So which one is it? I never have to deal with this issue before.

The regs are here: https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/air-passen...ons-highlights

The Denied Boarding section is specific to overbooking only.

Another thing worth mentioning is how it was handled by Aeroplan, Air Canada and ANA.



ANA : I was able to talk to the Gate Manager and she explained me the situation but still ended up denying the boarding of my brother as this was the most salient option due to the baggage situation.



Air Canada: Initially, they are telling me you need to book/modify reservation for your brother. As per policy, it leads to the original form of booking which is Aeroplan. And no we’re not the same, we merged but still separate entity. Call Aeroplan.

Not to mention an hour of waiting before reaching the Altitude Line.



Aeroplan: No we don’t deal with this, the travel have already commenced. It is the carrier’s responsibility or airport control. Let me transfer you to Air Canada.



Air Canada: *Laughs at Aeroplan’s reasoning* We will open the ticket for you and offload him from the flight/ reservation. The ticket is open now and Aeroplan should be able to apply some modification/ changes. Let me transfer you to Aeroplan. *click*



Aeroplan: They opened the ticket but didn’t help you modify the reservation? They were able to control the ticket in the first place. Meanwhile, looking at available flights on Aeroplan website. An agent saw next Y flight YVR to TPE on the 23rd – which means delay for 3 days.

I saw a J booking leaving in 7 hours. YVR – TPE – MNL on BR. She was able to capture the flights but was “waitlisted” wasn’t able to issue the ticket. And then she’s 10 minutes before she’s done her shift so she hand it over to the next agent.

Next agent: No we can’t just give away J seat even with this case. You can use your miles to add to this booking and we will book your brother. You also need to shoulder the change fee and taxes. *groans*



Air Canada in YVR: 5 people were talking about this. One concierge member stepped out of his office and went to talk to ANA as to why it was handled like this. He kept me in the loop and explained the situation. I appreciated it. They ended up rebooking my brother in a direct flight with PR leaving in 5 hours YVR – MNL. Whew! They were able to reprotect my brother and was handled like IRROPS.



Aeroplan: That’s so nice of Air Canada. It shouldn’t be handled that way. It should’ve been “volunteer exchange”.



I don’t know what to believe now. I’m just happy my brother is happy to go home and be reunited with my parents. Sorry for the long post. I am lost myself.

Happy to hear that it (somewhat) worked out in the end. IMHO ANA mishandled this - you'd have thought that an explanation from AC would have cleared things up. Once bags are checked on an interline itinerary there shouldn't be any nonsense harassing passengers for more money down the line (unless you go to check in an extra bag at an intermediate point).

AC often asks for volunteers to check carry-on bags to destination when their planes are full - IMHO you shouldn't have to pay additional money for complying with a request from one of the airlines involved.

On a related note (and there is no way that your incident caused this), prior to boarding my most recent flight a few days ago the agent made a comment along the lines of "we'd be pleased to check your carry-on for free to your destination as long as all of your flights are operated by Air Canada." I didn't think much about it at the time, but I guess the key takeaway is that one should never volunteer to gate check bags to destination on an interline itinerary.

At least in the US, carry on baggage is screened differently (and "more rigorously") than checked baggage. Things like knives, properly secured guns, and liquids over 3 oz are let through with checked baggage. Once you gate check a bag, it gets "downgraded" to checked baggage. They can't tell that it went through carry-on screening, so it can't become carry on again without going back through TSA (or CATSA). They can't just bring it back to the terminal. With things like strollers and valet checked bags, they mark them either "claim at gate" or "security-screened bag" to make sure they stay in the carry-on stream.

Theoretically they could pull the bag and you could go back through security with it, but I'm guessing if this all happened at the gate there wasn't enough time for that.

Am I to understand that this was because of the number of pieces issue? AC checked in more than the 2 pieces per pax and ANA refused to accept it when connecting to their flight?

If so is this always an issue with connections?

This is the essence of the issue. It is simply not stated well in the OP.

The passengers had six checked bags and some number of carryons when they checked in with AC. The checked bags were within the combined allowance. For whatever reason, AC could not accommodate the carryons and the family was asked / required to check their carryons. Those are checked to the final destination as this was a connection.

That brought the checked luggage to 9 bags for 3 people, causing an extra bag fee of $200 per bag by NH at YVR. The family was unable to pay the fee and the bags could not be offloaded and simply left (per whatever YVR security is in this situation) and thus one passenger stayed behind and was rebooked later.

