Heathrow transfer times??
KGB
My wife and I have a long haul trip booked for late October departing
from Manchester (MAN), with the dubious pleasure of having to connect
through Heathrow (into terminal 5 - out of terminal 3).
Although my trip is some time off, I was idly playing with the "Manage
my Booking" page on BA's website and noticed that they recommend
allowing 2 hours to transfer from Terminal 5 to Terminal 3.
I last connected through Heathrow in Jan 2008 (admittedly not through
T5) and seem to remember it taking less than half an hour.
Surely things cannot have deteriorated so much in that time, although
I assume the quoted 2 hours is a worst case scenario and also allows
for having to collect and re-check luggage - ours should hopefully be
checked right through to our destination from MAN.
Realistically, on a mid-week afternoon in late October, how long
should it take to transfer from T5 to T3?
Luckily, I have allowed for delays in our schedule (outbound, we
should have 4 hours at Heathrow if the MAN flight is on time) but
coming back we have exactly 120 minutes, which is cutting it fine if
it really does take 2 hours between terminals.
Regards
KGB
Graham Harrison
"KGB (KGB)" <FedUpW...@NoEmailAddre.ss> wrote in message
news:4a9e268c...@news.enta.net...
A question before I attempt an answer.
Have you purchased 1 ticket or 2? Is Manchester/London/Manchester a
separate ticket from London/X/London? Or do you have 1 ticket
Manchester/London/X/London/Manchester?
PS Ignore the bad hype about T5. Make your own mind up when you get
there. I went through there 5 days after it opened (outbound, starting in
London, not connecting) and back 3 weeks later. It worked fine. In fact,
I rather like it.
Roland Perry
2009, KGB <FedUpW...@NoEmailAddre.ss> remarked:
>Realistically, on a mid-week afternoon in late October, how long
>should it take to transfer from T5 to T3?
BAA says 90 minutes. From my own experience (of other transfers at LHR,
but also using the dreaded T123 "Flight Connections" security) I'd say
it was unlikely to take less than an hour if everything goes like
clockwork, the extra 30 minutes being contingency.
<http://www.heathrowairport.com/portal/page/Heathrow%5EGbl%5EHeathrow%5E
General%5EAirport+information%5EFlight+Connections/ce76104cf8e28110VgnVC
M20000039821c0a____/448c6a4c7f1b0010VgnVCM200000357e120a____/>
Coming back it also says 90 minutes, but there are several more stages:
<http://www.heathrowairport.com/portal/page/Heathrow%5EGbl%5EHeathrow%5E
General%5EAirport+information%5EFlight+Connections/dca1e73955c28110VgnVC
M20000039821c0a____/448c6a4c7f1b0010VgnVCM200000357e120a____/>
Heathrow - just say no.
--
Roland Perry
KGB
<edward.h...@remove.btinternet.com> wrote:
SNIP>
>A question before I attempt an answer.
>
>Have you purchased 1 ticket or 2? Is Manchester/London/Manchester a
>separate ticket from London/X/London? Or do you have 1 ticket
>Manchester/London/X/London/Manchester?
Hi
I am not sure!!!!!
What I mean by that remark, is that it is a "One World" Round the
World ticket using several different airlines within the "Oneworld"
alliance - according to Traifinders, some legs of the trip are
e-tickets, others apparently will be paper tickets.
However, ALL legs of our complicated trip appear on the "My Booking"
page on the BA website under one booking reference and one ticket
number so I assume that technically it is one round the world ticket.
That, incidentally, is why I was originally checking "manage my
booking" on BA's website - to make sure that all legs were shown,
which to my relief they are.
Regards
KGB
Roland Perry
2009, KGB <FedUpW...@NoEmailAddre.ss> remarked:
>However, ALL legs of our complicated trip appear on the "My Booking"
>page on the BA website under one booking reference and one ticket
>number so I assume that technically it is one round the world ticket.
Yes, that's one ticket.
We were just checking you weren't (say) flying down to London on BA, and
then flying onward with a completely different airline/alliance - which
would probably mean retrieving and re-checking your bags.
--
Roland Perry
William Black
Heathrow is subject to sudden delays because of security.
It once took me just under three hours to transit from Terminal 1 to
Terminal 3 because all luggage transfers had been canceled and we had to
collect our luggage, take it to the check-in for the next flight,
check it in and then go to the gate.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Graham Harrison
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:l53Jn0cq...@perry.co.uk...
