NickB

Is that not what the third column in the table is about (viz. baggage interlining 'only')?

madrooster

It's made pretty clear in the CX Agents link that they'll no longer interline bags either, as it makes them liable for loss.

bagold

I got this last week... (there is also a table showing the example but can't easily copy and paste here)

oneworld Ticketing and Disruption Policy
Separate Ticket Policy - Revised Through Check in Handling
With effect from 01 Jun 2016, all oneworld carriers have agreed that through* check-in will apply ONLY to passengers travelling on an oneworld itinerary ticketed on a single ticket or where segments are ticketed separately but in the same PNR record.

*=Through services are defined as the customer and their baggage being through checked to their final destinations.
To align with the change, disruption policy will also be revised to exclude protection for passengers holding separate tickets that is not booked under the same PNR.

Please remind passengers opting to travel on two tickets that additional connecting time at their transfer point might be required as they will be required to re-check in either after landing or at the transfer point depends on each airport’s set up and facilities. Landing visa for transfer point might also be required.

Guy Betsy

Yes please read the quote again : http://www.cxagents.com/cxa/gc/en_HK/ln2

1. Two tickets for interline journey, segments ticketed separately in a single PNR (regardless of travelling carriers),
e.g.:
HKG-LHR – tkt nbr xxxxx123 on CX
LHR-WAS - tkt nbr xxxxx124 on BA
Single PNR AB12CD - Yes they will interline even on separate tickets or on separate alliances. eg CX-UA

2. Two tickets for the journey in two different PNRs (regardless of travelling carriers), e.g.:
FCO-LHR – tkt nbr xxxxx123 BA
LHR-WAS - tkt nbr xxxxx124 UA
Two separate PNRs : AB12CD and EF34GH (2 separate bookings in separate PNRs - No they will not interline)

The problem is going to be how each airline interprets 'a single PNR'.. since BA/QF/CX/QR uses Amadeus - all of these bookings if booked together in one reservation system will show up together. Whereas AA, LA, JL, MH, S7 use a different system, their reservations may not be together unless the passenger books these bookings on a Sabre / Abacus system.

In any case, its gonna be fun fun fun trying to interline any flights in the future.

Guy Betsy

So basically if you booked all award travel on separate PNRs, you're SOL.
But TAs can book all reservations together in one main PNR which will show up on the respective airlines' PNRs.

Isochronous

This is an idiotic change that makes the oneworld alliance pointless. What a joke.

madrooster

Generally a single PNR means that all flights were booked in one PNR in the master PNR. What system the airlines use is irrelevant, as the relevant connecting (before and after) flights would be copied to the PNR held in each airline's reservations system where the airline doesn't use the same system as the master PNR (be it an airline or a TA).

For example: SYD QF X/SIN CX HKG (open jaw/stopover) KUL MH X/SIN QR X/DOH QR X/JNB BA CPT (stopover) CPT BA X/LHR AY HEL

Master PNR is created by a TA in Amadeus.

QF/CX/QR/BA/AY all use Amadeus and so they will see the complete itinerary.

MH uses SITA. The SITA copy of the PNR will contain the MH KUL/SIN, QR SIN/DOH, QR DOH/JNB and BA JNB/CPT flights only.

Given this behaviour in all the major GDSes, there isn't really any other way to interpret 'single PNR'.

If you booked an AA connecting to LA itinerary (eg. MIA AA X/LIM LA SCL) using Sabre as an agent you usually get 3 different record locators. Sabre creates copies of the PNR for each carrier involved. For all intents the AA and LA copies would be basically identical.

It's still one PNR though which is what matters.

jagmeets

Thanks for cxagents the link, sxc!

now let me go find a rock to curl up under...

At least CX-CX is allright- that takes care of about 60-70% of my cross ticket interline needs. I just hope that AA continues to interline to CX, that would be another 20% odd..BA, and others - well i'll just kiss them goodbye now if they refuse to interline - stuck with oneworld carriers more for things like these, than status earn.

btw, interesting language on the cxagents page ('disruption policy will also be revised to exclude protection') - seems to suggest that there was a cross-booking protection in the past (the old thread on the oneworld forum that I had started) - let me claim a Pyrrhic victory on that.

percysmith

http://www.ausbt.com.au/oneworld-air...ecting-flights

http://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-tight...eworld-flights

sscywong

There's a saying in HK that "Comments section is always the most interesting section"....

From the comment section, I saw a reference to *A's FAQ

http://www.staralliance.com/en/faqs

So actually OW is "catching down" (reversed catch up) with *A in terms of service

percysmith

Someone said in the first ausbt article's comments this was in line with the policy of the two other alliances. Thanks for posting the link to *A's policy statement.

skba1

Regarding the Star Alliance system I have many experiences in interlining there. The policy is that to be guaranteed through check of baggage it needs to be one PNR - but there is nothing stopping them to interline on separate PNRs. I have done it numerous times, usually with SK as the first carrier, but also UA that I can recall.

It is a terrible move by OW to remove the obligation to through check over separate PNRs, and more importantly it seems as if they are effectively saying that separate PNRs should not be interlined, rather than saying that it is not compulsory.

I understand that there may have been a compensation issue of whom is to blame for a lost/delayed interlined bag - but surely the reasonable thing to do is to work out a compensation structure that all member airlines think is reasonable, rather than removing one of the stronger benefits of OW for passengers???

Rivarix

I don't think there can be a reasonable compensation structure. It's not just a cost issue - it's a revenue issue as well. On a single PNR two airlines share the revenue. When you have two separate PNRs, each airline gets to keep the revenue to themselves. So when you check-through two separate PNRs, is it reasonable to expect airlines to share expenses (when things go wrong) but not share the revenue (when things go right)?

Even if airlines were willing to share the revenue (as if it is a single PNR) then there's another problem: revenue forecasting. On a single PNR each airline knows its share of revenue. On two separate PNRs, each get to keep their own revenue. If airlines were to do the above, that means on a separate PNR, an airline won't know whether it has to split the revenue until a passenger checks-in. That's a nightmare for revenue forecasting purposes.

I think it's a case of passenger wanting to have the cake and eat it too. On one hand we want the ability to make multiple bookings on multiple airlines (presumably, not all the time obviously, because it is cheaper or to maximise redemption). On the other hand, we want the convenience of check-through (and naturally compensation when things go awry). People seem to think an 'alliance' is a solution to all (which is how airlines sell it) but in this case i can see why airlines can't make it work.
(And in case people are wondering, no, i don't work for an airline ... )

Btw, I read various forums and the focus is on lost/delayed baggage but I find the timing interesting that OW updates the policy just before EC clarifies that under EC 261, a compensation is due if a passenger miss the second flight because of late arrival of the first flight. Personally i think that is a bigger issue. I raised this issue in the AY forum. People over there say two separate PNRs are two separate PNRs for EC 261 purposes even if an airlines checks you through but i wonder if EC agrees with that. I mean airlines check you through previously and I cannot believe cost associated with lost/delayed baggage alone is enough to scrap this benefit (when one has two PNRs on two different airlines). There has to be more to it ...

cartman7110

Why not offer an interline fee instead of dropping this feature altogether?

cxfan1960

Perhaps not just because of lost bags - this is one way to limit baggage allowance too.