percysmith

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/...k-transparency

More than CX is polled; however, CX would represent at least a plurality of the seats covered in Consumer Council's survey.

The Choice Magazine article is https://echoice.consumer.org.hk/arti...ellation-delay . CX's cancellation is described as;

''「國泰航空」（#3）的運送條款表示 航班預定時間表不構成合約的一部分，以 及講解航班取消及延誤時的安排，並指出 如因惡劣天氣或航空交通管制而導致航班取消或延誤，航空公司不會承擔或支付任何電話、住宿、膳食或交通費用。其網站另設「航班延誤及取消」專頁，提醒乘客到其網站查詢航班最新狀況、提醒乘客提供準確聯 絡資訊 以便 接收 最 新 消息，以及如航班取消或延誤，航空公司將盡力安排乘客乘搭下一班可乘搭的航班。

...雖然...「國泰航空」（#3）...均表示會向受影響乘客補助等候候補航班期間的膳食、飲品或住宿 費用，但沒有具體 說明補助條件和細節...”

PM me if you want a translation of it.

garykung

While I support more consumer protections, the Consumer Council's criticism is unwarranted.

1. In the same article, Consumer Council criticizes UA as well (the case of HKG>GUM becoming HKG>HNL>SFO>GUM). However, Consumer Council did not do a fact check, i.e. UA does not fly HKG-HNL, and simply published whatever it thinks. The actual fact was UA asked the impacted passenger to be rebooked on HKG-SFO-HNL-GUM.

2. Many airlines establish compensation policies in light of the law. Because Hong Kong has no such law, I would imagine CX does not have one. Then why would its staffs know if there is none?

The whole article is more like a fiction.

percysmith

Think HNL-SFO is a typo.

The choices offered by UA were:

1. HKG-HNL-SFO-GUM (sic), same day, same fare
2. HKG-TYO-GUM, 4 days later, same fare
3. HKG-TYO-GUM, same day, +$2,000 fare required to be paid

Pax tried to bargain down the $2,000 to $1,000 but UA refused. Pax attempted to enlist CC assistance but accepted a refund half-way.

SCMP was incorrect. CC asked airline call centres to explain their cancellation and delay policies, and assessed which call centres were able to correctly state their cancellation and delay policies out of three times.

Cancellation and delay policies include:

i) CoC passenger recovery policies including:


ii) Refund policies



iii) Compensation policies



The four airlines that were able to do so were 5J (#4), MU (#6), AF (#13) and QF(#19). I don't any of them except AF are European/American/Canadian. Then again, the above extends beyond EC261/Canadian Air Passenger Protection Regulations.

I think SCMP didn't make a good job of summing up what CC was trying to say. You have to read the CC piece.

percysmith

CC also made a number of observations and suggestions.

Some of which we may think silly or impractical to the airline industry.

Then again, please bear in mind CC is a lay consumer advocate, not an expert airline passenger forum with an deep understanding of how airlines work <-- something we call in auditing as Expectations Gap

1) Local and Asian airlines to make their delay and cancellation policies more explicit.

2) Airlines encourage passengers to take out travel insurance. But "generally" (per HK Federation of Insurers) HK policies do not cover operational cancellation by airline, so the airlines are BSing. Some policies do cover additional transportation and accommodation if rebooked onto later flight by airline (e.g. https://www.americanexpress.com/cont..._En.pdf#page=9 )

3) Avoid codeshares as some marketing airlines will not assist in IRROPS

4) CC advocates airlines adopt compensation policies for short-notice cancellations akin to EC261/Canadian APPR (where not already covered by EC261/Canadian APPR)

garykung

I won't blame UA for those options, given that UA literally has to buy a seat from NH. Given this itinerary is governed by the U.S. law, UA has substantively complied what was required to do.

Both are not.

In the case of CX, given that Hong Kong has no such consumer protection law, given the special circumstance that there is no domestic flight in Hong Kong, virtually all CX flights are governed by the Montreal Convention.

And Montreal did specifies the impacted customers has the right to compensate unless the airlines all reasonable measures (or can't take any measures).

So the usual traffic restriction in the Mainland China will be an exception. Typhoon as well. But everything else is not.

The problem with CC and SCMP is they know nothing about international transportation law and know nothing about how things work. Seriously, I know some people may say no. But it is totally acceptable for an airline to say "depending on the circumstance". It is basically a no one know situation for IRROPS.

There goes all the credibilities.

percysmith

Amend 17:19: https://www.iata.org/policy/consumer...-full-text.pdf

"Article 19 — Delay

The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo. Nevertheless, the carrier shall not be liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures."

We know by precedent that this usually means food and drink, accommodation and transportation.

Would be helpful if airlines spell it out, particularly in some CX outstations like EWR where staff just tell pax to fend for themselves.

Also, is "all measures that could reasonably be required" really so complicated to justify "depending on the circumstances"?

Montreal doesn't address cancellations either - for that you have to go to airline CoC.

realgaga

Thankfully FTers can help each other with cancellations and rebooking issues.

garykung

FWIW - it is an airline's ultimate goal NOT to offer anything whenever possible.

So it is not a surprise to me that, not just CX, but every airline would dodge this.


Montreal is not a declaration of rights, but compensation limitation. That's why it is written in a negative way to limit the compensability.

Cancellation is still a form of delay.