I think what rubio means is: IRL it's perfectly possible for passengers to book the individual flights separately, so the impossibility of selling as a connection is mostly an annoyant technicality as passengers can still connect there (it might be different as far as compensation for delays/cancellations is concerned, but these don't apply here).
Yeah, sure, you can connect through a foreign country by taking two different tickets. But seriously, who does that?
Not only this is unlikely to be advantageous in terms of price (I made some tests with Air Canada for the US and Aerolineas Argentinas for Chile), but you loose a lot of other things. If a flight is delayed or cancelled, you can't have the second one refunded, you should plan ahead because your luggage will not be transferred, you might need an otherwise-unnecessary visa, and so on. In the end, I can't see any single advantage doing this.
In addition, would you imagine any airline basing a fair share on their business model on this?
In the end, I would definitely vote for something being done about this. And if you want to depict the possibility of doing this, fine, but a significant ORS penalty should be added.
Yeah, sure, you can connect through a foreign country by taking two different tickets. But seriously, who does that?
Not only this is unlikely to be advantageous in terms of price (I made some tests with Air Canada for the US and Aerolineas Argentinas for Chile), but you loose a lot of other things. If a flight is delayed or cancelled, you can't have the second one refunded, you should plan ahead because your luggage will not be transferred, you might need an otherwise-unnecessary visa, and so on. In the end, I can't see any single advantage doing this.
In addition, would you imagine any airline basing a fair share on their business model on this?
In the end, I would definitely vote for something being done about this. And if you want to depict the possibility of doing this, fine, but a significant ORS penalty should be added.
And that, my friend, would mean that some countries in AS would be left out without a domestic connections, because there are countries with airports where domestic airports are not connection-enabled. For example, French Guayana. Or Suriname. or Guayana. Or Liberia or Guinea. Or many others.
And that, my friend, would mean that some countries in AS would be left out without a domestic connections, because there are countries with airports where domestic airports are not connection-enabled. For example, French Guayana. Or Suriname. or Guayana. Or Liberia or Guinea. Or many others.
Why? Assuming that the solution chosen is an ORS penalty, that would not change much for these countries. All foreign airlines would equally that penalty.
In the end, as long as no domestic carrier exists, the situation would be pretty much unchanged.
But for countries with a connection-enabled airport, this would make a clear difference.
What I mean is that routes violating the eighth freedom should never have (or at least hardly) a better rating that routes operated by a national carrier – an example would be Chile, for which it is very easy for Argentinian carriers to make a hub in Mendoza and basically capture all the domestic traffic, when it is not allowed at all in the real world.
And choosing, I would for sure prefer to have as a policy that at least one airport per market should be connection enabled rather than a simulation violating the eighth freedom.
AS doesn't have any airline supported by the governments in order to make sure the market has an airline, so a completely ban might not be an idea solution. You will have airports in certain market served by no one.
Maybe you can put airlines which use international connection for domestic market in a worse condition, e.g. more connection time (some countries require immigration process even for intl-intl connection, like U.S.).
You can't enable a connection available airport per market because it's not realistic either. Not all the countries have that kind of airports in the real life.