I'm torn once again here, as to whether my annoyance at what I'm about to describe is justified. Lateness. Ugh. I abhor it on a personal level, and am always, always punctual. Whether turning up at a friend's house at the time I say I will, or something more important like an interview or meeting, I will always arrive on time if not early, and can't stand it if for some reason I don't or can't. With that in mind, I would always, always arrive for a flight with oudles of time to spare. What I can't get my head around then, is how people can very, very nearly miss a flight due to lateness. Especially with so much at stake. Most airlines won't refund or change bookings for late passengers, unless there are very extenuating circumstances which explain their lateness. So to miss a flight ultimately means throwing away an awful lot of money.
Of course I am sympathetic towards extenuating circumstances. Stansted Airport is connected to London Liverpool Street station by the Stansted Express train - and as with any form of public transport, delays happen. We often have hoardes of passengers running up to check in apologetically at the last minute because their train has been delayed. With this I have no problem whatsoever. What I simply CAN'T understand, and in all honesty (here I go again) what makes me mad, is people who saunter up to check-in at the very last minute (or sometimes after the last minute which is even worse as it means we have to re-open the flight) with NO sense of hurry, or apology, or even any sort of awareness that they are late. When this happens we tend to play the guilt card and point out that they are very lucky and have almost missed the flight - especially when we have to re-open it for them. Sometimes even that doesn't even register with them. Perhaps people don't get as excited about their holidays as I do about mine, and missing the flight is no big deal, they'll just go and sit at home for two weeks instead?!
The reason I am torn then is this: I have forgotten since working at the airport, what constitutes common knowledge, the sort of things that Average Joe Passenger (this Average Joe chap seems to be clocking up some air miles with me!) are just aware of... and what are the things that I only know because I work there. In people's defence, if they are new to flying, perhaps they simply don't realise that one needs to arrive at the airport in time to go through the increasingly rigourous security checks, and that the boarding gate probably ISN'T right next to the check-in desk. Perhaps they think that catching a plane is literally like catching a bus, you can arrive at the last possible minute. To counter that though, most airlines will include the check-in time on their ticketing. I would also like to think that even if you don't fly regularly, you are aware enough that an airport is a big and busy old place and that time must be allowed.
My question is this...is turning up that late ignorant or arrogant?! Answers on a postcard please! (That's if you make your flight, get to your destination and are able to send one).
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
The other side...
Recently, for the first time since starting my airport check-in 'career' I was a passenger; I flew! (the use of quotation marks here is quite deliberate, as there is about as much chance of me gaining any sort of promotion within my company as there is of an ice cube surviving in hell). For many passengers, the whole airport experience is as much part of the holiday as lying on a beach - or in our case, taking in the lovely city sights and eating far too much. Of course it is also true that for some passengers the airport is the most stressful and ultimately worst part of the whole thing. My experience, as you might expect though, was entirely different. I was after all, just turning up at the office. What I felt instead of the excitement and buzz of the airport experience, was an absolute sense of SMUGNESS; of being in the know, and bizarrely in some small way, of power. It began when I drove to the airport staff car park, and used my ID card to open the barrier (The sense of power was increased as I scornfully and heroically walked past the signs saying 'Please note that staff holiday parking is strictly prohibited'. Oh how differently I might have felt if my car had been noticed and towed - but it wasn't. One-nil to me.). It continued when I took my girlfriend through the undercroft and used the staff lift to enter the terminal building (having been sure to point out that the undercroft was called the undercroft). I'm less sure as to the illegality of this part, as technically it is just another entrance. But crucially, one that I know about and Average Joe Passenger doesn't. Ha. Two-nil. This smugness and constant wish to point out how much I knew essentially continued throughout the whole airport experience. I must say looking back that if I was my girlfriend I would have thought I was a bit of an arsehole - 'yes Chris', I can imagine her thinking, as I felt the need to explain every little thing and use all the technical terms: 'I get that you work here, aren't you clever?!'. But she said nothing of the sort, so I must now thank her for allowing me to indulge in my fleeting moment of superiority and knowledge!
