Cathay Pacific Asia Miles - CX leaves passengers stuck for almost 10 hours on JFK tarmac

CX has given up their quality standards to follow the U.S. carriers precident of having passengers held captive at JFK.

http://www.wlos.com/template/inews_wire/wires.national/2ff421c8-www.wlos.com.shtml

CX has given up their quality standards to follow the U.S. carriers precident of having passengers held captive at JFK.

http://www.wlos.com/template/inews_wire/wires.national/2ff421c8-www.wlos.com.shtml

I think it's a bit premature to draw any conclusions or certainly say CX is dropping its quality standards. From other reports I've heard there were a number of issues with getting people off these late night flights which had left the gate - including workers (not sure if airline or airport) that went off-duty at the end of shifts, gates not yet cleared/plowed.

It also has not been reported yet how CX handled the pax onboard. After all, many of these folks were headed on a 20 hour trip to HKG via YVR. Certainly this 744 was prepared for the flight to YVR so there shouldn't have been the no food/overflowing lav issues that were problems when this happened with B6 and AA.

I'm sorry, but if you board a flight in the middle of a snowstorm, then you need to expect something like this happening. If you are unprepared for it (or are too dumb to realize that a nor'easter is going to cause problems, then you deserve what you get).

If I were scheduled to fly last night, I would have rescheduled.

The problem was not specific to CX, but rather it just so happens that the interview included a passenger aboard a CX plane. See : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070318/ap_on_re_us/stranded_flights

NEW YORK - Hundreds of passengers were stranded for hours overnight on airliners that couldn't take off from John F. Kennedy International Airport because of the ice and snow storm that pummeled the Northeast....

Rahul Chandran said he was trapped aboard a Cathay Pacific Airways jet from midnight until nearly 9:30 a.m. Saturday, when the flight to Vancouver was finally canceled.

Throughout the night, the pilot repeatedly described problems with deicing equipment, including a lack of fluid, that kept the plane waiting endlessly to have its wings sprayed. When the airline finally gave up and tried to return the plane to its terminal, it took at least another hour to arrange a gate, he said...

Situations as such cannot lay blame on the airline. The pilots have to abide by whatever the control towers give - and if there aren't any gates, there aren't any gates ! But note that at least the pilot kept the passengers up to date. That is much better than some of the other carriers who keep silent...People expect that when flights are delayed and ultimately cancelled that the aircraft return immediately....

Maybe next time, they should just open the door and dump them outside!

CX was only ONE of hundreds of planes stuck at JFK ....

If I were scheduled to fly last night, I would have rescheduled.

Very easy for you and your full-fare J ticket to say. What about the 300 people stuck in coach? I really doubt CX would have allowed their economy pax to reschedule without a hefty charge.

Situations as such cannot lay blame on the airline. The pilots have to abide by whatever the control towers give - and if there aren't any gates, there aren't any gates ! But note that at least the pilot kept the passengers up to date. That is much better than some of the other carriers who keep silent...People expect that when flights are delayed and ultimately cancelled that the aircraft return immediately....

CX was only ONE of hundreds of planes stuck at JFK ....

Absolutely, no question that JFK sucks and it was a freak snowstorm, but did the other hundreds of flights keep their pax stuck on the tarmac for 10 freaking hours?

Why are there always CX apologists on this board? It seems this faulty "we are better" attitude is not only institutionalised on this board but also at the airline. At the end of the day, it's the airline's fault.

And why is CX889 scheduled to get in at 04:25 today (versus the usual 07:30)? Was the flight delayed an extra 10 hours in addition to the cancellation fiasco?

Do you think the pax should receive compensation for this? or was the constant updates from the pilot (undoubtedly in English and then translated in an abridged Cantonese and Mandarin by half-awake FAs) sufficient for a 21 hour delay, resulting in getting the pax in at an ungodly hour?

Very easy for you and your full-fare J ticket to say. What about the 300 people stuck in coach? I really doubt CX would have allowed their economy pax to reschedule without a hefty charge.


Most airlines institute grace periods during weather emergencies whereby pax can rebook for no charge.

If not, the people have a choice (take your chances or pay the fee). If you chose #1, don't complain.

Why are there always CX apologists on this board? At the end of the day, it's the airlines fault.


However, maybe we should wait and see until some more details come out. Whereas the AA AUS and B6 JFK trapped passenger situations happened during the day, staffing at airports (both airline and airport as well as controllers, etc) between midnight and 5am (except DXB :D ) tend to be much lower.

There is a report of an LH flight that had to wait four hours inbound at JFK on the tarmac until it could get a gate.

Again, these pax were going to be on the plane for 20 hours (you cannot get off during the YVR transit stop unless you're deplaning) and the plane was catered for dinner JFK-YVR and hopefully there would not have been problems with the lavs as there were with AA and B6 where folks who were supposed to be on the plane for 2-3 hours were on it for 6-10 hours. Let's find out how well CX treated them during their nine hours - my guess is the reports will be positive, but time will tell.

Most airlines institute grace periods during weather emergencies whereby pax can rebook for no charge.

If not, the people have a choice (take your chances or pay the fee). If you chose #1, don't complain.

That's again from your ivory tower. CX should have cancelled the flight or set a realistic departure time. JFK sucks in a snowstorm. CX should have known that.

That's again from your ivory tower. CX should have cancelled the flight or set a realistic departure time. JFK sucks in a snowstorm. CX should have known that.

Why the hostility? Guy Betsy is correct to point out that CX had little or nothing to do other than what they did.

