|
Originally Posted by ak333
(Post 9850275)
Actually. I beg to differ on this point. I've been on quite a few transpac. flights that have diverted to ICN or TPE. In no way did they take off any cargo; in fact when they knew we would be diverting anyway, they added cargo.
Also, I am simply trying to state their policy that's all... of course final decision always lies at the captain. It is he/she who decide what to do. To be honest, once more 777 get online, the 747 flying transpac will be gone... so I guess we just have to wait a little longer and tech stop will be a history... |
Originally Posted by 3TEN
(Post 9848482)
If you compare SQ1 which leaves about the same time as CX873 on 6 Jun, SQ1 made it non-stop to HKG at 06:41 on 7 Jun unlike CX873 which had a fuel stop at TPE. If it was weather related, all flights arriving around that time would have to be diverted.
I was on CX885 (LAX-HKG) on 23 May and the flight was diverted to KIX for fuel stop, and CX LAX ground staff told me that it was due to "stronger than normal headwinds". Interestingly, UA867 by United Airlines made it non-stop from LAX to HKG. Both flights are operated with B747-400, as in the case for SQ1 and CX873. Diversions due to weather? It's more like CX aircraft's performance have deteriorated to the extent that they can't fly non-stop from US (SFO, LAX) to HKG with normal commercial load. Instead of restricting the payload that the flight carries, CX chose to inconvenient passengers with fuel stops, and worse of all, cheated passengers by blaming it on weather. I've feedback to CX via the online website, but so far no response at all. Seems like they don't really care about passengers anymore. "Stronger than normal headwinds" was the given reason. Since we knew we were stopping somewhere, I had the IFE map on. Our track was considerably more southern than usual. Not a big deal since we arrived safe. |
Originally Posted by robbeck1
(Post 9858258)
I was on CX885 on 22 May. At check-in we were told that a fuel stop would be at ICN; midflight told were going to TPE instead. We did and arrived about 90 minutes late, quite good IMO. TPE weather was fine, so was HKG.
"Stronger than normal headwinds" was the given reason. Since we knew we were stopping somewhere, I had the IFE map on. Our track was considerably more southern than usual. Not a big deal since we arrived safe. Good for you since your final destination is HKG. My flight arrived 2hrs 25 mins late (initial diversion station was TPE but in the end we ended up refuelling at KIX) and hence missed the last connecting flight to Singapore. I had to stay overnight at HKG airport hotel (Regal, i think) and fly out the next morning. Awfully long journey considering I started my journey from Seattle early the previous morning. |
Originally Posted by 3TEN
(Post 9859256)
Good for you since your final destination is HKG. My flight arrived 2hrs 25 mins late (initial diversion station was TPE but in the end we ended up refuelling at KIX) and hence missed the last connecting flight to Singapore. I had to stay overnight at HKG airport hotel (Regal, i think) and fly out the next morning. Awfully long journey considering I started my journey from Seattle early the previous morning.
|
Originally Posted by cxfan1960
(Post 9859344)
Did you fly SEA-LAX-HKG-SIN? Were there no seats available on YVR-HKG? It was quite a detour.
|
Originally Posted by 3TEN
(Post 9853081)
2 weeks has passed since I did the online feedback and no one from CX bothered to contact me. And I'm still waiting for a truthful explanation from CX.
|
Originally Posted by theclubsq
(Post 9864471)
You know what? When I flew from LAX-HKG in March I had the same feeling as yours. It was a planned decision without any protection for my connecting flight. I arrived HKG almost 3 hours late and had to wait at the airport for 6 hours (you should be glad that at least you got a bed to lay down, I arrived at 8 in the morning, still a pain in the ... giving the efficiency at LAX, 21 hours already when I landed at HKG since I left my house in LA...) They probably will give you some AMs and a letter with some general apologies. Nothing that will get you truly believe that they have investigated the fact and have evaluated the case.
Fully agree with you! CX don't really seem to care about pax missing connection. I requested to be transferred to SQ11 from LAX to SIN, and was turned down because the flight was full in Business Class, which I found out later that it was entirely untrue after checking with SQ staff. My request to be transferred to ANA or JAL yielded the answer that both airlines only fly to NRT, not SIN. :confused: Either CX LAX staff needs to be re-educated or they just simply don't care about pax anymore. :mad: I didn't know that only 2 airlines, ie. CX and SQ, fly to SIN :D. Maybe someone from CX can enlighten me on this... No letter of apology was given, not even the generic type of standard motherhood apology letter. CX blamed in on "stronger than normal headwinds" and hence they cannot be held responsible, remember??? I was only offered a hotel voucher (which I was told to "make your own way to the hotel after clearing immigration") and a pathetic HK$40 breakfast voucher which can only be used in airport restaurants! That's ridiculous! HK$40 is probably only enough to buy me a Happy Meal from McDonalds to make myself feel happier... I returned the voucher back to CX HKG ground staff, a literal insult to pax! And no phonecards were offered for us to call our friends/families to inform them about the unexpected nightstop at HKG. A few of us, the misconnected pax, had to ask for the phonecards. I have always enjoyed CX service in the air and CX has always delivered to expectation, when things run smoothly of course. In situations like this, CX's handling is nothing but terrible & horrible! CX is just as bad as, if not worse than, some of the american carriers when dealing with "emergencies". Blaming "god" (bad weather, strong headwinds in May/Jun) and telling lies (other flights being full, other airlines don't fly to the destination) are not going to help in CX's corporate image. We can accept delays/diversions due to operational reasons, but not telling lies and running away from responsibilities... :o And the wait from CX's response continues... |
Originally Posted by 3TEN
(Post 9859617)
didn't have the time to get a Canadian visa. Otherwise, I could have taken a 45mins hop on a plane or 3hrs drive to YVR.