To further explain this sensation, I liken it to the feeling of going into your office at the weekend in civilian clothes, and being caught by the cleaner asking who you are and why you're there. The ensuing moment of satisfaction where you explain that you work there, maybe do some name dropping, and make the cleaner feel a bit silly, is short yet priceless. Well, that is part of it. The other part is just about knowing what was going on. I feel again looking back that I rather underestimate the fact that most people actually understand perfectly well how airports work and have no requirement for explanation. Either way, I enjoyed lauding it.
What I was desperate to be able to do, was to put myself in the shoes of the passengers that I frequently deal with, to see if my job is easier or harder than I give it credit for, or to see if the passenger experience is more stressful than it seems. I thought that I would either become more sympathetic towards passengers as I check them in, or be a 'better' passenger armed with my very broad knowledge of exactly the kinds of things that annoy check-in staff. In truth though, I had such fleeting experience with check-in on both the outgoing and return flights, that I was unable to form an opinion. The other thing I'd wanted to do was to compare the way other companies check-in passengers compared to the way we deal with things. Especially given the reputation of the particular airline we flew with. As I don't wish to enter into any sort of product placement, I shall not name said airline... but its the Irish blue and yellow low cost one. The one whose cabin crew girls seem to have doughnuts attached to the backs of their heads. The one who have the cheek to charge you up to forty pounds to print a boarding card, and for whom customer service is quite literally the least of their priorities. The one whose name rhymes with 'Lion Bear'. (There we go, name dropping skillfully avoided. I think I've preserved an air of mystery). I must report though, that because we only had to drop carefully weighed bags having been good students and printed boarding cards, that the check-in was entirely hassle free and forgettable.
So, did working at the airport made me a different sort of passenger? I'm not sure it did. Nothing I did with my packing, nor my lack of asking silly questions should in theory be beyond anyone. It did however make me, I'm sure, a pretty annoying travel partner. 'Ah look, there is the despatcher'. So what?! It was nice to be on the other side of the desk for a change though.
To further explain this sensation, I liken it to the feeling of going into your office at the weekend in civilian clothes, and being caught by the cleaner asking who you are and why you're there. The ensuing moment of satisfaction where you explain that you work there, maybe do some name dropping, and make the cleaner feel a bit silly, is short yet priceless. Well, that is part of it. The other part is just about knowing what was going on. I feel again looking back that I rather underestimate the fact that most people actually understand perfectly well how airports work and have no requirement for explanation. Either way, I enjoyed lauding it.
What I was desperate to be able to do, was to put myself in the shoes of the passengers that I frequently deal with, to see if my job is easier or harder than I give it credit for, or to see if the passenger experience is more stressful than it seems. I thought that I would either become more sympathetic towards passengers as I check them in, or be a 'better' passenger armed with my very broad knowledge of exactly the kinds of things that annoy check-in staff. In truth though, I had such fleeting experience with check-in on both the outgoing and return flights, that I was unable to form an opinion. The other thing I'd wanted to do was to compare the way other companies check-in passengers compared to the way we deal with things. Especially given the reputation of the particular airline we flew with. As I don't wish to enter into any sort of product placement, I shall not name said airline... but its the Irish blue and yellow low cost one. The one whose cabin crew girls seem to have doughnuts attached to the backs of their heads. The one who have the cheek to charge you up to forty pounds to print a boarding card, and for whom customer service is quite literally the least of their priorities. The one whose name rhymes with 'Lion Bear'. (There we go, name dropping skillfully avoided. I think I've preserved an air of mystery). I must report though, that because we only had to drop carefully weighed bags having been good students and printed boarding cards, that the check-in was entirely hassle free and forgettable.
So, did working at the airport made me a different sort of passenger? I'm not sure it did. Nothing I did with my packing, nor my lack of asking silly questions should in theory be beyond anyone. It did however make me, I'm sure, a pretty annoying travel partner. 'Ah look, there is the despatcher'. So what?! It was nice to be on the other side of the desk for a change though.
Friday, 18 February 2011
You know best Sir...
