침묵->경청->기억->실행->남을 가르치기

::: '음료수 한 잔'도 돈내고 먹는다

저가항공 탑승권에는 '좌석 번호'가 없다. 심지어 탑승권이 없고, 카드 영수증 크기의 얇은 종이 한 장을 주는 곳도 있다. 버스처럼 먼저 타는 사람이 좌석 '임자'기 때문에 저가 항공 게이트 앞에서는 양복을 차려 입은 '신사'가 탑승이 시작되는 순간 달려가는 재미있는 풍경이 펼쳐지기도 한다.

'좌석 전쟁'에서 벗어나고 싶다면 일부 항공사가 제공하는 '빠른 체크인' '좌석 지정' 등의 서비스를 이용해봄 직 하다. 이지젯과 에어아시아는 비행기 탑승 우선권이 있는 '빠른 체크인' 서비스를 각각 7.5유로(9500원), 6.5달러(6000원)에 제공하고 있다.

대부분의 저가항공은 기내식이나 음료를 제공하지 않는다. 꼭 원하면 사먹을 수밖에 없다. 음료수 하나에 약 5000원 선으로 가격이 만만치 않다.

::: 무거운 짐이나 취소·변경='추가 비용'

기본만 내고 탔으니 기본만 기대하자. 이지젯의 경우 한 사람당 '20㎏ 이하 가방 한 개'까지만 짐을 무료로 부칠 수 있다. 가방이 여러 개면 하나당 7.5유로(9500원)를 추가로 내야 하는데 이것도 인터넷으로 미리 지불할 경우고 현장에서 지불하려면 15유로(1만9000원)로 가격이 뛴다.

스키, 골프채 세트, 자전거 등을 부치려면 개당 22.5유로(2만8000원·이지젯 기준)를 더 내야 하므로 '배보다 배꼽'이 더 커지는 사태가 발생하기도 한다.

예약 취소나 변경도 마찬가지다. 불가능한 건 아니지만 수수료가 항공료보다 비싼 경우가 많아 대부분 환불을 포기한다.

::: 하나만 틀려도 돈이 샌다, 꼼꼼하게!

예약할 때 입력한 모든 정보를 변경하려면 꽤 많은 수수료를 내야 한다. 가장 흔한 실수 중 하나가 '이름(first name)'과 '성(last name)'을 바꿔 쓰는 경우다. 여권의 이름과 동일하지 않을 경우 라이언에어, 이지젯 등은 티켓 가격과 맞먹는 약 30유로(약 3만7000원)의 벌금을 매긴다.

::: 미리미리 준비할수록 싸게 난다

출발일에 가까워질수록 가격이 급등한다. 로마에서 파리로 가는 이지젯을 3월 18일에 예약했다면 17.99유로(2만3000원)였지만, 3월 19일 기준으로는 27.99유로(3만5000원)로 10유로(1만2000원)가 뛰었다. 되도록 빨리 여행 계획을 잡아야 저가항공의 '싼 맛'을 제대로 만끽할 수 있다.

'스카이스캐너(www.skyscanner.net)'는 출발·도착 도시를 적어놓고 날짜를 지정하면 운항 항공사별 가격 정보까지 일목요연하게 보여준다. 가격 비교하기 제격이다.

'위치버짓(www.whichbudget.com)'은 가장 많은 도시와 항공편을 담고 있지만, 가격을 위해서는 각 항공사 사이트에 들어가야 하는 것이 단점. 저가항공 고수들은 '스카이스캐너'로 최저가를 검색한 후 '위치버짓'으로 들어가 빠진 항공사를 다시 한번 살피는 철저함을 발휘한다. 유럽만 여행할 계획이라면 '플라이LC(www.flylc.com)'도 유용하다.

::: '게릴라성' 요금제에 대처하는 결단력 필요

저가항공 예약은 마치 주식투자 같다. 싸다고 생각해서 예약했더니 다음날 가격이 더 내려가는 일이 많기 때문이다. 그렇다고 머뭇머뭇 하다간 출발 날짜가 임박해져 꽤 비싼 가격을 지불할 가능성이 크다.

전체 여행 예산에 맞춰 '이 정도면 싸다'고 생각하는 항공권 가격을 정해두자. 보다 싸게 예약한 후에는 같은 노선 가격을 검색하지 않는 것이 '정신 건강'에 좋다. 저가항공 사이트의 '뉴스레터' 서비스에 가입해두면 할인 정보를 실시간으로 받아볼 수 있다.

