China’s second largest city after Shanghai is Beijing, or Peking in the good old days, and is the focal point of many international flights, one of them being that of Southern China Airlines, considered the continent’s biggest carrier in terms of number of passengers.
But its number is not enough reason for an airline or its personnel to be rude, inconsiderate and insensitive to complaints of passengers claiming to have been victimized by inefficient employees, who decline giving their identification whenever they are confronted with simple questions on ticketing and boarding mistakes.
Southern China Airlines made $6.3 million from fuel-hedging last year when prices surged to a record high, although in September it abandoned its hedging activity when fares tumbled 70 percent and its passenger numbers minimally rose 5.1 percent, necessitating a slow growth and forcing the government to bail it out to the tune of $440 million.
But Southern China Airlines’ profits means little when its personnel treat badly its confirmed ticket holders.
One weary traveler who happens to be a family friend of mine has a sad story to tell about Southern China Airlines.
To take advantage of the long holiday break, he and his family—wife, two kids, their daughter-in-law and their one-year old grandson—decided to go to Beijing on a packaged tour via China Southern Airlines.
Going to Beijing, the trip went well. It was on their trip back that the nightmare took place. When they checked in at the Beijing airport, each of them was given a boarding pass—except the daughter-in-law. The reason—her name was not listed on the manifest.
The family explained that it was impossible. Being on a packaged tour, how could a round-trip ticket not have a ticket going back? And how come her companions, including the daughter-in-law’s infant son, could have a ticket while she did not have one?
A check with the manifest showed that two tickets were listed in the name of my friend’s wife, one of which could be the ticket that should belong to his daughter-in-law.
They tried to explain with the personnel but the woman was adamant into not letting the daughter-in-law in, and even told them it was not her job to help them. They asked for the name of the officer, who hid her name tag behind her uniform. The supervisor also virtually ignored them.
Finally, the manager came in. But he told them that the daughter-in-law could take the flight only if they pay $1,000 in cash. When asked for his name, the manager haughtily said it was printed on his nameplate—in Chinese characters—which the family could not read! They were able to take his identification number, though. To make matters worse, the family was practically being humiliated when some personnel made faces and sneered at them.
Realizing that no reason or help could come from the Chinese airport personnel, my friend decided to just pay for the ticket of his daughter-in-law to Manila. As a frequent traveler, my friend has deemed it wiser to pay using his credit card. But, lo and behold, he was told that they only accept cash!
Since my friend does not have that much cash at that time, the family was forced to shell out the needed fare in cash.
Writings on the wall
The writings are on the wall as far as the Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey conducted between October 14 and 27 on the SWS Awareness and Trust Ratings of Selected Public Figures is concerned.
I am happy to note that Winston Garcia, president and chief executive officer of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), enjoyed a 75-percent awareness rating, although I am sad he was at the bottom of government personalities whom the survey respondents could not trust.
Nonetheless, Garcia enjoyed a 17-percent big trust rating that means there is plenty of room for people rooting for the GSIS chief to improve his image some more. It’s a perception problem and more work for him and his staff to give government workers and retirees a more satisfactory service.
Take several incidents where GSIS employees were heckled. According to our source, in a recent inter-GOCC (government-owned and -controlled corporations) athletic competition, the GSIS players were booed. The GSIS team captain/manager used the public address system to explain and defend the team. But the booing and jeering only intensified. The GSIS players were left with no choice but to walk out.
Another source said another GSIS delegation was booed in a roll call in a government summit against corruption at the PhilSports Stadium (formerly the Ultra) in Pasig City on December 9.
Fortunately for the red-faced GSIS crew, the heckling later turned to grudging cheers when Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez took the cudgels for them and admonished the crowd for their less-than-gracious welcome.
“I felt bad when I heard boos for GSIS. They are working hard to serve us, too. Let’s give the GSIS the chance to serve us,” Gutierrez said.
Scanning the packed stadium, Gutierrez called out: “Where are the GSIS people? Come on, stand up!” From the far-right corner of the gallery, the GSIS delegates responded with hearty cheers and claps. But no one dared to stand up.
Thousands of employees from several government agencies took part in the “Integrity March” in celebration of the International Anticorruption Day and the launching of the National Summit on the United Nations Convention Against Corruption.
The moderators began the program by a roll call of all participating agencies. As the offices and departments were identified, the employees cheered and clapped.
When the GSIS was called, there was momentary silence—broken only by boos that began from one corner and spread and reverberated through the entire stadium for about 10 seconds.
“We felt…left out,” said Michelle Evangelista, staff officer at the agency’s human-resources department. “It’s like the whole organization was affected but through no fault of our own,” she said.
She said most complaints against the GSIS stemmed from its delivery of services, particularly benefits to government workers. The boos were ironic because all the less than 30 GSIS delegates to the summit came from the human-resources department, which is not connected to the delivery of benefits.
Evangelista noted that the heckling was prompted by ill feelings toward GSIS services. One of her bosses, a manager, who declined to be named for not having been authorized to speak for the agency, said she was not concerned at all by the reception.
“It’s to be expected. We’re focused on improving our service. That’s our commitment. Besides, we’re all government workers. We’re on the same boat,” she said.
The human-resource department boss was right. The GSIS and other government institutions are on the same boat. But the surveys against their boss say differently. Negative survey trusts are enough for President Arroyo to rethink the GSIS policy, if not to overhaul the GSIS officialdom. The main question now is: Will she do it? I don’t think so.
