Likemiles

I am bewildered by the hostility directed at Happy in this thread. While her clarity in self-expression was not matched by her sophistication and sincerity, the main points she was attempting to make were plenty clear. And those points were well-taken, as the vast majority of hers have been elsewhere. I may not agree with every single word she has said on Flyertalk, but I am sure I am not the only one who is impressed by her experience, helpfulness, and enthusiasm. As we all know, jealousy is an insidiously destructive motivator. Hence I would like to suggest, if I may, that we not let that monster blind ourselves to the contributions that many worthy posters--Happy among them-- have made here. I, for one, am grateful for their presence.

jsfrSE

If you get food poisoning with such frequency when flying with CX, why bother eating on board then?
Since food poisoning is a serious matter, why do you continue flying with CX??

FlyPointyEnd

I do recall I can adjust individual seat parts on my last flight, was there something wrong with your seat? I rarely fly long haul, so normally I just raise the foot rest for short flights like Tokyo, Taipei or Manila.

percysmith

I never really thought of liability issues for medical diversion. Thanks for explanations.

Is carrier liability similar to WX or different?

I'm also thinking - if pax needs to rebook ongoing connections after delay, shouldn't only the delaying carrier be allowed to fix this? It seems in this case the connecting carrier fixed it (because it's their stock?).

percysmith

Well, as a selfish market participant in a semi-efficient market, I would love to be cross-subsidised by anyone paying a higher fare than me and anyone who pays a lower fare be shut out.

Also, I would also like anybody paying a limited currency I don't have access to (AS, AA miles) be shut out also.

It does not profit me that CX uses relatively fixed capacity to fly boatloads of ex-PRC transit passengers or AA or AS redeemers - I do not care for frequency, I care about the availability at my price.

If frequency has to be cut then c'est la vie - if ex-PRC transit or NA flights are not as profitable as they were then they should be axed:
- free up a slot for someone else to have a go
- cut loss making flights so we don't have to endure more service cutbacks on the flights that remain
- plane can be redeployed on a route more useful for ex-HKG holiday makers (me)

And also in the specific case, making AS less easy to redeem http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/alask...l#post28791350 certainly is good news for me even if the difficulty is limited to HK-US. I'm sorry but I don't see a win-win here (only a zero-sum game).

ashsong

I think you can sign up for AS even if you are residing in Hong Kong, and put all your OW flights to AS. One of my friends does that, and I didn't understand then, now I sort of do. Status matters less if you can redeem F for most of your flights I guess?

How is this AS program?

percysmith

I mean by non-BIS means - signup offers, or simply have a reasonable earn rate on them so I can run them for iPhone season.

theddo

I lost interest at the point where you implied CX caused a diversion simply for the heck of it, since in your - I am assuming totally untrained and unqualified - eyes the passenger looked healthy.

garykung

Worse - as the carrier can blame it all to the pax causing the IRROPS.

Because CX does not have control with the ticket.

Even CX has control, don't forget the complication of CX's operations in SFO/LAX. It may be easier for AS to rebook the pax instead.

fakecd

on a constructive note, if you had suffered out of pocket expensee try to check if any insurnace attached to your credit card covers you. that way at least you get some remedy.

cxfan1960

I agree. CX might try to sort out the connections, but it was up to AS as both the connecting carrier and the ticketing carrier to decide.

cxfan1960

The three ladies may just be good samaritan offering assistance. Even if they are related to the sick person, they themselves did not suffer medical emergency. US government may not allow them to disembark in SFO.

kaka

1) med diversion is not of cx fault. Cx needs pay no compensation.
more a humantarian issue. If u hv sth against that, thanks for letting us know.

2) blame b777300er for having such a small gas tank. Hkglax is at the maginal of the planes range. So with all the rest of the safety features in place it has to fuel up somewhere. In winter the sfo flight may require refuels too westbound.

3) what do you mean by unprofessional? Were they friendly and relaxed or were they playing around and not doing a good job? That's totally different.

4) even if they were travel companions, why do they have to get off the flight together? Is it necessary for cx or anyone to do so?

kaka

i dont see why the 3 ladies are obliged to accompany the sick person. maybe the sick has other family members in town, maybe the 3 are going to see someone sicker.

TravelwhileyouEat

OP should have just stuck to the objective points of the question they wanted to ask. There were too many extra details that were irrelevant. In cases where a medical emergency that causes delay/diversion, airlines do not pay any compensation since it is outside of their control (I believe that even EU261 doesn't require compensation for medical delays). You should get travel insurance to cover this if you want to.

On a side note, travelling F on partner redemption isn't really the fault of the pax redeeming the award but the airline/alliance that allows it. An example would be the constant complain that SQ protects their premium cabin and *A availability for J or F is very difficult if not impossible to come by on their long-haul routes.