Originally Posted by
percysmith
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.
I won't blame UA for those options, given that UA literally has to buy a seat from NH. Given this itinerary is governed by the U.S. law, UA has substantively complied what was required to do.
Originally Posted by
percysmith
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.
Both are not.
In the case of CX, given that Hong Kong has no such consumer protection law, given the special circumstance that there is no domestic flight in Hong Kong, virtually all CX flights are governed by the Montreal Convention.
And Montreal did specifies the impacted customers has the right to compensate unless the airlines all reasonable measures (or can't take any measures).
So the usual traffic restriction in the Mainland China will be an exception. Typhoon as well. But everything else is not.
The problem with CC and SCMP is they know nothing about international transportation law and know nothing about how things work. Seriously, I know some people may say no. But it is totally acceptable for an airline to say "depending on the circumstance". It is basically a no one know situation for IRROPS.
There goes all the credibilities.