Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Flights With Equipment Changes  
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19702 posts, RR: 58
Posted (4 years 7 months 17 hours ago) and read 2989 times:

So I was ruminating on the practice of, say, DL having flight 54 from DEN to DTW on an A320 and then continue as 54 to AMS on a 744.

Why not give each leg a separate flight number? What's the point of this practice?

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineplaneguy727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1247 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 14 hours ago) and read 2877 times:

To be able to market the flights - and flights with same number show first in many of the systems (regardless of the change in a/c).


I want to live in an old and converted 727...
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2999 posts, RR: 27
Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 14 hours ago) and read 2845 times:

So it's essentially false pretences - you think you're booking a same-flight 1-stop, and in fact you're getting 2 different flights with a change of equipment.


Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21627 posts, RR: 55
Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 14 hours ago) and read 2826 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
Why not give each leg a separate flight number? What's the point of this practice?

It's a trick of the airlines to make the flights show up first in many online booking systems, and to make the customers think that it's not a connecting flight when in reality there is absolutely no difference between a change of planes and a connection.

Depending on the airline, you may also be deprived of FF miles, since some only credit the direct distance between the originating and arriving city, and don't count the extra distance flown to the stopover point, even though you still flew there (i.e. if you fly LAS-ATL-MAN on two separate flight numbers, you'll get credit for both LAS-ATL and ATL-MAN, whereas if you fly the same route with just a change of planes on the same flight number, you'll only get credited for LAS-MAN direct, which is about 800 miles shorter).

I wish the DOT would stop the practice (to my knowledge, UA, DL and CO are the US airlines that do it), but I'm not holding out for it.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinelincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 9 hours ago) and read 2694 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 2):
So it's essentially false pretences - you think you're booking a same-flight 1-stop, and in fact you're getting 2 different flights with a change of equipment.

I'm not sure if the "new" DL has continued the practice, but NW for years (decades?) was awful about doing change-of-gauge flights to the same equipment type. For example (I've forgotten the exact city pairs and flight numbers, but this is representative):

NW 1234 would be published as a DC-9-50 YYZ-DTW-ORD. NW 1234 would arrive at DTW at gate A3, but depart from gate A76.
NW 1235 would be published as a DC-9-50 ORD-DTW-YYZ. NW 1235 would arrive at DTW at gate A76 but depart from gate A3.

So essentially, one aircraft is doing YYZ-DTW-YYZ, the other is doing ORD-DTW-ORD, both are DC-9-50s, and any poor fool who thought that they were getting a onestop flight with no change of aircraft would instead find themselves running, literally, from one end to the other of the McNamara terminal... there were a bunch of combos like that that I noticed, and I never really understood the why for that, while I understand the why for A320->747.

Lincoln



CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
User currently offlinekonrad From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 8 hours ago) and read 2614 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
So I was ruminating on the practice of, say, DL having flight 54 from DEN to DTW on an A320 and then continue as 54 to AMS on a 744.

Why not give each leg a separate flight number? What's the point of this practice?


A follow-up question:
In case of such two flights combined under one flight number, if the DEN to DTW flight gets delayed, would the AMS bound 744 wait for it to arrive at DTW?


User currently offlineplaneguy727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1247 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (4 years 7 months 7 hours ago) and read 2529 times:

Quoting konrad (Reply 5):
In case of such two flights combined under one flight number, if the DEN to DTW flight gets delayed, would the AMS bound 744 wait for it to arrive at DTW?

Generally speaking, no.



I want to live in an old and converted 727...
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23013 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (4 years 7 months 6 hours ago) and read 2474 times:

Quoting lincoln (Reply 4):
I'm not sure if the "new" DL has continued the practice, but NW for years (decades?) was awful about doing change-of-gauge flights to the same equipment type. For example (I've forgotten the exact city pairs and flight numbers, but this is representative):

  

That's not true of all legacies, though. I'd say (anecdotally) that 90 percent or more of AA flights that have the same type and flight number do in fact use the same airplane.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineDFWEagle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1071 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (4 years 7 months 5 hours ago) and read 2394 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 7):
That's not true of all legacies, though. I'd say (anecdotally) that 90 percent or more of AA flights that have the same type and flight number do in fact use the same airplane.

I’d say its actually more than 99% that do for AA. I think AA154 (NRT-ORD, ORD-BOS) and AA943 (MIA-EZE, EZE-MVD) are the only examples right now. Others may have one-off equipment changes on certain days for operational reasons but are planned to be the same aircraft.



Ryan / HKG
User currently offlinee38 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 7 months 3 hours ago) and read 2314 times:

Quoting konrad (Reply 5) "In case of such two flights combined under one flight number, if the DEN to DTW flight gets delayed, would the AMS bound 744 wait for it to arrive at DTW?"

and the reply by planeguy727 (Reply 6) "Generally speaking, no."

That is correct, and it is also precisely the reason why Northwest discontinued this practice several years ago. It was causing too many problems when passengers on the delayed inbound flight thought their international connection was guaranteed only to discover it had already departed.

TWA also had a similar practice of advertising same-flight number, "direct flights" from Los Angeles, San Francisco, and either Denver, Seattle, or Phoenix to London Gatwick with a single stop at St Louis. The inbound flight would operate with an L-1011 or 727-200 inbound from the West Coast to St Louis and then continue on to London with a 747-200. Sometime around 1993, I remember hearing the boarding announcement at St Louis for the departure of "shared flight 721, 723, and 725 to London."
As mentioned previously, it was a marketing strategy.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25311 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (4 years 7 months 3 hours ago) and read 2276 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 3):
Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
Why not give each leg a separate flight number? What's the point of this practice?