|
Originally Posted by wenkroy2
(Post 9865188)
If you are a US resident, I don't think you need a Canadian Visa, a passport will do the trick.
|
Originally Posted by 3TEN
(Post 9864766)
Fully agree with you! CX don't really seem to care about pax missing connection. I requested to be transferred to SQ11 from LAX to SIN, and was turned down because the flight was full in Business Class, which I found out later that it was entirely untrue after checking with SQ staff. My request to be transferred to ANA or JAL yielded the answer that both airlines only fly to NRT, not SIN. :confused: Either CX LAX staff needs to be re-educated or they just simply don't care about pax anymore. :mad: I didn't know that only 2 airlines, ie. CX and SQ, fly to SIN :D. Maybe someone from CX can enlighten me on this...
I have had two misconnects due to fuel stops. Both times I had the same issue, but were both resolved. The first time, I was on a J award to SIN (via AA miles). CX had already rebooked us on an SQ HKG-SIN flight which was fine, but they booked us in Y. Now this was an award, so even getting the rule 80 to SQ was very nice, but I thought that I had nothing to lose by inquring at the transfer counter. And sure enough, CX rebooked us in J on the SQ flight, so that one was well done. The next time I misconnected I was headed to BKK, this time on a paid J ticket. Again, the rebooking was done in advance, and I was rebooked onto TG, but they put me in Y again. The CX rep was very apologetic, and literally ran with the FIM to a transfer desk, and brought me a new FIM showing me booked into J. The other times that I have had the fuel stops, the process was fairly short, and I was able to make my onward connections. |
Both SQ & UA 744s are using Pratt & Whitney engines but most of the old CX 747-467s are using Rolls Royce engines which has less performance.
However, in the recent years that CX had bought some of the SQ 747-412s as a second hand aircraft & mostly deploy them to the U.S. so if you are luckily on board one of them, you will have less chance to facing the re-fueling stop. Here are the existing CX 744 fleet for your reference: B-HOO 747-467 - 23814 / 705 B-HOP 747-467 - 23815 / 728 B-HOR 747-467 - 24631 / 771 B-HOS 747-467 - 24850 / 788 B-HOT 747-467 - 24851 / 813 B-HOV 747-467 - 25082 / 849 B-HOW 747-467 - 25211 / 873 B-HOX 747-467 - 24955 / 877 B-HOY 747-467 - 25351 / 887 B-HUA 747-467 - 25872 / 930 B-HUB 747-467 - 25873 / 937 B-HUD 747-467 - 25874 / 949 B-HUE 747-467 - 27117 / 970 **Named 'Stewart M John' on delivery** B-HUF 747-467 - 25869 / 993 B-HUG 747-467 -25870 / 1007 B-HUI 747-467 - 27230 / 1033 B-HUJ 747-467 - 27595 / 1061 B-HKD 747-412 - 26548 / 923 ex 9V-SMN B-HKE 747-412 - 25127 / 859 ex 9V-SMK B-HKF 747-412 - 25128 / 860 ex 9V-SML B-HKT 747-412 - 27132 / 955 ex 9V-SMQ B-HKU 747-412 - 27069 / 1010 ex 9V-SMV B-HKV 747-412 - 26552 / 1056 ex 9V-SPD For further CX fleet details, you can also take a look at this site: http://flyerguide.com/wiki/index.php/Fleet_Info_%28CX%29 |
I actually think it's the ground staff at LAX's problem. What the ground staff told me when I was checking in was absolutely irresponsible and non-sense. I had a thread for that case so I'm not going to bring it up again now.
|
Originally Posted by 3TEN
(Post 9864766)
And the wait from CX's response continues...
|
Originally Posted by theclubsq
(Post 9869628)
They will send you a letter, I got mine after like 1.5 months or so. Just be patient... You'll at least get a letter, no matter what the content is.
An online complaint is ignored. |
Originally Posted by salfcl
(Post 9869819)
A written complaint gets a reply - nicely worded as well.
An online complaint is ignored. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:27 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.