Rumoured enhancements to oneworld RTWs
 

Some things I picked up from the AA ATW desk:

- Segment limit will go down to 16, including surface segments - in prep for mandatory eticketing. [Yet some Amadeus people say that they can produce 20 segment etickets :confused:]

- We'd be able to book RTW itineraries on oneworld.com. Hopefully this means we're still able to ring up the carrier of our choice and/or choose who to issue itineraries through, instead of the booking engine automatically defaulting to 'first outbound carrier.'

Not sure of the reliability of the source, but best to issue any itineraries asap.

How it currently (and has for some time) works with *A is the RTWMC tool provides a quote form which you can send off to any airline (or you can copy and paste to give to a TA). Pax still has the choice.

Quite the enhancements! :confused:

Given the already limiting 20 segment rule for xONE5 and xONE6 (ie too few segments to really use those tickets as a mileage/points generator), it'll just get more frustrating with the 16 segment limit. I hope they at least drop the prices if they make that change.

Drop the price ?? Not likely :(.
Many *ONE* tickets sold do use the maximum number of segments. It just that we FT'ers do
The 16 segment limit has been suggested before.

I agree with you - highly unlikely (even if justified) :(

Are you saing that many xONEx tickets don't use the maximum segments? I've never been on one yet, but am in the process of planning my first (second,...? could be addictive). I would hate to see the limit dropped.

I agree with Mwenenzi (or at least what I think he meant). The majority of all xONEx will be a single digit number of coupons. This change would hit us at FT but will not likely cause any reaction in the marketplace.

Yes, but don't forget the backpackers (no idea what percentage they contribute though)!

If the reasoning is to phase out paper tickets then there's nothing to stop the e-ticktes being initially issued with 16 sectors and then add the remaining sectors once a few have been flown, especially relevant given that airport changes within cities count as a coupon for the e-ticket 'issuance' limit (but not necessarily towards the overall 20 e-ticket limit - from comments I've read on FT, the jury seems to be out but on this one but in my experience it's fine). Plus, it would be additional income for the airlines when the e-ticket is reissued!

Why are e-tickets capped at 16 segments? :confused:

I'm assuming this is some form of restriction within the software so why cant the developers revise the software to allow for an update to be downloaded allowing 20 segments?

I know it won't be as simple as that - as I would like to think it would have already been done if this was the case!

Anyone able to provide an idiots insight?

My understanding is that the majority of xONEx tickets sold are LONExs.

My understanding is also that the 16 segment limitation is native to Sabre-based systems (AA); and of course in Oneworld, where different members use Sabre or Amadeus, it's the weakest link that controls. The GDSs are probably the biggest case of hideously outmoded mid-20th century software still in use. The systems have grown so "comprehensive" and invasive of all elements of global travel booking that tweaking one element runs the risk of the whole edifice coming apart. Even when, e.g., Sabre tries to move to more of a GUI system for travel agents ("My Sabre" for instance) the result is clunky beyond words. It needs a whole rebuild, but for the time being the GDSs are so profitable, each with its own priesthood and vestal virgins, and so competitive, and the airlines (and hotels and cruiselines) so dependent on them, that it would require a major capital risk to come up with a new system, not to mention a long period for breaking-in. The result is no motivation. I've always thought this could be ripe fruit for some cash-flush big Redmond-based software firm to exploit, but perhaps not.

In any event I suspect this is a happy confluence of technology- and profit-driven circumstance, and we should just get over it. Remember, these are the people that decided to save a million dollars a year by removing pillows from coach. However my view is that even at 16 segments xONExs will offer reduced but still good value; it will just make route planning that much more entertaining.

Why stop at 20? *A RTWs allow 24 coupons.

Can you imagine if Google entered this market? They would give the system to airlines and agents for free, but when the travel agent or customer rep searches for your itinerary it would serve up hotel ads on the side and they would have to read these ads to you before proceeding.

Sabre does that now in their GUI applications. Over to the right of the blue-screen gobbledygook you'll see a little flashing reminder that so-and-so rental car firm has a hot upgrade deal in Orlando for your customers. Their technology may be antique but their willingness to sell screen space to honored pals is fully up to date.

And only a max of 39K flight miles and you have to include the mileage for surface segments.

This restriction makes no sense at all to me. Maybe there is some marketing reason for it that escapes me but I find it just plain stupid.

Oh by the way, do I hear an echo echo echo?

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1705604

Said unperson now confirming this, FWIW.

This restriction is in the OW global explorer mileage based RTW, so I assume that it is standard feature of these type of fares.

87N . 7. INTERMEDIATE SURFACE SEGMENTS ARE PERMITTED AT
88N . PASSENGER*S EXPENSE. SURFACE SEGMENTS MUST BE
89N . INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL MILEAGE.

