QF grumbles

[markis10]

And as a side point from this trip, Swissotel has just lost my business in SYD for the most exorbitant pre-authorisation ever, then taking five days after check out to remove it. Seriously, a 1k authorisation for a 3 night stay by a CSG member who's stayed at the property previously and reservation is guaranteed against their card is taking the piss.

$1K for a three night stay seems resonable to me, BTW it takes a week after a pre-auth is done before it cancels itself unless a charge comes through using that number in the meantime. Hotels cannot cancel it.

 

[anat0l]

$1K for a three night stay seems resonable to me, BTW it takes a week after a pre-auth is done before it cancels itself unless a charge comes through using that number in the meantime. Hotels cannot cancel it.

Sure, if the rate per night exceeds $333.

To be honest, I can't remember how much certain hotels charge as pre-auth amounts; this is only more complicated for me since most of my stays are for one night only (now if I were charged $1k for a pre-auth on a one night stay which is set to cost me $200, that would be rather crazy).

 

[jpk]

It doesn't at all detract from credibilty to comment on the things that formed a positive impression amongst the negatives. i.e. F-ing BS

This forum is not the HR department!!!!!!!! :!:

The fact that you mention the official HR department proves that it is PC BS.

Tell me are you a female? Are you assuming that the bar staff was female and that the OP is male? Answer those questions for us and then try to tell me it isn't PC BS.

Great i was looking for a debate.

I am a heterosexual male. I do not work in HR, but I do work for a large multinational that is very serious about equal opportunity and harassment (not sure if this is what you mean by PC HR BS?). The OP has a photo of a male so its reasonable to presume that he is male. I make no assumptions as to his sexuality.

This forum isn't the HR Dept, but it is 2010 and we should try to see the person not the appearance ie: how they look does not affect how they do the job. If you think its ok for the OP to say "the QP was great because the bar attendant was easy on the eye" then do you think its ok for someone to say "the QP was great because the bar attendant was white"?

It detracts from the OP's credibility because if he is influenced by attractiveness, then perhaps this has affected other parts of his experience, specifically the QF agent.

 

[markis10]

Sure, if the rate per night exceeds $333.

To be honest, I can't remember how much certain hotels charge as pre-auth amounts; this is only more complicated for me since most of my stays are for one night only (now if I were charged $1k for a pre-auth on a one night stay which is set to cost me $200, that would be rather crazy).

Hotels often preauth the room rate x number of nights + a set bond amount - typically $200-$300 to cover mini bars room service etc, I note there are complaints on Tripadvisor about being charged a bond at this hotel. Some chains just do a preauth for a $1 to make sure the credit card is OK, I prefer that myself, especially when you are travelling with a credit limit. No different to a hire car, most companies charge a bond for a room rental or a car rental, but is should be made obvious at the time of booking IMHO.

 

[medhead]

I am a heterosexual male. I do not work in HR, but I do work for a large multinational that is very serious about equal opportunity and harassment (not sure if this is what you mean by PC HR BS?). The OP has a photo of a male so its reasonable to presume that he is male. I make no assumptions as to his sexuality.

This forum isn't the HR Dept, but it is 2010 and we should try to see the person not the appearance ie: how they look does not affect how they do the job. If you think its ok for the OP to say "the QP was great because the bar attendant was easy on the eye" then do you think its ok for someone to say "the QP was great because the bar attendant was white"?

sorry what The comment has nothing to do with equal opportunity and harrassment at all. There is nothing at all in that comment that says bar attendant was anymore or less qualified then the next person. There is nothing in comment that suggest discrimination. As far as i can tell that only arises in your limited world view. Your analogy to race says a hell of a lot about you. Your reading too much into it and you are clearly making an assumption. What do they say Don't assume it only makes an cough out of u and me.

It detracts from the OP's credibility because if he is influenced by attractiveness, then perhaps this has affected other parts of his experience, specifically the QF agent.

As has been pointed out EVERYONE is influenced by attractiveness. Even you, no matter how much you don't like it. The OP is grumbling about something the fact that they can also note positives of their experience enhances credibility in my view because they are remaining objective. That is, I didn't like this, but that was good. Not i didn't like this so it was all cough.

PC - politically correct
HR - you work for a multinational you work that one out
BS - rubbish

Edit: don't worry everyone else I'm over it, not much sport here. I'll leave it at that.

 

[jpk]

PC - politically correct
HR - you work for a multinational you work that one out
BS - rubbish

I knew what you meant, I was trying to show that what you see as PC BS, I see as the changing world we are in these days. I did it sarcastically though, so it wasn't clear.

Edit: don't worry everyone else I'm over it, not much sport here. I'll leave it at that.

Same. Thanks for the conversation!

 

[thewinchester]

Loss of credibility my foot. Sorry jpk, but your assertion that a comment on looks has bearing on someone's ability to make objective and impartial commentary is without merit, and makes it seem like you're sporting a severe case of rectal cranial inversion.

Seriously, what is the problem with someone passing polite comment about a person's looks and personality in the same post as he takes issue with the poor service he received from another? Looks and personality aren't mutually exclusive, we all have them both.

And just to show how off base you are with this - I would have had no problems giving the check-in agent a second look and engaging her in polite conversation as a prelude to a future social engagement, right up until she opened her mouth and showed what a rude so-and-so she was.

