Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Cathay Pacific | Marco Polo Club
Reload this Page >

CX refuses to honour Oct 97 upgrade promise (Oriental Daily)

CX refuses to honour Oct 97 upgrade promise (Oriental Daily)

Closed Thread

Old Apr 5, 17, 6:30 am
  #31  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: MNL
Programs: CX MPO DM, Le Club Accor Platinum, World of Hyatt Explorist
Posts: 2,029
Originally Posted by JALPak View Post
That's exactly what she did. Saving the offer to maximize its value. That's probably what some FTers would have done too but probably would not have waited for 20 years to cash in
That's the thing, waiting 20 years to cash it is quite ridiculous, and I honestly think she was expecting too much. Like what I posted earlier, hotels who are kinda good in keeping track of complimentary upgrades have lost mine after 2 years...
FlyPointyEnd is offline  
Old Apr 5, 17, 8:30 am
  #32  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: LHR, HKG
Programs: oneworld, gate lice, tsa hater, neoliberal elitist
Posts: 314
So she bought 2 HKG-London tickets for 20k HKD? April isn't exactly peak season, but still, my guess would be that these aren't Y flex tickets. Mrs Chung waits 2 decades -- back when Y+ didn't exist and long-haul J isn't what it is now -- and then demands 2 upgrades from (what is probably an Y saver fare) to the J cabin? 2 round-trip J fares are roughly 80k HKD. A vague letter and a verbal agreement 20 years ago, and she's asking for upgrades roughly 60k HKD in value? Seriously?

I understand that there are plenty of good reasons to complain about CX in the past few years -- but this is not it. She simply isn't entitled to those upgrades.

That said, it would've made business sense for CX to just upgrade them without making a fuss. Creating brand loyalty is important -- especially for young customers (the 12-year-old daughter in particular). Not to mention the PR.
leungy18 is offline  
Old Apr 5, 17, 8:55 am
  #33  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Some hole
Posts: 2,783
I would have just disregarded the letter tbh. I would have done the CPR out of goodwill. No need for me to feel entitled even if they did promise me an upgrade.
maortega15 is offline  
Old Apr 5, 17, 9:07 am
  #34  
mxr
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: HKG, TXL
Programs: CX DM
Posts: 566
Originally Posted by davidtai View Post
So according to your theory, you're one of the ma fan people who are smart enough to second guess Mr. Chung's decision for not materialising the offer in advance.
Yes, I have successfully managed to adapt to the local HK culture. 5 for me!


Originally Posted by davidtai View Post
Btw while I'm not trying to advise how big the favour should be but I really hope you know when CPR should be done during an emergency. It's for saving lives and it's not something like minor medical help.
Originally Posted by s0ssos View Post
Are you a doctor? Were you there? What do you define as minor medical help?
Since I actually took the time to read what CX mgmt wrote in the letter: "Both the infants parents and CX are very grateful that you were abailable to treat the conditions of the child and make his flight more pleasant".

I'm certainly no doctor and i wasn't there, but neither weren't you. And you make it seem awfully like you're a gullible person who believes everything a tabloid news publisher writes.
Other than Mrs. Chungs words (which in my rational way of thinking might be exaggerated just to create this drama non-news-worty story), we have the only hard evidence from the letter coming from CX. It doesn't sound that dramatic to me? Making his flight more pleasant doesn't sound like the child was about to die. But what am I to say, now its just speculating...

You certainly took my comment harshly though.


Originally Posted by garykung View Post
The issue is how a reasonable person defines "any favours". To many of us, it may be reasonable to request upgrade for one. But "any favours" could really mean the entire family FWIW.
Exactly, a reasonable person would have felt good for getting this nice letter and maybe would have asked for something simple. It was a gesture of good will and gratitude by the CX mgmt.
But I guess that for some people you actually have to word it out correctly.


Originally Posted by insideman View Post
Another 'non-story' by the ODN whose owner is still upset after an airport check in incident, what, four years ago?

This forum is in serious danger of becoming irrelevant if we try to second guess the motives of a passenger who was offered a 'favour' 20 - yes, TWENTY - years ago, and then chastise an airline as a result.

