FlyerTalk Forums - Same flight number for outbound and return

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)

- Continental OnePass (Pre-Merger) (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/continental-onepass-pre-merger-488/)

- - Same flight number for outbound and return (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/continental-onepass-pre-merger/1298965-same-flight-number-outbound-return.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mherdeg (Post 17757587)

Hmm, dunno about IAH-SNA-EWR, but I do see the direct flight IAH-CLE-EWR that nets an extra 191 miles for an elite member and is a permitted component of an -iah-ewr- routing: LAX-IAH-CLE-EWR-BWI is allowed on a UA K fare (but not the equivalent CO fare with -IAH-EWR- routing).

Okay, out of sheer curiosity I went back to check whether the SNA routing is bookable. In the five hours since I last checked, the fare went up $20 and I can't find the SNA routing anywhere (it only showed up one day, and I forgot which day :( ).

However, I did find a number of XXX-IAH-(TPA)-EWR-BWI routings, with IAH-TPA-EWR on CO1552 -- and confirmed that those routings are bookable on .bomb. So I'm inclined to think that the SNA routing would be legit if I could find it on ITA.

(Interesting side point -- "direct" flights of that sort seem to screw up ITA's cents-per-mile functionality. Matrix shows the correct mileage for the fare, but uses the direct mileage internally to calculate cpm.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by QBK (Post 17757782)

However, I did find a number of XXX-IAH-(TPA)-EWR-BWI routings, with IAH-TPA-EWR on CO1552 -- and confirmed that those routings are bookable on .bomb. So I'm inclined to think that the SNA routing would be legit if I could find it on ITA.

(Interesting side point -- "direct" flights of that sort seem to screw up ITA's cents-per-mile functionality. Matrix shows the correct mileage for the fare, but uses the direct mileage internally to calculate cpm.)

Hey, an extra 385 miles, not bad! I'd believe that the direct flight counts as IAH-EWR for routing purposes. Back when all the inexpensive SEA-LAX fares required direct travel, a few SEA-PDX-LAX flights with a single flight number were valid choices for those cheap trips.

(I had no idea about http://matrix.itasoftware.com/?showPricePerMile=true ! Makes sense that they'd use the direct mileage, since some carriers will only credit you the direct mileage.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by QBK (Post 17757782)

(Interesting side point -- "direct" flights of that sort seem to screw up ITA's cents-per-mile functionality. Matrix shows the correct mileage for the fare, but uses the direct mileage internally to calculate cpm.)

Well, sounds like it would be the correct cpm if you were booking this with AA, which awards direct/1-stop mileage based on the direct route from origin to destination. I guess ITA can't account for each FFP's peculiarities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mherdeg (Post 17757893)

(I had no idea about http://matrix.itasoftware.com/?showPricePerMile=true ! Makes sense that they'd use the direct mileage, since some carriers will only credit you the direct mileage.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ijgordon (Post 17757914)

Mmm, good point on different airlines <==> different rules. Anyway, it makes the ITA game more fun (adding showPricePerMile=true is a great way to waste several hours optimizing fares you'll never actually book... :D )

Quote:

Originally Posted by QBK (Post 17757950)

Lately I've had trouble getting ITA to show me excessive-stop itineraries which the fare rules allow.

For example, back in the day sea:: o:ua,co+ => cdg would readily return SEA-DEN-ORD-YUL-CDG, which is a valid routing on the cheapest SEA-CDG fare. (Or SEA-IAH-TPA-EWR-CDG, which is allowed because of the single-flight-number reason identified here.)

These days, you need to specify sea:: ua ua ua => cdg to get the same results.