Originally Posted by
thadocta
I can understand how a BKK-LAX ticket might cost more if sold outside Thailand, but cannot really remember why it would be priced the same as a LAX-BKK, unless it was ticketted in the US (therefore a type of SOTO) - my recollection of fare calculation is that the fare would be calculated BKK-LAX in NUC's and converted to THB (first stage). The fare would then be converted to the currency of the country of ticketting (second stage). The THB amount would then be converted to the currency of the country of ticketting, using the BSR at the date of sale. The higher of the two would then be charged.
Just been digging through some old manuals, the fare (BKK-LAX) would be quoted in THB, and then converted into NUC's, which would then be converted into the currency of the point-of sale, both using the IATA ROE (Rate Of Exchange, different to the BSR) to arrive at a fare applicable to the country of sale.
The THB fare would then be converted into the currency of the country of sale at the BSR applicable at the time of the sale.
The two fares would then be compared, and the higher of the two would then be charged.
The HIP rule doesn't come into it at all, so not sure where you got this part from.
The Canadian exception applies on the basis that Canadian law says that the fare ex-Canada must be charged if ticketting is done in Canada, even though a higher fare is applicable under the above scenario. So if sold in Canada, ticketted in Canada, for an itinerary originating in Australia, if the ex-Australia fare is lower, then the ex-Australia fare would be charged.
If sold and ticketted in Japan, originating in Australia, if Australia price is lower, Japan price is charged.
Canada got it right on this one.
Dave