OK. But we all know what it means. There's no need to get so autistic over something so trivially obvious.

Deleted

Do they? That's news to me. I recall reading about a recent court case that turned on the interpretation of a law, which was decided based on a lack of commas changing the application of a clause.

My recollection of the old handwritten paper tickets was that they were physically formatted so that each page was one coupon and contained a source and destination, and the layout was such that the destination of each coupon was the source for the subsequent coupon, and as a result, one coupon had to be "wasted" for ground transport between any two points. Although the fare calculation would use non-terminal-specific codes, such as "NYC" rather than "EWR", so perhaps my recollection is off, and maybe the old paper tickets would also use non-terminal-specific codes?

Yes, of course, and what I said in my original post was merely an observation that the wording seemed clumsy and incorrect.

Your recollection is off. I many times used open-dated paper ticket coupons with city codes in conjunction with a valid reservation from an airport corresponding to those codes. LON-NYC-SFO (which, if I remember correctly, used to allow SJC and OAK as well) would be valid on many different airport routes and there was no problem flying into, say, EWR, and out of LGA.

Personally, I thought this was a far more interesting change than the observation of the clumsy wording on the segment rule:

If we can now have three or more stopovers in the continent of origin, that's good news.

Area 3 is TC3, yes.

That's how it appears to read: only two permitted in area 3. Was this fare originating in area 3?

Thanks. Interesting that eticket coupons (VCRs) still use city codes. I suppose it's because etickets are mostly constructed automatically from itineraries, and itineraries require an airport code.

I pulled it from an EF fare search and I thought in error that it was a generic xONEx ruleset, but in playing with it I see that the "2 in Area x" does get updated for the fare origin. Thanks.

That's interesting, becuase "2 in the [TC]Area of origin" (of which there are 3) is much more restrictive than "2 in the Continent of origin" (of which there are 6) which is what I thought the rule was.

That's how the rule appears in the PDF that I downloaded from the OneWorld web site, dated 1 April 2019. I suppose this might be another case of YMMV, where some agents enforce the GDS version, some the PDF version (and maybe some don't enforce it).

Edit: I just checked the rules currently on the OneWorld web site and they appear the same as the 1 April 2019 ones.

Everyone buying xonex tickets and participating in this forum long enough should have realized by now that the people writing the xonex rules seem to add commas and take away commas with every reissuance of the rules. They clearly are not writing the rules using the Chicago Style Manual.

You can either choose to interpret the missing commas as oneworld decided to make a change to this rule so that it is gobbledygook and meaningless and obsess over it or you can choose to interpret that oneworld's use of the same language (minus the commas) still means the same thing that it did before (especially when this is how it is being applied).

QR RTW desk insists on 1 stopover in the continent of origin in each direction, and after repeating turning down by RTW desk (which takes a few days to respond).
QR RTW just ignore the request and QR china cant re-route the ticket.

That is unfortunate, since the rules both in the GDS and the OneWorld PDF allow two without regard to direction. If your ticket has not yet been issued, perhaps a travel agent could book it? If you are trying to do a re-route, I'm not sure what to suggest. Perhaps a different QR office, or perhaps another airline (whose flights you are using) might agree to take it over? You could try AA, but I've heard they no longer take over RTWs issued by other airlines, which I hope isn't true.

we gave up to have 2 stops in Europe. This is ex-CAI and basically QR RTW is trying to be as non-responsive as possible. It has nothing to do with any office, because all offices have to go through RTW for re-routing.