What People Actually Want from Airlines

The airline industry is on the rise and on the decline at the same time. While it's become (somewhat) more affordable to fly to more and more destinations, the lure of travel is such that many of us are willing to put up with a lot to see the world. It's not just the trial of security screenings and sneaky fuel and airport improvement charges that balloon discount pricing on advertisements; so much of the travel experience today is downright awful.

Which is why it's mind-boggling, to say the least, to see airlines revert back to sexist policies regarding their attendants. Recently, GoAir has decided to implement a policy that they will only hire women attendants, seemingly because of weight restrictions. Others have enforced strict makeup and weight restrictions to keep their attendants attractive and somehow happier, perpetuating the old 'sky waitress' stereotype of Pan Am days.

This sounds a lot like one of those policies that only applies to business class douches. While they recline and ogle pretty women with trays of champagne, the rest of us are crammed like cattle in ever smaller cabins with virtually no aisle room. Our luggage is misplaced or abused, the airline wants credit cards for movies and pillows and people of average height finally get to experience what life would be like as an accordion.

Look, the public is not hard to please. While it may seem like we're a sweating mass of lowlifes who need to be medicated, our demands are not terrible. Most of the public can agree that they just want the following 3 things out of a flight:

1- Get us and our luggage to our destination relatively on time.
2- Don't kill us.
3- A sky toilet.

Nowhere on that list are there demands for attractive wait staff. Quite frankly, most of us would be happy with vending machines on board, so long as they didn't take up too much space. If it wasn't for the fact that they are supposedly trained to assist us in emergencies, we wouldn't bother with staff at all. But the very fact that they can assist in emergencies makes them so much more valuable than sky waitresses. So maybe they should use those qualifications instead.

Nobody ever says this after a flight:

"Man, that was horrible! We were 6 hours late, a baby screamed in my ear and I paid 6 bucks for a soda. But man, did you see how hot that stewardess was?"

The hunt for profit in the airline industry is killing it. Lower fares are not the answer when you oversell flights, cram people and their stuff on too small planes causing weight issues, and undercut your staff because you think of them as smiling serving trays.

Personally, I would pay more money and go on less and better trips if only the airlines would make the trip worthwhile. Widen the aisles, put in less and more spacious seats, make the sky toilet slightly larger than a Manhattan apartment and stop cheaping out on extras that make flying tolerable, like movies and pillows.

Normally, I would add 'treat us like human beings' on the list, but really, that's not all that important. If the flight is (relatively) on time, the luggage makes it as safe as I do, the seat and aisles have space, the toilet is clean and the plane arrives without exploding, I don't really care if the attendants answer my questions or bring me potato chips. That is all I'm paying for and that is what I'd like in return. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

No Wedding Bells Please

Let's all agree to stop going to weddings.

Cheers will abound to cover the shocked gasps. There is not a single person on earth who has not been to a wedding that was either a disaster, a fiasco, a dramatic affair, a disappointment or flat out boring. There are probably millions who have suffered from impossible expectations, hostility over bonbons, family fights for no particular good reason at all, and a whopping bill at the end that could have put a serious dent into a mortgage.

It used to be that a wedding was a special day for friends and family to witness a blissful union made in love which will probably result in children and house renovations for the next 20 years. Weddings have now become a spectacle, a reality television special and a spread in a glossy magazine. Brides have gone from blushing princesses to Hollywood style divas on a bluetooth device, yelling for exactly 14 petals on every rose. And the bills associated with these extravagant one day circuses are landing newly-wed couples, who have probably never discussed money before, into debt.

It's exhausting to even think about it.

And it's not just the bride and groom. It's the family and the wedding party and the guests. Everyone experiences some form of wedding headache or angst, and is more the poorer for it. The expectations and the demands have spiralled out of control, and this once-in-a-lifetime milestone is often anything but these days.

Your graduation from high school is likely an once-in-a-lifetime affair. You went, you did the work, you earned. You're not likely going back to high school. Your first job is a once-in-a-lifetime affair; you're not going to get two cracks at the first job. Sadly, marriage is not proving to be once for many people, and that is just fact, not a judgement. So let's get over this concept that this is a magical ever after story where we all get to be princesses for the day.

Think about it: there are very few days in your life which turned out to be as special as people told you they would. Most of us are incredibly underwhelmed when things happen to us. That's also because we're not likely to know the glories of winning an Oscar or seeing the sun rise over the Himalayan Mountains. The amount of truly amazing experiences we common folk have in life are not very numerous. People will overpromise- those people who claim that the wedding will be the best day of your life are usually the vendors who want to be there for it.

