jeffreyt2000

Unfortunately I found out last week that the often used statement "A flight segment (PQF) is simply a takeoff and a landing." is not quite true.

Last week I traveled round trip from SFO to MSP through Denver both ways. Unbeknownst to me, my travel department booked the outbound on what is called a "through flight" - both flight segments have the same flight number - even though there was a change of planes in DEN. It shows up at SFO-MSP (1 stop) vs SFO-MSP (Connecting in DEN). United treats this as a single flight segment - in more ways than one.

My PQF credit for the Through-Flight SFO-MSP via Denver was only 1, not 2. As explained to me by multiple people at United, it is because this is a "through flight with a stop in Denver as designated by the single flight number" where the 2 flights are on the same flight number and therefore it is 1 segment/PQF. It is considered a single segment - just as if I had flown nonstop from SFO to MSP. The "takeoff and landing" definition does not apply.

The other issue with the "through flight" is that I didn't show up on the upgrade list for the 2nd DEN-MSP flight. The DEN gate agent tried her best to get me added to the upgrade list and called several people. The system would not let her (or the others) add me to the upgrade list even though there were 3 seats empty and I was the only 1K on the flight (so certainly would have got the upgrade). According to them, if I had been upgraded on the 1st leg (I wasn't - I was #1 on the list when we took off) then I would have been upgraded on the 2nd leg. But since I was not upgraded on the 1st leg, I was not upgraded on the 2nd.

Gone are the days when gate agents could upgrade you with a smile and a wink.

This is even weirder when you consider that most of the people on the 2nd leg booked only that leg (DEN-MSP) and the 2nd aircraft was a different seat configuration. So how could they guarantee that if I was upgraded on the 1st leg I would be upgraded on the 2nd? The logic made no sense.

So as one of the persons the Gate Agent in DEN spoke with said "Never book a through flight on United!"

BTW, the very friendly DEN gate agent moved me to an exit row seat and blocked the other seats, so at least I had an exit row to myself. Given it is only a 1:54 flight, I was fine with my empty row and my free 1K cocktail.

bmwe92fan

Welcome to how UA "competes" with the direct flight to MSP.... UA generally has 1 direct per day -- and tons of connections. Delta has a ton of direct flights -- so UA gives the "appearance" of a direct flight -- and you get the shaft....

jsloan

Actually, it is. Follow up with MileagePlus Service Center. I was stunned to find out that they handle direct flights as separate PQFs, but there are multiple reports that they do.

This, on the other hand, is more or less correct. It could have been fixed at SFO. It would have been very difficult tot fix it at DEN.

Because you had a through flight — and, more importantly, you only had a single segment. (It’s possible, but quite nonstandard, to book a through flight as multiple segments). You can’t upgrade part of a segment, so your upgrade was all or nothing. The seat configuration has nothing to do with it.

It isn’t an “appearance” of anything. It is a direct flight with a change of gauge. It is not a nonstop flight. The fact that many people use “direct” when they mean “nonstop” doesn’t change the definitions of these terms.

Yes, one of the reasons to file direct flights are that they still appear ahead of connections in some GDSes, but the stop is very clearly disclosed. (A direct flight can also be slightly cheaper than a connecting flight, because generally the PFC won’t be charged on a direct flight).
It is one segment, but it is two PQFs.

bmwe92fan

I completely understand your point -- but to me the only reason UA maintains the flight number past Denver to MSP is to give the appearance of a "direct" flight when it really isn't -- thus increasing the likelihood it may be purchased as it (probably) was a few dollars less than a "non-stop" -- Otherwise why do it?

UA never lists a flight from ORD to EWR as flight 79 -- and then on to NRT again as flight 79 -- and calls that a "direct" flight to Tokyo. Technically they could as it is within the rules -- but they don't do it.... This was my point....

sannmann

I flew a direct flight earlier this year. IAD-SFO-LAX. Used the same flight number on both. I got 2 PQF: one for both legs of the flight.

They changed the rules about direct flights when they rolled out PQP. Under the old system, you got one segment for the direct flight. Under the new system, you get one PQF for each scheduled flight.

tarheelnj

Back some years ago when UA had JFK flights, I was at EWR and saw on the flight display a EWR-JFK flight. Turns out it was EWR-SFO then SFO-JFK both with the same flight number. Wondering if back in the old Mileage Run days whether someone attempting that round trip would end up with approximately 20 PQMs?

