The 2009 US Open, Del Porto and Serena Williams

Congratulations to Juan Martin Del Porto, the new US Open Champion for 2009. At just 20, he has beaten Roger Federer who last lost a US Open match five years ago. The reign of the king came to an end when Del Porto magnificently outplayed and out gunned Federer in five breathtaking sets. Maybe we have a real challenger on our hands to put in a good fight against the Nadal/ Federer domination of world tennis. By the way, en-route to winning the US Open, Del Porto also beat Rafael Nadal.

Today’s blog however is not about Del Porto’s historic victory though. My blog is rarely about success! Today’s blog is about the shameful performance of Serena Williams at the US Open, and I’m not talking about the quality of her tennis. During her semi-finals match, she experienced an out of character mind explosion when she was foot faulted by a lines person and started abusing and threatening the lines woman with profanity laced-tirade which John Mc Enroe would have been proud of. Serena raised the racquet to the lines person's face and swung it in such a threatening manner that after the match the lines person said she felt genuinely threatened by Serena’s gestures.

The shameful part of the whole saga is not that Serena lost her composure and her cool. It’s not that her outburst led to her disqualification and semi-final loss to Kim Clijsters. It’s the fact that she found people’s reaction to her on court behaviour as funny and somewhat quizzical, like “what are you guys so uptight about?” Serena failed to understand the severity of her actions and chose to treat it as a joke, as if she did nothing wrong and it was a whole lot of misunderstanding. One day later she held a press conference to finally apologise to the lines person and said something to the effect that she wanted to hug her. Now if you want quizzical, not many things beat that kind of talk. I’m afraid Serena, you’re going to have to practice a bit more on delivering your apologies to make it more believable.

Weird as her apology was, one would have been led to believe she had learnt her lesson but to me her apology was as insincere as I’ve ever seen any apology to be and she only did it after a wrath of public opinion criticising her for her indifferent attitude towards the whole thing. There was talk about the irreparable damage this would do to her reputation and possibly affecting her relationship with her sponsors. There you have it ladies and gentlemen, I’ve said it. I think Serena forced herself to apologise because of the potential damage this would have had on her commercial endorsements, which is why the apology came out so seemingly difficult and awkward and painful for all to see, much like talking on the phone while pooping a big one. But then again, are we surprised at all? Think back on my previous blog about stinking celebrity behaviours and you’ll know what I’m talking about. Read it here:

http://damien-crankyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/04/shocking-celebrity-behaviour.html

These guys are too good to do any wrong and when they do, they poop out an apology as difficult as it may be and think that would be the end of that until their agents tell them to go into damage control. So an apology such as that offered by Serena Williams should be given the treatment it deserves, disregarded and discarded into the insincere, meaningless dumpster.

Brother Lawrenec Dead at 91 - He will Be Missed and Remembered by all Johanians!

Cheer cheer and courage display

All ye Johannians join in the lay

Send a volley of cheer on high

Shake down the thunder from the sky

What though the odds be great or small

Dear ol' St John's will win over all

While her loyal sons are marching

Onward to Victory

St John's!!

Those are the lyrics of the St. John’s school song that brother Lawrence Spitzig wrote all those years ago which is still being sung until today. Brother Lawrence was a director twice at St John’s Institution, Kuala Lumpur, once from 1955 till 1961 and once from 1979 till 1983, a great contributor to education in Malaysia and a kind and generous human being who put all else before himself. He was conferred a Datukship by the King this year for his dedication and achievements to education in Malaysia over the last six decades. He died yesterday at Assunta Hospital, Petaling Jaya, aged 91.

Ask any Johanian who Brother Lawrence is and if they don’t know then they’re probably lying that they’re a Johanian. I come from a family of Johanians. I was a Johanian, my brother was a Johanian, my dad taught in St. John’s and my grand uncle was a former director of St. John’s. We all knew, loved and respected Brother Lawrence for who he was and what he achieved for the school.

I had the great opportunity to have met Brother Lawrence Spitzig when I was a student at St. John’s Institution and when he was still working at the school. In the later years during his retirement I still met up with Brother Lawrence through my grand uncle, also a Brother at St. John’s. I remember my grand uncle always telling me how Brother Lawrence always loved the cookies and chocolates we bought for the Brothers. Simple things like cookies and chocolates made their day. When I had the chance to personally speak with Brother Lawrence, he was always so excited to tell me about his work with the indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak. I recall my amazement with his energy and enthusiasm to the cause while he was well into his late 80s. But then I think that’s what made Brother Lawrence tick, his love for helping others.

