CX715 - no entertainment on board
#16
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: London
Programs: BA Executive Club
Posts: 111
Some passengers may not be able to afford iPads/Tablets, those that do may not have brought one along because there is IFE.
Some passengers may be travelling with young children, unless the children are sleeping or eating some form of entertainment is expected if not they may scream or shout and disturbed other passengers.
#17
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 557
I think you mostly answered your question for yourself. Yes, a premium cabin on a premium carrier should not give the impression that it is a LCC. Equally, however, you need to apply some common sense when it comes to the 'compensation culture.' I could add to your list above with, for example, no hand lotion in the bathroom, or perhaps no 'prestige' hand lotion. Maybe the toilet paper was a bit too hard, and not five-ply. What if the air vent above the seat was faulty. One could go on forever. My rule of thumb is that, if it is not covered by some international convention (Montreal/Warsaw, EC261, etc) it probably isn't worth my time to complain.
I do agree it's unlikely CX or another airline would compensate for the type of toilet paper or hand gel they provide, but I think many airlines sell inflight entertainment as part of the experience and a reason to choose them, which is reflected by CX giving essentially $100 in cash via the vouchers. For CX they probably ended up with good PR and word of mouth.
#19
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 557
Plenty of airlines compensate complainers well beyond EC rules.
#20
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 6,576
It's not a first world problem but the passenger is not flying on a budget airline but on CX which advertise "Enjoy an immersive experience with StudioCX®—our state-of-the-art in-flight entertainment system—presented on your own touchscreen TV."
Some passengers may not be able to afford iPads/Tablets, those that do may not have brought one along because there is IFE.
Some passengers may be travelling with young children, unless the children are sleeping or eating some form of entertainment is expected if not they may scream or shout and disturbed other passengers.
Some passengers may not be able to afford iPads/Tablets, those that do may not have brought one along because there is IFE.
Some passengers may be travelling with young children, unless the children are sleeping or eating some form of entertainment is expected if not they may scream or shout and disturbed other passengers.
Likewise there are passengers who travel CX who can't afford (or don't wish to buy) iPads. Or they may have their iPads but choose not to bring them on their trips - after all there's a certain joy in discovering unexpected movies rather than one's own staid collection. But in selecting CX, they pay a premium along with that comes the sold expectation that in flight movies are integral to the flight experience, regardless of what the CoC says.
I personally, due to lack of time while on the ground, choose to forgo visits to the cinema - because I expect to catch up on them while I'm flying.
Incidentally prior to this flight I had researched the night before what movies would be available, and was actually looking forward to mindlessly watching humans being devoured by dinosaurs (Jurassic World) - hence was disappointed that I didn't get to.
One may argue that with an extra US$100 compensation I can make more than half a dozen trips to the cinema... it's more than generous (and a costly effort by CX).
Perhaps it's down to managing passenger expectations. I was originally annoyed when CX announced at the gate that "We apologise entertainment is unavailable on this flight, and appreciate your understanding" (i.e. tough luck, your flight will be less pleasant and there's nothing you can do about it, so suck it up). In my view, if CX had already intended to compensate for the absence of entertainment, the original announcement could've been better rephrased "We apologise entertainment is unavailable, but we ask you to choose a small gift from our onboard duty free instead". Am sure passengers would be less unhappy at the latter announcement.
#21
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 6,576
I think overall companies today are much more tuned in to compensating customers even when there are small deficiencies. I think it's because a lot of companies no matter what they are selling try to present it as an experience, so customer satisfaction goes beyond saying we got you from A to B. I have a friend who has a Lexus or BMW - not even sure - and when his car needed to go to back a month after he bought it because of something small they picked it up and offered him either a replacement car or $100 a day in Uber credits. When he got it back he had a note in the front seat from the GM of the dealership with some type of certificate for two free nights at a Ritz-Carlton. A couple years ago I had to pick up my Dunhill briefcase that had been repaired and while they were getting it ready for me they invited me to a private lounge with an open bar. The manager came down to say how surprised they were the handle would break. While I was having a drink he asked me if I had seen their new ties which I really hadn't. I thought he was going to drag me to sell me something, but he came back with one gift wrapped and said if I didn't like his choice I could exchange it.
I do agree it's unlikely CX or another airline would compensate for the type of toilet paper or hand gel they provide, but I think many airlines sell inflight entertainment as part of the experience and a reason to choose them, which is reflected by CX giving essentially $100 in cash via the vouchers. For CX they probably ended up with good PR and word of mouth.
I do agree it's unlikely CX or another airline would compensate for the type of toilet paper or hand gel they provide, but I think many airlines sell inflight entertainment as part of the experience and a reason to choose them, which is reflected by CX giving essentially $100 in cash via the vouchers. For CX they probably ended up with good PR and word of mouth.
#22
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: BOS/UTH
Programs: AA LT PLT; QR GLD; Bonvoy LT TIT
Posts: 12,755
Why not? OP was flying J so what if seat did not recline (and J was full)? Should OP ask for compensation considering it was only a 3 hour flight? What if CX forgot to load champagne? What if CX forgot or didn't load enough food for all passengers? What if luggage didn't arrive with OP and CX put it on the next flight an hour or two later (yes, CX715 is last flight of the day but say OP was flying CX735 and bag arrived with CX635 or CX657)? Where do you draw the line between letting it go and asking for compensation?
OP paid a premium to fly CX and with that premium there's a certain, bare minimum of service that one should expect from CX (other than long-haul seat on this route ). It's one thing to 'look' for every little mistake and request compensation but I do think it's reasonable to expect IFE to work and when it's not, compensation (money, miles, voucher, etc) is appropriate. OP was not flying TR or 3K.
