Fixing IKEA Furniture

I spent last Thursday fixing up the MALM 4-drawers chest, which took about 1.5 hours and 2 people. The result was quite satisfying, except that some drawers were quite tight.

Yesterday night, we fixed up the HOPEN queen sized bed frame, which took about 2 hours and 4 people. The bed was much more difficult to fix compared to the drawers. The size of the planks, the minuteness of the screws, and the lack of proper tools led to a very interesting assembly session indeed.

Nonetheless it is a very satisfying experience to fix up my own furniture, and IKEA furniture provides the opportunity for some good old DIY action.

EF 50mm : f/1.4 & f/1.8

I had the opportunity to get hands-on impressions of these 2 lenses. Also took some pictures and previewed on the 1.8" LCD, which was not much of help. Anyhow, here are the impressions:


1) Build quality - the f/1.4 certainly looks and feels more well built compared to the f/1.8. Metal lens mount, larger focusing ring and filter thread complete the look. The f/1.8 looks like a cheap toy.

2) Focusing action - the f/1.4 benefits from a larger focusing ring, Micro USM silent focusing, and full time manual override. The f/1.8 is limited by the small and awkwardly positioned focusing ring, micromotor focusing mechanism, and no full time manual override.

3) Picture quality - not that I could perceive picture quality using the 1.8" LCD, but overall the effect from the f/1.4 is more pleasing than the f/1.8. Maybe my perceptions were biased, since the four-fold price premium was ringing in my head.

4) Maximum aperture - f/1.4 vs. f/1.8 will really show its advantages in low light indoor ambient light photography, e.g. wedding banquets. It also benefits casual "snapshot" photographers, where most of the action takes place unplanned.

5) Filter size - The f/1.4 also has a 58mm filter thread, which allows me to reuse the UV filters from my kit lens. The f/1.8 on the other hand uses a 52mm filter thread, which is quite a funny size.

6) Price - The f/1.4 retails at RM1350, while the f/1.8 retails at RM320. That's a 4x price difference. However, I look for durability and keepability. Most likely I'm going for the f/1.4, but I'll see if this takes precedence over a Speedlight.

Why would anyone buy a Honda Jazz when they can get a Honda City for RM19,000 less?

The Honda Jazz and the Honda City are derived from the Fit platform. Other than external differences, both are actually the same vehicle, as explained further:

1) Same chassis
Both cars use the same chassis, i.e. the Fit platform. Both enjoy small exterior dimensions with large interior space. Both employ central fuel tank location. Both are cab-forward designs.

2) Same dashboard and interior fittings
Both cars use the same dashboard, steering wheel, gear stick, seats, seat belts, door trims, wing mirrors, etc.

3) Same engine
Both have either the i-DSI variant or the VTEC variant. The same engines are used in both cars.

So why does the Jazz cost RM19,000 more than the City?

Differences as follows:

1) Country of assembly
The Jazz is assembled in Thailand, while the City is assembled in Malaysia.

2) Form factor
The Jazz is positioned as a mini MPV, while the City is positioned as an entry level sedan.

Still, I don't think that these differences justify the large price difference.

Retail prices as follows:
City VTEC :: RM84,800
Jazz VTEC :: RM103,800
difference : RM19,000

City iDSI :: RM79,800
Jazz VTEC :: RM94,800
difference : RM15,000

Unit trust performance

14 months into the investment, my unit trust NAV has increased approximately 16%.

My actual returns to date would be 10%. Much better than fixed deposit rates of around 4%.

I plan to leave this investment to grow for another 2 years. I estimate my nett returns (minus management and sales fees) to be around 25%.

When emails cause more problems than they solve

I made the terrible mistake of sending a rather harsh email to a Buddhist friend regarding a serious issue, and now have to bear with the consequences of my action. I was labeled "rude", "ungrateful", and "disrespectful".

I realize that I should have made the initiative to at least clarify with him regarding the situation, before actually launching into the full blown email attack.

However, the damage has been done. I'm sure that my actions have somehow marred his perception of our group as a whole. Yes, it isn't fair, but life is like that.

I only hope that I will be able to mend this friendship with him, so that our endeavours may continue in future.

