Boraxo

These days, most of us are happy just to be able to get award tickets on flights that are reasonably close to the desired dates, much less the class or the carrier.

Try to use miles to book a sAAver award (or whatever they call them) on CO and see what happens. Then you will really have something to complain about.

Plato90s

If you are suggesting that I've never traveled in business and first intra-asia, you are wrong.

The faulty assumption that everyone agree with your value assessment and your logic is the problem.He can ask. He isn't entitled to what he asks for just because he thinks he is.

The rules say that an F award gets you into first of a 3-class flight or the first/business of a 2-class flight. If the only available flight is 2-class, then that's what it is. Just because the passengers considered the 2 options different doesn't change the fact that award rules don't distinguish between the 2.

An available flight in J of a 2-class fulfills the fare rules, even if it doesn't fulfill the OP's expectations.I would disagree on that, but this is just speculation by both of us. I personally believe AA would offer him the same-day connection on the following day or nothing at all. This is different. The airline schedules don't have F, and that's why you're in J.

The *A awards force you to travel in a lower class even when a higher class of service is available. That's something worth being upset about, IMO.

Not being able to squeeze an extra stopover into an award ticket isn't a reasonable complaint, IMO. Opinions will vary, of course, and I'm sure you (and presumably the OP) feel fully justified in manipulating the rules this way.

I take the approach of being happy when I do manage to bend the rules, but not griping about it if the CSR doesn't play along.

venk

Actually the problem is coming out of YOUR assessment of the rules and OP's intentions and subsequent judgment of the OP based on that

He is entitled to what the rules allow for. When he asked for his interpretations, you quickly assumed all kinds of value judgments on him. When two parties disagree on the rules or interpretations they get a third party who has the authrity to decide. Nothing is served by passing value judgments of "abusing the process" as you have done especially without full information. You are entitled to that opinion obviously but I thought passing value judgments on people for their posts was something moderators tried to eliminate from the posts but then I could be wrong. I am not a moderator.

You are falling to a classic logical fallacy of reversing the antecedent and the consequent. "If a 3-seat cabin flight does not exist (antecedent) then the ticket may be satisfied by the first/business of a 2-seat cabin (consequent)". This is all the rules say.

But it is fallacy of logic to infer from it "If a ticket can be satisfied by a 2-seat cabin, then the 3-seat cabin flight does not exist".

For the logic to be valid, you will need to show that the 3-class cabin flight does not exist before they can book him into the 2-class cabin and without refering to the 2-cabin flight. Saying that only 2-class cabin option exists is a circular argument, think about it.

You can always be assigned a seat if you agree to in a lower class including coach if you hold an award ticket for a higher cabin and if there are no flights with a 3-cabin first, you will indeed be offered to be booked into the top class of the 2-cabin. But this is quite different from using that to satisfy an availabile flight rule of a flight WHEN a flight exists with a 3-cabin first (whether it is overnight or benefits the customer is irrelevant). And that is where the difference in interpretation comes in.

Note that an available 3-class flight does exist with an overnight connection. The only reason they can book him into a direct flight instead of that one is if one exists that satisfies the transit rules. But that comes with a disadvantage not covered by the transit rules in that he needs to be downgraded (from an available one to another). This is VERY different from saying no other flights exist. AA isn't saying this option doesn't exist but rather he is denied that route according to their transit rules because a direct flight exists on JAA but in a downgraded cabin. A very important distinction.

Disagreements on that interpretation are ok and natural. Accusations and value judgments on the motivations you make are improper.
Then AA would be in even deeper ethical problems than this one. But I think AA is actually better than this. This can be easily verified, of course.
From the AA-rules posted by Jon
Why continue with mischaracterizing the OP's intention than just look at it as a disagreement of interpretation of the rules. A lot of times I have arranged flights to have an overnight in LHR than an extra night in more expensive Stockholm. I am sure such flight planning is not a rare phenomena. As long as the rules allow it, it isn't anything to accuse one of other than financial prudence. If there is a disagreement in the rule interrpetation on such planning, then it doesn't automatically make the motivations suspect.

More value judgments. Two people can disagree on the interpretation of the rules without being accused of manipulating the rules. The OP is not any more manipulating the rules than AA is or both aren't.
Whatever works for you, why impose your value asessment on others? Actually some people may consider you highly unethical for getting the rules bent even if AA were willing to do it for you. You draw a line differently from other people that is all.

Plato90s

Expressing my opinion isn't "imposing" them on you.

I think the OP has very little basis for his outrage. You think he does. So we disagree.

Characterizing a simple disagreement into some sort of an attempt by me to "impose" on you or the OP seems to be over-reaction to me. But I wouldn't want to "impose" my value judgment on you by telling you my opinion.

venk

Well. I do have an opinion of you both good and bad but you may not think some of it in proper spirit of this board just because it is an opinion and you might impose your powers on it.

To quote from your post
The above is certainly an opinion but bringing out the above analogy in comparison and implying that this scenario is not very different from OP's expectation/behavior is indeed imposing your (somewhat arbitrary and flawed) value system on others not to mention just being wrong about it as I pointed out (that is an opinion).
And that is perfectly fine by me. No disagreements (or surprises) there.

