The view from the first leg of my recent CONNECTING flight from SFO to Cancun. I would have preferred to take nonstop flights (Photo: Chris McGinnis)
Would you choose a direct or nonstop flights between Atlanta and San Francisco? What about a “connecting” flight?
Your choice could have a big impact on the price, length and comfort of your trip.
I’m constantly amazed at how many frequent travelers, airlines, agents and even fellow travel writers tend to think that “direct” and “nonstop” are interchangeable terms. They are not.
If you are wondering which type of flight is best for you, consider these definitions:
Nonstop:
A nonstop flight is just what is says: a single flight between two airports with no stops. Business travelers prefer nonstop flights because they are the fastest. Unfortunately they are usually the most expensive.
Direct:
While a direct flight might sound like a nonstop flight, it’s not. A direct flight makes at least one intermediate stop along the way to its final destination, but has only one flight number.
For example, if you choose a direct flight between Atlanta and San Francisco you’d fly on one plane the whole way to SFO. But that plane would make a stop in, say, Dallas, or Denver, where it would drop off and pick up more passengers, like a bus. Due to these stops, direct flights can add an hour or more to your total travel time.
I recently took a Southwest Airlines flight from Oakland to Phoenix for a meeting. My flight from Oakland to Phoenix was a nonstop. However, the plane continued on to St Louis. The passengers who stayed on the plane in Phoenix and continued flying to St Louis on the second leg were on a direct flight.
Often, direct flights are less expensive than nonstop flights– but not always. If you have a choice between a direct or a nonstop and the price is the same, take the nonstop!
Don’t miss: How to get on an earlier flight without paying a fee
Connecting:
A connecting flight will take at least two different planes with two different flight numbers to reach your final destination.
For example, a connecting flight from Los Angeles to New York would mean first flying from LAX to Dallas/Ft Worth where you would get off the plane. At DFW you’d board another plane (with another flight number) for the flight to New York.
Connecting flights are almost always less expensive than nonstop flights, but they are not always the best option for travelers who place a premium on time.
Why? First, when you take off and land, you double your chances of encountering delays due to weather or air traffic control. Connecting flights can also take significantly longer than direct or nonstop flights due to long layovers.
Also, you’ll have to bring your carryon bags on and off the plane multiple times in each direction. Connections often mean landing in one terminal, then having to take a train or a long walk to another.
For these reasons, connecting flights are always the least desirable in terms of convenience… but likely the most desirable in terms of price.
What type of flight will you be taking next time? Nonstop, direct or connecting? If you get it wrong, I’ll cringe!
>>Take a peek at what you may have missed on TravelSkills.com this week! <<
the thing that i don’t understand is that whenever i google from usa to China the cheapest flight. it came up like from los angles to chongqing then beijing it would be 600 plus tax. when i google it again from los angles to chongqing only, so i could get the non stop flight, but no, the google result would be los angles to tokyo then chongqing. what happens i just wanna non stop and cheap, but no, they have to put you through numerous stops. i wonder why
Hey D- as you know stats can get kinda crazy. Another wrinkle in those passenger numbers are whether or not passenger is O&D (origin or destination) or connecting. That’s why ATL for example is the world’s busiest because so many people fly through ATL instead of to or from it– I think ATL is something crazy like 70% connecting.
I know it’s not the best source but for reference, wikipedia lists the passenger counts for each U.S. airport as well as passengers per destination (top 10, 20, etc.). For example, LAX has 70.6 million passengers annually and the route to LHR has 1.4 million. I’ve always been curious about this, so just wanted to ask..
Hmm. Not sure but depends on what “statistics” you mean.
Question about the ‘direct’ flight… If you’re on the example flight above, Southwest from Oakland to St Louis with a stop in Phoenix, will you also be counted as an arrival and departure in Phoenix for their airport statistics, or only as 1 departure from OAK and one arrival at STL. This would also go for a passenger going all the way from Auckland to LHR on ANZ with a stop over at LAX. Would that passenger be counted as having landed and departed from LAX?
Pre-merger United 928 was an A320 or B757 PDX-ORD then a B777 to LHR a couple of hours later. Once, I did have to go all the way to London but the booking screen was quite clear on the equipment change and the long connection (so I was able to exit for a late lunch at the Hilton with my sweetheart).
UA 928 is still ORD-LHR but the number for the PDX-ORD flight changed after the merger.
It hasn’t happened in a while but on PDX-ORD trips connecting via DEN, I wound up on a United 767 or 777 on MUC-DEN direct (or vice-versa) via ORD. Thanks to the usual disasters at DEN and ORD, the planes ended up full, shuttling people between the two hubs, so I got upgrades that helped to take the edge off of buying the discount connecting itinerary rather than the costlier non-stop. 🙂
I haven’t come across that itinerary since the UA-CO merger and changes in the flight schedule.
I don’t mind direct flights on Southwest. The time on the ground is usually 45 minutes or less, and few passengers continue onward to the next destination so I can move to one of those great seats near the emergency exit for the next leg(s) of my journey.
I have twice been the victim of a ploy by United Airlines where they show a flight as being direct when there is really a change of planes (and aircraft type) involved. For example, I could book a direct flight from Tampa to Los Angeles with a stop in Houston. After reserving my seat on flight 1234, I realize that the first leg of the “flight” is on a 737-900. At IAH, I must exit the plane and walk to another gate in another terminal to board the continuation of flight 1234, a 757-200 that will take me to LAX. If the first leg of 1234 arrives on time and the second leg is two hours late, I’m going to be late getting to LAX. Labeling a change of aircraft as a “direct flight” is dishonest and should be prohibited.
