Stopovers/layovers

I just put those flight details into worldspan. The outbound is correct
but there is a connection inbound:

CX505 DEP Tokyo 1830 ARR Hong Kong 2205
CX103 DEP Hong Kong 2325 ARR Brisbane 1150 #1

Travel time approx 11h45.

You might be able to get a decent fare with a QF/CX combination. JAL
fly the route direct.

I don't think I would go Cathay anyway because of the price. I was
thinking of going Malaysia Airlines because they are much cheaper than
the direct JL/QF flight.

Can you check the KUL connection times with Malaysia?

you mean i have to fly business or more to qualify, cause even a full fare
eco dont go over that amount

--

Electrical Kettle instant hot water (home, office)
Platinums.co.uk - or remember this
Kettle.us.com
----------------------------------------------------------------



\\ l l l //
(@ @)
____________ oOO-(_)-OOo____________
"Hilary" wrote in message
een.net...
i did a 9 hour stop in Dubai with Emirates and i didnt get a hotel???

The only exception is certain special fares - if you pay less than 800GBP
(I think) it doesn't apply.

Hilary

Sue Wright wrote:
Hi Miguel. We are flying from Toronto via Seoul. We were determined to
avoid transit through the US so this was the best we could get. A change at
this time even if possible would cost us $100 each, so I guess we will just
wait and see how we feel. May just stay in the airport and veg out for a
few days when we get to Bali. A friend just had 9 hours to kill in
Singapore airport and took advantage to the free city tour. Perhaps we will
be able to do that on the way back from Melbourne in May. Sue

Just out of curiousity, why were you so anxious to make sure you didn't
transit through the US? Seems like you've created yourself some
significant inconveniences this way. A flight to LA or SF might have
made the whole trip easier.

you might want to check whether SQ has a better inbound flight. Where
are you flying from?

miguel

DEP Brisbane 2350 ARR KL 0605 #1
DEP KL 1100 ARR Tokyo 1900



Hilary

But what about return?

"Tchiowa" wrote in message
oups.com...


Just out of curiousity, why were you so anxious to make sure you didn't
transit through the US? Seems like you've created yourself some
significant inconveniences this way. A flight to LA or SF might have
made the whole trip easier.

Lots of people don't want to transit via the USA nowadays because you can't
"transit" at an Airport (ie remain Airside without technically entering the
Country) as you can in Europe. You must proceed through US Immigration and
then Customs. In many cases this requires that the passenger in transit must
obtain a Visa to enter the USA and, of course, (s)he is also fingerprinted
and photographed. Avoiding the USA makes the whole trip easier for many
people.

JohnT

"Hilary" wrote in message
een.net...
DEP Brisbane 2350 ARR KL 0605 #1
DEP KL 1100 ARR Tokyo 1900


But what about return?

I'm not a travel agent you know

I thought that you were the sole proprietrix of FlightBureau!

JohnT

In message .com
"Tchiowa" wrote:


Sue Wright wrote:
Hi Miguel. We are flying from Toronto via Seoul. We were determined to
avoid transit through the US so this was the best we could get. A change at
this time even if possible would cost us $100 each, so I guess we will just
wait and see how we feel. May just stay in the airport and veg out for a
few days when we get to Bali. A friend just had 9 hours to kill in
Singapore airport and took advantage to the free city tour. Perhaps we will
be able to do that on the way back from Melbourne in May. Sue

Just out of curiousity, why were you so anxious to make sure you didn't
transit through the US? Seems like you've created yourself some
significant inconveniences this way. A flight to LA or SF might have
made the whole trip easier.

I don't know... Why or why could a traveler not want to enter the US?

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/worl...uit050811.html

-- Start Paste --
Mason said the U.S. government is interpreting its powers in such a way
that passengers never intending to enter the U.S. connecting to
international flights at U.S. airports must prove they are no threat and
could be allowed to enter the country.

If passengers are deemed to be inadmissible, they have no constitutional
rights even if later taken to an American prison. Mason told Judge David
Trager that's because they are deemed to be still outside the U.S., from
a legal point of view.

"Someone who's inadmissible is in the same category as the people that
the CIA snatches and grabs from other countries," said Barbara
Olshansky, a lawyer for the U.S.-based Center for Constitutional Rights,
which is suing a number of U.S. officials on Arar's behalf.
-- End Paste --

Oh, and don't forget to read this part:

-- Start Paste --
However, department spokeswoman Cynthia Magnuson issued this short
statement: "The United States does not practise torture, export torture
or condone torture."

