SilverChris

MCTs are more complicated than that. There are standard MCTs like the 60 minute one mentioned, and there are more specific exceptions which may be higher or lower. Airlines can set different MCTs for specific airline, origin, destination, and flight number combinations.

For example, an AC to UA connection should technically be 70 minutes.

Symmetre

The agent did you a huge favour, because EWR is notorious for delays. There's no way you would have made it.

rankourabu

I m calling BS on YYZEWR on AC being anything close to on time. Just be glad you didnt have to deal in EWR.

seawolf

I don't think you will get a refund. AC likely moved you and coded it as IROP. AC lifted both UA flight coupons and marked it as flown or exchanged. As far as UA is concern, that is flown as ticketed.

emcampbe

i think, because AC flights are pre-cleared before arriving at EWR, the MCT that should be in effect is D-I. I don’t think UAs system should have allowed this, which is why I was wondering if there might have been a flight time change somewhere along the line.

and IMO, if I’m correct in thinking there’s no way to do this connection all airside, since the airside [UA] shuttle bus doesn’t serve the pier that AC uses at term. A at EWR (IIRC), whether 52 minutes is actually a legal connection is pretty moot - even if AC arrives on time, the chances of getting out of Term.A, using AirTrain, then re-clearing security and arriving at the LHR gate on time is not good. Not impossible, for sure, but even tough for a seasoned EWR traveller. YMMV.

while true, EWR is notorious for delays on both ends. So just a matter of whether any AC delay is shorter, same or longer than the UA one. I still wouldn’t like my chances ([real] international flights are going to be more highly prioritized than short-haul/transborder), but definitely wouldn’t be too odd to have both delays essentially saving a connection.

MCT isn’t really about ‘legality’, but more about what kind of risk an airline will take in protecting passengers if they miss a connection. They are in place to say if you booked a connection, and you miss it, the airline will take responsibility in rebooking you onto your final, including any accommodation if you need to overnight before the next available flight.

If OP booked YYZ-LHR and the system allowed it, I would certainly argue as a pax that you’d be entitled to same protections, despite it being under MCT. Same if the airline changed the schedule where a ‘legally’ booked flight was changed to no longer met MCT. An airline would typically rebook as invol - and I’d argue should have been done at time of change. UAs system is pretty bad, in general, about notifications and rebooking in these situations. As a Frequent Ua traveller, I have always tended to check reservations every couple of weeks to make sure there haven’t been any changes - because they are not good at notifications.

RangerNS

You did not cost PANYNJ anything, both touching their facility, so there should logically be a refund.

This may require more than 2 hours on hold, and waiting 90 days though.

seawolf

I don't think UA systems check or care if AC (code as IROP and) reissue on their own stock especially since this is revenue sharing joint venture.

Airline is not required to refund PFCs as per 14 CFR § 158.45 as there is no "adjustment to the amount paid by the passenger" but it must remit all PFC collected as ticketed. CBP immigration/custom fee might be recoverable but expect to run into obstacles.

emcampbe

revenue joint sharing, yes, but I’m not sure if the specific details of how it all works. Not sure if they share revenue equally, if operating carrier gets a higher percentage, etc. so whether it matters and how precisely is probably based on some of the details of the agreement.

I’m also not suggesting that UA systems care if it’s re-issued - really, on day of travel, operating carrier re-issues all the time in IRROPS - heck, if OP was going to misconnect, and AC flight from YVR was full, AC could have rebooked them on the BA nonstop if they wanted. My point was that UA booked a ticket for an AC flight connecting to a UA flight, and the system should have prevented the itinerary from being purchased in the first place if it was under MCT. The system could have somehow bugged and let it ticket when it shouldn’t have, sure. But I suspect it’s more likely that the times of one of the flights changed, pushing it into an illegal connection. Even then the system should have rebooked it based on that - so in essence, the ‘system’ screwed up somewhere along the line.

seawolf

Revenue sharing is based on capacity provided by each carrier not on a flight by flight basis.

page 14
https://www.regulations.gov/document...2008-0234-0001

Whether passenger flew on AC, UA, LH wouldn’t matter. It’s suppose to be metal neutral (page 15).

SuperCargo

As recently as December and January, AC was using UA's pier at Terminal A so there was an airside bus that went directly to Terminal C without re-clearing security. Did it a couple of times in December and January and it was all very straight-forward and efficient. Maybe AC's gates were shuffled around due to all the construction going on at EWR?