An Affair With Expedia

This post shall be about my virgin experience with Expedia and basically, booking online for a trip.

It all started when my friends and I decided to go on an overseas trip. Anyway, long story short, the trip evolved from going to Taiwan to going to Hong Kong.

So, I was on the train one day when I saw one of those hangers (I don't know what you call those) advertising Expedia, which was having an online travel fair. Me being me, I was extremely excited. 

Thus, I immediately went home and searched for some travel deals on Expedia. And... I found that booking a flight and hotel on Expedia was much cheaper than I had thought; my friends and I went to a travel expo fair recently so we kind of knew the market rates. 

I was super excited and encouraged my friends to book using Expedia. 

As events progressed, I ended up calling Expedia to see if they could guarantee us an extra bed for one of the rooms; the no. of people we had on our flights and hotel were different, spawning this complicated booking process. 

However, by this time (several days had already passed since I first checked Expedia out), the flight rates had increased (I HAD NO IDEA HOW AND WHY). But I still decided to check with an Expedia agent. 

Now, the rough estimates of prices I previously calculated using Expedia's online booking was inclusive of 20kg luggage check-in. 

Using online calling, I asked an Expedia agent if he could guarantee an extra bed. And what was the difference in rates if we booked the flight and hotel separately versus together.

To cut the long story short, the Expedia agent promised me a rate of $800+ for flight, saying it was inclusive of luggage check-in. I decided it was cheaper so I proceeded to ask him to book the flight (this was after approximately 1.5h of talking and waiting on the phone). 

It was only after booking the flight and hotel, then did he tell me that there "seems to be a bit of a problem". I was just thinking to myself, WHAT KIND OF PROBLEM.

Turns out, he booked the flight wrongly. The dates were correct but he didn't include check-in luggage. IMAGINE MY HORROR because this would mean the actual cost of the trip would have an additional $200+ in total. 

The agent didn't even apologise to me, and made it seem like it was due to a sudden rise in flight prices. When in actual fact, it was he who gave the wrong quote and booked the flight wrongly. He then transferred me to the Customer Support team, where no one picked up and the call got terminated.

I was very frustrated given that this happened at around 11pm at night (my stress levels tend to go up at night haha). I called the Customer Support team and they directed me to the flight team (they said for this case, we had to directly coordinate with the airline) and the call terminated again. I was very unhappy and irritated, especially since I was the one who pressed my friends to book via Expedia; we initially had other back-up plans to book cheap flights in order to lower costs. I felt as if the rise in costs for my friends was partially my fault.

The next day (which was the day of my PSC interview), I called Expedia again and they said I had to coordinate with the airline directly again. I was basically angry because the issue was with their booking, not the airline. They also did not have any form of back-up plan should the agent book wrongly.

Anyway, I proceeded to email both Expedia and TigerAir, asking for a cancellation of flight.

The complication comes in because TigerAir is a non-refundable airline, so I could not cancel my flight to change to a cheaper one.

TigerAir replied by saying the booking was made by Expedia, not them, so any changes should be made to Expedia. They could not offer me a fully refunded cancellation. This part kind of made sense, though I could not help but feel annoyed at their strict non-refund policy.

Expedia replied 5 days later; frankly, I was surprised that they would even reply me. 

They said that they had passed on this case to the relevant department and that I should expect a reply in 3-5 working days. 

So, I waited. After 5 working days passed with no updates, I emailed the person again, changing my stance from wanting a cancellation of flight to wanting a complimentary top-up of check-in baggage for all passengers. That way, the quote that the agent offered me (flight + baggage = $800+) would still hold. The person replied by saying the case has already been passed on and that I should called Customer support to check out what the progress was. After calling, a woman picked up. She proceeded to help me check out the case.

She initially said that they could not find the call log with my booking. I was shocked. All calls are supposed to be recorded right??? But apparently, there might have been a technical glitch. (Wow, what a coincidence.) I think she could tell I sounded disappointed in the phone call. She then proceeded to provide 2 options. I could:

1) Wait for the case to be approved by Management before I add on luggage

2) Add-on luggage first then wait for approval from Management to reimburse

I obviously chose option 1 because my friends and I were considering the option of sharing the check-in luggage to lower cost, should we not be able to get a complimentary top-up. 

She then told me to call back after 3 working days to check on the progress of the case. I was a little disappointed about the case still being unsolved, but I said okay.

3 working days later (on my birthday!), I called Expedia. A guy picked up this time. As usual, he read up on the case. He then proceeded to talk to the Management to find out the outcome.

And.....

They said that they would be willing to refund me the amount for the baggage check-in. 

I WAS ECSTATIC. (I mean, who wouldn't be?)

After so many days of waiting and going back and forth, I finally managed to get a complimentary baggage top-up. Frankly, I thought that I was never going to get it because I assumed that they would try to defend themselves and refuse to give any form of compensation. I was truly surprised and really happy (especially since this was my birthday). 

Even though my booking experience was initially less than satisfactory, the outcome made up for it. There were obviously many areas for improvement but I think that I would really have to thank those individuals within Expedia who helped me to forward this case and put it up for escalation.

That being said, I have learnt my lesson not to make bookings over phone calls because it is very hard to verify that the agent has booked the correct thing for you.

Overall, I think that I was really lucky for this issue to have been resolved with the outcome that I wanted :)

With lessons learnt from my first booking experience, hopefully my next one will be one without any problems.

Goodbye, Lee Kuan Yew

23 March 2015 marks a significant day in Singapore's history.

No matter what others say about his iron-fist rule, there is no denying the contributions that this man had done to develop Singapore into what she is today.

He will always have my respect.

Goodbye, Mr Lee Kuan Yew. And thank you for all that you have done.