I am a heterosexual male. I do not work in HR, but I do work for a large multinational that is very serious about equal opportunity and harassment (not sure if this is what you mean by PC HR BS?). The OP has a photo of a male so its reasonable to presume that he is male. I make no assumptions as to his sexuality.

This forum isn't the HR Dept, but it is 2010 and we should try to see the person not the appearance ie: how they look does not affect how they do the job. If you think its ok for the OP to say "the QP was great because the bar attendant was easy on the eye" then do you think its ok for someone to say "the QP was great because the bar attendant was white"?

It detracts from the OP's credibility because if he is influenced by attractiveness, then perhaps this has affected other parts of his experience, specifically the QF agent.

 

[drron]

She though obviously had no intention of giving you a second look:shock:.
C'est la vie.

 

[Keith009]

It doesn't at all detract from credibilty to comment on the things that formed a positive impression amongst the negatives. i.e. F-ing BS

This forum is not the HR department!!!!!!!! :!:

The fact that you mention the official HR department proves that it is PC BS.

Tell me are you a female? Are you assuming that the bar staff was female and that the OP is male? Answer those questions for us and then try to tell me it isn't PC BS.

Great i was looking for a debate.

Exactly what I was thinking LOL!!

I don't see how that remark detracted from the OP's credibility either, as inherent to the service experience is quite simply attractiveness. Attractiveness may not have anything to do with actual service quality but it does help. However poor service certainly does render any attractiveness irrelevant...

I was about to jump in on the petty uber PC-ness but held off as others have done it for me. Mind you I've not had my coffee this morning so what I was about to post might have resulted in a thread closure and a "please explain" from the mods.

 

[medhead]

I knew what you meant, I was trying to show that what you see as PC BS, I see as the changing world we are in these days. I did it sarcastically though, so it wasn't clear.

Changing the world we are in these days :shock:

Sounds like your still fighting the battles of the 1960s and 1970s. The fact that you see massive problems with respect to this in the world today, just confirms that you going on about politically correct rubbish. this is the sort of cough that says I can't engage my mate in a conversation full of sexual innuendo because someone else my hear us and be offended. I can't look at a risque joke that my best mate or wife has sent me in my office, because someone might walk into my office and see the computer screen. This is called absolute rot.

Or even worse, if I have a collegue who is dangerous and incompetent and working in a safety related area that effects people's lives, I can't tell the true about this, because it doesn't respect the collegue. Yet they don't care about respecting the life of the person that idiot is going to kill.

Yes, see I've been to multinational corporate HR and got the t-shirt.

 

[oz_mark]

What airline doesn't run a 737 in a 3x3 pattern.
It is a single aisle plane?

2x2 would be a good config. Pity there was not enough money in it....

 

[NYCguy]

2x2 would be a good config. Pity there was not enough money in it....

A few years ago I read that Boeing had tossed-around the idea of offering 737 customers the option of configuring Y cabins 2x2x2, i.e. with two aisles. Seems that it never took off.

That would surely be more comfortable?

 

[oz_mark]

A few years ago I read that Boeing had tossed-around the idea of offering 737 customers the option of configuring Y cabins 2x2x2, i.e. with two aisles. Seems that it never took off.

That would surely be more comfortable?

I would have thought that would require either skinny seats or skinny aisles.

 

[anat0l]

I would have thought that would require either skinny seats or skinny aisles.

Or skinny pax :shock:

 

[NYCguy]

I would have thought that would require either skinny seats or skinny aisles.

Skinny aisles, I imagine. But apparently NZ has found slimmer trolleys to jam down the aisles of it's upcoming 777-300ER fleet, since (according to Australian Aviation) they have elected to install a 3 x 4 x 3 config in Y.

 

[oz_mark]

Skinny aisles, I imagine. But apparently NZ has found slimmer trolleys to jam down the aisles of it's upcoming 777-300ER fleet, since (according to Australian Aviation) they have elected to install at 3 x 4 x 3 config in Y.

Yes, they snuck that little config gotcha into the announcement of the Y changes. Everyone was focussed on the sky couch thing.

 

[jpk]

Changing the world we are in these days :shock:

Sounds like your still fighting the battles of the 1960s and 1970s... (snip)

Nah, I actually agree with most of your thoughts. Like you said earlier, I was just reading too much into the original comments and connecting separate points. And on the day was prob looking for an argument... you know how it is sometimes.

 

[straitman]

I would have thought that would require either skinny seats or skinny aisles.

Or skinny pax :shock:

Or all of the above. :shock:

 

[medhead]

Nah, I actually agree with most of your thoughts. Like you said earlier, I was just reading too much into the original comments and connecting separate points. And on the day was prob looking for an argument... you know how it is sometimes.

Don't agree with me now! You can't get out of it that easy.

 

[Aussie_flyer]

Yes, they snuck that little config gotcha into the announcement of the Y changes. Everyone was focussed on the sky couch thing.

sorry it's OT but That is disgusting (the NZ 10 abreast 777 seating) - very disappointed in that. It's a total turnoff on the EK 777's, it might not be much but that extra person across makes me feel like im on top of the passenger beside me.
:evil: