End of Canadian Exception
 

I just got off the phone with AA RTW desk while changing my DONE3 ticket, and to my surprise, the agent informed me that they were closing the Canada loophole in the next 60 days if he had to guess.

I havent heard other anywhere else, has any heard anything about this or can confirm?

If its true, I need to book my ex-KRT RTW soon!

If true (and I've heard comparable - not the same, but comparable in scope) comments from the RTW desk before, which came to naught - then it would sound like OW is putting a lot of emphasis on the online booking tool. That's unfortunate as long as the tool is as buggy as it seems.

Hope it does not come to past. May have to rush and book a RTW before it shuts down.

Isn't the "Canadian Exception" because of a legal requirement in Canada?

That was my understanding as well.

What is this "Canadian Exception" that all of you are referring to?

eg: If I am buying a ticket in Australia (country of sale) for travel starting in Japan (country of origin), I would ideally pay the Japan price converted to AUD. However, as the Australia price is more then the Japan price, I instead have to pay the Australian price.

The "Canadian Exception" voids that - if the country of sale for the same ticket was Canada instead of Australia, I would pay the JPY price converted to CAD.

In 2010, I booked a DONE3 departing Tokyo from Australia via the online tool. I paid the the Japan price in JPY.
Early in 2011, some bugs popped up in the online tools booking system related to different systems talking to each other (eg, Amadeus and Sabre) which prevented a booking from completing. As a result, I was unable to book my 2011 DONE3 (departing Korea) via the tool. I instead had to make use of a travel agent in Canada to process the booking and I paid the KRW price converted into CAD (which my bank then converted to AUD).

Thanks for the explanation.

It may be a rule, but it can be changed.

Airlines like *A, used to have this ruling but they changed it. So did other RTW fares. So ultimately, that may be the case for OW too.

I don't know the history of the *A rules for RTW tickets
but the current rules simply make no mention of country of sale vs country of origin - so one always pays the country of origin price, and no need for the Canada or Europe exceptions
(and I believe ST RTW rules are similar)

So basically, making the Canada exception apply across the world?

Previously, to quote an earlier example, I buy in Australia ex Japan, I pay the Australia price even though Japan is cheaper, even though leaving from Japan. (This is morally wrong).

Canada exception allowed me to purchase in Canafa ex-Japan at ex-Japan rates. (This is morally right).

If there is no longer a mention of country of sale vs country of origin, is there finally a recognition that we have a global economy, and that it doesn't matter where we buy our tickets from?

Dave

But to be honest its such a stupid rule given (in most countries) you can just call up a travel agent (or a well know oneworld airline) and book from the country of origin without an issue.
In fact just did this today.

It's a bit tricky when the country in question is Sudan or Saudi Arabia.

Personally I'm more comfortable with directly booking with an airline like AA rather than through an agent as subsequent ticketing changes are so much easier.

So am I - and these days, it is ridiculously easy to circumvent point-of-sale rules, it isn't funny.

Dave

It does appear so

Here's the relevant text from the *A ticket rules (source KVS):And no rider like the OneWorld Explorer ticket has, namely:

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! :o

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.