Stopovers must be on the published routing(s) between origin and destination. JFK-CDG-ZAG is good. JFK-CDG-PRG is good. JFK-CDG-PRG-ZAG likely is not.

Let me add to the (gentle) reproach. New threads covering the same topic (same OP, a day later) is bad form.

Thanks for the clarification.

By the way, not trying to be argumentative, but really it is not the same topic. This is a general question about using layovers to strategically change the allowable stopover locations.

The last thread was a specific question for a specific routing. I used the same example cities, but it is a different and much more general question here. Clearly it was not a dumb question as two esteemed posters have so far given me two different answers. Yours makes more sense, as otherwise it sounded too good to be true.

I don't think you understand STOPOVER, LAYOVER and CONNECTION.

You are allowed one and only one stopover on an itinerary. You are allowed unlimited connections (<24 hours on international itineraries). So if you "use" your stopover in CDG, why do you think you can use another one in PRG (even if a stopover in PRG would be allowed with that routing)?

Huh? The post you quoted clearly states that CDG is a layover (<24 hours), not a stopover.

Your terminology unfortunately confuses me. To me, "layover" and "stopover" are synonymous. What you call a "layover" is what airlines call a "connection." Sorry for any confusion.

No worries. The way I was using the terms were:

STOPOVER - more than 24 hour stop.
LAYOVER - less than 24 hour stop, as scheduled explicitly by the traveler. Counts toward MPM.
CONNECTION - less than 24 hour stop (although potentially in rare cases more) as scheduled by the airline between two points. Different from LAYOVER because it does not count in the MPM, at least for many airlines. Not sure about Delta.

If the routing rules for BOS-ZAG only allow BOS-CDG/AMS-ZAG, then no, you can't. The fact that you connected in CDG doesn't open any other doors for you. There can be all sorts of other routing rules for CDG-ZAG, possibly including through PRG, but it doesn't matter, since your fare (assuming you're not breaking the fare) is BOS-ZAG and those are the routing rules you must follow.

Which airline(s) don't count your "connection" in the MPM? I am not aware of any, though there may be some.

So to eschew any further obfuscation, the rule can be simply stated as "A stopover can only occur in a city that is part of a published fare between the origin and the destination [i.e. point of turnaround] or between the point of turnaround and the final stop of the itinerary [i.e. could be origin or another city via last leg open jaw]."

Javabytes, is this also true of layovers, or are the rules relaxed for those?

I don't think that definition applies to my MSP-JNU round trip with the stopover on the return in SIT. I guess it depends what one's definition of "part of a published fare." That certainly doesn't eschew any further obfuscation.

I am not javabytes, but I don't see any difference between layovers and stopovers, so my assumption is that the rules are the same (pending your answer to my question as to which airlines treat the two differently per your definition).

+1

No difference between layovers and stopovers, at least as far as routing is concerned. The only difference is the duration, with layovers being <24h for int'l and stopovers being >= 24h.

I'm also not aware of any airline that doesn't count connections in MPM. Otherwise, what would the point of MPM? In every case I'm aware of, MPM replaces specific routing rules. You don't have both. For example, ORD-CDG MPM is 4977 miles via the Atlantic. It doesn't matter where I connect, as long as those connections don't push my trip from ORD-CDG over 4,977 miles.

[KVS Availability Tool 6.3.0/Diamond - Routing Rules: ORD-CDG/DL/TLXP41US/841 USD]

I've read in other posts that AC does not. I may be wrong, but if so, I was misguided by others on the AC board. If you know definitively that this is not the case, please let me know.

Hmm, so how do you think you got the stopover in SIT if there is no JNU - SIT - SEA - MSP published fare? Do you think it was a mistake by whoever confirmed your itinerary? Or is there no logic to allowable stopovers that the Delta board denizens know of? I'm trying to find out if there is a hard rule to go by or if there really is no rhyme or reason (intelligible to those not employed by Delta).

"Layover" is a term with which I am unfamiliar as it relates to airline rules. There are stopovers and there are connections, but I am personally unfamiliar with the term "layover" -- yet that seems to be a big deal with the OP.

A "layover" is a term you will hear from novices when they describe a connection (e.g., "I had a three hour layover in Atlanta on my way to San Francisco"). I don't think it is anything more than a connection as it relates to airline rules.

I understand a connection to be the need to change planes, and a "layover" to be the duration of time you have in between flights when connecting ("stopover" if above the maximum allowed time to be considered a "layover" - 4h domestic/24h international). Pull up any itinerary with a connection on DL.com and expand the details; you will see Delta say "Layover in Cincinnati, OH (CVG) 1h 38m"

I don't think the "published fare" issue is as big as you are making it (just like the "layover" term - see below). Certainly not a mistake in my case of the JNU-SIT-SEA-MSP. It is a matter of the MPM, connection time, and routing.

Is there a published fare that allows a stopover and an open jaw on a domestic ticket? Rarely, unless it is a full Y fare. But both are allowed on domestic award tickets.

If I were to "price" some of my domestic award ticket routings with the intent to purchase them with cash, I am sure they would be a mish-mash of fare bases, i.e. not one published fare from one city to another with a stopover in between.

I agree with you. If anything, I find "layover" and "stopover" to be identical.

Well, there are flights with one flight number that don't show a "connection", i.e. a need to change planes. But there is definitely a "connection" needed though it is not advertised as such by the airlines. As Robert Leach said, and you confirmed, the term "layover" is a layman's term, which is why DL uses it as such on their website.