What does “direct” flight mean?
Back to Forum- This topic has 22 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 31 Jul 2014
at 12:45 by Ahmad.
-
- Author
- Posts
- Skip to last reply Create Topic
-
BigDog.ParticipantIt appears BA has a different definition from some (infrequent?) travellers….
Should direct be synonymous with non-stop?
Personally I have some sympathy for BA here as many flights to Oz were regarded as direct (as one stayed on the same aircraft) although clearly there would be a stop.
30 Jul 2014
at 19:41
rfergusonParticipantI had always understood a ‘direct’ flight as being a flight (with or without stops) that uses the same aircraft and flight number throughout. An example being as you say Bigdog SIN/SYD. Or BAH/DOH, AUH/MCT, NAS/CGM etc. If it had marketed them as ‘non stop’ obviously that would be a breach. But LGW-Male-Colombo is a direct flight as far as I know.
30 Jul 2014
at 19:51
TheRealBabushkaParticipantWhen did “direct” suddenly become “non-stop”?
The uninitiated need to be educated.
31 Jul 2014
at 04:41
SimonS1ParticipantI agree it’s harsh on BA as these terms have always been used.
That said I have always thought use of the term “direct” was odd as in my mind if I travel directly from A to B then it doesn’t involve going via C.
Generally standards of consumer protection have increased and this is a good example. Maybe the ASA can tackle the question of ‘carrier imposed charges’ next and put an end to fuel surcharges etc.
31 Jul 2014
at 04:57
LuganoPirateParticipant+2 Canucklad.
We seem to aspire to the lowest common denominator and the need to think for oneself has been taken away. I despair sometimes, I really do.
31 Jul 2014
at 05:42
MrMichaelParticipantDirect perhaps is going the shortest route from A to B. So if BA are avoiding Ukranian airspace by flying around it on say the LHR-SIN route, then perhaps the ASA could argue that although it is non stop it is not direct.
I think the ASA are nuts, I have personal experience of them having little grasp of reality and no sense of humour.
Canucklad and others are quite right in what they say, and if I was BA I would be very tempted to tell the ASA (as Ryanair have on a number of occasions) ” we will not give you any such assurance of not using that advert again”. My understanding is that compliance to the ASA is purely voluntary and they have no legal powers other than (like any of us could) reporting the supposedly misleading adverts to trading standards or the office of fair trading. It us then up to the dozy jellyfish like complainants to sue BA for misleading them when they purchased the flights.
Let’s just hope we are not on a flight with these brainless morons, and furthermore by making such a ridiculous complaint it should by law preclude them from sitting in an emergency exit row seat, and that goes too for the eejit from the ASA that made this bizarre decision.
31 Jul 2014
at 07:42
AhmadParticipantASA may have a point. Although, since I started flying four decades ago, I recall the word ‘direct’ being used for flights using the same aircraft and flight number, I have often found it confusing. One has to then check whether the flight is non stop or not. Sometimes it is not easily discernible from the airline’s timetable and has to be deduced by the departure/arrival timings. It is certainly misleading for the not so savvy traveler. Much in the same way as the North American term “through flight” (now also used elsewhere) which carries the same flight number but involves not only a stopover but sometimes even a change of aircraft with or without the need to even clear customs!
I personally feel making direct synonymous with non stop is a good step taken by the ASA to clarify the oft confusing advertising we are constantly bombarded with. I don’t know how many would recall the good old days when airline timetables clearly mentioned stops (even technical ones). It certainly made things much less confusing for most. In the world of asterisk advertising, surely the least airlines can do is specify, albeit in small print, that the ‘direct’ flight stops enroute!
31 Jul 2014
at 09:24
TimFitzgeraldTCParticipantHave to agree with most people on here – it seems totally nuts. Sadly the way society is going. If it had been DL19 from LHR to MCO which shows on GDS as a through flight but on further investigation is actually a change in Detroit onto another plane then I’d understand the complaint.
BA (or any airline) only have a duty to advise where the plane may touch down en-route and make this clear if the flight is not non-stop.
31 Jul 2014
at 09:40
SimonS1ParticipantTim – the DL example really is nuts. How can a direct flight involve a change of plane.
I do think over the years the use of the word “direct” has changed a bit. In the earlier days of flying the stops were for technical/refuelling purposes.
These days I do think some of the airlines take advantage a bit and stretch the definition especially on the triangular routes. For example KLM with the Lusaka/Harare route just pulled – I wouldn’t say flying an hour in the opposite direction is really a “direct” routing.
31 Jul 2014
at 09:52
AhmadParticipantLooks like I am going against the majority view here but I totally agree with the ASA on this that passengers who are required to fly at least four extra hours (beyond the destination and doubling back) have the right to be told in advance. All the ASA now apparently requires is that advertisements clearly indicate the routing of ‘direct’ flights, surely not too much to ask. Personally, I would be happy with notice in small print. But notice there must be, rather than having to find out the hard way!
31 Jul 2014
at 10:04 -
AuthorPosts
