Originally Posted by
garykung
1. In the same article, Consumer Council criticizes UA as well (the case of HKG>GUM becoming HKG>HNL>SFO>GUM). However, Consumer Council did not do a fact check, i.e. UA does not fly HKG-HNL, and simply published whatever it thinks. The actual fact was UA asked the impacted passenger to be rebooked on HKG-SFO-HNL-GUM.
Think HNL-SFO is a typo.
The choices offered by UA were:
1. HKG-HNL-SFO-GUM (sic), same day, same fare
2. HKG-TYO-GUM, 4 days later, same fare
3. HKG-TYO-GUM, same day, +$2,000 fare required to be paid
Pax tried to bargain down the $2,000 to $1,000 but UA refused. Pax attempted to enlist CC assistance but accepted a refund half-way.
Originally Posted by
garykung
2. Many airlines establish compensation policies in light of the law. Because Hong Kong has no such law, I would imagine CX does not have one. Then why would its staffs know if there is none?
SCMP was incorrect. CC asked airline call centres to explain their cancellation and delay policies, and assessed which call centres were able to correctly state their cancellation and delay policies out of three times.
Cancellation and delay policies include:
i) CoC passenger recovery policies including:
a) Protecting passenger into another flight
b) Allowing passenger to rebook into another date (if (a) is not acceptable)
c) Refund (see (ii))
ii) Refund policies
a) Form of refund: 5J will only allow refund into travel voucher even if they cancel, AK/CA/UA will only refund into travel voucher if outside airline control (WX/ATC/Strike), NH/CX/CI/MU/HX/KE/SQ/TG allows refund in original form of payment when flights cancelled within or outside airline control
b) Methodology of calculation of fare difference (in cases of R/T tickets, only KE and NH use half of return airfare, other airlines are unstated or use total airfare paid - o/w fare of segments used; the former is more favourable to pax)
iii) Compensation policies
a) Food and drink
b) Transportation
c) Monetary compensation
The four airlines that were able to do so were 5J (#4), MU (#6), AF (#13) and QF(#19). I don't any of them except AF are European/American/Canadian. Then again, the above extends beyond EC261/Canadian Air Passenger Protection Regulations.
I think SCMP didn't make a good job of summing up what CC was trying to say. You have to read the CC piece.