rcurry01

I frequently read statements here like, "I never book the 45 minute connection at LGA, JFK, or ATL. If something goes wrong I want to make sure I can make my connection." It seems like this type of statement comes out most frequently for NYC airports and ATL. I understand when those airports have weather/ATC issues things turn into a mess rather quickly, but I just don't understand this logic for avoiding short "legal" connections at any airport. Here is why:

1) If I miss my connection because of delays, that is Delta's problem, not mine. They still need to get me to my destination.
2) With an 80% on time record, things will usually work out just fine. Why would I plan to spend an extra hour or two in an airport when I don't need to 80% of the time. That is a lot of wasted time planning for something that is not likely. For the 20% of time I do need it, I will likely get on the next flight or at worst be stuck for 3-4 hours.
3) When their are delays they are most likely due to weather. Weather impacts incoming and outgoing flights equally. If my first flight is delayed, my connection likely will be too.
4) If it looks like I will miss my connection before I depart, Delta has always accomidated me through a different connection city if possible before I leave my origin.

I can understand avoiding specific airports altogether because of general delays or a bad experience, but I can't understand purposefully lengthening connection times for an ablebodied person. Even if it is the last flight of the day, I would rather try to get home that night and take an overnight in a connection city if something got messed up, rather than stay at my origin "in case" I miss my connection. My time is worth too much. I do 125k+ BIS miles per year, so maybe this is just me as a road warrior.

"If you have never missed a flight, you are spending too much time in airports."

Thoughts?

Flamenguista

I love short connections and agree with everything you said. However, short domestic connections for onward international travel scare the crap out of me and I try to avoid.

rcurry01

I understand that, and honestly agree. But in those cases you would normally be stuck for a full 24 hours, so the risk/reward trade off is different.

Xeno

I accepted a short connection at SEA last year at the end of a trip to PEK and the end result was spending 6 hours in the SLC SC. There is no place to rest in the SLC SC when one is weary.

Like the post above, it is one thing to cut it short on domestic flights which I am doing some this year but I would never do this on an expensive D1 ticket where my date of arrival is not flexible.

synergistic

I don't mind them on DL - though now that I have Skyclub access, I don't really mind longer ones - but I definitely prefer longish connections when I fly WN. Not a lot sucks more than having an early boarding pass but arriving at the gate too late to get a decent seat.

MSPeconomist

It depends. I've never blindly accepted the connection offered--in fact, when I book by phone, some agents get annoyed when I insist on knowing all of the connecting airports with arrival and departure times rather than just "leave MSP at X:YZ, arrive into MUC/BCN/LIS/etc. at A:BC the following day" information.

For some connecting airports, I want more time at certain times of year and times of day to allow for weather delays. SFO is notorious for fog, ATL is horrid in winter weather, and late afternoon thunderstorms can cause a mess in many airports. I also try to be vaguely aware of airport construction and other issues (military and ATC delays in China, for instance).

My attitude depends also on the likely wait and frequency for the next flight, whether I'm concerned about being rebooked in FC/D1, and the general convenience of different schedules. I might accept the risk of missing the last flight of the day rather than needing to get to the airport extremely early in the morning.

ty97

OP, I understand your logic, and it all comes down to personal preference. Since I fly out of oft-delayed LGA (and sometimes JFK/EWR), I tend to buffer my connections a little in case of weather/mechanical/whatever may arise. While DL would still be responsible to get me to my final destination, I'd rather just book a non-tight connection and stop at the Sky Club for a little while.

But as I said, it all comes down to personal preference. Many others would just rather get to their destination more quickly.

pvn

This is a really advanced concept a lot of people don't understand. Some people are willing to trade efficency for more certainty, obviously, and that's not inherently a bad choice but a lot of people don't really think about how much they're giving up and what they're getting in return.

Also, people tend to put really weird valuation on things like lounges.

pvn

I can't ever remember an agent getting annoyed with me for wanting to know the details of an itinerary. Are you sure they weren't annoyed with you for some other reason?

MSPeconomist

If you never miss a flight, you're spending too much of your life in airports.....but some people worry more about missing connections than others do, although some of this is experience and a matter of knowing what to do in IROPs. Less frequent travelers should generally book longer connections.

DiverDave

Yes, Delta will get you there but you may well be in a really bad seat or not the time you wanted. Even rebooking a day or two before departure, a lot of Delta flights are jam packed with nothing but rear middle seats.

If you want to roll the dice with short connections that's fine. For me, I always want at least 90 minutes in ATL and don't mind spending a bit of extra time there.

David

Often1

Questions such as this lead to generalizations.

If you are connecting to an hourly micro-haul domestic which almost always has an empty seat, booking at the MCT is fine. If you misconnect, you are stuck for an hour. If you are connecting on a 2x/weekly international long-haul where rerouting options are slim and will likely lead to horrible seating options on 14-hour flights, you should allow plenty of time for the connection unless you have mission critical meetings on both sides of the flights.

Other factors include the purpose of your travel, your physical situation (not worth running between gates when you can't run), your personal preferences, and fare options.

Personally, I book the shortest connection which takes into account the availability of a Plan B. TPAC in D1 means a nice long connection. Hourly onward service, I could care less so I book the MCT.

injera

I try to aim for a longer layover (1.5-2 hours) vs a shorter layover (30-45 minutes) and here's why.....

I'm a Platnium Medallion and I never check bags. If all the airports are operating smoothly and my first flight lands on time it's pretty likely I can clear standby on the earlier flight. If there's problems and i'm delayed, then i'm just getting on my originally booked flights.

Now, if i schedule a short connection and there's weather issues causing me to be delayed....then its likely every flight is having issues. So if i miss my original flight i may be fighting for standby on the next couple of flights and run the risk of being stuck in the airport for a longer time.

Keith2004

I tend to do 1.5 hrs minimum for domestic and 2 hr minimum for international, especially if their is only 1 international flight per day to that destination.

But I don't mind waiting 1-2 hrs in the airport, especially if I can go to the Skyclub

30-45 mins is a definite no-go for me, but I'm risk averse when I travel and rather travel my original itinerary

Playsmart

When I travel by myself I will attempt a short layover but in 2 weeks I will be traveling with family from JFK-YVR and the 2 options were a 36 min layover in MSP or a 2 hour in SEA. With kids and bags we opted for the SEA stop. not worth the headache.