CX B.
-
Content Count
57 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by CX B.
-
-
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
-
Cathay Dragon flights KA 725 & 734 are now using Cathay Pacific aircraft as seen from Flightradar24
with CX's or KA's crew?
-
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?
-
are they dropping their DXB stop?
-
good to see consistency in service as i believe they dont have different fare structure for both SQ/MI flights ex KUL to make it justifiable
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
So SQ is intending to use the 787-10 on regional routes? Thought the 787-10 can fly further than regional?
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.
-
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
-
Y screen was much more responsive than on the other MH fleet. Less use of the controller.
Thanks mate!
-
ok sorry in advance if anyone feels im deviating from the main topic but just to share the latest "fairytale" reply received from MH...
We are back as promised,xxxxxxxx. We regret that you are unable to secure your preferred seats for flight MH1140 from Kuala Lumpur to Penang on ..........December 2017. Based on our check, your aircraft had been changed to A350 and you had been assigned to seat 10K and 10J which is the next best seat available for this flight.We hope this clarifies and apologize for any inconvenience you have experienced. Thank you. -AC
i cant stand the nonsense and didnt bother to reply anymore ............
Latest reply received from MH for those interested:
How unfortunate that you feel this way, Mrxxxxx. The information mentioned above is the finding we received from the respective team by using your booking number. We much appreciate your understanding that we are dealing with limited access to go through your booking through social media. However, you may reach our call centre at 1 300 88 3000 or reservation team at gccc.reservations@malaysiaairlines.com to assist your further in regard to your preferred seat. We hope this clarifies the situation. We understand that sitting in your preferred seat could enhance your travel experience. Thus, your inconvenience over the changes is deeply regretted. -ZICan 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.
-
It's called adjusting to the situation. In fact I've personal experience with this - AK had cancelled my flight to Langkawi, and my whole office trip was almost cancelled until someone suggested that we fly on to Penang & take the bus to Kuala Kedah & the ferry. The most interesting thing is that not only were we NOT compensated, AK CHARGED us to change destinations! At least in this case UA is willing to give compensation.
Are you willing to inconvenience 50 or more people (delays have a way of cascading down the line) when there's an option where only 4 people are inconvenienced?
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?
-
Now the question is, why don't the passengers go by land transport?
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. -
Why are CX/KA crew actively avoiding KUL service?
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?
-
Airline decision making are based on hard data, not emotion.
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.
-
You get none of that on KA with their robotic, overworked FAs who are already complaining about working the KUL turnarounds.
Not complaining about KA's inflight service, but it is true that KA crews (and even CX's) are actively avoiding KUL flights by giving it away whenever possible. At least that's what I heard from people working in CX/KA.
Because Malaysia (west Malaysia and KUL in particular) is too close to SIN and Changi already establishes itself as unofficial aviation hub for west Malaysia. Thailand and in particular BKK is considered a hub for Indo-China or mainland southeast asia... Thailand is as everyone knows massively popular leisure destination in itself and fits the imagination of general western tourists as representing the whole of South East Asia and a good starting point for tourists wishing to tour the region.
Totally right! SIN is already an established hub and BKK is a strong market. Which is a sad case for us. But KUL's master plan suggests that it envisions itself as a major hub too, and things don't seem to develop in this direction - firstly with AF and LH pulling out, and now CX.
When the big players are abandoning you, it is hardly convincing to portray the image necessary for attracting other major airlines and opening new routes. -
I guess airports like AMS, LAX etc are also doing badly because they can't retain MH service?
Wait, or is it because MH is not doing well, hence pulled out?
Wait again, is CX doing well? Hm....
CX is not doing well but you don't see them pulling out of SIN, BKK or even a holiday destination like DPS (as Craig says, and where both KA and CX are serving concurrently). It makes people wonder why a capital city like KL and its main airport can't keep a major carrier in the APAC region like CX, or say Qantas or Asiana. Why are we not attractive enough is a question we much deal with if we want to see KUL bloom. MAHB financially sustainable or not is one thing, but the missed opportunity to attract major carriers (which translates to more foreign businesses and investments) is another thing.
-
If I remembered correctly, they fly from Oslo to Bangkok Suvarnabhumi. My brother has flown with them before.
yup they have direct flights from BKK to Oslo, Stockholm, and Copenhagen. not with the best frequency though.
-
Because there's no explicit rule that states passenger already boarded cannot be bumped before departure I don't think it's as clear cut as it may sound. Also given that there's no clear definition of what constitutes boarding in the CoC United could simply argue that the boarding process is not complete until pushback.
Good point on the definition of boarding. But if boarding is construed in the literal sense, it is exactly because there is no legal right to bump a passenger after boarding which made it wrong for United to have forcibly removed the pax. As said the right to bump must derive from a legislation or from the contract - and apparently there is no such right at all unless boarding is successfully argued to be a while process from boarding announcement to the moment the chocks are removed for pushback.
United should, could & must contest & shift the liability to the Airport police because it wasn't United's staff who administered the beating, unless there is proof that the United employee ordered excessive force to be used.
