Deceptive flight numbering by United Airlines (sham on them)!

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:48:16 -0800, mrtravel
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:37:18 -0500, Nobody
wrote:


wrote:


apparent that is not the case. Looks like we have to change planes in
San Francisco. I think this is very deceptive and I have mind to call


There are a couple of advantages to having the multiple flights under a
single number. If there is a snafu, United has greater responsability to
accomodate you than if you had booked the trip on the same planes but
with two separate flight numbers.

From a marketing point of view, the USA airlines are very big on making
their schedules compete to appear first on reservation systems, so the
ability to market that denver-hawaii as a single flight increases the
odds that someone would book it (and yes, this is deceptive advertising).

From a capacity planning point of view, it allows UA to provide booking
classes that are available to only those booking the den-hnl flight.

Say UA wants to do a seat sale DEN-HNL with 20 available seats. It can
put 20 seats in V class on the flight 77, and none on the actual real
flights. This way, those flying DEN-SFO or SFO-HNL will not be eating up
on the inventory of V seats reserved for DEN-HNL.


The two legs might not even be truly on the same airline; one leg
may be a code share flight.


I have never seen a codeshare using the same flight number as a non
codeshare flight, have you? Do you think UA codeshares on partner metal
when going SFO-HNL?

As you read further on, you will see my answer is "no".

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:54:09 -0800,
wrote:

On Nov 7, 2:48 pm, Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:56:42 -0800, wrote:
When I did a spot check on United Vacations in January 08
This flight number popped up 77
when you click on the 77, this comes up

Flight Details

Denver to Hawaii, Oahu
United Airlines 77

Flight#:
United Airlines 77

Departs:
Denver (DEN)
1:23 PM - 19 Jan '08

Arrives:
Hawaii, Oahu (HNL)
7:46 PM - 19 Jan '08

The United web site shows Flight 77 departing Denver at 1:23 pm
and has one stop at SFO and says "Plane change". Seems pretty
clear to me.

You have an hour and two minutes for the change.

Neither leg seems to be a code share.

At first glance it was ot clear to my wife, as only shows UA#77 DEN-
HNL, not UA#77 DEN-SFO and UA#77 SFO-HNL. Of course if you click on
flight it gives you more details. I guess they figure a bunch of
people will do this and thus not find out about their deceptive
practices.

I'm not clear about the deception when it's stated explicitly in
their flight listings.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

wrote in message
oups.com...
Hey all

My wife has booked us a package deal through United Vacations to
Hawaii. When first looking at our flight information it looks like we
have a nonstop flight from Denver to Hawaii, but after doing some
research to see if my wife really go us the best deal it becomes
apparent that is not the case. Looks like we have to change planes in
San Francisco. I think this is very deceptive and I have mind to call
United an ear-full. My daughter tells me that many airlines do this
all the time. I think, as these are two separate flights they should
be numbered that way and not just UA77.

Anyone else's thoughts on this very deceptive practice?

Sam Smith


Remember that there are a few flights in the world that cannot be flown non
stop (or at least not with a "commercial" load). I'm thinking about routes
like London-Sydney which have to stop en route. I am *not* suggesting that
your route is one of those, however, you do have to watch same flight number
operations for stops.

In your case I do believe that the change should be highlighted better.
You get a 737 from Denver to San Francisco then a 767 onward. I know
people who have a fear of flying who will only fly on wide body aircraft and
would thus have a real problem with the first sector.

On Nov 7, 2:15 pm, Hatunen wrote:


The two legs might not even be truly on the same airline; one leg
may be a code share flight.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Who would the code share flight be on?

Sam Smith

wrote:

On Nov 7, 2:15 pm, Hatunen wrote:


The two legs might not even be truly on the same airline; one leg
may be a code share flight.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *


Who would the code share flight be on?

Sam Smith


Good point. I doubt there is an American airline that uses the same
numbering scheme for codeshares as they do for their own flights.

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote:

I found it more common with an overseas flight with a stop immediately
prior to leaving the contiguous US.

TWA was infamous for this. They'd start a flight number domestically, say ABQ to
JFK, then switch to a larger aircraft for the JFK to Europe leg, then switch
back to a smaller aircraft for a jump to a middle east airport. All on the same
flight number.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars

"mrtravel" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:

On Nov 7, 2:15 pm, Hatunen wrote:


The two legs might not even be truly on the same airline; one leg
may be a code share flight.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *


Who would the code share flight be on?

Sam Smith


Good point. I doubt there is an American airline that uses the same
numbering scheme for codeshares as they do for their own flights.

