Originally Posted by JonNYC
Just one thought-- and I'll admit to being "lost" in following this debate, for the most part. But aren't you selectively quoting here? As in:
"If the connection exceeds 24 hours, it will be considered a stopover."
Has a TOTALLY different meaning when viewed, in context:
Passenger has 4/6 hours to connect (depending on domestic or international travel). If there are no scheduled flights within this timeframe, regardless of availability, the passenger must take the next scheduled flight but, may not exceed 24 hours. If the connection exceeds 24 hours, it will be considered a stopover.
Or, am I nuts?
I am not sure what different meaning you think you have seen. Why not explain what your infer than say it is just different.
In the context that I quoted, I was refering to the definitionof stopovers for transits.
Stopovers have a specific meaning and implications. And my quote defines when something is considered a stopover when in transit. For example, if a rule allows a specific number of stopovers, then if you exceed 24 hours in one of the connection points, it will be considered a stopover and counted in that number of stopovers allowed, less than 24 hours it will not be.
The Sanctimonious One made the assertion that the OP was trying to abuse the rules by squeezing in a stopover, I quoted the above to say what the OP was trying to do wasn't a stopover according to the definition. His overnight connection was less than 12 hours. People have riled (sorry, expressed their opinions) against the OP mischaracterizing just about everything (this is one example of that) than simply saying this is a disagreement in the interpretation of the rules.
The basic assumption in such judgments of the OP is that what AA told the OP is part of the rules. When I read the rules you posted, it didn't seem like any of those clauses supported what AA said (there may be other rules that cover this but no one has suggested it) and hence my first post. If the case is not explicitly covered in the rules, then it is an interpretation and two reasonable people can indeed disagree on interpretations without one being accused of abusing the system or being compared to people who take out merchandize and return them with the express intent of buying them back at a lower price as open stock.
As to the other post you have of availability, I think I understand where you are approaching from but I think you have misunderstood.
The part quoted above in this post is talking about the rules for a connection (for example, they are the rules that would apply even if this connection flight was the ONLY choice available). So the availability being referred to is the availability of a connection not the availability of an alternative to the flight with a connection. In other words, they are clauses that specifies restrictions on the connection NOT alternatives to a connection which is covered in the rest of the rules originally posted by you and not included above. That part talks about when a direct flight may be substituted for a connecting flight.