Any change that is actually to the detriment of the customer gets Capitalised with the latest label. It used to be Enhancement, now it’s Elevation.

Since CX shamelessly apes BA for adprint, I’m waiting from CX to claim we asked for this.

I have not done any multi-sector bookings for while, but needed to do one today. I see that the CX "multi-city" search has changed. Previously, I could select the date of flight and also the time range of the desired flight, and the results would filter only those options for me. However, now I can only select the flight date, but no longer the flight time range. Furthermore, there is only a "Select and Price" option when clicking on each flight sector, and after my four flights have been selected, the results only give me ONE fare option (in my case, Economy Light). I did not want Economy Light, but wanted to purchase the Economy Flex fare with "no change fee, and only +applicable fare difference". How can I "force" the Cathay website to give me these less restrictive and more expensive fare options now?????

Just do it now, on top of the page you can select cabin and fare, like Y Light/Essential/Flex, then for each sector you can select another flight to re-pricing.

I am sorry, I do not see this on my browser (I am using Safari on a Mac). Can you share a screenshot?

Just to repeat, I am talking about doing a "multi-city" booking on the Cathay website. For a simple one-way or round-trip (two sector) booking, of course, I can see all the cabins and fare classes.

FYI. Click Here for the pic.

Thanks for this.

I did a dummy booking based on the itinerary in your pic. I can duplicate it, and I can see the different fare classes. I had assumed that one of these issues could have been the difference:
- your starting point is PVG. My starting point is TPE.
- you are using the China Cathay website? I am using the Hong Kong or Taiwan website.

So, I went onto the China Cathay site, and tried my booking, and the same result as before....only loaded me with the lowest, and most restrictive, fare. No other fare choices at all.

Just for ref:
11 Jan TPE - HKG
23 Jan HKG - SHA
26 Jan PVG - HKG
03 Apr HKG - TPE

returned the only fare of TWD 13,801.- (restrictive, with change fees, etc.).

Then, I noticed that your itinerary had HKG as a transit point, and not stopover. So, as soon as I changed one of my legs (for example, to TPE-xHKG-SHA) to use HKG as a transit point and still as a stopover on the return, then indeed, I can see all the Econ, Premium Econ, and Business fare classes and prices.

So, maybe the issue is that the booking engine will only show the lowest, and most restrictive fare class, if HKG is used as a stopover on both ways.

Anyway, I solved my issue by using LINE chat (very quick and responsive) to request the agent to make the booking for my desired itinerary and flexible fare class. Then, she emailed me a pay link to pay for the ticket.

I tried to use your itinerary to make a dummy booking on China site, I can see all three fare Light/Essential/Flex with price 13,801/15,961/19,741TWD. The currency just reflects POS or starting point.

Glad this issue has been resolved.

Hmm...that's very strange. I can only see TWD 13,801. I cannot see the other fares, even though I am using the China site. Maybe the booking engine still recognises my IP address as being in Hong Kong???!!!!

I am using Safari as my browser. Maybe I need to try something else....

I am trying to upload a screenshot, but for some reason, uploading any file type is failing. I cannot upload any attachments to my posts anymore.

[Edited: Just tried Chrome and Firefox browsers. Same results. I can only see the lowest fare. No other choices given to me.]

Just to answer myself re: above…I finally found a way to get the “old” multi-city booking page.

I have to log in to my Cathay account on either my iPhone or iPad. Then, go to “Book” and select “Multi-city/stopover”. This will then redirect to an external browser (in my case, to Safari), and the multi-city booking page shows up where, for each flight, I can select the date AND THE DEPARTURE TIME (e.g. 06:00 - 11:59 or 12:00 - 17:59, etc.). After all the desired flights are selected, the booking engine will then give fare options for Econ Light, Econ Essential, and Econ Flex…each with its own fare restrictions.

CX is definitely over-complicating itself. Best yield management doesn't come just by making 54 fare options for mere cattle class from Australia to Japan.

example below for AUS based traveller credit to QF. the Econ LITE defaulting to "V" class and if I want "L" to earn QF points it has 18% premium to cheapest. I don't think it's worth it. As the OP somewhere said above, the 57% premium one pays for FLEX fare vs LITE in the "V" class, still earns no credits for QF, something one would be pretty annoyed at. CX should just standardize fare code and fare basis instead of introducing this 3 tier fare classes.

I must suspect it's yet another dumb use of McKinsey Graduates who's never been a frequent flyer that came up with complex 3-Dimensional Matrix of fare basis+booking class like they were doing University Assignment. Real world works differently.

How does CX's fare family structure affect which class you need to book to earn QF miles on CX flights? You will still need to book L class instead of V class to get the miles, no? Assuming same fare family, L class will still be 1300/1100-1=18% more expensive, so you will still find it not worth it.

Now, if V class is always ECONLITE and L class always ECONESSENT on CX, CX will sell V class at 1100AUD and L class at 1595AUD (LR31AUKR). The price difference will be 1595/1100-1=45% instead, as CX needs to account for the free seat selection and lower penalties associated with ECONESSENT whenever you book L class. You don't find 18% worth it, but some may do (or need it for status or whatever), but those who find 18% worth it might have a hard time swallowing a 45% fare increase just to earn QF miles. How does it help them?

The matrix consists of fare family (x) and booking class (y), where's the 3rd dimension (z)? Of course, the fares are the actual numbers in the matrix, not the 3rd dimension.

third dimension can be cabin class and/or point of sale. For example. ex HK to AUS the "flex" and "essential" has same punitive cancellation charge and almost the same as "Light" for economy. ex JPN-SIN the "PEY" flex has cancellation charge whereas ex HK-SYD "PEY Flex" has no cancellation charge. when system are overly complex the incremental return of effective yield management diminishes. I get the idea behind market segmentation but my point is it's just onerously complicated in its current form.

The point about L or V subclasses coupled with R21, R31, R41 family on earning for partner programs are irrelevant, what I pasted was simply to say as example to if one was to put on QF there's some thoughts to be had before one assumes "flex" will be full points earning as they are with few other main airlines I fly with. Their approach makes me feel they simply made things overly complicated, done by morons people who thinks complexity is superior.