I often take UA 732 from SEA to ORD, “with continuing service to Jacksonville”. Every week, at landing they announce “there will be a plane change for passengers continuing to JAX…” If the plane isn’t the same, how exactly is this a “continuing flight”? Why doesn’t the ORD to JAX flight just have a new number?

Thanks,
Patrick

You guys have probably seen this a million times, because it’s a very common occurrence. In this case, United flight 732 looks like this:
Lv Seattle 6a Arr Chicago 12p
Lv Chicago 126p Arr Jacksonville 451p

You would think that with one flight number, it should be the same airplane the whole way through, right? That’s not the case. In fact, this flight is scheduled with two completely different aircraft types operating each leg. The first is on a 757 and the second on an A319. What gives?

Back in the early days, one flight number would usually have one airplane the whole way. Heck, it was more likely for the airplane to stay the same than the actual airline! (There used to be interchange flights where one airline would take the airplane part of the way and then they’d turn the airplane over to another airline to go the rest of the way.)

But in the 1980s and 1990s, the airlines started getting (too) smart (for their own good). They realized that in the Global Distribution Systems, nonstop and direct flights (the latter being flights with a stop but no change) received preference. And just like with Google search results today, those flights that showed up first got the most bookings. The airlines wanted more of that so they started designing flight numbers to match those routes with the most demand.

It got out of control quickly as airlines tried to cheat the system. I remember flipping through a timetable when I was young seeing Delta with a ton of high four digit flight numbers that were all assigned to the same flight. So maybe you would see London to Atlanta as one flight, but then they would overlay a bunch of flight numbers so it looked like you could go on a direct flight from London to all the big cities in the US. I don’t remember when that stopped happening, but I assumed it was a government regulation that ended that misleading practice.

But that didn’t mean airlines still couldn’t get creative about how they assigned their flight numbers. It didn’t take long to realize, however, that the flights that were ideal for marketing as direct weren’t the same flights as what would be ideal from an operational perspective. Certain aircraft had to go to maintenance, others just weren’t the right size to operate both legs. So the operational side of the airline started shifting airplanes around regardless of the number attached. That’s where we are today, at least with most airlines.

You still see the old method when you fly Southwest, but that’s the extent of it with large airlines. I don’t know numbers, but I’d imagine it’s less common for one airplane to work multiple legs on a flight than it is or there to be a change in the middle. And that’s because the marketing and operational arms work in different ways. There is now actually a third consideration as well.

Airlines are running out of flight numbers.

With all the codesharing occurring between airline after airline, the big guys are running out of four digit flight numbers. Could they go to five digits? Yeah, right. It would take the industry years to do the programming work required for something like that. Instead, the airlines start cramming more flights on each flight number.

Delta flight 4509 goes from LAX to San Diego and then back to LAX. Clearly nobody is taking both segments of that flight, so why bother lumping them together? Because there just aren’t enough flight numbers to split them apart.

And that’s why you see some goofy things with flight numbers today.

How many extra planes do airlines keep on hand to fill in for maintenance issues that require longer than a day to fix? Or maybe a maintenance issue that is longer than a day to fix is very-very rare? I’d imagine that a small international carrier that flies a 747 on a route does not keep an extra 747 to fill in if they have equipment problems and that they delay flights or cancel and rebook on another route/carrier. However, it’s hard to imagine that Delta Airlines does not keep an extra few A320/737′s parked in Atlanta ready to go on a moment’s notice. So what is it like out there? How many extras do airlines generally have and where do they keep them?

Jeff Z.

It’s a great question, and it’s one that’s going to vary by airline. In general, the smallest airlines probably won’t have a spare on hand. It’s just too expensive to keep an airplane down, waiting for another to break if you’re so small in the first place. But as airlines get larger, they need more spares.

I remember when I worked at America West, we ran a terrible operation in the summer of 2000. Part of the fix was increasing the number of spare aircraft in the Phoenix hub to be able to recover more quickly when an airplane broke. (And they broke a lot back then.)

I went to US Airways and asked them about their spare situation today, and the answer was an interesting one.

Since we operate a “different” schedule each day the number fluctuates a bit.

