To make things easier for oneworld4uto help us all, I have set up this questions thread. Please only post direct questions here. All discussion will be removed to separate threads.

[Put in short para on how the process will best work, once this has been determined.]

The easier and more smoothly the process works, the more likely it will be retained and be of future benefit to more FTers.

Since FT respects individual's privacy, if your question requires personal information to answer please send a private message to oneworld4u <click here> rather than this thread. More general questions are welcomed here.

A reminder that checking FT is only a small part of oneworld4u's job and thus there will not always be an immediate response to this thread or to any private messages. This is especially the case when an investigation is required to answer a question - sometimes it can take a few weeks to gather the information.


Thanks for your patience.


Kiwi Flyer
OW moderator

Two questions regarding the oneworld Explorer fare:

1. Is a change to the 20 segment limit planned/imminent?

2. If the answer is yes, Will we be given advance notice?

These questions weigh heavily on the minds of many here when trying to plan ahead something as complex and expensive as a RTW trip. We have received unofficial "warnings" from airline employees, but as always with such rumours, it is hard to separate fact from fiction so any indication you are able to share with us will be, I am sure, of great benefit to all. Thanks in advance.

Questions copied from the welcome thread.

Greetings from FT�s new official oneworld representative, oneworld4u. Thanks for your warm welcome and for your support of and interest in what we like to think of as the world�s leading quality global airline alliance.

We�ve kept a close eye on FT for many years and have come to recognize FTers as some of the most insightful and knowledgeable folks in the industry. We appreciate your custom and your feedback.

Some of us have posted the odd comment here and there informally in the past, but this more formal arrangement will hopefully be more useful to all of us. We are looking forward to a long and mutually beneficial dialogue.

A number of you have asked what my role is at oneworld. Let�s maintain an air of intrigue by not being too specific (!), but I can confirm that I am a member of the alliance�s small central team, at what we call the oneworld Management Company (or oMC). This unit of around 20 people acts as the central secretariat for the alliance, based in Vancouver, BC, Canada. I�ve been part of this team for around five years after working for longer than I care to admit for one of the alliance�s member airlines.

I�ll be calling on my colleagues to help respond to some of the points you post, so they may from time-to-time appear on FT under the oneworld4u name, just to keep that intrigue alive and well.

As Kiwiflyer points out, responding this is just one of many, many tasks we have to perform, so please be patient if it takes us a few days to respond to points you post.

Please also understand that I/we will not be able to comment on some of the items � mainly rumour or speculation � that you post. Every business needs to maintain some commercial confidentiality, and we are sure that our competitors devour FT as hungrily as we do.

To answer some of your initial questions�

Viajero asked whether a change is planned to oneworld Explorer fare�s 20 sector limit. The simple answer to that is yes � and we believe all other RTW fares face the same issue. The reason is that the technological standard adopted by the airline industry (through IATA) for electronic tickets cannot handle tickets for more than 16 sectors. The industry moves fully into an era of electronic tickets only from June. Tickets already sold by then for journeys of 16 to 20 sectors would of course remain valid. We are working on a formal announcement now, and this should be posted soon. While Viajero and a number of other FTers may use Explorer for journeys of between 16 to 20 sectors, you are in a very very small minority. The new restriction will impact on a tiny percentage of customers. Even so, it�s a shame anyone should be impacted. Over time, as technology advances, we hope this industry-wide restriction will be eased.

Headintheclouds asked why oneworld airlines use three or more GDSs. First thing to point out is that seven of our ten members currently use, or are moving to, Amadeus. This means, we believe, that oneworld will have a higher proportion of our members on just one IT system than either of our competitors. Why not have them all on just one system? Mainly because oneworld�s philosophy is that, so long as they can deliver the oneworld proposition, our member airlines should be free to decide what is best for their own business. If it works for them, and enables them to deliver all oneworld�s services and benefits etc, why force them to go through a whole lot of expense and hassle involved in a change? We like to think that this approach to running our alliance is one factor why collectively our airlines have the best record of profitability over the past decade or so.

Headintheclouds also had a number of suggestions on how we display our PRF downloadable schedules. Thanks for those. We keep this kind of thing under constant review and I�ll ensure your observations are passed on to the team who looks after this.

Wandering-fred asked how far forward schedules are firmed up (slight paraphrase!) There are a number of factors that come into play here � commercial, financial, operational, industry, safety.... All airlines set their schedules in response to commercial demand and to deliver adequate financial returns. If either of those factors change, this may cause them to adapt their schedules, sometimes (rarely) at relatively short notice. To enable them to mount the programmes they want to fly, they obviously need not only the right aircraft, crews etc, but also things like runway slots, terminal access etc. Generally these sorts of things are firmed up at the two main IATA slot conferences run each year, for each �winter� and �summer� flying season. Most GDSs can handle flights for up to one year less one day ahead. Safety is a key factor for all oneworld airlines and if there is an issue that causes concern (such as security at an airport in a region suffering from unrest or a natural disaster) this can cause them to adapt schedules at relatively short notice. Rather a long and rambling response, but let�s put it like this � no oneworld airline would post a schedule it had no intention of flying, but these things are sometimes subject to change for a variety of reasons, as outlined above.

Until next time!

deleted for later

In the last year or so, the rules for xONEx's changed to include surface segments(/open jaws) in the 20 segment limit.

This has led to an issue regarding co-terminals where some oneworld member airlines consider the use of co-terminals to be a surface segment while others do not.

e.g. I know one airline considers the following route to be 6 segments, while another believes it to be 4 only:

• ORD-LHR,LGW-DBV-LGW,xLHR-SIN

Note, that while the first airline believes it to be six, they consider no UK APD is payable for DBV-LGA,xLHR-SIN.

