roknroll

There is a published fare for sfo-lax-can-pvg, so even though it's over MPM, it should be bookable. Similar to how people can book awards to Australia or NZ on KE via ICN, which is well over MPM.

Try searching the "award ticket success thread" for similar routing to see if anyone else has been successful.

KVS

Please see http://Help.KVSTool.com/#MPM

mnredfox

Anyone else confirm DL allows 0% over? Well if that's the case it's pretty much impossible to do anything else. Shortest ST routing is SFO-ICN-CTS which already is 6543 miles.

Anyone think if I skip the ICN between CTS and PVG so that I don't stop there again PVG to US that might help? IE. Return routing is CTS-MU-PVG-KE-ICN-KE-LAX-DL-SFO.

mtkeller

You really should think about PVG as your destination and CTS as your stopover, since PVG is farther away (and thus should have the larger MPM). The zig-zagging between mainland Asia and Japan is too much for the MPM on that route. I've tried a number of things (including ticketing the return out to the east coast as a throwaway segment), and I can't find anything that gets within the MPM. I can get within 5%, but I haven't been able to reliably price things that exceed by 5% as a single award. Your best bet will be to fly MU. They'd allow a connection in YVR (I think they send flat beds there most days at the moment), on to PVG for a stopover, and then on to CTS based on the published SFO-CTS fare that MU has (MPM irrelevant). (Yeah, I know that contradicts my earlier advice, that that applied for MPM. Published routings make things work differently.) Return could be CTS-ICN-LAX, as that's within the MPM and would get you the ride on the A380.

mnredfox

I'm willing to work with this, and would even give up a flatbed in J to get it down to 120K miles. But I can't figure out how to make this work. If I indeed make PVG the destination I get more on MPM, in fact SFO-PVG MPM is 7375.

The problem is how do I get the DL pricing engine to see it that way? And how could I get a stop-over in CTS when CTS is not part of any valid routing PVG-SFO. Again, I suppose if I flew PVG-MU-CTS-KE-ICN-KE-SFO that might work.

I'll try it, who knows it may work.

mtkeller

You route to CTS and take the PVG stopover en route there by using MU's published routing. You then return from CTS via ICN, which should stay within the MPM. I've found that DL's agents can sometimes have trouble getting awards that should follow partner routing rules to price correctly. If you can get them to save the itinerary to put it on hold, the redeem button on DL.dumb can actually price things correctly that won't price right for phone agents.

mnredfox

Thanks for your help, but I'm still missing something here. How do I find MU's published routing? Hate to make you spell it out for me, but could you write the routing you are talking about please?

mtkeller

Go to ExpertFlyer, do a fare information search for SFO-CTS, and put MU in as the carrier. Then click the routing icon, generally on full Y/C/J fare. You find:

Results from ExpertFlyer.com

3Cforme

kss5555 has pointed out some weaknesses in this approach - there can be different rules for different cabins of service, and Delta might use an F rule for coach travel - but like mtkeller says, it works most of the time.

The published routings are pretty useful in that:

- if you have the flexibility of MPM an fare rather than specific routings, you'll see it immediately (and the mind spins with possibilities for useful stopovers)

- with routing-specific fares, you eliminate routings that seem reasonable (to a FlyerTalker, anyway) but just aren't permitted

- sometimes route-specific fares will show routes that one not might have thought were permissible

Carrier selection can come into play for SFO-PVG because Delta's fare is MPM-based and those of KE and MU are route-specific - if I'm remembering yesterday's searches correctly.

mnredfox

Thanks for the tips guys. I learn something new everyday. Glad I can make more use of my EF subscription. One more question, how does one go about forcing the DL engine to calculate what your destination is vs a stopover point.

In this case you're trying to encourage me to make PVG my destination vs CTS (thus giving me a higher MPM allowance). But say if I flew SFO-DL-HNL-MU-PVG-MU-CTS-KE-ICN--KE-LAX-DL-SFO, doesn't DL still consider CTS the destination as it is not a logical connecting point/legal routing PVG-SFO?