They are the true winners of your wedding day. While you scramble to roll up enough pennies to pay for that open bar you promised your sports team for when they show up at the midnight buffet, which only happened because you were peer-pressured that one time at the party where you were cornered near the biscuits, and while your parents squabble over who should sit next to your estranged aunt Edna who can't even remember anymore what caused her estrangement, the vendors will be smiling all the way to the bank.

And while your friends grit their teeth during the various glorified gift grabs which are showers, parties and stags, all the while resenting the fact that they're going to spend a week eating bag lunches to pay for some obnoxiously-priced blender, the handful of people who really truly know and love you will take a thousand pictures and wonder why everyone looks so stiff.

And let's not forget how the industry plays on your vanity and insecurity by insisting that you special day will only be more special if you just buy more things. How they always remind you that this is going to be the most special day of your life and don't you just want everything to be perfect?

Look, marriage is a beautiful thing. It's so difficult to find another human being you want to spend more than a few hours with without punching them in the side, it's a near miracle that anyone finds anyone that they want to wake up to each morning. Despite all our dumbness and neuroses and the stupid things we do when we think nobody's looking, we still find it within ourselves to love each other and accept each other for life.

That's pretty special. Let's not ruin that milestone by turning it into a gala of sparkles and flat speeches. Let's not allow a billion dollar industry to make suckers out of us by feeding us the notion that we're Beyonce and Jay-Z for a day. Let's celebrate in a dignified, intimate and classy way that doesn't involve consultations and agendas. People who are disappointed that there won't be some flashy show with free drinks will just have to get over that. They're not the ones who are truly happy for you in the first place.

If the sight of two people pledging love and fidelity to each other in words is not enough to make you happy for them, then you shouldn't go to weddings. If you're more interested in seeing what designer dress the bride has or glazing over the vows until you can get a cocktail, then you shouldn't go to weddings. Let's be honest when we look at weddings and recognize that it is first and foremost an industry and old-fashioned social conventions that serve no particular purpose anymore.

Get married. Love each other. The people who will be truly happy for you don't need a wedding to prove anything. And at the end of the day, all you will have, other than the bills to pay, will be each other.

National Public Non-Service Week

Does anyone remember that awards show when Fiona Apple got on stage and mumbled that strange 'acceptance' speech where she basically said that it made no sense for her to exist? That was the speech that threw her credibility right out the window with her music career, but she didn't leave without making an impression.

It was short, like a teenage 'life sucks' retort, and highly unconventional, since she basically thanked noone. Granted, it was refreshing to see someone give a speech where they didn't prattle on about God or the fans or their agent and roll off names that nobody knows; but we don't want to be remembered for the wrong reasons.

What does this have to do with the National Public Service Week? At first glance, nothing. But then consider the messaging of the Conservative government during this so-called appreciation week. The Statement by the Prime Minister talks about the dedication of public servants and how fitting this year's theme is: 'Proudly Serving Canadians'. But this line was the true coup de grace: "I look forward to continuing to work with our public service to enhance the prosperity and well-being of Canadians.”

If by 'working with' you mean cutting jobs, removing severance, slashing budgets, and the newly-minted attack on sick days which is about to be announced sometime today to align with the ceremonial kick off of our 'appreciation' week, then this government has really outdone itself. How ironic to start a day meant to honour the public service with a kick off that is a ceremonial punting of our benefits.

It's a lot like waking up on Mother's Day and having to put out the fire in the kitchen that the kids started while trying to make breakfast in bed for you. Except in that scenario, there are nothing but good intentions. It baffles me that the government would choose to introduce this measure in a week that's dedicated to us. Did they really think that we would be too busy beaming from self-importance to realize that our benefits were being slashed? That we would all be grazing on smiley cookies and applause, oblivious to the fact that the measures designed to make us more 'effective' like the private sector are going to diminish our quality of life?

It's not certain what form this 'effectiveness' will be, but it's a pretty safe bet that the government will seek to reduce sick days for the public service, regardless of how the policy will be rolled out or presented. Every time this government has wanted the public service to be more effective, cutting back on budgets, staff and benefits has been the name of the game.

So in a way, this is a lot like the Fiona Apple speech: short, highly unconventional, thanking noone. And very likely to be remembered for all the wrong reasons.

Remember public servants based in Ottawa: when you go to the National Public Service Week barbecue which is supposed to be a symbolic gesture to thank you for your dedication and professionalism, and all the insincere words cause you to choke just a little bit on your badly charred hamburger- take a sick day. While you still have them.

Stamp it Out

Canada Post wants people to accept junk mail again. They claim that people will benefit by being closer to their community if they accept junk mail, when this is a pitiful last-ditch attempt to make paper mail relevant again to an online and paperless society. While it's understandable that Canada Post has to do something to keep it alive and kicking, this is definitely a step in the wrong direction.

