JerseyGuy From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1102 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2840 times:
I have been reading recently on this board that airlines use the same flight number but require a change of planes on "direct" flights. To me this is deceptive and annoying. If I have to change planes its a connection.
When most people think of direct or 1 stop flights they think of just a stop where you can stay on the plane
Ciccone From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 42 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2822 times:
I know CO does this. CO 6 NRT-IAH-SAT. The NRT-IAH is on a 777 and the IAH-SAT is on a 737.
AlexPorter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2782 times:
UA has a TUS-PHX-IAD-FRA route, where an A320 operates TUS-PHX-IAD, and I think a B767 operates IAD-FRA. IMO these are annoying for me, mainly because airlines don't give extra miles for connecting on direct flights.
Ckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 4650 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2751 times:
AA used to have one of its roundtrips between ORD and LHR continue to/originate from SEA, using an MD-80 each way between ORD and SEA.
The idea was that it would show up as a direct flight, whereas UA would show a connection at ORD for service bewteen LHR and SEA.
In theory, going from LHR to SEA would require leaving the aircraft at ORD, even if the 777 continued to SEA. Passengers would have to go through immigration and customs, and AA would have to move the aircraft from Terminal 5 (international arrivals) to Terminal 3 (domestic arrivals and all departures).
Timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6465 posts, RR: 8 Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2688 times:
Dunno if they still do it, but in the past UA had one flight number continuing over two plane changes-- i.e. three different aircraft.
N501US From United States of America, joined May 2005, 211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2662 times:
DL (ComAir) runs STL - PBI (5127?) on a CRJ with a one stop at CVG. You must change planes at CVG to another CRJ. A tad bit confusing since the boarding pass reads STL - PBI with no mention of changing planes or at what time the flight leaves CVG.
Fools and thieves are well disguised in the temple and the marketplace.....
MANmatt From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 969 posts, RR: 6 Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2653 times:
A lot of airlines do this with their transatlantic crossings. When looking at UA arrivals in to LHR it shows some of their flights coming from places such as LAS, HNL, PDX and SAN. Also, with US their flight PHL-MAN is shown as coming from LAX at the mo, although they have used flight #196 for LAS-PHL and more recently MCO-PHL. Kind of confusing to people who think they are going directly to a place, but they have to change aircraft somewhere. Are pax re-issued boarding passes when say arriving from MAN on US and connecting on to LAX, because both aircraft wouldn't have the same seat numbers on? Unless US send the 333 to LAX as well?
Lincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8 Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2504 times:
The situation is referred to as "Change of Gauge" and is probably more common than it should be.
In my experience, it's most likely to happen with international flights where the airline wishes to advertise direct service. As an example from about 3 years ago with United:
I was flying a 747-400 ORD-LAX (UA0125 or UA0100, IIRC); that particular aircraft was to continue on to Sydney as UA0825 (for example, I don't think that's the right flight number). UA0825 originated out of JFK as a 757, so it would be 757-200 JFK-LAX, 747-400 LAX-SYD.
I don't know why they didn't just run the 744 JFK-LAX-SYD, maybe it was equipment positioning, maybe maintenance needs to check out the 744 before sending it to SYD, but for whatever reason the aircraft goes (went) ORD-LAX-SYD, but the flight went JFK-LAX-SYD.
As an even more annoying example that I couldn't figure out from the same time period:
Northwest has two DC9-30 flights:
NW0001 is ORD-DTW-YYZ (IIRC)
NW0002 is YYZ-DTW-ORD...
Same aircraft types, both flights arrive and depart DTW at about the same time. Aircraft A operates NW0001's ORD-DTW leg and NW0002's DTW-ORD leg; Aircraft B operates NW0002's YYZ-DTW leg and NW0001's DTW-YYZ leg.
This makes even less sense to me because it was the same equipment type, and on the days I flew it (DTW-ORD-DTW), the two aircraft were departing from opposite ends of the gargantuan concourse. I'll never know why DTW would want to unload all of the through pax and bags drive them across the airport and then load them back on the same model aircraft.
Lincoln
CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2495 times:
Quoting JerseyGuy (Thread starter): I have been reading recently on this board that airlines use the same flight number but require a change of planes on "direct" flights. To me this is deceptive and annoying. If I have to change planes its a connection.
When most people think of direct or 1 stop flights they think of just a stop where you can stay on the plane
Opinions?
I agree, it simply causes confusion among pax......its especially difficult for unexperienced travellers or pax travelling where language is an issue. The same flight number/change of aircraft thing happened more in the past, pre mega hubs, and Pan AM and TWA were big offenders.......flying a narrowbody into JFK and then larger aircraft overseas, and then sometimes back to smaller aircraft for tag on flights to other destinations......and the flight would have one flight number.
In my opinion, if you have to get off the aircraft, go to another gate, and then continue on a different airplane, its two seperate flights and the service should not be marketed as direct or one-stop, it is a connection and the flight numbers should change.
EWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5521 posts, RR: 58 Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2461 times:
Quoting JerseyGuy (Thread starter): I have been reading recently on this board that airlines use the same flight number but require a change of planes on "direct" flights. To me this is deceptive and annoying. If I have to change planes its a connection.
When most people think of direct or 1 stop flights they think of just a stop where you can stay on the plane
...among other things.
Non-stop means just that...non stop, no stopping until you reach your destination.
Direct can imply making a connection or changing planes, as long as the flight number doesn't change. A change in flight number automatically assumes a connection. You are correct in stating that a change of planes is a connection, but it is still a "direct" means of getting you to your destination.
It can be annoying and, yes, confusing, but still another meaning to the word "direct".
For example, if you have a non-stop to London from Los Angeles, it would mean just that...non stop. LAX-LHR without stopping. A direct flight has many meanings. It may mean stopping in CVG - no plane change or stopping in ORD - plane change. As long as the flight number doesn't change, it can be marketed as direct. If it is a non stop it usually marketed as such, but a change in planes or making a stop with the flight number staying the same is marketed as direct.
It is similar to how people use the word layover, instead of stopover, when describing their time between flights at an airport. It should be best said stopover or connection. A layover is when you actually spend time at your destination. As cabin crew we layover in Tulsa, but may have a stopover in Houston in getting there, for example.
Yet another "to-may-to", "to-mah-to" way of saying things in the airline business to keep you on your toes.
When all else fails...enquire, find out what the flight does. Does it stop? Does it make a connection? Do we get a crew change? Do we change aircraft?
While the airline industry is far from perfect, it just helps to be proactive in your travels.
JerseyGuy From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2443 times:
Does a direct flight always follow the most direct route. Like if you had a flight EWR-LAX. The most direct route would allow for a stop over in lets say DEN but I would think that ATL is out of the way. Its almost like the new defination of "direct flight" is a marketing ploy primarily.
BTW Dictionary.com defines a direct flight as "a flight with one or more intermediate stops but no change of aircraft"
It defines connection as "A scheduled run providing continuing service between means of transportation: missed my connection in Atlanta. "
QB737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2407 times:
As a travel agent, I refuse to sell "disguised" Connecting flights for many reasons. First, I will spend too much time trying to explain this to a customer, they always come back to complain about it anyway. Plus, they get less miles from their frequent flyers programs and it diminishes my segment count in my GDS. I need those extra segments in order to get my bonus from them. The combined flights will always be displayed as a connection in addition to the pseudo direct flight anyway. I wish there would be rules against this as this is misleading advertising.
Lincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2366 times:
Quoting QB737 (Reply 12): In the airline industry, direct means same aircraft with or without stops.
To be semantic, I beleive that direct means same flight number with or without stops; therefore "Change of Gauge" flights can be described as "direct".
Lincoln
CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
Timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6465 posts, RR: 8 Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2292 times:
Apparently they "can" be described as direct, if "can" means "no one will throw you in jail for doing it". But does the airline treat a same-flight-number connection any different than any other connection? Is it possible to miss the connection? Or if the first leg is a couple hours late, will they hold the second leg?
Petmbro From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 260 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2187 times:
Although annoying, this practice does make sense. I remember UA ran I think SEA-IAD-some place in Europe, and from Europe to IAD was on either a 744 or a 772, and then the same flight continued to SEA on a 752. From an airline's perspective, why waste a 744/772 sized plane on a route that can be done using a smaller, more profitable plane?
"don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining!" - Judge Judy
IAHcsr From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3308 posts, RR: 46 Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2134 times:
Quoting Timz (Reply 15): Is it possible to miss the connection? Or if the first leg is a couple hours late, will they hold the second leg?
If it means holding the second segment more then a few minutes, most likely not. With only a few exceptions (at least with CO at IAH) there are rarely more then 5-6 "thru" pax (if that many) continuing onward. Why delay the other 130 pax on the second segment for 5... Plus causing down-line delays for the aircraft at final destination.
JerseyGuy From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2077 times:
Quoting IAHcsr (Reply 18): If it means holding the second segment more then a few minutes, most likely not. With only a few exceptions (at least with CO at IAH) there are rarely more then 5-6 "thru" pax (if that many) continuing onward. Why delay the other 130 pax on the second segment for 5... Plus causing down-line delays for the aircraft at final destination.
So assuming that the pax knows that the "direct" flight is "a change of gauge" and requires a change of planes, what benifit is it to the pax?
The plane still leaves without them if the first segment is late. It appears that this is only benefical to the airline. More chance that a pax will use their airline to travel between point A to point B because they think they don't have to change planes. Airline awards less mileage and less segments.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1102 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 969 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 1893 posts, 
From France, joined Sep 2004, 1718 posts, 
From Norway, joined Dec 2005, 2686 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
