travelsmooth

I'm flying from RDU-PIT week after next on UA 3787. This direct flight makes a stop in IAD for about an hour and a half. Haven't had prior experience flying UA on a direct flight with a stop. Will passengers continuing onto PIT be allowed (or required?) to de-plane at IAD? If so, can one's carry-on bags be left on the plane or do they have to be taken when de-planing?

aacharya

You will be asked to deplane - as it is not a stop - it is a different flight altogether. Although the plane might be the same, it is not a mandate that it is.

Check threads on "direct flights" to understand the confusion having the same flight number causes.

emcampbe

You'll have to de-plane. Most of these "direct" flights are actually operated with different actual aircraft. Not as much with express, but sometimes on mainline, the different segments with the same flight number aren't even operated with the same aircraft type - for example, leg 1 might use an A320 while leg 2 might use a 757. This is especially true on TATL/TPAC flights, where the long leg will use a widebody and the domestic connector use a narrowbody.

And as a specific example, today's flight 3787 is RDU-IAD-LGA. Both legs are CR7, but RDU-IAD was aircraft # 503, while the second leg was aircraft # 508 (and that inbound was from BOS). The US, by the way, is pretty much the only place where a "direct" flight is operated with two different aircraft, in most places, a direct flight is basically equivilant of a 1-stop. It also means that if leg 1 is delayed past the departure time of leg 2, they will still sometimes send leg 2 on time.

As to your second question, quite honestly, in this day and age, I wouldn't want to leave anything unattended. Not to mention that's probably considered a security breach now. I do remember the days when direct flights were usually the same plane, and you could leave your bag aboard and not worry too much about it.

travelsmooth

Thanks for the replies. It is unfortunate that if one is on a "direct" flight, and leg 1 is delayed, one may miss leg 2 if it's on-time. I figured as such about leaving bags on board, but also do remember the days when direct flights were operated by the same aircraft and passengers could leave their bags on board.

cranky1K

Even if it is the same aircraft you will be obliged to deplane and you will be asked to take all your belongings with you.

mduell

Direct flights are mostly about flight number management (conservation) these days.

Some of the mainline ones are even comical like east coast-west coast-east coast, clearly not intended for through-service.

emcampbe

Express especially uses the same flight number for round trips a lot of the time. For example, ORD-DAY-ORD will be the same flight number (and that usually will be operated by the same plane).

Not necessarily just about flight number conservation, but about having a "direct" flight, which shows on top of other 1-stop options in the GDS. For example, UA doesn't fly PHL-SEA nonstop, but if they use the same flight number PHL-ORD-SEA, then it will be a "direct" flight, and show above, say, a DL option that is a 1-stop itinerary that goes PHL-MSP-SEA, even if the DL option saves you time and the UA option still makes you change aircraft at the connection point.

To be honest, I think its pretty deceptive, these "direct" flights.

Sykes

This is the travel industry equivalent of naming your company "AAAAA Window Cleaning" to be the first listing in the yellow pages. While it was once a big deal and may still carry a tiny bit of relevance, it is now mostly meaningless.

It is done almost entirely to conserve flight numbers now.

emcampbe

I disagree. Let's not forget that the majority of travelers are not as knowledgeable (not to mention picky) about every detail of their travel experience as many are on here. They aren't spending hours checking multiple sites or using expert mode to check for R space (or even know that expert mode exists, much less looking for upgrades).

They are going to probably one site (Kayak, Orbitz, Expedia...wherever) and are picking the flights that are cheapest, toward the top, and what they think will be the easiest. When they see what is a direct flight vs. a 1-stop, they will take it (all else being equal, of course, and unless the 1-stop is cheaper, it will not show up above). Even though in practice, there's pretty much no difference between a direct and connection here in the US.

Sykes

Except that Kayak, Orbitz, Expedia, and every other modern OTA display "direct" flights and connections exactly the same--they do not preference direct flights like old GDS systems did (and, for that matter, still do). They sell on number of stops, not number of connections.

neo_781

Yet the airlines still do that ... Perhaps your argument is valid for the consumer sites but does this really apply for corporate travel? When talking about corporate travel, I don't think you can extend this logic.

mgcsinc

They're bookable as if they are nonstops, though.

Sykes

Most corporate travel is booked online now using tools that do not give preference to "direct" flights. In the US, a very small minority of travel (really, a tiny amount) is booked manually using tools that preference direct flights ... and most of that is booked by travel agents who are paid to know better*.

The "retail" travel agency where people walk in to a storefront and book travel using a real person who is typing into a GDS is still alive and well in some areas outside the US, but I maintain that there is still minimal competitive advantage to creating direct flights aside from the necessity created by a limited set of flight numbers.

* I acknowledge that many travel agents suck, so "should" doesn't necessarily mean that they do know better ... although those that have survived the shift to online travel booking tend to be better than those that were booking travel back when pseudo-direct flights actually created a competitive advantage.