Crabman wrote:
> Reef Fish wrote:
> > Reef Fish wrote:
> >
> >>sharkbait999 wrote:
> >>
> >>>Surfer wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>We got an e-mail from princess for an asian cruise for $699.00 for 12
> >>>>days,it goes in 2 weeks,so how could you possibly get the visa's you
> >>>>need in that short of time?
> >>
> >>2 weeks??? You get one by express mail in a couple of DAYS.
> >
> >
> > The significance of the above statement will be seen below, in the
> > most unexpected way of taking TOO SHORT to process!
> >
> >
> > This is a follow-up to the INFO I gave in this post.
> >
> >
> >>There is NO NEED to be near a Chinese consulate office.
> >
> >
> > More true than ever, now that I've found many cities that HAVE
> > a Chinese consulate office, such as Manhattan, Los Angeles,
> > and Seattle, that even for those who reside in those cities, it's
> > far better to do it by MAIL.
> >
> >
> >>Do a google web search for "china visa" and you can get the
> >>webpage I had given sharkbait. The express 1 day processing
> >>costs more (normally 4 days); and the express mail costs more,
> >>but the fees and schedule are all there (a Houston outfit for
> >>Chinese Visa).
> >
> >
> > http://www.visa-chinese.com/
> >
> > Now that I have recommended that service, I must amend it by
> > a CAUTION of which one may NOT be aware, or expect:
> >
> > 1. It is TOO efficient in its processing of Chinese visas.
> >
> > 2. It is IRRESPONSIBLE for misprocessing of the info provided
> > in the Application Form (and given to them by the applicants).
> >
> >
> > How can it be TOO efficient (if that's right word), you ask?
> >
> >
> > I mailed them an application for a double-entry visa to China,
> > as recommended by the Princess cruiseship, for the port of
> > call of Shanghai, and the one-day stay in Beijing after
> > disembarkation.
> >
> > I certified-mailed my US passport with the application for
> > double-entry visa to China. on May xx, with a request for
> > REGULAR processing (4 business days).
> >
> > Uncharacteristic of US Snail Mail, my application was received
> > and being processed by the Chinese Visa company (in Houston)
> > on May xx+3, and the visa was issued on May xx+4, with an
> > expiration day of Nov xx+4 (180 days from date of issue).
> >
> > That was ONE-DAY processing for a REGULAR (4 business
> > day) minimum fee.
> >
> > Thus, within 4 days from the time my mail left the Post Office
> > many States away, on regular First Class mail (without any
> > kind of express mailing), the visa was ISSUED, via the
> > Chinese Visa company, and RETURNED by the Chinese
> > consulate in Houston which issued the visa!
> >
> > What's the beef, you might ask?
> >
> > The processing was TOO efficient -- resulting in the
> > expiration date for the second entry to be 3 days
> > BEFORE the date I had requested, November YY!
> >
> > In any event, that would not have happened had the
> > processing time been "normal", and the mail delivery
> > time normal. In fact, 8 days ( 4 + 4 )would have been
> > perfect for the SECOND entry date I specified on the
> > application form (Nov YY; first entry, June ZZ); -- OR, if
> > the Chinese Visa company had paid attention to their
> > REQUESTED (and provided) information about the two entry
> > dates (those are well within the 180 day window of validity
> > for a double entry Chinese visa).
> >
> > When I made the double-entry request (required if one goes
> > ashore in Shanghai), I had thought about skipping the one-day
> > visit to Shanghai in June and use it on my 1 week visit in
> > November -- which was why I had stated the entries as
> > June XX and Nov YY, because the visa could be used anytime
> > for the 2nd entry before Nov YY.
> >
> > But becaue of the processing MISTAKE by http://www.visa-chinese.com/
> > I phone the company to see if their mistake could be corrected since
> > there's plenty of time to do so before June XX.
> >
> > That's when I learned, from someone who claims to be, at first
> > the Manager, and then, the Owner of that company,
> >
> > 2. It is NOT RESPONSIBLE for misprocessing the info provided
> > in the Application Form, provided by that company.
> >
> >
> > Now I am in the process of trying to contact the Chinese consulate
> > in Houston directly to see what, if anything, could be done, without
> > me having to apply for another single-entry visa for November YY.
> >
> > The worst case scenario is that I get to see Shanghai TWICE this
> > year, which would require a double entry AND a single entry visa.
> >
> >
> > But now I have reason to WARN all others who may not know that
> > the info of 1st entry and 2nd entry dates are IGNORED by that
> > processing service, (and quite possibly by other similar service
> > companies) and they refuse to do anything about their mistakes
> > -- not even contacting the Chinsese consulate with which it
> > does many business transactions a day.
> >
> > Caveat Emptor, as they say.
> >
> > -- Dr. Bob. (aka Reef Fish).
> >
> That's not efficiency, that's just speed.
I agree that's a better word for it, in the context of my WARNING.
That's why I questioned whether "efficiency" is the right word.
It turned out their "efficiency" (more than just being "speedy") can
be
turned to an ADVANTAGE, so long as the user of that service is
aware that the service IGNORES the DATES for the requested entries!
Efficiency:
1 : the quality or degree of being efficient
2 a : efficient operation b (1) : effective operation as measured by a
comparison of production with cost (as in energy, time, and money)
They were efficient in the following sense:
1. Cost of service $29 for a double-entry visa is less than others
I've seen
2. They performed the expected FOUR DAYS for a regular service
in less than ONE DAY (received one day; the consulate
operation> processed and mail the return the next day) -- the
normal
service fee for the same-day service is MUCH higher.
3. The day of receipt was Saturday; the day of issuance of visa was
Sunday. So, apparently both the visa service and the consulate
count weekend days as "working days".
Thus, in terms of definition b (1) the operation
was "efficient", but item (2) was what turned out to contribute to the
too-early issuance of my visa.
-- Dr. Bob. (aka Reef Fish).
|