For those interested, there will be a funeral service for Brother Lawrence at SJI Cathedral tomorrow at 10.00am. Cheers Brother Lawrence, you will be missed and remembered by all Johanians forever! Fide Et Labore!

Climate Change - Who Cares What the Rest of the World are Doing, We Should Act Now

I don’t profess to be overly knowledgeable about the goings on and off about our environmental policies or the proposed ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) where industries are taxed for polluting the environment but what I do know are useless politicians when I see them.

The government have put up an ETS that has been blocked in the parliament by the opposition Liberal party who claim that industries like the coal industry will lose thousands of jobs because of this. Call me a fool but I thought we were going away from dirty industries and into cleaner green industries like solar and wind power industries? Why are we trying to protect the coal industries? They should be slowly fading away as we try to set up policies to encourage investments and job creation into cleaner industries. I’m sure the coal industry will be able to survive. It’s just a fact of life that certain industries fade away and new ones are created. It’s been happening over time and it will continue to happen till the time of our great great great grand children, there’s no denying this fact. The government will now have to wait another 3 months to propose an amended bill to the parliament.

The Liberal party also question why Australia which emit slightly above 1% of the world’s pollution has to come up with an ETS now that would supposedly put Australian jobs at risk when the US, China, India and other major polluters have not committed to any set reduction in their CO2 emissions. Any attempt to reduce CO2 emissions on Australia’s part would be futile and irresponsible to Australia’s economy if the rest of the world do not play ball. The government have countered by saying Australia being one of the largest polluters in the world per capita needs to show leadership and lead from the front in an issue where everybody is waiting to see what the others are doing first before committing to anything.

While on the surface the Liberal party’s stand on this issue sounds right and the government’s ETS may need a little more work to get right, it is better than dragging our feet and doing nothing at all which is what the Libs are doing and we can only come up with one conclusion and that is, they are climate change sceptics who would do anything to not to deal with the real issues of climate change as they don’t believe it is real enough to ‘jeopardise’ Australian jobs. The Liberal party firstly need to be united as a party and acknowledge that climate change is indeed real and not pussy foot around the issue. For the survival of the generations after us, we need to act and we need to act now. Australia should lead and lead from the front if necessary. If you believe in Global warming, what difference does it make if you pass the bill now or later? What difference does it make what the rest of the world does, if you believe that Global warming is real and we do the right thing to cut our pollution. Is the Liberal party saying that if the rest of the world does not cut emissions as much as Australia would like it to, then it would follow suit or stretch out negotiations further? It’s under these circumstances and under these kinds of leadership that nothing gets done and important issues never get resolved.

The world has no choice but to do the right thing. John Howard paid the ultimate price by losing his job and his electorate with his reluctance to believe that climate change was real until the end when it was already too late. Australia should not wait but to act now and act decisively. Does the Liberal party even know how many real jobs would be lost and how many real jobs would be created with the introduction of this ETS? It’s easy to say that jobs would be lost but where are the details? On the flip side, what are the consequences of not acting? What are they waiting for? If we are to have cleaner energy, the coal industry will need to be cut down in size sooner or later anyway, so why not sooner? I’m afraid the plethora of excuses spewing out from the mouths of the Liberal party members on this issue are unpalatable and hopefully they will pay the ultimate price once again when Kevin Rudd calls for a double dissolution election, get his ETS through and render the Libs useless and send them into the political wilderness until a time when they can learn to be more useful.

Kyle Sandilands a Crude Radio Shock Jock Who Needs to Dissappear!

For those unfamiliar, Kyle Sandilands and Jackie O are radio disc jokeys on Australian radio 2Day FM. Their audience comprise primarily of the teen audience. Now Kyle is also a judge on Australian idol and Jackie an entertainer who has hosted several other shows on Australian TV. The radio program they host is a vile, disgusting and crude show that panders to the sick minds of their audience who find amusing and entertaining every cruel and embarassing joke that befall the unknowing guests that appear on the show. Now to be fair, the audience is not really to blame as I remember way back when I was 17 myself and wouldn't mind having a chuckle or two at others misfortunes, but Kyle Sandilands, Jackie O and their producers at the radio station should know better. They have targeted a segment of the population who don't know better and have made up their content to suit the off taste, off limits mentality of the pimpled faced, testosterone filled teenagers of our society.

