Wirelessly posted (Samsung-SPHA900 AU-MIC-A900/2.0 MMP/2.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1)

possibly las to fra/muc?

Both are further than LGW.

From To Distance
LAS LGW 5253 mi / 4565 nm
LAS MUC 5767 mi / 5011 nm
LAS FRA 5583 mi / 4851 nm

The only way they do either of those routes is if they want to route traffic to LH. In any case, they have no planes that'll do it until the 332s or 350s come online.

Don't kid yourself...
 

The difference between a "non-stop" and a "one-stop" and a "direct flight" is a VERY WELL KNOWN fact among frequent fliers. There is NO smoke and mirrors or deception on the part of US Airways here - ALL airlines do it.

Check out UA's "DIRECT" flight 890 from Singapore to Washington DC to see what I mean... you'll find yourself going from a 777 (SIN-NRT) to a 747 (NRT-LAX) to an Airbus 320 (LAX-IAD) to cover that "direct" and single number flight #890...

I respectfully disagree. There IS major deception.

In the old days(which weren't that long ago), a direct flight was one that involved no change of plane, yet still made an intermediate stop. This is very different than making a stop and having to go get on another plane. While frequent travelers understood the difference between direct and nonstop, many did not and were still annoyed that the plane was stopping, but not half as annoyed as those who now learn that it's stopping AND they have to switch.

There IS in fact marketing bait and switch going on here because an airline that flies from LAX-PHL-LGW with ONE flight number on TWO very different aircraft is NOT flying the same route as the airline that flies LAX-LGW nonstop. Very, very different distinctions.

This should be a DOT initiative to require airlines to only market direct flights when they are, in fact, on the same equipment. If the playing field is really level that way, then the effect would be relative. The nonstop airlines would get the preference in the booking engines(and rightly so), followed by real direct flights, followed by actual connections.

I don't buy the argument that "everybody's doing it, so it's ok". It's not because more than half the ignorant non-frequent flying public are the ones who are getting shafted.

I totally disagree... what a direct flight is, is the airline routing you from point a to b via one flight number. They have the connections established and set up... and you may or may not be on the same aircraft. It is a tool to sell a flight with connections pre-determined by the airline. Very simple, if you like non-stops, only buy non-stops...

What happens when flight xx arrives at the intermediate point 3 hours late and the continuation of flight xx is already gone? There's nothing direct about it. it's a connecting flight.

If it were really direct and arrived at the intermediate point 3 hours late, the pax would still continue on without having to worry about the late connection.

I'm surprised at many long term FTers here posted what they are on this thread. It's apparent that many of you think that this is a fairly recent practice and done expressly to mislead the flying public.

While I can agree that it has always been a tad sneaky, I must point out that this sort of a/c change at connection points has been the rule since at least the late 1960s when PA and TW were ruling the roost on large inbound a/c to points like JFK/MIA/STL/LAX/SFO, etc and the continuation of flights from any number of international points continued on domestically on smaller a/c (virutally always 72Ss since that's what everyone had then).

Since then, virtually every US carrier with significant international feed has opted to follow the same model. Note that they may only list one combination of city sets for "through" flights (e.g. MCO-PHL-LGW cannot have the second leg (PHL-LGW also flight sharing with another inbound domestic flight, say from CLT-PHL).)

Call it what you will, but to pile on with criticism of late seems to have ignored recent decades of standard practice within the industry. I do not believe that this is more prevalent today than it was in 1973.

Pick up an old PA/EA/TW/DL/UA etc timetable from the past 30 years and you'll see this. Nothing new here folks.

Getting back to the topic, I'm sure it'll have to wait until 2011 when they start getting the A350s. They just don't have the hardware right now, or extra cash to buy it.

Respectfully, I have to agree that it is kind of deceptive when they change aircraft. Here's what US Air says a direct flight is:

"Direct Flight - Flight does not require a change of aircraft from point of origin to destination but makes one or more planned intermediate stops en route to customer's final destination."

That's from the terms of transportation, available at Travel Policies

Contrast that with the definition of a connecting flight from the same page: "Connecting Flight - Requires customers to change aircraft at an intermediate point for the continuation of their trip to their destination."

As far as I'm concerned, US (and all the others) should just call the flight what it is - if it is nonstop, that's fine. If it's connecting, that's fine. And if it's direct, that's fine. But don't call a connecting flight a direct flight! :)

So no DIRECT flight from LGW to LAS then? ;)

I appreciate what you are saying, but it is absolutely untrue. Nobody is pretending anything. As i said earlier, if a flight has the same flight number on its connection, it may appear in the travel agents system as 'direct' as opposed to 'non-stop', but nonetheless the travel agent receives an immediate message to inform their potential passengers that, although the flight number is the same, there is a change of aircraft. If the passengers are not informed, it is because the travel agent is dimwitted enough not to notice the fact that it is a connection; or they choose to ignore the message to secure the sale. This happens a lot, and we at Res deal with the debris.

There is no deception whatsoever, and nothing is pretended (except by certain travel agencies). Hope this enlightens the issue for you.

I think it would "enlighten" us even more if the airlines would just tell the truth to its customers. If the only thing that differentiates a direct flight from a connecting flight is one vs. two flight numbers, then I would suggest that there is no difference between them. So stop marketing them that way.

Just because other airlines do it and it has been done in the past does not make it right. Indeed, if it isn't deceptive, then why do airlines do it?

With US leaving Star Alliance(possibly), this may be a new route. LGW-LAS!

Nonsense.

Yes, it's a marketing tool in order to attract passengers from point A to point B. It's done in order to market fares between point A and B, not offer a nonstop service.

No, it is not in any way deceptive because, despite having the same flight number, such flights are clearly advertised as connecting services. Nothing is being hidden. I really can't comprehend the problem here. All airlines do it, and they don't hoodwink passengers into thinking it's the same plane all the way through. Absolutely no-one is being 'shafted', to paraphrase your comment.

I'll say it for the third time :D If passengers think such flights are direct, it's usually because travel agents mistakenly (or deliberately) have sold it as such, despite the clear information to the contrary provided to them openly by the airlines. If they book direct with the airlines, they are clearly informed at point of sale there is a connection involved.

This has been explained by several posters now: I fail to comprehend your continued confusion. :confused:

I suggest that you book and fly a "direct" flight and watch the pax around you when it is explained that they need to change planes. There are always a significant number confused or annoyed by it.

And in these days when over half of all tickets are sold over the Internet in one form or another, I don't think that the problem lies with travel agents. It is the airlines that insist on using methods that are confusing and deceptive.

I don't think that the question is one of "confusion" or lack of understanding. We understand exactly what is going on. That is why we consider it reprehensible marketing on the part of the airlines.