i hate the term "direct"
 

perhaps wrong forum, but (small chance) i would like to convince everyone that direct is a misleading term and should not be used. i like non stop, connection, through, as descriptions of flight itinerarys. what do you think? ... searched for topic but got tons of stuff that i got tired of wading thru. ..... does direct translate into 1 or more stops? where did it come from? what happened to non stop?

Yes, it su*cks. I have learned that anything other than NON-STOP means something will happen. How they can call it DIRECT is beyond me. You would think the Attorney's General would call it misleading, but alas, it continues.

i hate direct.

I don't do "direct". I'll connect but not on the same flight #.

"Hate" is a strong word. I personally 'dislike' information that is confusing and misleading and which also includes "direct" flights. More clarification never hurts.

"Direct" comes from the days when plane schedules emulated train schedules. On a train, direct means that you won't get off the train, even though there may be many stops along the way.

A direct flight supposedly is the same. But as we all know, it isn't! Direct flight means one flight number, but not necesarily one aircraft.

Spider: hate might be strong for you, but not for me. but, thanks for your input, though. the only thing a direct flight does is scr*w you on miles because you don't get the minimum on each leg.

And the second half of the "direct" flight doesn't neccessarily wait around for the first.

I fail to see the point in the term, especially since it doesn't seem that airlines make a big deal out of promoting "direct" service anymore.

In most Asian countries, direct does indeed mean nonstop, further adding confusion for Americans who buy tickets overseas.

Years back, the airline terms were:

Non-stop: 1 segment to get pax to their destination.

Direct: 1 stop on the same plane to get pax to their destination.

2 Stop: 2 stops on the same plane to get pax to their destination.

Connection: 1 stop on 2 different planes to get pax to their destination.

Double Connection: 2 stops on 3 different planes to get pax to their destination.

Later, the term "Direct with a change of planes" came about. This sounds a lot like a connection to me.

Also, to me, the term "direct" seems to purposly deceive the potential customer.

* When I was 9, I was on a "direct" flight to Manila from Chicago, via Tokyo. The flight to Tokyo was delayed 5 hours, and I didn't find it a fuss since I had assumed the same metal would be used to continue to Manila. My mother told me that aircraft is subject to change in NRT regardless of flight number. So, we missed our continuing flight.

* When I as 16, I flew to Madrid on BA, with a transfer in LHR. The flight from DTW-LHR, I thought, was going to be non-stop. Wrong! I found out in DTW that there was a stop in Montreal. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mad.gif

* Now that I'm older, I finally understood that "direct" is just for mainly marketing issues. Example: CO flies non-stop from EWR-HKG and CX is attempting to fly non-stop from JFK-HKG. So, NW makes JFK-HKG "direct" with a stop in NRT, so that it comes up as one segment on the computer reservation system. Another one: PR flies SFO-MNL non-stop. NW makes SFO-MNL "direct" with a stop in NRT. Note that NW switches aircraft left and right in NRT.

* And the most stupid thing I've ever seen was the following: In 1993, NW had direct service between DTW-MNL NWxx and DTW-TPE NWyy with a stop in SEL.DTW-SEL was a "share-flight". i.e. the CRS showed NW operating two flights to SEL from DTW, leaving and arriving at the same time. DTW-SEL was on a B747-??? and SEL-MNL and SEL-TPE were on B727s.

Oh well. We're experienced travelers. We're smart enough.

- Pat

[This message has been edited by Wiirachay (edited 02-12-2002).]

it seems to me that "direct" is a usage that started in the last 15 years or so. "through" is the term that i remember being used for flights with stops but single plane service. from my business flying in the 60's thru 80's. i never will forget a 4 stopper chicago-new orleans. any way, i also hate single flt # connections.

I agree that it is horrible choice of words, particularly for the uninitiated! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum35/HTML/002683.html

Ever done a Mileage Run like: A-X/B-C-X/D-A (ticketed as an A-C RT) where B-C-D is scheduled as a "direct" flight? I have. Nothing bad happens.

I agree with almost everyone. Direct should be used only with tag end runs. For example, Dallas-Shreveport-Monroe.

The old TWA trick of JFK-LHR being flight 830/850/878/898 was silly. For example, 830 originated in SFO or 850 in LAS, etc. All planes had a change of gauge in JFK.