On Wednesday the NYTimes has an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/04/business/04point.html?ex=1272859200&en=e3b80da3389ddaa9&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) (registration required) about the new proliferation of nonstop flights. Good so far, right?
But then the article (and many of the "experts" it quotes) goes on to use "nonstop" and "direct" interchangeably. If even all these experts use "direct" to refer to "nonstop" flights, it's high time the airlines did away with their "multistop direct flight" nonsense!!!
bursa
May 3, 05, 11:26 pm
I like how the 717 is referred to as a "big plane". It mentions how FL plans to kick butt with the 717: well, it's not like other carriers don't have the Embraer 70 seat jets (US Airways Express) or MD80s/732 with only slightly more seats.
:) IMHO, the RJs are more comfortable than a FL 717, but of course YX 717 beats most a/c hands down!
And yes, the direct vs nonstop is confusing. Especially on WN, where the website makes it nearly impossible to find out where the stop on the "direct" flight is. Gah!
Yay for MCO! Delta Connection to almost every Southeastern airport- woohoo! And Hartford to Columbus- wow, that's definitely not a hub flight!
D'oh! I looked for it, but didn't see it. (insert theoretical blushing smiley here)
Note that IM-not-so-HO my posting is better, however, since (1) I have a pithier (if slightly more confusing) title, and (2) my link is a permanent link that won't die in 7 days. ;)
whlinder
May 4, 05, 9:55 am
This movement could turn out to be one of the biggest shifts in the industry since it first adopted the hub-and-spoke approach after deregulation in the late 1970's. Already, major airlines have added 134 nonstop routes in the last year, and flights promise to be cheaper than they have been in the past.
Even with the shift, direct flights make up only 10.7 percent of domestic routes, but that proportion is up from 9.3 percent in 2003, according to Back Aviation Solutions, an industry consulting group. Still, airline executives hope this trend will lure more people onto airplanes, and if this brings in more profitable business, then airlines are likely to put on even more direct flights.
Maybe I can't read, but I have read through this a couple of times now and can't understand how nonstop flights don't make up 100% of domestic routes. Every flight is a nonstop flight, from somewhere to somewhere else! Do they mean 10.7% of domestic city pairs, 10.7% of flights are not to/from an airline's hub, or what? :confused:
themicah
May 4, 05, 11:14 am
Maybe I can't read, but I have read through this a couple of times now and can't understand how nonstop flights don't make up 100% of domestic routes. Every flight is a nonstop flight, from somewhere to somewhere else! Do they mean 10.7% of domestic city pairs, 10.7% of flights are not to/from an airline's hub, or what? :confused:
I'd assume they either mean 10.7% of flights are not to/from the airline's hub, OR they mean that 10.7% of tickets purchased are for nonstop flights. The latter seems more likely, since defining a hub can be a challenge.
djk7
May 4, 05, 11:26 am
Maybe I can't read, but I have read through this a couple of times now and can't understand how nonstop flights don't make up 100% of domestic routes. Every flight is a nonstop flight, from somewhere to somewhere else! Do they mean 10.7% of domestic city pairs, 10.7% of flights are not to/from an airline's hub, or what? :confused:
As I understand it, they are making a distinction between "routes", which would be where a customer wants to travel from/to, and "flights", which where a particular plane flies from from/to.
So even though no airline probably flies a "flight" from Toledo to Sacramento, that is still a "route" that is published in the timetable, and obviously would require at least one connection.
tcook052
May 4, 05, 11:47 am
But then the article (and many of the "experts" it quotes) goes on to use "nonstop" and "direct" interchangeably. If even all these experts use "direct" to refer to "nonstop" flights, it's high time the airlines did away with their "multistop direct flight" nonsense!!!
As a TA, I hear clients and even colleagues day in, day out use the terms on a frequent basis, sometimes even combining them, such as "this is a direct, nonstop flight". :mad: Like fingernails on a chalkboard....
SDF_Traveler
May 4, 05, 12:39 pm
On Wednesday the NYTimes has an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/04/business/04point.html?ex=1272859200&en=e3b80da3389ddaa9&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) (registration required) about the new proliferation of nonstop flights. Good so far, right?
But then the article (and many of the "experts" it quotes) goes on to use "nonstop" and "direct" interchangeably. If even all these experts use "direct" to refer to "nonstop" flights, it's high time the airlines did away with their "multistop direct flight" nonsense!!!
From reading the article, my impression is they're refering to non-stop flights between two "non-hub" cities. As an example, NWA has started numerous non-stop flights from both IND and MKE to popular destinations; previously, customers had to connect at DTW, MEM, or MSP to reach these destinations.
Delta Airlines I believe added a LEX-DCA non-stop using one of it's commuter carriers. In Louisville, Delta operates SDF-MCO non-stop using commuter ERJs and just recently announced/luanched SDF-TPA non-stop service. In the past, one would have to fly SDF-ATL-TPA or SDF-CVG-TPA to get to TPA on DL. About a year ago, WN added non-stop service on SDF-LAS, a popular leisure route which compliments WN's non-stop SDF-PHX service. The flights are popular with O/D traffic but also allow pax to travel onward to LAX, SAN, etc.
As much as I dislike WN, they've done amazing things for the Louisville market. SDF-MCO and SDF-TPA are non-stop, non-hub routes which are also operated by WN. If it wasn't for WN and RJ's, I don't think DL would have started non-stop SDF-TPA service.
As more RJ's are delivered, I wouldn't be surpised to see DL offer non-stop service to additional cities from SDF. If they could offer non-stop RJ service to Panama City, FL, they'd have a winner as a large # of people from Louisville vacation in Panama City and specifically nearby Destin.
I think there's other niche "non-stop" routes that can be offered by Delta Connection, CO Express, NW Airlink, AA Eagle, etc. from Louisville and I expect to see more as additional RJ's are delivered. I also expect to see other medium sized cities to get more non-stop RJ links.
Lastly, while technically a "hub" or a "gateway", I believe DL would be sucessful if they could run an RJ service from SDF-JFK. This would give additional non-stop options to the NYC market. I personally would use it for trips into NYC now that JFK has the AirTrain; alternatively there is COx to EWR non-stop, but these flights are typically delayed & the evening COx departure to EWR is on the DOT's list of most delayed flights. The second use of the route would be to connect to DL's JFK European route network PLUS routes of other Intl carriers, including SkyTeam. As an example, If I could do SDF-JFK non-stop and connect to Malev's JFK-BUD non-stop that would allow fast, one connection service to Budapest as an example. A non-stop to JFK would open up numerous international destinations with one connection service with the wide variety of international carriers.
Replace SDF with other medium sized cities east of the Mississippi that don't have non-stop service to JFK and I feel non-stop RJ flights from certain cities would be winners.