Can you please shed some light on which interpretation is the correct one?

Many thanks for the response. The above suggests that the change is *solely* driven by ease of handling technological changes and with regret over reducing the product (for the small number of us who use >16 segments). Two follow-up questions if I may:
(a) how much weight is there in your alluding that were in the future the technological environment to change to make 20 segment e-tickets easy, xONEx products would once again allow 20 segments?
(b) Was there consideration to not changing the fare rules but just the ticketing constraints or otherwise finding a way to allow 20 segments on an xONEx where, say, a re-issue occurs after 4 segments have been flown.

Thanks oneworld4u. But I must correct you. It is headinclouds, not Headintheclouds. Two different members who are not at all alike.

So, who besides AA and CX are the lone holdouts from using Amadeus?

Are there any plans to implement an awards availability tool acrosss OW partners.

I personally use the BA tool along with EF for AA.

An official OW tool to check award availability would be great.

Thanks for your input. ^

I have an issue with one subject as follows ...You know, I represent one part of those "Tiny Percentages" (no doubt also many more FT members as well) and it annoys me to be 'brushed off' like that.

In any case, why should mandated e-ticketing be an issue that restricts products to 16 segments at all? According to a well respected and very knowledgeable FT member who regularly posts on the FT oneworld forum, the answer is already technically available. See this post:

• Linked PNR's
  Quote:

  Originally Posted by number_6

  IATA is mandating a very simple solution for the >16 segment problem: all IATA airlines must support linked PNRs by mid-2008. Many do now already; even AA has had this capability for years (but most Aagents are unfamiliar with it). The ticket can be arbitrarily long, split into 16 segment PNRs.

Moreover ...Given the above information and the fact there's only a 1 or 2 month hiatus between the IATA mandates regarding E-tickets and linked PNR's coming into effect, why even consider changing the rules to restrict to products 16 segments at all?

Adding to the question above it seems that e-tickets do not support open dated segments.

See this post.

How are people supposed to book tickets that include flights that have not yet posted to seasonal schedules and cannot be open dated?

Let me assure serfty that we are not intending to "brush off" anyone who uses oneworld services. We are in business to keep our customers satisfied. But we do have to work within industry-wide systems and standards. The shift to 16 segments for RTW fares is being imposed on the alliance by an industry-wide change. It is not something we have sought. If there was a practical way around this restriction, then we most certainly would have pursued it. As it is, our understanding is that all RTW fares will face the same issue.

Turning to serfy's earlier posting: "In the last year or so, the rules for xONEx's changed to include surface segments(/open jaws) in the 20 segment limit. This has led to an issue regarding co-terminals where some oneworld member airlines consider the use of co-terminals to be a surface segment while others do not. e.g. I know one airline considers the following route to be 6 segments, while another believes it to be 4 only:
ORD-LHR,LGW-DBV-LGW,xLHR-SIN
Note, that while the first airline believes it to be six, they consider no UK APD is payable for DBV-LGA,xLHR-SIN.
Can you please shed some light on which interpretation is the correct one?"

Our fares specialist advises: "Segments are the same as flight coupons. Which must have no geographical gaps. (Even between LHR and LGW). Thus LHR-LGW is a segment. In example you quoted, the only exception could be if the xLHR-STN has the same flight number as the DBV-LGA. In which case DBV-STN would count as one segment. UK APD is not charged for transfers (but is for stopovers). Transfers must be within 24 hours of previous flight arrival."

Let me add in response to manar that we would hope that, as technology progresses, the industry as a whole will be able to ease this restriction - look back at what airlines were able to offer just a few years ago and it is amazing how fast they change. But we are getting into the realms of crystal-ball-gazing now...

Beyond that, I would prefer to wait until we have posted our formal announcement on this issue before responding to any more queries or observation on this subject. So please hold fire until then!

On other matters....

headinclouds - apologies for adding a "the" to your name - and I hope the real headintheclouds did not take offence. Put it all down to being a newcomer....

777lover: Please be assured we do look regularly at how we can best support FFP members. I'm sure our competitors would love to know what plans we have in this area, so please forgive me for not responding to specifics...

And finally in this posting, a plug - five new destinations join the oneworld network in the new flying season starting this weekend. You can find full details and all the other latest news from the alliance in our latest news release, just posted at http://www.oneworld.com/ow/news/details?objectID=13247

Happy and safe flying!

That's interesting. Star Alliance RTW rules (currently) explicitly provide for various airport co-terminals to NOT be counted as a segment or transfer.

Thanks for responding so quickly oneworld4u ^

oneworld4u, Thankyou for your prompt reply. I note you made no reference to IATA mandating support for Linked PNR's by the middle of this year.

This implys that Linked PNR's are not being considered as a solution to the 16 segment e-ticket PNR issue even though the use will be "within industry-wide systems and standards"?

Why would this be the case?

I'm sure this has been discussed before but I'd appreciate it if you (oneworld4u) could clarify the co-terminal situation a bit more. I understand surface segments, but this LGW/LHR thing still confuses me based on past experience.

In September 2006 my paper ticketed DONE4 said GIB-LON-DXB-...-TYO-...-NYC-...-SFO-LON-GIB. It was a 20 segment ticket and while I arrived and left from the same airport in the first 3 instances, my last flights were SFO-LHR, LGW-GIB -- I would have tipped over to 21 if it hadn't said LON. Is it now explicit that city designations aren't allowed?