That's not why she was anxious! She was anxious because, according to author's own account, this is someone:
a) flying for the first time
b) hardly speaks English
c) is in a foreign country
d) solo responsible for 4 grand kids running around
etc.
Blaming the airport staff who have to optimize for the greater good is quite something.
The author gave plenty of other reasons why someone might be stressed out by what's communicated at the airport.
The whole point is that airport staff (and especially leadership) are maybe not so great at "optimizing for the greater good" always.
>The author gave plenty of other reasons why someone might be stressed out by what's communicated at the airport.
Without objective accounts (ie. a picture), it's unclear whether that's due to poor design or just poor comprehension/situational awareness from the person reading it. For instance, "Now boarding - remain seated" seems like pretty standard priority boarding (eg. first class boards first, economy stays seated). If you're bad at english and all you can do is scan for random keywords, and/or it's your first time flying and you're not aware of this, you might be confused. But there's also so much you can do for this target audience.
That's physically not possible if all you have is a single display in front of the gate, which is common at most airports. Of course, you can add "First class - now boarding, everyone else - stay seated" but for OP's case where there's reading comprehension issues I doubt that would help.
>I don't think that they can, so it's a bad message that probably came into existence because of some entertaining concatenation of events that somebody in the airport business could be able to explain.
It's not hard to think why it's necessary. Otherwise you have a hoarde of economy people clogging up the gates when it's only supposed to be first class people.
The point is not asking one to do something for the target audience beyond showing a bit of compassion. If the passenger is lost/confused and is being yelled at it would do nothing to either diffuse the situation or help the passenger. Hand-holding one or two passengers would only make the experience pleasant enough for them. It has the effect of them learning something they did not know and also wanting to come back again.
Greater good my posterior. The grandma was in the wrong place at that time because they optimised the experience to extract the most money out of the flying public. They were boarding the people who paid extra, and since she didn't they couldn't let her board. Because if they do why would anyone pay extra for their "higher class" more expensive tickets. They could have said "passport?" and then pointed her towards the gate. But doing so as a policy would net the corporation less profit. So they don't.
In other words the grandma's distress was by design. You can avoid the indignity of turned away from the gate by coughing up more money. She quite literally "didn't know her place" both in the queue and in the hierarchy.
The class conflict/"corporate profit" angle doesn't make any sense because even in communism you'd still need to board people in different groups (eg. people who are disabled and/or need assistance first, then people at the back, all the way to the front), thereby creating the issue described in the OP.
If there were some change they could enact which improves the "greater good" (whatever that is) at the cost of profit, they wouldn't. Simple as that.
> or need assistance first
yeah. Like a grandma with a tenuous command of the language and four kids. :)
> thereby creating the issue described in the OP.
I'm sure a fictional airport organised by other principles would have other problems. Doesn't change a bit that the current airport you can experience is optimised for profit, and not for "greater good".
Right, nobody thinks airports/airlines are altruistic organizations, but this specific complaint doesn't make any sense because the specific decision to board by sections is for the greater good. A moshpit where everybody boards at once benefits no one. In this case, "greater good" and "maximize profit" overlaps.
>yeah. Like a grandma with a tenuous command of the language and four kids. :)
Usually this would be handled by the airport, not the airlines. Moreover airports usually have criteria for which people can get assistance, and they can only help people that they think need assistance. It's easily to identify someone in a wheelchair, less easy to identify "grandma with a tenuous command of the language" without engaging in sterotyping/racial profiling.
I don't think it's actually as noble as "optimizing for the greater good", but rather "optimizing for getting through the day in one piece". Which, in my experience, is why (polite + friendly + reasonable + firm) is the right register to use in pretty much every interaction with airport staff. You're asking them to do something (not telling), but your presence is ideally vaguely net positive (friendly, smiling, relaxed), you're asking for something that's within their authority to do, and there's a vague threat that you're not going to back down if they say no off-hand (their day is going to have a larger hassle-increment if they say no vs. if they say yes).
Written out it kind of reads as cold and calculating, but I think every element of it is the best for everyone involved. You don't end up feeling like you just acquiesced to getting screwed by United or Delta, they get to have a nice friendly interaction that ideally makes those 10 minutes of their day suck less than it could have with an asshole customer.
It touches on a “race to the bottom” that European low cost carriers have have shown that people don’t care about airport stress in the shadow of cost — which lends to the enshittification of the whole overall experience.
It’s so bad that people are starting to /pay/ to have less stress by visiting airport lounges, which are now starting to be, themselves, overcrowded due to the increase in demand.[1]
[1]. https://web.archive.org/web/20260714133432/https://www.globa...
> c) is in a foreign country
So you don't want tourists to your Country? You do realize 95% of the World lives outside the US? and at least 80% lives in non-English speaking Countries? Creating a horrid experience for them would mean losing huge chuck of that wealth flowing into your Country. Especially so when their income levels are rising drastically compared to a US Citizen (in terms of % change in disposable income as many are from low cost of living countries).
I love to travel to places where I don’t understand the language. What exhilarates me even more is going to places where I also don’t understand the script!
My point was merely that this is one element that turns up the anxiety dial, which I think is self-evident.