Do Through flights have to be advertised as such?
 

Last week I flew EWR>ABQ on AA. Flight at time of booking was not advertised as a "through flight". (all receipts, etc. show only EWR>ABQ, no mention of a stop.)

Got to EWR to discover it's going through DFW. I check with gate agent and am told that we'll deplane and get on a new plane. (Though a delay made us miss that plane altogether.)

I contacted AA upon my return and was told that they have through flights all the time, and that "there is no planned change of aircraft and the flight number remains the same." First of all how do they not advertise this? Second, since there was a change of plane, why is it still a "through flight" and not a "layover"?

I booked the flight I did (and paid) specifically because it was direct.

Advice? Is any compensation warranted?

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry: BlackBerry8530/5.0.0.601 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/417)

Unless the flight was advertised as "nonstop," there was no misrepresentation, and no compensation is due. "Direct" flights are simply flights with a single flight number; they can have one or more intermediate stops, and some even have a change of aircraft.

If you really thought the flight was nonstop, didn't the total travel time give you pause? A nonstop flight from EWR to ABQ should only take about five hours.

Do Through flights have to be advertised as such?
 

Direct is not the same as nonstop. Many flights are operated this way - even with a change in plane.

In the future, make sure you book your flights nonstop if that's what you want. You're unlikely to get any compensation for this.

Total travel time was 6.5 hrs., so no that didn't give me much pause (especially with the time change). I note that now the website does list it as a layover flights .xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Airlines market direct flights for several reasons, among them the knowledge that some people will assume that direct means the same as non-stop. There's always some indication that the flight is a connecting flight, but it's not always immediately obvious unless you know what to look for.

Ultimately, any compensation depends on how late you arrived at your destination. How many hours late was AA able to get you to ABQ?

Sadly some FTers seem to misunderstand the term.

Thanks for the info. Guess I've learned my lesson. I was fortunate to be the LAST person to get a seat on the last flight out that night, so I was only a few hours late (the others were put up in a hotel). With that good luck and considering I apparently was a sucker for not 100% understanding direct vs. non-stop, I guess compensation isn't due but I won't make that mistake again!

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry: BlackBerry8530/5.0.0.601 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/417)

"I guess compensation isn't due but I won't make that mistake again!"

Well, it's not as if you had a whole lot of choice. According to the ABQ Airport Wikipedia entry, no airline offers nonstop service between EWR and ABQ. In fact, the only nonstop service from any NYC-area airport to ABQ is JetBlue's service from JFK.

I meant for any flight anywhere...

You're unlikely to get any compensation for this.http://t.cn/zQRkl47

It isn't at all unusual for flights anywhere in the world to stop along the way and for the airline to describe these as "direct", and in some cases for passengers to have to deplane while cleaning and refuelling takes place at an intermediate stop on very long haul journeys (LON-SYD) for example). In these cases the actual plane always continues unless there is a mechanical issue.

However people from elsewhere in the world are often taken by surprise by the US-based airlines who routinely schedule equipment changes at an intermediate stop, so the only thing that continues is the flight number. I know that on international flights this is sometimes the only way to comply with fifth freedom regulations without using over-large planes for one segment of the journey, but what is the justification for doing it on domestics? On the face of it it seems designed to deliberately mislead would-be passengers.

The reason I have often read is that "direct" flights show up higher on the reservation systems that TAs use.

I don't like the mileage accrual for direct flights. (None of use do. :D )

US flies a direct BWI-SEA (Via PHX) Miles accrued are the same as a BWI-SEA non-stop.

I call foul on this definition of "direct". If I have to get off the plane, it's not direct anymore. If I'm sitting in the terminal waiting for the plane to be cleaned or a new plane to be brought in, then how is that different than if I had to walk to another gate and connect to a different flight. If the plane lands, some people get off, some different people get on, and I got to stay in my seat throughout, that's still direct.

Think about buses or trains. Would any bus or train company market their route as direct if it involves leaving the bus or train and then reboarding that vehicle or a different vehicle? At least I hope none of them describe direct like that.

If you reboard the same plane, you cannot misconnect due to flight delay on your inbound segment, but if you have to go to another plane, you could easily misconnect on your "direct" flight if your inbound segment is late.

The use of "direct" to describe flights with stops and plane changes is misleading, since most people say "direct" when they mean "non-stop".