KA CA baggage on a code share for MPC GO

Purchased a one way TSN-HKG-LHR ticket via Dragon Air website (TSN does not show on CX), TSN - HKG is CA code share purchased under KA number.

When checking in was advised TSN by ground staff that I have to pay 3300 Yuan excess baggage charges to have my two bags totaling 31Kg put through to LHR. I tried to explain and showed them my CX GO card and that I should be ok for 35Kg. No, card not valid, you must pay the said amount..despite the second flight being on CX. There is some info about a new Most Significant Carrier ITIA Instruction on a ticket, which CX is on this occasion.

After about 10 mins and a few phone calls by them, there was no movement by CA on this issue and I just asked to have the bags short checked to HKG and pay 600 yuan, where I would go collect and check in again there to avoid the remaining charges, that I know I would never recoup. You know the trick CX blames CA, so it just get lost.

All I wanted was a seamless trip, just turned into a right pain..


So is there some set standard for this with code shares that are not OW? as I may have a trip to HAN soon on VN


Just to add, on the TSN - HKG flight a nice young lady thought it was cool to call her friends on her mobile about 3 mins before landing, reported to flight attendants and ground staff when they entered the plane...not one person was interested or prepared to take any action other than the please dont do it again routine...

sue them at small claims court HK. u;d get it back that way

Altho I've heard from some (ex-PEK and ex-CTU) that CA honour some of the MPO benefits for pax booked on CX- or KA-code, CA is not obliged to do so, nor is it a published MPO membership. IATA MSC does not cover extra benefits not stated on the ticket, either.

That is correct. CA only needs to honour the 20kg MSC limit.

I had a bit of a problem earlier this year in PEK travelling on a KA flight with a CX number connecting in HKG going to SUB. As a OWS, was allowed an extra 15kg as per OW rules and had pitched up at PEK with 30kg total. The check in staff was having none of it despite me showing her the printout from the OW site. Was redirected to the ticket desk where I stood for about 40 minutes showing the ticket agent the printout and going on to the OW site on my mobile. There was also a discussion with the KA/CX check in supervisor who wasn't interested and just walked away leaving the ticketing agent to deal with it.

Eventually after 45 minutes from checking in, the ticketing agent gave the check in agent permission to give me my boarding & lounge passes and to send my luggage on its way.

Was a bit peeved by it all and when I got to HKG I sought out a ground supervisor who, unprompted, asked if the PEK check in supervisor was a male and when I confirmed she shook her head and apologised profusely and said she would get a telex sent to PEK informing that the OW rule was not new and luggage should be accepted within the advertised limits.

Funniest comment from the ticketing agent in PEK: "BA are nothing to do with CX". Hmmm, the last I knew they were both in OW hence the OW insignia all over both their aircraft, BP's, Lounges etc.

Travelled on QR from PEK a couple of weeks later and was expecting much of the same as they had not long joined OW. Normal Y allowance is 30kg and I had 45 kg. They didn't bat an eyelid but had the trusty printout just in case.

Safe & HAppy Travels

S

I can understand that for the TSN-HKG, but the for the second leg...not at all.

Such a wonderful idea....

I see what you were saying... CA should not charge the extra luggage for the CX segment. I agree.

I don't think it's fair to expect CA to be aware of MPO benefits on CX flights. This is essentially expecting all check-in agents to know every single airline's benefits for passenger on each airline's flts. You had the option to either short check the bag or pay the full fee. I remember reading that CI will reimburse their members in such circumstance (or at least CI used to), but either CX doesn't do so or at least doesn't publish this benefit.

FWIW:

1. CX never explicitly publishes that MPC benefits would extend to non-OW partner airlines. In fact, the only exception posted are HKG-AKL by NZ and HKG-DOH by QR.

2. MSC rule does not work with elite benefit.

Agree with garykung- CX tickets never state the post-benefit allowance (unlike say AA, where the ticket states the status benefit allowance- I have used that to avoid paying bag fees once when AS was the first carrier on an AA code).

I respectfully disagree (and garykung), if there is codeshare agreement, I do expect the agent knows the rule. also Cathay DOES publish the rule in clear terms.
http://www.cathaypacific.com/cx/en_U...ier-rules.html
Codeshare flights and mixed carrier flights
1. A codeshare flight operated by one of our partner airlines

Route: Hong Kong > Nadi

Sector

Marketing carrier

Operating carrier

Hong Kong - Nadi

Cathay Pacific

Fiji Airways

This is an example to illustrate the difference between flights purchased on and after April 1, 2015, when the amendment to the IATA Resolution 302 came into effect.

If you purchased your ticket on or after the 1 April, 2015, you would follow the policy of the marketing carrier. If the abbreviation code of your flight number is ‘CX’, we are the marketing carrier and you would follow our policy.

If you purchased your ticket on and before the 31st March 2015, you would follow the policy of the operating carrier. As the flight is operated by Fiji Airways, you would follow their baggage policy.


HOWEVER, KEEP IN MIND, ONEWORLD BENEFIT only applies with ONEWORLD carrier...
In short, CA should applies CX baggage rule, but NO need to honor oneworld "elite" rule.

You still don't understand.

CX was definitely the MSC in OP's case. The issue is the MSC rule does not mix with elite benefit, especially an airline outside the alliance.

So if OP traveled in F, OP could claim 40 kg per the MSC rule. However, OP could not claim 35 kg on the basis of MPC Gold or OW Sapphire when traveling in Y.

Basically you are explaining my interpretation. Anyway, happy holidays !