Alasizon From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 286 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2666 times:
Since I was on this flight and I just wanted to go back and look at my flight path, I noticed something odd about this flight.
DL2363 LAX-JFK is the 11:40 red-eye. What I was curious is, is does anyone know why the flight number was changed to DL9798. The only explanation I'm coming up with is the fact that we had the remains on board of a US Soldier killed in the Middle East but I didn't realize this was a reason to change the flight number considering that the other leg that uses this flight number arrived on time. Any ides why it was changed or if it was in relation to the remains onboard (that we were not made aware of until we landed in JFK and were greeted by about 100 police and fire vehicles), why they would change the flight number?
Window seats may be over-rated, but I'll take a window seat on a DC9 anyday
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6539 posts, RR: 11 Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2639 times:
Would need the date that you traveled.
Nevermind, I see it was on the 21st. Anyway, it was an OPS thing. Your flight was actually without an a/c because the of the late arrival of DL 2363 coming from JFK. they chose to go with an a/c sub instead of waiting for 2363 to block in. By doing this, you can't have the same flight number being used for two different operations at the same time. To get around this, they come up with a "dummy" flight number to get the dispatch paperwork going for your outbound leg.
Hope this all makes sens.
[Edited 2011-06-25 18:31:36]
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
Alasizon From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 286 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2629 times:
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6539 posts, RR: 11 Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2536 times:
Check out the above reply.
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
Alasizon From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 286 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2479 times:
Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 1): Nevermind, I see it was on the 21st. Anyway, it was an OPS thing. Your flight was actually without an a/c because the of the late arrival of DL 2363 coming from JFK. they chose to go with an a/c sub instead of waiting for 2363 to block in. By doing this, you can't have the same flight number being used for two different operations at the same time. To get around this, they come up with a "dummy" flight number to get the dispatch paperwork going for your outbound leg.
I understand that perfectly.
I was aware that you couldn't have 2 flights with the same flight number airborne at the same time but I didn't think that the dispatch paperwork would get hung up on that.
Window seats may be over-rated, but I'll take a window seat on a DC9 anyday
burnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7419 posts, RR: 9 Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2307 times:
Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 1): By doing this, you can't have the same flight number being used for two different operations at the same time.
In some respects companies often did, NW say if flight 1776 PHL-MSP-GEG and the PHL-MSP was going to arrive after the MSP-GEG flight left, the flight going to GEG unbeknownced to pax would become 1776N until 1776 landed and blocked in, then the flight that was given 1776N would then just become 1776.
"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6539 posts, RR: 11 Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2150 times:
Quoting burnsie28 (Reply 5): In some respects companies often did, NW say if flight 1776 PHL-MSP-GEG and the PHL-MSP was going to arrive after the MSP-GEG flight left, the flight going to GEG unbeknownced to pax would become 1776N until 1776 landed and blocked in, then the flight that was given 1776N would then just become 1776.
That makes sense but DL almsot always seems to go with a 9XXX flight number whebn there is a possible conflict, thus the flight "stub".
In this particular case, the same a/c is scheduled (suppose to anyway) to fly the return 2363 to JFK but with the ground delays in NY, the a/c is late into LAX a lot and they often have to get a spare a/c to fly 2363 LAX-JFK. With Alasizon, his a/c was out the gate before the original scheduled inbound a/c on 2363 JFK-LAX blocked in. It would have been quite the delay.
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6539 posts, RR: 11 Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2136 times:
Quoting Alasizon (Reply 4): I was aware that you couldn't have 2 flights with the same flight number airborne at the same time but I didn't think that the dispatch paperwork would get hung up on that.
Yep. First issue would be getting the weight and balance done through the DL system. Can't get any of that done until there is a load plan done and this can't be done because the dispatcher won't be able to do his thing until JFK-LAX was blocked in the gate. So, the decision comes from ATL OPS to either take the delay and use the inbound a/c or use one of the spare a/c they have to operate your flight, but then we have what you saw with the 9000 flight number.
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 286 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