Move on, nothing to see here ...
Originally Posted by FlyPointyEnd View Post
That's the thing, waiting 20 years to cash it is quite ridiculous, and I honestly think she was expecting too much.....
Originally Posted by leungy18 View Post
.....
I understand that there are plenty of good reasons to complain about CX in the past few years -- but this is not it. She simply isn't entitled to those upgrades.
....
Originally Posted by maortega15 View Post
I would have just disregarded the letter tbh. I would have done the CPR out of goodwill. No need for me to feel entitled even if they did promise me an upgrade.
At least some common sense and decency left in these forums
mxr is offline  
Old Apr 5, 17, 9:59 am
  #35  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 103
Originally Posted by mxr View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by maortega15
I would have just disregarded the letter tbh. I would have done the CPR out of goodwill. No need for me to feel entitled even if they did promise me an upgrade.

At least some common sense and decency left in these forums


Biased. If you don't think the child on the plane was about the die, why did you bother to quote someone's words to support your view in which he or she is willing to do the CPR out of goodwill. CPR is only done for someone who's about to die. This is the common sense. Also, nothing is too harsh when it comes to life and death.

CX should not have made such a vague promise lightly if they can't keep their words.
davidtai is online now  
Old Apr 5, 17, 10:34 am
  #36  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Some hole
Posts: 2,783
What I meant was, in these situations I would have gladly helped out in any way but I wouldn't have the desire to accept anything in return.

That's just me as a person in general. Just helping others with no expectation in return. I do it from my heart, not because I expect something to happen.
maortega15 is offline  
Old Apr 5, 17, 11:30 am
  #37  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Depends
Posts: 14,131
I was very wary about reposting OD articles here given the vendetta OD seems to be running against CX. But OD did have the letter and Mrs. Chung's back-of-envelope "file note" (if we can call it that) - in discussion boards like this we take statements on face value don't we? Or else there's no point discussing anything cos we'll all doubt each other.

Obviously CX cannot run "I never made any promises". I think on the balance of probabilities "mgr Paulo" probably did make the promises Mrs. Chung claimed he did - otherwise why did she not find the promise meaningless like kaka did or kept the documentation for such a long time. Of course CX can run the argument "a gratuity promise is non-binding", which is what we have to evaluate CX's morals on.

I don't think the time Mrs. Chung kept the offer has anything to do with it. In fact it is to Mrs. Chung's disadvantage to keep the offer for so long in case CX folded or got taken over.

Whether you find Mrs. Chung greedy is YMMV. Kaka found upgrade for two not excessive. Leungy18 did. maortega15 asserted the Chungs should not have insisted on their promised reward when refused. I don't really want this discussion to be a valuation exercise on Mr. Chung's actions so I want to note there is a variety of opinions in this regard and move on.

I'm more concerned over the implications on assuming CX will lie and renege when it can get away with it. Everyone becomes more transactional - staff and suppliers will not take a CX IOU and will relegate any CX requests to "share the pain" up a 777 tailpipe. IRROPed passengers will get more confronational.

As passengers (which not all of us here seem to be) I think the main implication is in customer service. One of the things I assume CX will do and not necessarily a PRC major or LCC to do is to generically "put things right". If we can't trust CX to do that, why are we not taking PRC majors (well, if we can cope with it!) or LCCs?
percysmith is offline  
Old Apr 5, 17, 12:29 pm
  #38  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: HKG WUH BNE
Programs: CX JL QR LH | Hilton SPG/Marriot
Posts: 316
OD's posts on CX usually starts with "Cathay Pacific, the local airline that has gone downhill these years due to XXXX, has seen yet another... (....-storm?)"

The Chinese version of that starts with the 因 (due to), and I wonder if that is why CX is called 因航 these days.

What are PRC majors you were referring to?
ashsong is offline  
Old Apr 5, 17, 12:41 pm
  #39  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: HKG
Programs: A3, TK *G; JL JGC; SPG,Hilton Gold
Posts: 9,946
Originally Posted by percysmith View Post
I was very wary about reposting OD articles here given the vendetta OD seems to be running against CX. But OD did have the letter and Mrs. Chung's back-of-envelope "file note" (if we can call it that) - in discussion boards like this we take statements on face value don't we? Or else there's no point discussing anything cos we'll all doubt each other.