Is it my imagination, or is this true in every single walk of life? People that do something a lot think they know more about said thing than the staff running it. This is most certainly true in my line of work. Welcome, to the world of the frequent flyer. No arguments over baggage, no fuss, no questions. One would be forgiven for thinking then, that these passengers are the easiest to deal with. Most simple, certainly. Easiest, no - because they are by the far the most impolite. When something becomes a regular habit, one expects it to be seamless, speedy and unremarkable. Well, that is exactly what we endeavour to achieve. What the frequent flyer doesn't quite seem to grasp though, is that sometimes not everything will go his way. Sometimes seat 3D is already occupied. I'm sorry sir that this is the seat you 'ALWAYS' have, but I'm afraid it has been taken by someone else (someone who is no less important than you sir).
I fail to see how this is in any way my fault. Of course I could argue that such knowledgable passengers should be perfectly aware that it is more than within their power to reserve their own seats in advance. Yet to the frequent flyer - who is more often than not a business person - my lack of ability to provide them with the seat they require is the sort of annoyance which ruins their day. How dare I inconvenience them such, do I not know what a stressful schedule of meetings they have today in Germany??
I'm aware that this is rather a defensive gripe of a blog entry... but I will continue in this vain - I guess I'm just in that kind of mood... Perhaps the biggest irritant is the overwhelming impression that, as I said at the beginning, certain of these frequent flyers have done so SO often that they now believe they know my job better than me. I can't deny that when one does something often, one becomes accustomed to it and how it works; I will concede that these passengers, to a certain extent, know the drill - I've ordered the same coffee in Costa so many times that I feel I could confidently work the coffee machine purely based on having watched their staff do so. However, I cannot imagine that I would ever QUESTION someone who is providing a service to me, no matter how often I had benefited from that service. How can I possibly know what new training they've had, what tweaks to the rules have been made, whether that particular person's manner of doing things is slightly different from the last I dealt with? The reality is despite what I THINK, I KNOW damned well that I haven't a clue how to make a Costa cappuccino, so would never dream of telling a member of their staff they've not done it right. If only the frequent flyer felt the same. Alas no, things don't go their way when they did last time... therefore I can't do my job properly.
My philosophy in response to this is simple: treat every passenger the same way. So, I'm afraid, that you can clock up as many air miles as you like...you will be asked the same security questions as everyone else. You may have flown 10 times this month.... but I've checked in 10 people in the last 5 minutes!
I fail to see how this is in any way my fault. Of course I could argue that such knowledgable passengers should be perfectly aware that it is more than within their power to reserve their own seats in advance. Yet to the frequent flyer - who is more often than not a business person - my lack of ability to provide them with the seat they require is the sort of annoyance which ruins their day. How dare I inconvenience them such, do I not know what a stressful schedule of meetings they have today in Germany??
I'm aware that this is rather a defensive gripe of a blog entry... but I will continue in this vain - I guess I'm just in that kind of mood... Perhaps the biggest irritant is the overwhelming impression that, as I said at the beginning, certain of these frequent flyers have done so SO often that they now believe they know my job better than me. I can't deny that when one does something often, one becomes accustomed to it and how it works; I will concede that these passengers, to a certain extent, know the drill - I've ordered the same coffee in Costa so many times that I feel I could confidently work the coffee machine purely based on having watched their staff do so. However, I cannot imagine that I would ever QUESTION someone who is providing a service to me, no matter how often I had benefited from that service. How can I possibly know what new training they've had, what tweaks to the rules have been made, whether that particular person's manner of doing things is slightly different from the last I dealt with? The reality is despite what I THINK, I KNOW damned well that I haven't a clue how to make a Costa cappuccino, so would never dream of telling a member of their staff they've not done it right. If only the frequent flyer felt the same. Alas no, things don't go their way when they did last time... therefore I can't do my job properly.
My philosophy in response to this is simple: treat every passenger the same way. So, I'm afraid, that you can clock up as many air miles as you like...you will be asked the same security questions as everyone else. You may have flown 10 times this month.... but I've checked in 10 people in the last 5 minutes!
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Because everyone is different...
