Would you prefer that your flight times be split evenly (7hrs & 7hrs) or one flight to be longer than the other (3hrs & 11hrs)?

Would it be less stressful if one would get out of the plane half way through the journey? Or it would be better to sleep longer during the longer flight?

I'd usually rather have one very long flight and one shorter flight. Getting off a 7-hour flight and knowing I have another 7-hour flight just ahead is daunting (unless there's a half-day in between -- see below). But with a 3- and an 11-hour flight I can be productive on the 3 and really get into that delightfully mindless, nice-to-get-away-from-everything zone on the 11.

But it's more complicated: If traveling solo and the connection is 4 hours or less, I'd rather have the short flight closer to home (first on the outbound and last on the inbound). When headed on vacation I want to get off the long flight and start exploring something. When headed home I then get the short flight for one last catch-up on alone time before getting back to things at home.

If traveling solo and the connection can be scheduled long, though, I'd rather have two 7-hour overnight flights with 12-15 hours in between to explore a city.

If traveling with someone else, I'd rather have the short flight first in both directions. On the outbound the same reason applies. On the inbound I think most people I travel with don't want to get on another flight, even a short one, after a very long one. And I don't think they'd want two overnights in a row, either.

Seth

it depends

would you rather fly 15hrs non stop or fly 10 hours, connect 2 hours (as long as there's a lounge with free booze and food and shower), fly another 7?

if in y, i prefer the latter, weirdly

story of my life

go for sleep, i don't find connecting stressfull but some people do. other variables include which airlines you're dealing with. a mediocre one for 11 and good one for 3? or vice versa? or all crappy airlines?

I'd prefer one leg to be longer than the other; and hopefully the longer one is the first leg (and a red-eye, if I can help it - that way, a lot easier to sleep uninterrupted).

Doesn't matter. It is all about the layover time for me.
I either want less than 2 hrs layover or at least 10-18 to be able to see a city and start the jet-lag migration with sun exposure and walking around.

I'd rather have one long leg and one short leg. Flying from the West Coast to Europe, you can save hours by avoiding a transfer on the East Coast. Those East Coast connections route you so much further south on the globe, instead of up over Canada and Greenland, that it adds quite a bit of travel time.

In Y I try to avoid flights >8h, so I'd rather have the flights evenly split in your example, although I also consider other factors, in particular how long I have to wait for the connection. In (decent) J I might opt for a longer flight and uninterrupted sleep.

It mainly depends on the total time, but also when flying one long leg and one short one, in the event of IRROPs, that usually means there are more alternatives should something go wrong with the short flight. The airline, type of planes and the quality of the experience also have some impact.

I try to split them as evenly as possible. My husband has a bad time on long flights so when flying to Europe from California we always stop on the east coast. He refuses to go to Australia or Asia due to the length of the flights. I fall asleep before take off so if traveling solo I would rather have one long leg and one short.

Other factors maybe more important. For example, the risk of missing the connection, and the penalty of missing the connection can make a difference.

If your choice is A->B1->C and A->B2->C with similar connection times, but:
* A->B1 is frequently delayed.
* B1->C is infrequent, so missing it means the next flight is the next day.
* A->B2 is rarely delayed.
* B2->C is frequent, so missing it means perhaps an hour or two delay.
Then A->B2->C is a much less risky choice.

Also, if the itinerary is international, consider whether there are differences in doing immigration and/or customs at the connection stop, which can make a realistic-looking connection time tighter if that is the case.

I get bored, annoyed and stressed after 6h+ in a plane.

Although I mostly fly J I can't sleep for more than 4h.
I mostly fly UTH-BKK-Europe, thus a ME stop is perfect.
The UTH-BKK is a 1h flight, usually have 3h to connect, which I don't like, rather be on my way to Europe, there is no way around that.

After 2x bad experiences with short connections this year (less than 60min) I will now make sure ME connection to be at least 120min to enjoy the J lounge.
Good to walk around and exercise my body versus 12h in a metal tube.

Usually have some food in the ME lounge and try to catch some sleep in second sector, (no need for food or alcohol then) have breakfast no more than 2h before landing.
Usually perfect trips.

1x short flight (1-2 hours) and one long flight (12 hours) and a 2 to 3 hour connection time.

That way, I can get some zzzzzzzzzzzsss on the long flight, don't need to worry about slight delays and I can make a stop at the lounge*. My recent 8h layover at LHR was sooooo boring. Spending an hour or two in a lounge is acceptable, but beyond 4 or 5 hours, I'm just waiting for the boarding to finally commence.

On two evenly split flights of 7 hours, I wouldn't be able to get some rest. On a 12 hour flight, I manage even in Y to get an hour of sleep (or 2 to 4 hours of sleep in C/F).

------
* This doesn't always work. On a LH-flight in Y, the passengers in front of me were so noisy (and they wouldn't calm down), that I didn't sleep a second on the flight from HND to FRA. As a result, I was horribly exhausted by the time we arrived in FRA. Moreover, I spent the complete duration of the connecting flight (45 min in total) sleeping: Didn't notice the aircraft taxiing, taking off, flying or landing. I was rather surprised to wake up at the destination with a snack and a water in my hands.

The even split every time, even if the total time in the air is longer.

As a non-sleeper and heavy smoker, I find flights longer than 7 hours a serious PITA.

For my upcoming AA award flight MUC-SFO, I had the choice of transferring in LHR (2+11.5) or PHL (9+6). I chose the 9+6 and slipped in a nice little 23hr layover in Philly.

Likewise going east to eg. SIN, 7+7 via the ME is so much more tolerable than 12hrs straight through.

Personally, I would prefer one flight to be longer for me to get a decent sleep. The 6-8hr flights will only give me around 2-4hrs of sleep if we take out the meal service times and the take off and landing procedures where the seats will have to be in an upright position.

I definitely prefer one long and one short. The idea of having to get on a plane for 7 hours shortly after a previous 7 hour flight is bad and depressing, and I've used up many of my coping techniques. And, of course, if one of the flights is overnight, then it's essential to have that as the long flight.