Opinion on fair compensation for major delay (12+ hours) due to CX issue
 

Background is that I was scheduled for BOS-HKG-BKK and there was an issue on the ground. The BOS-HKG flight never boarded and all passengers were forced to pick up check-in bags and the flight was "delayed" by 20 hours but technically not canceled.

The ground staff was of no help, not even for cab voucher. They were only providing those to transit passengers and refusing to help people who didn't also need a hotel voucher. My first call to the HK center, the agent rather incredibly suggested that since I was "checked in" she couldn't rebook me. Never mind the 20-hour delay which guarantees a missed connection - nothing she could do.

Second call got me an agent who realize the absurdity and rebooked me via KE for arrival 12 hours later than planned.



Fast forward by a week - Cathay customer service is offering only 7k Asia Miles and *maybe* crediting me for the miles for the un-taken flights. This is even though the agent acknowledge it was their fault that the flight was delayed for 20+ hours.

I don't really think this is a fair deal, but I don't fly CX that often on paid-fare. What do people think?

Am I likely to get a better offer by persisting? Any suggested alternative avenues to escalate?

7k RDMs + Original Routing Credit is actually quite decent. Certain airlines will pass off mechanical delays as "circumstances beyond their control" and refuse to compensate period. And refuse to protect you on other airlines.

If you missed a scheduled commitment in BKK or bought a last minute Flex fare I sympathise. But then again the risk is borne by any traveller...that's what travel insurance is for.

There is no compensation due for a US departure. Thus, anything you receive is a customer service gesture in the discretion of CX. While the taxi voucher seems a bit picky, it is fairly usual not to reimburse ground expenses for originating passengers. This ought to be covered by your travel insurance.

You view might be from a spoiled European perspective where EC261 is the norm. With a very few exceptions, the rest of the world is different.
It is more "these things can happen", as they do with many things in life and transport.

CX was "fair" in providing hotels for the long delay. They were nice in rerouting you on KE. Decent in giving you some miles and probably credit the un-taken flight.
To answer your precise questions about "opinions", personally think it was a fair deal for a Y pax and I don't see any recourse you would have to elevate or pursue in legal proceedings.

Actually based in the US, the Cambridge is not the British one. ;)

Thanks for the feedback - my experience in dealing with domestic carriers is that they're usually willing to give significantly more than 7k RDM's for a major delay.

Yea this is true, the US Big 3 throw out mileage like drunken sailors. It's a bad precedent, if nothing but to train the American traveling public that is normal behavior, when in fact it's a uniquely American phenomenon. (Although perhaps it IS actually well deserved, given the torture flying domestically on those carriers in the US half the time.........). Anyway, overall CX is a good carrier but bad things happen. No it's not your entitlement to milk the carrier for extras when it happens. However, they should do something "reasonable". That includes putting you up, getting something like the KE alternative, etc.

Another thing that's different with the US is the feelings of the customer. Generally, if a US Big 3 inevitably is rude to you on the first few gos around, you can "use that" against them to give you more later. So they'll apologize both for the delay and the service mishap. This is also not how CX works. Obviously, it's frustrating when the airline doesn't "get it" at first, as you described. But if CX got you a reasonable solution, even if they didn't do it right at first, you shouldn't expect even more due to hurt feelings from the initial mishap. Their attitude will be "we got you the good result in the end, correct?" Different approach - in the US they must apologize and give you more for what you described at length about them initially not putting you on KE and the back and forth. Just note that's a US thing, and while not wrong it's not universal. I'm from the US, but have grown to appreciate the way things are handled here, and really scratch my head at the Big 3 approach. But it's true, you guys suffer so much on those flights overall perhaps all the comp is deserved.

It's also normal policy for them to give out duty free vouchers on board for those types of delay, did they give any? eDIT: forgot you took KE. Yea pax on the CX flight likely got the vouchers. I think by accepting KE you probably gave that up.

Fair or not, it is not the matter. CX is not the kind of airlines that compensates pax, even when EC261/2004 applies.

You can claim the compensation under Montreal. But that means you have to be ready for court.

This is an important lesson to you - Next time - fly UA, not CX.

If RDM is what you are looking for :rolleyes:

UA does have ETC in $$ value.

and a connection to offer to Cambridge pax as well :rolleyes:

UA does have an arrangement with Amtrak.