Obviously CX cannot run "I never made any promises". I think on the balance of probabilities "mgr Paulo" probably did make the promises Mrs. Chung claimed he did - otherwise why did she not find the promise meaningless like kaka did or kept the documentation for such a long time. Of course CX can run the argument "a gratuity promise is non-binding", which is what we have to evaluate CX's morals on.

I don't think the time Mrs. Chung kept the offer has anything to do with it. In fact it is to Mrs. Chung's disadvantage to keep the offer for so long in case CX folded or got taken over.

Whether you find Mrs. Chung greedy is YMMV. Kaka found upgrade for two not excessive. Leungy18 did. maortega15 asserted the Chungs should not have insisted on their promised reward when refused. I don't really want this discussion to be a valuation exercise on Mr. Chung's actions so I want to note there is a variety of opinions in this regard and move on.

I'm more concerned over the implications on assuming CX will lie and renege when it can get away with it. Everyone becomes more transactional - staff and suppliers will not take a CX IOU and will relegate any CX requests to "share the pain" up a 777 tailpipe. IRROPed passengers will get more confronational.

As passengers (which not all of us here seem to be) I think the main implication is in customer service. One of the things I assume CX will do and not necessarily a PRC major or LCC to do is to generically "put things right". If we can't trust CX to do that, why are we not taking PRC majors (well, if we can cope with it!) or LCCs?
more reason why i didnt find her greedy and that CX is to blame: if you get an a-card for a broken J/F seat, doing CPR as a passenger should deserve a bit more - tho for those in practice medicine industry saving life should be done no matter what. (hey, then this becomes another issue. If doctors ought to save every life they encounter, why then are we bothered to pay them?) Indeed everyone ought to do their best for the world's good (then here comes the question again, who can hold their hand to their heart and say every single thing they did in life can uphold such moral standard), but i do believe when such "offers" come up(or, did come up, in this incident), as long as the user accepted it without ill-intent, he/she can choose whenever/however to use it. Or put it this way, if they were handed over 2 a-cards then this case here would be moot.

now, the next question is, should Mrs and Ms Chung be using it.
For me, noone should care less. think of A-cards, as long as Mrs Chung is authorized to deal with it, who are we to say (except CX management). If they were handed over 2 A-cards, they could have given it to any of us. So what stops Mrs Chung using it.

and then, if they should wait for 20 years to use it (regardless to whether they think CX should allow using the favour). I tend to think they didnt bother much until they find themselves needing the J seat (be it for the distance or the alloawnces). but even if they were gaming for the product i dont blame them if her notes weren't made up nonsense (which we dont know unless the manager voices out anything).
Who knew, maortega15 said he would have done it regardless - surely i think Mr Chung was at the same state of mind when he did CPR. It is only when CX offered "an offer that last till the end of the company" this current issue came up. Should she have thrown away the letter? I seriously do not think any one of us would have done that if we were in the Chungs' shoes. We wouldnt want to use the A-card on regional routes to KIX/TYO either, so why should they? And hey, the HKie wedding ("biscuit") gift cards didnt come with an expiry date until these couple of years - so its uncommon for favors to last a lifetime in this part of the world... at least in 1997. Those gift cards still have a grandfathered "no expiry" till today.

Back to point 1, regarding the intent of this "meaningless" promise, had CX intended to limit its lost in 1997, they could have given the Chungs an A-card or two. I think either they viewed the saved life a bit more than what infrastructure they have, or they didnt know what would be an appropriate return for the saving of a life (which either way its fair enough). Methinks, as long as the promise was made and the demand is not excessive, the original intent was to let the Chungs to make their own offers - noone knows what the Chungs want better than they themselves. And if they were truely greedy, why bother buying 2 Y tickets in the first place. they could have demanded for a J/F ticket right away. (If either CX or the Chungs wanted to get the favor over with back in 1997, they could have either gifted the Chungs the original ticket they bought or given them a ticket or 2 to anywhere in CX's network). Given that they knew they had a favour in hand vs what they ask for in 2017, i dont see how they ought to be seen as greedy.

or i could easily say, CX dont value the saved life the same way now as they did in 1997. AND i think i/we/some of us have enough experience with CX these days to say how true the statement is.
kaka is offline  
Old Apr 5, 17, 12:46 pm
  #40  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: HKG
Programs: A3, TK *G; JL JGC; SPG,Hilton Gold
Posts: 9,946
Originally Posted by maortega15 View Post
What I meant was, in these situations I would have gladly helped out in any way but I wouldn't have the desire to accept anything in return.

