|
Originally Posted by mapleg
(Post 28135434)
At least you did not find it 1/2 way through eating your salad.
|
Originally Posted by kaka
(Post 28136017)
you find it reasonable to see a whole roach then?
what do CX fly, 200+ flights a day? Perhaps more. Try visiting 200 restaurants every day - even very good ones - and not seeing a roach. Who is to say that it didn't come into the plane on someone's hand carry? Apology and a seat change ... what more do people expect? bash CX when it is due, but, seriously, trolling every little thing? oh no, a mosquito ... I need an upgrade! |
Originally Posted by insideman
(Post 28137741)
give it a rest ... one roach in an aircraft ...
what do CX fly, 200+ flights a day? Perhaps more. Try visiting 200 restaurants every day - even very good ones - and not seeing a roach. Who is to say that it didn't come into the plane on someone's hand carry? Apology and a seat change ... what more do people expect? bash CX when it is due, but, seriously, trolling every little thing? oh no, a mosquito ... I need an upgrade! how should an airline be the same with food for 50-100 people all stored in 1 places |
Originally Posted by kaka
(Post 28131420)
so would you think its ok to have a snail in your soda drink?
if the soda company gives you a replacement, would that be acceptable? The cockroach wasn't in his drink, if I read the OP correctly. So that's not the situation here. You're trying to create a "what if" under a new scenario. If I was injured by consuming the snail, then I would expect the soda company to compensate me for medical/lost wages, etc. But if I was not injured or otherwise "damaged", then why would I be entitled to anything? |
Originally Posted by hkflyer2014
(Post 28138259)
Not sure why I'm feeding this but..
The cockroach wasn't in his drink, if I read the OP correctly. So that's not the situation here. You're trying to create a "what if" under a new scenario. If I was injured by consuming the snail, then I would expect the soda company to compensate me for medical/lost wages, etc. But if I was not injured or otherwise "damaged", then why would I be entitled to anything? how about the fear factor? read the court case - its called duty of care technically it evolved into ec261/2004 if you even care. But i remember someone claiming one shouldnt claim ec261 if you missed the flight by booking a short yet legal transit- so values are clearly different. If duty of care isnt understood then i wouldnt have anything to add here. no wonder cx can do all the cost cutting they want and noone fights back |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:12 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.