Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Cathay Pacific | Marco Polo Club
Reload this Page >

CX5905-CX157 5Jan misconnect complaint and my comments thereon

CX5905-CX157 5Jan misconnect complaint and my comments thereon

Old Jan 11, 20, 10:14 pm
  #1  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Depends
Posts: 15,204
CX5905-CX157 5Jan misconnect complaint and my comments thereon

In the spirit of CX660-CX163 25Aug misconnect complaint and my comments thereon (very deja vu case, I referenced the older case in my reply):

5 January 2020:

My wife and I flew on your Cathay dragon flight CX5905 from Beijing to Hong Kong, and were booked on CX157 to Brisbane, Australia.

Your flight took off half an hour later than scheduled, which meant we missed our connecting flight to Brisbane. This is because of your poor airline planning that only left an hour between flights (cx 5905 was supposed to land at 1145am and cx 157 left at 1245 pm local time). Your service team offered to book us onto a qantas flight for 6:30 pm, which we agreed to. I asked to be given access to your lounge which your staff eventually agreed to, but they were rude about it.

Then, I was told we wouldn’t be able to use the lounge because our bags were in the basement of the airport and couldn’t be located until 4pm. So my wife and I had to wait in the uncomfortable chairs on the landward side of the airport and weren’t even allowed into the nice part because we couldn’t get boarding passes issued to us.

At about 3 pm local time, I went to check and see if your staff had located our bags yet, and was then told a different story: that you had left our bags in Beijing and had not loaded them onto the plane! So your staff lied to us at first. I told your staff this wasn’t acceptable, and they didn’t seem to care. After arguing back and forth for 30 MINUTES I eventually got help. A new team member named Aries began making calls to try to locate our bags.

He then got a call from your manager saying our bags were about to be loaded on the carousel and we need to go back out through immigration to go identify them. So my wife and I went out to baggage. We waited there for 45 minutes while Aries argued with your manager and baggage staff, trying to find our bags. We are then told, at about 5 pm local time, that our bags are still on a flight from China! So another lie from your terrible staff.

Aries brings us to the qantas desk, who say they can’t book us onto a flight without baggage. So we wait, and wait, and wait. Finally it is too late and we have to be rebooked onto a 930 pm Cathay pacific flight! So by this point we have been waiting in the airport landward side for six hours, not being allowed to go to a lounge and being treated poorly by your rude staff (except Aries-he is very polite and helpful).

Next I get to speak to a female supervisor on the phone. I complain about our treatment and she says she will upgrade us to business class for our 9:30 flight home. She confirms this. Ariel confirms it as well.

We are brought over to your check in desk and made to wait another hour until our luggage finally arrives. Then, when we go to be booked with boarding passes, we are told “cathay pacific NEVER UPGRADE passengers!” I was very upset by this point and my wife was CRYING because of how rude and degraded your staff made her feel! I demanded to speak to a manager, and after half an hour of waiting, one eventually arrived. He told us we wouldn’t be upgraded because Cathay pacific has a policy against offering upgrades even when the mistake is made by cathay pacific.

My wife continues to cry and I am so angry I almost yell at your manager.

Eventually we are brought to the lounge we were promised at 1230 pm (it is now 745 pm) and have just enough time to have something to eat before we have to rush to board our plane.

This was the WORST experience I’ve ever had with an airline! The absolute worst!

-you didn’t allow enough time between your own flights. 100% your fault.
-you lost our luggage and LIED about it. 100% your fault.
-your ground staff were rude (except Aries) and were consistently unhelpful. 100% your fault.
-you lied about upgrading us and then forced us to take a lower seat even after waiting 9 hours in Hong Kong airport. 100% your fault.

Accordingly I expect you to refund us 100% of the costs of our flights.

I hope this post is embarrassing for you. It should be. Your staff’s conduct and mistreatment of my wife and I should never have happened. You should be ashamed.
My comments (still ongoing):

(Me 12/1)

1. Your CX5905-CX157 connection - you chose that. CX will sell you that because it's "legal" (within Minimum Connection Time), but will not guarantee the connection. Going out of PRC, I would say that connection is naturally risky because planes leaving PRC are subject to Air Flow Control regularly and we'd advise 4 hour connections. If you misconnect CX will fix it, which they did.

(off-FB comment - referred him to #TeamAngela for this one BA Twitter fails (#TeamAngela))

2. Luggage. No defence possible of CX here. Poor showing.

2a. Going landside was required because CX initially attempted to rebook you on QF98 6:30pm. That requires going landside as QF cannot accept check-in airside and the landside check-in does not open until around 4pm. Obviously that effort was wasted by the failure to transport your luggage from PEK, but at that time sending you landside was correct.

3. Lounge or upgrade for next sector - no entitlement even in "mistake". The staff other than Aries were right CX660-CX163 25Aug misconnect complaint and my comments thereon. I think it's a tone and consistency matter. The tone could have been better. And Aries was trying to get you an exception but you should understand that it's not policy or even routine exception to give you lounge (and never upgrade). Perhaps it'd be better if they all said no to you until they got the exception to do it, don't get your expectations up.