It was't their staff who administered the beating and we don't know if the cops were requested to apply violence. But the incident happen nevertheless because of United's need for seats - which is something they probably will contest at the court on the reasonableness thereof. If it is found to be unreasonable to bump a pax off because of the need for seats for its crews, I think there is a causal link there to establish liability. But how useful this causal link can be really depends on which area of law they are relying. The cops are definitely liable though, especially when the person administering the violence was not following the standard protocol as they already admitted. But United is too liable here in my opinion la, because but for their potentially wrongful need to get the pax out of the plane the doctor wouldn't have suffered. It is something like manslaughter under most common law jurisdictions, where if you intend to only slap someone (hence assault) but somehow that slap results in the victim loosing balance and falling off the balcony (haha imagine), you are liable for manslaughter even though you did not intend the victim to fall and die. But the United situation is a bit complicated with different entities involved. See how the drama unfolds la.
There is a good reason - they're accommodating crews operating the next flight out of the destination airport. It is the last flight of the day, and if they waited they would have needed to delay that flight & thus inconveniencing up to 50-100 people.
Inconveniencing 4 or 100? The choice is pretty simple actually.
Don't think that is a good reason though, because as many online have already suggested, the destination is merely a few hours car ride away, or United could have paxed their crew over by their competitors' flight. There were quite some options but they decided to go the ugliest way. The availability of other options are actually very relevant IMO in deciding the reasonableness of their action, both in terms of fact and in terms of law.
Can't wait for the case to go to the court I hope they don't settle outside the court! No matter how complex the airline business is (and we all know it is very complicated), no one should ever be treated in this manner. While security is a concern, there is a fine line between security and operational issues and airlines should be made to realise the distinction - this is important because we can't assume that all airlines will operate responsibly like most Asian carriers with good customer services would, and there is a need to protect vulnerable passengers like the poor fella.
-
Sounds like most people believe that airlines enjoy such a right to bump people as and when they like it. Doubt this can be the case. A right as such has to arise from a legislation or from the contract between the airline and the pax. Not an expert on US aviation law here but at least from a contract law perspective (which isn't all that different because US contract law or our Malaysian contract law were both developed from the English contract law), it does seem that there is no such right to remove a passenger from a flight once the passenger has boarded, unless the passenger posed a security threat. I did not bother reading United's standard COC but there is a nice summary of it here on why United has no right to bump a pax after boarding based on the COC by a law prof at G. Washington University: http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/
Anyway even if there is such a right to bump a pax off the plane after boarding (just assuming if there is such a provision in the contract), I doubt the clause could be read to mean that a passenger has agreed in the CoC to be treated in such a manner with the use of force - remember, the situation arose only because of the airline's need for seats, not because of the passenger's misbehaviour. At least under English law (and to a certain extent Malaysian law) no one could ever consent through a contract to be inflicted with bodily harm (save for the situation of security threat). I don't see why US law would take a different position on this matter to allow someone to be forcibly dragged off the plane causing bodily harm just because a clause in the contract makes it appear to be permissible. Invalid consent = legally unenforceable clause. Only problem here is that the harm was caused by the aviation cops instead of the airline. So this complicates the matter a bit. But the police authority already admitted that what happened wasn't in accordance with their standard procedure. So basically misconduct on the part of the cops.
To sum up I really don't think that a person should be treated like this, and while not being an expert of those areas of law, gut feeling is that the airline did not have a right to force a pax off a plane for no good reason, and the cops acted in breach of their duty. Pax wins, and really, it should be settled at court or there won't be a binding precedent to prevent future mishaps.
-
I wonder how it would sound in Cantonese? 港龍 becomes 泰龍?
國泰港龍航空
not too sure about the official abbreviation yet.
-
Malaysia Airlines - B737-400, B737-800, B777-200ER, A330-200, A330-300, F50
Firefly - ATR72-500
Malindo Air - ATR72-600
Singapore Airlines - B747-400, B777-200, B777-300ER, A380
SilkAir - A319, A320
Tigerair - A320
AirAsia - B737-300, A320
AirAsia X - A330-300
Jetstar Asia - A320
Scoot - B777-200
Thai Airways - A300-600, A330-300
China Southern Airlines - B757-200
Xiamen Airlines - B737-700
Cathay Pacific - A330-300, A340-300
Dragon Air - A321, A330-300
Vietnam Airlines - A321
All Nippon Airways - B737-700, B747-400D
Emirates - B777-300, B777-300ER, A380
KLM - B747-400Ryanair - B737-800
Wizzair - A320
Flybe - Dash 8 Q400
Iberia Express - A320
Iberia - A321
Aer Lingus - A320
-
Manchester 7th June 2015, before my flight to SIN.
Flybe Embraer E-Jet.
G-FCLI Thomas Cook Airlines B757-28A.
N12125 United Airlines B757-224, operating as UA80 to EWR.
G-FDZT Thomson Airways B737-8K5. Note the split-scimitar winglets!
C-FDAT Air Transat A310-308, operating as TS264 from YYZ.
G-TUID Thomson Airways B787-8 Dreamliner.
-
Covid-19: Airlines seek emergency aid as coronavirus brings industry to near-halt
in General Aviation
Posted · Report reply
Will we see CX back in KUL, or will UO be taking over that route? Wonder what will happen to PEN too.