Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal

CX B.

Members
  • Content Count

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

3 Followers

About CX B.

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Aer Lingus - A320 AirAsia - B737-300, A320, A320neo AirAsia X - A330-300 Air Berlin - A321 Air Canada - B787-9, E175, E190 Air Canada Rouge - B767-300 Air France - A320, A321 Alaska Airlines - A319 All Nippon Airways - B737-700, B747-400D British Airways - A320, E170 Cathay Dragon - A330-300 Cathay Pacific - A330-300, A340-300, A350-1000, B777-300ER China Southern Airlines - B757-200 Dragon Air - A321, A330-300 EasyJet - A319, A320 Germanwings - A319/320 Grand Canyon Airlines - Cessna 208B Grand Caravan Iberia - A321 Iberia Express - A320 Emirates - B777-300, B777-300ER, A380 Firefly - ATR72-500 Flybe - Dash 8 Q400, E175/195 Japan Airlines - B777-200ER Jet2 - B737-800 Jetstar Asia - A320 KLM - B747-400 Malaysia Airlines - B737-400, B737-800, B777-200ER, A330-200, A330-300, F50 Malindo Air - ATR72-600 Monarch - A321 Norwegian - B737-800 Ryanair - B737-800 Scoot - B777-200 SilkAir - A319, A320, B737-800 Singapore Airlines - A330-300, A380, A350-900, B747-400, B777-200, B777-300ER, B787-10 Thai Airways - A300-600, A330-300 Tigerair - A320 Transavia - B737-800 Vietnam Airlines - A321 Volotea - B717 Vueling - A320 Wizzair - A320 Xiamen Airlines - B737-700
  2. https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2018/08/23/will-garuda-continue-to-serve-london-heathrow-nonstop/ It says that AMS offers better connectivity to various UK secondary cities as compared to LHR, which is true. But is there really no demand for a direct CGK-LHR/LGW service?
  3. are they dropping their DXB stop?
  4. exactly. since they are priced the same I used to consciously avoid MI whenever possible. But after a while it no longer mattered because of how short the flight was and that was when timing became the determining factor.
  5. one thing that's on my watchlist is the J product that will be fitted on the 737. Is it gonna be a 1-1 or 2-2 configuration? To achieve consistency I would imagine SQ to fit their new regional J seats (those debuted on the 78J) onto the 737 but that might mean very few J seats onboard?
  6. So it is happening (soon)! Just imagine the timeless SQ livery painted on those B737-800 & MAX 8 It makes me excited already! In short: - MI's cabin product will be upgraded from 2020 to be on par with that of SQ's (IFE on each seat + lie-flat J class). - Only after a sufficient number of aircrafts are retrofitted that we will see the merger happening. https://www.straitstimes.com/business/companies-markets/sia-merging-silkair-into-flagship-carrier
  7. i think it has always been their plan to use the 787-10 for only regional routes, and hence the dense configuration and the narrower regional J seats albeit in a 4-abreast arrangement.
  8. Aer Lingus - A320 AirAsia - B737-300, A320 AirAsia X - A330-300 Air Berlin - A321 Air Canada - B787-9, E175, E190 Air Canada Rouge - B767-300 Air France - A320, A321 All Nippon Airways - B737-700, B747-400D British Airways - A320 Cathay Pacific - A330-300, A340-300 China Southern Airlines - B757-200 Dragon Air - A321, A330-300 EasyJet - A320 Germanwings - A319/320 Iberia - A321 Iberia Express - A320 Emirates - B777-300, B777-300ER, A380 Firefly - ATR72-500 Flybe - Dash 8 Q400, E175/195 Jet2 - B737-800 Jetstar Asia - A320 KLM - B747-400 Malaysia Airlines - B737-400, B737-800, B777-200ER, A330-200, A330-300, F50 Malindo Air - ATR72-600 Monarch - A321 Norwegian - B787-800 Ryanair - B737-800 Scoot - B777-200 SilkAir - A319, A320, B737-800 Singapore Airlines - B747-400, B777-200, B777-300ER, A330, A380, A350 Thai Airways - A300-600, A330-300 Tigerair - A320 Transavia - B737-800 Vietnam Airlines - A321 Wizzair - A320 Xiamen Airlines - B737-700
  9. Can I assume that MH sent you further messages even though you did not bother replying to the nonsense anymore? That's pretty impressive of MH isn't it? But really, I doubt there is any misrepresentation even if at the point of booking, F seats were available as J seats for selection. And even if there is arguably some form of misrep, there won't be any actionable misrep in law - or else any swap of equipment which would almost inevitably result in seat changes could give rise to multiple actions in misrep. That in turn places an undue burden on airlines to avoid making seat changes even for a good reasons. So the bottom line is that you are guaranteed a J seat as per your purchase but most perks on top of that (apart from safety-related issues etc.) would not form part of the contract, nor would they constitute any representation made to induce anyone into contracting with the airline. I am no one to comment, but I believe that everyone should be allowed to voice as long as he/she does not make provocative or derogatory remarks. On a side note, wow! That's a lot to follow up after not frequenting this thread for weeks. One question, how responsive is the touch screen in Y? I think I'm quite dumb at using touchscreen IFE. Prefer traditional hand-held controller.
