Continental Flight 16 & 17

Hi all,

I’ve tried looking up info on Continental flights 16 & 17 which to the best of my knowledge are between GLA & EWR. Flightware is convinced that these flights are between LAX & EWR. Am I missing something here? Does the airline have the same flight numbers for two different routes or am I or flightaware wrong?

Yes, you’re missing something. … /KEWR/EGPF was the last time the flight operated. No ops today (31 Jan 10) … /EGPF/KEWR is the flight from Glasgow. No ops tomorrow (1 Jan 11)

3 aircraft, 3 flights, 1 flight #, weird :confused:

Many flights have a change of gauge (aircraft) enroute. It is a little unusual to have 3 different aircraft.

Look at - three aircraft also

COA6 and COA7 are actually two different airlines, too!

The PGUM legs are technically CMI6 and CMI7, but we merge them on FlightAware because Continental sells the legs as Continental 6/7. In fact, you can even buy a single “direct” ticket from KSAT to PGUM, despite the two changes in aircraft and one change in airline.

We do the same thing for COA1/COA2 and CMI1/CMI2. In that case, the B764 switches hands between COA and CMI in HNL, but is the exact same plane.

Thanks for the info guys. It still seems a confusing situation to me. So, Continental flight 16 goes from GLA to EWR and then continues onto LAX and the airline count this as one flight, yes? Is it the same physical aircraft that operates both legs?

It seems overly confusing to me. Any idea why they don’t just give the GLA>EWR & EWR>LAX flights their own flight number?


It’s not the same plane. You’ll switch planes, gates, and crews. You can even miss your connection.

The airlines like selling the “Direct” service with one flight number. It’s horrible for customers (and airline employees), though. For example, try getting a seat assignment. Seats are only available if they’re available on both legs.

Thanks for the info. It still makes no sense to me why they give both of these flights the same number when for all intents and purposes, they’re not. I’ve only ever seen the flight sold as GLA to EWR. I’ve never seen any mention of the onward route to LAX so why they do it and don’t advertise it is beyond me.

Thanks to everyone who helped clear this up.

It makes sense to the airline.
The flight will be nearer the top of the display in a reservations system. The airline can sell the flight has a single flight rather than a connecting flight.
In the USA, a direct flight is a flight that has a single flight number from origin to destination, regardless of the number of stops OR if there is a scheduled change of aircraft en-route.

(Outside of the USA, a direct flight is a nonstop flight. The equivalent of a direct flight outside of the USA is a “through flight”.

And you don’t buy a round trip ticket you buy a return ticket.

Actually, Direct Flight means the same thing in Europe. It means you stay on the same aircraft from departure to destination and does not mean non-stop. I found this out the hard way when I was sold an Air Transat flight from Glasgow to Toronto that sat on the ground in Manchester for an hour. When I discovered this stop, the above explanation was what I was given by the travel agent over here.


I’ll be more specific.

Traditionally, USA and Canadian airlines have used “direct” to indicate a single flight that meets one of the following qualifications:

  • 1 or more stops, no change of plane
  • 1 or more stops, a change of plane
  • 1 or more stops, no change of plane but a change in the flight number (e.g. flight 31 flies to CDG. At CDG the flight number changes to 31A to FRA)

Nonstop: Just want it says

European, Asian, African, and most other places in the world outside of Canada and the USA, “through” flight is used in place of “direct” flight. A direct flight in these areas is a nonstop flight.

Granted, these definitions may be changing in this age of alliances but this is what the tradition is.