garykung

While it is a good suggestion, the fact remains unchanged that BC was offloaded when CX decided to swap aircrafts in the last minute.

I have no doubt about space. The question is was the flight nonstop or with 1 stop.

I believe that should be the case (BC got rebooked to next-day CX 888 instead).

I don't believe so. Common sense thinking - if CX decided to swap the aircrafts, it is safe to assume that the load for YVR-HKG > YVR-JFK. So the number could be high, but not that high.

Don't forget - the passenger with the highest priority is a distressed rev AC SE, not a CX DM which we believe BC is.

daniellam

Not trying to make excuses for CX, but just thinking about this from a ticketing/reservations point of view.

BC was booked and ticketed HKG-JFK on one flight coupon on his e-ticket. PNR also shows HKG-JFK.

When flight departs HKG, the , the e-ticket coupon for HKG-JFK is marked as "FLOWN" in the system and the flight segment is rolled into to the "historical" section of the PNR.

BC arrives in YVR (intermediate point of the flight but not a ticketed point for the pax).

In this situation, it is more difficult for CX staff (especially if outsourced ground handlers) to protect the pax on another flight. Even if space (eg. YVR-EWR) can be booked, there is no e-ticket coupon to exchange to this flight!! The coupon has already been marked as "FLOWN"!

They must contact someone higher up in HKG to either issue a new ticket or a FIM (Flight Interruption Manifest). Ground handling agents don't typically have the authority to FIM a passenger.

Had the pax been booked using two separate segments (not possible in BC's situation as you can't have connecting flights for the same flight number and doing so would make it less than the Minimum Connection Time) eg. HKG-YVR and YVR-JFK, then the process would have been much easier. In this case even though HKG-YVR is marked "FLOWN", YVR-JFK is still "OPEN FOR USE" and can easily be exchanged for a new ticket.

Rivarix

Yes but from reading the article, it sounds more like a 'planned' IRROPS since CX announced it while they were still en route to YVR? Since CX planned/knew about it before CX888 even landed at YVR, shouldn't CX HK handled and sorted it out for JFK bound passengers by the time they landed at YVR (instead of having YVR office handled the rebooking, etc)?

Cambo

I think, there might be more into this story, then the OP wrote.

Where the CX birds do fly, is not decided on by local YVR (or JFK) staff, but in HKG. As such, all aspects related to IRROPS are also handled by HKG and not by local YVR staff (except maybe to accommodate PAX in hotels), especially since the YVR staff might be not have been on duty, when the IRROPS decision was made.....

So, the decision that OP got moved to the 24h later flight is a HKG one. And as such, HKG should do the follow-up, when the F-PAX wants something else (for example, route through another hop, in stead of direct, to get a shorter total trip time). I do think, the suggestion of HUACA might have been the way to go.......

Given the centralized decision power at CX, I even do have my doubts, whether local YVR (contracted, non-CX) staff does have authority to move PAX to different flights, be it at CX or even other airlines, so the directive about "Local staff takes care about this", probably would be wrong at all, and OP with his 3MM on CX should know that. But, then no story for an SCMP article would have emerged......

winnipegrev

YVR-JFK is largely a terminator service for CX with (single digit?) onwards connections. On the other hand, probably 50% of YVR-HKG pax have connections in HKG including on other carriers which would have to be protected at huge expense.

Even if the load factor was much lower YVR-HKG than YVR-JFK, it would likely still make commercial sense to commandeer CX889's aircraft to send back to HKG.