phkc070408

Is there a real benefit to either party (airline or customer) for doing this? As a passenger, it is very misleading. I saw the post above about search engines looking at it as a single flight and maybe it is a marketing technique (Think Ex-UA 78 ICN-EWR)

I'm not an english expert by anything means, but:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/direct





Does UA.com have a glossary of these terms anywhere?

WineCountryUA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_flight

Numerous air travel glossary sites have similar definitions

This is a long used, well established airline industry term

Clearly for the airline as direct flights are listed similar to non-stops and before flights with connections / separate flight numbers

jsloan

As described earlier -- airlines do it either to conserve flight numbers or to improve their search result rankings. Passengers get to save on Passenger Facility Charges and can sometimes get a better fare than would otherwise be available.

For novice travelers, I agree. I've had to help a couple of people out in the past when they didn't realize they needed to change planes. (Also: yes, you can miss your connection on a direct flight -- if UA1234 is direct and the first leg is delayed, they'll just renumber one of them as UA1234T, and both can be in the air simultaneously).

Exactly. Heck, at some airports, you'll even see the distant airport displayed with gate information. (e.g., at AUS, AA's AUS-DFW-NRT flight showed up as, "Tokyo, gate 14" or whatever).

The airline industry is hardly the only one with specialized vocabulary.

The use of a direct flight goes back to the earliest days of air travel, when direct generally did mean direct (like the Island Hopper). If you find old timetables, you'll see things like "Los Angeles, direct from Chicago, via St. Louis, Kansas City, Denver, Flagstaff, and San Bernardino." WN direct flights generally do still operate that way.

I'm not sure why they would; I don't know if the phrase "direct flight" even appears on their site. They clearly spelled out what was happening: the flight would stop in ANC and OP would need to change planes.

SPN Lifer

I was a UA Reservations Sales Representative (RSR) at SFORR from 1985-87. (Just a line domestic RSR, not the International Desk, Rate Desk, or Help Desk.) At that time, "direct" flights were very common indeed, although equipment changes less so. In the pre-Internet era, direct flights were also prioritzed over connections on the computer reservation systems used by travel agents — Apollo, SABRE, PARS, System One, etc. Travel agents in that era sold a vast majority of tickets. Yes, back in the 1980s, a disadvantage of direct flights was that you only got the mileage (both for annual and lifetime status) as if it were a non-stop. A "favorite" was ORD-OAK-SFO. At UA SFORR and other Res Centers throughout the system, we were meticulous in explaining the difference. Every RSR was skilled in explaining the difference. UA did not want surprised, confused, or upset customers.

"No, we don't have any non-stops in that market, but we do have a direct flight that makes a brief stop in XXX." Back then, a change of equipment was much less common, usually caused by IRROPS or domestic extensions of international flights.
When most reservations were made by travel agents or the airline, agents, RSRs, and airport / ticket office personnel were scrupulous in explaining the distinctions. Now that most reservations are booked directly by consumers, many of them do not have the same attention to detail. Most travelers want to get to their destination as simply as possible. A direct flight, with or without an equipment change, is a way to keep things simple and address market demand. Indeed. The terms "non-stop" and "direct" are confusing only to those who are unaware of the basics of air travel. Fortunately, threads like this help people learn. Some people do not read carefully, and can only learn by experience. Let us hope they are quick students.

phkc070408

I won't create reply's because there are several comments to my post.

First, I read and considered all of your replies. Regarding the ones about Direct being an aviation term with the definition of a single flight number, I used to work for one of the major commuter railroads in the USA and completely understand this. In fact, our Rule Book had a few definitions that mean differently than a standard dictionary. However, we are told not to use internal terminology with the pax.

I took an introductory Accounting Class several years ago. One of the things we talked about was how the information need not be easily read by all, but by those who take the time to learn the subject.

So I therefor understand what you guys have said and don't dispute it. I'm just putting myself in the shoes of someone who would feel that they were intentionally mislead, especially if they paid a premium for what they thought was a nonstop.

As an aviation hobbyist, I do understand the term, and read the comment about how a noob could make this mistake. I wonder how many regular flyers who are non-geeks like us are aware of the term. I assumed it to be rather low, but if it's higher than I expected, much of my objection is overcome.

And BTW, Happy New Year All!!

jsloan

The OP used the term direct (and correctly, I might add). United didn't use any jargon at all.

If you book on United.com, I don't see how it could be much more straightforward.

Here's what I get if I search for FAI-DEN:


Collapsed view

Detailed view

And this is what I get if I search for FAI-AUS:

Compare FAI-(ANC)-DEN-AUS and FAI-ANC-ORD-AUS; both say "2 stops," although it's a little more explicit on the latter.

Incidentally, you can see the advantage to the passenger in the price of last example -- the G fare doesn't allow a transfer at ANC, so it forces an end-on-end combination of two S fares instead, and is thus much more expensive.

Happy New Year to you as well.

phkc070408

OK. I see it as "plane" as day now. I've never tried to book one of these and with the other provisions of a single flight (O/D Miles, no airport transfer fees, etc), I got myself down the wrong path.

The only time I was ever on a "direct flight" was sometime around 1992 and I was about 14 years old. It was a CO morning departure EWR-MCI-DEN with the same flight number. They called it a "1 Stop" flight then where a change of plane was called a "Connection." It was a through plane with the same crew as well. When we got to MCI, they asked those of us going through to remain on the plane so we could load and go ASAP.

TomMM

Which can lead to a simultaneous feeling of confusing and excitement for a person boarding such a flight.

jsloan

Especially when you get onto the 737 and wonder how it's going to make it across the ocean.

DELee

Funzies!

David

LarryJ

It might make more sense to think of a "connection" not as a change to a different airplane but a change to a different flight.

I've had connections before where I was on the same airplane on both legs. Same airplane, different flights.

lincolnjkc

On mobile but re: "direct can also include change of aircraft" --- NW was horrible about this well in to the early 2000s. They'd have flights XXX-DTW-YYY under the same flight number and same aircraft type but still change A/C at DTW. I forget what city pair in particular I was looking at during one lo g connection but the inbound leg was a D95 landing at IIRC A3 and the outbound was also a D95 but departing from something like A45.

Felt sorry for anyone who booked that not realizing despite the single flight number and A/C type they had a mile hike between arrival and departure.

WN also did lots of through flights -- flight number would originate in SAN and terminate 5 stops later at BWI for example, thought as far as I know they are (virtually) all same plane

TomMM

Or in my case an MD-80 that was headed to CDG from MCO!

emcampbe

And on this subject of direct, but with a plane change, this is generally pretty much only a thing in the US. Most other carriers with direct flights are actually operating both (or all) legs with the same aircraft. For example, at least pre-COVID, SQ did SFO-HKG-SIN - you need to get off in HKG and then re-board, but it is the same aircraft. AC has YYZ-YVR-SYD, again, all on the same plane.

JALsnipe

I understand that direct flights such as SFO-ICN-PVG count as 1 PQF because the stop in Seoul is a tech stop where passengers stay on the plane. But what about other flights UA considers as "direct" with aircraft changes? How many PQF are you expected to earn on these types of flights?

Look for example at SFO-LAX-LAS on 4/27. This itinerary is two separate flights with two different aircraft, but each leg happens to have the same flight number. The UA site only shows 1 PQF for this itinerary despite the two flights:




Anyone have any idea what's going on? Is this really only 1 PQF because United is selling it as a direct flight? I called the 1K desk twice and both agents didn't have an answer and asked me to call MileagePlus. I'll call first thing in the AM to see what they say.