Y pax demanded to be upgraded (CX Secrets)
Jul 24, 2018, 1:23 am
#16
Join Date: Nov 2017
Programs: CX DM, BA Gold
Posts: 135
I think in this case the Captain needed to come out and assert his authority (or inform control the situation and have HK police waiting at the HKG gate). Plus, I would love to see that video and have those DYKWIA faces exposed.
Jul 24, 2018, 1:38 am
#17
Join Date: Jan 2006
Programs: AAdvantage Asia Miles Air China
Posts: 870
Unfortunately I see more and more abusive passengers. Here are some thoughts:
Sadly by appearing on CX Secrets suggests CX are not going to do anything about it. If true a gutless decision as crews will never know, or trust, that in the future management will protect them in similar or even worse situations.
- If the passengers in question are that important, how come they are flying Y? I know important and exceptionally wealthy people who do fly economy but they are the last to flaunt status.
- The level of intimidation shown by the disruptive passengers is exceptional and should not have been tolerated.
- This intimidation is amplified by them taking videos. Funny that these passengers have not made their videos public. Here is where in the US they would have got it spot on, taking videos of crews working is a big no-no.
- Anyway looks like the passengers in question have form, being the second known offence in this blackmail activity.
Sadly by appearing on CX Secrets suggests CX are not going to do anything about it. If true a gutless decision as crews will never know, or trust, that in the future management will protect them in similar or even worse situations.
Jul 24, 2018, 1:43 am
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: CX Green, QF Platinum, BAEC Silver, Hyatt Glob
Posts: 10,780
The thing I find odd about this story is that the captain has the last say. I would expect with a delay like this the captain would have made a decision as to what to do. So is there something in this story we aren’t being told?
Jul 24, 2018, 3:15 am
#20
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 121
It annoys me when some ground staff don’t back up cabin crew, or pilots for that matter, when it comes to passenger handling.
clearly the ISM was uncomfortable with their behaviour and repeated gesticulating and harrassment, yet when told the ground staff are reluctant to intervene - because they know full well that those passengers left behind will become their problem.
It’s the same with late passengers, even though they are supposed to close the gate 10 mins before departure, they are reluctant to do so because angry passengers and searching for passengers bags is more effort and causes them more work. So they would rather allow them to board late and then it’s up to the flight crew to make up that delay.
clearly the ISM was uncomfortable with their behaviour and repeated gesticulating and harrassment, yet when told the ground staff are reluctant to intervene - because they know full well that those passengers left behind will become their problem.
It’s the same with late passengers, even though they are supposed to close the gate 10 mins before departure, they are reluctant to do so because angry passengers and searching for passengers bags is more effort and causes them more work. So they would rather allow them to board late and then it’s up to the flight crew to make up that delay.
Jul 24, 2018, 3:20 am
#21
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: MNL
Programs: CX MPO DM, Le Club Accor Platinum, World of Hyatt Explorist
Posts: 2,284
I'm surprised that Ground Staff and Police didn't do anything. A few years ago a flight returned to the gate in Manila to offload a VIP (Honorary Consul & President of Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce) for refusing to wear the shoulder seatbelt.
Jul 24, 2018, 3:22 am
#22
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: MNL
Programs: CX MPO DM, Le Club Accor Platinum, World of Hyatt Explorist
Posts: 2,284
I wonder if they are Taiwan VIPs hence the local police and Ground Staff know them already and refuse to act on the request of the operating crew.
Jul 24, 2018, 3:31 am
#23
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: MNL
Programs: CX MPO DM, Le Club Accor Platinum, World of Hyatt Explorist
Posts: 2,284
The post said 39D was right behind 21D that means it's a 33E. Checking flightradar B-LAN operated CX443 last July 21, 2018 and it was only CX443 that was delayed that day.
Jul 24, 2018, 3:31 am
#24
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: CX Green, QF Platinum, BAEC Silver, Hyatt Glob
Posts: 10,780
If the captain asked for them to be offloaded then the ground crew must obey.
Jul 24, 2018, 3:56 am
#25
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: HKG
Programs: BA(GGL) QF LTS CX AM, Hilton Diamond, PPL(A)
Posts: 1,654
Man, wish we had someone on the 21 July give an alternate account.
But still, clearly a 1 hour delay meant the matter would have been quite serious? I cannot think of an alternate reality?
*Alternate reality -> maybe pax was pissed off with the ISM / crew and demanded they apologise. Crew refused to do so. Pax did not want to take the seat until they got what they want. So standoff?*
Jul 24, 2018, 4:03 am
#26
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: MNL
Programs: CX MPO DM, Le Club Accor Platinum, World of Hyatt Explorist
Posts: 2,284
Yeah interesting I was wondering also why the Captain did not do anything. And, is it really the ISM's decision to offload?
Man, wish we had someone on the 21 July give an alternate account.
But still, clearly a 1 hour delay meant the matter would have been quite serious? I cannot think of an alternate reality?
*Alternate reality -> maybe pax was pissed off with the ISM / crew and demanded they apologise. Crew refused to do so. Pax did not want to take the seat until they got what they want. So standoff?*
Man, wish we had someone on the 21 July give an alternate account.
But still, clearly a 1 hour delay meant the matter would have been quite serious? I cannot think of an alternate reality?
*Alternate reality -> maybe pax was pissed off with the ISM / crew and demanded they apologise. Crew refused to do so. Pax did not want to take the seat until they got what they want. So standoff?*
Jul 24, 2018, 4:05 am
#27
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: HKG
Programs: BA(GGL) QF LTS CX AM, Hilton Diamond, PPL(A)
Posts: 1,654
Jul 24, 2018, 4:16 am
#28
Join Date: Jan 2006
Programs: AAdvantage Asia Miles Air China
Posts: 870
Hi According to your attachment there was a more seriously delayed plane that day, CX495, and Flightradar said was operated by B-LAX, an A333, though do not know what seating configuration. The time delay looks about right.
Jul 24, 2018, 4:21 am
#30
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: MNL
Programs: CX MPO DM, Le Club Accor Platinum, World of Hyatt Explorist
Posts: 2,284
From our own wiki....seems like LAN and LAX are both 33E
33E (A330-300 v2)
Aircraft: Airbus A330-300Fleet size: 13
Configuration: J39/Y223 = 262 total
J class: Cirrus reverse herringbone (long-haul, lie-flat)
Y class: Cradle seats, introduced 2012
Note: J class section is identical to 33K
Seat Map: Cathay Pacific 33E Seat Map
Missing Windows: Below “Regular Operating routes” sectionFleet registrations
B-HLP^
B-HLR*
B-HLW
B-LAJ^
B-LAM^
B-LAN^
B-LAO^
B-LAR
B-LAX
B-LAZ
B-LBA
B-LBB
B-LBC