|
I guess CX does what every other airline does... in accordance with EU261: (From Wikipedia)
Airlines are obliged to display a notice at their check-in counters stating:"If you are denied boarding or if your flight is cancelled or delayed for at least two hours, ask at the check-in counter or boarding gate for the text stating your rights, particularly with regard to compensation and assistance."Additionally, when an airline cancels a flight, denies a person boarding, or incurs a delay exceeding two hours to a flight, it is obliged to provide each passenger affected with a written notice setting out their rights under the regulation, and the contact details of the national body tasked with enforcing the regulation. |
Originally Posted by QRC3288
(Post 31081330)
Another thing that's different with the US is the feelings of the customer. Generally, if a US Big 3 inevitably is rude to you on the first few gos around, you can "use that" against them to give you more later. So they'll apologize both for the delay and the service mishap. This is also not how CX works. Obviously, it's frustrating when the airline doesn't "get it" at first, as you described.
I think it's a pretty major failure in customer service to refuse to rebook and claim nothing can be done especially since the tried-and-true FT principle of "call back if you don't like the answer" worked when I called a 2nd time after ground staff once again did nothing helpful. And while I'm pretty annoyed/frustrated at 2am local time, the HK-based agent was in the middle of her afternoon so it's not as if I reached someone on the graveyard shift. And, of course, I have yet to receive the original routing credit so the offer is still LESS than what I should have gotten.
Originally Posted by QRC3288
(Post 31081330)
It's also normal policy for them to give out duty free vouchers on board for those types of delay, did they give any? eDIT: forgot you took KE. Yea pax on the CX flight likely got the vouchers. I think by accepting KE you probably gave that up.
|
Originally Posted by christep
(Post 31082337)
I guess CX does what every other airline does... in accordance with EU261: (From Wikipedia)
That's the extent of their obligation unless tindividual passengers then lodge a claim for compensation. There is no obligation to (and I'd be astonished if any airline did) proactively pay compensation to passengers without them making a claim. The notice is required in accordance of Article 14 of EC261/2004, which is entitled "Obligation to inform passengers of their rights". Such notice is simply served as a notice of rights. Such notice does not supersede the actual language for the relevant articles. Alternatively, the notice simply asks passengers to ask the airlines "for the text of stating your rights". It makes no reference that passengers need to ask or claim the remedies. On the other hand, in all relevant articles, the EC categorizes all remedies as rights. So when you have to claim something that is well-within your right, it does not legally sound. Last but not the least - none of the articles actually mentions a passenger need to do this and that in order to get the remedies. So yes - I do believe EC261/2004 means proactive remedies. The claim process, by itself, is contrary to the intent of the Regulation.
Originally Posted by Plato90s
(Post 31082486)
Unless they were giving out $300+ in vouchers, there's little chance I'd opt to lose an entire day (vs. 12 hours) taking the rescheduled CX flight. ;)
OP - Are you ever, by any chance, an AA EXP/CK, DL DM/360 or UA 1K/GS? |
AA lifetime PLT so I do have oneWorld status.
Almost all of my past flights on CX were via awards, so I'm unfamiliar with how CX dealt with delays to revenue passengers. |
Originally Posted by QRC3288
(Post 31081330)
Yea this is true, the US Big 3 throw out mileage like drunken sailors.
"Here's 50,000 miles... enough to get you an upgrade from Economy to Economy Comfort on a domestic flight... assuming you can find availability." :D |
Originally Posted by Plato90s
(Post 31082697)
AA lifetime PLT so I do have oneWorld status.
Originally Posted by Gongzuokuang
(Post 31083160)
Of course they can when they are the equivalent of SkyPesos.
https://onemileatatime.com/value-miles-points/ Do you know what is interesting? AM is actually equivalent to SkyPeso. AA and UA miles are worth more, maybe due to their ability to redeem premium awards. Should we start calling AM as Asia Peso now? :D |
CathaYUAN.
I think everyone values miles differently. You can open a whole can of worms by trying to debate it. And then there is the miles "cost" when redeeming. So just a quick comparison in Business Class ORD to HKG, October 8 - October 24. Miles Required: Cathay: 170,000 Delta: 395,000 AA: 350,000 United: 270,000 But now we are way off topic. So strange for FT, right? |
Originally Posted by Gongzuokuang
(Post 31084643)
CathaYUAN.
I think everyone values miles differently. You can open a whole can of worms by trying to debate it. And then there is the miles "cost" when redeeming. So just a quick comparison in Business Class ORD to HKG, October 8 - October 24. Miles Required: Cathay: 170,000 Delta: 395,000 AA: 350,000 United: 270,000 But now we are way off topic. So strange for FT, right? I don't believe the way how you present it is fair. 1. It is true that it will cost 170K AM. But the best CX can do now is waitlist, i.e. not bookable. Also - fuel surcharge. 2. DL no longer has a HKG nonstop. So a DL's award to HKG requires partners, and it costs more. 3. UA offers extra availability to credit card holders and elite members. I was able to get this route for 180k booked. 4. While AA's situation is correct, interestingly enough, when booked with CX as a partner award, the trip actually costs 140k (although it is not available), which is significantly less than AM. Also, you get 10% miles back when you have an AA credit card. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:37 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.