There is one particular flight which I regularly have to check in, which fills me with more dread than any other at the best of times, but especially when I'm simply not in the right mood or frame of mind. On this particular flight, I must be ready to argue, ready to stay strong, ready for battle. You wouldn't think that something as simple as checking in passengers on flights is a battle. They're all holidaymakers, excited about their two sun kissed weeks away, right? Wrong. The flight of which I speak is for a Turkish airline, and the overwhelming majority of the passengers are Turks visiting home, either to Turkey or to Northern Cyprus. Now, I really must take great care here, as I seek not to generalise an entire nationality to the extent that it borders on racism. At first, and regrettably having heard stories from colleagues, I was led to believe that these passengers just enjoyed being difficult, and weren't particularly nice. However, after my own experiences, and careful consideration, I have arrived at the simple conclusion that things simply work differently elsewhere. It is nothing more than cultural diversity in action.
As far as my limited understanding goes, the norm in Turkey is to barter, to haggle, and to deal. Again, I stress that this is a huge and uneducated generalisation which is formed from nothing more than the impression I'm given. So, the majority of my passengers arrive at the check-in desk, perhaps almost naively thinking that should I wish to charge them for 8kgs of excess baggage, that they can talk me into reducing that to 5kgs. Of course, in some cases this isn't naivety at all, there are also plenty of examples of quite deliberate 'ignorance', and in same cases down right sneakiness - passengers who arrive at check-in with one hand bag and miraculously appear at security with four, having hidden them around the corner, who are then escorted back by angry security staff who suggest that we willingly let these passengers break the rules. Hardly fair to blame us, as short of following passengers around the terminal building like spies, there is nothing more we can do to enforce this, our job actually relies heavily on people's honesty. I hasten to add though that this 'sneakiness' is very much true of many passengers on many flights I check in. Another thing I must add, is that it is rare that I experience genuine nastiness from the Turkish flight - at least with no more frequency than on a German or British flight. I see it more as gamesmanship. But that doesn't make it any easier:
'Your bag is 8 kgs too heavy sir'.
'So you can charge me for 5kgs??'
'No sir, I can charge you for 8kgs'
'Ah come on, its only a few kilos...'
'I'm sorry sir, the rules are the same for everyone'
'Yeh but you can just let me off can't you?!! Come oooon!!' *complete with attempt at knowing glance or wink*
And so on, and so forth.
I've had that conversation so many times that it as now on a par with 'Did you pack your own bag sir?' in terms of the automation with which I speak. I learnt long ago that there is no point getting angry, that the best way to deal with the situation is to be matter of fact. What really bemuses me is that each single passenger thinks they are the first and only to make such a request, that if I just let that one instance slide, they will be the only one... if only they realised that if I let every single passenger that asked me slide the extra few kilos, the plane would in fact be too heavy to take off! The other thing is, all of this pointless conversing takes time. Time that could be spent checking in the next passenger, time that means the queue moves slowly, that passengers get frustrated with the length of their wait, and which means an almighty rush at the end of check-in. And of course the last passengers are just as keen to play the excess baggage game, but with the added jeopardy of potentially missing the flight because they're so busy arguing.
What is really sad to see is that the disinterested, emotionless manner which we HAVE to use to engage in - and quickly end - the argument has rubbed off on some of my colleagues to the extent that they have forgotten customer service. Even on other flights they will wrongly pre-empt that a passenger is going to be troublesome, and talk to them as such. I've seen with my own eyes, that passengers exchange knowing glances as if to say: 'how rude'. I don't think any of my colleagues are rude by nature, they are simply worn out.
As I said at the start though, as frustrating and difficult as it is for us to deal with, there is a side of me that says: well, who can blame them, its what they know, its what they're used to. Doesn't make our job any easier though! So no sir, I'm afraid you will have to pay like everyone else. There are no January sales at airline check-in.