In legal briefs written by U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the
Justice Department has defined torture to mean "pain consistent with
major organ failure or death."
-- End Paste --

So that's just great, they won't even say "we don't torture people"
without defining redefining torture. You could do a lot to someone
without causing pain "consistent with major organ failure"

Canadians, however, are lucky -- Depending on where you travel from, you
can often go through homeland security on the Canadian side of the
border, and you cannot be legally detained you unless you violate a
Canadian law. This means that by the time I get on a plane destined for
the US, I've already passed through Homeland Security and I am granted
the basic constitutional rights.

--
The preceding post may have contained unsuitable materials
and should not have been read by small children.

DevilsPGD wrote:
In message .com
"Tchiowa" wrote:


Sue Wright wrote:
Hi Miguel. We are flying from Toronto via Seoul. We were determined to
avoid transit through the US so this was the best we could get. A change at
this time even if possible would cost us $100 each, so I guess we will just
wait and see how we feel. May just stay in the airport and veg out for a
few days when we get to Bali. A friend just had 9 hours to kill in
Singapore airport and took advantage to the free city tour. Perhaps we will
be able to do that on the way back from Melbourne in May. Sue

Just out of curiousity, why were you so anxious to make sure you didn't
transit through the US? Seems like you've created yourself some
significant inconveniences this way. A flight to LA or SF might have
made the whole trip easier.

I don't know... Why or why could a traveler not want to enter the US?

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/worl...uit050811.html

-- Start Paste --
Mason said the U.S. government is interpreting its powers in such a way
that passengers never intending to enter the U.S. connecting to
international flights at U.S. airports must prove they are no threat and
could be allowed to enter the country.

So? Takes about a minute. Maybe 2 to pass through. As long as all your
paperwork is intact.

If passengers are deemed to be inadmissible, they have no constitutional
rights even if later taken to an American prison. Mason told Judge David
Trager that's because they are deemed to be still outside the U.S., from
a legal point of view.

Absolutely false. You have the same constitutional rights on US soil as
a US citizen. The stupidity of the statement can be gleaned by just
looking at what he said above. You have no constitutional rights even
if you are taken to a US prison because your still deemed to be outside
the US. Yes, you are deemed to be "sort of" outside the US when you are
in transit, but there are no US prisons there. So the statement is just
plain idiotic.

You can be detained by Immigration in any country, not just the US.
Canada has the right to do exactly the same thing, and does when it
feels proper. Any Immigration official can block you at any time for
any reason. But they don't arrest you.

If you are arrested by Immigration then you have the exact same rights
to any attorney and all other legal rights as anyone else in America.

I fly into Frankfurt regularly. German Immigration police greet planes
from Africa and some from Asia on the gateway just outside the airplane
door. If they don't like your paperwork they detain you on the spot.
You never even get to the Immigration counter. You don't even get to
the transit area.

Immigration is a lot tighter there than in the US. And a lot tighter in
many other countries I've been to.

Tchiowa wrote:
Absolutely false. You have the same constitutional rights on US soil as
a US citizen. The stupidity of the statement can be gleaned by just
looking at what he said above.

What was "said above" was an official legal statement from your
government in a suit against it. Your government is the one who has
unilaterally decided that the USA constitution doesn't apply to
travellers and that torture means loss of a major organ. The is the
government that was re-elected by americans despite those facts being
available to them.

It used to be that the USA was a beacon of due legal process,
constitutional rights applied to all people and a country in a position
to tell other countries to shape up their human rights handling. This is
no longer the case, and americans condoned this by re-electing your government.

But until americans cry for help or take the legal steps available to
them to kick that government out, we (the rest of the world) can only
conclude that americans fully support your government,s statements that
travellers have no constitutional rights while in the USA.

nobody wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:
Absolutely false. You have the same constitutional rights on US soil as
a US citizen. The stupidity of the statement can be gleaned by just
looking at what he said above.

What was "said above" was an official legal statement from your
government in a suit against it. Your government is the one who has
unilaterally decided that the USA constitution doesn't apply to
travellers and that torture means loss of a major organ. The is the
government that was re-elected by americans despite those facts being
available to them.

You seem to know very little about the law. What you read above was an
argument in a law suit by an advocate for one side. Any lawyer can say
anything he wants in an argument in court. It does not represent
official US government policy nor does it represent US law.

I see your silly little comment about "a government being re-elected".
First of all, unlike some 3rd World and Europeans countries, we don't
elect "a government". We don't put one party in power and let them
appoint a Prime Minister.

Second, the silly, little remark kind of let out your political bias.
So since you can't seem to separate politics from law or reality it's
no wonder you didn't understand what you read above.

It used to be that the USA was a beacon of due legal process,
constitutional rights applied to all people and a country in a position
to tell other countries to shape up their human rights handling.

And it still is.