From the airline’s point of view, what is the advantage of using direct flights rather than separate flight numbers, especially when there’s a change of equipment? Reduction in FF miles awarded for minimum hauls?
I had the joyous experience of taking a direct flight on Air Tran from Atlanta to Seattle that stopped in Milwaukee. Due to a weather delay leaving Atlanta the second leg of the flight, yes, with the same flight number, left Milwaukee for Seattle before the ATL-MKE flight arrived! You can imagine my displeasure at this, especially after the gate agent deceitfully told me and the other dozen or so stranded passengers that the plane had to get to Seattle for a connection, even though it was landing after 10 pm and Air Tran’s next flight out of Seattle was the next morning! Since the next Air Tran flight from MKE to SEA was 24 hours later I raised a stink and got put on a Midwest connecting flight through MCI the first thing the next morning, and got them to pay for my hotel, plus a biz class voucher for another flight. But c’mon!
I read the article and just said to myself, “duh!?” Then I read the comments, and I’m blown away people have so much trouble with this distinction. The dumbing down of America. Sad.
The non-stop/direct distinction is a pet peeve for me too. Infrequent travelers (and some frequent travelers) don’t understand the nuance.
There are two variations to this too. One, which someone already mentioned, is the same flight number but change of planes. This happened to me a few times on US connecting through PHX. Sometimes, the next plane was fairly close. Other times, far away. Someone also cited the other example where an international and domestic flight retains the same number, but there is an equipment down gauge on the domestic leg, and hence an equipment change.
Another variation happened to me flying MHT (Manchester, NH) to ORD to LAX on UA years ago. My son was about three or four. The equipment didn’t change at ORD, but the flight number changed. My son and I were upgraded to F on both segments. Because of the flight number change, the crew and all passengers had to disembark. My son had just fallen asleep. I had to wake him up, and take him and the car seat/stroller off the plane along with the carry on bags, wait in the gate area, and re-board. The flight crew was very apologetic, but said we couldn’t stay on board.
This one drive me nuts all the time. It’s totally futile to try to explain the difference to people. I blame the airlines, it’s ridiculous that they’ve co-opted the term “direct” to allow stops and I think they should simply be required to stop using it unless it means non-stop. It’s the only way to end this.
Thanks for writing this Chris. I am the only person I know who says “non-stop.” Everyone else says “direct” when they mean non-stop. Even after I correct them and explain the difference, and even after they correct themselves, they later will again say “direct.” It seems obvious to me, but, at least among those I know, I am in the minority.
I too was fooled into thinking a flight with the same flight number would mean the same aircraft. It was a DL flight from DCA to SNA (Orange County) with a stop at MSP (awhile ago, so probably doesn’t exist now). We were very late out of DCA, but I thought “no problem, I just get to stay on the plane at MSP.” Wrong – the flight to SNA had taken off long before we got to MSP, and I was faced with either an overnight in MSP or switching to a flight to LAX. I do have to commend Delta though – they had new boarding passes, hotel and food vouchers waiting for all of us as we deplaned, in alphabetical order so they could easily hand them out. And they were happy to switch those of us going on to SNA to a flight to LAX still leaving that night. But I learned my lesson – same flight number does NOT necessarily mean same aircraft. One note: SNA has a curfew, so perhaps they decided it was better to find another plane and fly to SNA rather than wait for our plane.
Thank you for this! I’d given up on correcting/educating people who think direct and nonstop are the same thing. Now I’ll send them your post.
I had this experience recently on US Airways. Flew DCA-PHL-AUS on the same flight number, but had to deplane and switch to a different plane at a different gate in Philly. Most annoyingly I was only credited for miles nonstop from DCA-AUS. It made a 600+ mile difference in my EQMs for that trip because of the minimums.
Unfortunately, it’s often impossible to tell whether a “direct” flight actually uses the same plane. Just because two flights have the same flight number, doesn’t mean that they use the same plane. Southwest is very good about indicating this – but other airlines frequently use the same flight number, but have different planes that require gate (and sometimes terminal) changes.
Pay attention to total flight time. Direct flights will be longer than non stops. That is one way I figure it out on some search engines. BTW, thank you for the intentional laugh. “Big difference” in the title reminded me of “The Bird Cage.”
I’m glad you said this. I always want to correct people when they say “direct flight” when they mean a “non-stop”; I’m glad I’m not the only one who feels this way. 🙂
This might just be a US Air quirk, but it’s still worth noting. I once flew a direct flight IAH-CLT-EWR. The first class was full on the IAH-CLT portion, but first class seats were open for CLT-EWR. However, US Air wouldn’t upgrade me for the one leg because their system saw me as being on a direct flight from IAH to EWR and it never considered the opportunity to change seats in CLT.
Luckily, the seats never filled up, I deplaned at CLT and asked the gate agent to manually upgrade me, which she did without hesitation.
Direct and connecting are almost interchangeable on some airlines (notable legacy US airlines.) AA, DL, and UA has a lot of flights that are direct flights from some international destinations to smaller airports in the US, stopping at one of their hubs. Though they are direct flights, the flights are operated with different aircrafts (smaller aircrafts on the domestic leg.) I once flew a connecting itinerary from PIT to YVR connecting in SFO on 2 different UA flights. To my surprise, both of my flights operated on the same aircraft with the same crew, so I lugged my carry-on off the plane, wait at the same gate area, and boarded the same plane again (I even had the same seat on both flights.)