Well when I book a ticket with AC, on a flight that carries an AC flight number, I am entering into a contract with Air Canada. It really is irrelevant if they subcontract the 'work' to another carrier -- ultimately, it is Air Canada that bears the responsibility of fulfilling the contract.

Their business relationship with United, or anyone else for that matter, really, is secondary.

Now, if AC doesn't want the risk of United's non-performance, then AC should merely act as an agent for United, and sell UA coded flights on their website in conjunction with AC coded flights. Then, of course, a passenger on a UA coded flight sold by AC acting as an agent would be solely and exclusively bound by UA policies and tarrifs.


No, AC needs to sit down with its subcontractor and hammer out a method by which they can provide service that is up to AC standards. Or else, come the time this policy is actually implemented, they're going to have many customers who are angry about having an extra $25 extorted from them when AC's baggage policies are quite clear on their website.

Or maybe AC is going down this same path as well...who knows?

And that's exactly how it works.

So? That is immaterial.

Obviously they run the operation. What does that have to do with AC's contractual obligations?

None of this has anything to do with my contract with AC. If AC finds themselves unable to fullfil their side of the contract, then they should perhaps think twoce before entering into it.

The issue of differing baggage rules on other operators is nothing new. AC has codeshares on NZ metal, for example. So the NZ draconian carry-on baggage rules apply on NZ metal. The Tariff only says what AC will let you take on its own flights. And NZ isn't going to care one iota was AC lets you take on its plane, even when travelling on NZ codeshare.

It comes down to you not liking the contract itself, as is your prerogative.

Is it the case that all airline baggage allowance applies to codeshares because some people bantering on the internet say so, or because it actually is so?

I think this thread is a conspiracy to drive me crazy. I have enough baggage as it is.

I agree. If an airline has to look at who the marketing carrier is and what all of their rules are, then no one would be checked in because agents would spend all day figuring out what to charge who. Many agents hardly know their own carrier's rules, much less the ones of their partners. Plus, revenue going back and forth on these issues would be a mess.

I also don't think I've ever heard anybody complain in these forums about the times when they have got a break from these types of rules. Last I cheked, nobody has argued about getting same day standby for free on an AC-marketed, but UA-operated flight, or an Aeroplan elite member getting free access to a US Red Carpet Club for domestic/transborder travel (not part of the priviliges of a Mileage Plus elite). Be careful what you wish for - these things go both ways.

Just be lucky that AC hasn't followed US' take, which matched the second bag rule to be consistent with UA, apparently to avoid customer confusion. That way, you'd have to pay all the time. However, I'm guessing the amount of people this affects on this forum is very minimal at best - as the number of people actually checking two bags is very small, and elite flyers (* silver/gold) are exempt from the fees anyway.

No, legally they don't, unless properly stipulated in AC's Tariff. The possible unawareness/ignorance of NZ staff as to their contractual obligations to AC (and AC's PAX) does not count.

Once again, can you show where exactly in the AC Tariff, is the term "own flights" defined to exclude AC codeshare flights?

Answer has to be in the tariffs.

Either spelled out or otherwise, as I submit is the case, by default.

Tell you what, fly on one of these, pay whatever fee has to be paid, and ask customer solutions (or whatever the naem of the day is) for your money back. Next, if they won't take it to the CTA. That will yield the definitive answer.

You try first, and let us know.

First, I never travel with more than one peice. Usually only carry on. Second, i'll wait for a bigger fish before sticking my neck out, thanks.

To me, the tariff is clear anyway.

Yep, me too.

The CTA rules on codeshares are quite clear - you'll find it in every codeshare ruling on the CTA site.

"<the code-sharing airline (not the operating carrier)> shall apply its published tariffs, in effect, to the carriage of its traffic. In particular, nothing in any commercial agreement between the air carriers relating to limits of liability shall diminish the rights of passengers as stated in such tariffs."

So if I showed up for my SAV-ORD-YYZ flight, all with AC numbers but on United for the first bit, and they try to charge me for my second bag. . .I can just say "no thanks, I've got an AC ticket"?

Will that really work? I might actually come into this situation in the next few weeks.

Good.

You first write to Customers solutions, refer to tariffs and ask your money back. If they don't get religion, you'll have to file a formal complaint to the CTA. Should be an easy one to put together.

I tend to doubt you'll come into this situation depending on your definition of "few weeks" - from the UA Website on the new rule:

"This policy is for travel exclusively within the 50 United States, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands and Canada and applies to tickets purchased on or after February 4, 2008 for travel on or after May 5, 2008

I'm guessing there might be some leniency for a week or two after May 5. At that point, you can always ask. But unless you're really lucky, you're not gonna like the answer you get.