Here's a longer excerpt from a different article which has more complete comment from Mr. Chandran:

Rahul Chandran said he was trapped aboard a Cathay Pacific Airways jet from midnight until nearly 9:30 a.m. Saturday, when the flight to Vancouver was finally canceled.

Throughout the night, the pilot repeatedly described problems with deicing equipment, including a lack of fluid, that kept the plane waiting endlessly to have its wings sprayed. When the airline finally gave up and tried to return the plane to its terminal, it took at least another hour to arrange a gate, he said.

"You can't keep your passengers on the plane for 9 1/2 hours," said Chandran, 30, of New York City. "They kept saying 'half an hour more, 45 minutes more.' But by the time it got to hour six, we were pretty much accepting that we weren't going to go ... At least in the terminal, you can get up and walk around."

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates the metropolitan area's airports, said airlines — not the airport — are responsible for supplying and maintaining terminal deicing equipment.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070318/ap_on_re_us/stranded_flights

Apparently, CX wasn't the worst culprit. Royal Air Maroc kept their pax on for nearly 14 hours.

Why are there always CX apologists on this board? It seems this faulty "we are better" attitude is not only institutionalised on this board but also at the airline. At the end of the day, it's the airline's fault.And bashers? Which part of 'act of nature' are you struggling with?

Do you think the pax should receive compensation for this? Yes, Mother Nature should be forced to pay every customer and JFK employee for her folly... :-)

or was the constant updates from the pilot (undoubtedly in English and then translated in an abridged Cantonese and Mandarin by half-awake FAs) sufficient for a 21 hour delay, resulting in getting the pax in at an ungodly hour?English, the INTERNATIONAL business language? The horror! :-) If you have any issues with the Cantonese and Mandarin of the CX staff, you should take it up with CX - a letter or email would probably be sufficient, stating the day and flight #. I've never seen a language problem on any of the many CX flights I've been on.

That's again from your ivory tower. CX should have cancelled the flight or set a realistic departure time. JFK sucks in a snowstorm. CX should have known that.

Maybe the passengers should take some responsibility. All I've heard all day long from stranded passengers is "wah, wah, wah."

Don't attempt to fly in a snowstorm, even if the airline hasn't canceled the flight. If you must, you take what you get. End of story.

Why the hostility? Guy Betsy is correct to point out that CX had little or nothing to do other than what they did.

And also who knows what other factors might have been involved in the decision to try and leave, such as having flight crews available in NYC that could fly the plane the next day if it had been xxd. JFK only gets two CX flights a day - and they are different aircraft types - A346 and 744 - I would doubt (but don't know) that pilots are cross-qualified.

I think the OP was way off-base by somehow tying the ground delay to CX cutting service standards.

Why the hostility? Guy Betsy is correct to point out that CX had little or nothing to do other than what they did.

Not hostility. If you read this forum long enough, you will believe that CX never does anything wrong. It's always those unreasonable expectations from the economy pax. How dare they expect caviar when they pay for fish balls? This is not a case where the emperor has no clothes, but CX has its flaws. This forum should be a realistic discourse on the good and the bad, not some 24/7 love-fest.

Do you think CX has any blame in this fiasco? I guess it should be added to the sticky on top that CX is never to blame for anything. Blame it on Canada, I guess.

Not hostility. If you read this forum long enough, you will believe that CX never does anything wrong. It's always those unreasonable expectations from the economy pax. How dare they expect caviar when they pay for fish balls? This is not a case where the emperor has no clothes, but CX has its flaws. This forum should be a realistic discourse on the good and the bad, not some 24/7 love-fest.

Do you think CX has any blame in this fiasco? I guess it should be added to the sticky on top that CX is never to blame for anything. Blame it on Canada, I guess.

I read this forum quite a bit and also fly CX a fair bit. Certainly CX has its flaws, like any company in any industry, or any person for that matter.

I think the reason you may see the CX board as a "love-fest" is there is a generally very high level of service (although folks certainly complain about some of the LHR based crews), the food is generally excellent (at least in F/J which is where my experience is) although there have been threads reporting about taking away the amuse bouches, CX continues to invest in its hard product - new F, flatbed horizontal J and yes, even Y seating and AVOD.

Perhaps there are less complaints on the CX forum about CX because there is less to complain about?

That said, if you do truly read through this forum then you will have seen comments about the things I mentioned above and quite a bit more, so it is hard to understand why you are saying there is a "never blame CX for anything" attitude here

I'm a CX fan and agree that CX should have cancelled the flight. In fact, I'm surprised that the flight wasn't cancelled. However, I'm even more surprised that pax leaving on CX889 seriously thought that the flight would depart on time or even depart at all. It was a no brainer that travelling in and out of JFK, EWR and LGA was a mess that day and the number of airlines cancelling flights increased as the day progressed.

IT'S WAS A NOR'EASTER. CX bears some fault for not cancelling the flight. Passengers also bear some fault for seriously thinking that the flight would go smoothly. The JetBlue fiasco was only a month ago and people should know what risks there are to flying during a winter storm.

In my mind, CX assumed the risk and consequences of not cancelling the flight. Passengers on CX889 also assumed the risk and consequences of going to the airport thinking that they could seriously leave on the flight without some sort of delay or inconvenience. The Port Authority also deserves some blame. Good grief, walking outside on Friday night after work, I was pelted with sleet and the wind certainly made things worse. Driving wasn't fun either. Who in their right mind would think that flying that night on any airline would go smoothly?