The organization is delusional if they think that anyone in their right mind believes that junk mail will link them into their community. Saving 50 cents on soup doesn't make you an engaged citizen. Junk mail is just that: junk. It's stuff that nobody wants to know that they couldn't figure out on their own if they just searched on Google. It's a tired medium that people have no time for and just adds to the recycling bins at the end of the week.

It also perpetuates the notion that Canada Post exists so that grandma can send you a birthday card once a year with a $5 bill in it. The image of people eagerly awaiting and sifting through junk mail belongs to another era.

If Canada Post wants to stay relevant, they need to do it in a way that is actually relevant. They had the right idea when they thought that people want to be linked in to their community- that bit is true. So they should be innovating off this idea that you can engage meaningfully through the mail.

The future of Canada Post is not going to be in delivering letters, it will be through delivery. With more and more people online, more of us order online and those things need to get to us somehow. While FedEx and UPS lead the pack, let's be realistic: how many of us are home Monday to Friday between 9am and 5pm? It's far more reasonable to think that we can get to a Canada Post outlet and pick things up ourselves or that smaller things will show in our boxes.

The best innovation by far that Canada Post has had in recent years was their Christmas Turtles promotion, where you could send a pack of Turtles chocolates anywhere in Canada. The idea was sweet, cute and easy. It tapped into that idea of engaging with others through the mail and sending a thought, a treat, a surprise. More ideas like this year round would make more of us willing to head to a post office.

Canada Post should also aggressively recruit local Canadian-based businesses in order to be their exclusive carrier. We shop online a lot more now and the appetite to support local is there. This organization is going to have to compete and that would not be a bad thing for Canadians. But junk mail? Recycle that idea.

Sharing the Misery

Today, I read with interest, a column by a New York family undertaking the "Live Below the Line" challenge, spending a week living on $1.50 per day of food to get a sense of the extreme poverty line according to the World Bank. The couple decided to keep their young children out of the challenge and opted to try it for themselves, with cheat items like seasonings and cereal, and gladly accepting donations in the forms of cookies at work, when they were offered by friends.

The intention of the couple after this exercise is to donate the money that they would have otherwise spent on themselves during the course of a regular weeks' worth of groceries and have a greater awareness of how hard things can be for other people. It's a laudable goal, a good cause and it's probably a good example to their children so that they can learn and appreciate all that they have. But what really surprised me were the comments.

What could be so offensive about trying to live on a reduced budget and help other people in need? Apparently, it's the very fact that this couple even had the choice which is the problem. The backlash came from those people who have lived this way themselves, have been forced to include their children because there simply was no money available, and who couldn't afford in any way to cheat with seasonings or cream cheese. The tone of the article may have come across particularly bad when the author referred to this process as trying to solve a puzzle and trying to get it right- as if this was a game, when for many, this is a question of basic survival.

While this probably and justifiably caused the backlash, in the author's defense, I would like to say that this is still a good thing to do. Many anti-poverty movements are based on sharing the wealth, but it's not such a bad thing to share the misery, either. On the one hand, it causes increased awareness of what other people go through, empathy, relativity towards food and our attitude towards it and a general feeling against waste.

When you're forced to see food as a necessity and not a luxury and think about what you CAN have rather than what you would LIKE to have, it brings home the basic message that everyone has to eat and make good, responsible choices. You get a greater appreciation of the wealth and abundance that exists in the Western world and how this enriches your life. You also don't waste a scrap or conveniently 'forget' about lettuce. A reduced budget also means that you don't have access to convenience foods which are pre-packaged, meaning that you have to think and plan out your meals. This exercise teaches us to be more reasonable in our needs and many would agree that this is a lesson that people in the Western world sorely need.

So perhaps this couple should not be patting itself on its backs or making a big show of all that they have learned, although the article doesn't reek of self-congratulations, as some commentators suggest. A week of poverty living doesn't exactly make you Jesus or 'one of the people.' It can make you more aware and more responsible. It's a small lesson and a good reminder- and nothing to sniff at. Sacrifice, however small, is still sacrifice. These people aren't throwing caviar out the window. And you can bet that they're looking around the grocery store with very different, more considerate, eyes.

Asking for It- A Little Respect, that is

It's amusing that a Slovakian cyclist decided to celebrate his second place in the Tour of Flandrs in Belgium by pinching the backside of a 'podium girl' over the weekend, but it's a lot less amusing when you consider the implications of his 'joke.' While this has caused laughs, speculation, criticism and debate, it has also brought up another interesting point, much more galling, as cited from the Yahoo story: "More than a few people have pointed out that the woman in question was planting a wet one on the cheek of winner Fabian Cancellara, as if that meant she were somehow asking for it."

