"Direct" has a place in he universe.

Most flights out of SJC are "direct" flights somewhere.

That said, every single time, and I mean EVERY single time, there's a change of plane involved. I cannot believe that's involuntary, but rather, planning.

Also, as stories have shown, because of using different equipment, it's been possible to miss your "direct" connection if your inbound is late.

"Direct" is a fine thing. However, NW seems to broadly abuse it more than any other airline I've seen.

Steve

What is fine about it? What place does it have?
There's only three reasons for this deliberate airline subterfuge:
1) Misleading the masses into thinking it's only one flight, thus increasing the number of unhappy customers
2) Underpaying the passengers their FF mileage
3) Underpaying the government their fees
If there is any actual reason for this nefarious practice, I would like to hear it. The last few "direct" flights I have been on have all involved different aircraft, flight crews, terminals, etc. It's hard to make any assumption that this isn't just a marketing scam.

A woman and I both got upgrades at the gate for BWI-DTW in January. I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the gate agent told her that someone had her seat on the continuing leg and she'd have to move back to coach on flight out of DTW.

To play devil's advocate... (my real opinions are above)

I think it's primarily a marketing thing. "Direct" flights will come up in CRSes and online travel sites like nwa.com and travelocity before honest connecting flights because (1) they are "direct" (which is supposed to be somehow better), and (2) they usually are a dollar or two cheaper because of the taxes. In theory that helps airlines like NWA sell tickets in markets like NYC where they don't have nonstops to places like California or Vegas.

But there may be regulatory reasons airlines like them, too. This is pure speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if the airlines can squeeze out more landing rights at certain airports by offering "direct" service to places other than MSP/DTW/MEM (and now IND/MKE). Perhaps somebody with more knoweldge could elaborate (or tell me I'm completely wrong on that).

I think direct flights are fine but only in one circumstances: that barring a mechanical problem, the aircraft operating all segments remains the same. There is something to be said for remaining on board the same aircraft as it enters and exits the hub airport. It certainly can be more convenient for the traveler. But direct flights with equipment changes are totally unacceptable. If it's not a same-plane flight, it shouldn't bear the misleading label direct; instead it should be designated as a connecting flight.

themicah-
Thanks for the enlightenment. While I still am not crazy about them, at least I understand their reason for being. I still would like to see the designation dropped completely for all airlines, though.

cAII-
If one really stayed on the same plane, I guess that would be a small benefit, but I fly a fair amount, and the last time I had a "direct" flight that you stayed on the same plane, well, I was just a little boy, PanAm was the main International carrier, and their flights to Asia from the U.S. all stopped over in Hawaii overnight so that the crew and passangers could rest.

Perhaps there are "actual" direct flights still out there and I have just missed them. All the ones I have had are of the marketing scam variety. Just last week I had to really rush to make the connection of my "direct" flight (which of course shorted me the connecting mileage I would have otherwise gotten), so that might be why I'm a little peeved about the practice.

What bothers me about this is that NW changed my routing to place me on this "direct" flight. What I probably should have done was call NW as soon as I discovered it, and requested a different routing, if allowed. It still amazes me that NW cannot alter their computer software to distinguish between the two segments of a "direct" flight. C'mon, there are computer programmers and engineers out there who could accomplish this in a heartbeat!

I know somebody who few MLI-DTW-ELM "direct" and used the same Saab 340 for both legs. I don't know, however, if she was forced to deplane during the stopover. My guess is that she probably didn't get to stay on board. I helped her book the reservation, though, and she only had one seat assignment the whole way (there was no way to select separate seats for the two legs).

There are. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that the majority of WN's flights are of the (true) direct variety. And other carriers still offer them as well, although the occasions of an equipment and/or gate change seem to be far too frequent.

cAAl: Unless they've changed the system fairly recently, I have booked segments on nwa.com (to avoid the direct flight, e.g., same flight #) and have gotten separate upgrades.

Are you listening, NW?

This change in marketing can be done unilaterally. It does not require an act of congress.

Any "advantage" in tricking customers into thinking NW offers non-stops that it really does not, or coming up first in a Computer Reservations System (CRS), is more than offset by increased customer dissatisfaction.

The next step is to convince CRS operators to stop listing "direct" flights ahead of connecting flights.

Glad to hear it.