CX is not perfect, but it is one of the best airlines. Hopefully CX will learn from this experience.

However, I'll give CX the benefit of the doubt with regard to inflight service on the delayed flight. My most recent experience with a delay on CX was in January; I was on CX889 and we had a minor mechanical that delayed our departure. The pilot made the announcement providing details about the mechanical and our expected time of departure. The ISM then made the announcement that the crew would shortly arrange to begin supper service while we were on the ground. Thankfully, the mechanical problem was fixed ahead of schedule and we departed about 1:10 late. The crew collected the meals quickly (I had just finished my salad) and we were off. Later on in the flight, meal service resumed. The delay was well handled in J and presumably in F too. I'm not so sure how it was in Y.

I wouldn't be surprised if CX crew handled themselves quite well under the circumstances.

Maybe the passengers should take some responsibility. All I've heard all day long from stranded passengers is "wah, wah, wah."

Don't attempt to fly in a snowstorm, even if the airline hasn't canceled the flight. If you must, you take what you get. End of story.

Earlier, you said that most airlines will allow a grace period for a fee-free rescheduling in the event of bad weather. Now, you say screw the pax.

I hope your employer shows more empathy to you when you miss your next highfallutin deal closing because you were delayed on some milk-the-miles routing than you have shown with your heartless response to those pax who are trapped in this no-win situation. I also hope your elderly parents don't get delayed on their flight for 20 extra hours when they take their upcoming anniversary trip to Hong Kong.

If CX cancels the flight or reschedules for a realistic time, this wouldn't have been an issue. No one is questioning that sh!t weather happens and that it is out of CX's control. It's how you deal with it. JetBlue learned its lesson a month ago and canceled its flights to avoid a repeat.

I wonder if CX HQ will tell the local press that CX performed better than the competition in difficult once-in-a-lifetime circumstances and point to Royal Air Maroc's stranding its pax on the tarmac for nearly 14 hours, 45% longer than what the CX pax had to endure.

Thankfully, some airlines don't try to spin everything.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/business/18sorry.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

This whole incident goes back to the JetBlue fiasco earlier last month. Airlines must choose between whether to cancel the flight, or take a chance and use a "wait and see" approach. CX chose the later, because they hoped that the flight might have a chance of departing, but it eventually did not work out because of deicing fluids or whatnot. I mean BA's flights from JFK-LHR all, except one, departed with few hours of delays, but I'm sure CX would like to take a chance.

But to tie this isolated uncontrollable incident to CX "giving up qualify standards" and accusing members of being unrealistic or too biased towards CX is just silly. At least the pilots made an effort to inform passengers throughout the ground hold, and I'm sure a hot meal must be served during this delay.

Before we turn this thread into a 'who's right or not'... perhaps some people here should just take a time to reflect the situation...

When an airplane is on the ground and while the snow is coming down, the pilots will take instructions from the control tower as to whether it is safe to depart. It initially was - except that each aircraft had to be deiced first. Now JFK being the way it is laid out with terminals all over the place, the de-icing trucks had to go from one terminal to the next - and even if you say bring out a fleet of two dozen or more, it takes time to de-ice an aircraft. I think at JFK, like major airports that are on the snow belt require aircraft to taxi to holding 'areas' to wait to be de-iced - much like waiting for a car wash on a corwded day...Those who have never sat on an aircraft will never be able to understand the reasoning and why it takes so long. They think "Oh, it's just to spray the wings and flaps right... so they've done it so why the wait.."

Because depending on the amount of 'stuff' coming down, sometimes you need more than 2 trucks to de-ice. The news articles stated that the airport authority ran out of de-icing fluid half way through.. and by the time each aircraft received the first de-ice , they had to do it all again.

T7 - where CX docks also serves BA, AC and UA flights... Once CX leaves their gate, another aircraft has taken its place.. So imagine as you will, a parking lot in a shopping mall... Imagine it being, in say a densely populated area, and it's the day before X'mas or Chinese New Year... cars are parked all over the place waiting for a space... you have to wait till someone moves out of the space before you move in right? Some are just waiting in the lanes, some by a restricted zone... engines pumping, tempers flaring...! Think that situation.... plus snow, plus wind, plus trucks and big big aeroplanes. Where are you going to dump the contents (of the plane) onto? Shall we just open the door and ask everyone to leave by the side? If you're out there... you have to manouvere back to your terminal.. and the entire airport is just in a gridlock.

I am not defending CX - but rather trying to reason that in such circumstances that all airlines hold some form of responsibility in passenger safety and comfort. If there had been any reason to believe that it not was safe to take off, the airline would cancel. The Captain must also factor in the state of the terminal he is returning to.. would there be staff on hand? Would there be enough places for people to sit, or rest. At least on the plane, there are places to sit! So that could be many factors as to why the airline, the Captain, the Control Tower etc did what they did.

It was just a domino effect that culminated one problem after another. I'm sure the other forums must have reported some cancellations of their flights in one way or another - or rather, they are just more used to it than us here.

Good clear post Guy - and I think I would rather always sit on a plane than have constrol ask the pilot to risk something!

Maybe the passengers should take some responsibility. All I've heard all day long from stranded passengers is "wah, wah, wah."

Don't attempt to fly in a snowstorm, even if the airline hasn't canceled the flight. If you must, you take what you get. End of story.If predicting conditions that are not conducive to flying can be done so easily by you, the airline has even less excuse for getting it wrong. According to you it was a no-brainer that the storm would cause problems. Then the logical deduction is that CX has no brains since it failed to foresee this.