So if UA can't rebook OP to another BOS-EWR flight, UA can rebook on Amtrak, or even BOS-ORD/SFO-HKG.

But these are immaterial now because OP chooses CX, not UA. In that case, OP will need to follow CX's playbook.

You may want to write back detailing your ordeal and say you want more than 7K...they might give you 10K

Dont know OP's status. IF OP is a DM, I think he/she could ask for more AMs.

I am not sure what you mean, but CX abides by the law for flights originating from EU. I am not aware that they refuse compensation when due according to EC261/2004.
Of course, the case of "extraordinary circumstances" is always a sticky issue with ALL airlines.

Does CX pay everyone on the flights when EC261/2004 remedy applies to the flights?

Here is your answer.

I guess CX does what every other airline does... in accordance with EU261: (From Wikipedia)
That's the extent of their obligation unless tindividual passengers then lodge a claim for compensation. There is no obligation to (and I'd be astonished if any airline did) proactively pay compensation to passengers without them making a claim.

In this case, the CX staff on the ground and in HK did match the behavior of "rude to you on the first few gos around".

I think it's a pretty major failure in customer service to refuse to rebook and claim nothing can be done especially since the tried-and-true FT principle of "call back if you don't like the answer" worked when I called a 2nd time after ground staff once again did nothing helpful. And while I'm pretty annoyed/frustrated at 2am local time, the HK-based agent was in the middle of her afternoon so it's not as if I reached someone on the graveyard shift.

And, of course, I have yet to receive the original routing credit so the offer is still LESS than what I should have gotten.Unless they were giving out $300+ in vouchers, there's little chance I'd opt to lose an entire day (vs. 12 hours) taking the rescheduled CX flight. ;)

I am not trying to OT too much.

The notice is required in accordance of Article 14 of EC261/2004, which is entitled "Obligation to inform passengers of their rights". Such notice is simply served as a notice of rights. Such notice does not supersede the actual language for the relevant articles. Alternatively, the notice simply asks passengers to ask the airlines "for the text of stating your rights". It makes no reference that passengers need to ask or claim the remedies.

On the other hand, in all relevant articles, the EC categorizes all remedies as rights. So when you have to claim something that is well-within your right, it does not legally sound.

Last but not the least - none of the articles actually mentions a passenger need to do this and that in order to get the remedies.

So yes - I do believe EC261/2004 means proactive remedies. The claim process, by itself, is contrary to the intent of the Regulation.

I have to ask.

OP - Are you ever, by any chance, an AA EXP/CK, DL DM/360 or UA 1K/GS?

AA lifetime PLT so I do have oneWorld status.

Almost all of my past flights on CX were via awards, so I'm unfamiliar with how CX dealt with delays to revenue passengers.

Of course they can when they are the equivalent of SkyPesos.

"Here's 50,000 miles... enough to get you an upgrade from Economy to Economy Comfort on a domestic flight... assuming you can find availability."

:D

That explains the whole thing, including the $300+ suggested.

At least this guy disagrees with you:

https://onemileatatime.com/value-miles-points/

Do you know what is interesting? AM is actually equivalent to SkyPeso. AA and UA miles are worth more, maybe due to their ability to redeem premium awards.

Should we start calling AM as Asia Peso now? :D

CathaYUAN.

I think everyone values miles differently. You can open a whole can of worms by trying to debate it.

And then there is the miles "cost" when redeeming.

So just a quick comparison in Business Class ORD to HKG, October 8 - October 24. Miles Required:

Cathay: 170,000
Delta: 395,000
AA: 350,000
United: 270,000

But now we are way off topic. So strange for FT, right?

One last OT :p

I don't believe the way how you present it is fair.

1. It is true that it will cost 170K AM. But the best CX can do now is waitlist, i.e. not bookable. Also - fuel surcharge.

2. DL no longer has a HKG nonstop. So a DL's award to HKG requires partners, and it costs more.

3. UA offers extra availability to credit card holders and elite members. I was able to get this route for 180k booked.

4. While AA's situation is correct, interestingly enough, when booked with CX as a partner award, the trip actually costs 140k (although it is not available), which is significantly less than AM. Also, you get 10% miles back when you have an AA credit card.