Under the Montreal Convention, OP is not required to prove fault against CX, as CX is strictly liable if OP's claim was true that OP suffered from bedbugs on a CX flight.
Originally Posted by
Cambo
Seemingly, there have been no further reports on previous and/or subsequent flights, nor has the problem been recognized on OP's flight, or otherwise for earlier/later flights, the ISM and Captain would have reported these items in their flight reports.
This statement has several issues:
1. How do you know there is no such report?
2. How do you know if CX has not done anything after knowing OP's problem?
There are only 2 possibilities on how you can make this statement:
a. It is based on your personal belief, which means that it is baseless.
b. You work for CX (and/or its affiliates), which means that you have accessed internal information and possibly leaked it without proper authorization (Note - if what OP said was true, I seriously doubt CX would allow this information to get out in light of the lawsuit).
Originally Posted by
Cambo
Not to say, it could very well be, OP did bring the bed bugs him/herself, unaware of the issue.
Possible. Again - it is OP's responsibility to prove.
Originally Posted by
Cambo
Indeed, the OP has does seem to use FT social media to put pressure on CX, with further unproven claims.
OP could be found libel if CX decides to strike back. I don't really see why someone would be stupid to lie about this. Also - the commencement of a lawsuit, IMHO, is sufficient to put pressure on anyone to face the problem.
Your statement simply does not make any sense.
Originally Posted by
Cambo
Looks to me, the crew was not very willing to deal with you, as you originally reported. Though willing or not, bed bug claims can expected to be reported, especially, when the ISM is involved. ISM's at CX are 10+ years experienced properly educated people, and they do really know how to deal with all these things.
No, they are not. IME, ISMs sometimes double the problems.
FWIW - flight crews are not really in a position to help because it is CX's culture not to listen.
Originally Posted by
Cambo
Maybe consider removing the original post, CX might consider this a blackmail attempt, given there seems to be zero proof of your claims .......
Totally different reasons...but I agree OP should remove the OP in light of the lawsuit.
Originally Posted by
Cambo
It certainly does not matter WHO did bring the potential bed bugs on board, though on the other hand: Is it reasonable to hold CX accountable for "not detecting" the bed bugs during aircraft turn-around ?
It is not a matter of reasonableness. It is simply the matter of whether CX is liable or not. See above for explanation.
Originally Posted by
Cambo
Again, there do not seem to be any registrations of OP's claim in the flight documentation, no pictures on board and, also given the amount of "effort" according OP, the crew did put in this issue, it is unlikely, this would not get registered. The ISM is on board, to solve these items for this flight AND prevent issues with subsequent flights. CX ISM's are highly capable and honest people, I doubt they would forget or lie about this.
Your overconfidence with CX actually exposes a major problem - CX does have an incentive to hide about the incident. Because if CX can make this go away, no compensation is needed.
So yes - flight crews have incentive to forget or lie about this.
Originally Posted by
Cambo
Let me give a completely different example: Suppose you are a freight truck manufacturer and are in the process to "optimize" the guarantee claims for broken parts. You have 2 options to do that: Check all parts which are handed in (costly) or collect statistics what your dealers present on cases and only have a look at the outliers: There can be genuine reasons for an outlier, though in general, these are the fraudulent cases. It works well, provided the scale is large enough.
Wrong example - CX is a common carrier. So its liability is different from other.
Also - in the reality, the truck manufacturer would actually check all parts which are handed in, because broken parts are also a strict liability matter.
Originally Posted by
Cambo
The same with the OP claim: IF no other reports of the same issue show up for the same airplane/seat in roughly the same time frame, it is statistically unlikely, the claim is real. If there is no subsequent proof, etc. Draw your conclusions.
Just because it is statistically unlikely, it does not mean it is it is unlikely.
As you have said, there are always outliners.
Originally Posted by
Cambo
Aha, disqualify the messenger for messages you do not like ? Childish Trump style. The humor is, you are making a fool out of yourself, presenting yourself as a seasoned international business man, though forgetting to collect proof of your claimed nuisances .......
You definitely don't act like a messenger...You acted like you are working for CX arguing the case.
Originally Posted by
Cambo
The first thing EVERYBODY in a service industry does is profoundly excuse for inconveniences, multiple times, again and again, with each communication, etc. So, claiming you only want "CX excuses", your whole story becomes more and more difficult to believe. Given your lack of provable facts and your way of communicating, your "assurances" are getting less and less believable.
While OP has not shared his communication with CX (and should not have shared), FWIW, it is possible that CX does not offer any apologies in light of the legal threat and lawsuit.
Originally Posted by
Cambo
Looks to me, you are simply "after money", for example, get your fare of $10K reimbursed, communicating at FT under the disguise of "getting excuses" from CX ........ Don't worry, the reimbursement is not going to happen and the excuses, you already got that, many, many times. And I do hope, CX goes after you, for your blackmail attempts. You deserve it.....
No offense - it is always about money.
CX can't undo what OP has experienced. So? Money comes to the rescue.
Note - are you serious asking CX to find your lost baggage when it was lost by CX? CX would rather pay you than find it.