Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 2,328 total)

  • IanFromHKG

    RAM does seem more likely from what is said above. As for CZ – well, I am not sure that there is that much conflict between the two. I haven’t done a full analysis but on each route I have looked at into China, I’d have ended up using CX/KA anyway (and not just because of my FF status) – CZ either aren’t on the route or don’t offer such a good product. It would be valuable for CX and other OW members to have a domestic airline in China, even if it is based a bit too close to HK to be ideal from CX’s perspective. Remember also that despite being managed by Swire, the mainland has considerable influence over CX, as witness the various shareholding shuffles that have taken place


    Not just wet wipes, antiseptic wet wipes, I hope! I also carry a small bottle of alcohol gel and use it fairly frequently after going through the dirty parts of airports / hotels. I recently found in Boots a small travel-size antiviral spray which will be my new companion – bacteria aren’t the only problem, and viruses are harder to kill and treat!


    Every time that I fly I have a cold two days later and studies shown that the air on flights are contaminated with everybody’s germs that caused multiples sickness

    Millie, most airline cabins provide cleaner air than most hospitals, but you are right that airborne and droplet infection is a risk. To minimise this:
    Sit at the back of the cabin. People cough and sneeze forwards as a general rule, so if there’s no-one behind you it is much less likely you will get a vector-borne disease. I learnt that trick during SARS and have never caught a cold on a plane when travelling with a bulkhead behind me
    Take, and use, frequently, antiseptic wipes /sprays/gels etc. Apparently, the bin trays used at airport security are more germ-ridden than most toilets…
    Don’t touch food, crockery, cutlery or your face unless you use aforesaid antiseptic products before and after

    I bet that if you follow this regime you will have far fewer illnesses when travelling

    1 user thanked author for this post.


    I wonder if the guaranteed rate is like the seat guarantee that some airlines offer their FFPs – only available for certain rates / fare buckets? That might explain the difference.

    On a related note, on Sunday night I tried to rebook my business class flight to Nanjing oN Cathay Dragon in a couple of weeks’ time and was told the flight was full, so I asked how much it would cost to upgrade my D class ticket to J or C in order to get the guaranteed seat I thought I was entitled to as CX Diamond and was astonished to be told that the guaranteed business class seat benefit now only applies on CX and not KA. So I asked to downgrade my ticket to Y in order too get the guaranteed economy seat (that benefit applies to both airlines) – that seemed to be a lot harder than expected and I was told they would need to contact the ticketing desk. Since I was standing at the airport in Hong Kong, their home hub, at a desk above which was a large sign saying “Ticketing” I expressed a degree of surprise that this should be necessary. Ask was well in the end, they recalculated the fares and discovered (shock horror!) that economy was cheaper than business, downgraded me and gave me my guaranteed seat and only charged me a rebooking fee (a bit over 100 quid, which was annoying to get a crappier seat, but totally worthwhile to see my darling Senior Offspring for about double the time I would otherwise have seen her)


    There are just two charities I regularly support – The Royal British Legion, and the RNLI. The former because having lost both my grandfathers in WWII, and my father having been seriously injured in the Dunkirk landings (he made an almost full recovery, but spent 1½ years in hospital) their good works seem more personal to me. The latter because I am a keen boater and it is the only charity I am aware of where local people regularly volunteer huge amounts of time, and risk their lives, and use their local knowledge, to save others. The common theme is sacrifice – a concept that really came home to me last Sunday, watching the Remembrance Day commemorations.

    No charity is perfect. Private Eye had a right old go at the RNLI a few years ago, I recall. All have overheads that have to be met somehow, and I do take LP’s points that these are probably minimised when dealing with small charities – however, I think it also fair to point out that larger charities may ultimately have the financial or political clout to achieve greater results.

    While I don’t donate to Comic Relief, I applaud the entertainers who have such a hold over the public using that power for good. I, for one, have no issue with BA teaming up with them.

    3 users thanked author for this post.


