Originally Posted by channa
I wouldn't base much on that post. I'm not sure where that other post came from. Not only have I never seen that language before, it's also an incorrect usage of the term "co-terminal." I think it's that poster's guess at the language, as there's no source cited.
I'm guessing y'all are speaking of my earlier post. I didn't mention my source, assuming that fare rules are generally presented in a consistent manner. However, comparing against co.com's version of the fare rules, I see that things are different.
XA7IMSN, EWR-WAS, from
expertflyer.com:
CO-TERMINALS
-THE FOLLOWING GROUPS OF CITIES ARE CONSIDERED TO BE THE SAME POINT EFD - HOU - IAH, IAD - DCA, LGA - JFK, MDW - ORD.
Same fare, as listed on both Orbitz and co.com doesn't have this co-terminal language. However, all three sources include:
C. UNLESS RESTRICTED BY THE FARE CHARGED- WHEN TICKETED FROM/TO CHI/HOU/NYC/WAS- PASSENGERS MAY CHECK-IN AND STANDBY FROM/TO ONE OFAIRPORTS LISTED BELOW. CITY - AIRPORT CHI - MDW/ORD HOU - HOU/IAH NYC - JFK/LGA WAS - DCA/IAD APPLICABLE FARE DIFFERENCE AND/OR CHG FEE AS OUTLINED IN A AND B ABOVE WILL APPLY.
Only ExpertFlyer and Orbitz (not co.com) include the following under "combinability" or "combinations":
NOTE - THE CITY PAIRS BELOW ARE CONSIDERED THE SAME POINT- EFD-HOU EFD-IAH HOU-IAH IAD-DCA MDW-ORD LGA-JFK
Fare rules are complicated enough already! I'm thinking these differences must just be nuances in presentation, but it seems like they could lead to misinterpretations in some cases...
