percysmith

It’s annoying as I have to maintain multiple SIMs for multiple family members (each of who can’t be arsed to maintain miles accounts).

But what is the security implication? At least Cathay is concerned, you still need access to email access to take over Cathay accounts.

skimthetrees

Cellphone number is one of the ways to sign in, and I think you do need a cell number to create an account, but I use my CX account number to sign in which is an option you can select for sign-in. You have to select it every time you sign in which is a bit annoying (cell number is the default sign-in method) but it works and I prefer it to using my cell number to sign in. I save my CX login credentials in my browser so I don't have to look up my account number when I sign in.

JJonahJ

Another option is to sign in with your email address. I’ve never signed in with a phone number. However, as you’ve mentioned, it always defaults to the phone method and annoyingly requires manual switching every time to email option.

Happy

Yes, US-China. I corrected the typo in the original post.

You should know that how many flights to PRC by each country / airline, largely is NOT decided by the country / airlines themselves...

What the PRC wants, is what the PRC gets these days, regardless. Besides, Oct 1st is in sight. You know what that means.

scubadu

Thanks to all for the responses. I don't want to go to far off topic here, but will just say that in general it's not good security practice to use data that is easily knowable/guessable about someone as part of a username/password combo.

For example, with most US airlines, the username is the FFP# (not email, cellphone number etc.) If you keep that private few would know it or be able to guess it. Combined with a strong password that enhances (though of course does not guarantee) account security. For example, generally nobody but my wife knows my FFP usernames. However, many people know (or perhaps could find) someone's cellphone number. So, with Cathay Pacific, the username is "easily guessable" (if you know or can find someones cell number you know their username) and the bad guys then already know 50% of the username/password combination. Knowing 50% of the combination is certainly more secure than knowing 100%, but it's also less secure than the bad guy only knowing 0% of the username/password combination.

It's great that you can log in with other methods, as folks shared (e.g. email, FFP#), but it remains that a cell number is required for account creation and is the default username, which means the less secure attack surface remains irrespective of which method one uses for actually logging in.

Ok, back to our regularly scheduled program as it was not my intention to try to take the thread off topic. I also remain a bit skeptical that CX is offering that much additional award space (at least long haul, btwn NA and HKG/Asia) to Asia Miles members, but I'll have to do more research on that. If true, the risk might be worth taking. But as mentioned, my read of the Cathay Pacific FT thread is that Asia Miles members are frustrated with the lack of availability as well.

Regards

JJonahJ

Thanks for your insights on a very valid point, regarding the less secure sub-surface when using cellphone/email as the login. Most of my other FFPs do using the actual FFP# as the login, so I will change to using this for CX as well. It had been on the back of my mind as well, thanks for the kick-in-the-pants reminder.

I think the lack of CX awards via AS is indeed in-line with reduced availability through other FFPs such as AA, and even though Asia Miles itself does offer more to its own members it’s still at a reduced level. It really seems to boil down to the last few postings that Happy has expounded upon regarding the lack of flights in general to Asia, and the king’s ransom that the airlines are demanding for cash fares.

southbeach82

Sigh so frustrating...really hoping it'll come back

percysmith

Thanks.
I'm just curious why phone number login is such a bad idea because HK companies (not just Cathay - also AS Watsons (our equiv of Walmarts), lots of mall operators, the stored value card system (Octopus) also insist on doing it.

I think HK companies perceive mobile is "sticky".
And more easily to bind to main drivers of active users.
They generally demand one OTP as part of registration.
We can elect to register our burners, of course.

However I noticed this is less with overseas programs.
I also notice with my expat friends, tying them down to one mobile number seems to be more difficult. E.g. I've a friend who bound his local accounts to his work phone - his only phone in HK for the first few months of existence - only for his employer to change administrative staff during the pandemic who lost all the corporate numbers and having to register new ones.

But for a point of reference - British Airways Executive Club also uses email/password logon (not to mention Amazon, social media apps such as Facebook, Linkedin et al)

Not much help as Cathay requires one mobile OTP as part of registration, and then accepts mobile number as username no matter whether you choose to use it or not.
Only *if* you registered a burner mobile at inception can this be changed.

Happy

British Airways uses User Name and Password combo as well. At least we use User Name for our BA accounts.

Amazon is indeed very annoying to use email address as user name. The OTP using cell phone text has a serious drawback for those who registered one country's cell phone then need to use Amazon service in another country - this happened to a friend who lives in US and also in Paris several months a year. His Amazon account is tied to his US cell phone but for whatever set up he used, he could not get text sent to his US phone number. So he could not access his Amazon account when he was staying in Paris several months at a time each year.

im.daniel

Have CX blocked J redemptions booked on AS/AA miles (or vice versa)? I’m trying to book KUL-HKG, HKG-DEL in CX J for late November, and I can see seats in J via CX/QF/BA, but not on AS/AA (only Y).

Anyone else noticing this?

David666

Yes, see https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/35358874-post278.html
I actually didn't find J seats via BA as well for HKG-DXB

im.daniel

Ahhhh I missed that post, thanks for pointing it out! Hopefully it’s a short term thing and it’ll be rectified soon!

percysmith

Also you are suggesting 24 dailies between Asia and US right?

Just doing a quick count - and I'm even restricting myself to AS redemption partners. Assume one daily unless otherwise indicted:

CX: LAX, SFO, BOS, JFK
JL HND:JFK, ORD, DFW, SFO, LAX
JL NRT: LAX, SAN, SFO
AA HND: LAX
AA NRT: DFW

Not to mention other carriers:

KE: LAX (twice daily?), SFO, SEA, LAS, BOS, ATL, JFK, ORD, IAD
OZ: LAX, SFO, JFK
SQ: LAX, SFO, SEA, EWR, JFK
CI: LAX, SFO, ONT
BR: LAX, ORD, SFO, SEA, IAH, ORD, JFK

42 dailies. My count may be inaccurate because I am counting airborne aircraft on Flightradar - some flights may not be dailies, offset by some flights that are not currently airborne.

percysmith

CX isn't block BA from J seats, they just don't have many days where they have HKG-DOH J seats either for BA or Cathay own.

David666

I'm following this spaces for quite some time since I wanted to book for Sep 2024, so I was monitoring to see when the dates open in the calendar, till 3-4 weeks ago there were 4 spaces available every day when I checked towards the end of the opened calendar. Now as you can see there is no CX there at all.