    From the article Tom linked to:

    “A major cyberattack that saw the data of 9.4 million Cathay Pacific Airways customers stolen by hackers was far worse than the airline has previously admitted… Throughout our investigation into this incident, our foremost objective and primary motivation has been to support our affected passengers by providing accurate and meaningful information,” the statement said.”

    The integrity issues continue, it seems.


    Dear Steve, first of all let me add my heartiest best wishes to those of the other respondents.

    I have had a couple of PSA tests, thankfully negative, and also a couple of colonoscopies, which are not a barrel of laughs. The former were clear, the latter required removing some pre-cancerous cells. There is a lot of focus on cancers affecting women, and cervical smears and mammograms are commonplace on the distaff side – yet most men do not take the corresponding precautions. I applaud you coming here to explain your own history and encouraging others to do what you did. Because of my history I will be having colonoscopies regularly. I also have a history of skin lesions (fortunately only benign carcinoma) so I bare myself to a specialist every year for a full top-to-toe check.

    Because of an unrelated health condition, I receive – for a whopping HK$80 (about US$10), which isn’t quite as cheap as the NHS but to my mind represents extraordinarily good value, particularly since I pay just HK$30 in prescription fees for the drugs I require which would cost about HK$40,000 privately – a fairly comprehensive blood screening every four months, but it doesn’t include the PSA test. That I pay for privately, and think is superb value for money (even thought it’s quite expensive).

    I would also like to make a little plug here for a company with which I have no association other than as a satisfied customer. A couple of years ago some friends gave me for my birthday (probably as a joke, but they are the sort of friends where you can never really tell!) some “Oddballs” underwear. All profits go to raise awareness of testicular cancer (yes, I know that isn’t your issue, but LP raised it before me!). The cause is so good, and to be really truthful I find them so comfortable, that I rarely wear anything else (at least in the underwear department!).

    Again, all best wishes. I am so glad you were able to get an early diagnosis, and thank you for encouraging others to have the same early opportunity for treatment that you did.


    Ian – I think the F seats are all fully forward facing, so could potentially remove 2 rows / 8 in total.

    That doesn’t seem to be what the slides are suggesting, they say 8 or 14. As I pointed out, those match the current sizes, so this could only mean removing six seats from the cabins that have 14


    The second slide is interesting. To summarise the boxes on the right:
    1. Optimise First: 8/14 seat cabins
    2. CW: Increased seat count, increased floorspace
    3. WTP: Increased seat count, increased floorspace
    4. WT: Increased seat count, “competitive configuration”

    Now I think I am right in saying that all BA’s four-class airframes offer 14 seats in First except for the B787-9, which offers 8. Now, even if you take out the “row and a half” which takes you down from 14 seats to 8 in one of the other airframes, I don’t think that gives you a lot more aircraft length to play with. I am guessing 12 feet at most (given that the F seats in the 14-class planes are reverse herringbone and so overlap, and have a stated pitch of 78 inches). And yet with that extra 12 feet they are going to increase the seat count and floorspace of the CW cabin AND increase the seatspace and floorspace of the WTP cabin AND increase the seat count in WT. That WT “competitive configuration” is going to be something to see. And something to avoid…


    It is the airport that are required to provide assistance, and by all accounts they did so – he just refused to accept them, apparently on principled grounds that he wanted his independence (which I understand, but does not mean that the airport didn’t satisfy their obligations). I’m not a litigation lawyer, but I would have thought he would struggle to succeed in a claim against the airport.

    I agree with esselle, from what I can see here, it is the airline that lost the chair which is the culpable party. Strange that they aren’t named, but the airport is. What on earth is going on?

    I suspect there are some facts not included above which are relevant, or that someone is pushing a very particular agenda.


    The below illustrates ether your misunderstanding of the meaning of ‘sanguine’ and/or your misreading of my original post.

