Narrative:

In cruise, approaching ont, level at FL350, requested lower altitude from ZLA. Center came back and cleared us to FL240. As we started down, I called 'call sign, leaving FL350 for FL240.' no response, so everything was ok. After descending approximately 1000-1500 ft, center told us to maintain FL350. As the first officer climbed back up, I queried center about why. He said clearance was for a 'company' aircraft. The first officer and I both distinctly heard the clearance for us to descend to FL240. (The so was on another radio.) on the ground, I talked to the crew of the other company aircraft and they also heard our clearance to FL240. After climbing back up to FL350, center gave us traffic at 2 O'clock, 2 mi at FL330. We were then given a frequency change with no further explanation. If we had TCASII, we would never have started down if the above traffic was a conflict. The FAA should require TCASII on all large aircraft, not just passenger aircraft. I believe the controller thought he was talking to the other aircraft (they were at FL280 during this occurrence), and confused the call sign. Supplemental information from acn 361455: the PNF captain read back the clearance in full. Our descent clearance readback was never questioned by center. We believe that the controller made an error. Our company aircraft ahead had a very similar flight number.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZLA CTLR GIVES WRONG FLT AN AMENDED CLRNC ALT CHANGE. POTENTIAL CONFLICT LTSS WITH ACFT 2 MI ABEAM.

Narrative: IN CRUISE, APCHING ONT, LEVEL AT FL350, REQUESTED LOWER ALT FROM ZLA. CTR CAME BACK AND CLRED US TO FL240. AS WE STARTED DOWN, I CALLED 'CALL SIGN, LEAVING FL350 FOR FL240.' NO RESPONSE, SO EVERYTHING WAS OK. AFTER DSNDING APPROX 1000-1500 FT, CTR TOLD US TO MAINTAIN FL350. AS THE FO CLBED BACK UP, I QUERIED CTR ABOUT WHY. HE SAID CLRNC WAS FOR A 'COMPANY' ACFT. THE FO AND I BOTH DISTINCTLY HEARD THE CLRNC FOR US TO DSND TO FL240. (THE SO WAS ON ANOTHER RADIO.) ON THE GND, I TALKED TO THE CREW OF THE OTHER COMPANY ACFT AND THEY ALSO HEARD OUR CLRNC TO FL240. AFTER CLBING BACK UP TO FL350, CTR GAVE US TFC AT 2 O'CLOCK, 2 MI AT FL330. WE WERE THEN GIVEN A FREQ CHANGE WITH NO FURTHER EXPLANATION. IF WE HAD TCASII, WE WOULD NEVER HAVE STARTED DOWN IF THE ABOVE TFC WAS A CONFLICT. THE FAA SHOULD REQUIRE TCASII ON ALL LARGE ACFT, NOT JUST PAX ACFT. I BELIEVE THE CTLR THOUGHT HE WAS TALKING TO THE OTHER ACFT (THEY WERE AT FL280 DURING THIS OCCURRENCE), AND CONFUSED THE CALL SIGN. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 361455: THE PNF CAPT READ BACK THE CLRNC IN FULL. OUR DSCNT CLRNC READBACK WAS NEVER QUESTIONED BY CTR. WE BELIEVE THAT THE CTLR MADE AN ERROR. OUR COMPANY ACFT AHEAD HAD A VERY SIMILAR FLT NUMBER.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.