumer must of course pay for a service to avail of it, but now they must pay the provider extra so they will accept their payment? I don't know about you, dear reader, but that's a new economic concept to me.

I know I've used Ryanair for many examples in this and I can just imagine the sort of public tongue lashing response their PR/media team would put out if and when they were to read it, lampooning both the author and the competition ("these are our terms, you're free to travel with whichever service you choose" ... sound familiar?) I express general observations and experience having been fortunate to travel quite a bit in my life so far. Many airlines now do the similar things and have similar practices - Ryanair was simply the innovator and it's said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I do tip my hat to them for their creativity. At the same time, I reserve the right to not necessarily have to like the results...

After all that, there's also an argument that Ryanair and airlines of their kind, unlike many others, are an easy target for criticism because they do itemize their charges to the extent they do. I acknowledge that and so, credit where it's due, there is transparency to the customer (even if it's generally not completely transparent until they come to pay). I don't doubt that all these businesses and industries are operating within legislation so I wonder perhaps if that's the root problem... lack of explicit, clear, consistent legislation on what is and isn't appropriate practice from the consumer's perspective. The general public seems to accept it all one way or another - again I'm not sure if that's out of choice or necessity - so perhaps I'm just blowing hot air this time! In any case...

Rant over. Class dismissed :-)
 

Happy New Year (?)

 
While walking home from Sydney's Circular Quay having watched what I could see of the New Year fireworks - just a 20 minute walk - I counted 7 ambulances pass by with sirens blaring, presumably carting some unfortunate or irresponsible revellers off to hospital. That's an ambulance roughly every 3 minutes. In fact, I don't think the chorus of sirens quietened down until a further half hour after I got home.

Before continuing, this is certainly *not* a commentary on Sydney or even Australia, but more general thoughts about society - Sydney just happens to be the latest place I've observed what I just described. I'm also pretty confident a large number of cases were tourists, given the status and attraction of Sydney's New Year festivities and the numbers that flock here each year.

I said "unfortunate or irresponsible". Now don't get me wrong - I am all in favour of going out to drink and be merry. It's just sad that invariably some overdo it with "innocent" people usually suffering consequences. There are always accidents/incidents where people are in the wrong place at the wrong time - these are unfortunate. But it's not an unfair assumption that on this night (or any "night out", festive or otherwise) most cases are alcohol - or these days, unfortunately drug - related where people have gone beyond their limits, spoiling their own night and that of others too. You only have to watch one of the myriad of police reality or CCTV shows to validate that. Government advertising campaigns now resort to using "shock" as a deterrent - bloody images of people screaming in pain - in an attempt to get through to people. But when just about everything we see on TV contains special effects now I wonder how much of it really hits home. Maybe we simply don't care. I just read a number that just 78% of EU drivers surveyed believe drink driving is dangerous - a very specific alcohol sub-topic but it infers volumes as to how society thinks about it in general.

So after much ado, I get to my point. I extend my respect and admiration to volunteer medics around the world who staff ambulances as well as A&E/ER doctors & nurses - all of whom selflessly give up their own New Year celebrations (or any other festivity) and generally work through the night taking care of the rest of us when we can't or won't take care of ourselves. Happy New Year to you.