JonNYC

Just one thought-- and I'll admit to being "lost" in following this debate, for the most part. But aren't you selectively quoting here? As in:
"If the connection exceeds 24 hours, it will be considered a stopover."

Has a TOTALLY different meaning when viewed, in context:

Passenger has 4/6 hours to connect (depending on domestic or international travel). If there are no scheduled flights within this timeframe, regardless of availability, the passenger must take the next scheduled flight but, may not exceed 24 hours. If the connection exceeds 24 hours, it will be considered a stopover.

Or, am I nuts?

Plato90s

Again, how does posting an analogy convert into an imposition? Did I make you feel bad that I compared the OP to a rules mechanic? If so, that's not an imposition, that's a conscience.

The guy who buys-and-returns is following the rules, isn't he? Every single action, by itself, is specifically allowed. But viewed as a whole, it's an abuse of the system.

So while the theory of "people choosing flights" make sense on a general level, this particular action is an abuse of the system in my opinion. I hope I didn't "impose" on anyone by saying that.Why let inconvenient facts get in the way of a rant, or an attempt to alleviate the imposition of other people's opinions on a third party's action.

mikesinla

I am not sure if the "forced overnight rule" goes for mileage tickets (versus paid), but if you are on a forced misconnect then the airline that is misconnecting you has to put you up at their cost in a hotel. This used to be quite a perk and even encouraged back in the day when airlines would advertise to stay overnight in a particular city at their expense. Now many airlines have done away with it or don't tell the passenger that they are eligible for it. Possibly the AA agent was thinking that with an overnight on a designed misconnect the O/P could ask/demand for a room (upon arrival at the overnighting airport) at the partner airlines expense thus increasing the cost of the free ticket to the originating mileage program (Risk assessment).
Please, be mindful, I am only drawing this thought/example from a paid ticket scenario as a ticket is a ticket when you are traveling and it would ultimately say F is the class you are traveling in.

Jakebeth

Wow. I know I'm relatively new here, so don't take my head off. As a lover of minutiae myself, I'm not criticizing anyone for getting buried in the details of this.

I have to say, though: Is this what it's come to?

Those of you who are Exec Plat who are incensed by the OP - do you not think your business and loyalty deserve some consideration when a bending of the rules might help make a good client happy?

Now, the cost issues with partner carriers may be very valid. But when it's simply a matter of 'following the rules', that's a justification that strains credulity.

Nearly all airlines, including AA, have made a sport out of creating unpredictable, seemingly insane pricing (yield mgmt) and opaque standards (think of all the little secrets that abound on this board and we're all constantly trying to learn). In other words, they've asked for it. If you're going to make your customers feel as though they've got to have a magic decoder ring and a secret password in order to deal with you, you're inviting all of this questioning and behavior.

And for those who still question the advisability of caving in to special requests of this type, ask yourself this: Are today's 'legacy' airlines in trouble because they were too good to their customers and bent too many rules?

No. And while the state of airlines today IS partly due to a lot of unavoidable factors (fuel, 9/11, labor costs, etc.), it's also in part a result of their crazy systems that have been driving people over to SWA for all of these years. Rather than respond to the needs and wants of their own customers, the legacy carriers have repeatedly shot themselves in the foot, driving away their best clients.

I for one recently made a conscious choice to be an AA customer because I felt that AAdvantage was a better program for me than others now available, and that the airline overall could offer me the most of what I want (first class seats, and the ability to upgrade to them).

Every time I get on this board, though, I read messages from unhappy Exec Plats who, despite all the good things about AA, and the massive amount of business these flyers generate, continue to get pissed off by the airline.

Before you chalk that up to whining or anecdotal 'squeaky wheels', ask yourself why companies such as SWA, JetBlue and Midwest are able to sop up so much business, even when they offer an arguably inferior product in some cases. I'm too picky to fly SWA, but out of all of my colleagues and friends, most of whom fly more than I do, I'm the only one who still wants to fly a legacy carrier. Unfortunately, I can't possibly spend enough to keep AA in business. And if they continue to upset the real road warriors, there won't be enough of them to go around, either.

JonNYC

The key point is this: regardless of availability. What I've authoritatively been told is that what clause means is this:
it don't matter whether the plane is 2 cabin, 1 cabin or freighter...if its scheduled...you're going.

benoit

Actually it is common belief that some legacy airlines went under partially for this reason! Pan Am sure was great while it lasted.

I expect American Airlines to do what is in their business interests. Whether that means accomodating unreasonable demands from elite flyers or strictly enforcing rules on everyone, so be it.

Experience on this board has helped me to understand why airlines strictly enforce their rules, and why in the long run it can be good for both passengers and airlines. I could go on and on about why... (he got away with it why can't I, I'll lie and give the same reason so I can get the waiver too, waivers should be normal so the rule basically doesn't exist, keep asking until you get the answer you want, blah blah)

It is a total waste of your life energy whining and feeling wronged because an airline simply enforces the rules. Instead, I like to learn the rules well so I can legally abuse them! Mwa ha ha. I don't abuse them too badly, well maybe that 35 segment RTW was pretty bad, too bad they changed the rules.

