Pseudo Nim

What if you made CPH a stop? Did you try that? Even if you're not interested in it, would you mind asking them? I'm curious if that makes the routing permissible.

rankourabu

That is brutal. That pretty much kills all TATL routings to NRT - not even YYZ-IST-NRT
Flying via China or Taiwan is also no go either TATL or TPAC

So apart from UA - if one wants to go to Japan - there are no attractive stopovers enroute - and one must fly UA or pay scamcharges.

Pseudo Nim

Hmm, so BR YYZ-TPE-BRT doesn't work? that doesn't sound right, it's under 9K, isn't it?

Also, what if you stop in Europe? Doesn't the MPM become stop to stop?

c_9

The Aeroplan site is still offering plenty of options via China, and as Pseudo Nim mentions PVG, PEK, TPE are all under 9049 - am I misunderstanding what you mean?

Since I haven't found useful TATL availability in J in the entire May-Oct 2015 range other than literally 2 options (on SK), this sucks but probably doesn't actually impact my actual flights, just my desires.

mapleg

What would happen if you put in BKK/SIN or similar (maybe even HKG?) as a stop (and hence your point of turnaround)?

rankourabu

Yes, but on Air Canada = scam, you cannot get to NRT on CA anymore via IAH or LAX for example.

YYZ-TPE-NRT just squeezes in - but - if you need a connector (SEA,LAX,JFK) - thats all out.



If MPM was indeed stop-to-stop - that would actually be better for routings....

c_9

Good question - have called and asked, and this routing was rejected:

YYZ-ORD-NRT (destination), NRT-CPH (stop), CPH-YYZ

At first he thought it was OK but then put me on hold, mentioned the new system, and told me it was not valid. "MPM is about 9000, and you're at about 10000."

Some other unhelpful quotes:
- "nothing much has changed"
- he suggested things were opened up a bit more
- "what happened is they added a little more miles that the airline allows"
- "under the old rules this wouldn't be valid either" (?)

Grrr.

c_9

Considering BKK is 30% farther, I suspect it would work out. But then I would need to find availability to fly thru BKK, complicating my trip. Ugh. This is such a shame. An understandable, companies-need-to-make-money, shame.

rankourabu

Its a shame not because they are implementing a rule.
Its a shame its not communicated, and that its using a random made up number rather than a published one.

yerffej201

So much for the new routing rules being helpful and an improvement... we all know what that means!

YOWgary

I HUCA'd four agents in a row last week, and each one gave a contradictory summary of the new rules, from "nothing has changed" to "everything has changed".

Agents 1 and 3 rejected my itinerary as "un-bookable", agents 2 and 4 set it up without issue.

Agent 2 declared that a 3-hour layover in IST made it an Europe 2 award, Agent 4 happily booked it as Europe 1.

For whatever it's worth, AC/AE seem to be doing an equally poor job of communicating internally as externally.

Either way, don't take one agent's answer as gospel.

Pseudo Nim

This is supremely annoying. Indeed, YUL-FRA-NRT, a completely trivial itinerary previously possible, no longer is.

This means that if you want to go over Europe, you're stuck going to HKG, and then paying for a separate ticket to get to NRT. Or something. .... I sincerely hope something like YUL-ORD-NRT-BKK, BKK-FRA, FRA-YUL would be allowed (in either direction) - I can't test this on the multicity tool, but I really hope so.

habshabs444

Just had another chat with someone on the AE line. I had previously confirmed that ORD-BKK had a maximum permitted mileage of 13,213 which seemed a little high compared to YYC (9,776) and YYZ (11,055) but who was I to question it so I was able to come up with a fairly circuitous routing of: ORD-NRT (NH F - stop)-HND-BKK (TG F - POT)-BKK-HKG(TG F)-HKG-ICN(OZ J)-ICN-FRA(OZ F)-FRA-VIE (OS J - stop)-VIE-BRU (SN J)-BRU-IAD (SN J)-IAD-ORD (UA J) which came under the limit. After feeding her all the flights, I was informed that I was over the limit of 12,095. To make matters more confusing, the mileage limits are slightly different on the inbound and outbound as I was told that it depends on what cities you route through which is 100% contradictory to what I was told a couple of days ago.

Needless to say, it's back to the drawing board for me until I call in again and get a completely different story on the new rules.

Pseudo Nim

This is so annoying.

kwflyer

This is indeed correct. Your maximum mileage is determined by your routing and is not necessarily a constant calculation between two city pairs. Agents won't know what your maximum mileage is until they plug in your routing.

If you ask them for a MM based on two city pairs (if they agree to even provide that) they will often quote you a modified TPM or CUM calculation which (again) may not follow your individual routing.