Gone are the days when arrogance, cruelty and laughing at others expense can be tolerated by modern society and the events of the recent past has taught us that being crude and vile for a laugh is just not on. A joke not only has to be funny but it cannot get out of hand by being overly offensive. Obviously, playing a funny sketch at the expense of dying kids is a definite no no, a mistake the Chaser's team learnt the hard way. The plug on their award winning comedy The Chaser's War on Everything has since been pulled by the TV station due to their distasteful sketch which created a furioous uproar amongst the community.

Just an example of the kind of nasty jokes Kyle and Jackie O's radio show plays on the airwaves is best described by a recent show. In the show, Kyle and Jackie O were to reunite a girl from Cambodia who lives in Australia with her niece who lives in the US. The auntie and niece have not seen each other since being separated while young after fleeing Cambodia's regime as refugees. After having flown 15 hours from the US to Australia, the girls were told of the 'catch' which was that the niece was to stand behind one of three doors and the auntie needed to pick the door the niece was standing behind, otherwise they would be sending the niece back to the US straight away, no meeting at all. Having heard this, the obvious anguish and anxiousness was plain for all to see which was what the radio hosts wanted to happen. When the auntie picked the wrong door, they told the pair that the niece would be sent home which left the girls crying with agonizing pain shown for the world or at least Kyle and Jacki O's audience to see. Kyle then went on to say that he would 'allow' them to see each other if they begged and the biggest grovel fest imaginable was bestowed upon King Kyle and he eventually 'granted' them a much deserved meeting. The sick and twisted part was that they had always intended for the girls to meet each other but the charade Kyle played to get the girls into a state of utter torment was just a cheap and vile exploitation of the girls to get a reaction which was deemed 'good entertaintment'.

The straw that broke the camel's back though was when Kyle and Jackie got a mother to question her 14 year old daughter who was hooked up to a lie detector about her sex life on their radio show. The mother was wrong in the first place to take part in this silly stunt but the events that followed took a turn for the worse when the girl admitted on live radio that she had been raped when she was 12. The mother knew about it and it was unforgivable for her to agree to such a degrading stunt, especially as there was obvious pain and shame felt by the daughter while on the air. Instead of pulling the plug on the horrendous skit, all Kyle could do was to say whether there were any other incidences apart from that one. Helloooo Kyle!! Where are your marbles? Is there not an iorta of decency in this trenchant vitriolic person for him not to ask himself if this was just not appropriate radio to be asking a 14 year old girl about her sex life and being raped? This girl was already showing signs of distress due to having to relive her traumatic rape while just a child and here is Kyle Sandilands trying to find out more about other incidences.

The 2Day FM came out soon after and apologised unreservedly but Kyle Sandilands refused to admit any wrongdoing. Not only was it wrong to do a show like that, there is also talk about a criminal element which child protection services and the police were looking into. Kyle Sandilands is an arrogant, opinionated and egotistical person to put it mildly. His favourite pastime is to be funny at other people's expense and makes no apologies for it. This can be seen during his frequent performances as a judge on Australian idol. He thinks he's funny but it's usually at other people's expense and the sad thing is a lot of people laugh and think he's funny. The events of recent days however, have made a lot of people think whether these kinds of jokes and in fact a person like Kyle is what society want in their living rooms and in their car radio's everyday. Kyle has found out the hard way and the answer unfortunately for him is "NO". Sponsors have pulled the plug on his radio show, he's been given a leave of absence on his own radio show and Australian Idol has sacked him as a judge. Well there you go Kyle, it doesn't pay to be nasty. I just hope that this would be the last we talk about Kyle Sandilands the repulsive and cruel broadcaster and hope he fades away into oblivion never to be seen or heard of again.

Read how Media Watch saw this: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2644599.htm

CHINA GETS INCENSED AUSTRALIA DUCKS FOR COVER

In the past couple of weeks we have seen how when China fumes, Australia ducks for cover. I'm referring to the controversy surrounding the jailing of Chinese Australian Stern Hu, the head of Rio Tinto's operations in China along with three Rio Tinto colleagues who happen to be Chinese Nationals. They were accused by China of bribery and corruption in obtaining 'state secrets'. What are 'state secrets'. Well, that in itself is a state secret.

Australia's Foreign Minister had to resort to scouring Chinese news websites to get updates on the fate of Stern Hu and the most senior Chinese official he managed to get clarification from apparently was a junior minister in the foreign department. The opposition have been demanding that Australia's Prime Minister Kevin Rudd pick up the phone and speak to his counterpart, the 'Even Sterner Hu', China's president Hu Jin Tao. Kevin Rudd has so far refused citing 'quiet diplomacy' as the way to go. The opposition have pointed out that Kevin Rudd's self proclaimed 'special relationship' he has with China as worthless.

