NickB

Exactly. the CoC incorporates them by reference. But the fact that they come from IATA is irrelevant. Whether they pull it from IATA rules, the Bible, the Kama Sutra or the childhood memories of Mireille Mathieu makes, in itself, no difference. So, the fact that there are definitions of other provisions relating to interlining in IATA publications, recommendations, etc... does not, per se, lend any credence to the existence of a legitimate expectation of baggage interlining unless one can establish an incorporation by reference in the CoC of some other applicable contractual or regulatory instrument. I may have missed such a reference. If so, I would appreciate if you drew my attention to it. That is why the reference to IATA rules, definitions, etc... that you make in para 1 of post #26 is, imo, not relevant and a red herring.
Besides, I suspect that you would have a very hard time to establish knowledge among average flyers of the contents of IATA documents you refer to. Considering, therefore, that these documents in themselves generate expectations seems to me rather dubious.

Well, if the airline has reasonable grounds for rejecting an item, then I cannot see anything wrong with them rejecting it. If they do it on a whim, I do not think that this would past muster in jurisdictions, such as EU ones, were there is control on unfair contract terms. In any event, we are here in the context of determining what the airline is entitled to do or not under the contract, imo.

Not sure how this really relates to the discussion here but, anyway, I do not believe this to be the case: these would be "conjunction tickets" which, together, constitute a single contract of carriage. If it were not so, you would not be protected in case of misconnects. If they are genuinely separate contracts, then it would be the same as buying them separately and, if your TA did that without warning you of the consequences, this would surely be negligence on his/her part.

Yes, I agree. This is what I said in my previous post, although I was perhaps not clear on that, unless you can establish that there was an implicit representation when concluding the contract that there would be interlining. IMO, there is no such representation. There is a representation that it will be possible for your luggage to be transported from start to finish but that does not necessarily imply that you will not have to collect at some point your luggage and recheck it.

I would disagree that they have been "made to expect it" by airlines. There may well be (at least among some) an expectation. Whether that expectation is warranted (whether we attribute to airlines or anybody else) is a different thing altogether.

IMO, there is zero difference between baggage interlining and passenger interlining in this respect. There has been a courtesy which has been extended to apssengers in the past, but no representation has ever been made of it continuing. In case of passenger interlining, it used to be the case that the airline would put you on a later flight if you missed a connection on separate tickets. This was a courtesy as there never was a contractual entitlement to do so. Some airlines stll do it in some circumstances (eg: BA on BA to BA connections or OW to BA connections) but, for the most part, they do not (at least in Europe) and will now make you purchase a separate ticket if you miss your departure. They did not accompany this change of policy with any trumpets because there was no entitlement to it in the first place. Is it unfair from them to do so? I do not think so. Would it be unfair for BA to decide, from tomorrow, that they will no longer accommodate passengers who arrive late on a connection on separate tickets? No, I do not think so as they never advertised the fact even if they do it in practice.

Ditto with baggage, imo: I just cannot see any reason to distinguish here: in both cases, we are talking about courtesies that were extended to passengers without a representation having ever been made of it continuing. In the absence of such representation, I do not see how individuals could form a legitimate expectation of it continuing.

Incidentally, it seems to me also that your free water in a restaurant analogy is problematic because, again, it refers to expectations as to the contents of the service that you purchase (that it included free water and, perhaps to take a more common example where practices can vary, complimentary bread). The airline equivalent would be whether you will be provided free water (or free alcoholic drinks) with your meal. The interlining example, however, is not concerned with the service itself but with an ancillary freebie which is not part of the service that you purchased itself. For you restaurant analogy, it would be the example of a restaurant which has for the past 30 years (without ever promising it or ever advertising it) offered you a free taxi home after your meal and decides no longer to do it. Would that be unfair? I do not think so.

NickB

I do not think that this can be the case as it would involve increasing massively minimum connection times, which would have a serious adverse effect on the attractiveness of the airline. It would also prevent any connection for passengers without visas for passengers who require a visa at the intermediate point, which again would make the airline unattractive on itineraries like, for instance, India to the US.

What they could do, if they wanted to discourage baggage, would be to systematically calculate baggage fees on a per segment basis.

Often1

I forsee the end of free checked luggage, as with most legacy carriers in the US. If there is a market for interlining, someone will start a business offering that service to the carriers for a fee which cab be passed on to the pax.

Those who really need checked luggage, have a tight connection, need to avoid an overnight and so on, will gladly pay for the convenience and the fee can include some form of insurance / reimbursement for the enhanced risk of misconnection / loss.

NickB

End of free checked luggage, yes that is quite possible and even plausible.

