jp12687

100% this. Short. To the point. No emotion and no blame.

1353513636

I came from Canada and had a passport and don't need a visa to enter UK. Surely I wouldn't have suggested it if I couldn't actually fly it. It wouldn't have costed them anything in fees because the APD is only chargeable on departing passengers, not connecting ones.

I asked for the next available routing in PP to get me to my destination and was refused. The next flight EWR-SFO with PP wasn't for a few days. For those who are saying that the LHR routing wasn't reasonable, it's a slippery slope if they start not allowing certain routings to try and force a downgrade when seats are available via an "unreasonable routing".

I wanted it only because it gave me enough status miles to cancel my upcoming trip to SGN (during the OZ SFO suspension period) rather than rescheduling it.

Will they change it? I have never done ORC with *A partner before and have seen people complain on here before about not being able to do so.

I think H class and E+ was a valid request if not the LHR routing and it wasn't allowed....the agents were willing to do the former but the system wouldn't allow it, which is why I posted the thread. I have requested a refund but am not optimistic.

mozilla

I like the theoretical discussion of rerouting an IRROPS domestic pax through INTL to fix a misconnect. I wonder how many keystrokes an agent would need to make that happen. AFAIK an issued ticket that has no international segments (left) cannot have international segments added to it, so they'd have to exchange and reissue everything from scratch, all while eating the additional tax the INTL ticket would incur.

Hmmm. "Any route"? There's actually no freedom for A-B-A with A domestic and B foreign. You could argue it's just the 3rd (A-B) and the 4th (B-A) combined, but afaik one can not freely apply combinability to the rules. Case in point, the 6th freedom (B-A-C) is merely a combination of the 4th and the 3rd freedoms and that needed to be cemented in a separate freedom. So I'm not sure that under standard ICAO rules, a US carrier could transfer pax on a domestic route through a foreign airport.

However, this is moot for LHR or any EU airport as the ICAO rules are supplemented by the liberal US-EU Open Skies Agreement which allows A-B-A. Similar liberal rules apply to Canada as well.

kale73

A-B-A as you describe it is a roundtrip ticket from Country A to Country B and back again. SFO-ICN-SFO is "A-B-A".

halls120

What makes a GS passenger in Polaris more worthy than a passenger who buys a discount Polaris fare?

Repooc17

As jsloan explained to the other poster, UA can sell a passenger ticket of ORD-YYZ-SFO; AC cannot.

mozilla

When it is sold as a roundtrip ticket, using an SFOICN fare, it would be the usual application of A-B followed by B-A. That's not combining the freedoms.

When it is sold or ticketed as an OW trip from SFO to EWR, with a scheduled stop in country B where the pax disembarks for non-technical reasons, using an SFONYC fare, I believe it qualifies as A-B-A for which there is no freedom.

Note the second freedom would cover A-B-A when the stop in B is merely for technical reasons, with no embarkation or disembarkation of pax.

AC can definitely sell the ORD-YYZ-SFO ticket, as long as there would be at least one ticketed transborder segment on a US carrier.

jp12687

they aren’t more worthy for being in Polaris. They are extended extra benefits due to the large amount of loyalty sent towards UA (in terms of $ spent)

Repooc17

That's the key of cabotage. AC cannot sell a ticket of ORD-YYZ-SFO operated by its own metals, but UA can.

Below is how the conversation arrives to this point. jsloan correctly pointed out EWR-LHR-SFO is not cabotage when operated on UA. All that said, UA would never turn someone's ticket from EWR-SFO to EWR-LHR-SFO on a misconnect.

mozilla

Agree. And vice-versa for UA on YYZ-ORD-YUL.

My discussion is built upon the premise that a US carrier adding a non-technical INTL stop to a OW US-domestic itinerary isn't guilty of cabotage but may also not have a matching freedom to use.

kale73

Yet United.com will happily offer to sell you a LAX-NRT-HNL ticket with a 3-1/2 hour stopover in Japan - all on United metal - for just under $1,000 in coach (not that I would choose that routing to get to Hawai'i myself, but it is possible).




You can actually get it a little cheaper by choosing a connecting flight on the return through the quasi-US island of Guam, with longer layovers at NRT and GUM. Many of the TPAC runs I've seen discussed in the MR thread involve getting there, spending a few hours in the airport as a "transit" passenger, then boarding the next flight. Whether this practice constitutes A-B-A or A-B + B-A is an exercise for semanticists.

bdw1120

Like others have suggested, OP please keep your complaint to UA brief - downgrade due to misconnect; request fare difference.

Mentioning irrelevant things, especially the whole LHR thing, hurts your cause and makes you sound unreasonable.

exwannabe

You are being a bit pedantic there. Most all here understand that airlines can sell tickets on other carriers. And the asserted issue was a ticket in AC metal, not the fact that AC sold the ticket.

The more important question is when it is a connection vs a stop. AC can sell (on AC metal) ORD-YYZ and YYZ-SFO on a single ticket. What they can do is disguise a connection as a stop on this route in order to allow ORD-(connect)-SFO on all AC metal.

Back to the OP issue. Even in it was YYZ and not LHR, I see no reason why UA (or any airline) would do it. They are under no obligation at all wrt alternative routes under IROPS, and adding an international leg would be bizzare.

mozilla

Sure, that's perfectly fine. It's on LAXTYO (A-B) and TYOHNL (B-A) fares. It's not on an LAXHNL (A-A) fare.

Such as ICAO.

This is about market protection. It really matters how things are sold. When you're selling a fare between two domestic points (A-A), operate it as a domestic carrier, and add an INTL stop in B where you let your "domestic" A-A pax disembark, you really need a matching ICAO freedom. I'm simply not sure if the third freedom (A-B) applies to pax traveling on an OW fare sold as A-A.

I'm sure that a third country's economic regulator would like to hear about UA selling domestic OW IAHAUS fares to pax which are subsequently disembarked in their third country for no technical reasons. Second freedom applies when the stop is for technical reasons only.

JimInOhio

Airlines would naturally be very reluctant to sell this kind of ticket on the spot. Despite the PAX ending up in the origin country, they would in many cases need to be clear through ESTA or the equivalent in the connecting country.