I'm not so sure Roland. The reference to a mixture of paper and electronic
tickets sets alarm bells ringing. Trailfinders are one of the agencies who
are expert at building RTW transactions from a combination of separate
transactions which could end up with just such a combination. Just because
the flights all appear in the BA Manage my Booking just means that
Trailfinders have advised BA of all of the flights not that one ticket has
been issued. The ticket number that appears might not cover all the
flights. Each ticket has space for 4 flights. So 5 flights needs two
tickets "issued in conjunction" in such circumstances the ticket number will
be in the form 1253640100200-01 or 1253640100200/01. The fact that they
are in numeric sequence AND "in conjunction" makes them all the same ticket
and all the same contract.
Provided it IS all on one ticket then it is all one contract and subject to
agreements between airlines you can through check you baggage and get
multiple boarding passes. If separate tickets are involved then each
ticket is a separate contract. The passenger is responsible for getting
off one flight, pick up baggage, get to check in, through security etc. at
the point where one ticket ends and the new one begins. The booking
systems build connections on the "one ticket" assumption. If you have
separate tickets you need to allow extra time.
KGB
<edward.h...@remove.btinternet.com> wrote
Hi
<SNIP>
>Provided it IS all on one ticket then it is all one contract and subject to
>agreements between airlines you can through check you baggage and get
>multiple boarding passes.
All our long haul flights are with members of "OneWorld Alliance"
and I am assuming that as such, our baggage will be checked right
through to the next destination - our initial destination is to Chile;
the legs being Manchester/Heathrow/Madrid/Santiago: with BA/Iberia. I
assume that once our baggage is checked in at Manchester, we won't see
it again until Santiago (hopefully we will see it there!!!!!!).
The final flight of our trip is Hong Kong to Manchester, the route
being Hong Kong/Heathrow/Manchester: with Cathay Pacific/BA and as
both are part of "OneWorld" I am assuming the same thing applies.
>If separate tickets are involved then each
>ticket is a separate contract. The passenger is responsible for getting
>off one flight, pick up baggage, get to check in, through security etc. at
>the point where one ticket ends and the new one begins. The booking
>systems build connections on the "one ticket" assumption. If you have
>separate tickets you need to allow extra time.
My understanding is that any paper tickets are for single internal
flights (eg. Auckland to Wellington) where baggage transfer is not a
factor anyway.
Regards
KGB
Graham Harrison
"KGB (KGB)" <FedUpW...@NoEmailAddre.ss> wrote in message
I would say your assumption about oneWorld is perfectly valid. Just make
sure the staff in Manchester understand your destination is Santiago.
I'd be surprised if you get paper tickets for Auckland/Wellington. That
said I flew Invercargill/Oban (Stewart Island) early this year and had paper
tickets so they do still exist (but then that's a little local airline with
10 seat planes for whom ET is probably irrelevant).
Roland Perry
Wed, 2 Sep 2009, Graham Harrison
<edward.h...@remove.btinternet.com> remarked:
>If separate tickets are involved then each ticket is a separate
>contract. The passenger is responsible for getting off one flight,
>pick up baggage, get to check in, through security etc. at the point
>where one ticket ends and the new one begins.
Even when all the flights are with "Oneworld" - makes a mockery of the
alliance even existing, shirley?
ps Accepting the fact that on entering the USA it's necessary to claim
and recheck bags in any event.
--
Roland Perry
At the gate at EMA 40 minutes after leaving home
20 minutes driving, 7 minutes parking & check-in, 13mins security.
Graham Harrison
Last I heard the BA policy was that it you purchased two tickets from them
and all the flights were on BA (not a codeshare or any other chicanery) each
was to be treated as a separate contract with NO through check in, baggage
etc.
No, it doesn't make a mockery. You bought one ticket you entered into a
contract. You bought a second ticket you entered into a separate contract.
How is the airline supposed to know these two separate contracts are one
contract?
Roland Perry
Sun, 6 Sep 2009, Graham Harrison
<edward.h...@remove.btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>If separate tickets are involved then each ticket is a separate
>>>contract. The passenger is responsible for getting off one flight,
>>>pick up baggage, get to check in, through security etc. at the point
>>>where one ticket ends and the new one begins.
>>
>> Even when all the flights are with "Oneworld" - makes a mockery of
>>the alliance even existing, shirley?