Stay-at-home Moms

I refer to these article: 
Unfair to subsidise childcare for mums who opt not to work
Nothing for stay-at-home mothers in govt Budgets
2 nights ago, there was a discussion on whether stay-at-home moms (SAHMs for ease of typing) should get paid. Although I did not listen in on the discussion (as I was busy watching Let It Go on Channel U), I have a rough gauge on what the discussion was pertaining to (after searching the net as well).

Should families with SAHMs be subsidised for kindergarten/ childcare? (And wait, there's a difference between kindergarten and childcare?!)
Do SAHMs deserve the same subsidies on childcare as working mums?
Under what circumstances should SAHMs be compensated? And in what ways?

Now, for the first question: should families with SAHMs be subsidised for kindergarten/ childcare? Do they deserve the same subsidies as working mums?
First off, the difference between a kindergarten and childcare is:

• Childcare: FULL day care for your children, with meals
• Kindergarten: HALF day care for your child

So, working mums would typically belong in the child care category given that they are probably working all day. This explains the government subsidies on childcare for working mums only.

Now, let's look at the agenda behind the government subsidies for childcare for WORKING mums: the government wants to make it easier for working adults to start families. Furthermore, it is a kind of 'reward' for the mother who has decided to sacrifice time with her children in order to work. Hence, the government's aim is to basically encourage adults to work and have children at the same time. The reason is quite clear in that Singapore does not have much resource other than manpower, which is also tightening due to recent foreign labour policies.

In that case, if SAHMs are given subsidies for childcare (which would be weird, because didn't SAHM stay at home precisely because they wanted to take care of their kids?!), it would definitely discount the working mums who chose to sacrifice her own free time to work and pay taxes, which SAHMs do not.

In the article Nothing for stay-at-home mothers in govt Budgets, a SAHM Faith A Tan wrote, "... all these years, the annual Budget has had nothing for stay-at-home mothers. This is disheartening, as we are contributing to raising the next generation."

While she has certainly made a valid point about SAHMs raising the next generation, this applies to working mums as well. Are they not raising the next generation as well? In fact, if I may add, they are not only raising the next generation, but also contributing to the workforce. 

If you term 'raising' in other terms, such as character, then I would like to ask for one not to be too quick to judge. Just because one is raising her child at home personally does not mean that the child would grow up to be one of great character, wholesome growth... etc (you get the point). A child's character gets shaped in different ways. A child who goes to childcare might learn to make friends and be sociable. A child who sees the mom working hard during the day might learn the importance of being independent in order not to be a burden to her. Some of these skills might not be learnt with a SAHM.

Beside, being a SAHM is mostly one of personal choice. If that's the path that one, as a mother, has chosen, then one would have to be prepared for the circumstances ahead. Asking for financial assistance while being an SAHM who chooses family over work is not being fair to the working moms who chose to sacrifice family time to lighten the family's financial burden.

Furthermore, quantifying how much a mother gets paid for looking after her own child would just be weird. Looking after one's child is a duty, an obligation. If one simply chooses to spend more time with her child, does that mean should one get paid more?

That being said, there are of course extraordinary circumstances where a SAHM should be entitled to some form of help, but these can be filed under other types of assistance schemes, not one specially for SAHM.
Older SAHMs who have a divorce - alimony would usually be given by their husbands. Or if the husband is unable to afford it, the state should step in. In this case as well, the payment should only last for a few years to help offset any difficulties that the woman may face in finding employment after so many years staying at home. Afterwards, it would be unfair to force the husband to continue paying alimony, especially if the divorce was something they mutually agreed on.
SAHMs who have no choice - the child/family members has a serious illness (e.g. Down syndrome) and requires an immediate caretaker. For such cases, financial help should fall under help given to families with disabled members. Not sure if MSF has any assistance schemes for this. Either way, help given to such SAHMs should fall under a broader category, rather than a special category just for SAHMs.

Anyway, while I understand the dedication and trade-offs that SAHMs may face, let's not exaggerate and excessively glorify their sacrifices. Being a SAHM is still ultimately a personal choice with personal consequences, and it should stay like that.

Singapore's housing and planning

I read this news on todayonline titled "Siting flats further from city ‘may widen S’pore’s social divide’". The basic argument here is this:

"There is a risk that relegating new HDB estates to the outlying areas of Singapore, while planning a glittering array of architectural gems, luxurious residences and material offerings for the well-heeled in the city centre, could alienate a large part of the population,” - Wu Wei Neng

I think that what Mr Wu is suggesting is already happening. The government's tendency to build HDB housing in outlying areas means that there is already a segregation between the heartlands and the city area. Already, when one thinks of people who stay in Orchard, there is this perception of the upper-class who are rich. This possibly not only applies to the areas in the city, but also areas like Bukit Timah, which is also valued for its high land prices and good schools.

Other than the social divide, another implication is the stress on transport networks as everyone heads to the same place for work. I have already written on how I think decentralisation is the way to go here. Basically, with decentralisation, there will hopefully be no cases where an area is designated as 'special' for its economic value. Each area is also supposed to have good mix of private and public housing. In a way, each area is like a mini town (as if Singapore as a city is already not mini enough).

Yet, I admit that Singapore might have already gone too far down the path to turn back on some of its policies. Furthermore, I admit the concentration of certain industries would have what we call external economies of scale. Decentralisation also possibly poses its own set of challenges (such as divides between different areas, similar to the subtle East-West divide in Singapore).

Ultimately, for a sustainable development that can withstand the load for 7 million people, some form of decentralisation is needed, whether the government does so through the avenue of housing or work (as in the development of the Marina Bay Financial Centre).

On a side note, I find this Creative Craftsman thing really interesting!! The fact that a minimum salary is guaranteed for the carpenters is praise-worthy as well :)