Today for instance, we currently have 340 active lines of flying on the mainline operation. Here is what we have built into the schedule for spares:

13 spares total….

2 737’s (covering 300s and 400s), 7 Airbus (covering 319/320/321), 2 B757 (covering 757/767), 1 A330 (covering A330-200 and 300) and 1 EMB 190.

So there you have it. Each fleet type has at least one spare available, but it might not be an exact match. For example, if a 767 breaks, then only a 757 will be able to step in with about 25 fewer seats. During the off-peak winter season, that might not be as big of a problem as it may be during the packed summer season.

Every airline has a different philosophy on how many spares to keep and it will change within each airline. At America West, for example, when the airplanes were at a place where they became more reliable, they could look at reducing spares again.

A little bit ago I was looking for a flight from Los Angeles to Hawaii on one of the random cheap flight websites. When I put in the search requirements, it came up with the cheapest flights having a layover in San Francisco. Figuring it wasn’t that far just to drive to san francisco, I picked there as my originating airport. I even chose to leave right before the layover flight would have normally taken off. The site then told me that I had to take a layover in Los Angeles to continue to Honolulu. Is this really all based on economics or just a sneaky way of the airlines getting a little bit more of your money? It’s obvious they have non stop flights from both Los Angeles and San francisco. Why the layovers? I would think it would cost more over all for fuel, and using terminals.

Michael

The first thing to keep in mind with something like this is that airlines don’t price based on costs. They price based on demand. When schedules are set at least a couple months in advance, predictions about revenues have been made and the hope is that the flight will be profitable, but airlines never know for sure. Once the schedule is set in stone, costs aren’t going to change, so it’s up to the revenue management team to simply maximize the amount of revenue that gets onboard that airplane.

One thing that we know without question is that a lot of people will pay more to fly nonstop, so even if a connecting itinerary may cost an airline more to fly, the airline doesn’t care about that. It only cares about getting as much revenue as it can on each flight, and that might mean pricing connecting itineraries less than nonstop.

This one looks like it’s probably on United from the routes involved, so let’s just pretend that’s the story. Here’s what I think is happening. United thinks that it can sell a lot of seats on those flights to passengers wanting to fly nonstop. But it doesn’t expect that it’s actually going to fill up every seat with those higher fares. It could reduce prices on the nonstop to increase demand, but then it dilutes the fares that all those other people would have paid and that could result in less revenue even if it puts more people on the airplane. So it tries to find another way to fill up those seats.

There is a segment of the population that will be willing to make a connection if it means cheaper flights. Those people might be considering flying a different airline like American or Delta or not traveling at all with the current nonstop fares being charged by United. So how can United find a way to keep those passengers without diluting the existing fares? It can route them over a connection. That means those who want to pay more for the nonstop will still pay more, but United can fill up empty seats with that connecting traffic from the truly price-sensitive traveler.

In the end, United fills more seats and makes more money, even though it may seem counter-intuitive at first glance.

I’d be interested in hearing more about why you don’t consider frequent flyer benefits when making your personal travel reservations. I believe you’ve mentioned this as your policy several times, but never (that I have seen) with elaboration.

With all the turmoil going on with the SkyMiles program and speculation about major changes to Mileage Plus, I’m starting to wonder if all the effort I put into obtaining and maintaining status is worth it. You travel plenty and yet seem to feel that no carrier will compensate you adequately for your loyalty. I’d love to hear why — I’m willing to be convinced.

Morgan

There are actually a lot of things that go into my decision to not care about frequent flier programs, so let’s get started. First of all, I should stress that I’m more than happy to take advantage of frequent flier programs. I belong to many programs and always make sure to earn miles when I fly. I just don’t let those programs impact my decisions.

Part of this is probably because of where I live. From the Los Angeles area, there is no dominant airline. American, Delta, Southwest, and United can get you to most places you want to go from LAX. As a Long Beach resident, however, I often skew toward JetBlue because it’s more convenient. The point is – I have a lot of choices here in Southern California.

For most people, price and schedule end up being the most important decision factors, but for me, it’s more about schedule and product. Yes, I will pay more to fly out of Long Beach than LAX. I will also pay more for an airline that has in-seat video. Legroom might not matter a ton to me since I’m pretty short, but I’d even pay a small premium for that.