As far as my limited understanding goes, the norm in Turkey is to barter, to haggle, and to deal. Again, I stress that this is a huge and uneducated generalisation which is formed from nothing more than the impression I'm given. So, the majority of my passengers arrive at the check-in desk, perhaps almost naively thinking that should I wish to charge them for 8kgs of excess baggage, that they can talk me into reducing that to 5kgs. Of course, in some cases this isn't naivety at all, there are also plenty of examples of quite deliberate 'ignorance', and in same cases down right sneakiness - passengers who arrive at check-in with one hand bag and miraculously appear at security with four, having hidden them around the corner, who are then escorted back by angry security staff who suggest that we willingly let these passengers break the rules. Hardly fair to blame us, as short of following passengers around the terminal building like spies, there is nothing more we can do to enforce this, our job actually relies heavily on people's honesty. I hasten to add though that this 'sneakiness' is very much true of many passengers on many flights I check in. Another thing I must add, is that it is rare that I experience genuine nastiness from the Turkish flight - at least with no more frequency than on a German or British flight. I see it more as gamesmanship. But that doesn't make it any easier:
'Your bag is 8 kgs too heavy sir'.
'So you can charge me for 5kgs??'
'No sir, I can charge you for 8kgs'
'Ah come on, its only a few kilos...'
'I'm sorry sir, the rules are the same for everyone'
'Yeh but you can just let me off can't you?!! Come oooon!!' *complete with attempt at knowing glance or wink*
And so on, and so forth.
I've had that conversation so many times that it as now on a par with 'Did you pack your own bag sir?' in terms of the automation with which I speak. I learnt long ago that there is no point getting angry, that the best way to deal with the situation is to be matter of fact. What really bemuses me is that each single passenger thinks they are the first and only to make such a request, that if I just let that one instance slide, they will be the only one... if only they realised that if I let every single passenger that asked me slide the extra few kilos, the plane would in fact be too heavy to take off! The other thing is, all of this pointless conversing takes time. Time that could be spent checking in the next passenger, time that means the queue moves slowly, that passengers get frustrated with the length of their wait, and which means an almighty rush at the end of check-in. And of course the last passengers are just as keen to play the excess baggage game, but with the added jeopardy of potentially missing the flight because they're so busy arguing.
What is really sad to see is that the disinterested, emotionless manner which we HAVE to use to engage in - and quickly end - the argument has rubbed off on some of my colleagues to the extent that they have forgotten customer service. Even on other flights they will wrongly pre-empt that a passenger is going to be troublesome, and talk to them as such. I've seen with my own eyes, that passengers exchange knowing glances as if to say: 'how rude'. I don't think any of my colleagues are rude by nature, they are simply worn out.
As I said at the start though, as frustrating and difficult as it is for us to deal with, there is a side of me that says: well, who can blame them, its what they know, its what they're used to. Doesn't make our job any easier though! So no sir, I'm afraid you will have to pay like everyone else. There are no January sales at airline check-in.
Thursday, 3 February 2011
Breaking Radio Silence
Perhaps one of the most bizarre incidents since I very first started working at Stansted Airport occured the other day. It was bizarre for a number of reasons. Firstly that it was ALLOWED to occur in a British Airport, which I find both baffling and concerning in the current climate of take-no-chances security - which is never more stringently observed than in an airport. And secondly, that once the perpetrators had succeeded in getting as far as they did, the enormous waste of a golden and once in a lifetime opportunity to either create anarchy or make a bold and memorable statement.
Allow me to explain: I was sat on check-in happily checking-in (this is perhaps an exaggeration given the particular airline I was working on behalf of at the time, but I digress) when the usual 'bing bong' of the airport tannoy system kicked in. Now, when one hears such tannoys as often as one does during the course of a day at the airport, one tends to be completely imune to them unless they are in some way out of the ordinary. This particular tannoy announcement was exactly that. Instead of the crystal clear, concise and beautifully announciated barrage of information one is normally treated to, the terminal building was filled with an unidentifiable collection of strange, muffled sounds. My initial thought was purely and simply that Mr Airport Tannoy Man had accidentally leaned on his 'make announcement' button, in much the same way as a mobile phone can accidentally dial someone from within one's pocket, thus treating the recipient of the call to some white noise and if they are really lucky, the rhythmic swishing of walking. However, ten minutes later there was a further 'bing bong'. This time, after the previous attempt, the bing and the bong caught my attention; I was intrigued. And what was announced intrigued me even more:
'Stansted Airport would like to apologise for the unscheduled annoucement a few moments ago, and for any offence it caused. The persons responsible for this have now been detained'.