3Cforme

One doesn't - hence mtkeller's frequent advice just to have an agent book specific segments and then let the pricing engine do its thing on complicated routings. This also leads to the many questions found in this forum of the form 'How did this itinerary price that way?'

In your example, if you want PVG as the destination, then you need a complementary published fare rule that permits the return

PVG-MU-CTS-KE-ICN--KE-LAX-DL-SFO

Delta's MPM fare PVG-SFO gives you 7375 miles; this is 8572 according to Great Circle Mapper. I'll leave it to you to see if MU or KE fare rules might grant what you need.

mtkeller

3Cforme has ably addressed the first matter. When it comes to what you're aiming for, it seems that the MPM-based fares don't have enough wiggle room to allow CTS as a stopover en route to PVG. However, MU's published fares allow a connection in PVG en route to CTS. It's counter-intuitive, but it's what you need to try to get. There is no rule that stopovers have to be at logical connecting points. I've priced things like LAX-SLC-FAR(stop)-MSP-LHR because it fits the LAX-LHR MPM. No one except a FTer would make a connection in FAR, but it's on a valid routing.

mnredfox

3Cforme and mtkeller, thanks for your advice. I'll keep playing around a bit and see what I can get to work. Gotta love this DL engine. What's odd though is some MU fares SFO-CTS do show what you put wrote up thread, but some fare's also say:

---------------------------------------
SFO-SPK MON-11MAR13 YY
TAXES/FEES NOT INCLUDED
ADULT FARES
CX FARE FARE C AP MIN/ SEASONS...... MR GI DT
USD BASIS MAX
1 YY 4935.00 YIFOW1 Y M PA

SPECIFIED ROUTE: 0000
MAXIMUM PERMITTED MILEAGE APPLIES.

DESTINATION ADDON ROUTE: 0000
MAXIMUM PERMITTED MILEAGE APPLIES.

MAXIMUM PERMITTED MILEAGE IS 6768
---------------------------------------

Hence this post:
So which fare rules matter? It appears you guys think it's full F fare rules via this thread:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta...ing-award.html

Any way to confirm it's the full F fare rules that matter?

But here's something that's odd. Checking out ICN-SFO the MPM is 6763, but the DL pricing engine allows 120K pricing via ICN-KE-PEK-DL-NRT-DL-SFO via DL.com, which is 7016 miles. 7061 > MPM, how is this possible? Is it that DL allows this routing/fare to ignore the MPM and just follow routing rules? I checked EF and all published fares from ICN-SFO for all DL and KE fares indicate MPM is in effect. (i.e. even the full F fare rules state MPM matters, but in this case it doesn't!) How is it that in this example MPM can be broken despite all fare rules listing MPM?

EDIT (new content)
Ok, some very interesting stuff hopefully that everyone can get some insight on. Did this itinerary:

SFO-DL-LAX-KE-ICN-KE-CTS (destination)-MU-PVG (stopover)-KE-ICN-KE-LAX-DL

This priced out correctly at 120K. Woohoo, but what I dreaded would happen did. Since MU charges YQ I knew it would happen. $327.60 in YQ. WTH??? I asked the agent to look into it and when she pulled the MU segment overall taxes (keep in mind YQ is not a "tax" but fuel "surcharge") dropped to $60. Interesting cause CTS-PVG fare ticket in J only draws around $70 in YQ. So this is what I learned:

1. The trick here was what I speculated on upthread, that connecting twice in ICN triggered the DL engine to add two segments going from 120K to 150K. I can't confirm but think this is the case, as I don't think the CTS-PVG MU segment made the itinerary follow routing rules only (and not MPM) because SFO-LAX-ICN-CTS still breaks the SFO-CTS MPM. The only way adding the MU segment made the difference instead of dropping the twice connect through ICN on the backhalf is if adding that MU segment drops ALL MPM requirements on both ways of the fare.

2. I either was able to exceed MPM (SFO-CTS) or somehow the routing rules dropped MPM requirements (not sure which one, but if the latter I'm still not sure if destination is CTS or PVG with stopover in CTS). This goes to my question above about how does one determine what fare rules DL's engine will pull.

3. As I stated in the Using SM on Partners thread, MU does collect YQ. And it appears that adding a single MU segment will increase YQ by even more than the YQ on that single segment, in other words adding any MU segments will trigger YQ for all flight segments. This alone will make me want to drop MU.

Thus, for me in this itinerary I need to find a way to get from PVG-SFO in J in low that does not connect through ICN (as it appears CTS-PVG I will have to use ICN on KE if I want to avoid MU altogether), then what I want will be at 120K with <$100 in taxes. However, it's also fully possible that it's the MU segment that forces the whole fare to think the destination is PVG and thus follow MU's fare rules (which list routing rules and drop MPM requirements), so more testing is required.

mtkeller

I don't think anything short of access to DL's award pricing code will tell us what fare routing rules determine valid award routings. The best we've been able to determine is that the most liberal routing out there will work, based on the fact that connections are often allowed on domestic tickets for city pairs where the cheap economy routing rules say nonstop/direct travel only.

This is another example of DL randomly allowing a routing that's over the MPM but within 5% of the MPM. I'm not sure if it's coincidence or not, but the only other instances I've been able to construct have involved NRT and SFO on the routing.

Now forgive me as I rearrange your post a bit to separate the routing and YQ/YR issues.

There's no way to drop all MPM requirements, so that isn't what happened. It's also not following MU's published routing, as they don't allow connections in ICN. If it was seeing two connections in ICN on one direction of travel, that likely was what was breaking the fare before. We've had a few reports of two transits of CDG being allowed, but I always consider that a bug in customer favor and not something we're entitled to.

Determining which is the destination and which is the stopover is pretty easy if you ticket it and look at the receipt. It gives the full fare construction. Might be worth doing on dates that you don't want to travel (so as to not risk grabbing award inventory that won't go back into inventory if you aren't quite ready to book it for the dates you think you need/want yet) just to see how it's being priced.

I really have no idea how or why this is pricing at 120K, and I don't think we're going to be able to figure it out either. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth and all that.

Yes, I've had a single MU segment trigger all the YQ for one direction. However, it is possible to get them to refund the extra YQ. It took two weeks, but I got it done. Have them ticket it and then call up and say you need to speak to SkyMiles support because you want them to check the surcharges on the ticket. In my case, they enlisted tariff assist who sent messages to the carriers involved to verify the YQ/YR that should be collected. The potential problem for you here is that DL might think that they should collect the KE YQ/YR even though they aren't doing that generally right now. I had the advantage that I had DL, KE, and MU during the time when they were collecting KE surcharges, so I just needed them to purge the YQ/YR they'd collected for the DL flights.

3Cforme

I had used Delta's (or partner carrier's) full Y rules successfully for coach travel in dozens of searches, and stated confidently that this was the approach to use for DL redemptions - until kss5555 showed a redemption where this didn't work (and I was able to duplicate his work on another redemption in the same region). Test a bunch, make an inference, but be prepared to find an example where the presumed logic doesn't work.

On the matter of fuel surcharge with MU, it seems you needed to use MU's fare rule to get the CTS stopover and PVG destination. It appears DL applied the surcharge to all segments from origin to destination, not just those MU-operated. I recall mtkeller's successful challenge of YQ/YR collection but not the details.

Generally, the concept of award redemptions following published fare rules makes a lot of sense. It means the airlines can generally avoid building and maintaining a separate set of fare rules for awards. This I accept: rules across 20+ carriers from over 1000 origins and for the many, many possible/logical city pairs are going to be complex. (This problem goes away if Delta goes to a Southwest Rapid Rewards-type fare value program. Everybody wants that for simplification, right?