Four digit flight numbers

[Melburnian1]

Airlines may want to differentiate their flight numbers by aircraft type, whioch one be one justification for the use of four digit flight numbers.

They may also want to ensure flight numbers for 'own metal' and for 'codeshares' are discrete.

However I doubt I'm alone in finding a four digit flight number as opposed to one with one to three digits harder to remember.

Why don't airlines, at least for own metal flights, ditch the complexity of a four digit flight number?

I'm thinking the likes of ZL3573.

 

[codash1099]

https://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/community/threads/deja-vu.87006/

 

[moa999]

As per that thread think about the US airlines, United, Delta and American all have over 500 aircraft in their mainline fleet.
Multiply that by a bunch of flights and you need the 4-digits, then add the coseshares

 

[serfty]

Moreover, in the USA, the same 4 digit flight number can be used for multiple segments.

On the weekend I flew AA1272, DEN-ORD. The same aircraft operated flight AA1272 ORD-DEN that day.

 

[Quickstatus]

And not only that the flight numbers do not necessarily stick with routes year on year.
Some do but not always

 

[Hvr]

In Australia four digit flight numbers usually indicate a code share flown by another airline.

The truth about airline flight numbers

 

[Quickstatus]

Yes. But go to the US and it doesn’t

 

[Melburnian1]

I acknowledged most of the above in my post. I ought have clarified that I was discussing 'Australian airlines' not 'USA airlines.'

No great reason stands out as to why ZL couldn't change to two or three digit flight numbers if it so desired.

Simplicity in communication ought be key.

 

[Quickstatus]

Ah sorry I thought it was a global focus.

Yes ZL flight numbers are quite annoying. 4 digit numbers and the numbers never seem to be permanently anchored to specific routes
Maybe its to circumvent the historical databases of applications like Flightaware so that delays and cancellations are difficult to analyse.

 

[dajop]

I’d guess that for the vast majority of travellers it’s superfluous. To the best of my knowledge most talk about the airline, time and destination, rather than specific flight number (myself included, particularly for domestic - unless looking it up on flightaware). So people tend to remember that they’re on the 4pm to Sydney on Qantas rather than QF xx_ ..

 

[Quickstatus]

I’d guess that for the vast majority of travellers it’s superfluous. To the best of my knowledge most talk about the airline, time and destination, rather than specific flight number (myself included, particularly for domestic - unless looking it up on flightaware). So people tend to remember that they’re on the 4pm to Sydney on Qantas rather than QF xx_ ..

That’s quite true but many /some check a particular route and time for historical punctuality. Without an anchored flight number it’s impossible

 

[dajop]

Also with Rex, isn’t their method to the madness.

SYD - xx_
PER - 2xx_
MEL - 3xx_
ADL - 4xx_
Queensland - 5xx_

 

[dajop]

Yes ZL flight numbers are quite annoying. 4 digit numbers and the numbers never seem to be permanently anchored to specific routes

Not necessarily, there actually does seem some consistency to the numbering, after looking at my flight database.

Whilst my last Rex flight taken (in 2006) SYD-BNK is slightly different (ZL 236, I took ZL 216, the flight I took was a morning departure, now they only seem to have evening departure ex SYD), and the SYD-DBO ones I took around the same time also seem to be no longer there (ZL 826, but ZL 824 and ZL 828 still there). The flight before those flights, MQL-MEL, that I took in May 2005, almost 13 years ago, still carries the same flight number, ZL 3683 ... it certainly seems to be permanently anchored to the route/time.

Before that, 2004 and earlier, all of my ZL flight numbers seem to carry 3 digit flight numbers only,. irrespective of port, to they must have changed around end of 2004.

 

[harvyk]

The number of digits in a flight number doesn't exactly worry me. However it is nice when airlines follow some degree of convention, eg for my flying beyond QF 1-399 being international and QF 400+ being domestic. I also know that QF14xx = Dash 8 flights to / from CBR whilst QF15xx = 717 flights to / from CBR, whilst less than QF 1000 = 737 (or others) to / from CBR, so I can start to make decisions about which flight to pick based on flight numbers alone.

I'm sure other places have their own quirks with the numbers.

 

[dajop]

I'm sure other places have their own quirks with the numbers.

Chinese mainland carriers certainly do for domestic flights eg. CA 1xx_, MU 2xx_, CZ 3xx_, CA 4xx_, MU 5xx_, CZ 6xx_, ,HU7xx_, 9C 8xx_, FM 9xx_, ZH 95xx_, with some smaller carriers having specific two digit ranges as well.