MilesBuzz! - Are there times when a connection gets you fewer miles than a nonstop?

Yesterday I was rebooked ORD-DEN-PHX instead of ORD-PHX. Due to the way the routing is, this only netted me an extra 50 miles. Now there are times when rerouting is a significant boost in the mileage bonus. However, can anyone think of a time when going xxx-yyy-zzz is actually fewer miles than xxx-zzz?

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8830/4.2.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

If it is marketed as a direct flight (single flight number, even with a change of plane) then you will often get fewer miles. CO7 operates SAT-IAH-NRT-GUM and fying all the way gets you something like 80% of the miles versus the actual routing. CO 50/51 flying EZE-IAH-EWR-FRA and back is similar.

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8830/4.2.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

If it is marketed as a direct flight (single flight number, even with a change of plane) then you will often get fewer miles. CO7 operates SAT-IAH-NRT-GUM and fying all the way gets you something like 80% of the miles versus the actual routing. CO 50/51 flying EZE-IAH-EWR-FRA and back is similar.

True, but that doesn't technically answer the OP's question, which refers to a connection versus a non-stop. I'd be hard-pressed to think of a time when a connection gets you fewer miles, except when you are re-routed from an airline that offers a 500-mile minimum to one that doesn't.

To wit:

Airline A offers a 500-mile minimum. You were scheduled to fly BWI-JFK non-stop for a total of 500 miles. The flight is cancelled and you are re-routed onto Airline B, which offers actual flight miles. Your new routing is BWI-PHL-JFK. Total miles would be less than 500.

But of course a true FT'er would figure out a way to get credit for both the original flight and the re-routed flight, so maybe that's not the best example. :D

Not common in the U.S. but if there are fares where 100% miles are not earned and if the connecting flight earns less than 100% while the non-stop does is one possible scenario.

... can anyone think of a time when going xxx-yyy-zzz is actually fewer miles than xxx-zzz?If the true mileages xxx-yyy, yyy-zzz, and xxx-zzz are used, it's not possible.

There's a theorem called the triangle inequality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_inequality), which states that the distance from xxx to yyy plus the distance from yyy to zzz is always greater than or equal to the distance from xxx to zzz. This holds for distances in the Euclidean plane as well as for distances on the surfaces of a sphere or oblate spheroid in Euclidean space.

I don't think its possible.

There's a theorem called the triangle inequality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_inequality), which states that the distance from xxx to yyy plus the distance from yyy to zzz is always greater than or equal to the distance from xxx to zzz. This holds for distances in the Euclidean plane as well as for distances on the surfaces of a sphere or oblate spheroid in Euclidean space.Nerd! :eek:

However, can anyone think of a time when going xxx-yyy-zzz is actually fewer miles than xxx-zzz?Perhaps if the routing for xxx-zzz were significantly impacted by closed airspace or ETOPS considerations, but I can't think of any real-world examples.

ETA: Not that the airline would ever be likely to give true mileage instead of the straight-line amount.

JFK-SFO

is only about 3 miles shorter than

JFK-SLC-SFO

depending which calculator you use.

If the true mileages xxx-yyy, yyy-zzz, and xxx-zzz are used, it's not possible.

There's a theorem called the triangle inequality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_inequality), which states that the distance from xxx to yyy plus the distance from yyy to zzz is always greater than or equal to the distance from xxx to zzz. This holds for distances in the Euclidean plane as well as for distances on the surfaces of a sphere or oblate spheroid in Euclidean space.
Yeah, but it's just a theory. We're looking for facts here! :p

If the true mileages xxx-yyy, yyy-zzz, and xxx-zzz are used, it's not possible.

There's a theorem called the triangle inequality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_inequality), which states that the distance from xxx to yyy plus the distance from yyy to zzz is always greater than or equal to the distance from xxx to zzz. This holds for distances in the Euclidean plane as well as for distances on the surfaces of a sphere or oblate spheroid in Euclidean space.

This is also known by a simpler concept - a straight line is the shortest distance between 2 points.

