donotblink

I wanted to write about my experience with reservations tonight.

I got a 3+ hour schedule change for an upcoming reservation in February.

I was originally booked on this: AA 598 LGA 1:09PM -> CLT 3:21 PM continuing CLT 4:35 PM -> DEN 6:13 PM
I was rebooked onto this: AA 598 LGA 1:09PM -> CLT 3:21 PM continuing CLT 8:19 PM -> DEN 9:57 PM

I asked to change to AA 796 JFK 10:40 AM -> EGE 1:29 PM.

The agent said no problem and processed the change. I continued to ask the agent to work on some other schedule changes for me, and in the interim, the ticket was reissued.

One of the other tickets was a similar case to what's described above, but was only about a 1 and a half hour schedule change. The agent let me know he would need to speak to a supervisor about it and came back on the line to tell me that he couldn't do that one. But not only that, he couldn't change the one I had requested above and asked which flights I wanted to be on that still went to Denver. I said I didn't know and would have to call back in, so he did something I had never seen before, he took the ticket which was now reissued and changed it back to the system changed itinerary and queued it to be reissued--which I think might technically be a DOT violation of some kind? (I'm not sure, and if I'm wrong, I'm sure I'll get flamed out for it).

Anyway, I tweeted AA and they put me back on 796.

This was on the American Airlines Executive Platinum Line.

JJeffrey

Not flaming, but out of curiosity why do you think this was some sort of DOT violation?

Seems rather cut and dry to me....

The phone agent agreed to change you to the EGE flight, but a supervisor disagreed, and changed you back to the DEN flight while you were on the same phone call. They told you this and asked what better option to DEN they could rebook you on. It's not as if AA changed you from EGE back to DEN weeks later without telling you, or anything like that (now that would be a definite gripe).

The fact that the change to EGE was already put in to be reissued by the first agent is irrelevant, IMO.

Often1

OP paid for and was issued a ticket LGA-DEN. When that changed, he had the option of changing or refunding the ticket.

While the front-line agent should not have reissued the ticket for a different routing, the supervisor caught it and that is it. There is no COC or DOT violation and, if there is, this fits squarely in DOT's enforcement guidance regarding error fares (which provides no relief unless the passenger has incurred other expenses which cannot be changed.)

I have no idea what OP paid for his ticket or what the new routing costs now. But, that is certainly available to him as is pretty much any other LGA-DEN routing.

donotblink

Not that the ticket was put into ticket pending but had already been ticketed (I was on hold for a while). I had seemed to inaccurately remembered that there is a difference between reissues and revaluations and that there were additional previsions for reissues. Anyway, I’ve called in and had quite a few LGA -> DEN’s to direct JFK -> EGE’s over the past few weeks and other agents did it without any hassle. I wonder if there was a recent policy change that removed the 300 mile rule for trips like this. When the agent came back from the hold he put me on, he referenced something about needing to be over 4 hours (presumably the schedule change and not the alternative flight).

donotblink

Looks like the policy—at least for agencies was updated in July to require an increase of the connection time by 4 hours or more: https://saleslink.aa.com/en-US/docum...adius_Only.pdf

Often1

61+ minute under the COC:

• We make a schedule change that results in a change of 61 minutes or more.

MSPeconomist

If the OP has been doing this regularly, I can see how pushing it by asking for the change to EGE on the ticket with only the small schedule change would have drawn attention to the practice. I also suspect that tickets to EGE are much more expensive, otherwise perhaps OP would have purchased them initially since it seems that the nonstop from JFK to EGE is more convenient or at least preferred.

chuck1

I personally think it's ridiculous that AA won't stand behind the agent who promised and reissued the ticket.
It's very indicative of their customer service (or lack of) mentality and this is from an EXP/6MM.
All it would take is for the supervisor to tell the agent you've already done it and we are going to stand behind the one we already promised.
Has AA created a fear at every level where the system automatically reports a booking violation and the supervisory level above calls out every agent on a lower rung of the totem pole?
At least it seems that way with gate agents and D0. I'm just wondering if it's like like in reservations too.

JDiver

Nope, seems not, from the sales doc linked to the link above.

mvoight

On the 300 mile rule:
"The 300-mile radius option may be applied if the Schedule Change is due to Discontinued Service without an alternate protection agreement or results in an extended connection time equal or greater than 4 hours or an involuntary connection requiring the customer to overnight on either the outbound or return segment.?"

(Service was not discontinued to that city, and the new connection time, due to the schedule change,did not exceed 4 hours, so I do not believe the 300 mile rule matches OP's circumstances)

rill2503456

Reading that policy, it seems to indicate that creating a connection that is >4h is enough to trigger it? Maybe you can HUCA.

MSPeconomist

Does four hours mean more than four hours total connection time at an airport or four hours more than what was originally scheduled as connecting time at the airport? Four hours is normally the limit for something to be considered a connection (rather than a stopover) on domestic itineraries, but to me it would be silly if having a connection go from three and a half hours to slightly over four hours were sufficient to give one lots of rebooking flexibility.

platbrownguy

Whether something is or isn't silly rarely affects whether it's the rule!

MSPeconomist

Of course. That's why I'm asking for clarification of exactly what the rule says.

platbrownguy

The plain text in the linked PDF supports the "silly" interpretation. If the "schedule change created a 4hr or greater connection" then you can invoke the 300-mile rule. That means going from 239 min to 240 min. Just like a schedule change that takes a barely legal connection and puts it 1 min below the MCT allows reaccommodation (not necessarily reaccommodation to another city in the radius, but still -- similar principle).

It doesn't say "extends the connection by 4 hours" etc.

(Of course, one of the many flaws in this sort of doc is that it doesn't provide guidance on what to do if a connection goes from, say, 5 hours to 10 hours -- or even from 5 hours to 6 hours... the change still "creates" a "4hr or greater" connection, but of course there already was one, so what does "create" mean. The point is that whoever is making these rules doesn't think through the front-line agents' general inability to consistently apply even simple rules, so it's no surprise we have so much YMMV on the customer side.)