    Fair cop – “sanguine” was the wrong word to use. Perhaps “resigned” or “indifferent” would be more appropriate

    C You infer that you are aware of systems collecting similar information that you know with some personal confidence to be superior and more robust.

    I standby the assertion above as in my view that this was exactly what your original post implied.

    I wish to make it very explicitly clear that I did not intend to make any such assertion.

    Your intention or not your post was an extravagantly aggressive one that overreacted to my own that expressed my view in a more balanced and proportionate way.

    That may be your belief, but given that you have now described my posts as “extravagantly aggressive”, “excessively aggressive” and even “mildly hysterical”, and said that I “overreacted” and that my views are “excessive” and “excessively negative”, I cannot see how you can describe the way you have expressed yourself here as “more balanced and proportionate”. On this and other matters we must clearly continue to disagree. Given the increasingly hostile and insulting tone of your own emails, I have no intention of being drawn further into a debate with you.


    Ian, again with respect.
    Personally insulted by my post ! Surely a little OTT in the heat of the moment ?

    Funny you should say that, cwoodward. I thought quite hard about that wording when I wrote it, as I realised it was at the strong end of my range of feelings, but then I checked back through the emails and realised that with the small number of participants and, as mentioned, the fact that I was the most vociferous, your reference to there having been “a considerable over reaction … on this forum” was, indeed, insulting to me. Perhaps that wasn’t your intention, but it is the way that it came across.

    I cannot for the life of me understand why you are so cross to the point of making the ridiculous suggestion that I publish my personal information on a public forum and pretending this to be an action in any way the parallel or equivalent to the contained data breach being debated here.
    To advance this as a serious suggestion is just silly

    No less silly, I think, than suggesting that “almost no useable data that was not readily available from other sources had been accessed by this aggressive breach”. The point of my challenge to you was precisely to demonstrate the fallacy in that statement. If you believe in what you wrote, then the logical conclusion is that you accept that all this information about you is readily available from other sources. In that case, cwoodward, why not accept the challenge – after all, it can’t possibly expose you to any risk that you don’t already have, can it? That is, of course, a rhetorical question, but your assertion that the challenge was ridiculous only goes, I suggest, to undermines your own argument far more than it undermines mine. I never expected you to accept the challenge, because the idea that you would deliberately put that information in the public domain is indeed ridiculous. What I continue to struggle with is the idea that I and 9.4 million other people should be completely sanguine about the fact that CX has allowed just that to happen to our own information. In this instance you have exercised a choice not to publish that information. CX took that decision away from me.

    In your post you make the very strong claim that the Cathay system was not robust. How can you properly justify this claim when it is becoming common knowledge that all systems are to a greater or lesser extent vulnerable.
    Was the Cathay breach more damaging than the BA breach. Is the Cathey system less robust or more robust than those of other airlines or banks.

    It is true that I contradicted you when you asserted that CX’s systems were robust, but I immediately followed that by saying “that CX’s systems were not robust enough to stop an enormous data leak” (slightly different from saying they weren’t robust at all). I absolutely stand by that statement, in fact I think you would find it hard to deny that it is objectively true. I do, of course, accept that other businesses – and governments – do not have invulnerable systems. I have looked back at my posts and don’t think I made any suggestion to the contrary. I also didn’t draw any comparison as to the relative seriousness of the CX and BA breaches (all I did was say that the BA breach had personally affected us and been a major nuisance) nor as to the relative robustness of CX’s systems compared to others – that is not an area I am qualified to comment on, and not a debate I intend to get drawn into. I can, however, as one of the affected people, legitimately express my concerns that this breach has exposed me (and, as it turns out, my family) to risk and express my displeasure about that fact and, in particular, the fact that CX took seven months to tell me about it.

    You infer that you are aware of systems collecting similar information that you know with some personal confidence to be superior and more robust.