  10. Legally speaking there is no obligation on the part of the poor fella to accommodate to United's problem - we can't expect someone to adjust to the situation out of good will, especially when he is a paying pax! He has every right to be on that flight and we can't fault him for not being considerate enough. (Personally i don't even think that he was being inconsiderate). Moreover United did not even offer to compensate at the level required by law for overbooking (but IMO, that level of compensation is not relevant here because it wasn't a case of overbooking, and United did not have any legal right to bump a pax already onboard). And to distinguish from your AK situation, yours is very much voluntarily accepting the situation, but as I said, Dr Dao is not expected under the law (or even under a social contract) to voluntarily give up his seat (which is why the public is mad at United). Also yours is a case of cancelation which is most likely covered by the carriage contract whereas his situation is not allowed either by law or by contract. And I don't agree with the inconveniencing of lesser people vs more people. United has not proven that flying the crew over was the only solution (they dare not even respond to this point). In fact, their newly revised policy (that paxing crew for operations must be confirmed at least an hour before flight) actually shows that not only was it possible for an alternative to be pursued, but also that their old policy in allowing crews to board last minute was flawed. If they die die need to pax crew over for operational reasons they won't put this new policy in place, I believe. Furthermore, with United's large network across the whole of USA, they should have standby crews at different bases in case the 4 couldn't make it. It is an industrial practice, and even SQ has crews standing by in London in case any crew at any European stations couldn't go on duty last minute. So if the 4 crews in this case could not have flown over, I'm sure United could have sent another set of standby crews from elsewhere. It was simply that United was too stingy to pursue a more expensive solution, but instead rather have the cheapest option. Who is the one inconveniencing more people, when an airline (with the necessary human and financial resources nationwide) is reluctant to fix its own problem by a more expensive way, but instead choose to abuse the innocent paying customer because it is cheap to do so?
  11. Don't know how to agree with this. If a passenger is willing to go by land transport, he would not have bought a plane ticket in the first place. And until now I doubt United ever claimed that there wasn't any other option to ferry their crew there. They simply did not care to think of other options, or increase the compensation so that someone would eventually voluntarily give up the seat. And as explained previously under the law United has NO legal rights whatsoever to bump a passenger like that - whether it is under federal aviation laws or under the carriage contract between the airline and the pax - they can't do it legally. Even without speaking about the law, what they did is at all levels inhumane. So, for something which is not only inhumane but also lacking in legal justification - I really don't see why we should expect a passenger to go by land transport when it is the airline at fault here.
  12. was told that pax are hard to serve. both in EY and in J. and talking about the layover, apparently KA has quite an awkward pattern for the last flight which means very little time to rest. By the way what's the downside as a J pax other than having to survive on a KA metal (and maybe meals) for some 3 hours as part of a longer journey to Europe? Have never been on CX/KA's J but from what I understand KA has got CX's regional J product. Whenever my folks came to visit me in recent years they seemed to get the same kind of product on both the KUL-HKG and HKG-LHR sectors, so I assume that CX does not religiously deploying only the regional products to KUL?
  13. Yes exactly. Which is what I have been trying to say in my previous post - that these airlines pulling out of KUL but not other regional hubs like SIN and BKK, and even leisure destinations like DPS, actually says a lot about KUL's attractiveness - and that is something we (or rather MAHB) have to address.
×
×
  • Create New...