This, of course, invoked a wave of curiousity, there was a palpable buzz around the particular zone of airport we were working in (apparently a zone with very poor loudspeakers) from passengers and staff alike - what on earth had happened, who were the persons responsible, what had been said that was so offensive?? We did not have to wait long for answers. Having closed check in, my colleagues and I headed back towards our central office at the other end of the (long) terminal building. We noticed a hub of activity in one particular area. As is human nature, we slowed down to have a look, in a similar way to how drivers do when there is an interesting looking car accident on the other side of the road (we really are a voyeuristic bunch). It was difficult to make out exactly what was happening, but there were certainly an awful lot of police officers and airport security staff involved. Finally, we came across someone in the know, one of our supervisors had both heard what was initially said on the announcement, and heard the full story through her contacts within the higher echelons of airport staff.
The story was this: using the public computers in the terminal building, a group of young men had somehow managed to hack into the airport tannoy frequency and using their own microphone had been able to make their own announcement. It had not taken long for the origins of the announcement to be traced, and so the perpetrators found, questionned, and presumably arrested. Now as I said, I have two concerns with this incident, coming from two entirely different perspectives. To me it is incredibly worrying the ease with which they were able to infiltrate the system. If it was that simple for them to hack into that particular broadcasting frequency in an airport, would it be just as easy to do the same with something far more potentially dangerous, such as the control tower? It doesn't require much imagination to consider the possible havoc and danger that could be caused by such an infiltration. Even the airport tannoy system in itself COULD have been a very, very dangerous tool to incite mass panic, had the people responsible been more malicious in their intent.
What was actually said over the system, although incredibly muffled was nothing more than crude and childish, along the lines of 'If you want sex come to the toilets' . Which brings me to my second point, one which I make from the perspective of the hackers. The hard work had been done. The hack was successful, they were 'in'. I cannot for the life of me comprehend why, when they had worked themselves such a fantastic forum for mass publicity, they wasted it by giggling like children. These people were obviously intelligent enough to hack what one would perceive to be a secure system. They could have said quite literally anything. Now I am by no means condoning what was essentially a criminal act, although I do have a certain admiration for the ingenuinity and obvious know how of the men responsible; indeed it is fortunate to say the least that these people were NOT malicious, else we could have ended up with a full scale evacuation on our hands and mass panic. However, I do believe that if something is worth getting arrested for, its worth getting arrested for properly! A political point, declaration of love, religious preaching, advertising or self publication. Just a few ideas that come to mind for what could have been said. Of course, there is a possibility that I do these men a disservice. Perhaps the aim of the game was never about what they would say, it was the thrill of knowing they COULD. Either way... 'If you want sex come to the toilets' just doesn't do the crime justice - what a waste!
In any case, it was one of the more interesting episodes. Sadly, bing and bong have now reverted back to introducing Airport Tannoy Man as he informs me that Ryanair's latest flight is delayed.
Allow me to explain: I was sat on check-in happily checking-in (this is perhaps an exaggeration given the particular airline I was working on behalf of at the time, but I digress) when the usual 'bing bong' of the airport tannoy system kicked in. Now, when one hears such tannoys as often as one does during the course of a day at the airport, one tends to be completely imune to them unless they are in some way out of the ordinary. This particular tannoy announcement was exactly that. Instead of the crystal clear, concise and beautifully announciated barrage of information one is normally treated to, the terminal building was filled with an unidentifiable collection of strange, muffled sounds. My initial thought was purely and simply that Mr Airport Tannoy Man had accidentally leaned on his 'make announcement' button, in much the same way as a mobile phone can accidentally dial someone from within one's pocket, thus treating the recipient of the call to some white noise and if they are really lucky, the rhythmic swishing of walking. However, ten minutes later there was a further 'bing bong'. This time, after the previous attempt, the bing and the bong caught my attention; I was intrigued. And what was announced intrigued me even more:
'Stansted Airport would like to apologise for the unscheduled annoucement a few moments ago, and for any offence it caused. The persons responsible for this have now been detained'.
