A FEW weeks ago, I wrote about a very unpleasant experience that the owner of this paper, former Ambassador to Lao People’s Democratic Republic Antonio L. Cabangon Chua, and a companion underwent when he chose to fly via Cathay Pacific Airways (CX) during one of his weekend trips to Hong Kong sometime last month. (That article ran under the heading, “Cathay Pacific’s dishonest dealings,” in the BusinessMirror’s October 7 issue.)
That “bad trip” happened on September 26, when they were told at the airport terminal by Cathay Pacific’s ground crew that their confirmed business-class bookings had to be downgraded to economy class.
The Cathay Pacific crew announced to all the downgraded passengers that the aircraft originally assigned for that particular flight—CX918—had to be serviced and replaced by a smaller aircraft with fewer seats for business-class passengers.
(“Maintenance leak,” was all they said, leaving it to the downgraded passengers to imagine that the aircraft’s toilet bowl probably overflowed after each use.)
Since the ambassador had paid a total of $1,958.58 for two roundtrip, business-class tickets, and $538.56 for two additional roundtrip, economy-class tickets for other companions during the same trip, he naturally expected that the airline would, at the very least, automatically pay back the difference of $1,420 between the business-class and economy-class accommodations.
(The tickets were bought through Cathay’s direct online-booking facility, which is not subject to any commission from any travel agency.)
The Cathay Pacific crew, however, only gave the ambassador and the others vague assurances that the airline would fully reimburse them for the huge difference of $1,420.02.
But, right there at the airport, it soon became obvious that Cathay Pacific had no intention whatsoever of giving back to the ambassador and his companion what were due them. Instead, just minutes before boarding time, the ground personnel tried to pay them P3,000 each in exchange for signing a document that they said was a receipt for the “advance” on a future reimbursement of the fare difference.
Fortunately, they discovered that the document they were being asked to sign was a quit claim absolving the airline of all liabilities for the downgrading. The ambassador, of course, refused to sign the waiver. But he boarded the plane so as not to spoil what he had hoped would be a stress-free weekend.
Lousy food
ON board the economy class of that Cathay Pacific flight to Hong Kong, the ambassador—now in a very dour mood—was served breakfast consisting of two pieces of bread that he couldn’t eat. The stress and aggravation, and the fact that he hadn’t eaten anything, caused his blood sugar to drop to dangerously low levels by the time they landed in Hong Kong.
Fortunately, that weekend in Hong Kong came to pass without further mishaps or aggravations. He was able to indulge his craving for scallops and soft-shelled crabs. That was the only purpose of his trip, by the way: to do some gourmandizing.
As far as he was concerned, the downgrading incident was easily forgettable. But the attempt by Cathay Pacific personnel to pull a fast one by making him and his companion sign a quit claim in exchange for P3,000 each was “very insulting.”
He made this plain in a subsequent demand letter that he sent to Alan Lui, Cathay Pacific’s country manager
in the Philippines, through lawyer Alexis Oco.
To any man of his stature and means, the fare difference of $1,402.02 based on current ticket prices is also easily forgettable. But it really is the principle of the thing.
Quit-claim gimmick
HOW many times has Cathay Pacific Airways gotten away with this quit-claim gimmick? How many unsuspecting VIP passengers have been had by what looks like Cathay Pacific’s standard operating procedure, or SOP?
Back in Manila, after he had sent his demand for a refund of the $1,402.02 fare difference, Cathay Pacific lawyers—the Siguion Reyna Montecillo & Ongsiako law offices—replied to Oco that the airline would be willing to refund “the fare difference of only $188 for each pax.” This would be over $1,000 less than the amount demanded by the ambassador.
In addition, the law office said, “As further goodwill, and due to your client’s patronage of CX, our client is offering your client one-class, one-sector complimentary upgrade on a flight operated by CX, subject to seat availability—valid for one year from date of issuance.” (Here, after being so dishonest, Cathay Pacific is offering the ambassador freebies, like offering candy to a wailing baby.)
This reply from Cathay Pacific’s lawyers was signed by Mario Andres and Carlos M. Natividad.
The foregoing counteroffer, of course, had the effect of adding insult to the previous insults and injury already suffered by the ambassador.
As I predicted, that small incident has now produced a full-blown suit for moral and exemplary damages.
The ambassador’s lawyer described Cathay Pacific’s counteroffer as “baseless, inequitable and downright insulting.” How can this airline reduce the difference in the prices of business-class and economy-class tickets from $1,402.02 to only $376 (or $188 each)? The arithmetic simply does not make sense.
Excerpts from the final demand letter sent by the ambassador’s counsel to Cathay Pacific:
“Our client disputes your allegation that the original aircraft assigned to Flight CX918 had to be serviced due to maintenance leak and for which reason it was replaced by an aircraft with [a] smaller capacity for business-class seats…which were given to Marco Polo Club members, resulting in the downgrading to economy class…. For the record, our client was informed upon checking in that the aircraft assigned to that flight had no business-class seats and that all seats were classified as economy class…. The claim that the limited business seats were offered to Marco Polo members were, likewise, a pure lie. It is worth emphasizing that our client is a Marco Polo member and no such offer was made to him.”
Discrimination
“EVEN assuming that our client is not a Marco Polo member, your action of giving preference to other passengers over our client with two confirmed business-class tickets cannot be justified. This is a clear violation of the contract of carriage between you and our client…. Giving preference to a certain class of passengers over another shows the pervasive policy of discrimination being upheld by your airline. Discrimination is evident right in your VIP lounge, where foreigners are accommodated inside the lounge, while Filipino passengers are made to seat outside.
“Your attempt to make our client accept P3,000 in exchange for signing a quit claim was an outright attempt to cheat our client of what was due him and his companion. Obviously, it is already part of your SOP to mislead downgraded passengers into believing that this small amount is only an initial payment for refunds that they can never hope to get in view of the waivers they signed.
Now totally disgusted with the less-than-forthright way this airline is doing business, the ambassador has made a formal final demand, and not only for a refund of the undelivered business-class accommodations of $1,402.02. He is now demanding an additional P2 million in damages.
“Should you fail to comply as herein required, we shall be constrained to file the appropriate court against you, which would necessarily include claims for interests, incidental damages, attorney’s fees and the costs of litigation.”
E-mail: omerta_bdc@yahoo.com.