>>
>> ps Accepting the fact that on entering the USA it's necessary to
>>claim and recheck bags in any event.
>Last I heard the BA policy was that it you purchased two tickets from
>them and all the flights were on BA (not a codeshare or any other
>chicanery) each was to be treated as a separate contract with NO
>through check in, baggage etc.
Two tickets on separate occasions, as separate transactions?
>No, it doesn't make a mockery. You bought one ticket you entered into
>a contract. You bought a second ticket you entered into a separate
>contract. How is the airline supposed to know these two separate
>contracts are one contract?
I'm not sure why you are so pre-occupied with the "contract" issue. BA
has clearly made a correlation between the various tickets the OP has
bought [we aren't sure how many "transactions" were involved, as they
were bought through an agent] because of them all appearing on his BA
itinerary page. One of the advantages of e-ticketing and gathering so
much information from travellers is the ability to do that kind of thing
without any effort.
The through-baggage checking is a standard feature of a multi-leg trip
on one particular airline alliance. It's what they are *for*. When I
flew to the USA on KLM+Northwest (although they did lose the bags on the
way out) there was no question that the bags would be transferred at
AMS.
--
Roland Perry
Buddenbrooks
> In message <rvKdndmIntmLJz7X...@bt.com>, at 14:32:23 on Sun,
> 6 Sep 2009, Graham Harrison <edward.h...@remove.btinternet.com>
> remarked:
>
>
> one particular airline alliance. It's what they are *for*. When I flew to
> the USA on KLM+Northwest (although they did lose the bags on the way out)
> there was no question that the bags would be transferred at AMS.
It rather depends what you bought ! I would be very annoyed if I bought a
ticket from London to New York via Schipol and my baggage was sent direct to
New York if I intended a might in Amsterdam.
Roland Perry
Sep 2009, Buddenbrooks <knights...@budweiser.com> remarked:
>> The through-baggage checking is a standard feature of a multi-leg
>>trip on one particular airline alliance. It's what they are *for*.
>>When I flew to the USA on KLM+Northwest (although they did lose the
>>bags on the way out) there was no question that the bags would be
>>transferred at AMS.
>
> It rather depends what you bought ! I would be very annoyed if I
>bought a ticket from London to New York via Schipol and my baggage was
>sent direct to New York if I intended a might in Amsterdam.
A ticket to the USA; and they always ask where you want the bags tagged
through to, anyway. What I'm not sure is how long a layover causes them
to switch the default from "you want them tagged all the way through -
yes?" to "you will want your bags in Amsterdam - yes?"
--
Roland Perry
Graham Harrison
I make a thing about separate tickets being separate contracts because (1)
that is what they are and (2) BA have issued instructions to staff to treat
them as such. I have heard other airlines doing the same thing (BMI for
instance). People don't appreciate the nuance and then get all huffy when
the airline applies "the rules" (mind you despite instructions I am well
aware all airline staff don't always apply "the rules" and do through check
bags etc on separate tickets).
Through checking of baggage happened long before anyone thought of
alliances. In 1978 I flew London/Frankfurt/Delhi (Lufthansa) then on to
Kathmandu on Royal Nepal. LH in London tagged my bag to Kathmandu without
even thinking about it. Alliances are about marketing and conning the
public into believing that they have dreamed up things that nobody ever did
before the alliances came along and that these things are all good.
You also need to understand that through bag tagging and through checkin are
NOT the same thing. Taking my journey to Kathmandu as an example I had to
enter India (much like one has to enter the US to transit these days) and
then go and check in again with RNAC. But the bag was through tagged.
Through checkin depends on airlines linking DCS systems and, again, this was
happening long before alliances and cross alliance arrangements (e.g. BA to
UA) still exist.
As for the OP. Trailfinders use the Galileo reservations system. BA have
a contract with Galileo to receive ALL booking data in a reservation
containing just one BA segment. So, even if Trailfinders are going to
issue separate tickets if there is as little as one BA coupon somewhere in
the journey ALL the flights will find their way into the BA reservations
system (which happens to be Amadeus) and show up in "Manage My Booking".
Roland Perry
>(1) that is what they are and
You haven't clarified what you mean by "separate tickets". Is that every
ticket for every leg is separate, or are all legs booked at the same
time regarded as "one ticket"?
