Originally *A RTW had this application , along with some other non-alliance related RTW tickets of past times, - of tickets being issued in Canada at the originating country's rate. But as each RTW application is renewed, that rule is removed. Once upon a time too.. when issuing tickets say from BKK to LAX, but if you were to issue it anywhere else other than BKK, the Higher Intermediate Point rule would apply which means that you end up paying a LAX-BKK fare. The exception to the rule would be on tickets issued in Canada.

That doesn't sound right.

My understanding of the HIP rule (and it is well over 20 years since I did Fares and Ticketing, back when there were FCU's rather than NUC's) was that if there were two sectors - for example AAA-BBB-CCC, you had to look at all three fares - AAA-BBB, AAA-CCC and BBB-CCC and charge the highest of the three.

When they changed from FCU to NUC for fare calculation purposes, they also brought into play the point of sale principle - SITI (Sold Inside Ticketed Inside country of origin), SOTI (I'll leave everyone else to work out what that means, should be obvious though, Guy Betsy won't need to be told), SITO and SOTO.

I can understand how a BKK-LAX ticket might cost more if sold outside Thailand, but cannot really remember why it would be priced the same as a LAX-BKK, unless it was ticketted in the US (therefore a type of SOTO) - my recollection of fare calculation is that the fare would be calculated BKK-LAX in NUC's and converted to THB (first stage). The fare would then be converted to the currency of the country of ticketting (second stage). The THB amount would then be converted to the currency of the country of ticketting, using the BSR at the date of sale. The higher of the two would then be charged.

Or have I killed too many brain cells in premium cabins and airline lounges around the world?

I still can't see though how the HIP rule would come into play on a straightforward point-to-point itinerary, unless things have changed drastically since I had to do a detailed fare calculation.

Dave

Forgot to add a glossary to my last post!

FCU (Fare Construction Unit) and NUC (Neutral Unit of Conversion) are essentially the same, but derived differently. BSR is the Bank Settlement Rate, essentially, the exchange rate used by IATA that week.

If you need further info regarding fare calculation, either I or Guy Betsy can help.

Dave

Just been digging through some old manuals, the fare (BKK-LAX) would be quoted in THB, and then converted into NUC's, which would then be converted into the currency of the point-of sale, both using the IATA ROE (Rate Of Exchange, different to the BSR) to arrive at a fare applicable to the country of sale.

The THB fare would then be converted into the currency of the country of sale at the BSR applicable at the time of the sale.

The two fares would then be compared, and the higher of the two would then be charged.

The HIP rule doesn't come into it at all, so not sure where you got this part from.

The Canadian exception applies on the basis that Canadian law says that the fare ex-Canada must be charged if ticketting is done in Canada, even though a higher fare is applicable under the above scenario. So if sold in Canada, ticketted in Canada, for an itinerary originating in Australia, if the ex-Australia fare is lower, then the ex-Australia fare would be charged.

If sold and ticketted in Japan, originating in Australia, if Australia price is lower, Japan price is charged.

Canada got it right on this one.

Dave

Just to confirm, there has been no change to the Canada exception?

The xONEx rules were last updated on 1 March (mainly to add CX Premium Economy options and adjust US/AU transcon restrictions). The exception is still present.
However, the rules should (in theory) be getting changed again shortly, to add AB.

Today, AB is welcomed as an OW member on the OW website.

No change in XONEX rules sighted...

The xONEx rules aren't accessible at the moment. The link is pointing to the xGLOBnn rules.