Marco Polo

https://www.scmp.com/comment/letters...ly-so-well-one

ermen

really dont know why they cant sort something like this out easily.

they got to dedicate resources to the problem and rebook passengers in a systematic and logical manner

garykung

Personally, I believe Bryan Carter (BC) is another DYKWIA.

For the record, I hate CX. But based on BC's encounter, I would side with CX.

First - BC could take the nonstop. Why chose the one with 1-stop (probably award?)?

Second - As an unofficial 3MM, BC should have known that CX's YVR operation is not run by CX, but a contractor instead, which can make things not as best as imagine.

Third - As an unofficial 3MM, BC should have known that he could call CX for rebooking. In fact, CX has a 1-800 number for N. American market. I am not sure why BC has not done so.

Last but the least - while CX is a major airline for YVR's gateway to Asia, CX's YVR operation is, frankly, small. I have never seen an airline with small operation can handle IRROPS properly.

kaka

QRC3288

I'm glad you posted this, even if I don't agree with all of it. Will lead to an interesting discussion.

Bottom line is CX did fail. But I think the letter writer ("BC" as I guess his moniker in here will become) could've made things more clear to informed readers if he mentioned he was on a cash or award ticket. I think the whole board here could agree it is a massive service failure if he's on a 10k+ USD one-way ticket here. And even though I suspect he was an award ticket like you do - I would never willingly pay for the flight with the connection, although maybe somebody would - we can't be sure. And of course there's the philosophical debate if folks should receive identical treatment if they're award versus cash. As much as some FTers and Bloggers love to scream and yell about how they should be equal, the bottom line is from an airline's perspective the two are just not the same, and in IRROPs is when you really see the difference. With limited resources and seats during IRROPs, and some solutions being better than others, they definitely should be prioritizing those customers (IMO) who are handing over an amount of cash that could purchase them a small car in many countries. Of course loyalty matters and I suspect "BC" is saying he is a long-time valuable customer to CX due to his 3mm miles, and I don't disagree. Where and how CX prioritizes that customer, especially if he was on an award ticket and there were other customers paying significant amounts of cash, could be an interesting debate.

However, I am fairly familiar with how CX handles cash tickets in these circumstances; I've seen it myself, as well as a number of associates and I have to say the bag is mixed and not always very good. In some cases, I have seen CX just bend over backwards pre-emptively for very expensive tickets. I have also see them act like complete idiots for a friend who was on a ticket that cost ~$25k USD round-trip ex-USA to SE Asia, losing his bags for weeks and never really resolving things properly. (He eventually got his bags back weeks later, once he had already returned to the US with nary an apology).

I do think CX intends to do well, and if you call them or yell at them enough they figure out the right thing to do. I think it's a professional organization despite our complaints elsewhere. However, many passengers don't realize you might need to really bug them to get to the right department, or get it escalated far enough to where someone with some authority is finally seeing common sense. This lack of escalation may be the case with BC. Or it could be the case CX made a tough decision with limited resources, BC was on an award ticket, and other passengers who were more valuable at the moment were prioritized. Without more info it's hard to be sure.

Interesting reply and post nonetheless.

garykung

I like splitting up as well. I do SFO-HKG mostly as SFO-HNL-GUM-HKG with UA.

The difference is I am well aware of the misconnect risk. On the other hand, it does not sound like BC is aware of that (FWIW - just because the route uses the same aircraft, it does not automatically mean problem-free). I won't blame an occasional traveler for that. But with 3MM as claimed, BC should have known the risks better.

Last but not the least - don't forget BC traveled in F, not Y.The problem with these 3MM is BC acted ignorance of the issues faced, but instead blamed everything on CX. Don't forget - 3MM isn't really a thing with CX. How could the YVR GA would know he was super important when they can't even see anything?

I won't blame CX on this too much.

CX is operated mainly in HKG. While being a guess, I believe it is safe to say that most IRROPS happen at HKG and most re-bookings are done in HKG. When HKG has the know-how, it does not mean the contracted ground service has the same know-how.

Sure - it is still a CX fail when contracted ground service acts like an idiot. But with 3MM, it is difficult for me to imagine that BC does not understand this. In fact - I have a serious doubt that his 3MM experience has no other dramatic experience like this.