As for now, I know I screwed up, and I screwed up big. Emails are dangerous, especially when either party responds emotionally to the message. Not everyone can be detached and professional about the emails they receive. Words on the screen can mean so many different things to different people. Body language, voice tone and pitch, facial expressions - all these are missing from emails. Their absence makes it hard for the reader to truly understand the intentions of the sender.

My lapse of judgment may have jeapordized our bonds with this Buddhist friend. However, I will do my absolute best to mend this broken bridge.

Wish List

My wish list to complement my existing system...

*Note: images used without permission

Standard zoom lens:
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

Alternative for standard zoom lens:
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC


Standard prime lens:
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

Alternative for standard prime lens:
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II


Ultra wide zoom lens:
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

Alternative to ultra wide zoom lens:
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM


Super zoom lens:
Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS


Flash gun:
Canon 580EX Speedlite E-TTL II

Air Asia Complaint (part 3)

This is the reply that I sent to Air Asia on 26 September 2006 after their initial unsatisfactory response. I am still waiting for their response to this letter.


ATTENTION: Mr. Tony Fernandes, Chief Executive Officer of Air Asia

Thank you for your reply dated 25/09/2006. Unfortunately, your reply did not address the points in our letter of complaint, specifically:

1) Why was there inconsistency between the information provided by your customer service hotline and the execution of hand luggage policy by the ground crew of flight AK6315, PEN-KUL, 14:55?

2) Why was there double standard and blatant discrimination when your ground crew operating flight AK6315 allowed a foreign gentleman to bring his guitar into the cabin, and even helped him place it into the overhead compartment, while we were rudely disallowed from doing so?

We wish to remind you that only after we had confirmed twice with your customer service hotline had we brought the guitars to be placed into the cabin. If we had known that you practice inconsistent policy execution and blatant discrimination, we would have arranged alternative transportation means.


Furthermore, you did not provide detailed explanation nor any formal apology for your ground crew's rudeness and poor customer service, specifically:
1) Openly threatening us with closing the gates
2) Giving multiple and ridiculous excuses which do not address the actual issue
3) Being unreasonable and inflexible to the situation
4) Total disregard of basic courtesy to your passengers

Please note that we are extremely dissatisfied with the way we were treated on that day. Your ground crew made no effort to help us address the situation. Instead, we were being treated like criminals. The crew acted like police officers, defending only their "policy no matter how unreasonable", and not finding ways to help us.


Thus we deem your reply dated 25/09/2006 as unsatisfactory, henceforth we expect a satisfactory response to the above queries, in addition to the demands stated in the original letter of complaint, failing which subsequent action will be taken.


Sincerely,

Khoo Nee Sern
o/b The Undersigned

Air Asia Complaint (part 2)

This is the reply from Air Asia regarding our complaint, sent on 26 September 2006. Compare the length of their reply to the length of the original letter of complaint. Compare the points made in their reply to the points raised in our original letter of complaint. See for yourself whether or not this type of reply can be considered satisfactory!


Greetings,

Dear Mr. Khoo Nee Sern,

Thank you for writing and letting us know your concern. We regret for the inconvenience caused on Flight AK 6315 Pen – Kul on the September 17th, 2006.

We have now completed a detailed investigation in respect of this matter and wish to advise you that as stated in our terms and conditions of carriage, only one (1) piece of baggage is allowed to be carried on board provided that it does not exceed the dimensions of 56cm X 36cm X 23 cm and provided that it does not weigh more than 7 kg. It is our policy and discretion if the item is small and the flight is light, your guitar may be taken on board as hand carry, however Flight AK6315 Penang to Kuala Lumpur on September 17th, 2006 was full load and we determine that offloading your guitar was necessary for reasons of safety.

The above terms and condition was also advised to you personally by out Captain on duty on that day as AirAsia is committed to “Safety First” and maintains consistently high standards to ensure the safety of our crew and guests.

On a separate note we are extremely concerned to learn your disappointing experience with our staff at the Penang Station. We apologise for the inaccuracy of information and miscommunication given to your good self. All our staffs are repeatedly reminded to be courteous, attentive and professional towards our guest and we are indeed disappointed by such lapses in service.

In view of the above, we regret we are unable to meet your claim. We fully appreciate your loyal patronage of our airline and thank you for your understanding.

We hope this incident does not deter to fly with us in the future and look forward to welcoming you on our flights again in the near future.

