flamboyant 1

CX889 JFK-YVR or QF108 JFK-LAX

Quick question, is it possible to use these flights as part of the North American Segments without continuing on CX889 or QF108 on a Oneworld Explorer Ticket xONEx ?


Of course I know that one can use a maximum of one transcon in North America.

Thanks in advance for your reply.

JohnAx

Cathay welcomes you to use their JFK-YVR service, and of course it's a treat (in A especially).

kanebear

I believe on an RTW you can use QF108. It doesn't count as cabotage since you are not buying that segment specifically. Someone else can correct me here.

SanDiego1K

According to NM, you can NOT use QF108 JFK-LAX on an AONE4 ticket. It can only be booked in conjunction with the international sector.

"........in order for QF to sell the domestic sector, QF had to carry me into or out of the country. It is quite possible he (Station Manager) was wrong in his understanding, but that does not change the fact that QF are unwilling to sell that sector except when they carry you into or out of the USA."

ijgordon

It seems people have gotten the QF flight booked, but you may be in for an uphill battle if you are not flying a transpacific segment on QF (I don't think it has to be contiguous). I remember people discussing that QF was cracking down and requiring specifically a QF US-Oz international segment, not just any international segment. I'm sure a search would turn up more info.

CX889 is certainly a fantastic use of the N.A. transcon (full Int'l F service, including caviar, which QF does not offer), although the late departure and very late arrival into YVR do make the flight somewhat inconvenient, particularly during the summer (it's 2 hours earlier in winter). Assuming you can book QF108, the somewhat better service/product on CX vs. QF is probably offset by this schedule inconvenience as well as the fact that LAX is a "better" destination to make choosing the CX or QF transcon a bit of a toss-up.

number_6

The present situation: QF108/QF107 cannot be booked on OWE unless you fly QF trans-pacific on the same OWE ticket. QF will cancel your reservation, often without notice, if they catch it ahead of time, and deny you boarding if they don't catch it. There is no way around this (except I suppose a ticket reissue if you have a future QF trans-pacific leg and then reissue the ticket to be non-QF; but QF will try to charge-back the TA if this happens). As indicated this is not cabotage so it seems to be prompted by a commercial decision by QF and not a legal requirement by the US govt. My own experience with this route is that F is often sold out, particularly at month-end, and A inventory is severely restricted on some dates. This flight is popular with certain Australian companies that have board meetings in NYC.

JohnAx

Afaik all the discussion has been about A-class. Do you suppose their reluctance applies to the other classes as well?

flamboyant 1

I've heard JFK-YVR is better service wise than the other way around, right ?

Might do this one.

Thanks for enlightening me about the situation with QF108/QF107.

number_6

QF policy is the same for D as for A (though D is rarely full on LAX-JFK-LAX); no traffic without a QF trans-pacific sector.

The CX meal service JFK-YVR is considerably better than YVR-JFK, however the timing is not the most convenient. I like it because it allows a full day in Manhattan, but arriving at YVR in the middle of the night isn't the most pleasant. Relatively easy to get though as all the JFK-HKG traffic wants to go on the non-stop, leaving JFK-YVR pretty open since they've switched to the 744 (it fills up YVR-HKG).

flamboyant 1

Thanks for all the information and the great advice.

ijgordon

I disagree with the modifier "considerably," in fact, IME, the only real difference is the caviar service on the westbound is replaced with an antipasto cart on the return. Maybe there's an extra entree choice on the way out, but otherwise both directions are full-fledged international F service. Of course the westbound flight is a bit longer, allowing you more time to savor the experience...

bedelman

I encourage everyone to read number_6's post #6 from May 2005, reporting that a DOT finding states that cabotage does not ocur when a passenger's ticket includes any international travel, even if on a different carrier. Fascinating. I tried to find the DOT document at issue, but unfortunately I couldn't.

Number_6, I am struck by your comments (again in post #6, but this time int oday's thread) that QF will cancel valid OWE reservations on QF108/7 if pax don't fly QF transpacific on the same OWE. Such pax have valid reservations with valid tickets, and in compliance with all ticket rules. QF made the specified class of service (A or D) available through its CRS. What basis does QF have to insist on another rule (here, that pax fly QF transpacific)? That's not in the fare rules, and much as QF might like to put it there, I don't think they can impose it unilaterally. If a DoT ruling maeks it clear that QF is not acting for legal/compliance reasons, then it seems they don't have a leg to stand on. This should be a good subject of a complaint to QF, OneWorld, other OneWorld carriers (whoever issued a given passenger's OWE), and ultimately the Department of Transportation.

JohnAx

OneWorld carriers routinely and frequently apply their own rules above, beside, or instead of the text contained in the OWE star file. The small matter of Qantas not accepting certain pax on their NA transcon isn't worth getting worked up about.

number_6

This is no different than all the other OWE routings that airlines refuse to issue despite being valid in some interpretations of the fare rules (and in fact some airlines will ticket, while others will not). QF seems to have this extra undocumented rule and probably would justify it as potential exposure to cabotage -- if you don't fly the future international sector out of the US; they would claim as the ticket is fully changable and refundable (albeit of zero value after a few sectors) they can only control knowing whether cabotage has or has not occured by having the international sector on QF and this allows them to add a ticky-mark signifying "cabotage checked and not occured". I certainly don't know the legal situation but I suspect this rationale would be sufficient to allow QF to get by with this procedure. As I've never been personally inconvenienced by this rule, it is mostly of academic interest.

headinclouds

I think what has everyone upset about QF is that they could easily write into the rules the situation that number_6 describes. The fact that it is not in the published rules implies that it is possible to make such a trip. Just look at the limitations that BA and AA have explicitly put into the rules.