FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   oneworld (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/oneworld-411/)
-   -   Rumoured enhancements to oneworld RTWs (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/oneworld/762254-rumoured-enhancements-oneworld-rtws.html)

serfty Dec 5, 2007 5:04 pm


Originally Posted by jgold
... This was the beginning of my planned routing: JFK-EZE//GRU-SCL-IPC-SCL-xJFK-HKG-BKK ... However, that is no longer permitted; instead I'd have to connect to Asia through, say, LAX. That's a pain, because I was going to try and force a 6-8 hr transit (without stopover) to drop off some stuff at home. ...

I suppose you could route ORD-EZE//GRU-... instead with a separately booked JFK-ORD segment ...


... do I need to allow for a final surface segment to get back to my origin at JFK (i.e., would my final flown BOS-SFO flight have to be my 19th segment, rather than my 20th, if I'm going to end the trip in SFO)? The rules say that "origin-destination surface segments are permitted" for trips originating in the U.S., but I'm not clear whether that "origin-destination surface segment[]" counts against my 20. Thanks...(hope this question isn't too muddied).

Thanks also to Viajero and Gardyloo for clarifying the source of the Star File.
You would be fine, the Origin-destination surface does not count as a segment. Note that in Gardyloo's extract, the word segment is not used in the relevant rule:
Code:

79N . 4. TRAVEL MUST BEGIN AND END THE THE SAME POINT         
 80N .    EXCEPT ORIGIN-DESTINATION SURFACE PERMITTED AS       
 81N .    FOLLOWS:                                             
 82N .      * WITHIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN                       
 83N .      * BETWEEN U.S.A-CANADA                           
 84N .      * WITHIN AFRICA                                   
 85N .      * WITHIN THE MIDDLE EAST                         
 86N .      * BETWEEN HKG-CHINA                               
 87N .      * BETWEEN MALAYSIA-SIN


jgold Dec 5, 2007 5:17 pm


Originally Posted by serfty (Post 8844829)
You would be fine, the Origin-destination surface does not count as a segment. Note that in Gardyloo's extract, the word segment is not used in the relevant rule:

Interesting...thanks.

moa999 Dec 5, 2007 6:07 pm

So with the rule on DAC gone it makes both DAC and CMB orphans - cheap prices but impossible to ticket
Had been hoping they might go the otherway and add CMB to the DAC exception

Gardyloo Dec 5, 2007 6:14 pm


Originally Posted by moa999 (Post 8845112)
So with the rule on DAC gone it makes both DAC and CMB orphans - cheap prices but impossible to ticket
Had been hoping they might go the otherway and add CMB to the DAC exception

No, KA's entry makes DAC no longer a dead-end, so no longer any need for the exception.

tt7 Dec 7, 2007 11:57 am


Originally Posted by Gardyloo (Post 8842615)
I posted it in the OWE FAQ sticky thread.

Edited to add - on the origin point stopover, the Star File rule disagrees with that posted on EF -

29N STOPOVERS
30N ----------
31N .
32N MAXIMUM 2
33N STOPOVERS PERMITTED IN THE CONTINENT OF ORIGIN.
34N .
35N NO RESTRICTION FOR STOPOVER AT POINT OF ORIGIN.

The Star File appears to disagree with itself -

In the copy that's posted here http://www.hardlink.com/~markdu/OWFi...eExplorer.html

On page 2, line 35, it says
35N NO RESTRICTION FOR STOPOVER AT POINT OF ORIGIN.

On page 5, line 34, it says
34N . 5. TRAVEL MAY NOT BE VIA THE POINT OF ORIGIN.

I guess they put in the line on page 5 and forgot to take out the line on page 2?

DownUnderFlyer Dec 8, 2007 4:30 am


Originally Posted by tt7 (Post 8855983)
The Star File appears to disagree with itself -

In the copy that's posted here http://www.hardlink.com/~markdu/OWFi...eExplorer.html

On page 2, line 35, it says
35N NO RESTRICTION FOR STOPOVER AT POINT OF ORIGIN.

