percysmith

The general benefit held out is conditional on - "if the flight is not full, or if there is no one booked next to a Diamond member's selected seat".

The latter - I believe OP understands another if DM or a downgraded passenger wants the seat later they get to boot him.

If there's no way to sit a caregiver with the people he have to care for, problem seats (if no other seats available), special seats (if no other seats available), standby (if no other seats available) - these fits in with the general concept that flight is full.

(I'm leaving out the non-status non-special needs couple's case cos I don't see how it applies but I don't want to debate it).

If any of the above applied, then OP should be notified, hopefully by the FA or the ground staff, or by customer relations belatedly a week later. They weren't.

(Why should a GO be able to unlock a DM's seat? It seems counter-intuitive.)


Failing to identify a reason, the only reason appears to be omission of Cathay's part. The op-up - shouldn't OP be made good?

yttse

Pardon me as I am fairly new to FT. My intention is not to personally 'attack' ground staff on an open forum. Will take note that names are not to be mentioned.

QRC3288

Yes indeed, it definitely sounds like the OP's was a real block that came from control. My point is more about how screwy CX's blocking system is in general (if the system was more transparent, and everyone knew how it works, chances are these types of situations could be avoided I figure).

It might just be a matter of discontinuing it altogether. As it stands now, IMO it is one of the things that CX/KA really do quite poorly. As it stands now, I find it one of the more aggravating aspects to flying with CX/KA, even as a DM and only on short-haul Y flights. Why? Because I know that if I REALLY want that seat block, I should go down in the middle of the day to Airport Express - hours before my flight - and get them to call control, and block my seat. If I don't? What if I'm too busy that day? I'm SOL if that flight is 65% full or better. Too bad - instead they'll go to whoever happened to walk up to a live person and ask first. That just seems so arbitrary to me.

Ultimately, my DM membership isn't what matters...the difference between me getting a seat block ex-HKG and not is if I've got time at lunch to hit up the Central Airport Express station. Even if you do OLCI, it doesn't give you a seat block when you need it the most....flights that are 65-95% full!!! I find 4/5 times when CX says "we've already blocked the seat next to you," when I get on the plane half the plane is empty....aka I could've just swapped into an empty pair of seats on my own. So it's pointless. It's a dumb system. Like I said, I can only imagine how aggravating it is for GOs and DMs who must fly long-haul in Y class. I'd be pissed if I knew the only difference between me having an empty seat next to me and not for 15 hours has nothing to do with my loyalty to CX, but instead if I have time to make a bolt for the Airport Express station at midday.

percysmith

The system's maintained by Cathay. If it's no longer capable of reliably managing blocks then either the whole benefit must go, or FAs/Ground Crews must be able to comp passengers.

If there's no reason for the seat not to be blocked except for seat system error, why shouldn't OP be comped? What's the difference between OP and being forced to sit on broken seats.

hadsst

Wow. How about op-up? Based on your reasoning, if on a certain occasion, a non-status passenger was op-up ahead of a status passenger for whatever reasons (e.g. ground agents did it for convenience as it is very close to departure), should the whole op-up policy go then?

Many other benefits have to go also, for example bottled water in Y, priority meal selection, greetings by purser/ISM, buggy vouchers, because CX can't guarantee these are given on every flight.

And failed seat blocking is comparable to broken seats? Amazing. I think you can distinguish between 'what you have paid for' and 'what you have not paid for'.

percysmith

It's working out what system benefits work and what don't that's maddening.

Of course the ground staff didn't attempt to manage the complaint in this case (I was about to say manage well, but from OP's side of the story, and the apololgies email, it doesn't look like the humans did anything at all). The rest of the two ground staff's action I note but won't comment.

I think with the frequency OP travels on Cathay, we can presume he chose to fly Cathay can't we? Must have been paid for somehow, miles or cash, or had his employer pay Cathay for his benefit, unless he won this particular CX tix in a lucky draw

hadsst

Did OP buy 2 tickets for himself?

yttse

1. Yes, I am aware there are plenty of other DMs on this forum and yes, no one should be
'expecting' a seat. However, I had called MP days prior to departure and kindly requested for the seat. Like I mentioned before, the main reason for my frustration is not so much the fact that they could not provide the seat (since I know it's not guaranteed), but how the ground staff failed to sincerely deal with the situation and just tried to brush us off saying there was no such request. Even in CX's customer relation's reply, they noted the record for the initial request with MP.

2. No, I did not 'demand' or 'raise my voice' in any case. And neither do I think it's fair that these assumptions are made. I had politely and quietly spoken to the ground staff to ask her if there was a misarrangement. If staff react accordingly to how requests are spoken, then why in this case was her attitude so poor? Clearly the ground staff was not aware that they were being rude to a DM. However, that is irrelevant as they should not have been speaking the way they did with ANY customers, regardless of their status.

3. Ground staffs should be able to handle a multiple of things, even with situations like these. That is part of their job requirements. If they can not deal with multiple situations at once, they should not be employed. Further, this was a VERY SIMPLE situation that could have been easily resolved with a simple apology on her part. I understand that we are all human and have our good and bad days. But with all the competing airlines today, situations like these and how staff react are key components to what defines them as better than the others.


Anyway, my intention is not to stir an argument on this forum but only to share my experience. It doesn't matter if the 'blocked seat' policy is published/unpublished, guaranteed/unguranteed, etc etc. What I'm trying to point out is very simple--if 2 different ground staffs both CONFIRMED upon check in at different locations, they set the expectations for me and my passenger. I believe we all have a general consensus of what 'confirmed' means...

percysmith

No particular need. The plane's not full. You don't need to buy a whole forest just for a block of wood.

He bought space-available empty seats whenever he flies in a year by directing a specified amount of patronage to Cathay in the previous year. And space was available.

percysmith

simple apology - you mean more of an acknowledgement to the extent of "Sorry, [since there was no other excuse proffered] our systems malfunctioned and failed to give you your benefit. Let me try and reseat you/Would you allow us to seat you in business class to compensate?/I'm sorry but the plane's quite full now, let me take down your details and a colleague will contact you on compensation for your discomfort?"

Don't worry. We're all misunderstood.

ahks

Think CX should have wrote on the boarding pass or attached a piece of paper regarding the seat block request. It should include the terms and conditions indicating no guarantees even after boarding. This would have made it more clear to everyone at that time.

percysmith

Well they can also own up to all status members that it also involves rolling a even number on a six-sided dice on first attempt before the gate agent as well (plus the space available condition).

But in that case I expect status members to want to see the dice rolled in front of them. They need to see the process is fair, not arbitrary (even if the result is the same!).

Disclaimers are for weasels. Who stink.

380Flyer

yttse, this has to be the most ridiculous post I've read on FT.

I have a suggestion for you, go fly United Airlines across the Pacific and ask for the same treatment and let's see what they have to say.

For now, please stop acting like a spoilt brat and seek attention from CX. They have other better things to do than to entertain to your stupidity.

maortega15

Well as someone said here that if you are still not pleased with CX, you are entitled to a rondtrip F class on CX, 500,000 miles and diamond plus status. If you are still not pleased, you may take CX to court. Thank you, come again.

percysmith

Compare like for like. We know yank carriers are crap.

OP, ever considered going on NH? Gotta make yourself happy, staying with CX with its apologies isn't going to solve things.