Surely the airline is in the best position to judge the severity of the storm and decide whether pax should board or not? They possess the best technical resources and the expertise to do so. So if they allow boarding without alerting pax to the possibilities of delay they are implicitly saying they expect the flight to leave within a reasonable time.

I have no doubt that unavoidable $h!t happens. And I have no doubt that human mistakes can exacerbate it. But how the pax are at fault I simply fail to see.

Good points GB ^ In the NY Post there is a story today about a BA flight that waited on the ground seven hours before finally taking off and making it to LHR. It was wheels up at 5am. In part of the story, they talk about how difficult it was to load luggage and that the tugs had trouble getting traction.

Flights departing T7 at the same time did eventually takeoff - and it said in the report de-icing was taking three hours instead of an hour. Also, T7 is quite small and all hotels from JFK have to be accessed by bus or taxi and who knows what transportation would have been available at 2am?

It could turn out being fed and watered aboard a warm plane was the best place these folks could have spent the night.

Again, equating an overnight ordeal like this to AA in AUS where they stranded the diverted flights on the tarmac while running regularly scheduled flights to other cities or B6 where the planes were not catered is like comparing apples and oranges.


Anyone who wants to point fingers should read this story first - multiple airlines and multiple reasons for delays -

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/storm-brings-new-woes-to-travelers-at/20070316202309990001

But how the pax are at fault I simply fail to see.I don't think anyone's saying they're 'at fault' - only stating that their actions - going to JFK, checking in, and getting on the plan - contributed to the situation. After the B6/AA 'stuck on a plane' situations, anyone who went to JFK with this storm in progress should have known there was a distinct possibility of a repeat.

I don't think anyone's saying they're 'at fault' - only stating that their actions - going to JFK, checking in, and getting on the plan - contributed to the situation. After the B6/AA 'stuck on a plane' situations, anyone who went to JFK with this storm in progress should have known there was a distinct possibility of a repeat.Sorry, I still don't get it. If CX tells me that my flight will leave as scheduled I should still make my own judgement? And if the flight does leave I can just imagine their reaction when I tell them I missed the flight because I didn't think it would take off in the storm. Most pax don't have an option but to accept the advice of the airline. So they may be "contributing to the situation" - but only because the airline advises them to.

Maybe the passengers should take some responsibility. All I've heard all day long from stranded passengers is "wah, wah, wah."

Don't attempt to fly in a snowstorm, even if the airline hasn't canceled the flight. If you must, you take what you get. End of story.What do you do with a non-refundable ticket when the airline won't allow a weather-related fee-free change? What happens if the flight gets out? What about your hotel reservations?

Sorry -- it's easy to say this if you're on a fully-refundable ticket and have flexible plans. Most people (myself included) have no choice but to believe the airline if it says, "we're going -- please board." In the past, airlines weren't shy about cancellations. Now, with them running so close to the line (if they're not already in bankruptcy), they won't cancel unless there's absolutely no alternative. These problems are the result of airline cost-cutting, not passenger error.

What do you do with a non-refundable ticket when the airline won't allow a weather-related fee-free change? What happens if the flight gets out? What about your hotel reservations?

Sorry -- it's easy to say this if you're on a fully-refundable ticket and have flexible plans. Most people (myself included) have no choice but to believe the airline if it says, "we're going -- please board." In the past, airlines weren't shy about cancellations. Now, with them running so close to the line (if they're not already in bankruptcy), they won't cancel unless there's absolutely no alternative. These problems are the result of airline cost-cutting, not passenger error.

I do not know for sure if CX was allowing pax to change their flights, but all the U.S. carriers were. People who failed to take advantage of this when it was offered were foolish and naive to expect flights to run smoothly.

If predicting conditions that are not conducive to flying can be done so easily by you, the airline has even less excuse for getting it wrong. According to you it was a no-brainer that the storm would cause problems. Then the logical deduction is that CX has no brains since it failed to foresee this.

Surely the airline is in the best position to judge the severity of the storm and decide whether pax should board or not? They possess the best technical resources and the expertise to do so. So if they allow boarding without alerting pax to the possibilities of delay they are implicitly saying they expect the flight to leave within a reasonable time.

I have no doubt that unavoidable $h!t happens. And I have no doubt that human mistakes can exacerbate it. But how the pax are at fault I simply fail to see.

The pax are not a fault, but they ultimately made a decision to try their luck and fly. The weather forecasts made it very clear that the conditions were bad and were going to deteriorate over the course of the evening. You don't need to be an expert to figure-out that that was going to not be a smooth night for travel.

Sorry, I still don't get it. If CX tells me that my flight will leave as scheduled I should still make my own judgement? And if the flight does leave I can just imagine their reaction when I tell them I missed the flight because I didn't think it would take off in the storm. Most pax don't have an option but to accept the advice of the airline. So they may be "contributing to the situation" - but only because the airline advises them to.

They do have an option. No one is forcing them to fly, even if it was going to cost them more to change flights.

Earlier, you said that most airlines will allow a grace period for a fee-free rescheduling in the event of bad weather. Now, you say screw the pax.


I never said "screw" anybody. Never put words in my mouth. I chose what I say very clearly and there is nothing to read into.


I hope your employer shows more empathy to you when you miss your next highfallutin deal closing because you were delayed on some milk-the-miles routing than you have shown with your heartless response to those pax who are trapped in this no-win situation. I also hope your elderly parents don't get delayed on their flight for 20 extra hours when they take their upcoming anniversary trip to Hong Kong.


