not really - UA doesnt charge fuel surcharge ;)

No, what I'm saying is 1) UA has a more generous checked baggage allowance for *G pax traveling coach internationally and 2) what really matters when it comes to checked baggage allowance is the policy enforced by the airline and agent that's checking your baggage in.

Even if they flew the UA code share on the LAX-AKL non-stop operated by Air NZ, they would have to check their baggage in with Air NZ at LAX. Since they will instead be flying on transpac LAX-SYD on UA, they'll be checking in with UA. Since they're *G they'll get the larger allowance. The bags will be tagged with a final destination of AKL. It's not like Air NZ will refuse to transport the interlined checked baggage from SYD to AKL tagged for them.

I doubt NZ will refuse, but would they charge for excess is the question? Wouldnt this approach (nice if it works) fall over for the return as they'll be checking in with NZ?

You are right, they would have a problem on the return, but I think they are relocating to NZ if I understood correctly, so there is no return.

But to answer your questions, of course, this works. I did it a few months ago when I flew UA/LH to Europe in Y. UA allowed me 3x32 kg, but LH will only allow 3x23kg. By checking in with UA I was able to check all the luggage through to FRA w/o surcharge. Once they are tagged, you're off the hook. The problem really is the return flight if you check in with one of the stingy airlines such as LH and now also NZ....I think it's a bad decision because I generally use my 3x32 kg limit when I fly to Europe.

UA approach to allow *Gold the old limits is the way to go ^

To answer the OP's question - it would certainly be a consideration for me. One of several but certainly a consideration. I always seem to be near the limit.

Would a TV even fit on those tiny planes? A fun game at the TUO airport is guessing which of the two "gates" the plane will arrive at.

I thought the rule was that if there are two thresholds of maximum baggage allowances because you are taking two (connecting) flights you were entitled to the larger?

And I never did understand why USA flights got 2 pieces x 32kg anyway - why don't they just use the 20/30/40kg like most airlines?

It seems NZ caved...

In the US we go by lbs, not kg, so:

32 kg = 75 lbs
23 kg = 50 lbs

To go 20/30/40kg would be too confusing for our metric-ly impaired citizens :)

Haha fair enough, but why then is it 2 pieces x 75 lb, whereas other routes just would have a flat cap (at 20 kg)?

i.e. why is not the baggage allowance for USA routes (say) 75 or 50 lb at a flat cap, rather than calculated for two pieces?

Perhaps to limit compensation for lost luggage to just two pieces ?

Then why does it only apply to the US routes (it is more common to get lost luggage on the US flights??) :confused:

It's just that this (why there is a 'piece' system in play for the US and a 'weight' system for every other route) has been an anomaly that has puzzled me for some time...

I imagine whatever reason it was is now lost in the mists of time... (or some IATA conference in the 70s) but I would be as interested as anyone to find out why pretty much every airline just does the piece system to/from&through North America.

While we're at it, anyone know how come many US travellers carry vast amounts of cargo into the cabin? I had a laptop and one of those huge 20kg-monster-suitcase-on-wheels nearly clobber me when I opened the overhead on a NZ flight to SIN recently.. thankfully it missed me and fell onto the legs of its owner who had huffed and puffed and jammed it in a precarious position on top of my small rucksack carry-on into the bin..

The other problem I have encountered with these new rules is when you have one bag of 30kg, they then try to charge you overweight limit as you are 7kg over :rolleyes: So find a box in my luggage and check that separately and hey presto I have 5kg and 25kg which is fine. I guess in 2-3 years time some overpaid consultant will come in and find how much money they loose by having to check and load two pieces and the extra compenation when each piece goes AWOL. ;)

Such if live with the airlines these days, or maybe the pathetic lack of training (or common sense) that staff seem to receive these days.

This was not with NZ, but with the overly grumpy and rule rigid SK, but serves as an example of stupidity.

Mark
p.s. I used to think that 2(3)x32kg was excessive until I lived in Europe and then worked out how much money you saved bringing a bag full of toothpaste, DVDs, deoderant, clothes, books (bike!) etc etc back with you from the USA each time I visited.

It's possible