OP paid a premium to fly CX and with that premium there's a certain, bare minimum of service that one should expect from CX (other than long-haul seat on this route ). It's one thing to 'look' for every little mistake and request compensation but I do think it's reasonable to expect IFE to work and when it's not, compensation (money, miles, voucher, etc) is appropriate. OP was not flying TR or 3K.
#23
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada, USA, Europe
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 31,452
#24
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada, USA, Europe
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 31,452
Indeed. There are passengers who travel LCC who can jolly well afford iPads - they simply choose to fly the LCC. In doing so, they set their expectations that there'll be no in flight movies.
Likewise there are passengers who travel CX who can't afford (or don't wish to buy) iPads. Or they may have their iPads but choose not to bring them on their trips - after all there's a certain joy in discovering unexpected movies rather than one's own staid collection. But in selecting CX, they pay a premium along with that comes the sold expectation that in flight movies are integral to the flight experience, regardless of what the CoC says.
I personally, due to lack of time while on the ground, choose to forgo visits to the cinema - because I expect to catch up on them while I'm flying.
Incidentally prior to this flight I had researched the night before what movies would be available, and was actually looking forward to mindlessly watching humans being devoured by dinosaurs (Jurassic World) - hence was disappointed that I didn't get to.
One may argue that with an extra US$100 compensation I can make more than half a dozen trips to the cinema... it's more than generous (and a costly effort by CX).
Perhaps it's down to managing passenger expectations. I was originally annoyed when CX announced at the gate that "We apologise entertainment is unavailable on this flight, and appreciate your understanding" (i.e. tough luck, your flight will be less pleasant and there's nothing you can do about it, so suck it up). In my view, if CX had already intended to compensate for the absence of entertainment, the original announcement could've been better rephrased "We apologise entertainment is unavailable, but we ask you to choose a small gift from our onboard duty free instead". Am sure passengers would be less unhappy at the latter announcement.
Likewise there are passengers who travel CX who can't afford (or don't wish to buy) iPads. Or they may have their iPads but choose not to bring them on their trips - after all there's a certain joy in discovering unexpected movies rather than one's own staid collection. But in selecting CX, they pay a premium along with that comes the sold expectation that in flight movies are integral to the flight experience, regardless of what the CoC says.
I personally, due to lack of time while on the ground, choose to forgo visits to the cinema - because I expect to catch up on them while I'm flying.
Incidentally prior to this flight I had researched the night before what movies would be available, and was actually looking forward to mindlessly watching humans being devoured by dinosaurs (Jurassic World) - hence was disappointed that I didn't get to.
One may argue that with an extra US$100 compensation I can make more than half a dozen trips to the cinema... it's more than generous (and a costly effort by CX).
Perhaps it's down to managing passenger expectations. I was originally annoyed when CX announced at the gate that "We apologise entertainment is unavailable on this flight, and appreciate your understanding" (i.e. tough luck, your flight will be less pleasant and there's nothing you can do about it, so suck it up). In my view, if CX had already intended to compensate for the absence of entertainment, the original announcement could've been better rephrased "We apologise entertainment is unavailable, but we ask you to choose a small gift from our onboard duty free instead". Am sure passengers would be less unhappy at the latter announcement.
#25
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 557
#26
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: EWR
Programs: CX Green | UA Silver | Marriott Lifetime Platinum | Hyatt Globalist | Hilton Gold | AA EXP
Posts: 813
#27
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: EWR
Programs: CX Green | UA Silver | Marriott Lifetime Platinum | Hyatt Globalist | Hilton Gold | AA EXP
Posts: 813
They promise to carry you from A to B and that's about it. I've noticed people in general (on FT) becoming way too willing to accept mediocre product for the premium price that many FSCs are charging (and that somehow expecting a product/service that matches the premium price tag as first world problem). I don't see a non-working IFE as first world problem when flying CX (expecting lots more canto vs. western movies or vice versa is ). If people are willing to accept non-working IFE on this route as reasonable, next thing you know it will become the norm on this route.
You should expect what you pay for. That seems to be the favourite phrase here on FT when someone paying Y expecting to be upgraded to J. I'd turn it around and say this: one pays a premium to fly CX on this route (whether Y or J) so one should expect what one pays for.
And no, I'm not a snob (at least I don't think so ). Believe it or not, I don't have a problem with BA Club World which is trashed by everyone. But I do believe there's a minimum level of service/product that one should expect an FSC to provide (and an LCC should not be the baseline).
Last edited by Rivarix; Nov 12, 2018 at 9:04 am
#28
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: PHL, NYC, DC
Posts: 9,708
CX was proactive for J customers in this case... handed out US$100 voucher per person when flight took off. Voucher can be used to offset ticket or in flight duty free purchases. But understandably, most of the duty free items had gone since people were keen to use the voucher on board.
Upon arrival ground crew at SIN also handed voucher to PE and Y passengers though unsure about the amount.
Upon arrival ground crew at SIN also handed voucher to PE and Y passengers though unsure about the amount.
#29
Join Date: Nov 2017
Programs: MPC-DM, Enrich-Plat
Posts: 1,310
On the other hand, better no IFE, then a delayed flight, tbh.
#30
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada, USA, Europe
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 31,452
There is no such thing as EC rules. EC261, which is what I was quoting as a reference bar for real complaints, is a European Union law framework setting out compensation in the eve of denied boarding, downgrades, cancellations, and delays. It has nothing to do with IFE and so forth. This is why I'm perplexed that this is raised.