Originally Posted by
SilverChris
MCTs are more complicated than that. There are standard MCTs like the 60 minute one mentioned, and there are more specific exceptions which may be higher or lower. Airlines can set different MCTs for specific airline, origin, destination, and flight number combinations.
For example, an AC to UA connection should technically be 70 minutes.
i think, because AC flights are pre-cleared before arriving at EWR, the MCT that should be in effect is D-I. I don’t think UAs system should have allowed this, which is why I was wondering if there might have been a flight time change somewhere along the line.
and IMO, if I’m correct in thinking there’s no way to do this connection all airside, since the airside [UA] shuttle bus doesn’t serve the pier that AC uses at term. A at EWR (IIRC), whether 52 minutes is actually a legal connection is pretty moot - even if AC arrives on time, the chances of getting out of Term.A, using AirTrain, then re-clearing security and arriving at the LHR gate on time is not good. Not impossible, for sure, but even tough for a seasoned EWR traveller. YMMV.
Originally Posted by
Symmetre
The agent did you a huge favour, because EWR is notorious for delays. There's no way you would have made it.
while true, EWR is notorious for delays on both ends. So just a matter of whether any AC delay is shorter, same or longer than the UA one. I still wouldn’t like my chances ([real] international flights are going to be more highly prioritized than short-haul/transborder), but definitely wouldn’t be too odd to have both delays essentially saving a connection.
Originally Posted by
bigdog2
So UA or any other airline is technically (legally) not allowed to sell flights connecting through EWR that have a connection time lower than 60 minutes?
MCT isn’t really about ‘legality’, but more about what kind of risk an airline will take in protecting passengers if they miss a connection. They are in place to say if you booked a connection, and you miss it, the airline will take responsibility in rebooking you onto your final, including any accommodation if you need to overnight before the next available flight.
If OP booked YYZ-LHR and the system allowed it, I would certainly argue as a pax that you’d be entitled to same protections, despite it being under MCT. Same if the airline changed the schedule where a ‘legally’ booked flight was changed to no longer met MCT. An airline would typically rebook as invol - and I’d argue should have been done at time of change. UAs system is pretty bad, in general, about notifications and rebooking in these situations. As a Frequent Ua traveller, I have always tended to check reservations every couple of weeks to make sure there haven’t been any changes - because they are not good at notifications.