(Lubin-D'Bryant 13/1)

Percy Smith I mean if those are their policies, why would anyone ever fly with them? Seems like they have forgotten that they’re transporting people, and they’re here to provide a service to people. Anyway, Australian consumer law trumps whatever crap policy they have, and we bought these flights in Australia. I have raised this issue with both stare and federal consumer protection agencies, as this is 100% Cathay pacific’s fault.

(Me 13/1)

Those who book more sensible connections, and remember that status (even Qantas status) trumps "mistake" when getting lounge or upgrades with CX during misconnections.

Neither ACCC nor Office of Fair Trading will do a thing. They never did when I used to live here. Prove me wrong.

CX should actually throw 20,000 miles and/or US200 recovery vouchers your way for the baggage debacle. Full refund? No way - again prove me wrong

Last edited by percysmith; Jan 12, 20 at 8:27 pm
percysmith is offline  
Old Jan 12, 20, 3:51 pm
  #2  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: YYZ/MGA
Programs: AA 1MM Lifetime Gold, AA Platinum, WS Gold, Marriott Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 7,506
Is it poor airline planning when someone picks an hour long connection and then it's too short or is it poor passenger planning?
ricktoronto is offline  
Old Jan 12, 20, 3:58 pm
  #3  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Depends
Posts: 15,204
Inadequately short connections were the root cause of both the CX660 case and this case.

Then pax act as if CX owes them comp.

Last edited by percysmith; Jan 13, 20 at 3:56 am
percysmith is offline  
Old Jan 12, 20, 8:22 pm
  #4  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: SZX, HKG
Programs: AA EXP, CX GR, AS MVP GLD
Posts: 461
Apparently CX doesn't have a complete baggage tracking system like, for example, AA does. For AA flights, bags are scanned at check-in and when they are loaded onto/unloaded from planes at each airport, so it takes seconds to tell where the bags are. On the contrary, when I make a tight OW-CX connection and inquire whether my bags have been load, they have to make a phone call and even after that sometimes they are not sure where my bags are.
shd9 is online now  
Old Jan 12, 20, 8:28 pm
  #5  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Depends
Posts: 15,204
Originally Posted by shd9 View Post
Apparently CX doesn't have a complete baggage tracking system like, for example, AA does. For AA flights, bags are scanned at check-in and when they are loaded onto/unloaded from planes at each airport, so it takes seconds to tell where the bags are. On the contrary, when I make a tight OW-CX connection and inquire whether my bags have been load, they have to make a phone call and even after that sometimes they are not sure where my bags are.
So far as not loading or being able to track baggage I agree he should be comped. See my latest reply in post #1 .

Last edited by percysmith; Jan 12, 20 at 8:44 pm
percysmith is offline  
Old Jan 13, 20, 2:25 am
  #6  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: LHR
Programs: BA Silver/ows, CX AsiaMiles (not even GR anymore!) missing my GO days
Posts: 1,538
I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss the pax complaint about the connection time. If CX sold that as within MCT, it shouldn't be up to the pax to be savvy enough to second guess it. Most of the world isn't on FT and takes airlines at their word on these things. I'm still surprised after all these years that CX doesn't set a longer MCT for ex-mainland connections since the reliability is so poor. The reason presumably is so that CX can offer a greater illusion of convenience at the booking stage by displaying short connection/travel times to the unwary.

And since part of the deal with an MCT is that the airline commits to rebooking if you do miss the connecting flight, CX's struggle to do that here with any sort of smoothness or convenience for the pax isn't excusable.
CrazyJ82 is offline  
Old Jan 13, 20, 2:45 am
  #7  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Depends
Posts: 15,204
Originally Posted by CrazyJ82 View Post
I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss the pax complaint about the connection time. If CX sold that as within MCT, it shouldn't be up to the pax to be savvy enough to second guess it. Most of the world isn't on FT and takes airlines at their word on these things.
Perhaps there's an expectation gap here.
Certainly we here have the concept of "sane" (and insane) MCTs.

But even to the casual traveller, is MCT supposed to mean the airline thinks:
- "we think it's sane. It'll be a service failing of ours if it isn't"; or
- "we think it's physically feasible, provided things go your way. If it doesn't, we'll fix it without cost to you"?

Originally Posted by CrazyJ82 View Post
I'm still surprised after all these years that CX doesn't set a longer MCT for ex-mainland connections since the reliability is so poor. The reason presumably is so that CX can offer a greater illusion of convenience at the booking stage by displaying short connection/travel times to the unwary.
Setting longer Mainland MCT will be explicitly saying Mainland air traffic reliability is not good <-- politically infeasible.

Maybe (quietly) pad PRC flight schedules better like HX moving forward? And revise when circumstances improve. Probably best option out of a bad bunch.