For most people, nonstop is a hugely important factor, and that’s true for me as well, but I also look for variety. If I have the chance to fly a new airline, connect in a new city, or ride on a new aircraft type, then I’ll usually jump at the chance as long as there isn’t too big of an inconvenience factor.

That’s why frequent flier programs rarely make sense for me as a decision-driver. If I want new experiences, then sticking with a single frequent flier program will prevent that from happening. It might also make me shy away from more convenient options, since the best option from LA can often be on a different airline for every itinerary.

The flip side is, of course, what I’m giving up. There are a lot of supposed benefits to being elite, so let’s look at them and I’ll show you why I don’t care.

• Upgrades – This is always the big sell, but honestly I don’t care. People think I travel a lot, but I really don’t. I haven’t taken a real vacation in over 3 years. I either travel for events with friends and family or I travel for work. When I travel for work, it’s usually on the airline’s dime so I won’t earn miles anyway.

  Last year, I traveled 34,202 miles. Had I focused on one airline, I might have reached silver status, but even then, what’s the chance I’d get an upgrade? There are so many silver elites at every airline that it’s almost impossible to get an upgrade at that level. Last time I was elite on anyone was 2005/2006 with US Airways. I got an upgrade once from Vegas to LA and another time from Phoenix to LA. That was it. Who cares?

• Priority Check-In/Security/Boarding – I almost never check a bag, so I’m always checked in before I get to the airport. I’m sure there are times I could have saved a little time with priority security, but when I fly out of Long Beach, that doesn’t matter. And when I travel, I use a duffel that can, if needed, squeeze under the seat in front of me. I’d prefer to find bin space, and I usually can, but there’s always a back up so I don’t care if I’m on the airplane that early.
• Free Checked Bags – This has never been an issue for me since I rarely check bags, though that’s about to change with a mini-Cranky on the way. (That’s right, I just dropped that casually into the post.) But it’s still not that much to check a bag.
• Priority Seating – I’ll admit that I do like having priority seating – if there are only middles left on the airplane, then it would be nice to grab that window up front that’s being held back for elites. But with most airlines these days, you can pay for a better seat if you want it. It’s a nominal fee, and I would only bother with it if I couldn’t get a window in the back anyway. As I said, I like more legroom so having Economy Plus on United is nice, but it’s hardly worth concentrating my business just to get that for free. Besides, if I fly JetBlue from Long Beach, I get more legroom automatically.

In short, the benefits of elite status aren’t enough to make me consider warping my decision-making process when it comes to buying a ticket. It’s far more freeing to just fly who I want and then pay for the extra little benefits if I ever feel that I need them.

Is United slowing down its flights to save fuel? It looks like it. I had a San Francisco – Lihue (Kauai) trip booked already, but the schedule was just changed. The outbound flight now takes 16 minutes longer. The return flight takes 11 minutes longer. Unless United is afraid of getting fined for blowing arrival times, the only other reason I can think of is they’re slowing the plane down to save fuel. Have you heard anything?
Doug

The short answer is no. United is not slowing down its flights. (And it wouldn’t be fined for blowing arrival times unless it happens consistently for several months.) It’s just the way the airline handles its schedules.

When United loads its schedules, it does it in seasonal blocks. Those schedules are firmed up about six weeks before it starts and before that, they just use future schedules. (I’m told that this window is growing now that the airline is under new management.)

Future schedules are rough estimates based on past block times, but they don’t always take seasonality or ultimately, reality, into effect. Winds change seasonally as do airport operations so flight times can vary. There might also be issues around aircraft types changing since some airplanes fly faster than others. But when future schedules go into effect, they aren’t necessarily meant to be completely accurate. In this case, United’s future schedules weren’t perfect.

In fact, for Doug, the flight times in the future schedule were a bit aggressive so while it looks like United added a lot of time to the flights when the final schedules were released, in reality, these block times are 5 to 7 minutes faster than they were last year. So, no, United is not slowing down to save fuel. It’s just the way they handle schedules.

. . . I booked my tickets last week and got an interesting email from the online travel service this week that my return flights had been changed by the airline. The departure and arrival times were changed by 1-3 minutes, for the most part making the flights a bit longer. For example, my departure from Buffalo was changed from 4:30 to 4:27 (or it might have been the other way around).

