Over the past several days there’s been an argument brewing on twitter over the concept of “non-stop” versus “direct” flights, and how the difference confuses consumers.
With a non-stop flight you take off from one city and land at your destination. A direct flight between those cities entails landing somewhere else first. It may really just mean a connection to another plane, but that new plane carries the same flight number as the first one.
The primary protagonists in the online drama are Jamie Baker and Seth Miller, with Baker arguing that the concept of direct flights is deceptive while Miller suggests that the practice is fine as long as an airline conforms to the guidelines of industry lobbying arm IATA.
This all started because Qantas called the AKL-JFK flight direct. The airline, not the media. Emirates did it this week, too.
Nonstop is, per IATA definitions, a subset of direct.
I'm done here. Go fight with someone else about something stupid.
— Seth Miller (@WandrMe) August 26, 2022
Why Direct Flights Once Made Sense
Drawing on the experience of railroads, which used the trains of one on the tracks of another, airlines in 1940 began interchange service. The federal government dictated what routes airlines could fly (and what they could charge). Planes couldn’t fly non-stop across the country. This literally meant one plane through-service across the routes of two different airlines. This was one kind of ‘direct flight’.
United Airlines and Western Airlines (now part of Delta) entered into an agreement in 1939 (not approved until 1940) to provide single aircraft overnight sleeper service between New York and Los Angeles. They swapped aircraft in Salt Lake City. United had its own aircraft flying New York to San Francisco direct (not non-stop!) but United lacked the authortiy from the federal Civil Aeronautices Board to fly from the East Coast to Los Angeles. You could fly United to Salt Lake and then connect to Western Airlines Salt Lake to Southern California – but with the advent of this interchange agreement it was same-plane service all the way.
1948 American Airlines and Delta (!) agreed to same plane interchange service between Miami and Los Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco via Dallas. This was approved in 1949.
The other form of direct flight, which predated interchange agreement, was single plane service because (1) aircraft weren’t yet advanced enough to fly non-stop across the country and (2) routes weren’t mature enough, so stops along the way would pick up and drop off passengers.
They Became Deceptive
Airlines developed their own computer reservation systems and placed them in travel agencies, who would sell tickets using algorithms that favored the system’s owners. “Display bias” due to ownership is no longer an issue, but airlines worked to ‘game’ which flights appeared first in results in other ways, since a higher display position was more likely to lead to a sale. Direct flights were aimed at a higher display position, in other words to make it appear that the flights were more desirable.
Meanwhile people think a direct flight means they’re protected in case of delays – they’re on the same plane, perhaps, so the second flight can’t take off until the first one lands, or that the airline needs to at least hold that second flight. Neither is necessarily the case but consumers may favor them nonetheless.
Southwest has plenty of same aircraft flights with the same flight number, but I’ve had readers surprised to book a single flight number from Washington DC to Tokyo – beginning on a Boeing 737 and connecting to a 787. When there is a change of aircraft, both aircraft can be in the air at the same time – there’s no need for the airline to ‘wait for you’.
When I googled ‘direct versus non-stop flights’ the first result claimed that for a direct flight you at least do not get off of the plane. This is clearly wrong but it’s the very first search result. Clearly ‘direct flights’ are confusing to people!
Now They Can Harm Customers
Direct flights can be worse than connecting flights on the same exact route with the same flight times. Airline systems often require that the same seat be available on both flight segments in order to have it assigned, since their computers treat the seat map as one for both flights. And upgrades may not process properly, either.
At a minimum they confuse customers, and it may be harder for them to learn the actual route and timing of their trip – even when passengers understand they aren’t flying non-stop.
There’s no longer a meaningful upside to direct flights to weigh against the confusion they entail. On net the practice is a negative one for consumers.
what ever….non-stop is from point A to B.
direct could be from Point A to B to C with out plane change. and maybe D if your on a southwest flight.
Whether the general public understands industry specific terminology does not determine if something is deceptive and that extends to any industry.
When the general media is no smarter than the public as a whole on the subjects it covers, it is no surprise that they elevate rather than resolve confusion.
And Jamie Baker is just being Jamie Baker – arrogant and not near as smart as he thinks he is.
@ Gary – The term is 100% deceptive for 99% of the population. Its use should end.
Gary – great post. Maybe I’m just old school (or old) but it offends me when I read “direct0 when they clearly meant non-stop. As anyone with experience in the airline business knows they are unique terms and don’t mean the same thing.
I don’t correct w wry one but do grate my teeth when someone says “direct” and clearly has no clue what that means to airlines
It’s as much the bloggers as the media, less so the airlines. Just read Boardingarea.com regularly. I flew Delta ATL-JFK-FCO in January, 2018 (the last time I found any use for Skymiles in business class) and overheard a rant at check in at JFK from some couple who had boarded that flight number at MSP and were chagrined to be changing planes at JFK. Duh.
I clearly have no dog in this fight
And i readily admit that i use these two concepts interchangeably
But. Jaime Baker comes off like a total tool herer
I used to work in Ops at TWA and AA. If an Inbound was significantly late and was a through flight, if there were no through passengers and we had crew and equipment, we would resume the outbound out of the hub for as close to on time as possible.
Direct flights have a little more value to the passenger, but not nearly as much as a non-stop. For the airline, the through cargo and baggage reduces handling. But it is really about the fact that a non-stop between the two cities does not create enough traffic. For instance Columbus, OH to Topeka, KS. But land that plane in a hub, and you have the advantages of exchanging passengers and cargo gaining efficiencies making the flight more economical to operate.
In most of the rest of the world “direct” means non-stop.
If you go to expedia.co.uk, “direct” means non-stop (e.g, when you filter results.)