Thank you,

Warm Regards

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Guest Support Executive
AirAsia Berhad
Guest Support Malaysia
LCC Terminal
Jalan KLIA S3
Southern Support Zone
64000 Sepang, Selangor
Malaysia
Email : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@airasia.com



(For now, I have removed the name of the person who replied. This may change.)

Air Asia Complaint (part 1)

As promised, here's the first original letter of complaint which we sent to Air Asia, reproduced in all its glory for all to see.



ATTENTION: Mr. Tony Fernandes, Chief Executive Officer of Air Asia


19 September 2006


COMPLAINT ON THE RUDE CUSTOMER SERVICE AND THE MISPREPRESENTATION AND INCONSISTENCY IN THE EXECUTION OF HAND LUGGAGE POLICY ON AIR ASIA FLIGHT AK6315, PEN-KUL, 14:55, 17-Sep-06


We were the passengers of Air Asia flight AK6315, PEN-KUL, 14:55 on 17-Sep-06. We were not allowed to bring 2 guitars on board into the cabin, and we wish to make an official complaint, points raised as follows:

1.1 We have contacted Air Asia customer service hotline on 14-Sep-06 twice, between the times of 7.45pm and 8.15pm, and your customer service has confirmed that we are allowed to hand carry guitars into the cabin, provided they are in their casings.

1.2 We have confirmed again at KL LCCT that we are indeed allowed to carry guitars on board into the cabin.

1.3 We had no problems on our Air Asia flight AK6318, KUL-PEN, 11:10 on 16-Sep-06, where we were allowed to carry the guitars on board into the cabin.

1.4 During boarding for flight AK6315, PEN-KUL, 14:55 on 17-Sep-06, we were told last minute while boarding that we were not allowed to carry the guitars into the cabin, despite the earlier confirmations from your customer service that we are allowed to do so.

The following is a summary of the account of the incident which happened at Gate 13 in Penang International Airport during boarding for flight AK6315.

2.1 During boarding, we were approached at the last minute and told to place our guitars into the cargo bay, without further explanation of why we needed to do so.

2.2 We explained to your ground crew that we had already contacted the Air Asia customer service and confirmed that we are indeed allowed to bring our guitars into the cabin.

2.3 Your ground crew rudely replied that she was the customer service head, and did not provide any apology for the inconvenience whatsoever.

2.4 We then explained that we had carried the guitars on board our flight AK6318 KUL-PEN, and requested your ground crew to explain the inconsistency in policy.

2.5 Your ground crew responded that the policy for KL LCCT and the policy for Penang International Airport are different. We thought this to be ridiculous and unprofessional.

2.6 We then asked if this inconsistency showed lack of communication within Air Asia between the customer service and the operations crew.

2.7 Your ground crew diverted, provided a different excuse, and explained that it was so that our guitars don't block other passengers in the cabin.

2.8 We proposed a solution to allow all other passengers on board, and we were to board the plane last.

2.9 Your ground crew then diverted yet again, giving a different excuse that we did not declare our guitars during check in, and they did not know what size our guitars were.

2.10 We responded again that we had already obtained confirmation from Air Asia customer service, and reiterated that we had successfully brought the guitars on board AK6318, KUL-PEN. We then asked your ground crew if they had ever seen a guitar before.

2.11 Your ground crew then provided a different excuse, saying that it was because the plane was full.

2.12 We responded that this shouldn't have affected anything, as we had confirmed with Air Asia customer service that we are indeed allowed to do so.

2.13 Then, an old man emerged from the plane, and very sarcastically provided a different excuse. He said that it was because of Air Asia safety policy that disallowed us from bringing guitars on board.

2.14 Again, we reiterated that we had obtained confirmation from Air Asia customer service that we were indeed allowed to bring guitars into the cabin, and cited our experience in doing so on flight AK6318, KUL-PEN.

2.15 At this point, your ground crew were extremely defensive, rude and taking our dissatisfaction very personally. They continued to insist that we check in our guitars into the cargo bay, and they even threatened to close the gates on us if we did not comply.

2.16 We then asked the ground crew to take full responsibility on the 2 guitars which were forcefully placed into the cargo bay.