    I was pretty surprised to read that, cwoodward, so I went back through my posts to check – and what you say is simply untrue. I never said any such thing. Quite the contrary, in fact – I said in an earlier post “I think we all have to accept that the modern world and its payment systems involve a degree of risk, and we can only seek to control it up to a point … any online transaction requires entry of payment information. At that point you have to have a certain amount of trust in the systems of your card company AND the merchant. In this case, CX, as the merchant, have badly let down their customers.” I think this shows that I accept that systems are not invulnerable. My response to CX letting me down is not just about the breach but about the fact that CX clearly made a decision not to tell people who were affected by the breach for a considerable period of time. Let me point you to CX’s privacy policy, cwoodward. Let me refer you to the first sentence of paragraph 1: “At Cathay Pacific, we are committed to protecting your Personal Data and your privacy”. Let me point out to you when that policy was last updated – you can see it written at the bottom of the page. 25 May 2018. AFTER the breach. WEEKS after the breach. That, to me, smacks of a lack of integrity – in fact, I would go so far as to say it was a lie. I would be genuinely interested to hear your own view.

    You suggest that I have been needlessly aggressive. That was not my intention, but my views are clearly so strongly opposed to your own that I felt the need to express them in strong terms. Your assertion that I and other posters were engaging in a “considerable over reaction” was, perhaps, not the best way to start a civilised debate. However, I hope you will continue to express your views here, including on what I have written above.


    Unfortunately there seemed to be a forum glitch when I tried to post my reply to cwoodward. I have since then tried multiple times to post it but this gets rejected on the basis that it is a duplicate post even though my original response never appeared. Here’s hoping that this entirely different post will clear the server’s cache and I can then repost the original reply. If it doesn’t appear immediately after this one, you will know the tactic failed, in which case I will contact BT and ask them to add my response.


    some considering Cathay’s IT systems to be robust in that almost no useable data that was not readily available from other sources had been accessed by this aggressive breach.

    With respect, I wholeheartedly disagree. The suggestion that CX’s systems were robust is an obvious fallacy. That this particular hack did not compromise other data does not detract from the fact that CX’s systems were not robust enough to stop an enormous data leak – to praise Cathay for not losing more is utterly ridiculous. And while Mr Harris’s data leak was limited to his name, Hong Kong ID, nationality, phone number and title (which is bad enough), let us not pretend that that was the limit of the breach, as other individuals had much more information leaked. It isn’t hard to imagine that someone with that information could plunder a customer’s FF miles, apply for a credit card (and wreck that person’s credit history), use the information to change a person’s email password and access their email account, and much worse besides.

    I do not think that any of the views expressed on this forum represent an over-reaction – in fact as one of the most vociferous posters on this subject I take that as a personal insult.

    However, since you suggest that this information can readily be accessed elsewhere, and that the leak is nothing to be alarmed about, I would ask that you have the courage of your convictions, and post on here – for the world to see – all the personal information about you that CX might have leaked. To make it easy for you to cut and paste the list and add your personal information in your reply, here is the list of what you should publish:
    Date of birth:
    Phone number:
    Email address:
    Passport number:
    Identity card number:
    Frequent flyer programme membership number:
    Historical travel information:

    I would add that there is another bit of information that CX have also leaked but I haven’t added it to this list because you may not have ready access to it – “customer service remarks”. Although you can, of course, do a data access request, and then publish that information here as well.

    If you do not publish this information then I will be forced to the conclusion that you don’t want that data in the public domain. Well, you know what, cwoodward? I didn’t want my own information in the public domain, but CX put it there, and I am very, very unhappy about it.


    with Airlines and Airport Lounges, pilfering is built into the cost. This does not make it acceptable – whoever does it. It simply increases the cost to everybody … In the end, it really is up to the service supplier involved to ensure that inconsiderate or impropper behaviour (including dress) is effectively managed! That way we will all benefit

    I quite agree

    Meanwhile, back in reality…

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 2,328 total)
Be up-to-date
Magazine Subscription
To see our latest subscription offers for Business Traveller editions worldwide, click on the Subscribe & Save link below