GrayAnderson

So, I would interpret "direct flight" as generally being "same flight number, same plane, no need to disembark and reboard". Having to change planes suggests that the airline is just conserving flight numbers.

[I once went MCO-ATL-CLT-ATL-MCO on the same flight number on DL...]

flugvergnugen

This reminded me of a "direct" LAX-SAN flight from 10 years ago that I even still have the screenshot from... Luckily I was only on one of the segments.

lincolnjkc

Direct Flight is simply the same flight number. Airlines are required to disclose "change of gauge" flights which is where the same flight number continues between cities but there is an aircraft change. Virtually all "direct" flights in the US with the exception of WN are change-of-gauge and used solely for marketing purposes (a nonstop flight will generally rank above a direct flight, which even with COG will rank above a pure connection). Back in the days NW was horrible about this -- virtually any domestic flight that touched DTW was a COG even if the same equipment type operated both legs; on top of that the legs usually departed and arrived at opposite ends of the terminal, e.g. NW1234 from XXX-DTW would arrive as a DC9-30 at A1 but NW1234 DTW-YYY, also a DC9-30 would depart from A76.

The DOT does require airlines to disclose a change of gauge flight and UA probably did but OP's travel department ignored or didn't pass that disclosure on.

CO OnePass/UA MPs rules used to be worded such that essentially if the flight number didn't change you got segment (and for me, more frustratingly LFM) credit from the first takeoff to the last landing, as if the stop didn't occur. I don't see that called out in the current iteration of the MP rules, though the current iteration of MP rules is far more ambiguous about actually earning based on flight activity than the version I last remember analyzing.

I've had one successful "direct" flight -- PDX-SFO-IAD, and PP upgrade cleared well in advance so I didn't deal with the UG list but I did get credit for 2 segments. My last attempt at a direct flight (BOS-IAD-CLE) failed due to irregular operations.

lehms

I am continually astounded at most people including frequent flyers think direct flights and non-stop flights are synonymous

fumje

Why astounded? In plain English, those terms are synonymous.

Can you imagine telling your spouse, "I came home direct from work today" after you'd stopped at the bar for a drink or three en route? Then when asked why you smell like beer, "I said direct from work, not non-stop from work." 🤣

aCavalierInCoach

Folks who have been flying for a very long time know this because the issue used to be much more prevalent and punitive. Outside of Southwest, there is much less frequent use of direct flight numbers than there used to be. So if you really started going in the last say 5-10 years, even a very FF could have never encountered it..

jsloan

It is a direct flight. And it�s not cheaper than a nonstop when fare buckets are the same (barring a specific fare rule related to nonstop travel). It�s cheaper than a connection: UA1234 direct from SFO to MSP with a stop at DEN will not incur they Passenger Facility Charge ($4.50) for Denver, even with the change of gauge. UA1234 from SFO to DEN, changing to UA2345 from DEN to MSP, will.

The fact that you do not like the industry definition of direct flight does not affect the fact that it is, in fact, a direct flight;

I mean, UA used to do that kind of thing all the time � their flights to Asia, for example, would have a stop at Tokyo but would continue on using the same flight number, and they were absolutely marketed as direct. AA used to offer direct service on AA62 from AUS to NRT, with a change of gauge (from MD80 to 777) at DFW. I once had to use my broken Spanish to help a confused woman who was flying CO�s direct service from AUS to� either GUA or SAL, I forget� and needed to change planes at IAH. This is a standard industry practice going back at least 50 years. UA still does it, obviously, but they do it less than they used to.

Yes, they�d have gotten 20 PQMs � but they�d have been able to use one e500 for the whole trip, IIRC.

Direct flight simply means �same flight number.� And, yes, they�re mostly done now to conserve flight numbers.

But �direct� has been an industry term since the dawn of aviation. It has never meant the same thing as nonstop.

Maxwell Smart

More importantly, the 2 transcons could have been upgraded with a single 500-mile certificate!

milski

Last direct flight I had was SEA-ORD-PIT. By the time I landed in ORD, the boarding pass for the ORD-PIT leg was gone from the app and I could not print one from a kiosk - all it would show me was the rest of the trip. Talked to a gate agent, took her more than 5 minutes to just print the pass. And one PQF as credit, don't have the patience to try to get one more.