I am not happy. On August 15, I flew AMS-LAX with a CHANGE OF PLANES at IAH. My AMS-IAH boarding pass indicated that I would earn 5013 miles while the IAH-LAX boarding pass showed that I would earn 1379 miles for a total of 6392 miles. When the miles posted, I was only given 5579 miles as if I had flown AMS-LAX nonstop simply because Continental decided to give both the AMS-IAH flight and the IAH-LAX flight the same number: 47. To add insult to injury, I am only 797 miles away from becoming a 2008 Silver Elite and here I was cheated out of 813 actual flight miles!

I called the OnePass desk today expecting a sympathetic ear.... something along the lines of "I'm sorry, we'll immediately post the actual mileage that you flew".... but NO.... the agent informed me that it has been the policy of Continental for two or three years to not credit actual flight miles on this particular route simply because the flight numbers are the same.

I have never asked CO Insider a question before, but I would like to ask him now to explain how anyone can really think this is fair?

I think next time I fly from AMS-LAX, I will just fly KLM nonstop and save myself 5 hours of time wasted in the air and on the ground in Houston with Continental.
I'll get the same number of miles anyway.

Standard practice--it happens quite a bit, and it doesn't matter if it has a change of planes or not.
This originates from true direct flights, back before transcon nonstops were possible.
And while you may have been screwed out of some miles, you did avoid paying some portions of the taxes associated with connecting and segments, since it retained the same flight number.

I also got cheated by this. I flew EWR-EZE-EWR with a stop in IAH and while the mileage calculator on the CO website says I should have received 12,954 EQMs but in fact I only received 10,580 EQMs.

Just because it's standard practice doesn't make it right.

Indeed. And the average consumer has no idea they can actually misconnect to the second half of their direct flight number.

I think this practice really should be banned at all airlines.

I don't know if what I'm about to say holds true for Continental, but someone can tell us if it does or not.

There is a very simple way around this, at least on Northwest. Book the flights as *separate* flights in your itinerary. That means, instead of buying AMS-LAX with a stopover in IAH, book the flights using 'multiple destinations' as AMS-IAH and IAH-LAX. Even though they are the same flight number, NW credits the flights separately. Continental probably does the same but I'm not sure. Note that booking this way means you lose the tax savings you get by booking it as a direct flight. That amounts to just a few bucks usually.

Sorry that you got bit in the butt by this one. It's been around for years and every airline does it. Experienced FT'ers and other flyers know about this and specifically avoid it unless the miles are not that important.

-RM

Well, obviously, you can overcome this by not booking the same flight numbers when making the reservation...just take a different flight from LAX-IAH and then connect to the flight to Amsterdam you originally wanted to be on...just come in a little earlier.

I just looked LAX-AMS and it gave me multiple options, including the one flight number and others with different flights from IAH...you just picked the one that would screw you out of the miles, unfortunately.

Instead of just 47 all the way through, you could have taken 47 and switched in Houston to 1095 for example for the same base fare price ...just look down that page...

6392 vs 5579 miles for the exact same trip...it's really weird, but clearly displayed nonetheless

I never spoke on the ethics of it.
Personally, I think I had it happen with UA on a SIN run, but the calculated difference was only in the tens of miles....and if I really did care about it, I could have booked a different routing and not traveled with my friend.

While I may think it isn't right--I just think it is useless to complain about it here, and stupid to complain about it most elsewhere (staring down consumerist.com).
As I said before, it is a legacy of times past. Unless it is changed at a governmental level, I don't see any airline listening about it or having any sympathy. It is legal, it is how routes are filed, and it has limited/minimal positive aspects for both the flier (save a few bucks in taxes) and airline (give out a few less miles).

Unfortunately, I do this segment a few times a year. KLM is definitely the way to go.

Another option to try is UA via ORD or IAD. Rarely I'll go on LH via FRA.

The upside for the airline is not the fewer miles awarded, rather the marketing effects:

- A flight that appears to be non-stop to a naive customer;
- A flight that gets display priority in GDS systems since it is "direct";
- A flight that results in additional booking because of these deceptive practices.

It's sad that the airlines have no intent of offering the flights as true "direct" service, and in many cases, even have a change of equipment at the stopping point, so there is no way it would have been the same aircraft anyway.

The only way they're going to stop doing this is if the government bans the practice, or regulates it thoroughly.

You bring up good points--and I disagree with the practice of flying direct with different equipment. However, I think WN may actually use the direct flights in a legitimate fashion, having flown them in years past.

But, while everyone talks about a misunderstanding and someone booking it thinking they are on a nonstop--MOST of the times I have seen this, it does show that there is a connection.
I just now did a pair of test searches on CO and WN sites for direct flights that were not nonstop.
Here is how CO puts it for CO47 "1 Stop. Time on the ground in Houston, TX (IAH - Intercontinental) is 1 hour 30 minutes. Change Planes. Equipment changes in Houston, TX (IAH - Intercontinental) to a Boeing 757-300."
Seems pretty clear to me, and it is in the same yellow text bar as connecting flight options.
WN lists the flight as a single flight number, and then is pretty clear about it. The flight #s and stops columns of a HOU-SLC lookup "141.....1 1384/1461.....PHX/1 101.....1 776/3026.....LAS/1"

To me, it looks like CO and WN in this case aren't being misleading. Imagine it like a limited warranty--you know it is limited because it says so, and you have to look at the details to see what limits it. A direct flight (again, from my looking up) states that there is a stop, but you might have to spend a few minutes and look at the location and length of the stop, along with the miles difference (that was very clear on CO).

You should have booked the ticket as multiple destination. AMS-IAH, IAH-LAX. CO47 connecting to CO47. It should price out as $5 more, but you earn all your miles.

You lost less than 1,000 miles. Those booking IAH-PEK on CO89/88 or SAT/IAH-GUM on CO7/6 could lose a whole lot more miles. Same deal with those flying CLE-PVG on CO87/86 when it starts in 2009.

Just consider lesson learned.

I see there are many Continental apologists here... so no need for CO Insider to respond to this insanity unless he wants to correct the situation.

Yes, airlines CAN legally do it (pull a fast one by giving two completely different flights the same number). So it started in 1934 or whenever... I wasn't born yesterday... I remember actual direct flights (where you sat on the plane while new passengers boarded in the stopover city). But this AMS-IAH-LAX thing was a situation where I did not just get off the plane and walk over to the next gate. I had to transfer to a different terminal, go through security again, wait to be boarded again as if I was getting on a new flight. Is it fair that I went through all this extra work and five extra hours of flight/ground time for nothing? I've already given my answer.... Next time, I fly KLM nonstop for the same amount of miles and a hell of a lot less hassle.

On the direct flight, one will not be eligible for a domestic upgrade. The flight will be treated like a full international flight. Separating the segments will solve this issue.

I have seen this here in ATL. CO has the ATL-TLV run booked as a direct flight and people seem to think it is true, as if the 735 didn't give it away.