"That CX didn't charge anything on the outbound is irrelevant"

I completely disagree with this. This customer booked the same outbound itinerary as the return. Same cities, same carriers. He should have been informed of the charges when he began his journey. At least then, in what is likely his home city, he would have had the option of leaving some things behind in airport storage, picked up by a friend etc. Maybe a selection of the golf clubs would have sufficed, or the OP would have chosen to hire clubs at his destination. Perhaps, for that fee, he would have preferred to leave his clothes behind and buy new ones at the destination. To only announce the charges on the return leg is like a bus company transporting passengers to a remote location and then announcing that the price on the way back will be 10 times greater.

For those who say that CX shouldn't have to know BAs policies and vice-versa, IMHO if airlines want to sell combined tickets, which they wouldn't do unless it made good business sense, it IS up to them to properly inform customers of the policies of the other airline. The two airlines are selling one, combined product - the service of getting the passenger from origin to destination. Yes the OP could have checked the fare rules, but those who don't should be punished when they still have the realistic option of choosing not to accept the service (leaving the bags behind). If you book completely different tickets for outbound and return, you obviously need to check more thoroughly. But to have the same itinerary and be only charged when you are powerless to do anything about it is not morally right.

Well, I am already making plans (with active flight bookings) to move back to *A with CO/UA. Baggage issues during my two year's as OW Emerald has given so much trouble that I am quite unhappy... not to mention limited coverage compared to *A

This person is assumedly a frequent traveller given that he has sapphire one world status so is reasonable to expect that he knows basics of excess luggage.

The additional allowance only applies when travelling on the airline where the person has the extra allowance

Perhaps people should be expected to do their own due diligence rather than expecting to be nannied . If going to be travelling with double the permitted baggage , he should have taken the time to ask up front

I agree with the second part of this in general, but I think there are limits to the number of checks that a person should be expected to make. The first part of your statement is where my problem lies. The OP took the same flights, with the same airlines, just in the opposite direction. In my view it is reasonable to expect that he should be treated the same way in both directions, regardless of who handles the administrative duty of check-in.

That's why CX should have informed/charged the OP the excess baggage charge on the outbound flights

Exactly :)

Something does not gel here (Unless this was some time ago.)

These days BA use the "piece" system and you were entitled to one bag up to 23Kg.

http://www.britishairways.com/travel...topic=freebags

An additional piece should have cost no more than £40.

http://www.britishairways.com/travel...topic=freebags

That would be valid if the person was connecting BA-BA. Given that it was a connection BA-CX, the weight system applies. The agent appears to have quoted a piece rate if checked through to London but correctly used the weight system with the connection to CX

Dave

That CX allows extra to its own members is no reason to expect that BA would allow it. If he had had no CX status and was 20Kg over , I suspect that he may well have been hit for excess charges by CX. That CX has a special allowance for golf bags is no reason to expect BA to have the same

To me it is reasonable to expect that a carrier will charge excess baggage for any excess baggage and just because one airline or agent waives it no reason to expect others

Why is that? I had thought the allowance on a through journey on the one booking was based on that of the originating segment.

Dave

I am probably missing something obvious here, but can you explain to me why it matters who the OP checks in with? Maybe my view of the world is a simple one, but it seems that in each direction he is taking one CX flight and one BA flight. If CX give passengers with the OP's status a free extra allowance for a golf bag and BA does not, then why shouldn't his golf bag go for free on the CX flight in both directions and be charged a fee on the BA flight in both directions?

Thanks for your patience.

He checked in with CX and they allowed the extra allowance for the entire journey including the BA flight

Checking in with BA , he was subject to BAs allowances and was 20Kg over the allowance and was charged for the 20Kg excess for the entire journey. If he had checked in just through to London he would have been charged the piece extra on BA and then would have been subject to CX check in to determine whether he was within the allowance for the CX flight

Dave

Thanks Dave. I'm sure it makes sense to the airlines themselves, I guess my issue is around why CX gets to determine whether his bag will go for free on a BA flight. And why BA should accept CX doing that. Although in this circumstance I'm guessing BA came out pretty even as the OP declined to pick up his luggage half way and re-check it and therefore they got to charge him the fee for 2 flights anyway.

In my experience globe trotting on all sorts of carrier combinations, it is almost always the baggage rules of the first airilne you are flying in any connecting series of flights that counts. Very often this works to my advantage, as my first airline may allow a much greater free baggage allowance than subsequent ones and since I check the bags with the first carrier, I never pay fees beyond what the first carrier would charge for its flights.

When I have a lot of stuff, baggage policies influences my airline choice.

The complication here is BA charges different for a multi-airline itinerary than they would for an all BA metal itinerary. This is what should change - alliances are supposed to make it easy to mix airlines.

I would rather BA kept its more generous (imo) allowances rather than drop them to the weight system