>(2) BA have issued instructions to staff to treat them as such. I
>have heard other airlines doing the same thing (BMI for instance).
>People don't appreciate the nuance and then get all huffy when the
>airline applies "the rules" (mind you despite instructions I am well
>aware all airline staff don't always apply "the rules" and do through
>check bags etc on separate tickets).
We can discuss this further once we understand what you mean by
"separate tickets".
>Through checking of baggage happened long before anyone thought of
>alliances. In 1978 I flew London/Frankfurt/Delhi (Lufthansa) then on
>to Kathmandu on Royal Nepal.
Of course, in the old days the airlines were trying to make their
passengers feel wanted.
>LH in London tagged my bag to Kathmandu without even thinking about it.
>Alliances are about marketing and conning the public into believing
>that they have dreamed up things that nobody ever did before the
>alliances came along and that these things are all good.
I see them more as a way to demonstrate that some of the old practices
will continue, albeit only inside their alliance.
>You also need to understand that through bag tagging and through
>checkin are NOT the same thing.
I did mention the USA issue of having to reclaim bags even though they
are through-tagged. So I do understand the difference between the two
concepts.
>Taking my journey to Kathmandu as an example I had to enter India (much
>like one has to enter the US to transit these days) and then go and
>check in again with RNAC. But the bag was through tagged. Through
>checkin depends on airlines linking DCS systems and, again, this was
>happening long before alliances and cross alliance arrangements (e.g.
>BA to UA) still exist.
>
>As for the OP. Trailfinders use the Galileo reservations system. BA
>have a contract with Galileo to receive ALL booking data in a
>reservation containing just one BA segment. So, even if Trailfinders
>are going to issue separate tickets if there is as little as one BA
>coupon somewhere in the journey ALL the flights will find their way
>into the BA reservations system (which happens to be Amadeus) and show
>up in "Manage My Booking".
That's a useful insight; nevertheless it does demonstrate that the
airline [BA] *is* in possession of all the information required to
through tag/check-in and any failure to do so is either petulance, or
because the agent has booked connections shorter than the allowable
minimum.
--
Roland Perry
Jeff Hacker
"Buddenbrooks" <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
news:C5Som.29414$pa4....@newsfe27.ams2...
with interline agreements in effect between various carriers. Airlines with
interline agreements may or may not be members of the same alliance - you
could, for example, fly an airline like Alaska in the United States, a
member of no alliance, connecting to Air Canada (Star Alliance) in
Vancouver, fly to Toronto and connect to Air France (SkyTeam) onward to
Paris, and then connect to Malev (OneWorld) to Budapest. All of these
carriers have interline agreements with each other and are not members of
the same alliance.
Jeff
Roland Perry
Sep 2009, Jeff Hacker <jha...@usa.net> remarked:
>Through baggage checking is has nothing to do with alliances, but
>rather with interline agreements in effect between various carriers.
>Airlines with interline agreements may or may not be members of the
>same alliance - you could, for example, fly an airline like Alaska in
>the United States, a member of no alliance, connecting to Air Canada
>(Star Alliance) in Vancouver, fly to Toronto and connect to Air France
>(SkyTeam) onward to Paris, and then connect to Malev (OneWorld) to
>Budapest. All of these carriers have interline agreements with each
>other and are not members of the same alliance.
I suppose my original point was that *at the very least* the public
should be able to assume that all carriers within an alliance have an
interlining agreement with each other - just as they have automatic
reciprocal frequent flyer arrangements.
If there are additional agreements outside the alliance, then so much
the better.
--
Roland Perry
KGB
>As for the OP. Trailfinders use the Galileo reservations system. BA have
>a contract with Galileo to receive ALL booking data in a reservation
>containing just one BA segment. So, even if Trailfinders are going to
>issue separate tickets if there is as little as one BA coupon somewhere in
>the journey ALL the flights will find their way into the BA reservations
>system (which happens to be Amadeus) and show up in "Manage My Booking".
Hi
As the OP, the above is indeed what has happened for my forthcoming
RTW flight; the initial domestic flight MAN-LHR is with BA.
I do fly long haul quite regularly and have never had a problem with
bags being checked right through (even with small airlines outside the
alliance) - although I do of course always double check at check-in
(no pun intended).