Why would Delta make such small changes to the flights? I’m a private pilot and come from a family of pilots, so I’m familiar with airspeed versus ground speed, but there’s no way they can predict the weather nearly two months out; and I know about flying at maximum economical speed as opposed to maximum possible speed, so I’m wondering if the rising fuel prices have caused them to adjust their speeds a bit to save fuel. But that is just a wild guess.
Perry

This happens on all airlines, but I’ve certainly noticed it happening more frequently on Delta than others. You think your flights are all set and then you get a schedule change notice saying that the arrival time has moved by a minute or two. Why the heck are they doing this?

I went to Delta for the official response and was told this:

. . . when the schedule is first published, it’s not operationally sequenced, so small adjustments are made on certain routes – basically massaging the departure and arrival times slightly for the best operational efficiency and connectivity. As your reader noted, these are minor, a minute here and there.

In other words, when Delta first puts the schedule out there, it’s not perfectly timed to fit into the entire system. Little tweaks of a minute or two can make a difference. That sounds really nebulous, so let me try to fill in the blanks.

A schedule is put out there nearly a year in advance. Often, that won’t be the final expected schedule. Major tweaks happen along the way, but the big ones are usually done when you’re a few months out. There might be some new routes added since the schedule was first put out there. Some routes could be cut, frequencies could change, etc. So at a large airline like Delta, when the schedule firms up, they might find that tweaks of a minute or two on other routes can help.

There are a few other reasons I can think of that would make this worth doing. Look at it through the eyes of the reservation system. This is more of a small change than a big one, but let’s say that Delta flies from Buffalo to Tampa via Atlanta and it takes 4h32m. Then let’s say that US Airways can get you there in 4h30m. If there are a lot of people that fly that route, it might make sense for Delta to find a way to shave 3 minutes off the connection time. That could make it the fastest way to get from Buffalo to Tampa and it could actually have an impact on bookings. Of course, you only do this for larger markets.

There is also the issue of weather. Airlines use historical weather patterns to determine how long flights will take. For example, winds are much stronger in the winter than the summer, so a flight from JFK to LAX is scheduled to take longer in the winter. It’s possible that as weather data comes in, the airlines make slight changes to adjust to the new expectations.

The last reason I can think of for this is simply one of airport issues. Let’s say that Buffalo has construction going on this winter. Delta might want to lengthen the expected flight times to account for the potential ground delays, even if it’s just a few minutes.

I’m sure we have some readers who know more about this than I, so feel free to chime in below.

When I get saddled with a middle seat on a transatlantic or other long flight, my 6 foot 1 inch, 225 pound frame starts to ache before I even go through security. When I beg at check-in for a better seat assignment, why are they powerless? They always tell me to see the “gate agent” which, sometimes, is the exact same person. Is it because once the flight has closed they will have a better sense of what they can do?

Derrick M

There can be a couple of reasons why a ticket counter agent would push you off to the gate agent, one sensible and one obnoxious. Fortunately, the sensible one is far more likely.

Just think about what goes into getting a flight out from the perspective of a gate agent. Up until the day of the flight, some people have chosen seats while others have not. Airlines will usually hold back a chunk of seats for the day of departure anyway, so many people can’t get seats in advance even if they tried. Then of course there are the seats that are held back for elite members. Those same elite members are likely to get upgraded, so the seats in coach can become available when they get moved up to the pointy end up of the plane.

There are a lot of moving parts, so to help control the chaos as departure nears, the airline will put these flights “under airport control.” This prevents all different kinds of people from sticking their fingers in and making life difficult for the agents who actually have to get the flight out of the gate. So when you get to the gate, there are a lot of different things going on. Upgrades will be cleared and gate agents will try to help families sit together who have been split apart, for example. Then there are just the people who want to sit in a different seat from what they already have assigned. It can be a gigantic puzzle that’s difficult in its own right.

Now imagine trying to solve that puzzle while it’s in motion. Yeah, that sucks. So when the gate agents take control of a flight, they have the ability to make changes without worrying about others poking their noses in there as well. And that’s the sensible reason for having you talk to the gate agent.