It's been more than three weeks and Stern Hu lingers in a China jail awaiting charges. It must be noted that so far no charges have been laid, making it difficult for the Australian authorities to make sense or further commentary on this issue without risking offending Australia's largest trade partner. Australian's have to know that if you visit or do business in a foreign country, then you abide by the laws of that country. In this perspective it is hard for the Rudd government to push for the release of Mr Hu because of the lack of information on what laws have been broken. Rio Tinto have issued a strong worded statement rubbishing the allegations by the Chinese Authorities and proclaiming to be steadfast in support of their employees.

The interesting point to this whole saga is this. Even at the face of such blatant abuse of the human rights of an Australian citizen, the Australian government has chosen 'quiet diplomacy' which to me means weakness and even as unsophisticated my anaylsis is of the whole situation, is it that far from the truth? Of course Australia is showing weakness, what other observations can we make? Under intense pressure to do more, Kevin Rudd came out and stated in his press conference that the way China handled this investigation 'would be watched and judged by the whole world'. How would this make a difference, considering the world has been watching China abuse Tibet for decades and this doesn't seem to be affecting much the way China conducts itself. Moreover, coming from Australia, a country that is dominated in the economic relationship with China this 'warning' must surely be mute as far as the Chinese are concerned. Sure enough twenty four hours later, a Chinese Government spokesman came out guns ablaze asking Australia to butt out if it knew what was good for it. The US, in support of Australia and maybe having gone through this many times before thought it be helpful to help out it's 'younger brother' by asking China to conduct investigations in a fair and transparent manner without further delay.

To see Australia limp through this speaks volumes for the economic dependance Australia has on the Chinese and their demand for Australia's mining resources, mainly iron ore. Australia's numbness in dealing with what on the surface appears to be a human rights issue is surprising but I would ask anyone willing to condemn so willingly to take a step back and understand the 'other issues' that may be affected by pushing the boundaries with the Chinese Authorities on the Stern Hu issue. Yes, you would like to think that Australians would sleep in a tent first before letting one of it's own linger in prison without trial but unfortunately life is not as clear cut as that. Analyst on both sides of the economic spectrum have so accurately surmized, Australia needs China more than China needs Australia. Protecting the econmic prosperity of Australia's other 24 million and their future generations may have something to do with.

MICHAEL JACKSON - Legend or Whacko...my thoughts.

26th of June would be a day that I would never forget till the day I die. Just like the time when Elvis and Princess Diana died, it was one of those 'where were you' moments. Unless you've been living under a rock the last couple of weeks, you would undoubtedly know that that was the day that Michael Jackson collapsed in his rented LA mansion from a massive heart attack and died. He died at around 3pm LA time (about 6 am Perth time) but I only heard about it at about 10am. I just couldn't believe what I was hearing as not only was Michael Jackson the King of Pop, he was also relatively young at just 50 years old.

My first friend on Facebook posted MJ's death on their page at around 4pm (LA time). That's impressive considering I only heard about it at 10am, some four hours after the fact! Since then, facebook, myspace and other social networking websites had been inundated with messages of condolences to arguably the greatest entertainer the world had ever seen. As they say, you never know how much you miss something/someone until you've lost it/ them.

That was how MJ's life was. From his early teens till about his thirties, he was adored by his millions of fans for his extroadinary musical talents to the later parts of his life where he was dogged with controversies like allegations of child molestation to weird behaviour bordering on lunacy. Some of his weird behaviours included a strange relationship he had with his pet monkey, changing the colour of his skin and his unorthodox marriages to Lisa Marie Presley and Debbie Rowe to name just a few.

In 2003, when I saw Martin Basheer's interview with MJ in the documentary "Living with Michael Jackson", I have to admit I was thinking that MJ was as whacko as anyone living on this earth could be and that he was plain lying to many of Martin's questions, especially about coming out into the open about his marriages (more specifically the marriage arrangement he had with Debbie Rowe) and his skin problems he allegedly blames for his skin changing to white. He also said that he had no more than 2 plastice surgeries in his entire life and only on his nose, despite being put to him that his face has actually changed in shape and structure from when he was younger. I remember at the time I just couldn't take him seriously.

