Luis Suarez has apparently bitten his opponent in a scuffle. This is not the first time he has allegedly bitten someone. Two previous incidents have seen him getting a 7 and 10-match ban.
So did he do it in a bid to win at any costs? Or is it an involuntarily action (or reaction) that he himself cannot control? It's not surprising given the high stake involved in winning a match. You've probably witnessed players pretending to fall and lying on the ground agonizing in pain when an opponent has barely crossed legs with him. And there's pulling of shirt and shorts in an attempt to topple the opponent.
It's a competitive world out there.
It's the same in the business world too. Companies have to compete for customers and competition is getting worse with the number of choices available. There's no lack of direct substitute, better substitute and indirect substitute.
There's a news today about some Hong Kong Airlines staff plan to stage a "No Putonghua" protest (no Mandarin) on 1 July 2014 in response to an 18-hour sit-in on a plane of 70 passengers (out of 276), mostly mainlander Chinese, over a cancelled flight to Shanghai on 20 June.
According to The Standard of Hong Kong, the flight was cancelled because of weather. The company asked passengers to leave the plane and to wait as there was no scheduled time for taking off,, and distributed breakfast and lunch tickets to those leaving."
The South China Morning Post reported that it's due to problems with mainland air traffic control. Passengers were offered a transfer to a later flight which was accepted by most of the passengers, expect the 70. They said they had been offered only HK$200 (about US$25) in compensation and not accommodation. One of the protestor claimed that it's not about the money but the airline's attitude. The group says the airline should have offered "a reasonable amount of financial compensation."
The incident was resolved eventually with the airline giving apology letters to the sit-in fliers and promised compensation of HK$800 (US$103) per passenger.
Isn't it funny how two newspaper have so different information about the same incident?
It's a huge difference between a flight being cancelled due to weather versus problems with the air traffic control. One is beyond control while the other still not within control, can still be managed.
We've heard so often about how bad airlines are when it comes to communicating and handling passengers affected by flight delays or cancellations.
It's natural to be angry when your whole itinerary and schedule is disrupted. I would be angrier if I'm told to wait without knowing when I can get on a flight. And if I need to attend something urgent or important in Shanghai the next day, my rage will fly.
But not being there myself, it's difficult to know what really happened and how everything were communicated. Were passengers offered transfer to a later flight or asked to wait indefinitely? If there's a transfer flight, what time is it? Why passengers were not offered accommodation since it's already 9pm? If breakfast and lunch tickets were handed out as an preemptive measure, will the passengers misunderstand this as they need to wait at least another 12 hours?
If the plane did not take off because of weather condition and the airline has no information when the weather will clear up, were passengers informed they will be updated every hour or half-hourly?
People are already upset that their plans were disrupted. So anything that can cause misunderstanding can makes matter worse. These includes the body language, the words used, the tone, uncertainty and lack of communication.
While we must appreciate and empathize with them caught in such situations, we must not forget that there are opportunists around, all ready to take advantage of a situation to further their agendas. It's possible that out of the 70 protestors, there will be a few who were least affected but joined in to get some benefits out of it.
These are the people who are most likely to portray a distorted picture of what really happened and play victims to gain sympathy.
The airlines staff planned protest is probably directed at the airline for bowing to this group of people unreasonable request, which is no fault of the airline. These passengers also claimed mistreatment by the crew for not giving them any food and water for 18-hour. They even took pictures of the crew and posting them on the internet.
On the other hand, the crew on board the affected flight are said to have given out food and blankets to these passengers and even lent them their portable phone "power banks."
Usually, most people would take the side of the passengers after hearing all the stories about bad airlines service. For me, I would rather choose to believe the airline in this case.
Why?
I've encountered many bad experiences with Chinese tourists. When I visited the Grand Palace Bangkok, Thailand and was taking picture of a magnificent building, a Chinese tour guide came over with a group of China tourists. It's a solemn place and quiet, yet the whole group of tourists were talking at the top of their voice like they're in a fish market. The tour guide was also very rude to ask us to move aside for them to pass through when she could just walk past us behind.
Of course, there are as many good mannered and cultured Chinese people as well.
The problem with businesses is that they literally live by the rule "Customer is King." They become afraid to take a stand and worry about offending some customers, notably the ones that bring them the most profits. A big corporation lets a customer abuse its staff and accede to their unreasonable requests knowing very well the customer is using unscrupulous and outright means to steal from the corporation and climb all over its head. They'll use anything and everything to find fault with the company, even though it's obviously their problem. All because the CEO's fallacy that "Customer is King" and that if a customer is not satisfied, that means they are not doing enough and there's room for improvement. Customer is king but that doesn't give him or her the right to steal. Instead of firing them, the CEO wants her staff to give in to them.
You must have the courage to fire bad customers. Keeping them may make you profit, but not equity.
Look at Southwest. Tell Mrs. Crabapple that you'll miss her too.