To answer the OP, if there were a special bonus on NS flights, the connections might generate fewer miles than the NS.

Sort of on topic...

This oddity doesn't apply to miles earned, but it was recently pointed out here that AA sticker upgrades (which are based on flight mileage), it costs 4 stickers to upgrade DFW-BOS, but only 3 to upgrade both legs DFW-STL-BOS.

This works because AA allows a 50 miles per segment grace.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/american-aadvantage/963836-ug-dfw-bos-3-stickers-instead-4-a.html

depending which calculator you use.

I think this is the only way it could happen. For some reason the airline had indexed two different calculators for the non-stop and the connection.

The only example I imagine is premium travel. I don't have exact city pairs to hand, but the scenario would be:

1. Non-stop journey in biz / first class

Versus

2. Connecting journey with one segment in biz / first, the additional segment on a one-class jet (where, presumably, the ticket would book and accrue as full-fare Y)

Not common in the U.S. but if there are fares where 100% miles are not earned and if the connecting flight earns less than 100% while the non-stop does is one possible scenario.

The class of service discrepancy (or booking channel discrepancy, if it's CO) is the only way this could happen.

If the true mileages xxx-yyy, yyy-zzz, and xxx-zzz are used, it's not possible.

There's a theorem called the triangle inequality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_inequality), which states that the distance from xxx to yyy plus the distance from yyy to zzz is always greater than or equal to the distance from xxx to zzz. This holds for distances in the Euclidean plane as well as for distances on the surfaces of a sphere or oblate spheroid in Euclidean space.

Another nerd beat me to it. I was going to use the same argument. Of course, this is in terms of mileage based on flying, not factoring any mileage bonuses.

As the focus of the thread is on mileage credit differences in routings, it's more aptly placed in our MilesBuzz forum. Ocn Vw 1K, Moderator, TravelBuzz.

Unless you're traversing an Einsteinian geodesic wormhole, of course. Forget supersonic transport, this is the next quantum leap in travel. :p

In the real world, no, except for a potential few miles from rounding errors on different calculators.

Of all the threads I've posted asking questions this one may have had my favorite answers yet. Thank you for the education to everyone who posted with their math.

Could this work:

NS - 100.6 miles - rounds to 101
Connection 50.3 + 50.3 = 50+50=100

It's actually easy if the connections are operated by partner airlines.

Example:

UA 1P flies ORD-LHR on UA metal. 7,906 miles.

The same pax gets his ORD-LHR flight canceled and reroutes to ORD-CPH-LHR on SAS. 4,271 + 609 = 4,880 miles.

Happened to me last year. It was a pure weather situation in Chicago...I was proactively asking UA to make this voluntary reroute which I do not believe they were actually obligated to do. I had carry-on only, a reasonably high fare (M), 1P status, and a kind phone agent willing to work on my ticket while I ran through ORD to the train to T5.

From what I've gathered in the past, getting things like elite bonuses credited later happens only when INVOL is noted on the record. (I wasn't about to ask for that!) Most of those LHR pax got stuck in Chicago for a day. I got out that night. I happily "paid" 3k RDM to do it. (EQM's posted normally.)

...From what I've gathered in the past, getting things like elite bonuses credited later happens only when INVOL is noted on the record. (I wasn't about to ask for that!)...At least on AA, the key seems to be to note "Give ORC" (for Original Routing Credit) in the record. That avoids any need to comment about the reason for the reroute. I've never encountered an agent who wasn't willing to enter that term. You still have to contact Customer Service later to get the credit,which won't post automatically (not too long after, before the record is purged from the system) but when CS sees "ORC," the process is as foolproof as it can be.

At least on AA, the key seems to be to note "Give ORC" (for Original Routing Credit) in the record. That avoids any need to comment about the reason for the reroute. I've never encountered an agent who wasn't willing to enter that term. You still have to contact Customer Service later to get the credit,which won't post automatically (not too long after, before the record is purged from the system) but when CS sees "ORC," the process is as foolproof as it can be.

Cool...that's a good tip to know. ^ (I think I read the "INVOL" bit on the UA board...)