CPMaverick

I am not afraid of short connections. I have transited at SIN a few times with a 0:50 connection because the alternatives are very long layovers.

But if there is a good lounge at the connecting airport, I don't really mind sticking around an extra hour. So I don't book close connections (less than an hour) unless there is a real solid benefit.

Sure you can say Delta will take care of you, and they will. But it does add a bit of stress when you need to decide if you are going to run or not.

kop84

For me it totally depends on the alternative options and what I'm going for.

If I have a very important meeting, or if I'm going to be on the last connecting flight, or the next connecting flight isn't for many hours I'll try for the longer layover.

If the meeting is the next day, or the connection city has a lot of flights afterwards if I miss my connection, I'll chance the short connection.

pvn

Yes, OBVIOUSLY there are cases where it makes sense to bake in extra slack. OP's point was that a lot of people do this indiscriminately without thinking about the particular situation. And honestly, that's not a bad strategy for an infrequent traveller. But the more frequently you fly the more you stand to gain from thinking about when it makes sense to be aggressive with scheduling.

btonkid12345

I always book the shortest connection possible (that also works for my schedule) when on domestic itineraries.

Why? Because I would rather have my confirmed upgrade on earlier flights. If DL screws up, it's on them, and they will likely reaccom me well. I disagree with injera saying to standby on the earlier flight if you get there early, because then you potentially lose an upgrade and have to fret about seats and getting luggage on without checking it. No thanks.

PLUS - with any sort of delay that makes the connection impossible - I get free reign to change to ANY flight I want regardless of fare class etc. This is a major benefit to me because its basically SDC without the restrictions.

As someone else said - DL is on time 80+% of the time. So its rare any of the above happens. But, when it does - I'd rather have it be on DL and with upgrades etc. confirmed (and with free reign as to new schedule) versus me having to spend extra time on almost every itinerary as an insurance policy against this.

yohanson

I avoid connections like the plague. But, if I have to connect, I like a little extra time

mra123

For me, it's about avoiding stress.

Xeno

This is wildly inappropriate to say of MSP and not pertinent to the thread. I, too, have found agents bound by the clock not willing to be forthcoming in revealing data that inform choices I make about complex trips.

FlagrantViola

I'm a neurotic mess.
I avoid short connections - otherwise I worry when we depart late, worry when we have to wait for an arrival gate, etc.
In general I will hunt for a connection time of 90 minutes to 2 hours.

baccarat0809

Some of us can work where-ever we are. Have laptop and cell phone - check. OK then, I'm at the office.

For me I'd rather deal with an hour and half layover then a 35 minute layover and miss the flight then spend 8 hours waiting around until the next flight that has space. Plus I hate running through an airport and getting all hot/sweaty, etc, then barely able to board and find out there's no overhead space, etc. Just not worth it to me.

DeweyCheathem

Generally the short connections that I try to avoid are the ones where a miss would force me into a next-day flight, however, those are often the sorts of flights for which no good alternatives exist. I'd certainly prefer a 1.5-3 hour connection when going overseas to a 30-45 minute "legal" connection where missing it would make me have to wait until the next day to connect. But sometimes, there is no plausible 1-3 hour connection at a similar fare basis available. My worst experience in a bad connection was a flight on AA from SAN to DFW to SCL, which connected to LAN to MDZ. The AA flight from San Diego to DFW was delayed an hour, which made me miss DFW to SCL, and have to overnight in DFW. The next DFW-SCL flight was delayed 6 hours due to mechanical issues, which forced me to overnight in SCL. Instead of arriving in MDZ late on a Thursday, I arrived early on a Saturday, losing a day and a half.

The only bright spot was, I did get into MDZ early enough on Saturday to change some money, otherwise I would not have been able to get any local currency until Monday - except at the hotel at the official rate - which would have been about 60% of the real blue rate.

TTT

Generally I agree, but a lot depends on the purpose for the trip, next flight, lounge options in the airport, time of year, and connection airport. Some specific comments below:

One final consideration is comfort on your second leg. For example, if I am flying RDU-ATL-LAX and my RDU-ATL is delayed so that I miss the ATL-LAX flight. The rebooked flight might mean a middle seat in the back vs. a C+ aisle on the originally booked flight. For a midcon or longer that may be worth taking a little longer connection.

indufan

Domestic flights (my life) basically as short as possible. Delta's early percentage is much higher than their late percentage.

Yes, seats can be a problem on a missed connection but Viper makes a pretty good effort in booking you in first if you had already cleared the original flight.

ATOBTTR

As they say, "to each their own". As others noted, it comes down to preferences. I'll respond to each of your points with my own preferences:

Except it does become my problem in many ways. First, seat assignments. Yea, I'll likely be able to get a seat on a later flight but it will likely be a terrible (middle) seat. Even regular economy aisle (non-exit row) is very uncomfortable for me at my height. By padding my connection times, I do a better job of making my connections and thus protecting my seats that make flying tolerable. Also, it becomes my problem if the delay (and missed connection) comes down to weather, and there are no seats later that day - DL then tells me I have to pay a hotel out of my own pocket. If I'm traveling for work, they would at least pick up that tab but still annoying.

You view being at an airport waiting on your next flight as "wasted time". Not everyone else does. Some of us enjoy being at the airport, going to the lounge, watching/spotting planes, etc. Having time to grab something to eat is a worthwhile benefit too. Flying East Coast to Seattle via JFK/ATL/DTW/MSP/SLC means a good 7-9 hours (sometimes more) in the air between both flights. Total transit time even with a short layover can be 8-10 hours sometimes. That's a long time to go without eating. Yes, there are Buy-On-Board options but they're limited, overpriced, and mediocre, and it doesn't take many flights to grow tired of the limited options.

That's true if the bad weather is at the hub you're connecting through; that's not true if the bad weather is at your origin while the weather at the hub is just fine. Then it's only your flight that is affected.

This is true and I haven't had a problem with DL re-accommodating me on alternate routes and such when delays will impact me. But again, that doesn't mean DL is able to re-accommodate me in a seat that's comfortable and flying ATL or JFK to SEA in a non-exit row, middle seat is not where I want to be for 5 to 6 hours.

Zeeb

Same here. As well as it being somewhat route dependent.

First flight of they day in to a hub with 20 different possible later flights? Sure, book that MCT connection, I'll risk it.

Mid-day flight that catches the last flight of the day or a once daily connection? Lets pad that out a bit.

MSPeconomist

This hasn't been my experience at all with VIPR, including on G A P and international Z fares. Every time I've been VIPRed, at least one of the new segments has been booked in coach, including when FC or business class was available on the new flight that was selected for me.