2.17 Your crew then said it was not possible, and insisted we signed the indemnity condition.

2.18 On the same flight AK6315, PEN-KUL, a foreign gentleman had also brought his large guitar casing into the cabin. He was allowed into the cabin without much fuss and rudeness. His guitar was not checked and he was not asked to sign the indemnity document even though he was in front of the queue while boarding as compared to the rest of us. When we pointed this out to your ground crew and reminded them to be consistent, we were assured that checks will be conducted on this foreign gentlemen as he was already on his way to the cabin. Later, when we were forced to surrender our guitars, we took upon your words in good faith that this policy is to be applied consistently to all passengers. However, when the flight touched down in Kuala Lumpur, we discovered that the foreign gentleman’s guitar casing was nicely rested in the overhead compartment. In fact, your cabin crew had also helped this gentleman to place his guitar into the overhead compartment. This speaks of double standards and outright discrimination.

2.19 Nowhere in the whole process did your ground crew or cabin crew offer any apologies:
2.19.1 They were rude and kept on asserting their power to place our guitars into the cargo bay.
2.19.2 They threatened to close the gates on us if we did not comply with their request.

2.20 Nowhere in the whole process did your ground crew or cabin crew offer any satisfactory explanation. Specifically they could not explain:
2.20.1 Why there were inconsistencies between the Air Asia customer service and the ground crew operating that flight?
2.20.2 Why was it possible for us to bring the guitars into the cabin on flight AK6318, but not AK6315?
2.20.3 Why was there double standard and open discrimination when they allowed a foreign gentleman to bring in the guitar but not us?

This incident clearly shows the lack of basic courtesy and totally unprofessional conduct on the part of the ground crew. They were rude to us and only knew how to assert their authority, without giving us credible and reasonable explanations.

Your ground crew and cabin crew's rudeness, arrogance and unwillingness to help your customers have forced us to place our guitars into the cargo bay below. You know very well our apprehension toward this, as we had witnessed inappropriate handling of such fragile items upon loading and unloading. Furthermore, extreme temperature changes may have caused damages to the construction of the guitars.

Thus, we demand a full investigation and satisfactory explanation from Air Asia regarding the above incident, specifically on the following:

3.1 Full record of your Customer Service hotline, schedules of your ground crew and cabin crew who were on duty during the incident and a full explanation of the incident.

3.2 The sheer inconsistencies in policy and lack of coordinated knowledge of such policies amongst all your operating departments.

3.3 Full explanation on why the foreign gentleman with his guitar was not checked first and was allowed to the cabin without further checking although he was way in front of the queue. Further, reasons as to why he was allowed to place his guitar on the overhead compartment while the rest of us are rudely forced to surrender ours. For your information, his guitar casing was much larger and occupied much more space than our 2 guitars.

3.4 Explanation on the outright lack of basic courtesy of your ground and cabin crew, such as offering apologies and flexibility on how to handle such situations.

3.5 Formal apology from your Management and the crew for the rude treatment to all of us. When we were in the cabin, other fellow passengers told us that they were really shocked and disgusted by the rude behavior of your ground crew. This does not augur well for Air Asia as a regional airline.

In addition, we demand compensation for the following:

4.1 General damages for the inconvenience and inconsistency of your policy.

4.2 Damages to 2 guitars due to extreme temperature changes which affects the construction of the guitars, effects of which can only be evaluated in the long term.

4.3 Emotional distress for time wasted reasoning with your illogical and outright rude ground and cabin crew.

You are hereby given three days from the date of this letter to provide a satisfactory response to us, failing which subsequent action will be taken.


Sincerely,

The Undersigned

(This letter carries 12 signatures)

Air Asia X-(

On 17th September 2006, there was an incident involving Air Asia flight AK6315, PEN-KUL, 14:55pm.

Mainly there were 2 issues:
1) Rude and unprofessional customer service
2) Inconsistency and misrepresentation in the execution of hand luggage policy

We encountered very rude and ill-trained ground crew, and were also subjected to discriminatory actions from Air Asia regarding our fragile luggage. There seemed to be inconsistencies and no communication among all their operating departments, from the customer service hotline to their operations crew.

In our letter of complaint, we mentioned that subsequent action will be taken if we do not receive a satisfactory response from them. And while there was a response, it was hardly satisfactory.

Therefore, the next step will be to go public with this.

The details will be uploaded shortly.