End of interlining on same ticket? I do not think so. That would largely destroy much of the rationale for alliances. Interconnection is the most significant benefit of alliances. FFP benefits, etc... are the icing on the cake in this respect.

End of interlining outside of alliances? That will depend on routes. There is already much less extra-alliance interlining at the bottom end of the fare ladder.

Moreover, the whole organisation of legacy carriers is based on a hub-and-spoke system, which makes no sense if we go back to a point-to-point logic.

orbitmic

But my only reference to IATA rule in the paragraph you mention in answer to a previous point you made was precisely to agree with you that they never oblige airlines to interline luggage!! ["It just defines what they can, never what they have to do, and as such, as you say, no airline "has" to interline luggage on separate tickets."]

I'm happy to take your word for it that it used to be the case with some airlines at some times, but at the very least not in my flying experience (I'm 37 and decently travelled). In my experience, missed connections in the case of separate itineraries were never reaccommodated as default by any of the airlines I have taken. Airlines would sometimes make exceptions but 'no' was always the default answer including 10 and 20 years ago with the airlines I was flying then, and when an exception was granted it was always described as such. The only systematic exception I know of is also the only formal policy in the field (AA for separate OW itineraries). Even airlines you mention such as BA have regularly refused reaccommodating passengers on separate itineraries, it has happened both to myself and to family members including already in the 1990s. By contrast, I can honestly say that until about 3-4 years ago I was never ever refused through check of baggage on separate itineraries nor ever told that it was a favour or an exception (as when I was occasionally protected in case of missed connections). Then, 3-4 years ago BA started to near-systematically refuse interlining, and incidentally, they do regularly refuse to do it on single PNRs involving multiple airlines. So I may have been unlucky with misconnections and lucky with through check in of luggage (which again may be due to the specific airlines I have flown more at different times in the past 25 years) but in my specific experience and over that period, the behaviour of airlines with regards to the two situations was never similar. Again, though, happy to believe that some airlines were more systematically generous with regards to missed departures in case of people arriving from another flight (that's what it amounts to, which again to me seems quite different from providing a through luggage tag at a time when no specific problem has occurred).

NickB

Sorry, I misunderstood what you said. Apologies.

I am not sure what you mean by "by default". If you mean "as of right", I agree. It was a courtesy extended to the passenger rather than an entitlement. It would not take the form of "Yes, of course". But rather "Ahh... you missed your flight. I cannot guarantee anything but let us see what I can do for you..." would be typical. And this is not going back to the days of Blériot or Santos-Dumont. I am talking here late 80s/early 90s, At that time, I or friends of mine experienced that kind of approach with BA, KL or AZ. AF was different, though. I remember being originally surprised that AF seemed to have a much stricter "après l'heure, c'est plus l'heure" approach even in these days. IME, policies started to harden gradually with intra-EU liberalisation and the rise of the no-frills.

Even on BA to BA connections? That has not been my experience. Of course, again, it is never as of right, not an official policy and it would certainly not result in being confirmed on a full flight but if there is availability and one is not taking the mickey, BA has usually been fairly helpful on BA to BA itineraries on separate tickets. I have not had any very recent experience of this (and to be honest believed it to be a thing of the past too) but, talking to friends, they seem to have experienced the same positive attitude in fairly recent times.

1) well, if policies started to change 3-4 years ago, how can one really say that there should be an expectation (let alone a legitimate one)?
2) again the mere fact of the existence of a practice is not per se sufficient to establish a legitimate expectation. I have never been refused a second sandwich in short-haul economy when I have asked for one and there were still some. It does not follow from that that I have a legitimate expectation that a second sandwich should be given to me if there are spare ones and that it would be unfair for an airline to deny me one in such a situation.
There is a difference between the "is" and the "ought", between the empirical and the normative.

I am surprised by this (the latter bit, that is). BA's policy is ultra-clear and stated on its website:
I read the "normally" in there as indicating that exceptions can arise when there is a problem with interlining for one reason or another.
My experience of luggage connection handling with BA accords with that. I must say, however, that, with BA, I travel with hand luggage only more often than I do with hold luggage and I would have far less experience of this than you.
It is also not been my experience that "BA started to near-systematically refuse interlining". Rather, it has been a much more systematic and clear-cut approach, in line with the published policy, viz.: if you are on separate tickets on OW, BA will interline. If the separate tickets are not all on OW, they will not.

orbitmic

Thanks for a lot of useful points. I think you and I mean different things by 'expect'. I think you don't understand why people 'feel entitled' to something and I mean that they 'genuinely believed this is what would happen' when they booked their ticket.