The TWA flights all used TWA metal. You'd get a 727/MD80 to JFK, a 747
across the Atlantic and another 727 to the destination. Think back to the
Beirut hijacking - a TWA 727. Pan Am did similar things. The only one I
know of that involved a form of code share was Continental. For a while
they had an Amsterdam/Houston flight that "stopped" at Gatwick. The
Amsterdam/Gatwick leg was a Transavia 737 and the Gatwick/Houston a
Continental DC10. The 737 never had a Transavia flight number - it was
more of a charter than a code share.

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 14:36:12 -0000, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:


"mrtravel" wrote in message
...
wrote:

On Nov 7, 2:15 pm, Hatunen wrote:


The two legs might not even be truly on the same airline; one leg
may be a code share flight.

Who would the code share flight be on?

Sam Smith


Good point. I doubt there is an American airline that uses the same
numbering scheme for codeshares as they do for their own flights.

The TWA flights all used TWA metal. You'd get a 727/MD80 to JFK, a 747
across the Atlantic and another 727 to the destination. Think back to the
Beirut hijacking - a TWA 727. Pan Am did similar things. The only one I
know of that involved a form of code share was Continental. For a while
they had an Amsterdam/Houston flight that "stopped" at Gatwick. The
Amsterdam/Gatwick leg was a Transavia 737 and the Gatwick/Houston a
Continental DC10. The 737 never had a Transavia flight number - it was
more of a charter than a code share.

I'm not sure about using the same flight number all the way; that
would take more research, although I thought I had seen it
Anyway, British Airways has flights from Birmingham Alabama to
London listed on their web site. The Birmingham-Dallas leg has
flight number BA5162, and the DDFW-LGW leg is BA2192. BA5162 is
an AA flight in reality.

I wonder why the do it geographically retrograde and connect
through DFW instead of some East Coast airport.

(I didn't know any BA North American flights used LGW these
days.)


--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 22:46:05 -0600, "Frank F. Matthews"
wrote:



Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:25:44 -0800, wrote:


Hmmmm
Maybe your wife mistook "Direct" as "Non Stop"


A "Direct" flight doesn't imply a change of planes part way to
your destination, either. But the practice seems to be becoming
common, and I believe, usually involves a change from a
code-share flight on one airline to the airline you think you're
going to be on (or the other way around).


I found it more common with an overseas flight with a stop immediately
prior to leaving the contiguous US.

For various values of "immediately". As my other post points out,
the listed British Airways flight(s) from Birmingham Alabama to
London does a plane change at Dallas.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 14:36:12 -0000, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:


"mrtravel" wrote in message
m...
wrote:

On Nov 7, 2:15 pm, Hatunen wrote:


The two legs might not even be truly on the same airline; one leg
may be a code share flight.

Who would the code share flight be on?

Sam Smith


Good point. I doubt there is an American airline that uses the same
numbering scheme for codeshares as they do for their own flights.

The TWA flights all used TWA metal. You'd get a 727/MD80 to JFK, a 747
across the Atlantic and another 727 to the destination. Think back to
the
Beirut hijacking - a TWA 727. Pan Am did similar things. The only one
I
know of that involved a form of code share was Continental. For a while
they had an Amsterdam/Houston flight that "stopped" at Gatwick. The
Amsterdam/Gatwick leg was a Transavia 737 and the Gatwick/Houston a
Continental DC10. The 737 never had a Transavia flight number - it was
more of a charter than a code share.

I'm not sure about using the same flight number all the way; that
would take more research, although I thought I had seen it
Anyway, British Airways has flights from Birmingham Alabama to
London listed on their web site. The Birmingham-Dallas leg has
flight number BA5162, and the DDFW-LGW leg is BA2192. BA5162 is
an AA flight in reality.

I wonder why the do it geographically retrograde and connect
through DFW instead of some East Coast airport.

(I didn't know any BA North American flights used LGW these
days.)


--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

BA flights to Tampa, Orlando, Atlanta, Dallas and Houston still use Gatwick.
When the "liberalised" arrangement that allows US carriers into Heathrow
comes into being next year the Dallas and Houston will move to Heathrow.
ATL,DFW and IAH were all the old BCAL routes and caught in the Bermuda
agreement trap. BA tend to see Gatwick as their "vacation" airport
although why ATL meets that definition I don't know.

I'm guessing that the reason for routing via DFW is a mixture of it's
actually the fastest AA/BA routing; the DFW flight needs the support and it
takes the pressure off east coast/Chicago flights that sell anyway. I'm
always amused by how the typical map projection mislead me with regard to
flying times. Because ORD is further West than IAD I always think it's
going to take longer to get to IAD from LON but in the end the flying times
are very similar.