::: 수수료도 적지 않아요

인터넷 결제시 신용카드 수수료가 만만치 않게 나가는 것도 유의할 것. 일반 신용카드는 약 7.5유로(9400원), 직불카드(debit card)는 약 1.5유로(1900원) 정도의 수수료가 나간다. 유럽서 발행하는 비자 직불카드인 'VISA electron'은 수수료가 없는데, 간혹 한국서 발행한 비자 카드로도 결제되는 경우가 있다.

::: 도움말주신 분(가나다순)

- 김봉환(동남아배낭여행 카페 http://cafe.naver.com/bngtour 운영자)
- 김세정(프리랜서 교사)
- 신수경(http://blog.naver.com/gameover375)
- 신수정(http://blog.naver.com/joeybang)
- 이나래(대학생)
- 최윤아(교사)

::: 저가항공 왜 이렇게 저렴할까

저가항공 노선은 매년 약 17%씩 늘어나고 있다. 유럽에서 50개, 아시아 34개, 미국도 13개의 저가항공사가 운항 중이고, 최근에는 대한항공까지 이 시장에 뛰어들겠다고 선언한 걸 보니 궁금해진다. 그들은 어떻게 비용을 줄이나.

● 쉬지 않고 날아다닌다= 유럽 내 일반 항공사의 하루 운항 횟수는 3~4회. 그러나 유럽 저가항공사는 1~2시간 정도의 노선을 하루 6~9회씩 운행, 하루 12~13시간 정도의 비행 시간을 유지한다. 운항 횟수를 늘리기 위해 공항 대기시간은 30분 내외로 획기적으로 줄였다. 지상에 있는 동안은 승무원까지 기내 청소를 한다. 비행기에서 샌드위치는 팔아도 과자는 잘 안 파는 이유가 '부스러기'를 청소하는데 드는 시간을 줄이기 위해서라는 말이 있을 정도다. '지정 좌석 없음' 정책으로 자리 찾는 시간도 없앴다.

● 비행기 기종은 통일한다=대부분의 저가항공사는 항공기 모델도 하나만 이용한다. 아일랜드 저가항공사 라이언에어는 보잉 737기만 200여대 갖고 있다. 같은 기종이니 한 엔지니어가 여러 대를 한꺼번에 관리하고, 예비 항공기 부품도 최소한만 구입한다.

● 마일리지는 없다=기내식은 물론 물 한잔을 마셔도 돈을 내야 하는 곳이 대부분이다. 마일리지 제도도 없다. 마일리지 관리비용이 '짐'이 된다는 판단에서다. 저가항공사들에게 '우수고객'은 마일리지 적립자가 아니라 충분한 현금을 가지고 발 빠르게 움직이는 자유여행자들이다.

이런 여러 요소들로 '파격적 저가'의 티켓값을 제안하는 저가항공사의 좌석 점유율은 평균 80%가 넘는다. 일반 항공사는 60%대 수준이다.

::: 지도에 나온 항공사 홈페이지(가나다순)

- 라이언에어 www.ryanair.com
- 방콕에어웨이 www.bangkokair.com
- 브엘링에어라인 www.vueling.com
- 세부퍼시픽 www.cebupacificair.com
- 센트럴윙스 www.centralwings.com
- 스카이유럽 www.skyeurope.com
- 에어아시아 www.airasia.com
- 위즈에어 www.wizzair.com
- 이지젯 www.easyjet.com
- 타이거에어 www.tigerairways.com
- 톰슨플라이 www.thomsonfly.com

By Scott Berkun, September 2004

Good feedback is rare. It can take a long time to find people who know how to provide useful criticism, instead of simply telling you all the things they think are “wrong” with you or whatever you've made. A good critic spends as much energy describing what something is, as well as what it isn’t. Good criticism serves one purpose: to give the creator of the work more perspective and help them make their next set of choices. Bad criticism uses the opportunity provided by someone else’s work to make the critic feel smart, superior or better about themselves: things that have nothing to do with helping the recipient of the critique (Or in the case of movie reviews, the reader of the critique). Given the difficultly of creative work, it would seem that giving and receiving useful feedback should be an important part of what designers, writers, programmers and others are taught to do. This essay attempts to serve that purpose.

Assumptions bad critics make

There are four fundamental assumptions bad critics make:

1. There is one universal and objective measure of how good and bad anything is.
2. That the critic is in sole possession of the skill for making these measurements.
3. Anyone that doesn’t possess this skill (including the creator of the work) is an idiot and should be ridiculed.
4. That valid criticisms can and should always be resolved.

Let’s work with these one at a time. First, the idea of objective measures runs against everything we know about the history of man made things. To objectively measure how good and bad anything is would require not only that the universe is objective, but that the people in it are objective. There is no film, book, software, website, or album that is universally liked by everyone (including those who have the word critic in their job title). Some people may be more informed or knowledgeable than others, but this doesn’t make their opinions objective.

