mozilla

Agree. But if I understand correctly, here the fare is a SFOCTS fare, with routing through TYO which is a layover. The routing options never mention HND or NRT, they just mention TYO. I'm not sure if that qualifies for revalidation, knowing that the origin and ultimate destination airports, and routing number and dates, all remain the same?

Basically, the only ticket changes are the flight numbers and times, which is similar to what a schedule changed res would usually revalidate in. The HJ tax difference of $1.60 could be the issue though...

jsloan

It wouldn't matter. A ticket that terminates at HND would be fared as SFOTYO also.

I'm also not sure what practical difference it makes, unless you're trying to find a way to make SDC possible -- and I still think you'd run into problems. You're sort of arguing both sides of the same coin -- on the one hand, treat it as a destination because we know that SDC doesn't apply if there are downline partner segments, but on the other hand, treat it as a connecting point and allow change of airport.

mozilla

Right, however, OP doesn't want to changes the ultimate destination, just the layover. My reasoning is that a change of ultimate destination - even if under the same city code - would be more significant than a change in the routing to get there.

I mean, you may convince UA to refund if your final destination, which was DCA, changes to IAD, even if well within the time limits of a schedule change. But you may not convince UA to refund your schedule changed res if you still get to where you want within the time limits, but you go through IAD instead of DCA for your layover (not stopover). I believe this particular change would be revalidated instead of reissued.

Unfortunately, I don't have the material to back it up. It's the airline that determines the criteria for revalidation or reissue, and I wish I had those of UA.

Kacee

You seem to be forgetting the CTS-TYO segment. Even if your theory were valid, you can't just revalidate that. The ticket has to be reissued.

mozilla

Okay, but since CTS-TYO remains CTS-TYO, what is exactly the reason it needs to be reissued instead of revalidated? If you have any insight into the exact criteria UA uses to determine if a ticket gets reissued or revalidated, please share as that would be very useful information to FT.

@PVDtoDEL I'm pinging because I know this is your expertise. A few years ago, I noted down your advice that if departure date and routing stay the same, UA will revalidate iso reissue. Here the date remains the same. The departure and destination airports also remain the same. Although the layover (not stopover) point would change (HND->NRT), it would still be an airport covered under the same city code (TYO), which is also the code that the routing table of the fare uses. Hence, the routing number would also stay the same. Is this change eligible for revalidation instead of a costly reissue?

chebert999

When I worked for the airlines this was the rules for revalidation VS reissue.

Revalidation:

- Change to only the date/time/flight (as permitted by fare rules and validity of ticket)
- No change to airline/booking class/routing allowed.
- E-ticket record is "updated" to reflect the new date/time/flight once the original flight is cancelled and rebooked.
- E-ticket number remains the same.
- Easy to do, requires only a few keystrokes by the airline agent.

Reissue:

- Change to a combination of date/time/flight and/or airline and/or booking class and/or routing.
- May result in higher fare.
- Old e-ticket is essentially "exchanged" for a new e-ticket. (If new e-ticket has a higher fare, you pay the fare difference plus change fee)
- New e-ticket number is generated.
- More keystrokes and depending on the type of ticket, and can be a pain for the airline agent (especially for long RTW itineraries).

mozilla

Thanks, so the question then becomes whether a change of connecting airport (layover) still constitutes a change in routing in the very specific scenario where the new connecting airport is grouped under the same city code as the old connecting airport, AND the fare routing table uses that city code instead of the individual airport codes in every published route.

The routing sequence (SFO-UA/NH-TYO-UA/NH-SPK) remains identical, which means that the fare construction (SFO UA X/TYO UA SPK) also remains identical, which means that the fare remains identical. Is this still considered a change of routing requiring a complete ticket reissue?

chebert999

In your example you say that in the original the first leg is NH and it could change to UA. This needs a reissue: no change in airline is allowed for revalidation.

For the second case, NRT and HND are effectively considered the same airport so connecting through one and changing to connect through the other should not be consider a change in routing. But I learned that some airlines consider these 2 airports as different airports and it's specified in the fare. So it's hard to say.

I checked and the answer to the second question is yes.
If you have SFO-UA-NRT-NH-KIX for example and you wanted to change to SFO-UA-HND-NH-KIX, this would be a revalidation only.
But if it was SFO-NH-NRT-NH-KIX for example and you wanted to change to SFO-UA-HND-NH-KIX because there is no SFO-NH-HND, then this would be a repricing and reissue.

fastair

Would an ARNK also need to be added?

chebert999

So I contacted united and asked them. A change of airport is considered a change in routing: that's the NEW rule.
So changing the connection from NRT to HND is a change in routing and need a reissue. Here is the quoted response:
"A change in departure, connecting, or arrival airport is considered as a change of routing. Making a change in a reservation will incur a change fee and a potential fare difference depending on the routing and availability. Please feel welcome to reach out to us if you have further questions. ^JJ"

mozilla

Thanks for reaching out. You're sure they did understand well that the change remained in TYO, and that it wasn't a change to a different city, right? It's pretty rare, UA only serves different airports under two city codes (WAS and TYO), so if not specified they may just assume you mean a different city.

If they did understand that, then we do have our answer.

PTahCha

So I looked at the fare rules for a sample SFO-CTS itinerary. While it is not explicit for voluntary changes, for refund of difference in fare, the fare rule charges a fee for both reissurance and revalidation.

As for the OP, the because of the consideration of possible refaring for the outbound, and availability of fare bucket, it's a long shot for the agent to waive the change fee unless everything is aligned, in my opinion.

bpe

I have no idea about the exact fare rules and reissuing/revalidation issues here, but maybe you could just try to change the SFO-HND flight to SFO-NRT and keep your current HND-CTS flight? If the NH segment is what is causing issues this may avoid it (TYO would still be your connection, but with a ground transfer)

Unless you were planning on staying in the airport, it would still be easier and faster to get to HND from Tokyo for your next flight rather than going back to NRT.

mozilla

Depends on the fare. The cheapest ones charge for both. Mid-level fares (H and up) only charge for reissue. There may be exceptions.