The only trouble I have ever had with BA's "manage my booking" was an
Antarctic trip last year (Jan 2008) when my outbound route was
Manchester/Heathrow (BA); Heathrow/Buenos Aires (BA); Buenos
Aires/Ushuaia (Aerolineas Argentinas). ALL legs with ALL the above
airlines were shown on the BA "manage my booking" page as one single
E-ticket number.
Due to technical problems, the Heathrow/Buenos Aires leg turned back
an hour into the flight and we had to overnight at Heathrow.
Initially, after returning to Heathrow, BA stated that they would only
get me as far as Buenos Aries the following day as the Buenos
Aries/Ushuaia leg was nothing to do with them and I would have to
contact my travel agent to get re-booked. It was only when I waved
the print-out of the "manage my booking" page at them showing the
Buenos Aries/Ushuaia leg that they relented and told me to go to the
BA help desk in the morning and they would, "sort me out".
The next morning at BA's help desk, I was told "Unfortunately sir, the
Buenos Aires flight has now been cancelled so you will have to fly to
Sao Paulo instead and unfortunately, as BA's computer has just this
very second crashed, we can't even book you on that - come back
tomorrow!!!"After a polite shouting session (although it's hard to
shout through gritted teeth), waving print-outs at them and
desperately trying to appear calm and reasonable so as not to
antagonise them, the computer miraculously came back on line and they
managed to re-route me with Air Iberia, through Madrid - all the way
to Ushuaia via Buenos Aires.
The moral is to always print out as much as possible about your
itinerary from the official airline web sites, so if things go pear
shaped, you at least have a copy of their own information to wave at
them.
This incidentally, is why my currently booked flight to Santiago is
with Air Iberia. I cannot fault the service from them (despite their
reputation) and, because of BA's attitude last year, would prefer NOT
to fly long-haul with BA again - especially as my BA return flights
from Ushuaia to Manchester via Buenos Aries and Heathrow were also a
disaster - "Oh, did nobody tell you that your flight is cancelled,
sir".
Regards
KGB
Roland Perry
2009, KGB <FedUpW...@NoEmailAddre.ss> remarked:
>The next morning at BA's help desk, I was told "Unfortunately sir, the
>Buenos Aires flight has now been cancelled so you will have to fly to
>Sao Paulo instead and unfortunately, as BA's computer has just this
>very second crashed, we can't even book you on that - come back
>tomorrow!!!"After a polite shouting session (although it's hard to
>shout through gritted teeth), waving print-outs at them and
>desperately trying to appear calm and reasonable so as not to
>antagonise them, the computer miraculously came back on line and they
>managed to re-route me with Air Iberia, through Madrid - all the way
>to Ushuaia via Buenos Aires.
>
>The moral is to always print out as much as possible about your
>itinerary from the official airline web sites, so if things go pear
>shaped, you at least have a copy of their own information to wave at
>them.
>
>This incidentally, is why my currently booked flight to Santiago is
>with Air Iberia. I cannot fault the service from them (despite their
>reputation) and, because of BA's attitude last year, would prefer NOT
>to fly long-haul with BA again - especially as my BA return flights
>from Ushuaia to Manchester via Buenos Aries and Heathrow were also a
>disaster - "Oh, did nobody tell you that your flight is cancelled,
>sir".
My impression of BA staff is that they are polite but impotent. All
smiles but can't ever actually do anything (and take that "we are as
much in the dark as you" attitude). Whereas (eg) staff at KLM tend to be
very off-hand (some would say rude), but will eventually sort stuff out.
--
Roland Perry
Graham Harrison
"KGB (KGB)" <FedUpW...@NoEmailAddre.ss> wrote in message
Under IATA resolutions the delivering carrier is responsible for rebooking
in the event that a delay causes a missed flight. You were well within
your rights in asking BA to rebook (and even reroute) you. I remember a
Qantas employee having a similar experience with SAS. Travelling on a
"real" as opposed to "staff" ticket it took her a while to persuade the SAS
staff to rebook her under similar circumstances and quoting the IATA
resolution (she believed) helped immensely.
That said, the fact that you had all the flights showing on one ticket
number is critical to being able to invoke that resolution.
