Hello, I'm back! Minsan na nga lang ang mga posts, magsusulat pa ako tungkol na naman sa isang reklamo sa airline service. Mauna na po ang aking paumanhin.
Itago natin sa pangalang "Zesto Air" ang irereklamo kong airline para hindi masiyadong halata at para fair naman sa kanila, baka lalo silang mawalan ng mga pasahero. Nag-post na ako dati ng reklamo tungkol sa isa pang airline na itago natin sa pangalang "Cebu Falicfic" (salamat sa idea, AdroidEnteng!). Ito ang related entry ko dati, click here.
Life changing talaga ang experience namin sa Zesto Air. Never in my wildest dreams na inakala kong aabutin namin ang ganon. Ang aming previous experience sa Cebu Falicfic ay nagmistulang walk in the park, isang cute na pagkakamali, chicken feed lang.
Noong February, nagbook kami ng flights to Boracay via Kalibo. Wow, 1000 pesos, balikan na. Bongga. Book naman kami. (Ang airline nga pala na ito ay banned sa Caticlan, dahil sila lang naman ang sumira sa pader doon nang lumagpas ang eroplano - bakit ba hindi ito nagsilbing babala sa amin? Oh well.)
Two weeks ago, kami ay nakatakda nang lumipad patungong Boracay. Isang problema: nadiscover ng isa naming kasama na buntis siya at medyo sensitive ang pagbubuntis kaya hindi na sila makakasama ng husband niya. Tawag ako sa Zesto Air to cancel, kasi baka ma-no show at macharge ang credit card. Just to be sure.
After 10 minutes ng ringback, may sumagot na agent sa wakas. Naconfirm naman nila ang mga nais kong ipa-cancel. Before ko ibaba ang phone:
Zesto Air: Ma'am, by the way, namove nga po pala ang inyong flight to Kalibo. From 7:15 am, 10:00 am na po siya...
Ako: Ha? Kung hindi pa ako tumawag, hindi ko pala malalaman?
Zesto Air: Ma'am, may record naman po dito na na-inform kayo...
Ako:(Sino nakausap niyo? Doppelganger ko? Engkanto?) Ah okay. Next time siguraduhin niyong may confirmation from the passenger na alam nila ang flight changes ha. *blag*
Joke lang, hindi ko naman siya binagsakan ng phone.
Dumating ang araw ng aming flight. Siyempre naka-summer outfit na kami. Halata mo rin sa airport kung sino ang mga pupunta ng Kalibo or Caticlan, mga naka-shades kahit madilim sa loob, mga naka-shorts, naka buri hat wala namang araw, mga ganun. 8 am pa lang, nagcheck in na kami. Two hours before the flight daw dapat nandun na. Boarding time is at 9:30 am.
Well, well, well, balon. 10:00 am na, which is the ETD, hindi pa rin kami nagbo-board. Sa receiving desk, dumadami nang dumadami ang mga tao. May kaguluhan. Lapit din kami. Aba! Ang flight daw namin ay na-move to 12 noon. Abaaaa...
Kami naman, okay, fine. Seat sale eh. Hintay ulit.
Pagdating ng 11:30 am, tila wala na namang kung anong sign na magbo-board kami. Muling nagkumpulan ang mga tao. Na move na daw ng 2:00 pm! Gumigising-gising pa ako nang maaga, foot-tah-rah-geese. Nalaman-laman namin na lahat ng flights, delayed. Hindi lang ang sa amin. kaya pala ang mga floral outfits nina ate sa kabila, nanguluntoy na. Ang white na maxi dress ni Madame, tila nangungutim na. Ang mga Oakley at Ray Ban na shades, hindi na pangporma, kung hindi pangtakip ng mata habang natutulog para kunwari gising.
Total time of delay from the original ETD: 7 hours. Yung iba, 3:00 am pa nandun, 1:00 pm nakaalis, maswerte pa pala kami. May mga kwento pa na inabot sila ng 16 hours. Ang hirap ng seat sale. Yung natitipid mo ibibili mo ng Calcibloc or kamatis para pangontra ng high blood.