It's a trick of the airlines to make the flights show up first in many online booking systems, and to make the customers think that it's not a connecting flight when in reality there is absolutely no difference between a change of planes and a connection.

That's been a common practice for decades, mainly by U.S. carriers, for the reason you mention. Flights with a single flight number all the way appear higher up in schedule displays and are more likely to be booked than connection involving two flight numbers. Many systems do indicate that there's a change of aircraft on such flights, but that is probably frequently overlooked. If carriers doing that got enough complaints they probably would have stopped doing it years ago.

One notable "change of gauge" flight was Pan Am 103 that was bombed over Lockerbie. It was a 727 from FRA to LHR and then continued as a 747 LHR-JFK but had the same PA103 flight number all the way.

Other flights that operated with several aircraft but with the same flight number were the around-the-world flights like PA1 and PA2, and later RTW flights operated by UA after they took over PA's Pacific routes. They often involved 3 or 4 different aircraft on various portions of the routing, but used the same flight number all the way around the world

[Edited 2010-02-21 16:56:45]

User currently offlinee38 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 7 months 3 hours ago) and read 2267 times:

Occasionally, this practice was also confusing to passengers.
Several years ago (approximately 2000 - 2001) I was traveling aboard Northwest flight 56 from Dallas/Fort Worth to Minneapolis/St. Paul being operated by a DC-9. I was sitting next to a gentleman (not an aviation entusiast) who was continuing on Flight 56 from Minneapolis/St. Paul to Amsterdam. He was very surprised (and somewhat confused) when I explained to him that he would be changing to a different aircraft at Minneapolis (a 747-200 or DC-10 at that time; I don't recall). He didn't understand why he wouldn't be continuing on to Amsterdam on the DC-9 and very much thought that MSP was just a "stop" and he would stay on the plane when he bought the ticket from DFW to AMS.


User currently offlineDeltaRules From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3771 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2140 times:

US does it. I've seen flights out of MCO advertised as continuing to FCO, CDG & MAN in the past, even recently.

Another thing I dislike that's like what the OP mentioned in a way is DL's new way of scheduling flights. For example, the first flight out of City X could be a 757 on Monday, Tuesday and Friday, a 738 on Wednesday and Sunday, an MD-88 on Thursday & a CRJ on Saturday. Leads to "OK, what am I flying out on tomorrow?"

[Edited 2010-02-21 20:13:02]


Let's Kick the Tires & Light the Fires!!
User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5162 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1849 times:

For what it's worth, I dislike this practice when it's a marketing matter, for the reasons described above. It's really two flights, and is planned to be two flights.

One thing that occasionally requires you to run the length of the terminal is when the change of equipment (not a change of gauge) is not the norm but rather is the result of the inbound aircraft going out of service at the hub (i.e. for a mechanical), or where the inbound aircraft is reassigned to take over a flight on which a previous aircraft has gone tech. Obviously, this kind of stuff is unpleasant, but at least is not known at the time you buy the ticket.

I have also seen the opposite. I once flew AirTran to ATL from LGA through somewhere (maybe Newport News?) on two different flight numbers, one arriving at time X and the other flight departing at time Y, with a not-insubstantial layover between the two flights. We all got off at the stop. When our flight was called, we got back on the very same aircraft. (This wasn't a common connection; if I recall, there was some reason that nonstops were all full that day and a number of folks were taking the same route as I, so there were more than a few of us saying, "Huh?" as we reboarded our "connecting" flight.)


User currently offlineTN486 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 921 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1228 times:

Back in the early 70's when QF introduced the 747B to their pacific services, the thru flights to New York and London (QF530/531) were flown with a 747B SYD-NAN-HNL-SFO and a 707 flew the SFO-NYC-LHR sector, all with the same flight number. The ac change was noted in the flight schedule. The 707 that performed the "shuttle" flew the SYD-NAN-HNL-SFO-YVR service on a Sunday (ETD SYD 2000 ETA YVR 2125) then flew YVR-SFO as part of the return journey to SYD. A 747B completed the return leg whilst the 707 performed the shuttle services SFO-NYC-LHR throughout the week. The 707 returned to OZ at the end of the week by flying the full LHR-NYC-SFO-HNL-NAN-SYD SERVICE dep LHR 2000 Sunday and arriving SYD 0905 Tue.


remember the t shirt "I own an airline"on the front - "qantas" on the back
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Cheaper Flights With More Plane Changes? posted Wed Apr 12 2006 10:44:18 by Ravel
EK's ULH Flights With 77W posted Mon Jan 4 2010 15:52:42 by AF022
Flights With Zero Y Load? (J/F Loaded) posted Thu Aug 20 2009 06:07:39 by LH4116
Any Flights With Woman As Captain, Man As F/O? posted Mon Jun 15 2009 19:35:08 by Jawed
AA 465 Return To BOS With Equipment On Stand-by posted Sat May 16 2009 05:25:55 by Dr.DTW
Last Minute Equipment Changes posted Fri May 1 2009 06:09:38 by JAGflyer
NW Seat And Equipment Changes posted Sun Mar 22 2009 17:39:58 by Patches
PIT Hoping To Revive Regional Flights With Plan posted Tue Aug 12 2008 09:38:38 by KarlB737
Long Haul Flights With Higher Fuel Costs posted Tue Jul 8 2008 06:36:53 by 6YJCX
Question About Connecting Flights With LH posted Mon May 19 2008 13:58:01 by Hywel