IATA airline tickets have a maximum of 4 flight coupons. This is a
throwback to paper tickets where 4 coupons (plus various audit and agent
coupons) was the practical maximum that carbon paper would allow. In
theory ATB much less ET allow that limit to be lifted (indeed the original
ATB resolutions did allow for 99 coupon tickets and at least one airline
implemented on that basis only to find that all the back office systems had
major problems with anything more than 4 coupons associated with one ticket
number). So we still have the slightly daft situation where each ticket
contains a maximum of 4 flight coupons and if you need to travel more than 5
flights you end up with two ticket numbers "issued in conjunction" where the
fare for the full journey is shown on all the tickets. And, if you look at
fare rules for Round The World Tickets I believe you will find that there is
a maximum number of coupons allowed because ATB tickets ran out of space for
all the ticket numbers "in conjunction".
Note that I have referred to "flight coupons". Lets say I buy a ticket
London/Hong Kong/Auckland/Los Angeles/London. Each of those flights goes
on one flight coupon. If the journey is London/Hong Kong/Auckland/San
Francisco drive down the coast Los Angeles/London I will buy "a ticket" and
it's still only 4 flights but I end up with two ticket numbers "issued in
conjunction". The first ticket will show three "VOID" coupons then LON/HKG
and the second HKG/AKL/SFO/LAX/LON with SFO/LAX being shown as "VOID".
Now, lets say my journey is Newcastle/London/New York/London/Newcastle. I
purchase the London/New York/London and a ticket gets issued. You
therefore have a contract with the airline for that ticket. Later you
discover you want to travel from Newcastle. You can extend the original
ticket to include the whole journey. The airline will calculate the fare
for the new journey, deduct the fare paid, apply any penalties associated
with the change and issue a new ticket (4 flights/4 coupons/1 ticket number)
for the whole journey "in exchange" for the original ticket. The original
ticket will be taken away and you will be given the new one. But let's say
I discover that buying the tickets separately is cheaper. So I buy
NCL/LON/NCL on one ticket (1 ticket number/2 flights/2 coupons) and have a
separate ticket for LON/NYC/LON (1 other ticket number/2 flights/2 coupons).
Each ticket is separate; they are not in conjunction. Each is a separate
contract and, as such, the airline is not obliged to offer the advantages
which would be there such as through check in etc if one ticket had been
issued. Indeed, as I've said before, some airlines instruct their staff to
deliberately treat two tickets as separate transactions and only check as
far as the end of each ticket.
Roland Perry
Mon, 7 Sep 2009, Graham Harrison
<edward.h...@remove.btinternet.com> remarked:
>And, if you look at fare rules for Round The World Tickets I believe
>you will find that there is a maximum number of coupons allowed because
>ATB tickets ran out of space for all the ticket numbers "in conjunction".
It has been alleged that the OP might not have a real RTW ticket, but a
look-alike extracted from various buckets by his travel agent.
>I buy NCL/LON/NCL on one ticket (1 ticket number/2 flights/2 coupons)
>and have a separate ticket for LON/NYC/LON (1 other ticket number/2
>flights/2 coupons). Each ticket is separate; they are not in
>conjunction. Each is a separate contract and, as such, the airline is
>not obliged to offer the advantages which would be there such as
>through check in etc if one ticket had been issued.
Indeed so. They are separate tickets.
> Indeed, as I've said before, some airlines instruct their staff to
>deliberately treat two tickets
Any two tickets, or just ones like your example above
> as separate transactions and only check as far as the end of each
>ticket.
(3rd time of asking...)
--
Roland Perry
Graham Harrison
Please explain what you mean by "any two tickets".
KGB
wrote:
>In message <5_OdndRamcddbDnX...@bt.com>, at 12:42:04 on
>Mon, 7 Sep 2009, Graham Harrison
><edward.h...@remove.btinternet.com> remarked:
>>And, if you look at fare rules for Round The World Tickets I believe
>>you will find that there is a maximum number of coupons allowed because
>>ATB tickets ran out of space for all the ticket numbers "in conjunction".
>
>It has been alleged that the OP might not have a real RTW ticket, but a
>look-alike extracted from various buckets by his travel agent.
Hi
As far as I am aware, my ticket is for a "Oneworld Explorer
round-the-world Fare", the rules of which state that "A maximum of 16
flight and surface segments are permitted for the entire journey" and
also that "Generally, the airline that markets the first segment of
the itinerary is the ticketing carrier".
I think our route works out at 10 or 11 segments, which presumably,
according to the above rules are covered by the single RTW ticket.