What’s the obnoxious reason? There might not be any good seats left and if the agent is having a bad day, he might just want to push you off on someone else so he doesn’t have to deal with it. Yes, that does happen from time to time, but the sensible reason is far more likely.

Four of us travelled from Newark to Paris on Open Skies Airlines this month. The flight was delayed from 6.40 p.m. to about 11 p.m. and consequently we missed our next flight from Paris to Edinburgh on Easy Jet and had to purchase new tickets. Open Skies is offering us each $65 vouchers on future flight with them.
Since we do not routinely fly transatlantic, I have told them that there offer is not sufficient for our inconvenience and added expenses. Under the new EU Regulation 261/2004 are we entitled to compensation?

Arlene

First, to answer the immediate question here. No, sorry Arlene, but you aren’t technically entitled to any compensation. You would have had to buy two separate tickets since Open Skies and easyJet wouldn’t have an agreement in place. That can save a lot of money, but it also relieves the other airline from having to give you any compensation due to a missed connection. In addition, EU Regulation 261/2004 (pdf) does not offer compensation for delays. But it does offer a lot, and some of it makes very little sense. So let’s look at it.

This rule applies if you’re bumped, canceled, or delayed. It only applies to passengers departing from a European Union member state or flying to an EU state on an EU-based airline if the originating country doesn’t already have protections in place. It applies to anyone holding a confirmed reservation (including frequent flyer tickets) who arrives at the airport with adequate time and does everything as required to board the flight.

If an airline has an oversold flight and can’t find enough volunteers, it has to involuntarily bump passengers and there are specific compensation rules. That same compensation applies if a flight is simply canceled. In these cases, the passenger is entitled to the following:

There are a couple exceptions here. For example, if another flight can be found that gets the passenger to the destination soon after the original time, then compensation is reduced or eliminated depending on the instance. There is also an interesting little stipulation that says;

An operating carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation . . . if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

This doesn’t apply for simple weather cancellations. In fact, I believe that some are even saying this doesn’t apply to the volcano earlier this year. If that’s the case, then this statement is apparently meaningless.

Now, that compensation amount is just flat compensation regardless of what the passenger decides to do with the flight. If the passenger doesn’t want to travel, he is entitled to a refund. If the passenger can’t get another flight for awhile, he’s entitled to food and hotel as appropriate. That last piece also applies to delays.

The delay rule itself says that passengers are entitled to food, hotel, etc regardless of the reason for delay if the delay is anywhere from 2 to 4 hours using the same distance breakdown as shown in the compensation table above. If the delay passes five hours, then the customer can walk away and get a full refund.

And that’s the gist of the rule. My only problem is that these things apply to flights even if the problems are outside the airline’s control. It makes little sense to me that if a flight is canceled because there’s a storm over the airport, that airlines should have to shell out hundreds of euros. That’s the sort of incentive that encourages airlines to fly unsafely. But this is the rule, so now you now what applies to your flights.

I’d love to see you do a post on how bereavement fares have evolved (or not evolved) over the year. Back when I was skinny and had hair, and there were really only four classes of fares: F, FN, Y and YN, the bereavement fares gave a pretty dependable discount on the Y and YN fares. Now, with fares being an absolute alphabet soup, how to the majors and LCCs handle bereavement fares? I know when I did a short stint as an Alaska Airlines res clerk, I could usually beat the heck out of the bereavement fare – but that too, was a long time ago.

Frank V

There’s no question that times have changed. Back in the day, bereavement fares provided a tangible discount over the prevailing rate. The reason for this was simply compassion. People didn’t ever want to take those trips, but they had to and the airlines did what they could to make it a little easier.

As the industry’s fare structure changed and low cost carriers brought lower last minute fares, bereavement fares started to become irrelevant. Oh, they still gave a discount off the full fare. It’s just that nobody paid the full fare anymore.

For low cost carriers, bereavement fares don’t exist for the most part. Southwest, for example, doesn’t offer bereavement fares. Other airlines have varying policies.

American – The website offers a very terse suggestion that bereavement fares may be offered and you need to call them for info. They tend to use an older school approach with flat rates that are very flexible. It tends not to be very helpful.