'Asking for it'- this is probably one of the more problematic things that could be said. Let's consider this: 'asking for it' is commonly used in what some of us consider the outdated vocabulary of 'blaming the victim' which used to be quite popular in early sexual assault and rape cases. Most of us in the Western world consider this expression to be extremely offensive, most of us, being, you know, women.

'Asking for it' implies that women dress provocatively and make themselves attractive for the sole purpose of being grabbed and assaulted, that they can't and don't say no, and that flaunting of certain physical traits is an open invitation. This assumes the absolute worse in women and fans the flames of misogyny previously trumpeted by moralists, men, conservatives and those women who judge all other women by their own terrible examples.

It may be time for us, as a civilized society with half a brain, to let go of this term. Sexual freedom and the right to dress the way we want are hallmarks of women's rights, not running around with signs that say men are bad. It is generally accepted that if a woman dresses in a sexy manner, it's actually the responsibility of the men around her to show some restraint, decency and civility by not assaulting her- not the other way around. It is not the responsibility of a woman to dress conservatively to properly demonstrate that she does not want to be sexually assaulted. These are the basics. It's a shame that not everyone gets this.

So while this situation is amusing, awkward, silly, probably misunderstood, it's a good reminder that maybe we should re-evaluate old traditions and expressions. Podium girls are probably not a necessary part of the sport of cycling, much in the same way that cheerleaders generally don't add anything to the sporting events they attend. It's also funny in the reporting of this event that there is no name for the podium girl- she's just a backside, as far as the stories are concerned. It's what they hired her for, right? Maybe that's bad job criteria.

As summer rolls around, with temptation abounding from all sides, let's put out this reminder of look, but don't touch. A woman with a beautiful body is a beautiful sight, but she is not 'asking for it' by wearing short shorts. What we are asking for is a little respect and a little space. When we dress to show off our bodies or let our legs breathe in the summertime, it means we're comfortable with ourselves and we trust in the freedom and protection of our civil rights which entitles us to feel that way. Can't the rest of the world show us that they feel the same way?

The International Day of Happiness

When I got into work today, I saw brightly coloured balloons on a sign that proclaimed today as the International Day of Happiness. When I looked up what this meant, I came across this statement:

"The day recognizes that happiness is a fundamental human goal, and calls upon countries to approach public policies in ways that improve the well being of all peoples.

By designating a special day for happiness, the UN aims to focus world attention on the idea that economic growth must be inclusive, equitable, and balanced, such that it promotes sustainable development, and alleviates poverty. Additionally the UN acknowledges that in order to attain global happiness, economic development must be accompanied by social and environmental well being." (http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/un/happiness-day)

While most of us would have that first instinct of 'oh, how nice,' my second, more suspicious analytical mind kicked in with, 'so what?'

The International Day of Happiness doesn't actually do anything. One could argue that most days are the same, and while they don't achieve any specific objectives, they raise awareness, in the same vein that tomorrow, for example, is the International Day for the Elimination of Racism (March 21st). One of the primary differences is that racism is a tangible issue with a generally well-accepted definition; happiness, on other hand, is a more slippery concept.

To think that this is a notion to raise awareness about the pursuit of happiness as being a fundamental human goal rings hollow when people don't fundamentally agree what happiness is or what is required to get there. Declaring a special day to think about it doesn't make it more relevant or less true, than, say, for example, proclaiming an international food appreciation day. Consider this slightly modified version:

"The day recognizes that food is a fundamental human goal and calls upon countries to approach public policies in ways that improve the well being of all peoples.

By designating a special day for food, the UN aims to focus world attention on the idea that economic growth must be inclusive, equitable, and balanced, such that it promotes sustainable development, and alleviates poverty. Additionally the UN acknowledges that in order to attain food, economic development must be accompanied by social and environmental well being."

By replacing the exact same statement with the word 'food' instead of 'happiness', this message seems even more hollow. Actions are going to be the real determinant of whether or not certain designated days are successful and those actions are not going to be limited to putting up balloons. If the International Food Appreciation Day was accompanied by a global campaign to get food donations for needy countries or fill the stores of food banks in small communities, then it would mean something. Just as the International Day for the Elimination of Racism includes awareness campaigns, remembrance and important history lessons, as well as current examples of racist practices and how they can be stopped or mitigated.

So what exactly does the International Day of Happiness promise, other than balloons and the celebration of a highly Western concept that is ill-defined at the best of times? Nicely encouraging world governments to be mindful of the welfare of its citizens when making its policies is not really doing anything. In fact, it's laughable when you consider that Cyprus proposed to take money from citizens individual savings account to bail the country out, Canada is about to release yet another draconian budget, the European Union is headed for collapse, environmental policies are being written by oil and gas corporations and Chinese factory workers are throwing themselves off buildings while making ipads.

But let's all take a moment to enjoy some balloons.