DLATL777

Reminded of this Policy, curious if DL has ever re-thought it. Take below as an example:

On DL 66 from ATL-ZRH this past Thursday. DL 66 also has a domestic leg from DFW. Due to WX in Atlanta this Thursday, DL66 (Domestic Portion) was delayed 2 3/4 hours and DL 66 (International Portion) left on-time and thus over an hour before the domestic leg ever arrived. Does it not seem ridiculous to anyone else that the domestic portion of a flight with the same # (presumably allowing a 1-stop booking option for those from DFW) can leave hours before the "exact same flight" can arrive for the international leg?
We all know its regular practice, but experiencing it first hand was a bit frustrating.

As it were, the FA I spoke to said that over 15 people were on that flight for DL66 and we left on-time, explaining why we had some empty seats upfront at the last minute. Has anyone ever gotten anywhere with DL on this policy?

My assumption is not, and thankfully, it has not ever affected me directly.

3Cforme

The policy that says the international segment should depart on time? That's a good policy, for reasons as simple as trying to avoid cascading delays throughout the system.

'Through' flights with a change of gauge are really non-sensical, but legal. With a change in aircraft type the experienced flyer readily sees the ruse.

channa

Might want to complain to the DOT on this one. This is an area where regulation is needed.

If they want to market it as a through flight, they should be required to delay the second portion until the first one arrives + connection time.

If such a regulation were put into place, the airlines would stop this through flight nonsense.

GUWonder

This is the result of the marketing gimmickry used by airlines.

TMOliver

A couple of other examples in the DL skeds....

DL#98 comes from FLL to JFK, then changes gate and a/c to become #98 to BUD.

DL #63 comes from PRG to ATL, then changes gates and a/c to continue to the West Coast, IIRC.

mersk862

I wish airlines would just stop and do away with this practice. If it's the same flight number, make it the same plane, and don't allow a change of planes unless there's a good reason to do so (as in unscheduled mechanical problems).

Factotum

I agree. DL isn't the only airline with this issue (I haven't flown UA in a few years but they always used to do the same thing on a lot of the international flights through ORD), but it amazes me that the airlines are allowed to make people think they've booked a "direct" flight when they really haven't. People book such flights in order not to be subject to the vagaries of making a connection, when in reality, that simply is not true. Either "direct" flights that require a change of aircraft need to be banned altogether, or the airlines should be required to hold the continuing flight until the inbound flight has arrived and through passengers have been given a reasonable amount of time to make the "connection" and board. Keeping the same flight number with an intermediate stop is meant to afford certain benefits to both airline and passenger, and the airlines need to uphold their end of the bargain.

fti

Correct on all points.

zman

Why would you think the policy is diffrerent for the same flight number vs a different flight number. A late inbound could result in a missed connection.

fti

Same flight number should mean it is impossible to miss the connection. Whether same flight number is same plane or not is irrelevant. That flight number should not be able to depart until that same flight number arrives into said airport with a reasonable MCT.

troyintn

I agree 100%. Since I can get shorted on miles etc. It also is marketed similiar to a direct.

TheMadBrewer

I had something similar happen on NW years ago -- it was domestic, but a plane change and the outbound departed before the inbound arrived. It also was a non obvious route, like LAX-DTW-JAX or some such. I probably was the only "thru' passenger. Trying to explain it the agent:

"I missed my connection to Flt 123"

"What was your arriving flight?"

"Flight 123"

"No, not the outbound, the inbound..."

"Flight 123"

and so on. Like being trapped in an Abbott & Costello routine.

That is also were I leaned (the hard way) about great circle miles vs flight miles.

I agree -- if it has the same flight number it should be the same plane. Anything else is misleading and deceptive.

DLATL777

I agree here and with some of the other responses. If the flight is going to allow bookings as a "through" flight, you need to treat it that way. In an extreme example, all of us know that DL recently decided to change the DL 16/17 from ATL-LAX-SYD to just LAX-SYD, no longer allowing through bookings from ATL unless it is technically booked as 2 different flights (even if you are on the 77L both legs). Albeit this was most likely done for different reasons.

CaptainMiles

This must present an interesting, confusing and dangerous situation for Air Traffic Control. I can imagine that it may not be easy to sort out two "Delta 66" flying in the Atlanta airspace, one arriving and the other departing. If they are both ever talking to the same controller it will be a mess. "Delta 66, turn left heading 230".

N808DE

What if there are no pax on the domestic portion connecting to the international? Should they delay 200+ intl pax and thus delay the return flight, simply because it is one flight number?