More important perhaps is the idea of measurement. To measure how good or bad something is requires knowledge about the intent of what the thing is trying to do. If you show me a frying pan that you’ve made, and I criticize it for not playing MP3 files, there’s a mismatch of intention in what we’re trying to measure and evaluate. Unless the intention of the work is clear to everyone “I want to make omelets”, good criticism is impossible. There are an infinite number of intentions and goals in the universe, and if two people can’t agree on what the creators intentions are, real communication is impossible. It might be fair to say that the intentions of a work should be transparent in the work itself: A toaster oven should look vaguely like something that can receive slices of bread. But in the case where the intentions aren’t clear, critics have a choice: they can trust the creator and invest more energy trying to sort out what the intentions are, or they can assume the worst about those intentions and begin criticizing what they don’t understand.

Second, believing that one person has sole possession of good perspective is a contradiction in terms. Good perspective by definition means the recognition of how many alternatively valuable perspectives there are on any matter. Two smart knowledgeable people might both love the new super-thin I-mac design or the recently U.S. released film Hero, but for entirely different and non-overlapping reasons. Good criticism generally comes with some degree of humility and respect for the possibility of other equally valid points of view. The better the critic, the more holistic their sense of how their own perspectives and tastes fit into the diverse pool of informed opinion of others.

Third, respect and ridicule don’t mix well. To offer good criticism must be an act of respect: an act of communication with the intention of helping the other person do better work, or understand their work better. If you are shaping sentences and remarks to be snide, snarky, or sarcastic, the intention of being helpful is unlikely to be served (Unless you know the recipient of the criticisms well enough to be comfortable razzing or joking with them about their work). It’s entirely possible to offer criticism, commentary and advice without any negative energy attached: it’s just so rare that we see it done properly that most of us don’t realize it’s possible, much less more effective.

Lastly, finding a valid criticism doesn't mean that it can be fixed or is worth fixing. In many situations responding to one kind of criticism will just make the design or the work vulnerable to another kind of criticism. A film or essay that is dark and brooding could be made lighter and funnier, but then another critic could say "it wasn't dark and brooding enough". And in some cases, fixing a particular problem will cause other problems that are worse. Until the creator explores the alternatives presented by feedback, it's impossible to know whether responding to a piece of criticism is possible, much less desirable.

Collectively, this means that criticizing and giving feedback should be a thoughtful activity. If you're flippant, arrogant, dismissive, curt or annoyed while giving feedback, you're probably making one of the four assumptions above and not giving very good criticism.

How to give critical feedback

The verb criticize, once a neutral word somewhere between praise and censure, is now mainly used in a negative sense. To say “He criticized me for being so friendly” generally means something different and less positive than “He made me think about the possible effects of being so friendly”.

crit•i•cal (adj.)
1. Inclined to judge severely and find fault.
2. Characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment: a critical reading.

Now I’m not saying that finding fault isn’t useful. On the contrary, it’s very important. It’s just that of equal importance in understanding the value of a design, algorithm, script, or film is to know what isn’t broken, or god forbid, what’s actually done brilliantly. What you want to do when you are offering criticism is to live up to the second definition listed above: Careful evaluation and judgment. To do this you need to do the following:

• Before you speak, know the goals: What problem is the work trying to solve? What are the goals? If you don’t know the intention of the work it’s very difficult to offer careful evaluation and judgment. Remember the frying pan? If I don’t know what the creator is trying to achieve, how can I possibly offer any commentary that’s of value? Now it should be the creators job to inform me of what they’re trying to do, or tell me that they think it should be self-evident in the work, but if they don’t there’s not much harm in me asking “What are you trying to accomplish here?”, and it will save everyone much time and grief. If the problem is at the level of intention, discussion will ensue at that level instead of trying (and failing) to sort out intentions at the level of specific design choices.
• Good and bad, is not the same as what you like or don’t like. You must shatter the idea that anything you like is good, and anything you don’t is bad. If you can’t separate your personal preferences from more abstract analysis of a kind of work, then you will rarely provide much useful feedback: criticism is not about you. It’s about the work you are viewing and the person that made it. Your personal preferences only get in the way of providing the work (and its maker or possible consumers) with useful information. Learn to see the good and respectable attributes in work you do not like: they are there if you let yourself see them. For example: a good film review should evaluate the film's merits somewhat independently from the reviewers personal tastes. It should be possible to read a review about a film the reviewer didn’t like, but be inclined to see it anyway based on the observations he made about it’s content, style, and form.
• Talk as much about what it is, as what it isn’t. While it can be more efficient to focus on problems and what’s broken, rather than what’s good and working, if the creator can’t see both, there’s not much hope of their next choices being good ones. Make sure you spend as much energy helping them to see and keep the strong parts of what they’ve done as you help them see the weaker and more questionable parts.
• Try the PNP sandwich (positive negative positive): I don’t like this idea much, but I think it can be a good one (see what I did there?) for dealing with people sensitive or new to receiving criticism. The idea is simple: find a way to alternate your feedback. Find something positive, then find something negative, then find another positive thing. It’s an easy way to develop trust and help people become comfortable with hearing other people’s opinion. I don’t like it because it has a touchy-feely vibe and it can lead to pretension and insincerity. However I have seen it work as a way to get strangers to warm up to each other, and eventually grow out of this little pattern of behavior.