I'm not sure if it's the fact that MJ has passed away or that I'm a better more understanding person now, but I saw the 2003 interview again and my perception of the man completely changed from one of scepticism back in 2003 to one of an innocent even naive man being manipulated by Martin Basheer and by the media in general his whole life. I felt sorry even for what I saw was a man, who was accorded the status of the King of Pop, the best entertainer the world has ever seen but still had the innocence of a young MJ. You felt he did not know how to deal or respond to the plethora of media representatives who wanted to see him fall from his high perch. In a clever move though MJ used his own crew to film Martin while Martin interviewed and fimed him. It showed how Martin was heaping praise towards MJ's love for his kids while later in the produced documentary questioned MJ's ability to be a responsible father. It showed Martin to be a manipulative journalist who would do anything to get the story to represent what he would think to be a 'good story'.

Now the stuff he said about his skin and his marriages still sounded as evasive and dishonest as it did in 2003 but instead of thinking this man is a blatant liar, I just thought this was a man like any other who was backed into a corner who did not want to reveal everything he knew about these subjects being forced into stumbling for an answer due to his inexperience in dealing with a manipulative tough interviewer like Martin Basheer. So what if he changed his skin colour? So what if he had 100 plastic surgeries instead of the two that he admitted to? So what? Who is Martin to make it like MJ was doing something wrong if he admitted to it? So what if MJ lied? He never wanted to reveal too much about these subjects in the first place but instead of not answering the questions, he tried to answer and in doing so appeared evasive and dishonest.

The facts are he like you and me has the basic human right to choose what he wants to do as far as altering his looks are concerned. His marriages were so unconventional but only because he was Michael Jackson, every aspect, every angle of it has been put under the media microscope and questions about his 'manhood' has been made into an issue. MJ was without a doubt a lover of children and if he wanted children without the sex, then so what. It's no secret and MJ had admitted it himself, he feels uncomfortable in an intimate situation with women. Why should it be an issue to anyone if he wanted to artificially inseminate a woman to have his kids? It happens everyday but because it's MJ and sensationalizing the story to make him look like some sort of wierdo sells stories and toppling MJ from his high perch would also sell more stories, the media have been grilling every aspect of MJ's 'unorthodox' marriages hoping to dig up dirt that would show him to be a whacko. What he had done was not conventional, I'll admit that but neither was it wrong.

"Living with Michael Jackson" was the documentary that saw the beginning of the end for MJ. The district attorney took the story about MJ sharing his bed with a young boy named Gavin Artizo (see pic below) to inititate criminal proceedings against MJ. He never recovered from that.







One of the main reasons MJ was mired in such high controversy till the day he died was without a doubt due to the allegations of child molestation and as everybody knows a paedophile is two rungs below a rapist turn serial killer in the most hated ratings. However, the allegations were never proven despite millions being spent by the LA District Attorney to leave 'no stone unturned' in trying to nail MJ to the wall. My despise for celebrities getting away with no good is known. I've made strong opinions against OJ Simpson, Phil Spectre and a host of other celebrities getting away with no good including murder because of their money being able to buy the best lawyers to defend them. In MJ's case though, nobody really knows what happened except MJ and the child involved. The DA does not know, MJ's lawyer do not know, you and I do not know. What I do know though, is that in LA extortion cases are plenty. Because MJ was such a huge star, it made him a huge target too. In all of these cases, it was the parents who were mounting the attacks on MJ and many of them had been proven gold diggers. MJ had not done himself any favours previously when he paid one of his accusers an alledged $30 million to "leave him alone". The two edge sword saw him looking guilty like he had something to hide and left a dangerous precedent for future extortion attempts by other kid's and their parents by making himslef look like an easy target. He finally learnt his lesson and went to court to fight the battle and was finally exonerated by the courts. MJ though was the eventual loser as his life had never been the same since. He'd had to sell his home, go to Dubai to escape the mounting pandemonium his life was putting on his young family and in essence heading towards a path of no return.

I feel MJ was a hugely misunderstood person. I feel the media had made him look like a weird, whacko paedophilia maniac and many, me included bought it but from his passing we now see that the people who knew him best have only the best of things to say about him, about his genius, his passion and most of all about his love for his family, friends and fans. After considerable reflection about the man and his life, I believe he had an extreme love for children and his kindness was taken advantage of by the low life gold diggers hoping to strike it rich by extorting his money. As MJ's brother so succintly put it during his memorial..."Maybe now Michael, they will leave you alone..."

Budget Airlines A True Rip Off!!