Continental – They realized that the old model wasn’t helping anyone, so they switched to something new. Now, tickets up to $500 get a 5% discount, tickets between $500 and $1000 get a 10% discount, and tickets over $1000 get a 20% discount.

Delta – They offer a lot more information on bereavement fares on their website but it’s the same end result as American.

United – Like Continental, United has gone with a discount structure, but they’ve opted for simplicity. You can get 10% off any ticket.

As you can see, some of these are good and some bad, but they’re all a pain in the butt. You’re only allowed to take advantage of this for close family members, and each airline has a list of what that includes. You need to provide documentation as well. If someone is sick, you need to give medical contact information so the airline can confirm that this is real. In case of death, you’ll often be asked for the death certificate. It’s not a fun experience. In fact, it’s unpleasant enough to have been a subject of a Seinfeld episode.

But the fares are still out there. They’re just not easy to take advantage of.

Can you do a piece on consolidators/consolidator fares? It’s probably the largest aspect of the industry that I’m in the dark about. I’d like to see something with a bit of depth. How do they work? Why do they even exist? At the basic level, I understand that they buy blocks of tickets at a discount. But why can’t the airline just sell them through their own systems with whatever restrictions they want? Are all online agencies consolidators? If not, how can you tell? When are they just fronts for the same thing you can buy directly from the airline? Are there any real differences between Expedia, Travelocity, Orbitz, Cheaptickets, Cheapoair, and others that I’ve forgotten?

Dan L

Ah yes, consolidators. It’s sort of the mystery of the travel world for many people. They have this reputation as being amazing sources of cheap fares, but how can you find them? Are they reliable? What’s the catch? Let’s get started.

For you as a traveler, when you hear about consolidators, bucket shops, and wholesalers, it means the same thing. Discounted airfare. You’ll have the best luck finding these on international routes, in particular in premium cabins, and you can save a lot of money.

For example, we had a Cranky Concierge client who recently needed to fly from Chicago to Hong Kong in business class. American was showing an option on its website for $9,000 roundtrip. We found those same flights on Webjet.com for a mere $3,500 roundtrip. Yeah, big difference.

There are a couple things to keep in mind about these fares. Yes, you can save a ton but there are nearly always additional restrictions. The change fee on this, for example, is $400 plus a $50 Webjet fee, so it’s not entirely flexible. Any changes are required to go through the agency and not the airline, so that can cause issues while you’re traveling. Often you won’t be able to earn miles on cheap seats like these either.

In this particular case, the deal appears to be that Webjet isn’t even allowed to show the airline name. It simply says “Major Airline.” Of course, it’s easy to figure out since it shows flight numbers and flight times. Not hard to put two and two together.

Often the biggest question about something like this is . . . why? The idea is that airlines can find non-traditional outlets to help sell seats that they wouldn’t have sold otherwise. Go to your nearest Chinatown and you’ll find great deals on flights to China at bucket shops around the area. That’s the best way to reach a large audience that can help fill your airplanes. In many places, this is the way they book travel every time.

With the web, things have become more complicated. Cheap fares are offered to the world as soon as they go online, so you would think that this practice would disappear. But it still continues, likely as a legacy of the past. There are good deals to be found, for sure.

But how do you know if these guys are reputable? It’s a lot easier now in the world of e-tickets. Pay with a credit card and as soon as it’s booked, go directly to the airline to check on your reservation. If all looks good, then you’re set. If not, then you can immediately dispute it with your card.

Another thing to keep in mind is that you aren’t necessarily dealing with a consolidator directly. Consolidators will often sell to travel agents, so you can buy fares through retail agents who get the fares through consolidators and you’ll never know the name.

Some places only sell consolidator fares. If you go to Airfare.com, for example, you’ll see that there are very few options given. That’s because published fares aren’t shown. Others just mingle the fares shown, as you’ll see on a site like Travelocity or Expedia. You wouldn’t know if it was a consolidator fare or not at first blush.

I’ve had good luck with Airfare.com, Webjet.com, Cheapoair, and others in the past. You can also go to a travel agent to do the legwork for you, or to Cranky Concierge, of course. In the end, it’s worth checking out because it can save you a lot.