Receiving critical feedback

It’s much harder to receive criticism than to give it. By the time most people make it through college there have been so many bad experiences with receiving feedback, especially on creative work, that they tend to avoid it or ignore it. Nothing can be worse: feedback is essential to developing ideas, and if the project involves a team in any way, the dialog and communication that falls out of feedback is essential. Anyone that makes anything must find ways to not only obtain feedback, but to master the skills of milking it for all it’s worth.

• Shut up. Just shut up and listen. Creators often fall into the trap of speaking for their work, trying to use words to defend things that should be in the design. This is a form of denial: The work has to speak for itself. Even if only for a few minutes, let the prototype or draft be its own thing, and stand on its own. If you respond right away to (or perhaps interrupt) every point made in a critique, you can’t possibly be thinking about what’s being said to you. Thinking takes time. Try to talk as little as possible, and let the time be used for critique, not for defense. If you don’t trust the people critiquing you to be fair, that’s a problem best solved by defining sound ground rules (See below), or by investing more in finding better critique partners.
• Ask clarifying questions. Again, avoid filling the conversation with defensive chatter. Instead respond to questions by trying to sort out any ambiguities or points you don’t agree with by getting whoever is critiquing to restate their point. “When you say the style in my design is sloppy, do you mean that the lines aren’t sharp, or that the composition isn’t balanced quite right? Can you show me exactly what you mean?” By asking clarifying questions you allow yourself time to decide if you agree with the criticism or not by working with the other person to understand their point/question better. It makes the critique into a dialog, which is what it should be, and not a courtroom trial.
• Refer back to the goals. If you’re not getting what you want from the critique, provide some goals for the work that you’re trying to achieve. If you’re working on a project this should be easy: the goals for a given design should derive from the project goals. Ask whoever is giving you feedback to do so in terms of those goals or your derivations of them. Then whenever the conversation goes astray, you can refer back to the goals and set things in a useful direction again.
• Ask for what changes you can make that will satisfy the criticism. The goal of criticism is not to learn every nuance about a design’s weaknesses: its to know enough about a design so that the designer can make it better. If you agree with a criticism, but don’t see a path to improvement, ask for one. Turn the question back around on the person who made the comment. “Good point. So do you see anything I can do to improve on that?” Often they won’t have anything to say: critiquing is not the same as creating. But by asking the question you do move the conversation forward into thinking about future action, instead of staying stuck in criticism mode.

Ground Rules

• Take control of your feedback process. Feedback is not something that happens to you: it should be something you make happen. If you wait for feedback to come to you, it tends to be less positive and supportive than if you seek it out. If you walk into someone’s office and say “hey, can I have 5 minutes of your time to look at something?” you are taking control. You put yourself in the driver’s seat of the process, and can frame and shape the criticism you get however you want. But if you wait and wait and wait until deadlines approach, you have less and less control over how feedback will be given to you. It will have more edge to it and will tend to serve others more than serve you.
• Pick your partners. Who do you get the best feedback from? It’s probably not the person who loves everything you do. If you don’t think you get good feedback from anyone, part of the problem might be you haven’t taken control of the process. Be more specific about what kinds of criticism you need, and go to people and ask for it. If you find a good source, cherish it, and reward them for it. Much of what a good mentor does is provide good, consistent, honest feedback. If you can get this from a peer or a manager find ways to cultivate and reward it. Look for people outside of your company or organization that might be willing to form a peer review group: meet once a week/month over coffee and show each other your work.
• Strive to hear it all, informally and early. The sooner you hear a question or criticism of something you’ve created, the greater your ability to do something about it before it’s finished. If there is any kind of formal review or feedback process (e.g. a spec review or group critique) make it your job to find out what opinions there are of what you’re doing well before it happens. This can be as simple as going to door to door and showing sketches, and asking for a few quick comments. Give yourself the opportunity to benefit early from other perspectives and think things through. But do know how much feedback you can handle: you don’t want your work driven by other people’s opinions, but you do want to give yourself the opportunity to benefit from them.

References