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.

And "direct" is even worse than "indirect" because, as it's commonly used, there are still stops, AND because the flight number stays the same, you often only get credit for one "segment" toward elite status even if you had two or three takeoffs and landings. It's the worst of both worlds!

If I'm in a hurry, I'll look for nonstop. If I have to stop over anyway, I'll look for different flight numbers. I will NOT, unless there is no alternative, book where the flight number remains the same but we stop along the way.

Maybe call it a "Non Non-Stop?"

Ahh...never mind.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Even worse, I recently found out that a "direct" flight BOS/NRT was actually a CHANGE of planes in ORD. AA credited the miles as they would if the plane flew the great circle route non-stop, giving many fewer miles than if my connection in ORD was with two flight numbers.

A very good to NEVER fly "direct" flights, at least on AA! Take a connection that's CALLED a connection!

I flew from YUL to CLT "direct" last month. Flew directly OVER AND 300 miles past CLT to ATL. Then BACK 300 miles to CLT.
How is a flight direct when you have to backtrack 600 miles?? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

Before FlyerTalk, I once flew more and received less miles due to direct flights!

I flew LAX-MCO-TPA roundtrip and received less miles than if I had flown only LAX-MCO roundtrip. I was scheduled on direct flights. I'll never make that mistake again.

------------------
He that travels fastest goes alone!

How about the term "Express"... seen also in train and bus travel. Intercity Express... still has many stops between the two destinations. I guess it is all based on point of view. As long as it is not local service, then it is express.

In airlines travel, it is "direct" if it is not commuter travel.

I'm just repeating a point here, but I think it might be useful to be explicit.

I just flew ORD-KIX on UA809. There was a change of equipment in SFO. I got 6480 miles. Flying back I flew KIX-SFO and SFO-ORD on separate flight numbers. I got 7259 miles for the exact same number of flight miles. So I could have gotten 779 more miles by taking a different flight to SFO, and there was one 40 minutes earlier.
I didn't think about it when I made the reservation, however.

No system has to make sense. I doubt they do this to scrimp on miles -- probably just a historical thing. But it seems strange http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

the 'direct'/one-flight number routing sometimes also works in my favor: I only need ONE voucher of my visit-the-USA voucher 'booklet' (one voucher per flight number needed).

[This message has been edited by Rudi (edited 03-13-2002).]

bump....

Not sure why this was bumped up, but I still hate direct! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...orum/smile.gif

In some cases there's not much one can do. In the case of AA69 (ostensibly) MAD-DFW, making a connection gets into DFW too late to connect onward. That and the MIA-DFW portion of AA69 is scheduled as an Atlantic config 777... hmm, that's a toooough choice, 500 miles or Flagship suite!

I hate 'direct' too. If I have to go through the added time and agravation of landing/ reboarding, etc, I want the 500 minimum miles and the segment for it. Another reason is that, if I'm going far enough, I'll upgrade with a confirmable coupon or real miles, and I'd like to use those on a plane with a cabin worth spending those on.

Sounds like most of you don't like the mechanics of a direct flight, rather than the term "direct."

d

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...ML/006644.html

Same plane w/ (a) stop(s) called 'direct' or 'thru' = confusing & misleading to laypersons. I agree that it probably comes from old train/bus terminology.

But calling a 'change of aircraft enroute' a direct flight is IMO an outright LIE.

------------------
Flyertalk.com ...because miles & points don't grow on trees!

I agree. To call a connection flight "direct" just because it keeps the same flight number is a conscious deception. "Direct" once meant a flight on a single plane with an intermediate stop. But worst of all, and the reason I'm posting, is the now common
use of "direct" to mean "nonstop." If "direct" can mean anything from connecting flights to nonstop flights, then it has no meaning at all. Because it is now too late to control misuse of the term, and attendant confusion, I say purge "direct" from flight terminology altogether.

Actually, it is still the case on some airlines (like CX, AS, and WN) that the same flight number means that you stay on the same plane at a stop, but not on others (like UA) where you can misconnect your "direct" flight.

And that is why the term has become misleading. If direct meant that the passenger would be able to stay seated during the stop, then it would convey useful information (even though many would still confuse it with nonstop) Now, however, your direct flight can mean two different planes, parked on opposite ends of a terminal.

The FAA should require uniform and accurate terminology. Nonstop means one plane with no stops. Direct with stop means one plane with a stop. Connecting means everything else.

I gotta know
 

Why this thread became pertinent after 6.5 years?:confused:

Thread became pertinent because nobody had earlier mentioned the additional confusion of [I]direct[I] with [I]nonstop[I]. Also, because I just today found it.
Does someone feel the topic is no longer relevant? The problem has not gone away, nor had it been sufficiently explicated. People still read [I]The Odyssey[I], still indeed add
commentaries. At least this topic will expire long before another 4,000 years pass.

The topic occasionally does come up, and after bunches of sound and fury
it goes away again, people realizing that in fact the airlines have been
using this terminology before we were born and will continue to do so after
we are gone. It really isn't a big stretch of the brain to realize (once) that
direct doesn't mean nonstop and then henceforth ignore the term.

I don't have a problem with the use of the word direct as long as they tell you in big letters that it involves a plane change if it does. But usually they hide that in the fine print. That I have a problem with.