When I travelled from Kuala Lumpur to Seoul almost six weeks ago, I chose to fly with Cathay Pacific. Having previously travelled with Malaysia Airlines and Singapore Airlines, I wanted to experience the only other Asian airline that many rave about. Sadly, while it made an impression, it wasn’t a good one.

I wrote the following to Cathay Pacific - it should be self-explanatory. It has been over five weeks, and four submissions via their online contact-form, since I first contacted Cathay Pacific and they have still not given resolved my complain satisfactorily. In fact, I have not received any response, bar an automated one, to the following report which I lodged with Cathay Pacific over three weeks ago (on 17 October 2007).

Cathay Pacific’s markets itself with the tag “It’s the little things that move you“. Well… the little things have certainly moved me - in fact, they’ve aggravated me greatly - but Cathay Pacific does not seem to know how to move me back.

Not impressed. At all.

—

On 01 October 2007, I boarded CX720 in Kuala Lumpur for Hong Kong. The flight was supposed to arrive at 1325H after which I was expected to connect onto CX418 for Seoul at 1420H. Unfortunately, on arrival in Hong Kong, I (and a few other passengers) were taken aside and told that we had been rebooked onto CX416 which departs Hong Kong at 1640H. We were told the reason we had been rebooked was that there was not enough time for us to connect onto CX418. We were further told the reason there was not enough time to connect was that the air-crafts were parked very far apart. We were then given a voucher, bearing some nominal value, for use at selected food and beverage outlets in Hong Kong airport.

This marked the beginning of a very unpleasant, terribly dissatisfying and ultimately disappointing experience with Cathay Pacific.

I was not happy with being rebooked onto CX416. Cathay Pacific accepted the original booking of CX720 connecting with CX418. On the basis of that acceptance, one would have thought that the connection was therefore possible, or that it would be made possible. I found it unacceptable to be told only on arrival in Hong Kong that not only was the connection not possible but that my journey was being delayed by two hours. While we were given a nominal voucher for a beverage to help ease the inconvenience, what was not compensated was the trouble that I had to go to ensure that my accommodation arrangements would still be alright with the delay and that I ended up arriving in Seoul in the dark of the night instead of the evening as I would have preferred.

If the connection between CX720 and CX418 was not at all possible, Cathay Pacific should not have accepted the original booking or Cathay Pacific should have contacted me, or my travel agent, in advance of the day of the flights. I would at least have been able to consider alternatives or made preparations for both the longer travel time and the later arrival into Seoul.

Sadly, my disappointing encounter with Cathay Pacific did not end there.

On arrival in Seoul at, what was for me, the late hour of 2105H, I discovered, when I picked up my suitcase, that it had been damaged. I had checked in one hard “Carlton”-branded suitcase, weighing about 23kgs, when I boarded CX720 in Kuala Lumpur. When the suitcase was picked up at the carousel in Incheon airport on arrival from CX416, one side of the suitcase had “popped out” - the side was bent and protruding outwards. It should not have been in that condition.

I promptly brought the matter up with Cathay Pacific’s baggage counter in the arrivals hall. I first spoke to a young lady bearing the tag with the name “Kim Ji Young”. After a brief exchange of information, she called a colleague over - a gentleman whose name I did not manage to obtain. He inspected my suitcase and made two comments:

1. He said that the damage was minor and that Cathay Pacific would not provide compensation.
2. He suggested that I had packed or closed the suitcase improperly, thus leading to the damage.

After further discussion, I was then referred to Cathay Pacific’s airport manager, Mr Choi Man Ok. Another discussion ensued, the gist of which can be summarised with two comments:

1. Mr Ok again claimed that the damage was minor.
2. Mr Ok said that such damages occur “all the time” and suggested that we just have to put up with it.

Needless to say I was appalled by the two callous comments made by both Mr Choi and the other gentleman. I think it was insulting to have suggested that I had mishandled my own luggage. I found it even more incredulous that Cathay Pacific’s manager would state that damages occur all the time and that passengers should just put up with it. I am sure few of your passengers would blindly accept such an argument.

The suitcase was in good condition when I checked into CX720 in Kuala Lumpur. The staff at the check-in counter in Kuala Lumpur certainly did not point out any damage or fault with the suitcase. All three members of Cathay Pacific’s staff I encountered in Incheon on the night of 01 October acknowledged that my suitcase had suffered some damage. In short, the suitcase was checked-in in good condition in Kuala Lumpur. When it arrived in Incheon, it was no longer in the condition it was when I entrusted it to Cathay Pacific in Kuala Lumpur. I would not consider the fact that the suitcase had popped out and was no longer closed properly to be “minor”.

By this time, I had no wish to enter into a protracted discussion with Cathay Pacific’s staff in Incheon, especially when they were clearly not amenable to a reasonable discussion, let alone resolution. I was almost 2230H. I had been travelling for 15 hours by then and I was worried about my accommodation in Seoul. I decided to end the conversation and advised them that I would be taking the matter up with Cathay Pacific’s main office in Hong Kong directly.

This thus brings me to my communication with Cathay Pacific via your website.

As you are aware, 02 October 2007, I contacted you via your online feedback form requesting that you provide me with an email address to which I could lodge my complaint. When I didn’t hear from you, I submitted the same request, via your online feedback form again, on 11 October. As you well know, it was not until 15 October that I received a response from you. It took you two weeks to get back to me on a simple request and even then I was still not given an email address to which I could correspond. Instead, I was asked to use the online feedback form again or resort to a fax.

Now, if I had wanted to use a fax or your online feedback form to lodge my complain, I would have done so in the first place. The reason I did not do so was because (1) I have no access to a fax machine while I am visiting Seoul and (2) I wanted to provide you with digital photos of the damage done to the suitcase. In the absence of an email address, the photos will have to wait.

To summarise: I have not been satisfied with my recent experience flying with Cathay Pacific. My travel was prolonged, my suitcase was damaged and I feel that I have been treated rather unfairly. What could have been a simple and straightforward transaction in dealing with my complaint about the suitcase turned into a protracted sequence of poor customer service. On the whole, this has been an unpleasant, dissatisfying and ultimately disappointing experience. Given that this was my first flight on Cathay Pacific in 20 years of flying and given that I had an option between Cathay Pacific, Korean Air and Malaysia Airlines, we are not off to a good start.

At this stage, I expect a fair and thorough response from you.

For your information, my luggage had a tag with the number CXxxxxxx.

  

Posted on November 9th, 2007 by jl
Filed under: Fieldwork