Originally Posted by
gratn
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/undefined
i think this is wrong. Air NZ does not fly AKL-LHR, and instead flies AKL-LAX and LAX-LHR. For me, saying “via” not “to/from” is applying a gloss that the DOT will ignore. Instead, I expect the DOT will say all four flights (AKL-LAX, LAX-LHR, LHR-LAX and LAX-AKL) are to or from the USA.
This.
The term "via" does not exist in the regulatory scheme. In this sequence, NZ is operating both "to" the US, e.g. AKL-LAX and "from" the US, e.g. LAX-LHR.
NZ agrees to be bound by US law in return for being granted the privilege of landing rights in the US. A voluntary act on its part.
The assertion that the ticket is not covered by US law is as much what is politely referred to as b.s. as NZ's earlier (and now dropped) assertion that the US law only applies to US citizens.
The key to a DOT complaint is to trigger the rule. Analysts do not necessarily understand every route's intricacies. Thus, "I held a ticket on NZ from AKL-LAX and then on NZ LAX-LHR"