When does the ATC call sign differ from the flight number?
 

I was on UA 960 LAX-SFO recently. Our call sign was UA 8152 (Channel 9 was on). Does anyone know why?

Was it the first leg of an int'l flight? That's the only time I've heard this, I think.

It happens when there would otherwise be two flights in the air at the same time with the same flight number. E.g., UA 875: DEN-SEA-NRT. Flight delayed out of DEN and the flight nevertheless takes off on time out of SEA. The SEA flight would have a different flight number to identify it to air traffic control.

Right. On the other hand, I think this practise (of the airlines) of using the same flight number even though there is a planned change of aircraft at an intermediate point is kind of deceptive. It makes the flight show up in the timetable as a "direct flight" which makes the passenger think that there is no connection that may be missed. So, they are effectively marketing a "benefit" (no risk of a missed connection, compared to the competitors who make you change flights) that they don't deliver...

Always Flyin is correct, but the call sign could also be changed slightly if there is another flight from another airline with a similar callsign in the same airspace. AA 252 and UA 352, for example. ATC also changes it if they can't get a track started on it on the computer, but usually they would not use that on the radios. When the 8 is added to the front, the airline changed it; if a letter is added to the back, ATC altered it.

IMO, it's not "kind of deceptive", it is an outright lie. Just like codeshares. They should both be banned. If there is a planned change of planes, the airlines should be required to give the flights different flight numbers.

I agree the direct flights with plane changes are bad. But what's wrong with codeshares?

Little things like no upgrades (SFO-TPE-BKK is Thai operated code-share with a UA flight number from TPE-BKK. Hand in a Systemwide at SFO and it doesn't affect TPE-BKK).

Can't redeem awards on the code share flight.

There really is a whole list of things. The bottom line is that, if it has a UA flight number on it, it should be treated as a UA flight for ALL purposes. It surely isn't.

The purpose of codeshares is to expand an airline's network without having to spend billions of dollars on aircraft, crew, routes, gates, etc. It wouldn't make any sense, and might be illegal, for UA to operate TPE-BKK flights. If you want an upgrade between TPE and BKK, pay Thai the cash. The SWU rules state they are not available on codeshares, so there should be no surprises.

I'll say it again, "The bottom line is that, if it has a UA flight number on it, it should be treated as a UA flight for ALL purposes." If they're not willing to do that, it shouldn't have a UA flight number on it.

Codeshares expand, at best, the airline's perceived network...

I agree completely, and will add that I think they should also have cabin crew speaking the local language of the carrier. Someone booking, for example, a TG flight operated by UA has the right to expect cabin crew speaking Thai, since that may well have been one of the reason's they choose to fly TG.

You've got to be kidding. You really expect UA to provide Japanese speaking FA's on UA1230 LAX-LAS (ANA 7202)?

If they insist on a marketing practice that makes people believe they are booking an ANA flight LAX-LAS, yes, I think they should provide Japanese cabin crew. If not, what's wrong with telling the pax (the truth!) that ANA doesn't serve LAX-LAS but they are welcome to fly with their partner UA on flight UA1230?

[This message has been edited by Hagbard Viking (edited 01-21-2002).]

If they're going to sell it as an ANA code share, yes I do. You take the burdens with the benefits...

In a perfect world, it shouldn't matter. The DOT requires airlines to disclose codeshares at time of booking (that screws PAX originating out of the country, I know). The benefits to both PAX and the airlines, to me, way outweigh the negatives of codeshare flights.