A "direct" flight....with two stops.
 

I've recently had the exciting adventure of taking a 15-hour flight on Ural airlines. You'd think 15 hours is enough to get from Australia to either Asia or the West Coast, but no, all I was doing was crossing Russia, from Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky to Moscow.

The ticket was purchased for me by a friend because tickets within Russia are difficult to buy from the U.S. She did ask, however, whether we had a direct flight; we were told we had a direct flight to Yekaterinburg, where we would transfer to another direct flight to Moscow. In reality, the "direct" flight to Yekaterinburg had two stops, in Irkutsk and Vladivostok. They still insisted it was a direct flight because it was the same plane, even though they made us get off the plane each time, then get back on it about an hour later, making a 9-hour trip take 15 hours. This is absolutely absurd, and also the first time I've encountered something like this in many decades of flying. Although I did notice an advertisement in the airport for "direct" flights to Japan and Korea "through" Vladivostok, so it seems to be a trend that Russian airlines are doing.

Is this as bizarre as it seems to me? Has anyone else run into this kind of thing? Is this a new trend of airlines in a particular area of the world? Should I complain about the deceptive practices of the agent who sold us the ticket?

(I"m not even going to get into the literally drunk, swearing people sitting behind us when they literally announced "no drinking is allowed onboard except what we serve"). Seriously, this was the most bizarre experience ever.

But hey, if mileage running were still a thing and everything weren't revenue based, this would absolutely give you your money's worth, heh.

A 'direct flight' is generally the same plane and flight number but can include intermediate stops. You still see them on occasion in many different places, particularly if logistics require a refueling stop (example- common for really long haul flights out of higher elevation airports like Mexico City to have to refuel because of physics reasons) and the stop may or may not be treated as a valid place to get on/off the plane.

Many people confuse 'direct flight' with 'non-stop' which is the specific language you need for a flight that is actually non-stop.

"Direct" flights are not necessarily nonstop. And they are not necessarily on a single aircraft, either. All that is required per industry convention is that there is a single flight number from origin to destination.

U.S. carriers have direct flights that make en-route stops -- and some that require a change of aircraft, too.

Sounds like part travel industry language & part Russian Aviation wonderment. A direct flight can have stops and even change planes but the flight numbers stay the same. Nonstop is more literal so you get what you'd expect.

Direct = same flight number. Most airlines, including USA carriers, do this. If there's an aircraft change, you an miss your "non connection." With most FF programs, having the same flight number means that you earn fewer miles too.

Hmm. It appears that this is an actual thing other people have heard of; I have never heard of such a thing in almost twenty years of flying. I can see the benefits to such a flight if refueling is needed, but we were on what would otherwise be a 9 hour trip (in fact, the flight there was a 9 hour trip) so it could be made without refueling. So it just seems really bizarre as to why they would do this - what's the math on their end that makes this a benefit for the airline?

This was super common 20 years ago, and remains pretty common, so it might just be something you were blind to. (Southwest does it a ton, for example.) You might want to Google direct v. Nonstop. You're on a Direct flight from a to c with a stop in b. They can sell tickets from a to b and b to c, in addition to a to c. It appears you just didn't realize this exists.

Yes this is not at all unusual.

A direct fight option may appear higher in searches than connecting flights with separate flight numbers.

Would it help with crew scheduling by creating easier/larger on-duty time blocks they can use to build a weekly-monthly time plan?

In the days before fuel-efficient jets (1930s-1950s), it wasn't unusual for flights to make multiple stops while retaining their "direct" designation. And even in the 1970s, I flew a United flight to Chicago that originated at ORF, flew some 25 miles to PHF, and then continued on to ORD. Yes, a rarity today but still out there.

Hmm. Well, I guess I have learned something new. And I guess in terms of where we were going, we were indeed continually flying in the same direction, just making stops, but it was so ridiculously exhausting. I guess it's a little bit like it being cheaper to buy a flight with multiple connections than a direct flight - it was cheaper for them to put us on this plane with lots of people only going partway, since we bought the ticket about a month before the trip and not a lot of options were left.

(I am still recovering from the jetlag and I don't think I ever want to see an airport again because I've seen eight in the past 24 hours).

Did you ever received some sort booking confirmation and itinerary providing routing, departure/arrival time? It would have been mentioned there. Even with the departure/arrival time, you could have seen the time flown and get an idea of what you where getting.

Yeah, we did, and it said "two stops" in very, very small print somewhere on the side. I guess based on the time of arrival/departure we should have figured it out, but we were flying through about 9 time zones so I looked at the time and didn't think too much about it; I guess I should have looked more carefully (and, again, a friend was buying the ticket for both of us).

I remember flights in the 1970s on Mohawk (aka Slowhawk) or Allegheny (aka Agony) that became USAir where a direct flight of 300 miles would make three stops at tiny airports along the way.

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!

On our recent flight through Russia we had to deplane with all our stuff; we were even issued two boarding passes so that we could switch seats at one of our stops. I didn't mind the first stop too much - it was a super nice airport and I got wifi for a couple hours - but the second stop was in the middle of the night, at 3am, where they put us on a bus, took us to some basement waiting room for about 30 minutes (they literally wouldn't let us go to the rest of the airport), then took us back to the plane, where we sat for 45 minutes while other people getting on at that airport got on. Overall we had a 2 hour stop at that airport but they uselessly made us get off for 2 hours.

Also, I don't think it was a security thing - we took all our stuff, and didn't have to go through security in any of the airport; maybe they did search the plane, but I have a hard time imagining that an airline that does nothing about an entire row of completely drunk, noisy people is going to be particularly worried about doing things properly, like searching the plane.

Then I had an actual transfer onto a different plane with a different flight number.

So while I see your point about trains that make stops, if they make you get off with all your stuff, then get back on, it's not quite the same as a train where you can sit peacefully.