The attitude that an airline must break the rules for you for what ever reason, including "I am oh so elite so do what I want and ignore the rules or i will throw a tantrum", is a source of totally needless unhappiness (and ugly attitudes carried over to other aspects of life). It probably isn't the most persuasive attitude to make the agent sympathetic to your case either.

I DO ask airlines to break the rules, if I am desperate, I feel the result is grossly unfair, or otherwise feel I have a good case... Nothing wrong with calmly asking once if you're not being a total lying manipulative weasel about it. Accept the response graciously instead of abusively stressing out employees who get fired for breaking rules. If things are really screwy ask the supervisor concisely. Elite status might get you some extra consideration but don't expect/demand it or you're setting yourself up for needless unhappiness.

I'd rather spend energy on arguing the case for changing a rule (or not changing one). I *****ed at AA when they were about to change the same day standby rule for example. I'm happy to whine, but at the same time I understand that my significance to AA is utterly insigificant. AA could kiss off every flyertalk member without blinking, though that might be unwise since we sometimes are a good early warning system about customer attitudes in general.

venk

I am not sure what different meaning you think you have seen. Why not explain what your infer than say it is just different.

In the context that I quoted, I was refering to the definitionof stopovers for transits.

Stopovers have a specific meaning and implications. And my quote defines when something is considered a stopover when in transit. For example, if a rule allows a specific number of stopovers, then if you exceed 24 hours in one of the connection points, it will be considered a stopover and counted in that number of stopovers allowed, less than 24 hours it will not be.

The Sanctimonious One made the assertion that the OP was trying to abuse the rules by squeezing in a stopover, I quoted the above to say what the OP was trying to do wasn't a stopover according to the definition. His overnight connection was less than 12 hours. People have riled (sorry, expressed their opinions) against the OP mischaracterizing just about everything (this is one example of that) than simply saying this is a disagreement in the interpretation of the rules.

The basic assumption in such judgments of the OP is that what AA told the OP is part of the rules. When I read the rules you posted, it didn't seem like any of those clauses supported what AA said (there may be other rules that cover this but no one has suggested it) and hence my first post. If the case is not explicitly covered in the rules, then it is an interpretation and two reasonable people can indeed disagree on interpretations without one being accused of abusing the system or being compared to people who take out merchandize and return them with the express intent of buying them back at a lower price as open stock.

As to the other post you have of availability, I think I understand where you are approaching from but I think you have misunderstood.

The part quoted above in this post is talking about the rules for a connection (for example, they are the rules that would apply even if this connection flight was the ONLY choice available). So the availability being referred to is the availability of a connection not the availability of an alternative to the flight with a connection. In other words, they are clauses that specifies restrictions on the connection NOT alternatives to a connection which is covered in the rest of the rules originally posted by you and not included above. That part talks about when a direct flight may be substituted for a connecting flight.

brp

I think that we're soon to get to the part about "how many angels (AAngels?) can dance on the head of a pin", or the definition of is.

Seriously, though, I'm impressed by the sheer volume of lawyerdom that has come out in this thread. If only this wisdom could all be harnessed for good >

Cheers.

venk

I have no disconnect with anything you have said IF we assume that what the OP was told was explicitly covered by the rules and all AA was enforcing was the rules. I have no problems with AA enforcing their explicitly stated rules consistently on everyone (although I know that they don't) regardless of whether they are EXP or not.

But my (and the OP's) contention is that the case where he is denied based on the availability of a J business seat in a direct flight is not covered by the rules as stated but in fact AA "bending or interpreting" the rules to their favor in this specific case. At least according to the rule snippet posted by Jon. We can certainly discuss whether this is the case or not without putting orthogonal and unnecessary arguments of whether AA should be bending the rules (which presupposes the unproven as yet that the rules prevented it in the first place) or whether the OP's intentions were less than honorable. Companies make interpretations that favor themselves sometimes because they want to prevent abuse and sometimes because they want to get away with providing less than what the customer is entitled to for various reasons a possible speculation that I have posted earlier. It is not for me to pre-suppose that it is necesarily the former.

So no disagreements with your post but rather the basic assumption from which it follows that rules forbid the connection OP asked for.

Plato90s

The point JonNYC is making is that if there is a flight, even if it's 2-class, within the 4-6 hour connection window then any other flight combination which break the 4-6 hours window will be considered to be a stopover.

Since there is a flight from KIX to BKK which won't break the 4-6 hours limit for connection, attempting to get on a flight which exceeds that limit is considered a stopover.

You're only allowed to have a greater-than-6-but-less-than-24 transit point if there's no other flight scheduled. If there's a flight scheduled, then you have to try to get on it regardless of whether there's inventory. AA isn't required to give you the option of that 12-hour transit even if there's no seats on the KIX-BKK non-stop.

Hence the OP is trying to put in an illegal stopover.