The opposite, the branding being the last two letters for DOM/TB/SUN is new.

Its less obvious (to me, anyway; apparently not recently documented) what the fare bucket/brand mapping is, though would take only a matter of time going down the list JCDZPRYBMUHQVWGSTLAKF to get what you want.

And then the extension code would be something like F ..y-|..b-|..m-|..u-|..h-|..q-|..v- (at least, that is what I last searched for).

I've been noticing this interesting issue too recently.

Haven't tried actually booking yet though, do you mind sharing if you were able to successfully book something like this?

Haven't used powertools in a while, tried to run a few searches today and had same issue that you mention. A page opens, but it remains blank, and doesn't try to load.

Was the issue due to the itinerary being too complex/too many legs?

The issue had to do with inputting what should have been a multi-segment itinerary (i.e. all on the same day) as a multi-city itinerary, the latter apparently being the cause of the difficulty. I no longer remember whether that was an error of my own making or whether that was a processing glitch, probably the former.

Haven't booked the arrive/depart at the same time, but have booked with the am/pm departure error. It went through initially as a very long flight to FRA and showed incorrectly in "my bookings", but was correct in cowtool and corrected itself in ac.com once I tried to upgrade.

Trying to book a rather complicated itinerary (PIT-YYZ-YVR-SIN-KUL-NRT-YUL-YYZ-PIT). What Matrix is doing is adding an economy lowest fare to and from PIT with a premium economy fare for the rest of the trip. I can pull this up onto the AC website with power tools but not get to the seat selection screen, I fill in my details, say I don't want to buy any addons for the trip and then it errors out. I'm assuming what's happening is Matrix is creating an unbookable fare by combining the two types of tickets and I'll have to book them separately (and therefore lose connection protection). Or if I call in would there be any chance that because I have a specific error I'd be able to book this without paying a fee?

Someone like @D582 might have a better idea about why it's not working online, but I can at least add that if you want to book this by phone, AC doesn't charge any fees on cash tickets (you may be thinking of the fee for booking reward tickets by phone).

I've been wrestling with this a lot and I've come across one or two causes for the error you're describing. The most common cause for the error is that matrix does not validate married segment and O&D availability if you are searching as a multi-city. Certain types of routing requests can also cause it to pull availability on a segment basis even when it's not searched that way (I've found if I specify airlines for parts of a single bound, it can cause this). This means that it will pull availability that is ostensibly there but the itinerary fails a validation check when the website is processing it and it errors out. The second cause I've run into is when the AC website doesn't like ticketing on a particular carrier even when the rules permit it.

Ive tried a couple of things that have increased the viability of matrix itineraries. When you're searching, try to have each bound as one origin and one destination and let matrix create the connections. If you want to steer the routing through the routing controls, use f instead of carrier specificity and stipulate the fare basis as a faring code if you know what you're looking for. I've also started using EF to double check if availability actually exists. EF doesn't always pull it correctly for all airline combos and is limited for complex routings but it can make the process faster if you have some flexibility and an idea of what you want.

Powertools can also create some links to AC that fail deeplink generation. Sometimes these can be saved by manually reformatting the URL. I've found this happens more commonly with mixed cabin itineraries.

If the availability is actually there, you should be able to phone AC and book directly. In recent experience, this has been absolute torture because too many of the res agents aren't trained on how to manually construct routings or handle anything particularly complicated. I'm also not sure if the call center can actually book something where you are building a combination fare and it includes a non-AC fare basis. Small sample size, but, last time I tried to this, the call center couldn't ticket it even when, eventually, the website managed.

This makes a lot of sense because when pulling into AC it was showing each segment separately. The problem is, I have to break it because its combining a G fare PIT-YYZ-PIT with an A fare YYZ-KUL-YYZ. Searching end to end from PIT-KUL won't pull up this ticket.

If its a failure of the deeplink generation would that even allow me to load the page in the first place?

I believe there is space because I can book it separately (one ticket PIT-YYZ-PIT, on YYZ-KUL-YYZ), for cheaper in fact, I'm just trying to get connection protection in YYZ.

The deeplink failure comment wasn't for your case, I was noting it more for posterity.

When it generates onto AC, does it come up as 4 bounds:
PIT-YYZ
YYZ-KUL
KUL-YYZ
YYZ-PIT
Or does it create more/different bounds than that with connections mixed in differently? If it is coming up as those four then the link generation is probably correct. If it's not, it might be worth messing with the URL structure to create those 4 bounds.

I would also check the rules on your YYZ-KUL-YYZ fare to make sure end-on-ends are permitted. If not, then this wouldn't be bookable as one ticket. I'm not sure if matrix will validate for end-on-ends/side trip permissibility.

Gotcha.

When importing to AC it is imported as the follows:

PIT-YYZ (Economy Lowest)
YYZ-YVR (Economy Flexible)
YVR-SIN (Premium Economy Lowest)
SIN-KUL (Economy Lowest)
KUL-YYZ (Premium Economy Flexible)
YYZ-PIT (Economy Lowest)

What am I looking to change in the link? The URL does seem to show the correct fare basis and fare code for each leg, is there something else I should be looking for?

I did just double check the fare rules and end on end is permitted for YYZ-KUL-YYZ.

I appreciate it!

The URL structure uses bound breaks to pass bound information to AC. The way that's being passed, it's probably impossible to fare. I have some notes on a different computer that I'm not infront of at the moment but from memory, I think the structure is numbered something like bound_leg. See if you can reorganize the URL to reduce it to the four fare bounds and see if it validates (I'd probably try two as well just to see if it's possible).

If you want, feel free to PM me the link for the matrix fare page as well as the the powertool URL and I'll see if I can give it a look later tonight.