I agree that was a CX fail. But again - it is obvious that BC tries to emphasize his unofficial 3MM, as well as being sitting in F, to support how he was poorly treated, But the treatment can be avoided if BC acted properly.

APeverell

If my math is right, 3M divided by 20 would yield 150k miles per year, then BC should be a DM and got preferred treatment in IRROPS, or as DMs for 20 years, he should have known very well who and where to call to get his flight reassigned. What have I missed here?

ermen

BC said he called HKG CX number but was told this matter was handled by YVR.

i dont think that being paid / award really matters. He was in a F ticket after all so you would expect some level of service recovery.

also how many pax are actually on-connecting to JFK? Would it be more than 100?

he managed to get his own ticket there to JFK. wonder why CX could not have rebooked him onto that flight (and didnt CX say they were going to do so?)

garykung

FT Rule #1 - When you don't get what you want, HUACA.

Also:

1. BC did not end up in JFK but EWR as AC does not fly to JFK.

2. There is only 1 daily nonstop YVR-EWR leaving at 8:45 am. FWIW - given the arrival time, if BC was not rebooked at the time he stepped out YVR, I doubt anything would be done.

Biggest argument in FT. It matters somehow.

Let's just say it is not significant enough for CX to use the same B77W for the rest of the route.

Inventory issue for starter?

percysmith

I'm not sure who is meant to be accommodated first during IRROPS - passengers who paid a hefty fare, or passengers' CIVs?

In any case, BC's reaction may have replicated @DragonInTheAir's reaction in https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/cath...ng-refund.html .
By not seeking CX's agreement to rebook himself on Sunday AC YVR-EWR, he may have released CX's responsibility to rebook him.

Maybe he's flying revenue after all if he doesn't care about that.

ermen

just 2 comments

1/ if there was not a lot of pax involved, then clearly CX have failed by not (seemingly) rebooking. as i first mentioned, they really need a proactive team to expedite rebooking. that means throwing resources to this problem in my view. setup a dedicated rebooking team with plenty of manpower... .

2/ here clearly was seats available on AC. so not an inventory issue (maybe CX are stingy and dont want to pay for a higher class. but that is their problem.. there clearly was space... if they choose to cancel a 777W, they need to calculate the commercial cost to them). clearly BC had time to go to the hotel to rebook at 5am in the morning (YVR time) after not receiving a rebooking email

ual744777sta

FYI the Cathay 800 number for North America closes by the time CX888 lands in Vancouver.

percysmith

Could be CX needs higher approval to authorise payment of fares to other airlines.
And they're dragging their feet on that.

Much rather rebook passengers on next CX flight.
Much like what QF's CoC requires QF to do (and nothing more).
But CX's CoC is different.

kaka

brunos

I do understand the frustration experienced by BC due to the IRROPS. But there are always two or more side to a story.

CX888 lands at night at 8:25pm. There might have been 200+ pax affected and YVR is not the biggest airport with plenty of flights. There is only one other direct flight to NYC and that is AC at 8:45am. It only has 30 J seat and must have been already quite full with "normal" pax, so very few seats available. Then the question is who has priority for these few seats. It is reasonable to assume that BC was on an award, otherwise he would have claimed that he spent so much money. IMO, I would expect CX to give priority to J revenue pax over F award. Apparently, there was one OW full fare seat available, possibly a late cancellation or CX would only buy from AC (the competitor) into lower fare buckets than J. Then the best option is the evening CX flight to JFK departing at 10pm and that could be CX plan as they extended one more night so that BC could have a hotel room until departure that day.

IRROPS are very frustrating when you are delayed an miss an important meeting, but they do happen. It is very frustrating not to be able to reach the airline staff and I have experienced such middle-of-the-night IRROPS. BC might have communicated that he was willing to take a connecting flight (with regional C or even Y)
CX failed in not sending an email. We will never know if he received one after 5am. There might have been a CX guy working all night in the CX airport office but no one manning the desks.What surprises me a lot is the answer of CX HK mentioned by BC. Even if they cannot arrange booking on other airline, agents have access to BC PNR and can see what arrangements have been made.I assume that they did tell BC and my guess is that it was on the evening CX flight in F.