I've noticed that. I guess my wife's out of HK too long (she is Hong Kongese, and she was like it was ridiculous how they had to run for dear life to catch a flight that is available every hour).

Yes, but ISM's aren't crossing names off the manifest as people board, so as passengers come down the bridge, the ISM has no way of knowing whether they are connecting or HKG originating pax.

Yes, ground should be communicating with the cabin, but it's not the ISM's fault if ground drop the ball there.

You guys are hilarious. Next, someone going to chime in saying there wasn't any in-flight infront of their seat just because they are a low/no status passenger, being mistreated by CX in Y!

Hi all once again, so CX had gotten back to me and basically they said they have informed the relevant departments and they will improve on their services. At the end, they offered a 200USD service voucher.

so yep, guess that's that and i guess a deserving compensation from CX on this matter

Good luck using the service voucher though! Hope that it's not only for the duty free shipping.

On the comments about HKG being a bad airport for transits- I disagree. It might not be the easiest to a first timer on a short connection, but once you have a hang of the optimal transit points/where to stand for the train(if needed, not much longer to just walk fast), it's pretty pretty fast. Many rate SIN as fabulous for newbies in transit, but I've come across many confused faces trying to figure out the (easy) terminal shuffle there.

I do a 1hr-ish transit 5-15 times a year & have never had a problem, even when the gates for the arriving and departing aircraft were at opposite ends (and unless the arrival is more than say, 15mins late, manage a quick lounge visit/shower). There's usually someone waiting to escort via the most efficient path, if there are 40 or less minutes remaining, but have had to use their help just once over the years.

What I have noticed however (no empirical evidence, just a feel), that a lot more flights tend to be delayed nowadays, than say a year or more ago.

CX used to have ground staff helping transit when a tight connection happened (delay), so you would cut the q at security check.

+1.

With respect to others' opinions on here, I find HKIA as good as it gets all things considered. Extremely, extremely reliable for predicting exactly how long it will take to each gate. I suppose it depends on what you use the airport for, how often you use it, and what you're after. I prefer the "vibe" of Changi T3 more than HKG, but for sheer reliability and punctuality HKG wins for me hands down.

I also like how on a transit I can predict very precisely exactly what is my "worst case scenario" for connection times. Same situation leaving Central for HKG. I know precisely what is the final Airport Express I need to take in order to make my flight on time. I cannot find this insane level of predictability at any other airport I use. It's very helpful for scheduling meetings and maximizing the hell out of your time pre-flight. And for transits, I never have the tweety birds in my head "will I make it will I make it?" if the flight is on time and I have a 50+ minute connection.

Yea, sometimes they still do this. I don't really know the rhyme or reason as to when CX decides to have the person escort you all the way to your next gate. It happens fairly often, but definitely isn't a "lock" if your connection is tight. It's a bummer the OP didn't receive it.

As a note to anyone transiting with a tight connection in the future, transit security staff will usually let you hop to the front of the queue if your departure time is <30 minutes from the current time. Just be persistent talking to them.

QRC3288, you will need to factor in the new midfield concourse gates very soon

I am glad it worked out for you at the end even though I am not convinced the grass is necessarily greener on the other side if we were to compare CX to SQ for example. Personally, I think SQ's ground services are lights years ahead of CX due to my past travel experiences with SQ have been outstanding for me. I can think of several examples as to how SQ truly impressed me, for instance, years ago when SQ still had their old Silver Kris lounge in SIN, there were concierge staffed there whom I can ask to do virtually anything for me. All had I to do was tell them my name, flight date and time, even if it's a week from now, you can be sure it will be done when you come back to SIN. That's how amazing it is. They will look up the information for you, no need to memorize your booking reference number or anything like that since who in their sound mind will try to memorize such a thing.

Or another time, I stupidly put a laptop in the checked luggage, naturally it was damaged during transport. The SQ staff @ SIN handled it with amazing professionalism, she actually closed down the SQ First Class check-in queue just for me, personally escorted me through secured area into their baggage claim services and reimbursed me over $600+ USD in repairs for something that was essentially a fault of my own. So for me, SQ has always been amazing.

But then I have colleagues who traveled from Canada to Bali on SQ on Aeroplan award ticket for their honeymoon later who told me SQ wouldn't even entertain their damaged suitcase claim when one of the wheels was damaged during transport. And recently, in the SQ forum, something similar happened to another chap on FT, whose damage suitcase claim was mired in a bureaucratic loop for months without solution by SQ. So while I am tempted to say SQ is better than CX service wise, it has to be pointed out YMMV. When I have issues with CX, they always respond timely and so far, they have been satisfactory. Doesn't mean I didn't have to escalate from times to times or run into bad apples either but honestly, CX customer service is still very good overall, despite all the inconsistency.

I wouldn't judge an airline based on an one-off incident.

good point!

Hi, thanks for the insight! purely out of curiosity, where are you based in?Guava