|
[. It matters for EQM accrual to AAdvantage 2 EQM/mi on AA vs 1.5 on CX.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but using the AA code will likely result in fewer eqd than using the cx code. Do eqm matter more to you than eqd? Curious because most flyers would think eqd more difficult/valuable to earn than eqm. But I may be missing something in this generalization. Could you please explain your preference for eqm? |
Originally Posted by skipaway
(Post 27035459)
Thanks for verifying, Calchas. According to EF (which, I have found, is not always right :)) there is still D availability. Agent didn't even look, just pulled up my PNR and said an airline can't book a "third party" code share. If I read the rules correctly, the change would get me about 4000 more EQM. Will definitely try again. Is there a "best number" to call for BA RTW? I had been skyping to JNB as ticket was originally issued ex CPT, but US # has been willing to make some changes and I've dealt with them successfully 2-3 times, always with transfer to another agent though.
btw, please get back to us how RDM is posted on AA flight! |
Originally Posted by skipaway
(Post 27034569)
I just called BA, who issued my DONE4, and asked them to change my flight from JFK to HKG, CX 831, to AA 8924 (the latter being the code share number for flight 831) I will be taking this flight after having flown SFO-JFK on AA, so my previous flight is AA. He said it can't be done. Any advice? Should I have fed the code share number to the agent when I booked? (The oneworld booking tool, of course, does not list code shares.) Will AA do it? I understand if another airline touches the ticket, they have to reissue the whole thing, so I doubt they'll be enthusiastic even if able. It matters for EQM accrual to AAdvantage 2 EQM/mi on AA vs 1.5 on CX.
Last year I phoned BA in Brasil to change two flights on my BA-issued ex-CPT DONE5 from the operating carriers' flight number to the AA codeshares (operating carriers were JJ and JL). The agent did ask why - the reason was to get my required four AA marketed segment for status qualification. |
Based on the new rules for AA I want all my codes to be AY. That's the sweet spot!
|
Originally Posted by rens
(Post 27035620)
using the AA code will likely result in fewer eqd than using the cx code. Do eqm matter more to you than eqd? Curious because most flyers would think eqd more difficult/valuable to earn than eqm. But I may be missing something in this generalization. Could you please explain your preference for eqm?
|
Originally Posted by zoombee
(Post 27035024)
I'd say no harm in calling AA and asking if they've do the change for you. Given you're switching a flight to them and it sounds like you are going over an ocean with them they may well be up for it without a charge as there's no re-routing.
Originally Posted by rens
(Post 27035620)
Yes, but using the AA code will likely result in fewer eqd than using the cx code.
[QUOTE=pbd456;27036031 btw, please get back to us how RDM is posted on AA flight![/QUOTE] Will do. I guess it depends if they dig further than PNRs. I had a separate one for all my NA flights (all on AA). I presume same ticket number though.
Originally Posted by pandaperth
(Post 27036165)
Definitely call back
Last year I phoned BA in Brasil to change two flights on my BA-issued ex-CPT DONE5 from the operating carriers' flight number to the AA codeshares (operating carriers were JJ and JL). The agent did ask why - the reason was to get my required four AA marketed segment for status qualification. Thanks, will update. |
Originally Posted by skipaway
(Post 27035459)
Thanks for verifying, Calchas. According to EF (which, I have found, is not always right :)) there is still D availability. Agent didn't even look, just pulled up my PNR and said an airline can't book a "third party" code share. If I read the rules correctly, the change would get me about 4000 more EQM. Will definitely try again. Is there a "best number" to call for BA RTW? I had been skyping to JNB as ticket was originally issued ex CPT, but US # has been willing to make some changes and I've dealt with them successfully 2-3 times, always with transfer to another agent though.
I have no idea what BA are talking about. There was a rumour on the BA forum that telephone sales were told to stop booking AA codeshares, but my contact at BA sales did not know anything of it. (Unfortunately he cannot do RTW products or I suspect he'd be very popular here.) So the more likely option is that they don't know how to do it and are making up a rule. |
Originally Posted by Calchas
(Post 27037919)
There was a rumour on the BA forum that telephone sales were told to stop booking AA codeshares, but my contact at BA sales did not know anything of it
I wonder if that agent heard something along those lines and mis-applied it here? It really shouldn't matter (to BA) whether the flight is booked as CX or AA... |
Originally Posted by JAXBA
(Post 27038861)
That rumour....I think the rumour was something along the lines of 'if there's a BA flight number, book it - avoid booking another airline's code, especially if the flight is operated by BA' or something like that.... |
BA RTW agents aren't likely to know which flights would earn more Avios though, they're not necessarily Executive Club trained, but as far as I understand it, BA are paid by CX or JL to issue the Avios. If that's the way it works, BA would have earned more from JL than they would have from CX...
Still odd that BA RTW agents are preferring to book prime flights over codeshares, even on flights that don't have a BA code. |
Originally Posted by JAXBA
(Post 27039508)
Still odd that BA RTW agents are preferring to book prime flights over codeshares, even on flights that don't have a BA code.
|
Originally Posted by Himeno
(Post 27042315)
Maybe that's why the online booking tool refuses to show codeshares.
|
I'm trying to educate myself a little more.
First, the rules define Europe/Middle-East/Africa as a continent. Why, then, does something like CPT/JNB/MPM-DOH count as one of the intercontinental departure and arrival? Second, also in rule 3, it states: The continent of Europe-Middle East consists of 2 zones: What is the significance of "zones"? The word doesn't appear to be used anywhere else in the rules.* Europe (including Algeria, Morocco, Russia west of the Urals & Tunisia) * Middle East (including Egypt, Libya and Sudan) |
First, yes.
Second, there are limitations on the rules on routing and backtracking between Europe (and specifically the UK) and the Middle East. |
Originally Posted by danger
(Post 27052362)
I'm trying to educate myself a little more.
First, the rules define Europe/Middle-East/Africa as a continent. No the rules do not have that definition. What the rules say is: Continents are defined as:
4(b) Travel must be in a continuous forward direction between TC1 - TC2 - TC3. Why, then, does something like CPT/JNB/MPM-DOH count as one of the intercontinental departure and arrival? Because they are flights between the continent of Africa and the continent of Europe/Middle East Second, also in rule 3, it states: The continent of Europe-Middle East consists of 2 zones: What is the significance of "zones"? The word doesn't appear to be used anywhere else in the rules.
* Europe (including Algeria, Morocco, Russia west of the Urals & Tunisia) * Middle East (including Egypt, Libya and Sudan) While the word "zone" does not appear anywhere else in the rules, the word 'Europe" does (as opposed to the words "Europe/Middle East"). This is in rule 4(e) and is in regards to allowed backtracks to continents. The rule isThe words "If travel to/from Europe in both directions, itinerary may not include Mauritius/South Africa" (are taken to) mean if your flight FROM Africa is direct to a country in the Europe zone and your flight TO Africa is also direct from a country in the Europe zone then you cannot have either South Africa or Mauritius in your itinerary. Lesson ends;)I say "are taken to mean", because AFAIK no one here on FlyerTalk has reported having such an itinerary and so we cannot be sure how a ticketing airline will interpret the rule. I have been saying since April that the rule is overcomplicated (though less complicated than its predecessor) and the rule should simply state: |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:26 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.