Codesharing just a confusing scam?
 

I see the following on the AC website:

This makes no sense whatsoever; when I, as a customer, buy a ticket that includes an intinerary that is entirely with AC flight numbers, ie: ACxxxx -- I expect, at the very least, a standard of service as set forth in the AC filed tarrifs, which include, but are not limited to, the 2 bag allowance for economy class passengers, free use of the on-board washroom, etc.

If AC can't provide such congruency in policy across all of their flight numbers -- then why are they putting their flight numbers on United flights at all?

And what does the airline industry have to gain from such 'codeshare' deception anyways? Other than the fact that it has the capability of confusing the h*ll out of a lot of passengers.

You raise an interesting point regarding tariffs.

If indeed there is nothing in the tariffs about codeshares, you might well have a case. Although I would imagine you would need having specifically been bitten by the issue before you would be able to file a complaint with the CTA.

Well Stranger, even if AC/UA are on solid ground insofar as their filed tarifs are concerned -- its just an example of poor customer service to be placing your name on a product that doesn't deliver.

If UA is going to ding AC's customers for a 2nd bag -- I don't see why AC doesn't ding UA's customers for a 2nd bag.

I can't find this paragraph anywhere on the AC website.

Could you possible provide a link, or describe what you did to find this information?

It is linked right off the main page:

New Baggage Fees on United Airlines

AC's Tariffs (and the baggage allowances set thereforth) apply to all AC codeshare flights. So until AC re-writes its Tariffs to specify different baggage allowances for UA-operated flights, this new "policy" is null and void.

Thanks. I tried using a search engine. I guess the bot hasn't looked at that page yet.

Well, the Transborder tariff says that you can check baggage on flights governed by that tariff. But it only specifically lists baggage allowances for flights operated by AC, leaving (by omission) other carriers to treat baggage the way they want to. So that's the legal issue.

As far as the practical issue is concerned, my view is pretty much the opposite of yours. I think it makes perfect sense, and I think that allowing all the rules of the airline marketing the codeshare to apply would make no sense whatsoever.

If what you proposed held sway, then, for example, any UA codeshares operated by AC would have to go by the $25 for a second checked bag. So because UA changes a rule, all AC agents who check in UA codeshares are obligated to enforce this UA rule? Some flights have three or four other airlines selling code share seats on it. Multiply that by the number of elite FF levels for each airline, and think about how many different baggage allowances you could have. Then add to that all the special baggage rules for pets, sporting equipment, mothers-in-law as checked baggage, etc. That wouldn't make any sense whatsoever, IMO.

There are lots and lots of services offered by airlines on their own flights that they can't offer on codeshares. Upgrades, methods for boarding the plane, meal types, and so on. If AC were to codeshare on a dry airline to get access to some market in the middle east, would AC have to load some booze on these flights for the AC code share drinking section?

So they can market and sell flights on routes they either don't operate or wouldn't be allowed to operate.

Now, what AC really needs to do is get off its butt and change the wording on the rules that pop up for the UA codeshares it sells on its website. If you actually look at the rules you are supposed to read and select the check box before purchase, they still refer to the old two bag allowance.

Correct -- all AC-marketed flights are governed by that Tariff.

Where exactly does it say that?

http://www.aircanada.com/en/travelin...r%20Canada.pdf

Page 41. Maximum baggage allowance is according to the table on that page.

The carriers in the table include AC only. There is nothing listed for other carriers.

I am not a lawyer and don't claim to have the definitive interpretation. I surmised that when the tariff refers to "the carrier" and "other carriers" that when there is a table of baggage maxima only for AC, that "other carriers" might have different rules.

I would think if you buy an AC-coded flight, AC's tariffs should be applicable, regardless of other carriers' rules.

Are tariffs on ac.com current?
 

If they are, then there is potentially an interesting issue.

"Other carriers" refers strictly to interline (e.g. first segment is on AC 123, and 2nd segment is on UA 456) tickets.

Do you really think that this would be the first time that AC (or any other carrier) had violated its Tariffs?

http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/rul...ion&category=C

Then what about the examples of how that could be quite unworkable that I suggested above?

One flight - dozens of baggage allowance rules?

I continue to maintain that it's the operating carrier's job to run the physical operation of the flight. Codeshares can do whatever they like pricing-wise, and fare-rule-wise. But the operator is the one that has to throw the actual bags on the plane, after all.

Of course not.

However I was not referring to the luggage issue, but to something potentially much more significant. So much so that I am not sure I want to mention it here...

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.

You could try telling UA that since the flights are booked on AC codeshare flight numbers that the AC rules should apply. If they are not satisfied, then tell them to send the "bill" to AC for the second bag.

My guess is that when AC receives the bill, they will probably dispute it with UA. If they are not sucessful, then AC would probably raise their fares on their codeshares operated by UA.

You're right. I'll be down there before the end of March. So this won't apply to me. Next time I go though, I'll try to bring enough stuff to require a second bag.:D Although surely I'm not the only who has to fly United!

You could try. Its just that I have a strange feeling that they'll refuse to check your second bag before they do and send a bill to AC. Or perhaps they'll send the second bag to SYD. Or maybe "forget" to put a bag tag on it in the first place.

Anybody else notice that the info on the UA 2nd bag fee isn't even on the website anymore (it was yesterday). As of right now there would be no notice of the fee when booking a UA codeshare. In fact when you book a T+ fare you get that screen that lets you chose to save a few bucks by not checking baggage. If I recall correctly the choices are laid out something like.

1) Up to two checked bags (including in Tango +)
2) No check bag -7$ (or something like that).

How unfair and misleading.

AClover (but not so much these days) :td:

It could indeed be, but only if people will actually have to pay the fee without any warning at all.

Or, on the other hand, perhaps my view of how codeshares work was completely wrong, and AC has realized that they have to allow people their full baggage allowance as per the tariff.

So it could be that AC is simply living up to its obligations.

Perhaps someone read this thread, and figured out they had to change the tariff first if they wanted to stay out of trouble?

Well, the airlines have always been great to use codesharing to increase their access to markets but tend to forget the justification they used to get regulators to approve codesharing in the first place, which was convenience to customers and a commercial relationship between the passenger and a single carrier. Buck-passing can get real ugly when things go wrong on codeshares.