I mentioned 'till 3-4 years ago' because this was - off the top of my mind, when BA and BD changed their approach to through checking luggage, but the others were still apparently always fine with it. To be honest, I never personally took it for granted just because I know that some agents struggle doing it on the system, some even first saying 'I think I can't do it' before a colleague would show them how to, so as a natural pessimist, I always thought that one day or another I'd get the agent who would simply fail. In a funny way, regardless of single/multiple airlines and/or single/multiple PNRs, each airline system has its own separate limitations on what can be printed on a luggage tag. For instance, AF will only print up to 3 flights while DL will print more, and if I remember correctly, KLM will not issue a luggage tag where a given airport appears more than once.

As for BA, no I can't really speak of BA-BA itineraries as I rarely fly those on separate itineraries, but some of the cases I was referring to are OW/BA (with LAN). As for the problem with luggage through check on single PNRs they both happened from the same outstation with a short flight on BA connecting on a longer flight (one AC one DL) from LHR. Conversely though, I have also had agents in another outstation through check bags on separate (non OW) PNRs for me. In both cases, however, this may well be misunderstanding of the airline's own rules (even though I believe BA use their own staff in both places) so I think I'll print the reference you gave if I need to do a BA/OW itinerary on two separate PNRs again!

However, I too tend to mostly travel with hand baggage only as often as I can (about 90% of times). Delayed or dammaged luggage, supposedly TSA-approved locks systematically broken/removed from luggage and occasionally things stolen from it have been enough to achieve that great airline goal of avoiding carrying checked luggage whenever I can without going for their arguments on protecting the environment, employees' backs and waht not .

NickB

Oh, I do believe that some people will have such an expectation of something happening, in the sense of genuinely believing that it would happen. However, people genuinely believe all sorts of things which are wrong, some of which manifestly wrong. During te MMR scandal in the UK, for instance, people genuinely believed that it would be better for their child not to be vaccinated against MMR. It does not follow that they were right in that belief.
Again, this is an "is" vs "ought" difference: the fact that people genuinely bellieve X is without doubt. What is at issue is whether people legitimately believe X.

It is not being a pessismist. It is being sensible. Quite apart from agent ability issue, I have never felt that there was an obligation on agents to interline on separate tickets. In Europe at any rate, I never felt it to be a "policy" of the relevant airline (except for those airlines that do publish a policy like BA), in the sense that agents felt they were under a duty (even if it was not a legal duty) to interline on separate tickets. Rather, it was something that they would do out of courtesy, if they know how to do it if they have time (in other words, a bit like the second sandwich example I gave above). Last time I had a baggage through-check on separate tickets (LX to AF), it took the agent a good 4 to 5 minutes to do it. Luckily, there was no queue at all. I would have perfectly understood if the agent refused to do it if there was a long queue of people waiting to be processed and this would delay them.

In other words, I would never in a month of Sundays rely on an agent through -checking luggage on separate tickets without having a plan B. I would have thought that not having a plan B in such situations would be reckless in exactly the same way as not having a plan B to address a misconnect in case of connections on separate tickets would be reckless.

OTOH, I would never feel the need for a plan B when checking luggage on a single through-ticket. In the latter case, it seems that I would legitimately be entitled to rely on the airline to address the problem if there was a problem whereas, in the former, I would feel that the problem and the risk rests on my shoulders rather than that of the airline.

brunos

Do we have statistical evidence that airlines are cutting down on bag interlining in the past couple of years. We mostly talk about US airlines that changed their policies because of bag fees.
Do we have evidence elsewhere in the past couple of years, besides anecdotal.
I do not know in Europe, but in Asia, major airlines would think twice about the commercial implications of not interlining if other competitors do.

Oxymore

Don't know if I was just lucky, but I was able to interline AF-KL on 2 different PNRs with overnight connexion in AMS.

Goldorak

I think they still agree to do it intra AF/KL and even intra-Skyteam. That's what they told me in december when they refused me to interline AF to PG. But as no official policy is available... It would be very useful if members of this forum could report situations they encountered to try to guess what is the policy (if there's one !).

olivedel

I asked several people at corporate offices, and no one seems to know... I can try again with one of my closest contacts.

Goldorak

Thank you Olivedel
If you have a chance to speak to them, please insist on the fact that this very bad decision (if there's one !) is a big inconvenience to pax, so if we could go back to the previous situation...
Or at least, they need to understand that when they change the rules, they have to communicate about those changes.

CDGcommuter

Hello,
my last experience is that I was not able to interline AF-AZ on Christmas Day.

olivedel

I just sent an email to someone asking for the official policy. Wait and see.