Originally Posted by CrazyJ82 View Post
And since part of the deal with an MCT is that the airline commits to rebooking if you do miss the connecting flight, CX's struggle to do that here with any sort of smoothness or convenience for the pax isn't excusable.
The end result isn't really too bad - OP got rebooked onto next CX flight, 9 hours away.

OP appears to have initiated both requests for special treatment (lounge and upgrade). I'm not sure any other airline will be more accommodating in practice (definitely not in policy).

And asking for a full refund after a 9 hour delay in a transcontinental trip is quite rich.

Last edited by percysmith; Jan 13, 20 at 4:17 am
percysmith is offline  
Old Jan 14, 20, 2:23 am
  #8  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Programs: MR Platinum
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by shd9 View Post
Apparently CX doesn't have a complete baggage tracking system like, for example, AA does. For AA flights, bags are scanned at check-in and when they are loaded onto/unloaded from planes at each airport, so it takes seconds to tell where the bags are. On the contrary, when I make a tight OW-CX connection and inquire whether my bags have been load, they have to make a phone call and even after that sometimes they are not sure where my bags are.
Although this is unrelated to any oneworld airline, UA is probably miles ahead where real-time info is provided through the UA app.
Have a tight connection and not sure whether your bag made it?
No problem. Open the UA app and you can see in real-time whether your bags made it.
CS300 is offline  
Old Jan 14, 20, 4:33 am
  #9  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Depends
Posts: 15,204
Originally Posted by shd9 View Post
Apparently CX doesn't have a complete baggage tracking system like, for example, AA does. For AA flights, bags are scanned at check-in and when they are loaded onto/unloaded from planes at each airport, so it takes seconds to tell where the bags are. On the contrary, when I make a tight OW-CX connection and inquire whether my bags have been load, they have to make a phone call and even after that sometimes they are not sure where my bags are.
Originally Posted by CS300 View Post
Although this is unrelated to any oneworld airline, UA is probably miles ahead where real-time info is provided through the UA app.
Have a tight connection and not sure whether your bag made it?
No problem. Open the UA app and you can see in real-time whether your bags made it.
Actually the whole baggage issue becomes less important if CX sent the pax onward to QF without their bags

That is possible - see how EK recovered 56 passengers from a teched CZ flight below.

Because final carrier EK (QF) is responsible for bag, CZ has to send confirmation of indemnity to final carrier. Being in HKG I have no idea why CX couldn't have provided this indemnity, and get the pax onward to QF sooner and avoid some of their complaints.

BNE is also a CX port so CX can send the bag on its own flight and transport to pax afterwards.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce8QIx2ZbEg#t=23m35s
percysmith is offline  
Old Jan 14, 20, 4:52 am
  #10  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 64
I have to say Cathay is no longer that Cathay anymore, it is in the deep trouble at the moment, it has lot its way in the past few years, along with those cost cuttings, squeezing more seats in their 77W to boost the revenue etc. You will just have to hold your breath don't put too much expectation on them. But sorry for your experience.
wxxnxs is offline  
Old Jan 14, 20, 5:45 am
  #11  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Depends
Posts: 15,204
Originally Posted by wxxnxs View Post
I have to say Cathay is no longer that Cathay anymore, it is in the deep trouble at the moment, it has lot its way in the past few years, along with those cost cuttings, squeezing more seats in their 77W to boost the revenue etc. You will just have to hold your breath don't put too much expectation on them. But sorry for your experience.
Not nitpicking on your comment but neither CX5905 nor BNE-HKG is served by 77W.

And tight connections is not a new thing (Cathay is no longer that Cathay anymore).
percysmith is offline  
Old Jan 15, 20, 8:39 pm
  #12  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Depends
Posts: 15,204
Originally Posted by percysmith View Post
Perhaps there's an expectation gap here.
Certainly we here have the concept of "sane" (and insane) MCTs.

But even to the casual traveller, is MCT supposed to mean the airline thinks:
- "we think it's sane. It'll be a service failing of ours if it isn't"; or
- "we think it's physically feasible, provided things go your way. If it doesn't, we'll fix it without cost to you"?



Setting longer Mainland MCT will be explicitly saying Mainland air traffic reliability is not good <-- politically infeasible.
A CA case where pax had second thoughts on attempting 1hr25min TWOV T3-T3 PEK connection Air China punctuality concern

(Legal; and feasible (moondog) or if things go his way and he knows what he's doing (me))
percysmith is offline  
Old Jan 15, 20, 8:45 pm
  #13  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
2020 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 30,892
Originally Posted by percysmith View Post
A CA case where pax had second thoughts on attempting 1hr25min TWOV T3-T3 PEK connection Air China punctuality concern

(Legal; and feasible (moondog) or if things go his way and he knows what he's doing (me))
That guy should seriously calm down. Now that he has $300 at risk (for the cancellation fee), he either eats that cost, makes his connection, or spends a night in Beijing.
moondog is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: