Advice please. We were doing a Oneworld RTW with AA through a travel agent. and still had three weeks to go when we were told flights to Hong Kong from Tokyo were cancelled. our final stop was Vietnam however we were advised to fly home as Vietnam was closed. we paid extra to fly with BA to LHR and on to EDi.
The travel agent says that we will not get anything back even although we had two long haul flights less than what we paid, all flights were business class
Many Thanks

You will need to provide exact details.

To whom did you pay "extra" and why?

If flights were cancelled AND no suitable recommendation is made, you should be eligible for prorated refund based on distance ticketed and distance travelled. Since you are on an AA-001 ticket and HKG/TYO are involved, https://saleslink.aa.com/en-us/blog/...le-change.html should help you. It specifically says "Refund: Allowed when flight has been cancelled."

Any cancellation of any portion of a RTW ticket entitles the passenger to discontinue all future travel and receive a pro rata refund based on miles flown -- that's the position I took when facing these problems a few years ago, and DOT agree with me (over Cathay's protestations to the contrary). Sounds like that would be a reasonable resolution for you.

And I think the flight home to EDI would be covered, at least in part, by your travel insurance.

What do you mean? CX has been clear that they are giving refund prorated to mileage unflown since the beginning of COVID-19. Is this an anecdotal experience or did CX publish anything contrary to this before?

This thread makes no sense.

Details would help.

Was it an OLTA or a real live human travel agent?

This was an AA ticket paid with money for a RTW fare, right? Was EDI the starting and ending point?

I'm confused about exactly what flights were cancelled (by the airline? HKG to TYO?) and how Vietnam enters into this. It sounds like some of the itinerary was (voluntarily if based on a rumor that Vietnam would close its border in the future?) cancelled or rebooked by the OP.

Why were the BA flights (from WHERE?) to LHR and then EDI purchased? Did the OP try to get the TA and/or AA to rebook the ticket after whatever flight was cancelled?

Vietnam was probably origin and destination (cheap). Last flights not possible so OP paid for separate flight home to UK.

I suggest you read bedelman's post again and all will become clear

I'm sorry I read it several times but the "over Cathay's protestations to the contrary" part is not clear to me. I would kindly ask for clarification / explanation.

= CX did not agree with the DOT that a refund is due. But the actual outcome was not posted, so we don't know what happened.

I'm not sure OP will return, but until he does, much of this is of course speculation.

Thank you, and I got that part. What I was wondering was whether this was just an anecdote (perhaps from a misinformed agent) or did CX publish something that said the contrary (to what US DoT says) before as a policy or guideline.

I think the most logical reading of what has been posted is that at some point in the past bedelman had a RTW ticket booked through CX that s/he sought to get partially refunded due to one or more sector being cancelled, CX refused it and claimed DOT rules did not apply when they were pointed out to them. The implication (not confirmed) from bedelman's post is that s/he then raised a complaint with the DOT which was upheld, and CX were compelled to pay the pro-rata refund, the suggestion being that this (a formal DOT complaint) was an avenue george.steel might take in seeking satisfaction of a similar partial refund from AA.

CX would never explcitly publish anything saying that (e.g. because they're Hong Kong based) they had no responsibility to refund under US DOT regulations in the appropriate circumstances because it's not true and they know it. They (in common with many carriers) will just fob passengers off with such untruths (see also EC261) in the hope that people are insufficiently versed in the intricacies of international aviation agreements to challenge what they're told.

Whether this behaviour is down to ill-informed customer service agents or a corporate 'first line of defence' in minimising cash outflows due to refunds, who knows? I'm more inclined to believe the latter.