SCs, same flight number

[Deleted member 29185]

I just did an AFF search and an old closed thread stated that on QF same flight number multi sectors (eg QF2305 CNS-ROK with TSV and MKY stops) may receive SCs for 3 legs. Does anyone have updated info on this?

 

[ajw373]

I just did an AFF search and an old closed thread stated that on QF same flight number multi sectors (eg QF2305 CNS-ROK with TSV and MKY stops) may receive SCs for 3 legs. Does anyone have updated info on this?

Not normally the case. When the flight same number it is SC between the two cities you are fly not where the a/c goes through. Eg fly QF1 SYD-DXB-LHR you get status credits and points for SYD-LHR. But change to QF9 you get SYD-DXB and DXB-LHR. Same too with upgrades. Same flight number the upgrade request is valid for the whole flight not individual sectors.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Not normally the case. When the flight same number it is SC between the two cities you are fly not where the a/c goes through. Eg fly QF1 SYD-DXB-LHR you get status credits and points for SYD-LHR. But change to QF9 you get SYD-DXB and DXB-LHR. Same too with upgrades. Same flight number the upgrade request is valid for the whole flight not individual sectors.

That was my interpretation as well, but from this old thread, it appear in 2012 there were exceptions.......I was just wondering if there were any more recent examples.

 

[equus]

With the track record in QF IT system improvements over the years, I doubt anything much has changed with respect to the underlying cause of the previous exceptions, and suspect much the same would apply.

Back in those days (2012 etc.) whilst the rule talked about "same Flight Number", the it would appear that the actual real determinant was the actual segments in the ticket. If the pax was ticketed on a single segment, SC for that - so SYD-LHR on QF1. Using different flights (e.g. QF9) guaranteed the need for different segments (to house the different flight numbers), so always credited the individual legs e.g. SYD-DXB plus DXB-LHR.

Having 2 separate segments ticketed with the same number was no issue - and would credit the two separately as well. The reason that it didn't happen much, was that ticketing them that way also priced them individually - so mostly more expensive. In some cases, there was no difference, but it needed a TA or someone (or some reason, like adding a segment to an existing booking, potentially using a different fare bucket due to availability at the time), for this to happen.

IMHO, the same would apply now - including the gotchas relating to pricing.

 

[RichardMEL]

This would make sense to me.

SC's awarded on origin/destination of flights, as defined by your booking

so if the flight goes BNE-ROK-TSV (or whatever) and you book BNE-TSV but the flight itself stops in ROK, with the same flight number(through flight) then you'd only get BNE-TSV credit, however if you booked BNE-ROK, and ROK-TSV on the same dates it's still 2 segments, you'd get 2 boarding passes etc and get the credit even if the flight number is the same.

In that respect it wouldn't be a "loophole" per se, even though technically the intent would be to capture that someone booking 2 segments on a through flight would equal the "whole" - I suspect married pairs stuff would kill this kind of thing off these days.

 

[ajw373]

That was my interpretation as well, but from this old thread, it appear in 2012 there were exceptions.......I was just wondering if there were any more recent examples.

Yeah but if you read JohnK's answer he booked the flights separately. So whilst same flight number, they were booked and treated as individual flights. Thats not quite the same as what you seemed to be asking. It is not really an exception. Bottom line book A to B you get credits A to B even if it goes through C. But book A to B and B to C they are different sectors.

 

[JohnK]

The above would be correct. Flights with same flight number would need to be on separate itineraries to earn additional SCs.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Thanks for the clarification. It was a case of me skim reading without taking enough notice of the details!