garyschmitt

Sorry I (too hastily) blew it off as soon as I saw "depends on context...". Looking again, it looks like you are saying the same thing -- not that it depends on the context of where the term "itinerary" is used, but the context of the flights involved.

So if all flights are on the same document, reservation, and all under the same booking code, are you saying it's all one itinerary? Taking an extreme case, what if (hypothetically) someone makes a single reservation with one booking code, for a journey with ~10 destinations - some of which are also the origin. Would you call that one itinerary?

Often1

SUITGOES is incorrect and you were incorrect to refer to the UA CSR as a "moron" because he was right. The new rule does not go into effect until January 24, 2012. The current rules would not require UA to give you the extra freebie bag.

soitgoes

Can you tell me what was incorrect?
I posted the link to the order and discussed the meaning of itinerary as used in that order. I believe all that to be true.

JerryFF

Yes, personally I would.

Often1

You linked to your underlying post in which you described a specific incident with UA and referred to the CSR as a "moron" for seeking to charge you for a bag which may violate the order which you also linked to. That order is not effective until January 24, that is for another 10 days from today.

The UA interpretation of the IATA MSC rule was apparently correct. Whether or not your interpretation of the new US DOT rule is correct doesn't matter, because it's not yet in effect.

And, even after January 24, DOT has managed to not define the term "itinerary" although some powerpoint-guy at DOT things that it refers to the round-trip (if purchased on one PNR). Unless and until DOT defines the term, carriers will either honor the rule on the return segment(s) of a round-trip or not and it's highly unlikely that DOT would or could take any action.

garyschmitt

You're all screwed up. You've quoted soitgoes, but then you attribute things I've said as if soitgoes made the statement.

Moreover, even if soitgoes had called someone a moron, it wouldn't matter because it's a statement of opinion. It makes no sense to try to validate the correctness of an opinion. It's only the statements of fact where validation is useful.

What statements of fact did soitgoes get wrong?
Where are you getting your information?

That date is not directly referenced in the order. Some airlines have been following DOT order 2009-9-20 for over 5 months now, perhaps longer, and aviation computer systems have been distributing data that applies DOT order 2009-9-20 for over 5 months as well. This is in fact the only reason I was able to depart from my origin with two bags, as the MSC of the first flight was also an airline that only allows one free check-on.

Certainly not. When I told UA it's the first flight that matters, they agreed, but then they disagreed on which flight was the "first flight". UA claimed that the return trip begins with a new "first" flight. The IATA MSC rule has nothing to do with a concept of a "first flight". IATA MSC is based on which carrier is the most significant, which is not necessarily the first one to check on the passenger.

IOW, if UA happens to be correct, it's purely dumb luck, because they were actually trying to comply with DOT 2009-9-20.

clacko

as a rubber necker that is interested in this, i have an opinion!

if the 1st carrier on an out bound of a round trip itin has a better bag policy than the 1st on the in bound, and that good deal is imposed on the inbound carrier, then those going in the reverse get the bad deal both ways....

seems like its ok as is....

soitgoes

I did not.

Anyway...
It seems plain to me that the DOT includes a return trip to be part of the same itinerary when on the same booking, but a clear definition would indeed be useful.

Often1

As it turns out, they were not. See the following January 9, 2012 Order filed by DOT to a Petition filed by ATA (which includes UA and basically all legacy USA carriers). First, and foremost, the Order makes very clear that the new "single itinerary" rules are not effective until January 24, 2012. But, more importantly, in response to the Petition (which DOT denied), it has also determined that it will not enforce the new rules for a period of six months in the case of interline/codeshare international itineraries.

Thus, the rules will be effective 10 days from now, but in the case of interline/codeshare international, won't be enforced until July 24, 2012. The reason for the delay is the simple fact which both DOT and the carriers have ignored for a long time. There is no central readily-accessed cross-reference database which would allow a clerk at an overseas outstation to know what the baggage allowance had been for a segment on some other carrier at some time in the past. While such a database is, of course, technologically feasible, somebody has to do it and spend the money to do it. Nobody apparently wants to.

But, to be clear, UA was not bound by the rule because it wasn't effective yet and if it didn't do what OP wanted, that's maybe bad CS, but not unlawful.

http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/rules...on%20Final.pdf