Flight number xxx with continuing service to ...

[Squigish]

I was wondering if anyone had any insight into why airlines use the same flight number for continuing flights, when the two flights really have almost nothing in common.

As an example, a couple of years ago, I was flying on Northwest from BDL-MSP-BZN, and then returning on the same routing. The BDL-MSP and MSP-BZN flights used a single flight number, but on the return I had two different flight numbers. The only difference as far as I could tell is that I had the same crew for the first two flights, and I only got one boarding pass, so I had to save it and use it to board the second plane. We changed aircraft in MSP. Even more bizarre, when I got off my first plane (from BDL) and looked at the gate monitor, it listed that this plane was going to BZN, but not on my flight number, and not leaving until several hours later. So NWA had a crew that flew BDL-MSP-BZN, and an aircraft that flew BDL-MSP-BZN, but they weren’t the same.

The other thing that seems weird is that occasionally, when the first leg of a 1-stop flight is delayed, the second leg will occasionally depart before the first leg arrives. This seems like it would create problems for Air Traffic Control, as they could have two flights called Northwest 811 at the same airport at the same time, one landing and one departing. (I guess this would be mitigated somewhat if the arriving aircraft was a widebody, since then you’d at least have the distinction between northwest 811 heavy and northwest 811).

I can sort of understand the marketing advantages of a scheme like this, (“we offer a ‘direct’ flight from Hartford to Bozeman”), but I see two major problems with this explanation.

1. How many people really want to fly from Hartford to Bozeman? (or other more-or-less random city-pairs)

2. More importantly, I don’t see airlines actually using this in their marketing.

Is it just a relic of the old days, when you had to refuel 4 times on a transcontinental flight, and the legacy carriers (presumably) treated continuing flights more like Southwest does now?

The one major exception to this whole thing is Southwest, who have a largely common-sense approach to flying. If you board flight 731 in PVD, and have a ticket to RDU, on a single flight number, but the plane stops at PHL, you don’t even get off the plane.

It reminds me of the joke about what would happen if airlines sold paint

[drdisque]

1. Yes, people do fly Hartford to Bozeman (probably 10-30 people/day among all airlines during the summer).
2. Since there is no nonstop service between Hartford and Bozeman, the NW 1-stop flight would show first on most travel agent schedule and availability displays because it is a “direct” flight and not a connection. Therefore they would be slightly more likely to book it compared to connections on other airlines who do not offer a “direct” flight.
3. It is a totally free that the airline can do to increase sales.

[damiross]

@Squigish

I was wondering if anyone had any insight into why airlines use the same flight number for continuing flights, when the two flights really have almost nothing in common.

If an airline has routed an aircraft from A to B to C this really no reason to change the flight number at B. It’s easier for the passenger to remember 1 flight. The flight also shows up ahead of connecting flights in reservations systems which sometimes gives the airline an advantage.

@Squigish

As an example, a couple of years ago, I was flying on Northwest from BDL-MSP-BZN, and then returning on the same routing. The BDL-MSP and MSP-BZN flights used a single flight number, but on the return I had two different flight numbers. The only difference as far as I could tell is that I had the same crew for the first two flights,

This doesn’t always happen. Sometimes you may have the same crew for a flight that goes from A to B to C. Sometimes you may have a crew change (either pilots or cabin or both) at B.

@Squigish

The other thing that seems weird is that occasionally, when the first leg of a 1-stop flight is delayed, the second leg will occasionally depart before the first leg arrives. This seems like it would create problems for Air Traffic Control, as they could have two flights called Northwest 811 at the same airport at the same time, one landing and one departing. (I guess this would be mitigated somewhat if the arriving aircraft was a widebody, since then you’d at least have the distinction between northwest 811 heavy and northwest 811).

What often happens in this case is that the second leg of the flight has a letter added to the flight number. If flight 811 is running late and the second segment takes off then the second segment may become flight 811A.

I can sort of understand the marketing advantages of a scheme like this, (“we offer a ‘direct’ flight from Hartford to Bozeman”), but I see two major problems with this explanation.

@Squigish

The one major exception to this whole thing is Southwest, who have a largely common-sense approach to flying. If you board flight 731 in PVD, and have a ticket to RDU, on a single flight number, but the plane stops at PHL, you don’t even get off the plane.

This is the way airlines use to be before they started thinking it was cool to have hubs.

One of the reasons Southwest does it is for aircraft scheduling purposes. As an example, today’s (November 20) flight SWA1609 operates DEN-OKC-DAL-SAT-PHX-RNO. By having the same flight number scheduling is simplified. This doesn’t mean a passenger can buy a DEN-RNO ticket on the flight, howeve nor does it mean that same crew will operate this aircraft or be in the cabin all day long.