The entire mess is caused by NH requiring the payment for the 3 gate-checked bags. While it is poor practice, rare across tickets anywhere in the world, and particularly heartless given that the extra bags were forced at the gate, that doesn't change NH's ability to enforce the rules and it chose to do so.

As this is the second time in a few weeks that this has occurred, it will take AC taking special care when it gate checks bags of passengers making NH connections. By way of example, it does have the capacity to return bags at the arrival gate (as it does with strollers and medical equiptment). It could also look to other passengers.

But, NH is apparently dead set on this and, short of changing the rules, isn't going to adapt.

Isn't the basic rule that the allowance is that of the longest (or over the water) carrier? From that, collecting fees is the responsibility of the first carrier.

AP is irrelevant once travel has started.

AC checked X bags. And then more.. They got all the payment they wanted for them. NH wants payment for all of them. That is between NH and AC. PAX already handed them over to a competent authority. Reconciling money is between the carriers.

I thought once the bags are checked they can't ask for more money midway. If this behavior is allowed, then what if OP had paid the excess bag fee to AC in YWG and then ANA demands more money at YVR and then SQ demands more money at SIN? Couldn't every carrier on the itinerary demand an excess bag fee?

Yes this something that IATA needs to sort out between the airlines. I do understand the frustrations of passengers. Especially in the two cases where they were forced to check in their hand luggage on the first flight.
I also feel AC should stand up for their passengers, and I am surprised that they could not sort it out between the two airlines.
I also would like to know if the passengers went to the transfers and mentioned that they have bags or just out of the blue ANA pulled them out?
Did ANA ask from the the excess baggage ticket or receipt?
How did ANA know that they have not paid? Normally you don't see it at all by the check in agents or the connections. They would see the number of bags checked by AC.

If there are two close to identical reports here on FT for AC-to-NH at YVR involving gate-checked bags, you can bet that there are dozens more.

The problem is that none of the existing rules or policies help. Without seeing the tickets, I suspect that the allowance was 2 bags per person and that AC simply checked the carryons without a fee (as it ought to do). That does not change the allowance for any segment, especially the long-haul on NH.

NH likely examines the baggage report, sees passengers with extra bags, cannot see a fee collected in the PNR notes and thus takes it on itself to do so.

On reflection, my suspicion with the "security at YVR" issue is that the bags were checked and on the sterile side of Customs for an international flight. There was no way to simply offload them either into the sterile area at the gate or for Customs without a passenger present. At least in these circumstances.

For the vast majority of passengers, the issue would have been unsettling, but would have been resolved with a credit card at the gate. One could then have sorted the issue or not between AC and NH afterwards. But, that isn't the case for people who simply lack those funds in a useful format, e.g. OP's parents who don't use credit cards.

Problem is, as we saw on the thread in the NH forum, it's not that trivial to settle the issue with NH afterwards

I don't even know what I'd do in that situation. I don't think it's chargeback territory (voluntarily handing over your card to pay a $200 bag fee for NH to transport a third bag), but I also don't think NH or AC would reimburse me, based on the other incident.

Ah, but it was luggage overbooking.

There was ample room for the luggage.

So I followed up with ANA in YVR re: this and requested a notice of denied boarding.

ANA said they don’t issue this kind of document. We’re so sorry.

Anyone have first hand experience with this?
How did you go about with it?
I was able to save the conversation.

I would try to connect the other affected traveling party, then try to get the attention of a Japanese media outlet stressing the facts that

-ANA refused to accept cash
-this travelers did not have a credit card
-it was carry on luggage checked by order of AC

You have been told, several times, correctly, that this was not denied boarding as that term has any meaning in this discussion.

The story is too complex for the media. The NH response will be, "these are the rules". The AC response will be, "we wish that there was always enough room in the OH for all carryons, but there isn't".

If there are these 2 on FT, there are a 100 more out there who simply paid the $200 extra for a bag and shook their heads.

And 2 that went to Gabby.

Yes I was looking to fly ANA via Japan to Asia but after seeing these two incidents I have changed my mind on flying ANA.

There's no Japanese media outlet that would care about this. (Which speaks to the core root of why OP and others have had this problem.)

Travel bloggers outside of Japan should be all over this, as I noted in the other thread.

One thing I dont understand here, how/why is Aeroplan involved in all this mid-trip, and after first segment has been flown?

The general confusion that travel agents are in it for anything but themselves and provid meaningful service beyond knowing how to interact with systems that predate the magical UI of CICS.

not sure why.

other airlines have done worse than this (and this is "solvable" via money and argument afterwards)

If you paid, you would have receipt for NH, subsequently SQ to charge AC directly. In this case, AC did not allow NH charging them for extra bags. NH will charge the passengers instead as fee for the extra bags has not been paid.