On page 5, line 34, it says
34N . 5. TRAVEL MAY NOT BE VIA THE POINT OF ORIGIN.

I guess they put in the line on page 5 and forgot to take out the line on page 2?

The Star File is not correct. The real pdf version only contains the line


(d) Travel may not be via the point of origin

ak Dec 9, 2007 9:10 pm

Price drop DONE4/AONE4 ex-Japan?
 
It seems like the base fare for a DONE4/AONE4 ex-Japan has gone down by about 4.7%. I guess that is an enhancement. :)

However, the fares ex-India seem to have gone up. AONE3/4 is up by 12.99%, DONE3/4 is up by 12.00%.

Fares ex-South Korea haven't changed.

I was only paying attention to xONE3/4 from these countries.

Gardyloo Dec 9, 2007 9:48 pm


Originally Posted by ak (Post 8867151)
It seems like the base fare for a DONE4/AONE4 ex-Japan has gone down by about 4.7%. I guess that is an enhancement. :)

Unfortunately, not that I can see. What's your source?

Wasabi Tofu Dec 10, 2007 12:35 am


Originally Posted by ak (Post 8867151)
It seems like the base fare for a DONE4/AONE4 ex-Japan has gone down by about 4.7%. I guess that is an enhancement. :)

However, the fares ex-India seem to have gone up. AONE3/4 is up by 12.99%, DONE3/4 is up by 12.00%.

Fares ex-South Korea haven't changed.

I was only paying attention to xONE3/4 from these countries.

Probably, not 4.7% down, it is 5.0% increase.
On 20 September 2007,
Only DONE4/AONE4/DONE5/AONE5 ex-JPN fares were increased at 5.0%.

ak Dec 11, 2007 12:07 am


Originally Posted by Gardyloo (Post 8867308)
Unfortunately, not that I can see. What's your source?

Oneworld.com.

I had written down the fares on 11/26. Yesterday when I checked on Oneworld.com, the fares had gone down ex-Japan for a DONE4/AONE4. It's now JPY 743200 / JPY 1072400 on the website. It used to be JPY 780400 / JPY 1126100.

What do you think the fares are? Do they match either set? Thanks.

Gardyloo Dec 11, 2007 9:18 am


Originally Posted by ak (Post 8874347)
Oneworld.com.

I had written down the fares on 11/26. Yesterday when I checked on Oneworld.com, the fares had gone down ex-Japan for a DONE4/AONE4. It's now JPY 743200 / JPY 1072400 on the website. It used to be JPY 780400 / JPY 1126100.

What do you think the fares are? Do they match either set? Thanks.

Since those are the old fares, and in view of the fact that the rules posted on the website are the old rules (dated July) while the new rules are posted on Sabre (where the new fares are, too) I'd be disinclined to take the OW website fare seriously.

tt7 Dec 11, 2007 3:25 pm


Originally Posted by Gardyloo (Post 8876091)
Since those are the old fares, and in view of the fact that the rules posted on the website are the old rules (dated July) while the new rules are posted on Sabre (where the new fares are, too) I'd be disinclined to take the OW website fare seriously.

Agreed. Having done several DONE4s ex-NRT, I've become fairly attuned to the prices - we 'rushed' to get one ticketed a couple of months ago before the price went up.

When I looked the other day (when this topic first came up), it had the correct price (Y780,400). However, looking now, it has the old price. My sense is that in recent times, they have been very good at keeping the OW site up to date (they certainly posted the ex-NRT fare increase immediately it kicked in) but it looks like somehow they're currently pulling 'old' data.

ak Dec 12, 2007 12:59 am


Originally Posted by Gardyloo (Post 8876091)
Since those are the old fares, and in view of the fact that the rules posted on the website are the old rules (dated July) while the new rules are posted on Sabre (where the new fares are, too) I'd be disinclined to take the OW website fare seriously.

Understood. Thanks!


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:27 pm.


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.