I didn't realize that a) my parents were elderly and b) that they are going to Hong Kong for their anniversary. This is good to know. Thanks!


If CX cancels the flight or reschedules for a realistic time, this wouldn't have been an issue. No one is questioning that sh!t weather happens and that it is out of CX's control. It's how you deal with it. JetBlue learned its lesson a month ago and canceled its flights to avoid a repeat.


And have noticed the chorus of people complaining that JetBlue canceled so many flights? Pax have unreasonable expectations in these situations.


I wonder if CX HQ will tell the local press that CX performed better than the competition in difficult once-in-a-lifetime circumstances and point to Royal Air Maroc's stranding its pax on the tarmac for nearly 14 hours, 45% longer than what the CX pax had to endure.


I'm not saying that CX made the right decision in this case, just that passengers who knowingly board planes in a snowstorm need to be prepared for this eventuality and should not complain when things go wrong.

Before we turn this thread into a 'who's right or not'... perhaps some people here should just take a time to reflect the situation...



Couldn't agree more...while it's frustrating to sit for hours on end in a metal can in these situations, these are IROP situations where people and equipment necessary are usually out of place or incapacitated, etc. and it's not as easy as one might think to just taxi back to the terminal once the airline decides to cancel a flight, etc.

I landed at JFK on Saturday morning around 0840 on DL from BOM and saw the CX 744 taxiing (little did I know then that there were still pax. on board) past us around 0900 followed by a BA 744...FWIW, it took us more than an hour to get to our gate at the DL terminal due to various reasons:

- aircraft at our gate was stuck frozen to the ground and had to be de-iced before being towed away to make way for us
- tug pushing the aircraft at our gate couldn't get past some of the snow/ice on the ground and kept slipping - they tried three times before succeeding
- still too much snow around the gate area to pull our 777 in so had to get the equipment to plow
- jetway couldn't be moved as parts of it were frozen stuck; maintenance called in to fix the jetway...

In the end, we didn't disembark until 1015, more than 1.5 hours after landing. And this was all the work required just to get one plane to the gate...You can imagine the mess that was JFK - with all kinds of displaced aircraft wandering around and/or parked at the wrong positions, with limited equipment and personnel to 'right' things, etc. - it's not hard to imagine how airplanes can be stuck going nowhere for hours...

I do not know for sure if CX was allowing pax to change their flights, but all the U.S. carriers were. People who failed to take advantage of this when it was offered were foolish and naive to expect flights to run smoothly.Sorry, but, again, that assumes flexible plans and no uncompensated costs. What about the leisure traveler with a hotel room? What about the business traveler with inflexible plans? If the airline says, "we're going," most people have no choice but to trust the airline and go. If the airline is honest about the likelihood of getting out, people can exercise options.

Couldn't agree more...while it's frustrating to sit for hours on end in a metal can in these situations, these are IROP situations where people and equipment necessary are usually out of place or incapacitated, etc. and it's not as easy as one might think to just taxi back to the terminal once the airline decides to cancel a flight, etc.

I landed at JFK on Saturday morning around 0840 on DL from BOM and saw the CX 744 taxiing (little did I know then that there were still pax. on board) past us around 0900 followed by a BA 744...FWIW, it took us more than an hour to get to our gate at the DL terminal due to various reasons:

- aircraft at our gate was stuck frozen to the ground and had to be de-iced before being towed away to make way for us
- tug pushing the aircraft at our gate couldn't get past some of the snow/ice on the ground and kept slipping - they tried three times before succeeding
- still too much snow around the gate area to pull our 777 in so had to get the equipment to plow
- jetway couldn't be moved as parts of it were frozen stuck; maintenance called in to fix the jetway...

In the end, we didn't disembark until 1015, more than 1.5 hours after landing. And this was all the work required just to get one plane to the gate...You can imagine the mess that was JFK - with all kinds of displaced aircraft wandering around and/or parked at the wrong positions, with limited equipment and personnel to 'right' things, etc. - it's not hard to imagine how airplanes can be stuck going nowhere for hours...

Great feedback ^ ^ ^

...but only because the airline advises them to.CX doesn't own JFK. They're at the mercy of the JFK staff that they share with all the other airlines.

I think if you did no-show and they had managed to take off, CX would get you on the next day's flight if there were space. But I hope it never snows enough here in So Cal to find out. :-)

Hi folks. Nice discussion so far, though a bit heated. I was on CX889. I am sitting in the Wing right now just thankful that part of the trip is over.

I agree with PresRDC. I got on that plane eyes wide open. I saw from flightaware.com that only ~10 planes were getting off an hour. Overall, I think CX did just an 'ok' job. Some items to consider;

The annoucements in the BA Terrece Lounge were horrible. This goes for the initial delay (boarded about 1.5 hours late, not bad considering) as well as the following day.

After we boarded, one of the first delays was a mechanical, not the weather, that sent us back to the gate (engine de-icer, if I recall correctly). I wonder if this mechanical did not happen, what could have been (yea, Monday morning QB).

There were then multiple issues with de-iceing. First, according to the pilot, it wasn't to his staisfaction. Then it ran out and we had to wait. Now I have to admit, the whole evening is a bit compacted for me. I was dirfting in and out of sleep the whole event. I remember twice being woken up to set the chair for takeoff only to run into deicing issues.

After deicer never shown up, the pilots chair time ran out and the flight was cancelled. It took another hour or so to get an open gate. Getting off the flight we were given $15 meal vouchers. We were told a new crew would come in and we'd be off in a few hours.

