Never ceases to amaze me how many people confuse "direct" and "nonstop" flights and think they mean the exact same thing. Is this just an instance where so many people misuse the term where it's self-perpetuating and even more people continue to do it?

Yes, and in distance based mileage earning, you will earn less miles because they will credit you the "direct' mileage. Insult t injury if you thought it was non-stop. I.e. if you flew a direct flight JFK-LAX with a stop in MIA, it would earn the direct mileage of 2475 rather than 3432 actual flight miles.

And though FTers generally know this distinction, I 100% agree it is confusing to most people.

My sense though is that, at the moment at least, it's less of a North American phenomenon and more of a European (Asian? Russian?) one. I fly in North America at least a dozen times a year and have never encountered this, but in Russia it seems to be all over the advertisements.

Plus, as daveland mentions, insult to injury indeed...Ural airlines states they have about 20 partners on their webpage, but I can't credit these miles to any of these airlines - Ural doesn't show up as an option. And I am likely never flying Ural airlines again, so....*sigh*

Again, I'm shocked that you fly this much and have never even heard of or encountered a direct (not a nonstop) flight. They're very, very common on Southwest throughout the US. Also, in Alaska on AS, they're also quite common and referred to as "milk run" flights.

"Go Directly to Jail. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200."

I think to most people and in common English usage, "direct" means straight there without anything intervening.

Not at all; "direct" flights are common with USA airlines, and can involve stops and even "change of gauge", and domestic + international flights (widebody aircraft to narrowbody or vice versa). UA operates the notorious "island hopper" UA 154, which flies Honolulu, Majuro, Kwajalein, Kosrae, Pohnpei, Chuuk, and Guam.

Nonstop means nonstop; among airlines, through and direct do not mean nonstop.

I see DL offering many change of gauge direct flights, often from a domestic connecting flight from a major airport (or another DL hub) to an international hub on a mainline narrow body aircraft followed by an international segment on a wide body aircraft. Sometimes the loss of status miles (and status segments if one is counting those) can be substantial. You can have further issues with seat assignments and upgrades when there are direct flights involved.

That is because the airlines chose to use the wrong word, and are trying to re-define "direct".
It is no less shady than busses in China saying they are "zhi da" (translated "direct") when they stop multiple times before.

Yeah, if I didn't go on this forum and ask I wouldn't have learned about the difference. Which I suppose is in the airlines' interest, because if they can sell you a "direct" flight when you think it's nonstop it's less hassle for them, probably. Honestly, I don't know how I've never encountered this before - perhaps it's because I fly mostly between major airports, many of which are Delta hubs? I'm not sure.

Still, with fuel probably not an issue, at least within North America, I'm not sure I understand why airlines do this. It seems like an excellent way to piss off customers.

It's not to piss anyone off, it's just a dumb hangover from the 'olden days'

Would you call a train from A to B which has a few stops in between a 'direct' train? I most certainly would, for one.

Then why not an airplane? It's the same thing, it's just a transportation vehicle bringing you from A to B, usually non-stop but sometimes with some stops in between.

These flights are very common in Brazil, for example, where sometimes you have a non-stop option and a direct option with 2 or 3 stops at some airports between cities.
In Europe itself, these kinds of flights have become very rare. A famous one is BA from london city to JFK which has to stop in Shannon to refuel. But that's one of the few I can think of. The low cost carriers offer only point-to-point non stop flights, and the mainline carriers offer flights with a transfer point in their hub. I do not know of intra-european airlines who operate flights with stops, where you can book either part of the way or all of the way.

In the past, when we went to brazil the aircraft would go to Sao Paulo, then we had to wait a while and then it would continue on to GIG. I believe it was Varig, or maybe BA, I was quite little back then. Such 'tag ons' still occur a lot to these days but less than they used to.

It doesn't matter how much an airline annoys a customer who simply buys the cheapest ticket.

BTW, in the case of trains, the passenger sits comfortably during the intermediate stops. On airplanes, often everyone must deplane for security, even if there's no aircraft change.

I think that on many flights you don't actually need to leave the plane. Apparently russia is different which is annoying. But can you leave your carryons there or do you need to take everything with you?

I remember we could stay on the plane on the lhr - gru - gig flights.

IME especially on international flights, you must deplane with all of your belongings. Part of the point of the security search is to make sure that no one left anything behind. In some airports, such as NRT, everyone also must go through airport security too.

I had heard about this but I got my first experience just last April. I was on the Delta flight JFK to LAX which was also a flight from JFK to Sydney, (can't remember the flight number, 6pm-ish one).

Anyway, funny thing was that they actually had to make an announcement after several people asked at what time the plane was going to land in Australia!