Same Flight Number - Second Leg Upgrade
 

Just returned after flying NW 784, LAS-MSP-LGA, one flight number but change of plane in MSP. F was totally full on the first leg and wide open on the second. I was told by the GA in MSP that it was "all or nothing" as far as upgrades were concerned. If you weren't upgraded for the first leg, you could not be for the second. She went on to state that normally an upgrade would not be allowed, but she would process it as an exception to the rule. Since this GA had told me ten minutes before that F was totally sold out (as it turned out, four people were upgraded and five seats were vacant in F), I take what she said with a grain of salt. Two questions...

1. What is NW policy on upgrading on the second leg of a connecting flight with one flight number?

2. Why would a gate agent say F was "totally sold out," when there were nine empty seats 45 minutes before flight time?

I don't have the answer, but I wish that NWA would take a different outlook on these "continuing" flights. Yes it may be the same equipment, but you must deplane, usually with the same layover time and I'm sure this has been covered before.....No additional segment or 500 mile minimum. With the current segment qualifying rules I try to avoid "continuing flights". The "all or none" upgrade policy makes no sense at all.

This one actually involved the change of planes. As you noted, it also resulted in diminished miles. Add to this the fact that NW changed my original routing because of schedule changes. I agree with you in that I will try to avoid "continuing flights" in the future.

Maybe she was accidentally looking at your LAS-MSP leg on her screen.

This is the policy.

I think the reason is that the computer sees the itin as a single flight making it difficult to change class of service half-way through. I once flew EWR-DTW-NRT-PVG "direct," and wasn't eligible for upgrade on the EWR-DTW leg.

For flights where the equipment doesn't change, I think the computer may even want you in the same _seat_ for both legs. For exmaple, if rows 1-3 are full on LAS-MSP and rows 4-6 are full on MSP-LGA, you might not get upgraded even if the other seats are all empty.

This may also have been why the GA said FC was "sold out." While there may have been empty seats for the MSP-LGA portion, the fact that it was full on the LAS-MSP portion made it full for anyone travelling both legs.

Bottom line: avoid "direct" flights!

It is true they have that "all or nothing" policy for upgrades on through flights.

The thing is since you're on the through flight with the same flight number, your upgrade comes out of the R bucket for LAS-LGA, not the R bucket for MSP-LGA. I know it doesn't quite make sense, but that's the way it is programmed.

I avoid same flight number flights like a plague!

Is there any way to get around this policy? For example, by booking each segment individually using the multi-city booking feature?

No use. After you have ticketed the ticket, the reservation system will tie in the 2 flights as a "single" flight.

When I come across this situation, I'll fly through another city or pick a later flight with a different flight number.

I don't know if that "all or nothing" is policy, but I have a Silver friend who has requested and received a gate upgrade for MSP-MCI after not getting EWR-MSP (she was a same flight number EWR-MCI). I think the key is to ask at the connecting gate because you won't automatically be on the upgrade wait list.

I could be wrong and it was DTW, but oh well...

Though I totally against Congress getting anymore into the Airline business, somebody should pass a law getting rid of these "direct" flights that are not direct. It is a connection. They know it is a connection, we know, everybody knows. So stop fooling us and screwing us.

(Other airlines do this as well)

The best way to avoid the problem (because I don't see the airlines fixing it any time soon) is to book each segment individually on nwa.com. That'll get OLCI to print you out two boarding passes for the "direct" flight and eligible for upgrades independently on both flights.

If you want to sell it to your congressperson, point out that the gov't would get more money, since an honest connection requires more segment taxes than a "direct" flight.

That's what I inquired about in post #7. Infinity couldn't have disagreed any more:

Who's right?

No Stress, They are "direct" flights, however, they are not "non-stop". However, you are given the mileage as though they are "non-stop" since if you are booked on a "direct" flight (two flights with the same flight number) or a "non-stop" (one flight that does not stop) you only get the mileage as the crow flies, not as the plane flies.

Technically, you would say they are direct flights with a stop, and quite often even with a connection. Since 9 times out or 10 you get an "unexpected change of equipment".

You know that. I know that. The airlines know that. Probably _most_ FTers know that (although we seem to get a question about "direct" flights at least once a month on the NW board).

But 99.9% of the population has no clue that "direct" doesn't mean "nonstop." Do a search for "direct flight" on google news, and every single article involves a nonstop. Sure "nonstops" are technically "direct," too (just like squares are technically rectangles). But "direct" flights should not involve changing planes, let alone all the shenanigans with seat assignments, upgrades, reduced mileage/segments, etc. I've even seen folks on a "direct" flight misconnect to their onward leg. There's nothing quite like watching a hapless GA try to explain to an irate mother why he didn't hold the plane for her family of 5 who just sprinted from MSP's F12 to C27 as part of their "direct" (as advertised) flight. :rolleyes:

Other than saving a few pennies in taxes, "direct" flights with stops do not benefit pax. There was a time when you could at least stay on the plane during the stopover, such as my first solo flight, when at age 8 I flew TW's "direct" MLI-IAD flight via STL. But they probably wouldn't let you stay on the plane these days even if you had the good fortune to be on the rare direct flight where they actually used the same equipment for both legs. And some "direct" flights don't even leave that possibilty open, since they use different types for different legs (e.g., CO's EWR-OGG "direct," which swaps a 757 for a 767 in IAH).

The terminology is flat-out misleading and should be abolished. A flight these days is either nonstop or connecting.

"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. :td: :td:

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

Glad to hear it.