Given that that is a 2004 thread can I just be clear that you are advising that JohnNYC released this rumour in 2004 and has now confirmed that in fact it is likely to come to fruition?

I am not doubting JohnNYC just wondering why this is now more factual than it was in 2004.

Bingo.

I received an actual "enhancement" yesterday on a reissue by AA of a BA ticket-- ticketing an itinerary with 22 flight segments! Over the past month, only one of the 4 or 5 agents I talked with at both AA and BA seemed to know the rule about being able to end an Africa-originated ticket anywhere in Africa (I started in MRU but wanted to end in CPT). Yesterday when the ticket was finally reissued by AA, the agent had to check and confirm that it was possible. When I went to the airport to have the ticket reissued, I found that although the 20th segment does end in CPT, two more coupons were attached: CPT-JNB and JNB-MRU, both open dated but apparently valid flight coupons!

Some unpleasant unforeseen rule changes today - Intra-South America O/D O/J prohibited, and no transit through origin point. No DAC//SIN-BKK either, but not sure when that went away.

The topic of eligibility of Lan carriers seems answered by this: so no new problems there. No mention of the 16-segment rule but these jack-in-the-box rule changes do not inspire confidence.

Also fares ex-USA have gone up in some instances, AONEx by $1000 - $2200 depending on no. of continents, DONE3 and 4 unchanged (so far) and DONE5 and 6 up by $300 and $700 respectively.

< Sucking sound. >

"Thanks" for the update. Does this mean you can not add any domestic segments anymore after you have returned to your point of origin?

So no SYD-LHR-LAX-SYD stopover SYD-ADL-PER-SYD?
or even LHR-MAN-LHR-JFK..... ?

Must have happened once KA joined OW. Before all one could do is depart DAC on BA to LHR, but could never return. I had checked the rules about 3 weeks ago since a DONE4 was listed as $5920 US. Would be great if ex-CMB would be like DAC used to be.

I'd be interested in seeing the new starfile. Can someone with access please post it?

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.

Just got off the phone with the AA RTW desk, and the agent is reading an email that discusses the changes to the ONE product, and apparently transits through point of origin are NOT permitted any longer (which I guess was the rule on the Global Explorer product). I guess that means the EF rules are more up to date than the Star File (stupid question: where exactly does the Star File come from)? She also said you could NOT originate out of EWR and pass through JFK on the back-end and then continue your trip in the U.S. Even though EWR and JFK are considered separate for purposes of the surface segment rules, they're lumped together from the perspective of the point-of-origin rules. Together with the price increases, all very sad.

It's internal to AA so I guess the answer is SABRE.

Yeah, that's the reason I was after the starfile (I missed the FAQ thread), thanks. Although I take it, after reading jgold's post, that the starfile is not current after all, even if it has a Dec date, so we can probably expect to see a revised version shortly.

It's published on Sabre but it doesn't come from there. AA contracts with Sabre (which it used to own) for GDS services. The relevant question is "where exactly does the rule come from?" This gets to the heart of OW mysteries - I have in my mind's eye reps from the major members' revenue desks sitting in a Starbucks in Vancouver tossing ideas back and forth.. "Hey, what if we make people go all the way to Mauritius to get cheap tickets?"

"Ha ha, that's rich. How about requiring a segment to go from JFK to La Guardia?"

"Ha ha, cool..."

Of course that's not really the way this works. I assume.

Is this definitely the case, or a mis-interpretation by one of the call centre agents? Very sad if true. :td:

I still find it bizarre that the rules are such that if you arrive into say JFK, and your destination only gives the option of departing from LGA, or EWR that you have to use a surface segment. :mad:

Fairs fair, they must do what is commericially best for them but to say that EWR and JFK are considered to be seperate when it comes down to surface segments but are considered the same for P-o-O reasons is simply unfair.

This actually gets worse the more I think about it
 

<Is this definitely the case, or a mis-interpretation by one of the call centre agents? Very sad if true.

I still find it bizarre that the rules are such that if you arrive into say JFK, and your destination only gives the option of departing from LGA, or EWR that you have to use a surface segment. > I'm fairly certain that transiting LGA//JFK counts as a surface segment. The two AA RTW reps I spoke with today said that.

The more I think about the new rule re: not being able to transit through the point of origin, the more problematic (or at least annoying) it seems. 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.

Here's a different question: If I want to terminate in the U.S. somewhere other than NY (which would require me to re-enter the U.S. at the end of my trip through a gateway OTHER THAN NY, because of the new rule), do I have to allow enough surface segments to get me back to my origination point (i.e., via surface)? To put it differently, let's say I reenter the U.S. at the end of the trip in BOS (coming from Europe), and then fly to SFO. If the last leg to SFO is my 20th segment (including all surface and flown segments to-date), does that work, or 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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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%.

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.