I’m confused, is the complaint the media using the technically correct use of the term “direct”? The rest of the article goes into the semantic difference in a way to suggest that using the term wrong is the issue, but it seems it’s only when the media uses the term correctly that people are being “deceived”. Colloquial use of the term “direct” to mean nonstop is the opposite of deceptive, even if it drives people crazy for being technically wrong.
I assume the conclusion is just to stop correct and incorrect usage,
since correct usage is deceptive and unhelpful and incorrect usage gives certain people heart attacks.
The difference is only, in general, understood by the industry, frequent flyers, AV geeks, points collectors & outliers. The difference is deceptive – or at the least unclear – & only works to the advantage of the airlines. If it didn’t, they wouldn’t favor the flights in their search results. The non-frequent flyer deserves clarity as “direct” implies non-stop & doesn’t prompt the customer to Google the special definition of the word unique to this industry.
I used to work in the industry. I know the difference. Direct flights are not just confusing to most people, they’re a scam.
Took a United flight direct from Sacramento to Dallas. There was not only a stop in Denver but also a “change of equipment.” You had to deplane and move to a different gate. Your SMF boarding pass didn’t work. You couldn’t get a DEN boarding pass on the App or in SMF so you needed to wait in line in Denver too. They moved me too from a window to a middle (which never appeared on the App). When crediting miles for the flight, I got SMF-DFW miles and one segment, not SMF-DEN then DEN-DFW miles and two segments.
Does this bring back memories…. I think “direct” flights were much more common before the development of hub and spoke systems. I can’t recall ever flying a direct flight on any airline except Southwest, where they didn’t offer non-stops between PHX and STL, but they held the contract for government employee flights on that route – you stopped in OKC one direction, TUL the other. Everyone was so relieved when they started flying non-stops. Watching everyone switch seats during the stop was always fun. I suppose that still happens, but I no longer fly Southwest except in rare circumstances – through passengers grabbing all the good seats being one of the reasons.
To be fair to Southwest, I don’t recall them even now, using the term “direct”. Instead, they note “one-stop” change plane in XXX, “one-stop” with no change noted or “nonstop”. That is at least clear.
I try to have this discussion with people that are not in the know.
Waste of my breath.
To be precise, there is no such thing as a “non-stop” flight, unless you count the Voyagers and similar spacecraft.
I got tricked in the beginning traveling to NY. LAX of course has non-stop to JFK and EWR on AA. I’ve been on them often before. But my closest airport is SNA. They used to advertise direct flight to LGA from SNA. I thought great. The only issue was that it made one stop in ORD. Off course they tell me that you didn’t need to deplane (that was true before 9/11/01). Of course the flight still has the same flight number, and my boarding pass would be SNA-LGA. Sitting in ORD for 2 hours are so fun. But it was necessary evil because going to LAX would be the only other choice, until they started SNA-JFK service. Then stopped, now started again.
Tim Dunn – small point, but you meant not “nearly as smart.” Not “near.” Grammar.
Gary – my disdain for misuse of ‘direct’ didn’t even consider the ramifications for upgrades. That’s a good point, though I suppose one could game that to their advantage. Hasn’t impacted me personally, but I can envision the frustration a GS boarding the Island Hopper would feel if a Silver had been cleared all the way through in either GUM or HNL. Be well and safe travels – Jamie
It coukd be worse. My favorite ‘direct” flight was TWA #730 from Tucson to Vienna.
727 to Phx, 767 to JFK, L10 to FRA, then DC9 to Vienna (operated by Austrian Airlines).
4 legs, 4 planes, and 2 Airlines. .
Direct was fine until 2001 – You could stay onboard. If a crew change was happening, the FA on the inbound would wait until the new crew showed up. Now, everyone’s off the airplane – even with a same flight number/aircraft scenario.
The dreaded COG or aircraft swap at the stop is when the term became misleading. The term “through flight number” was a much less deceptive term, but it had to be explained. It encompassed the COG – which in my opinion was WRONG to ever use – and the oh, yeah… when the customer got to the airport (usually very old or unaccompanied young) and you said the horrific phrase, “Change of planes”.
It was always explained, the airline ran out of flight numbers.
I’ve always thought this deceptive and have no idea why an airline would confuse the issue. Hotels have been getting away with the ‘suite’ thing when describing a room. A suite is two or more rooms. a suite is not just a room with a little couch in it. A flight is either non-stop or a connection … how hard is that to comprehend?
Stop being so direct when you just can’t stop.
The real problem is that the general public has been confused. So you’ll see someone say something like “I booked a direct flight from Toledo to Tokyo to save us from having to stop along the way”.
Growing up an airline brat in regulated times, I had the advantage of knowing the terminology in use at the time. Nonstop: Just that. Direct: One or more stops, no change of plane. Side note: No baggage handler ever used the term “tarmac”, they worked the “ramp”. The whole ramp/tarmac thing bugs me way more than the nonstop/direct kerfuffle.
“Caveat Emptor” and “reading is fundamental” come to mind on this issue…and let’s not forget those customers who when booking flights to Washington DC,fail to note there’s IAD and DCA…yeah I know BWI is Washington area,but one would Really have to be a maroon to make that kind of mistake…and yes ,they do exist
Second paragraph: “but that new plane carriers the same flight number as the first one.”
Is “carriers” the correct word?
To the vast unwashed public, “direct” is interpreted as what we would call “nonstop”.
I was on a Southwest flight from Seattle to Sacramento. The same aircraft continued on to Tucson (and through passengers could change seats during the layover if they wanted). For SEA-SMF passengers the flight was nonstop. for SEA-TUS passengers it was direct.
Most people have no concept of this.