tylerdurden4543

Totally agree (though Tonytifao did also comment on being able to make the request of a phone agent). All this said, QMAX could indeed be gone, or changed dramatically, the problem is we don't know for sure either way <redacted>.

So until we do know for sure, perhaps the thread title should include [Unconfirmed] or some similar treatment like we do with rumors and other such news

JonNYC

Not to mention-- quite unfortunately-- AA officially confirming it as well:
http://boardingarea.com/viewfromthew...th-didnt-tell/

But that spokesman clearly had no idea what they were talking about. Which, again, is a shame.

Only remaining issue at this point, now that we know for a fact that QMAX was *not* dropped (except for -T- requests) is if there was also a concomitant change to the formula for who/how/when inventory is opened for-- and that's still a very open question.

serfty

What would also be helpful for these datapoints is the accompanying loadings in the cabin being requested.

e.g. F3 A0 P0 can be a far different situation to F7 A7 P3

zozeppelin

o the contrary, anecdotal evidences from my experience on 4/14 shows T availability not visible on aa.com / kvs was able to be pulled in QMAX fashion (< 1 minute) as compared to appeal (usually call back timeframe from my experience).

Agent said "oh this is good it wasn't automatically rejected ..."

Now this could have been her putting in my AA number and seeing expanded inventory, but based on her reaction and my request to ask RM, I doubt it.

Thanks Jon for trying to get to the bottom of this.

<whining redacted for inaccuracy>

One question QMAX and the term "shopping" are used synonymously?

djibouti

As someone responded in another thread, this is not new. I've had to do that well before April 8.

JonNYC

I'd still say there's a good chance that that's exactly what it was (expanded availability) -- although you're 100% right, AAgent's reaction would certainly make it sound otherwise.

"shopping" discussion/explanation starts at post 135 here: http://www.travelingbetter.com/forum...?t=2988&page=5

canyonleo

No, that's not the type of datapoint I was referencing or searching for. A datapoint saying one couldn't obtain the space isn't proof of anything regarding QMAX (there are many reasons one's request/appeal can be denied).

What I'm hoping someone will post is *positive* proof. A request to QMAX and a positive reply to open the inventory. That will be proof that QMAX is still the way to petition for opening space.

All other datapoints noting that one's request/appeal was denied can only suggest that it's due to QMAX being shut down. On the otherhand, only one datapoint noting an opening of space is proof to the contrary.

JonNYC

Can't argue the point, I think it's a point several others made in the thread as well.

JonNYC

BTW, for those with access, file name that has all the details on the changes to qmax (and the parts that are outside of qmax logic but are related) that I've detailed is: AADAVAIL

djibouti

Is that something that if we asked an AAgent to look up (if they say they can't request from RM any more) they'd know what the heck we're talking about?

JonNYC

It's a hard question to answer universally. A newish agent might profess (or even have) some lack of familiarity. A tired/terse/jaded agent might resent the "know-it-all" factor. A great agent might say "really? Let me look for second"

That last, hoped-for, response would be in response to passenger stating "I'm told that actually it's only T-class that can no longer be requested-- any chance you could check?"

But, overall, I think we all know the replies from an agent to such a request might be all over the lot. That said, that -is- the file where all this info resides, so maybe would meet with some success.

Needless to say, this whole thing is NOT something an individual member is/should feel, entitled to. So, accordingly, needless to say, no reasonable person should get into an argument with any agent who doesn't comply.

Overall, I'd have to speculate that the majority of phone agents really won't "enjoy" having an internal file reference quoted to them.

djibouti

That makes sense. It's likely easier and cheaper to HUCA than bring it up.

beachfan

To meet the definition of "To Complete Itinerary", would holding DFW-LHR confirmed RT count as half confirmed and the feeder flights be what's requested count?

Or is it having the one feeder flight and the DFW-LHR one way confirmed that's needed.

Or is it having one feeder flight and the DFW-LHR RT confirmed.

Or maybe they all can fit in the definition of TCI?

valuepac

Not sure if this counts as "Qmax"....

In late April I had changed my NA stop over from an Alaska flight to one city to an US flight to a different city. I ended up getting a call the next day that I could not put a Qantas flight paired with a US airways flight (makes no sense to me since they are both OW) so the ticketing was denied. I pleaded with the agent because I had also changed another NA gateway flight (booked before APril 8th) to fly back home and then have a layover for several months. There was no "T" inventory open for my wife's flight outbound. I pleaded with the agent and she was able to call me back a few hours later with my wife's ticketed in Y. When I looked at her ticket flying out the other day she was booked in "T" fare bucket. So some how the agent was able to have someone open up "T" inventory on AA metal.

beachfan

Sounds like manual processing to allow a NA stopover on a ticket issued whe it was still allowed but needing to be reissued after it stop being allowed.