Originally Posted by
Gardyloo
The "transit without stopover" language regarding a second entry into Asia has been tossed around ceaselessly for the past couple of years. However, Viajero's interpretation is the one now almost universally cited - the second entry is only valid if it's on a SWP < > Europe itinerary, not NA < > SWP.
The Starfile at this point is a wonderful example of ambiguous language:
40N . * 2 PERMITTED IN ASIA WHEN 1 IS A TRANSFER
41N . WITHOUT STOPOVER OR ON DIRECT SINGLE PLANE
42N . SERVICE BETWEEN THE SOUTHWEST PACIFIC AND
43N . EUROPE.
If practice dictates that the more restrictive interpretation (that
between SWP & Europe applies to both
transfer w/o stopover and
direct single plane service) is used, then the OP is sunk.
Originally Posted by
Gardyloo
The OW itinerary validator is still buggy and not to be relied upon. Only one of the airlines can authorize an itinerary.
In this case, it appears that MileageMonkey has also fallen into the same trap. With language like that, it's hardly surprising. At the risk of doing OW's work for them, if this is really what is meant, it could perhaps be rewritten as:
2 PERMITTED IN ASIA WHEN 1 IS BETWEEN THE SOUTHWEST PACIFIC AND EUROPE AND IS A TRANSFER WITHOUT STOPOVER OR ON DIRECT SINGLE PLANE SERVICE.