Sa sobrang OA ng delay ng Zesto Air, alam niyo ba na nagkaroon pa ng blogging contest para dito?
Nabiktima na rin ba kayo ng mga tulad ng Zesto Air?
A security analyst who has worked in counter-terrorism with the British Army and Scotland Yard, Charles Shoebridge, says the officers involved in Manila's bus siege showed great courage - but they were not properly trained or equipped for the task.
Here are 10 areas where, in his view, they could have done better.
2. Lack of equipment
The police spent a long time smashing the windows of the bus, whereas explosive charges (known as frame charges) would have knocked in windows and doors instantly. "They had no ladders to get through the windows. They smashed the windows but didn't know what to do next," Mr Shoebridge says. "They almost looked like a group of vandals." Their firearms were also inappropriate - some had pistols, some had assault rifles. Ideally they would have carried a short submachine gun, suitable for use in confined spaces.
3. Lost opportunity to disarm the gunman
There were numerous opportunities to restrain the gunman, Mr Shoebridge believes. "The negotiators were so close to him, and he had his weapon hanging down by his side. He could have been disabled without having to kill him."
4. Lost opportunity to shoot the gunman
The video of the drama also shows there were occasions when the gunman was standing alone, during the course of the day, and could have been shot by a sharpshooter. "You are dealing with an unpredictable and irrational individual. The rule should be that if in the course of negotiations an opportunity arises to end the situation decisively, it should be taken," Mr Shoebridge says. Either this possibility did not occur to the officers in charge, he adds, or they considered it and decided to carry on talking.
5. Satisfying the gunman's demands
"I wondered why the authorities just didn't give in to all of his demands," says Charles Shoebridge. "A promise extracted under force is not a promise that you are required to honour. Nobody wants to give in to the demands of terrorists, but in a situation like this, which did not involve a terrorist group, or release of prisoners, they could have just accepted his demands. He could be reinstated in the police - and then be immediately put in prison for life for hostage taking." The Philippines authorities did in fact give in to the gunman's demands, but too little, too late. One message promised to review his case, while he wanted it formally dismissed. A second message reinstating him as a police offer only arrived after the shooting had started.
6. Televised proceedings
The gunman was able to follow events on television, revealing to him everything that was going on around him. This was a "crucial defect in the police handling", Mr Shoebridge says. He adds that police should always consider putting a barrier or screen around the area, to shield the scene from the cameras and keep the hostage taker in the dark.
7. No element of surprise
It was clear to the gunman what the police were doing at all times, not only because the whole incident was televised, but also because they moved "laboriously slowly", Mr Shoebridge says. The police did not distract him, so were unable to exploit the "crucial element of surprise".
8. Safeguarding the public
At least one bystander was shot, possibly because the public was allowed too close. The bullet from an M16 rifle, as carried by the gunman, can travel for about a mile, so preventing any risk of injury would have been difficult, Mr Shoebridge says, but a lot more could have been done. "When you saw the camera view from above, it was clear there was little command and control of the public on the ground," he says.
9. Using the gunman's brother to negotiate Relatives and close friends can be a double-edged sword, Mr Shoebridge says.
While they may have leverage over the hostage taker, what they are saying cannot be easily controlled. In this case, the gunman's brother was included in the negotiations - however, at a certain stage he became agitated and police started to remove him from the scene. The gunman saw this on television, and became agitated himself. According to one report he fired a warning shot.
10. Insufficient training
In some parts of the Philippines, such as Mindanao, hostage taking is not an uncommon occurrence, so the country has some forces that are well trained in the necessary tactics. The detachment involved in Monday's incident clearly was not, says Mr Shoebridge. After smashing the windows, one of the officers eventually put some CS gas inside, though "to what effect was not clear" he says. A unit involved in this work, needs to be "trained again and again, repeatedly practising precisely this kind of scenario," he says.