Well that past and we were told 3pm would be likely. Vouchers for a day room at the Holiday Inn were given out (where I heard there was also a free buffet). I had a nice lounge in the Terrace so I just stuck it out after a shower in the spa.

I forget what time, but sometime in the affternoon they made an announcement that the crew was on the plane doing their inspections. A bit later, we were told there would be another mechanical delay.

Well to make a long story short, with very little updates after that, there was suddenly an announcement around 6:15pm saying we'd board in 10 minutes.

There were apologies all around (focussed on the weather, not the mechanicals).

When we got to HKG, they had a special desk setup with a half dozen agents to cover the missed connections.

So overall, some high spots, some low spots (IMO, mostly in the area of communication).

ps - I think I saw the infamous Mr. Chandran in the TL. He didn't strike me as someone who's travel opinion I would seek out. Seemed to enjoy the sound of his own voice a bit much. His significant other was an even bigger chatty Cathy.

Sorry, but, again, that assumes flexible plans and no uncompensated costs. What about the leisure traveler with a hotel room? What about the business traveler with inflexible plans? If the airline says, "we're going," most people have no choice but to trust the airline and go. If the airline is honest about the likelihood of getting out, people can exercise options.

No, they have a choice. It may not be a great choice, but it is a choice nonetheless.

Hi folks. Nice discussion so far, though a bit heated. I was on CX889. I am sitting in the Wing right now just thankful that part of the trip is over.

Thanks for taking the time to post and good luck with the rest of your trip. It seems like you endured the situation like a pro ^

Just curious, did they do the meal service on the ground?

No, they have a choice. It may not be a great choice, but it is a choice nonetheless.


Agree. The night before i was looking at jumping early up to YYZ and catching one of the open J's on CX881. In the end, I saw most of the cancellations in the AA and JetBlue area and though maybe it wasn't so bad. However, for me, the big kicker was that with a week of business to do in HKG/TPE, it would be a big PIA, but not a deal breaker and I decided to just roll the dice.

Key words here are "I decided". In my case, it was an active decision. For those who do not actively look to monitor.adjust their travel schedules when a major winter storm hits, well, they've made a decision too.

Now let me get back to my email asking CX for 100k AA miles as compensation :p

It seems like you endured the situation like a pro ^

Just curious, did they do the meal service on the ground?

Pro football'rs hurt after time on the pitch. That's how I feel. A bit beat up and wondering why the f&^k I travel. A little time to lick the wounds and this too shall pass.

After they pilots time expired, they belted out the meal service as we waited for the gate. However, the bar was kept closed. :( Just when I really needed one at that point.

With the meal at that point, it let me save the voucher for lunch later that day. Some pretty vrappy choices in T7 at JFK. $15 bought way to much McD's in the end :eek:

Seems to me that there are no good choices for anyone here.

Passengers - go with the airline's advice, and sit on a tarmac for 9 hours.
Or cancel and...
A. miss important business, kicking yourself after your original flight went after 2 or 3 or 4 hours on the ground.
B. perhaps not get on the next day's possibly full flight and miss even more.
C. Or maybe have to pay through the nose if you had a discounted fare (not everyone travels on a company's dime, or maybe like me, it is their company and their dime).

Airlines - cancel and watch while other airlines are able to fly at some point, even a few hours late. Then deal with serious passenger complaints. Why did they go and we didn't?
Try to go - and trap passengers for hours and hours, creating a PR nightmare.

Bottom line - a lousy situation for everyone.

I have been traveling to Asia for over 20 years, usually on NW through Narita. I have flown CX regionally in Asia, and always loved it. I am flying the JFK-HKG nonstop next month. Was really looking forward to it.

After this incident - I am still looking forward to flying CX on a long haul flight.

Airline service in general has reached new lows, but travel enough and sh.. happens that is beyone everyone's control.

Questions

So was it accurate that "passengers were stuck for 9 hours at the tarmac", or was it less?

So what exactly happened between 6am-3pm? Are passengers booked into Holiday Inn or were they left on their own at the airport?

Did you asked to be rebooked on other carriers on the next day? (ex. UA/NW/JL)

Questions

So was it accurate that "passengers were stuck for 9 hours at the tarmac", or was it less?

So what exactly happened between 6am-3pm? Are passengers booked into Holiday Inn or were they left on their own at the airport?

Did you asked to be rebooked on other carriers on the next day? (ex. UA/NW/JL)

I think all hotels were booked solid all around NYC - remember it's not just JFK that was having problems. LGA was affected too. All other carriers were equally as affected.. and were having problems of their own.

I think JetBlue is only starting to return to some sort of normality today!

I'm sorry, but if you board a flight in the middle of a snowstorm, then you need to expect something like this happening. If you are unprepared for it (or are too dumb to realize that a nor'easter is going to cause problems, then you deserve what you get).

So if I had made a judgement that, in my opinion, that the nor'easter was too tough, and then came on here complaining that the reschedule cost me a bucketload of money because Cathay didn't agree with my personal assessment and didn't waive fees -- and then the flight actually did depart -- would you agree that I was in the right and Cathay was in the wrong?

The trouble with hindsight is that you spend your time looking at your hind.

Steve

So if I had made a judgement that, in my opinion, that the nor'easter was too tough, and then came on here complaining that the reschedule cost me a bucketload of money because Cathay didn't agree with my personal assessment and didn't waive fees -- and then the flight actually did depart -- would you agree that I was in the right and Cathay was in the wrong?