That's just me as a person in general. Just helping others with no expectation in return. I do it from my heart, not because I expect something to happen.
i believe mr chung had the same in mind when he performed the CPR.

Now the next question is, when such was promised by CX, should the promise be realized 20 years on.

Or in other words, when should a promise (lets keep it on topic, so a promise made by CX) run its course and no longer exist as a promise.
kaka is offline  
Old Apr 5, 17, 12:47 pm
  #41  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: HKG
Programs: A3, TK *G; JL JGC; SPG,Hilton Gold
Posts: 9,946
Originally Posted by MeltingAlf View Post
No wonder I was confused

Wouldn't that not pass muster though? I mean if Mr Chung was the one who got the upgrade, I would only think it would be fair if he was the one making a request than Mrs Chung no matter the circumstances.
would you think the same had A-cards been given?
kaka is offline  
Old Apr 5, 17, 12:58 pm
  #42  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: AUH
Posts: 7,307
20 years.. Seriously.

Two years, fine. Anything more, and it quickly starts to get sketchy. To put this in perspective, she received this letter in the year when Intel first released their Pentium II processor, Hong Kong was being handed back to China, and Titanic was the record-breaking blockbuster in the cinemas.

I understand some people just want something, anything, to have a go at CX about. It was also somewhat remiss of CX to fail to indicate when the offer should be taken up by. However, it was at best optimistic, and at worst misguided, for anyone who receives such goodwill measure to seriously think that it was an indefinite promise, capable of being cashed in 20 years later (or longer - we could just as well be having this exact conversation in 2027, judging by some of the reactions).
stargold is offline  
Old Apr 5, 17, 1:27 pm
  #43  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: HKG
Programs: A3, TK *G; JL JGC; SPG,Hilton Gold
Posts: 9,946
Originally Posted by stargold View Post
20 years.. Seriously.

Two years, fine. Anything more, and it quickly starts to get sketchy. To put this in perspective, she received this letter in the year when Intel first released their Pentium II processor, Hong Kong was being handed back to China, and Titanic was the record-breaking blockbuster in the cinemas.

I understand some people just want something, anything, to have a go at CX about. It was also somewhat remiss of CX to fail to indicate when the offer should be taken up by. However, it was at best optimistic, and at worst misguided, for anyone who receives such goodwill measure to seriously think that it was an indefinite promise, capable of being cashed in 20 years later (or longer - we could just as well be having this exact conversation in 2027, judging by some of the reactions).
miles last 3 years, not sure if a cards expire, wedding cake cards last forever too
why 2 years when they said any time
kaka is offline  
Old Apr 5, 17, 2:25 pm
  #44  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.8MM, Marriott PLT, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 9,609
Originally Posted by stargold View Post
20 years.. Seriously.

Two years, fine. Anything more, and it quickly starts to get sketchy. To put this in perspective, she received this letter in the year when Intel first released their Pentium II processor, Hong Kong was being handed back to China, and Titanic was the record-breaking blockbuster in the cinemas.

I understand some people just want something, anything, to have a go at CX about. It was also somewhat remiss of CX to fail to indicate when the offer should be taken up by. However, it was at best optimistic, and at worst misguided, for anyone who receives such goodwill measure to seriously think that it was an indefinite promise, capable of being cashed in 20 years later (or longer - we could just as well be having this exact conversation in 2027, judging by some of the reactions).
Time was never the issue IIRC.

You are looking at this in the way how we look things nowadays.

However, if you look at this in the perspective of 1997, airlines in the past tended to make promises that was no longer valid, like unexpired miles, good redemption values, etc.

Beside - per the article, the major issue raised by CX was "no such record".
garykung is offline  
Old Apr 5, 17, 2:48 pm
  #45  
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Programs: CX
Posts: 211
Asking for this 20 years later....s-e-r-i-o-u-s-l-y???!

Only Oriental Daily would pick up such an amazing 'news'. And some members here thought SCMP is 'trashy'....
nolounge is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread