GUWonder

There goes one of the features of Oneworld flying that got business of mine that would otherwise not have remained within the Oneworld network.

It wasn't only AA that had such a policy. I am not going to repeat the points which I've made in this regard before on the BA and other Oneworld forums on FT, but I have no doubt that this wasn't only an AA policy when it came to Oneworld carriers.

BlackBerryAddict

Only if you want to through-check a bag, surely?

Often1

If you choose not to book OW, what will you then book? How many of the major carriers which provide a relatively large international network are willing to contractually commit to interlining across tickets?

There is no reason for a carrier to do so. All the carrier does is accept liability without benefiting from the revenue associated with single-ticket revenue. Presumably, when booking an itinerary, one books the most cost-effective ticketing scheme. One ticket if all else is equal.

As to protection across tickets, only AA has guaranteed it. While most major carriers seem to deal with rebooking, there is no OW guarantee as there is with IATA tariffs, e.g., that the late-delivering carrier is responsible for rebooking, nor does the EC 261/2004 "duty of care" scheme come into play, whereby the passenger's needs on the ground are handled during the flight interruption.

The baggage issue is a mess for tight connections and those involving a border, particularly for individuals who may have complex document issues, let alone prohibitive document issues. The connection issue will likely be dealt with through improved offerings from private insurers willing to step into the breach for a fee.

sombrachinesca

(1) OW airlines very clearly had a policy - stated or otherwise - to accommodate passengers on multiple tickets in the event of IRROPS. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been necessary for them to state the the "disruptions policy" was changed as well.

(2) CX has now made it clear - see the chart linked to by moa999 above- that they will not provide assistance to flyers affected by flight disruptions traveling on multiple tickets. This is a major negative that most certainly reduces the value of the OW alliance to a typical customer. For example, if traveling around Asia, and my CX flight into HKG is delayed causing me to miss the AA HKG-DFW flight, I am now stranded in HKG with no alternative other than to buy a new ticket at the walk-up fare?? If that is the case, then why bother booking my intra-Asia flights on CX?

(3) The excerpt from the BA policy posted by moa999 specifically states that the "Most Generous Allowance rule for baggage" will no longer apply to multiple tickets.

It is very hard to see how anyone would not recognize these changes as being unfriendly to consumers. It is likewise hard for me to understand how OW airlines think that this will make anyone more likely to fly with them.

As a OW Emerald, the only two things that I place value on are (1) IRROPS handling and (2) lounge access. These changes make both of those less valuable since (1) they won't provide it anymore and (2) my time will be wasted chasing around airports rechecking my bags.

GUWonder

Whatever makes more sense than Oneworld flights for my trip needs. The fact of the matter is that the Oneworld "seamless travel" policy and experiences were what helped Oneworld carriers get some more of my business that they would have otherwise gotten if not but for this policy. Unfortunately, not enough people were made to appreciate this policy and so now it bites the dust in more than one way.

The following is not true with regard to what Oneworld carriers had previously guaranteed:

GUWonder

Baggage handling costs are bit parts in the picture, if even in the picture. The primary driver is ticket revenue related, with baggage fee revenue and check-in-agent related costs being secondary.

moa999

So you keep saying without providing proof... While OW carriers have generally been helpful and in many cases provided protection, although sometimes after a lot of pressure, I don't believe (apart from AA) that it has every been official policy, and I had always viewed connecting flights as a risk
(yet have done a number myself - including turnarounds in countries where I didn't have a visa eg KHI)

As an example, from a post on this topic on the AFF board:

GUWonder

Variance in practice/implementation that deviates from policy has always existed as long as I've been around; and thus examples of deviation from prior policy is not news to me.

Proof was provided years ago about this. But if you mean provided in this thread, then yes, for I'm not about to go hunting for the proof yet again to show it yet again.

Himeno

In 2013, I was in Tokyo at the start of the DONE3, when on the way to HND for the first flight, Typhoon Wipha caused most ground transport to halt, causing a late arrival at the airport and missed check in. There were 3 other people on my train heading for the same flight and upon arrival at HND, CX rebooked the flights.
I was flying HND-HKG-JFK.
I had an separate JFK-BOS flight on AA the following morning after planned arrival (8 hour overnight connection). CX rebooked me on to the afternoon HND-HKG, then onto CX888 to JFK via YVR. This change then cut the planned overnight connection to AA down to below JFK I-D MCT.
At the time, AA was still operating their HND-JFK night flights. That day, their flight to JFK had been delayed due to the weather so the AA desk was still open. After getting the CX flights sorted out, I went to the AA counter to sort out the JFK-BOS issue.
After explaining the problem, they quickly moved me to the next JFK-BOS flight.

With this policy change, would AA no longer do the same in a similar situation?

kreuky

QF follows suit from Sep 1st
http://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-tight...n=home-flipper

djsflynn

Update: American Airlines "will continue to thru-check bags on multiple PNRs with Oneworld carriers."

However CX, AY and QF are all adopting the new "one PNR good, two PNRs bad" system.

Details: Oneworld airlines revise baggage policy for connecting flights

bertheike

I would like to know, what cost them more ?
A through check
HKT-HKG // HKG-MXP // MXP-DUS
or check in on 3 airports ( 3 times handling ...... )
As already said, it is often impossible to get award tix for the whole trip, so it is common, that people buy add ons by revenue tix. @ least them now should allow to book the revenue fare into the same PNR as the award tix.

without interlining I don't see anymore benefits to book "more expensive" fares ! Then I also can book point to point fares from LCC's

BlackBerryAddict

Obviously the three check-in's cost more. But there are other costs involved, especially when bags go missing - the cost of a courier to deliver your lost bag will wipe out any saving made by through checking. Then there is the whole back office environment (people and computer systems) you need to maintain to deal with all this.

But I suspect that airlines are trying to reduce the revenue leakage. Except for mixed cash/redemption scenarios, you only buy separate tickets because it is cheaper. I think they rather have you buy the through ticket. And this also makes taking advantage of cheaper fares elsewhere more difficult because you ca no longer through check from your positioning flight all the way to your final destination.

By the way, I am not agreeing or condoning this - just trying to understand their rationale.

Himeno

No, that is not true at all.

One scenario is the inability to book flights to certain destinations on the airline website. Another is if combining points/paid bookings. A third is if you want to book the long-haul flights before confirming all the internal flights. Another would be needing to add additional flights to a booking that has reached the 16 sector e-ticketing limit.

There has been times where I've booked trips of up to 35 sectors across up to 5 different tickets because the booking system refused to let me do it in 1.

BlackBerryAddict

combining points/paid = mixed cash/redemption

OK, if you need 35 sectors in one ticket, then it won't work either. But in the grand scheme of things, how many people book 35 sectors on one ticket? To me that sounds a little extreme.

If you can't book the particular destination on the website, you can usually call them to do this.

The only one is the one where you want to book a long haul before confirming short haul flights. Well you could argue that this is to save money. If you bought fully flexible tickets, you wouldn't have that problem. Yes, it is more expensive, but maybe that is what the airline wants you to buy.

As I said, I am not condoning or agreeing with the airline behaviour - just trying to understand why they did this.