The trouble with hindsight is that you spend your time looking at your hind.

Steve

I know on Thursday that travel on Friday was going to be really rough in the northeast -- no hindsight required.

Decisions are not free from consequences. Whether you decide to travel or not travel results in consequences. If you decide to travel, don't complain when things don't go smoothly. If you decide not to travel, don't complain about paying more.

You always have the choice, even if the consequences are undesireable.

Agree. The night before i was looking at jumping early up to YYZ and catching one of the open J's on CX881. In the end, I saw most of the cancellations in the AA and JetBlue area and though maybe it wasn't so bad. However, for me, the big kicker was that with a week of business to do in HKG/TPE, it would be a big PIA, but not a deal breaker and I decided to just roll the dice.

Key words here are "I decided". In my case, it was an active decision. For those who do not actively look to monitor.adjust their travel schedules when a major winter storm hits, well, they've made a decision too.

Now let me get back to my email asking CX for 100k AA miles as compensation :p

Glad you made it to HKG in one piece.

A clarification is in order though. You "decided" to fly, but you presumably had a J ticket which allowed you to "choose" not to fly without any penalty. That's a much easier decision than the ones faced by the majority of the pax on that flight. Also, I really doubt that the economy pax received a voucher for the Holiday Inn, not that they should given that they only paid for fish balls, premium-priced fish balls, but fish balls nonetheless.

Decisions are not free from consequences. Whether you decide to travel or not travel results in consequences. If you decide to travel, don't complain when things don't go smoothly. If you decide not to travel, don't complain about paying more.

Your lack of compassion and understanding is duly noted.

I however strongly understand the plight of those less fortunate than you that had to either board that flight, or lose all value in their ticket and be forced to pay a walkup fare. That's not a fun choice to make and I would personally not dismiss it likely for the benefit of a multi-billion dollar company that makes a lot of profit each year.

Steve

I'm sure you are very careful with your words. I'm sure your boss is grateful for that. It's a shame then that the tone of your posts still come across as "screw the (economy) pax". So, did you ever find evidence that CX allowed free rebookings, as you suggested "most" airlines offered?


Only because you are reading into what I am saying. I never specifically mentioned Economy Class passengers. You did.

Not my job to find evidence of CX's policy. Even if there was not such a policy, they still had a choice.

Your lack of compassion and understanding is duly noted.


You can note whatever you want. I couldn't care less.

It's comical how emotional people get over this issue. :D


I however strongly understand the plight of those less fortunate than you that had to either board that flight, or lose all value in their ticket and be forced to pay a walkup fare. That's not a fun choice to make and I would personally not dismiss it likely for the benefit of a multi-billion dollar company that makes a lot of profit each year.

Steve

But it is still a choice. No one was forced onto the plane. I suggest that if you lack the financial resources to respond in the event of irregular operations, then you probably cannot afford your ticket.

back away from the coffee mug and put down the caffeine...

I'm tempted to close this thread because it is getting OT. So unless some sort of normality returns, that is it.

Thanks..

Guy Betsy
Cathay Pacific Asiamiles forum moderator

Passengers should not have to have advanced knowledge of meteorology.

If an airline does not cancel a flight due to weather, there could be a chance that the aircraft takes off. If I know that it's foggy in Shanghai, that does not mean that I won't travel. The flight won't be cancelled because the aircraft can land in heavy fog with the autopilot. Should I cancel the flight because in my mind, aircraft can't land in fog? How ridiculous.

An airline, if the flight cannot be operated, should cancel the flight. Passengers would obviously then not arrive at the airport. Instead they would be at home holding in a telephone queue for one hour trying to reschedule their flight or get recompense.

An arrogant attitude has no meaning in this debate.

Only because you are reading into what I am saying. I never specifically mentioned Economy Class passengers. You did.

Not my job to find evidence of CX's policy. Even if there was not such a policy, they still had a choice.

Oh brother :rolleyes: At the risk of Guy Betsy closing this thread, it is pretty obvious you meant economy pax, or did you mean the stowaways in cargo? As a J fare pax, you know that you don't need to worry about being reaccomodated if you miss/skip/forget your flight. It's not even an issue. On the other hand, most economy pax are subject to steep change and cancellation fees, and have limited options when an airline doesn't cancel the flight.

The choice you keep saying these pax had is so far removed from the choices you have to make in J and F, I wonder if you understand what it means to be confronted with that choice when CX didn't cancel the flight.

Passengers should not have to have advanced knowledge of meteorology.

If an airline does not cancel a flight due to weather, there could be a chance that the aircraft takes off. If I know that it's foggy in Shanghai, that does not mean that I won't travel. The flight won't be cancelled because the aircraft can land in heavy fog with the autopilot. Should I cancel the flight because in my mind, aircraft can't land in fog? How ridiculous.

An airline, if the flight cannot be operated, should cancel the flight. Passengers would obviously then not arrive at the airport. Instead they would be at home holding in a telephone queue for one hour trying to reschedule their flight or get recompense.

An arrogant attitude has no meaning in this debate.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :o :o :o :confused: :confused:

Passengers should not have to have advanced knowledge of meteorology.

If an airline does not cancel a flight due to weather, there could be a chance that the aircraft takes off. If I know that it's foggy in Shanghai, that does not mean that I won't travel. The flight won't be cancelled because the aircraft can land in heavy fog with the autopilot. Should I cancel the flight because in my mind, aircraft can't land in fog? How ridiculous.

