New LGW-LAS Route?

Old Mar 15, 2006, 7:50 am
  #16  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,452
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?
kinglobjaw is offline  
Old Mar 15, 2006, 10:40 am
  #17  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Stuck Between the Moon and CLD or SAN, Your local Taco Bell
Programs: AA EXP/LT PLT, DL PM, UA Silver, SPG Plat, Marriott Plat, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 3,510
Originally Posted by kinglobjaw
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.
McFlyPHL is offline  
Old Mar 15, 2006, 10:50 am
  #18  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA - DCA
Programs: BA Gold, American Airlines, Marriott Plat, Hilton Diamond, IHG Diamond
Posts: 5,075
Don't kid yourself...

Originally Posted by FCYTravis
Call it what you will. I think it's patently stupid to market a flight as "direct" when it's *not* - make all the excuses you want, but it's essentially deceptive.

That "dissatisfaction" and confusion would not happen if airlines simply loaded connecting flights into their systems and didn't pretend these flights are something they aren't.
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...
geo1005 is offline  
Old Mar 15, 2006, 11:09 am
  #19  
PHL
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: PHL, NYC
Programs: AA PLT, DL SLV, UA SLV, MR LTT, HH DIA
Posts: 10,155
Originally Posted by warbo
It's a marketing tool, not an operational one. It merely enables an airline to point out to a travel agent via their system that they also fly the same route as their competitor(s), albeit with a chage en-route. There is no deception here.
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.
PHL is offline  
Old Mar 15, 2006, 12:09 pm
  #20  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Southern California
Programs: US Airways,Hilton HHonors, Marriott, National
Posts: 1,341
Originally Posted by PHL
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...
LAX1K to AmWest is offline  
Old Mar 15, 2006, 12:49 pm
  #21  
PHL
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: PHL, NYC
Programs: AA PLT, DL SLV, UA SLV, MR LTT, HH DIA
Posts: 10,155
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.
PHL is offline  
Old Mar 15, 2006, 1:32 pm
  #22  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: From: PWM
Programs: United GS, Fairmont Platinum,SPG LTPlat, Hilton Diamond, MarriottGold..like the rest of the world
Posts: 4,401
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.
sbtinme is offline  
Old Mar 15, 2006, 1:59 pm
  #23  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: PHX
Posts: 3,796
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.
alanh is offline  
Old Mar 15, 2006, 2:56 pm
  #24  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Programs: US Chairman's, Marriott Platinum Premier, Hilton Gold, SPG Gold, Hertz 5*, Etc.
Posts: 403
Originally Posted by LAX1K to AmWest
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...
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!
PHLDividends is offline  
Old Mar 15, 2006, 4:47 pm
  #25  
Suspended
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,992
Originally Posted by PHLDividends
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?
FlyerTalker7654 is offline  
Old Mar 15, 2006, 6:53 pm
  #26  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Liverpool, England
Posts: 1,080
Originally Posted by FCYTravis
Call it what you will. I think it's patently stupid to market a flight as "direct" when it's *not* - make all the excuses you want, but it's essentially deceptive.

That "dissatisfaction" and confusion would not happen if airlines simply loaded connecting flights into their systems and didn't pretend these flights are something they aren't.
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.
warbo is offline  
Old Mar 16, 2006, 6:41 pm
  #27  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Posts: 739
Originally Posted by warbo
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?
TechBoy is offline  
Old Mar 16, 2006, 6:48 pm
  #28  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,452
With US leaving Star Alliance(possibly), this may be a new route. LGW-LAS!
kinglobjaw is offline  
Old Mar 16, 2006, 7:08 pm
  #29  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Liverpool, England
Posts: 1,080
Originally Posted by PHL
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.
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 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.
warbo is offline  
Old Mar 16, 2006, 8:42 pm
  #30  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Posts: 739
Originally Posted by warbo
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 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.
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.
TechBoy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.