This, of course, invoked a wave of curiousity, there was a palpable buzz around the particular zone of airport we were working in (apparently a zone with very poor loudspeakers) from passengers and staff alike - what on earth had happened, who were the persons responsible, what had been said that was so offensive?? We did not have to wait long for answers. Having closed check in, my colleagues and I headed back towards our central office at the other end of the (long) terminal building. We noticed a hub of activity in one particular area. As is human nature, we slowed down to have a look, in a similar way to how drivers do when there is an interesting looking car accident on the other side of the road (we really are a voyeuristic bunch). It was difficult to make out exactly what was happening, but there were certainly an awful lot of police officers and airport security staff involved. Finally, we came across someone in the know, one of our supervisors had both heard what was initially said on the announcement, and heard the full story through her contacts within the higher echelons of airport staff.
The story was this: using the public computers in the terminal building, a group of young men had somehow managed to hack into the airport tannoy frequency and using their own microphone had been able to make their own announcement. It had not taken long for the origins of the announcement to be traced, and so the perpetrators found, questionned, and presumably arrested. Now as I said, I have two concerns with this incident, coming from two entirely different perspectives. To me it is incredibly worrying the ease with which they were able to infiltrate the system. If it was that simple for them to hack into that particular broadcasting frequency in an airport, would it be just as easy to do the same with something far more potentially dangerous, such as the control tower? It doesn't require much imagination to consider the possible havoc and danger that could be caused by such an infiltration. Even the airport tannoy system in itself COULD have been a very, very dangerous tool to incite mass panic, had the people responsible been more malicious in their intent.
What was actually said over the system, although incredibly muffled was nothing more than crude and childish, along the lines of 'If you want sex come to the toilets' . Which brings me to my second point, one which I make from the perspective of the hackers. The hard work had been done. The hack was successful, they were 'in'. I cannot for the life of me comprehend why, when they had worked themselves such a fantastic forum for mass publicity, they wasted it by giggling like children. These people were obviously intelligent enough to hack what one would perceive to be a secure system. They could have said quite literally anything. Now I am by no means condoning what was essentially a criminal act, although I do have a certain admiration for the ingenuinity and obvious know how of the men responsible; indeed it is fortunate to say the least that these people were NOT malicious, else we could have ended up with a full scale evacuation on our hands and mass panic. However, I do believe that if something is worth getting arrested for, its worth getting arrested for properly! A political point, declaration of love, religious preaching, advertising or self publication. Just a few ideas that come to mind for what could have been said. Of course, there is a possibility that I do these men a disservice. Perhaps the aim of the game was never about what they would say, it was the thrill of knowing they COULD. Either way... 'If you want sex come to the toilets' just doesn't do the crime justice - what a waste!
In any case, it was one of the more interesting episodes. Sadly, bing and bong have now reverted back to introducing Airport Tannoy Man as he informs me that Ryanair's latest flight is delayed.
Thursday, 20 January 2011
What's in a name?
On an average shift, I probably encounter on average anything from 50-100 people, which means seeing, reading, analysing and NOT reacting to 50-100 passports. Now I suspect most people would think that the most entertaining aspect of this is looking at, and silently critiquing people's passport photos. It isn't. The novelty of that wore off long, long ago. In fact, I barely even notice passport photos anymore (which possibly means I'm not really doing my job properly, but so far I haven't been informed of any terrorist activity caused by my lazy eye). No, to me, the human name is a far, far more interesting source of entertainment, intrigue and ashamedly, humour. But why is it FUNNY?
The inspiration for this particular entry - and the ensuing discussion - came when I checked in a Malaysian woman called Ching Ching Chong. Ching Ching Chong. First and foremost, its hard to even say the name without adopting an unflattering imitation of a generic far eastern accent (one that probably borders on racism). I will readily admit that I found poor old Ching's name amusing. In fact, I even went so far as to print myself a copy of her boarding card, so that I could show others her name and they could share my amusement. Aside from the obvious fact that I probably shouldn't be printing copies of passengers' boarding cards for my own personal amusement as this is a severe breach of company protocol, I've since put some thought into just why Ching Ching Chong is such a hilarious name. The answer I've managed to arrive at is; it isn't really funny at all. At least, no MORE funny than my atypically English/German name is to her. Were I to fly from Malaysia, would my Malaysian equivelent reprint my boarding card and take great delight in sharing the hilarity of my 'silly' name with his friends? In theory, yes.