However, to complicate matters, there is one leg by "Air Tahiti Nui"
which is NOT a One world carrier; but the Oneworld website states
that:- "Oneworld has teamed up with some airlines who are not members
of the alliance to bring you Global Explorer fares." And that "Qantas
code share flights operated by Air Tahiti Nui, Jetstar, South African
Airways and Vietnam Airlines can also be used."
We started planning this trip a couple of years ago but ran into a
problem in that our itinerary relied on using "Air Tahiti Nui" for one
leg, which at that time, was NOT part of the "Oneworld Alliance" so an
extra ticket would have to be bought for that leg across a chunk of
the Pacific. However, the situation has now been resolved as above,
and we can now use the airline within the RTW ticket price.
I have a great deal of time for our travel agent - Trailfinders, who
we are using. Some years ago we wanted to fly into Los Angeles, drive
up the coast to San Francisco, fly to Albuquerque (New Mexico) for a
week or so, then fly back to the UK from Albuquerque. Most Travel
Agents quoted all sorts of horrendous fares for the internal flight
from San Francisco to Albuquerque - up to several hundred dollars
quoted by a couple of travel agents.
Trailfinders however, said the internal flight would be free of
charge. When I asked "How come?" they explained that they regarded it
as a straightforward open jaw flight, into Los Angeles and out of San
Francisco, breaking our journey home in Albuquerque, which was
allowable with no charge under the open jaw ticket. I pointed out
that a flight from San Francisco to England normally doesn't go
anywhere near New Mexico. They merely said that it is up to them
which way they routed us back to the UK - in this instance they chose
to route us through Albuquerque.
It is nice to get service like that occasionally.
Regards
KGB
Roland Perry
>>>deliberately treat two tickets
>>
>> Any two tickets, or just ones like your example above
>>
>>> as separate transactions and only check as far as the end of each ticket.
>>
>> (3rd time of asking...)
>
That's what I'm asking you!!
You claimed BA would treat two tickets as separate contracts. What if I
buy two BA tickets in one transaction from them... let's say
Manchester-London and London-New York. Is that one or two? What might
make it "one ticket with two legs", and when is it "two tickets". What
breaks it into two - bought at different times, different airlines (even
if/if-not codeshares or alliance partners) and so on.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2009, KGB <FedUpW...@NoEmailAddre.ss> remarked:
> As far as I am aware, my ticket is for a "Oneworld Explorer
>round-the-world Fare", the rules of which state that "A maximum of 16
>flight and surface segments are permitted for the entire journey" and
>also that "Generally, the airline that markets the first segment of
>the itinerary is the ticketing carrier".
Sounds good.
>I think our route works out at 10 or 11 segments, which presumably,
>according to the above rules are covered by the single RTW ticket.
Now all we need is a steer from Graham as to whether he thinks BA's
baggage policy is to regard this as one ticket or eleven!
--
Roland Perry
Graham Harrison
Different ticket numbers NOT "issued in conjunction". Your example MAN/LON
LON/NYC each has a separate ticket number with its' own fare and that (in
the airline view) is therefore two tickets and two contracts.
Graham Harrison
"KGB (KGB)" <FedUpW...@NoEmailAddre.ss> wrote in message
Does that mean you're going through Easter Island and then to New Zealand?
Can I come too?
You confused me earlier by suggesting that a paper ticket might be involved
as well as an electronic. BA/oneWorld Global Explorer fares include (as
you say) a few places where you can use non-oneWorld carriers to fill in a
few gaps in their network. Your ticket number(s) should be in the form
1253640100100/01/02/03 or maybe 1253640100100-03 which indicates they have
been issued "in conjunction". Please, please print out a copy of the ET
receipt from the BA website and CARRY IT WITH YOU. Immigration do
occasionally ask to see "your ticket" as proof that you will be leaving
their country and the paper version is that proof. Both NZ (we were
entering for a 2 month stay) and the US (who seem to do it quite often these
days) asked for mine earlier this year.
I have a lot of time for Trailfinders having both dealt with them on a
professional level (they were a customer of my employer) and as someone who
has bought tickets from them. It does amaze me how many agents (and these
days their websites) fail to read the fare rules properly.
Graham Harrison
Yes, I should have picked that up. All the flights appearing on the
oneWorld Global Explorer ticket will be eligible for through checkin and
baggage interlining (but allow for the buggeration factor in further flung
parts of the world!).
You threw me a minute there Roland. "Baggage Policy" to me is how many
bags you are allowed not what we have been discussing. That's a different
matter entirely.
