Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Air Canada | Aeroplan
Reload this Page >

AC changing flights at check-in, how common is this?

AC changing flights at check-in, how common is this?

Old Aug 19, 2022, 3:27 pm
  #16  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: YVR, KUL
Programs: AC, MH, BA, AF-KL
Posts: 2,944
Originally Posted by bigdog2
So UA or any other airline is technically (legally) not allowed to sell flights connecting through EWR that have a connection time lower than 60 minutes?
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.
STANDARD.D/D...D/I...I/D...I/I.
ONLINE 1.00 1.15 1.30 1.00
OFFLINE 1.00 1.15 1.30 1.00

AC-UA II 1.10 COUNTRY CA - ALL
SilverChris is offline  
Old Aug 19, 2022, 4:17 pm
  #17  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: YYG
Programs: airlines and hotels and rental cars - oh my!
Posts: 3,054
The agent did you a huge favour, because EWR is notorious for delays. There's no way you would have made it.
Symmetre is offline  
Old Aug 19, 2022, 4:31 pm
  #18  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada
Programs: UA*1K MM SK EBG LATAM BL
Posts: 23,437
I m calling BS on YYZEWR on AC being anything close to on time. Just be glad you didnt have to deal in EWR.
rankourabu is offline  
Old Aug 19, 2022, 8:36 pm
  #19  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: NYC
Programs: AA 2MM, Bonvoy LTT, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 14,754
Originally Posted by HerpaYvr
the ticket was purchased through AC so it's AC that should refund. But you got a better flight is it worth it?
Originally Posted by bigdog2
The original tickets were purchased through UA.
Yes, the flight change was a lovely surprise. But in the instance of not traveling thru the US as expected, are customers in this situation entitled to refunds on the US airport taxes?
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.
seawolf is offline  
Old Aug 20, 2022, 5:21 pm
  #20  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SFO/SJC
Programs: UA Silver, Marriott Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 14,970
Originally Posted by 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.
i think, because AC flights are pre-cleared before arriving at EWR, the MCT that should be in effect is D-I. I dont 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 Im correct in thinking theres no way to do this connection all airside, since the airside [UA] shuttle bus doesnt 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.

Originally Posted by Symmetre
The agent did you a huge favour, because EWR is notorious for delays. There's no way you would have made it.
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 wouldnt like my chances ([real] international flights are going to be more highly prioritized than short-haul/transborder), but definitely wouldnt be too odd to have both delays essentially saving a connection.

Originally Posted by bigdog2
So UA or any other airline is technically (legally) not allowed to sell flights connecting through EWR that have a connection time lower than 60 minutes?
MCT isnt 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 youd 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 Id 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 havent been any changes - because they are not good at notifications.
emcampbe is offline  
Old Aug 20, 2022, 7:28 pm
  #21  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,613
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.
RangerNS is offline  
Old Aug 20, 2022, 8:12 pm
  #22  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: NYC
Programs: AA 2MM, Bonvoy LTT, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 14,754
Originally Posted by 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.
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.

Originally Posted by 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.
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.
RangerNS likes this.
seawolf is offline  
Old Aug 26, 2022, 8:27 pm
  #23  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SFO/SJC
Programs: UA Silver, Marriott Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 14,970
Originally Posted by 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.
revenue joint sharing, yes, but Im 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.

Im also not suggesting that UA systems care if its 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 shouldnt have, sure. But I suspect its 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.
emcampbe is offline  
Old Aug 26, 2022, 9:51 pm
  #24  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: NYC
Programs: AA 2MM, Bonvoy LTT, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 14,754
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 wouldnt matter. Its suppose to be metal neutral (page 15).

Last edited by seawolf; Aug 26, 2022 at 9:59 pm
seawolf is offline  
Old Aug 27, 2022, 8:52 am
  #25  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: YYZ / LHR
Programs: AC SE100k
Posts: 266
Originally Posted by emcampbe
Also, the AC-UA connection process is a PITA - I dont think you can get from the pier at A AC uses to UA terminal C at EWR airside - the part of A that UA uses is different, and unless things have changed, the airside shuttle bus only runs from the UA pier of A to term. C. So you would have had to exit the secure area at A, take AirTran to C, then re-clear security.
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?
SuperCargo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.