Originally Posted by
Andy33
It isn't at all unusual for flights anywhere in the world to stop along the way and for the airline to describe these as "direct", and in some cases for passengers to have to deplane while cleaning and refuelling takes place at an intermediate stop on very long haul journeys (LON-SYD) for example). In these cases the actual plane always continues unless there is a mechanical issue.
However people from elsewhere in the world are often taken by surprise by the US-based airlines who routinely schedule equipment changes at an intermediate stop, so the only thing that continues is the flight number. I know that on international flights this is sometimes the only way to comply with fifth freedom regulations without using over-large planes for one segment of the journey, but what is the justification for doing it on domestics? On the face of it it seems designed to deliberately mislead would-be passengers.
I call foul on this definition of "direct". If I have to get off the plane, it's not direct anymore. If I'm sitting in the terminal waiting for the plane to be cleaned or a new plane to be brought in, then how is that different than if I had to walk to another gate and connect to a different flight. If the plane lands, some people get off, some different people get on, and I got to stay in my seat throughout, that's still direct.
Think about buses or trains. Would any bus or train company market their route as direct if it involves leaving the bus or train and then reboarding that vehicle or a different vehicle? At least I hope none of them describe direct like that.