Geez, we're half way through June and this is my first posting for the month. Either I've been pretty busy with my life or I'm running out of things to complain about. The former seems more plausible and the latter would be a nice to have but hardly reality as far as my whinging ways are concerned. Let's see, we've had the crookish banks raising interest rates again even though the Reserve Bank had not done so. Some of these banks have been caught out holding their office functions in plush hotels like the Sheraton and some even taking staff to overseas luxury trips for meetings as if all the hotels in Australia were fully booked out. We've had oil companies colluding with one another to 'fix' the prices at the bowser and we've had Madonna bribing her way in Malawi, finally getting what she wants with her adoption application by 'donating' $16 million to the orphanages of Malawi and getting a resultant favourable ruling on her case to adopt. Money does indeed make the world go round.

Well I won't be writing about any of those annoying things but something else that has been bugging me for the last couple of weeks. I'm talking about the budget airlines who on the surface appear cheap but use unethical ways to get more money off their unsuspecting customers. Notwithstanding the numerous 'delays' and flight cancellations, I'm referring to something more sinister and morally wrong. I'm referring to a premeditated attempt by the budget airlines to cheat their customers during the booking process.

During the booking process (on their website), one 'Air Asia' will prompt the customer if they want to buy travel insurance? There is an option to click on 'ok' and 'cancel'. Now here is where the dodgy part comes in. If you click on 'ok', you would have declined to buy the insurance and if you clicked 'cancel' you would have agreed to buy the insurance. Obviously, Air Asia have worked out that there would be more people NOT wanting to take on the insurance and would click 'cancel' than there would be people wanting to take it on by clicking 'ok'. So they just reverse the meaning of each button to get more clicks, hence more sales. Although, they have a notice to state that by clicking 'cancel' you would want insurance and by clicking 'ok' you would not want insurance, it can be easily missed if you went about clicking fairly quickly and did not read all the words that appeared on the computer screen. The deceit here is blatantly obvious by using reverse intent. They do not care if you really wanted/ needed insurance or not but aim to deceive to maximize revenue for themselves. Their unethical attempt here to deceive and maximize revenue is nothing short of cheating!

Take one Tiger Airways where you would need to pay a fee of $5 per passenger per sector for using your credit card. This would mean for a family of four travelling from Perth to KL would have to pay $80 for the previledge of using your credit card (there are 2 sectors from Perth to KL for one passenger one way and 4 sectors two ways, 4 passengers return hence would be 16 sectors). Now in Australia it is illegal for businesses to charge customers for using their credit cards if they have no other payment options. However, Tiger has got around this 'little inconvenience' by giving passengers the option to pay via a debit card. We can only guess how many people have taken on that offer. You might as well have a payment option using a Mc Donald's card! You'll probably have more people who have that than a debit card! Now that is $80 for the priviledge of using a credit card!!! I've paid $5, or even $10, but $80 is like saying, they haven't charged you enough on your ticket and this is just another way to make up for the cheap ticket. That's $80 pure profit for nothing!!! No service, no valued added, nothing!!!

Another Tiger Airways scam is with regards to baggage. Taking the example of the above family of four travelling from Perth to KL would have to pay a whopping $160 for 15kg baggage allowance each. That's a huge addition to the cost of the flights, considering the ticket itself is not much more than the cost of the baggage. You do not have the option to choose which sectors you want baggage and which you don't. For example you can't have the option to have baggage from Perth to Singapore and not have baggage from Singapore to KL. Once you click yes on the option, they apply it to all your sectors in effect multiplying $10 by all the sectors on your booking (16 for a family of 4 travelling from Perth to KL), even though you may not want to have baggage on certain sectors. You have to choose to have it all or none at all but most people are somewhere in between. Adding to their perfect form of unethical predatory behaviour, if you noticed that you had added the baggage option and chose to undo the choice, it would allow you to choose the 'No Baggage' option but guess what, the price of the baggage option still remains in the final price. If you did not check this you would have thought that the costs of baggage would have dissappeared since you unpicked that option. You needed to do some fancy clicking before the initial baggage pricing went away. Just another way to cheat you unknowingly.

With all the desperate attempts of the budget airlines to rip you off any which way possible, you probably need to ask the question, are budget airlines actually cheap? With all the additions and all, does it actually work out cheaper? Sadly, the answer to that question is still 'yes' which is probably why people still go back to the budget airlines to be further treated as suckers and continue their unending cycle of budget airline complaining.

Well there you have it. My gripe about Budget airlines and only about the booking process. Don't get me started about customer service, lost baggage, flight postponement, cancellation and 'we only have Maggi Mee left sir' and a host of other 'cost cutting strategies' budget airlines use to make more money.