Roland Perry
Mon, 7 Sep 2009, Graham Harrison
<edward.h...@remove.btinternet.com> remarked:
>All the flights appearing on the oneWorld Global Explorer ticket will
>be eligible for through checkin and baggage interlining
I'm still struggling to understand why that ticket qualifies, and a much
simpler one with just two legs Manchester-London-NY doesn't!
--
Roland Perry
Graham Harrison
Because MAN/LON LON/NYC is two separate tickets. MAN/LON/NYC is one
ticket.
Roland Perry
<edward.h...@remove.btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>All the flights appearing on the oneWorld Global Explorer ticket will
>>>be eligible for through checkin and baggage interlining
>>
>> I'm still struggling to understand why that ticket qualifies, and a
>>much simpler one with just two legs Manchester-London-NY doesn't!
>
>ticket.
But if I buy them in one transaction, why wouldn't be sold to me as the
latter? One ticket two legs.
--
Roland Perry
Graham Harrison
Yes, but because it's sometimes cheaper people DO buy separate tickets
deliberately without realising the implications. In fact, when I was
working and had access to industry discounted tickets and before this became
an issue there were a couple of occasions when I would go across the
Atlantic on "staff" tickets and then use separate "real" tickets for the
domestic segments (I wasn't entitled to staff travel on US domestics). I
well remember one occasion where we were late out of London and I was
sweating a bit whether we would make the connection but a helpful stewardess
moved us forward in the aircraft (so we were off very early) just before
landing and I then apologised to people in the immigration queue and jumped
it so I didn't have to find out what would happen if we missed our APEX type
ticket on the domestic.
The other point is that are travel agents who know this "trick" and use it
to sell passengers cheaper journeys despite the risks. I sometimes wonder
if they know what they're doing. In most GDS you can make one booking for
a passenger and then issue more than one ticket in the way I've described.
With airlines like BA, as I've explained, they still get the whole booking
so it can look like one "ticket" because many people fail to recognise the
difference between "reservation" and "ticket" even though two tickets have
been issued.
Roland Perry
<edward.h...@remove.btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>>>All the flights appearing on the oneWorld Global Explorer ticket
>>>>>will be eligible for through checkin and baggage interlining
>>>>
>>>> I'm still struggling to understand why that ticket qualifies, and a
>>>>much simpler one with just two legs Manchester-London-NY doesn't!
>>>
>>>Because MAN/LON LON/NYC is two separate tickets. MAN/LON/NYC is one
>>>ticket.
>>
>> But if I buy them in one transaction, why wouldn't be sold to me as
>>the latter? One ticket two legs.
>
>deliberately without realising the implications.
We've only ever been talking about people buying a complete itinerary at
the same time.
--
Roland Perry
Graham Harrison
Here's the original post made by the OP that set me off......
"What I mean by that remark, is that it is a "One World" Round the
World ticket using several different airlines within the "Oneworld"
alliance - according to Traifinders, some legs of the trip are
e-tickets, others apparently will be paper tickets."
Note he introduced the idea of separate tickets (you cannot have a ticket
that is part ET/part paper)
Roland Perry
>
>"What I mean by that remark, is that it is a "One World" Round the
>World ticket using several different airlines within the "Oneworld"
>alliance - according to Traifinders, some legs of the trip are
>e-tickets, others apparently will be paper tickets."
>
>Note he introduced the idea of separate tickets (you cannot have a
>ticket that is part ET/part paper)
Apparently he does, and you have agreed that it's one ticket.
--
Roland Perry
Graham Harrison
You're being deliberately obtuse.
Roland Perry
<edward.h...@remove.btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>Here's the original post made by the OP that set me off......
>>>
>>>"What I mean by that remark, is that it is a "One World" Round the
>>>World ticket using several different airlines within the "Oneworld"
>>>alliance - according to Traifinders, some legs of the trip are
>>>e-tickets, others apparently will be paper tickets."
>>>
>>>Note he introduced the idea of separate tickets (you cannot have a
>>>ticket that is part ET/part paper)
>>
>> Apparently he does, and you have agreed that it's one ticket.
>
Please tell which part of my earlier statement isn't right:
Have you agreed that his ticket is eligible for through checkin and
baggage interlining?
Do you accept it's a mixture of electronic and paper?
Something else?
--
Roland Perry