Just don't connect from AC... :D

Joking aside, the incidents reflect pretty poorly on NH in the handling. Though the chance of getting into this situation is pretty slim. If you only check one bag, or travel with carry on only you are already outside the realm of this issue. If you check two bags, you'd still need to have a forced gate check of the bag before coming in to a potential issue.

What do you think would happen if you had a AA/BA flight with no checked luggage included, and AA checked a carry on for free to the end of the journey? I am quite sure BA would notice the missing bag fee and initially claim the passenger for it. The rest of the handling would hopefully be better than NH, but airlines are getting far more strict about collecting bag fees that are due.

I don't disagree that this is an issue between NH and AC, and that NH treated the customers pretty poorly in both cases now mentioned here. But AC should either stop gate checking bags to NH or come to an agreement with NH on how to handle it. It is really not the passengers' problem.

I hope someone if providing feedback to AC so they are aware what their actions are causing.

If there are two identical incidents reported on FT, there are likely hundreds more where people simply paid and moved on and figure that they will fight later (and likely lose).

I don't see this being solved anytime soon.

Kinda seems like the passengers had a couple of ways to resolve this, and they chose the most inconvenient.

Of course you cant just leave your bags at the airport for some random third party to pick up at a later and unspecified time and possibly date.

Why not just pay the fee then complain later? Why not take the three bags back as carry on?

The industry has rules which are supposed to make sure this inter-carrier handoff is seamless to the passenger, among competitors let alone those in the same alliance.

ANA should have taken the bags and asked AC for money later. Their airport agents had no reason to even know about them being unpaid.

AC gate agents should be trained to handle international connecting ticket better than simply domestic travel.

The industry rule is that AC should charge extra bags on behalf of NH. Apparently AC failed to do it.

AC gate agents should be trained to handle international connecting tickets. It is not domestic AC tickets.

Sounds like a problem for accountants at the end of the quarter.

If you are flying another airline to connect to ANA, just REFUSE to check any carry-on items at the gate which would case you to go over your checked baggage limit.

so what if a Super Elite/*G flies on one of the many connecting AC-AC-NH flights and voluntarily gate checks an over-allowance bag on the AC portion? maybe as a 1-way ticket.

If NH says pay or be denied boarding once in Japan, I assume AC would either pay for the bag or be on the hook for a trip in vain / return to point of origin flight.

Likewise, what happens on an ex-EU flight if the first leg gate checks. I can't see it as likely the passenger will arrive within 3 hours of their original schedule.

Policy Change Needed
 

Paging AC Lurker (if there are any).

It there isn't already one, a bulletin (together with policy change) needs to be circulated systemwide to all gate agents and ground handling companies regarding the checking of carry-on bags.

When soliciting passengers to have their carry-on bags gate checked, they should be asked in the following order:

1) Solicit volunteers whose final destination is the same as that of the flight

2) Solicit volunteers whose final destination is an online AC destination

3) Solicit volunteers whose final destination is an interline destination AND HAVE NOT ALREADY used up their checked baggage allowance as allowed by the receiving interline partner [most gate agents would give up by then as they won't know how to interpret the rules of the receiving interline partner and stick with 1) or 2) above].

Under no circumstances are passengers whose final destination is is an interline destination be asked to check their carry-on bags if they have already used up their checked baggage allowance!

I don't see interlined checked baggage as a simple and direct math problem to solve. And I don't expect that anyone from Air Canada or ANA to actually understand some agreement they typeset when the first 737 was doing a test flight a hundred miles south of Vancouver.

Interlining agreements (in a binary yes/no) sense are published. AC accepted the bags. The unique AC/ANA agreement could be in some nondimensional hogshead/kanme unit for all the muggles might never know. Should never know.

Air Canada accepted baggage for travel. AC/ANA should reconcile that before the second coming of Godzilla. Or not. Their problem. Not PAXs.

PAX should just relax.

They were unable to do so. IATA rules are incomplete, insufficient, or were not followed.

the extra bags fee will never resolve between airlines, unless AC starts charging for extra bags when it interlines, which it does not. ANA simply denies extra bags which are not paid by anyone, because AC does not pay for it.

And IATA rules are built to make those inter-commercial details be details.

Glad it all worked out. I do wonder if SQ would have raised a fuss or tried to charge excess on their legs?

And since this is FT , I have to say that looks a pretty rough way to get to Manilla, but I guess it was the best you could find at the time.