Subject: Flighhts: "direct" vs "non-stop"

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 12:12:33 -0400

I've discussed this with many people, including many who fly a lot, and I
find it's often misunderstood.  I've seen it again in the current travel
threads on this list.  So:

A "direct flight" is not the same as a "non-stop flight".  If you're
talking about a flight that goes from airport ABC to airport QRS, making no
stops along the way, it's a non-stop flight from ABC to QRS.

A "direct flight" from ABC to QRS, is a flight that has one flight
number... but that flight might make stops, and could even involve a change
of planes.  It's possible for flight ZX 1042 to be "direct from Podunk to
Shanghai", and to have it be a puddle-jumper from Podunk to Chicago, have
you change to a 757 there, go on to SFO to pick up more passengers, and
then continue to Shanghai.  As long as it's ZX 1042 all the way, that
flight with two stops is "direct".

All non-stop flights are direct flights.
Not all direct flights are non-stop.

And, yes, even travel agents and airline booking personnel sometimes use
these terms interchangably.  If you're offered a direct flight, make sure
to confirm whether it's "non-stop".

Barry

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 11:24:26 -0500

For me a direct flight is always a non-stop flight, so yes I do use the
terms interchangeably.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 09:37:04 -0700

> of planes.

while i agree with you completely, and the misuse annoys me.  i fear it
may be like routers and switches.  we have lost the distinction.

my fave used to be ua flight 3, ord-ogg-koa-ord, direct ord-ord :)

randy