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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_flight

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.