An airline, if the flight cannot be operated, should cancel the flight. Passengers would obviously then not arrive at the airport. Instead they would be at home holding in a telephone queue for one hour trying to reschedule their flight or get recompense.

An arrogant attitude has no meaning in this debate.


OK CX is shi& and SQ is the best. So all of you complaining about CX, one advice to you is. Don't travel with them. Nice and simple.

not to defend CX or anything. Sure they might've stuffed up this time, but compare to some of its Oneworld counterparts, I think they are doing much better. It is putting things into perspective when people are getting so judgemental.

Oh brother :rolleyes: At the risk of Guy Betsy closing this thread, it is pretty obvious you meant economy pax, or did you mean the stowaways in cargo? As a J fare pax, you know that you don't need to worry about being reaccomodated if you miss/skip/forget your flight. It's not even an issue. On the other hand, most economy pax are subject to steep change and cancellation fees, and have limited options when an airline doesn't cancel the flight.

The choice you keep saying these pax had is so far removed from the choices you have to make in J and F, I wonder if you understand what it means to be confronted with that choice when CX didn't cancel the flight.

I really didn't have Economy passengers in mind. Again, you are reading your own issues into what I wrote and not focusing on the words that were written. While I cannot stop you from doing that, I can point out that the textual evidence simply does not support your conclusion. Of that, I am quite confident.

I've not said it was a good choice and I've not said that CX is not at least partially blameworthy (along with the Port Authority of NY and NJ and, if it is different, the operator of Terminal 7). The only point I have made -- and I have been consistent with this -- is that the passengers did have a choice to make and that, if you chose to fly in such conditions, you have to be prepared for things to not run smoothly and, as such, should not expect sympathy.

Passengers should not have to have advanced knowledge of meteorology.

If an airline does not cancel a flight due to weather, there could be a chance that the aircraft takes off. If I know that it's foggy in Shanghai, that does not mean that I won't travel. The flight won't be cancelled because the aircraft can land in heavy fog with the autopilot. Should I cancel the flight because in my mind, aircraft can't land in fog? How ridiculous.

An airline, if the flight cannot be operated, should cancel the flight. Passengers would obviously then not arrive at the airport. Instead they would be at home holding in a telephone queue for one hour trying to reschedule their flight or get recompense.

An arrogant attitude has no meaning in this debate.

You do not need advance knowledge of meteorology to know that air travel in a nor'easter is not going to go smoothly, just common sense.

Given it's an international flight with an non US carrier how many passengers on that flight would really know how severe a storm has to be before cancellations become common. Ultimately they have to have a certain degree of reliance on the airline who have far more experience with the conditions than them.

Or maybe put another way, can you please advise the weather conditions which will cause cancellations at SYD, and do that without the use of the internet.

OK CX is shi& and SQ is the best. So all of you complaining about CX, one advice to you is. Don't travel with them. Nice and simple.

not to defend CX or anything. Sure they might've stuffed up this time, but compare to some of its Oneworld counterparts, I think they are doing much better. It is putting things into perspective when people are getting so judgemental.

I agree with your first line.
Regardless, you have used your stereotype of me to misinterpret my post. My point is that ignoring whatever airline it is, the scenario remains the same. See below.

You do not need advance knowledge of meteorology to know that air travel in a nor'easter is not going to go smoothly, just common sense.

No, however the airlines should provide more information. As I said above, if you cancel it in advance - no one is going to the airport. If you cancel the flight around two hours after the scheduled time of departure, passengers are not going to sit around waiting in hope if a flight has actually been cacncelled. Your argument has been based around the premise that customers should not have expected a flight at all and should have turned up expecting sore feet and apologies instead of a flight to Vancouver or Hong Kong.

Customers will normally rationally follow the advise they are given. If they are not given any advice, then they assume that the airline will honour the contract and fly them to their destination. Of course things happen. It is all about communication and guiding customers to do your bidding (e.g.: maybe in this case, going home, getting on the bus to the accomodation the airline has paid for and similar).

The attitude of, 'there is a storm - sucks to be you trying to fly today', is inappropriate.

No, however the airlines should provide more information. As I said above, if you cancel it in advance - no one is going to the airport. If you cancel the flight around two hours after the scheduled time of departure, passengers are not going to sit around waiting in hope if a flight has actually been cacncelled. Your argument has been based around the premise that customers should not have expected a flight at all and should have turned up expecting sore feet and apologies instead of a flight to Vancouver or Hong Kong.


My argument is that they either should not have showed-up (i.e changed their plans to fly that night) or should have showed-up steeled for the type of experience that they ended-up experiencing.


Customers will normally rationally follow the advise they are given. If they are not given any advice, then they assume that the airline will honour the contract and fly them to their destination. Of course things happen. It is all about communication and guiding customers to do your bidding (e.g.: maybe in this case, going home, getting on the bus to the accomodation the airline has paid for and similar).


As I said above, I have not absolved the airline from fault. But I argue that is most definately not rational to expect a smooth trip in a snowstorm, regardless of what the airline is saying and one shoudl make plans based on that truism.


The attitude of, 'there is a storm - sucks to be you trying to fly today', is inappropriate.

That is not my attitude. Again, read what I wrote, not what you think I meant when I wrote it. If I wanted to say "suck to be you" I would have said so explicitly.

Sorry folks...

This bickering about comparing which airline would do what is getting ... old.

So say SAYONARA to this thread.


Thank you

Guy Betsy
CATHAY PACIFIC Asiamiles fourm moderator