Jus priced up an AONE4 from CPT.

Fuel fines 1000 GBP total taxes 1544 GBP. 24% taxes and fines.

Pricing the same itin as DONE4. Same fuel fines and 22 quid less taxes. 32% taxes and fines. YGTBFJ :td:

Yes - but I imagine this is also helpful at getting around the country-of-sale rules since Canada (and now the EU) are exempt to the "higher of the two" rule...

Wrong rules on OneWorld.com?
 

I know we have had cases before where the information on OneWorld is not entirely accurate but has anyone notice this gem?

From this page
My bold.

I can't seem to download the full t&c document from the site to check.

Has this rule changed recently? Is it not supposed to be travel within 360 days of the first flight?

EDIT: OK home now and can download the rules pdf. (work seemed to prevent the download) The rules have not changed. The wording on this page is ambiguous to say the least. :rolleyes:

I assumed maybe they meant that the online tool couldn't handle open segments, and so you'd have to put in dummy dates that are within 360 days of the day of booking, but that the "real" fare rules (i.e., ticket valid for one year from first flight) would govern (i.e., so you could subsequently push the dates later). But that's just an uneducated guess.

Played around with the tool as well and priced a LONE3 from MIL using all 16 segments on a Europe-North America-Asia-Europe trip. Well, I almost fell from the chair...

Base fare: EUR 2006 (OW site shows 1999)
Taxes and fees: EUR 800 (!!!), 500+ of which are YQ, only 1 LHR transit
Booking fee: EUR 5

Total: EUR 2811

First segment was on IB, ticket issued by AA (at least it's their booking system that seems to be handling the itinerary). Anyway, 40% of base fare in taxes and fees is outrageous IMO. I'd like to have the same ticket priced by the AA RTW desk to compare...

Try a version with first segment on an AA codeshare.
Some countries dictate certain fees/leveies/charges be included as part of the fare. Travel via HKG for example will cause this. That may be the source of your €7 variance.

A few question, if anyone has figure out...

1. Does it charge to the airline you use for TATL or TPAC first? Is there any way to choose? On at exUSA Eastbound RTW with TATL on AA and TPAC on QF, could you choose to book with QF?

2. Is it actually checking bucket availability immediately, or would you get contacted in a few days if there were problems?

3. I cannot get PRG-FCO segments to show up... it just cannot find them. If I manually add an LHR stop, I can book PRG-LHR and then LHR-FCO. I just worry that this splits it into two PNRs on two tickets and it could present possible headaches later on with interlining bags or if there are delays. I realize it shouldn't really matter, but it could be more annoying than if it would just come up PRG-LHR-FCO as one. Anyone know what gives with finding no availability for PRG-FCO?

Thanks

You were right.

Using AA as first flight comes up as follows (same itinerary):

Fare: EUR 1999
Taxes: EUR 371.68
Total: EUR 2370.68

Taxes and Fees are less than 20% of fare.

I know that there is no direct. I'm looking for the PRG-xLHR-FCO segments. This is, after all, the merged general thread for the online booking tool. I'm simply reporting a bug that I cannot get PRG-xLHR-FCO to show up. You shouldn't have to put in every city for every segment. You should be able to use the tool while only listing your actual stopover cities, as opposed to having to also list all your connection cities.

I can get FCO-CPT to show up without having to manually list LHR in between the two. It finds the connection at LHR when I "choose flights" for FCO with CPT the next listed city. But, if I list FCO after PRG and go to "choose flights" link on PRG it simply cannot find any flights at all. I have to go back and change my city list to PRG, LHR, FCO. It's annoying, and I cannot figure out why it is doing this.

I believe that the tool is only offering you the routes that are loaded into system. The connection cities exist in the logical locations, and LHR is quite logical on FCO-CPT route. However anyone flying PRG-FCO would not be flying through LHR unless he really needs to get there by that connection. Therefore I guess there are no fares for PRG-xLHR-FCO, and people fly either direct or through MUC or others more direct ways. And the booking tools knows only published routes obviously.

For me I had problems finding MAD-LHR on LAN codeshare (IB metal I think) that I needed to maximize my AA mileage (LAN counts for 200% miles on AA platinum)

Some more playing around with the tool and it's definitely IB who's trying to overcharge with fuel fines. Same segments in a LONE4, difference in surcharges >1000 EUR!

Priced the following two itineraries (identical except for departure city):

MXP IB MAD LA SCL LA IPC LA SCL LA LIM LA EZE QF SYD QF NOU QF SYD QF AKL QF MEL QF HKG JL NRT JL DEL JL NRT JL MXP

Fare EUR 2403 + Tax EUR 1324 (ridiculous) + Booking Fee EUR 5


MAD LA SCL LA IPC LA SCL LA LIM LA EZE QF SYD QF NOU QF SYD QF AKL QF MEL QF HKG JL NRT JL DEL JL NRT JL MXP IB MAD

Fare EUR 2403 + Tax EUR 262 + no booking fee

Both bookings use the AA server after you click on "book now". The difference is due to the fuel surcharge only. In the second itinerary there is NO fuel surcharge, in the first this accounts for more than 1000 EUR.

Another possibility is it is checking connections and only returning those that are both valid (above minimum connection time) and not too long.

*A RTW tool does this too, but to some extent can be overridden by selecting option of long connections. Or, as above, by selecting every leg individually. The *A tool will generate an error message if the connection is impossible.

I commented on a similar sort of disconnect here.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.1 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; ) 400x240 LGE VX10000)

that could be it. the connections tend to be 60-70 mins which BA says is okay but OW says no, or the connection is 4 hours.

i should note it cannot find ANY connection, not just xLHR. as far as the tool is concerned one cannot get from PRG to FCO on OW.

still seems like a bug that should be fixed.