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.

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...