My point, as well disguised as it currently is, is this: language or more particularly the evolution thereof is a very interesting phenomenon. In truth, evolution in general is fascinating, but as a linguist myself it is language which interests me the most. Its differences are prevolent on any scale. I live 30 miles from London, and the language they speak in certain areas - and to be honest within certain cultures - is all but foreign. Within the United Kingdom alone there are a multitude of regional dialects. In Nottingham 'Duck' is a term of endearment, whilst in Coventry a 'Batch' is a bread roll. Use either of those terms far outside their cities of origin and people will look at you as if you're mad. Or they'll laugh.
So on a global scale - given that we are ALL humans, ALL evolved from the same animals (if you believe in that kind of thing of course) - its truly amazing how much diversity there is in the languages we all speak, how they've evolved to the extent that despite being the same species, we often can't even communicate with other people. The problem then, is that unless we go to lengths to learn a language or dialect, we have a complete lack of understanding of ANY language other than our own. This is why a non Nottingham-er will find it bizarre to be referred to as 'duck'. And its why Ching Ching Chong seems to be a funny name. It is -and I go to the very core of this word's definition - foreign to us.
So, I for one, having thought in a little more depth about people's names and their linguistic origins, will remain interested, entertained, and intrigued by them. I will however endeavour NOT to laugh at them... as funny as they may sound. I hope you had a nice flight Miss Ching. Or is that Miss Chong???
The inspiration for this particular entry - and the ensuing discussion - came when I checked in a Malaysian woman called Ching Ching Chong. Ching Ching Chong. First and foremost, its hard to even say the name without adopting an unflattering imitation of a generic far eastern accent (one that probably borders on racism). I will readily admit that I found poor old Ching's name amusing. In fact, I even went so far as to print myself a copy of her boarding card, so that I could show others her name and they could share my amusement. Aside from the obvious fact that I probably shouldn't be printing copies of passengers' boarding cards for my own personal amusement as this is a severe breach of company protocol, I've since put some thought into just why Ching Ching Chong is such a hilarious name. The answer I've managed to arrive at is; it isn't really funny at all. At least, no MORE funny than my atypically English/German name is to her. Were I to fly from Malaysia, would my Malaysian equivelent reprint my boarding card and take great delight in sharing the hilarity of my 'silly' name with his friends? In theory, yes.
My point, as well disguised as it currently is, is this: language or more particularly the evolution thereof is a very interesting phenomenon. In truth, evolution in general is fascinating, but as a linguist myself it is language which interests me the most. Its differences are prevolent on any scale. I live 30 miles from London, and the language they speak in certain areas - and to be honest within certain cultures - is all but foreign. Within the United Kingdom alone there are a multitude of regional dialects. In Nottingham 'Duck' is a term of endearment, whilst in Coventry a 'Batch' is a bread roll. Use either of those terms far outside their cities of origin and people will look at you as if you're mad. Or they'll laugh.
So on a global scale - given that we are ALL humans, ALL evolved from the same animals (if you believe in that kind of thing of course) - its truly amazing how much diversity there is in the languages we all speak, how they've evolved to the extent that despite being the same species, we often can't even communicate with other people. The problem then, is that unless we go to lengths to learn a language or dialect, we have a complete lack of understanding of ANY language other than our own. This is why a non Nottingham-er will find it bizarre to be referred to as 'duck'. And its why Ching Ching Chong seems to be a funny name. It is -and I go to the very core of this word's definition - foreign to us.
So, I for one, having thought in a little more depth about people's names and their linguistic origins, will remain interested, entertained, and intrigued by them. I will however endeavour NOT to laugh at them... as funny as they may sound. I hope you had a nice flight Miss Ching. Or is that Miss Chong???
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)