Cathay Pacific Asia Miles - CX828/9 Routing Change

The US want us to believe they have improved their security again, so the YYZ flights are back to YVR tech. stops. From CX communication to agents:

"DRS - USA Suspended TWOV & CX828/829 Operate via YVR (04Aug03)

With effective from 02AUG03, USA suspended the TWOV program, including the International to International (ITI) TWOV. All pax making connections ex-USA cities for international flight connections must first obtain relevant USA visa before boarding their flights to USA. Pax who are eligible for visa free entrance (eg. Canadian and/or under the visa waiver program - VWP) are not affected by this new ruling.

Due to this newly announced security requirement on TWOV policy, please note that CX828/829 will operate via YVR instead of ANC with no traffic right on HKG/YVR v.v. and YVR/YYZ v.v wef 05AUG03.
Pax do not need to clear custom in YVR as YVR is only a technical stop."

Remind me again, why can't CX just fly YYZ-HKG nonstop? UA has no problem flying ORD-HKG (744), and that's about the same distance as YYZ-HKG. CO fly EWR-HKG (772-ER/LR?) and that's even longer.

Gee, I hope YVR enlarges their bathrooms. The last time there were only 4 toilets for the mens room (two crappers, two urinals). I liked using ANC's bathroom (there were actually two huge bathrooms.....one at the gate another one way down the hall that no one went to, except me and a few smart flyers). ANC was a good place to walk around and find a couch to lie down on. Mt. McKinley was a great landmark to see out of the window of the plane too.

Another drawback is at YVR, we pax apparently have to take all our checked bags out of the plane. If no one is allowed to deplane into Canada at YVR (I hope), then maybe, just maybe now, we can still leave our checked bags on board and walk into the rest area. But that still doesn't solve the small bathroom issue with no air-fresheners.

The reason for the US and this real silly policy isn't about terrorism, it is really about how inefficent their airports are for International transits with an unelected government using fear to scare the American people and the rest of the world. Well, I'm voting Dean and we all know that ANC is **totally** exempt in the way it was built to bypass this Visa acquisition program. CX is doing the right thing. The United States government is not and the terrorist pigs are laughing.

I'm an American and I don't like it just like the rest of the planet. Oh well, YVR-YYZ is about 4 hours as opposed to ANC-YYZ that is 6 hours.

CX should divert JFK to ANC to add insult to injury! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif Cargo won't do it.

SHADO

[This message has been edited by SHADO (edited 08-05-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by UA_Eagle:
why can't CX just fly YYZ-HKG nonstop? </font>

Cargo. CX makes a lot of money (marginal revenue/profit) on freight. CO and UA flights are/were load limited westbound.

Hey, SHALO, who was responsible for all your problems and everything else in the world before Bush became President of the U.S. Your agruments are pathetic, lol.

------------------
dallasflyer

I don't know, but I sure liked all the prosperity with the greatest President of all time, William Jefferson Clinton and his wife, First Lady, now Senator Hillary Rodham-Clinton. My arguments may be as pathetic as the current administration, but they sure are factual rather than serving fries and a coke with Computer Science degrees.

[This message has been edited by SHADO (edited 08-05-2003).]

Sorry, is this the CX board or Political Commentary 101??? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

ibid. Tell that to dallasflyer and his, off-topic AA forum style comment.

[This message has been edited by SHADO (edited 08-05-2003).]

Was kinda expecting this when the US announced the transit visa thing last week. So we depart YYZ at 10:30p and arrive in YVR at 2:30a [body time] and 11:30p their time, then depart at 12:30/1a their time, 3:30/4a our time. I didn't think there was a stop on the return leg though.

I want to apoligize to all in the CX board. I enjoy reading your post about CX. Just can't believe at SHALO can continue to make political statements and flame my post. I still wondering who he blamed for everything before Bush. Will agree that the Clinton Admin was a great time for our economy. My post was not political, it was a comment born from reading post after post concerning how everything from SHALO's jock itch to his upgrade percentage was Bush's fault, lol.

------------------
dallasflyer

I didn't flame your post, you flamed my comments as "my problems". You don't even know me, let alone using a clandestine way to mispell my ID as 'SHALO'. You are only hurting my e-feelings, nothing more.

My comments are specific on US policy that affects the policy of airlines. Please stay on topic, like telling me to read the EXP manual on the AA forum for a question I posed about EXP benefits. Rude, but on topic and noted.

For this CX topic, I advise you post your comments on CX changing ANC to YVR and how it will affect you, rather than your claims that I am more important than CX. Welcome to Asia.

SHADO

[This message has been edited by SHADO (edited 08-06-2003).]

I guess he blamed Bush for the mess in the 80s and early 90s too.

Staying on topic, remember you are on the CX forum that has class:

Though Homeland Security and State suspended the programs, over the next 60 days they are soliciting input from airlines and the public to find possible ways to re-implement the programs on an airline-by-airline basis, contingent upon implementation of additional security measures

Why was Vancouver (BC) chosen for the tech stops? Why wouldn't CX pick another Canadian airport with a shorter routing like Whitehorse (Yukon) or Edmonton (Alberta)?

Back on topic...

The announcement reads to me that there is no need for pax to deplane at YVR at all. Certainly when the 828/9 were routing via YVR at the start of the SARS crisis, everyone stayed onboard for the duration of the tech stop.

If so, I'd say it's a postive move, eliminating an otherwise intrusive and ill-timed layover at ANC.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by cslusarc:
Why was Vancouver (BC) chosen for the tech stops? Why wouldn't CX pick another Canadian airport with a shorter routing like Whitehorse (Yukon) or Edmonton (Alberta)?</font>

CX has ground staff at YVR already. Anyways, when the U.S. government started to force deplaning and immigration clearance of transit pax in Sept. 2001, CX changed 828/829 to transit in YVR instead and did so for over a year IIRC. A stop in YVR instead of ANC adds only 2 hours travel time at most.