I prefer connecting flights to nonstop flights
Dec 16, 2017, 9:36 am
#16
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Virginia City Highlands
Programs: Nothing anymore after 20 years
Posts: 6,900
I did SFO-SIN non-stop in UA's Economy. Once. Never again.
My standard setup is break TPAC flights on two segments SIN-NRT-SFO is the best option with 7 and 11 hours flights.
My standard setup is break TPAC flights on two segments SIN-NRT-SFO is the best option with 7 and 11 hours flights.
Dec 16, 2017, 8:16 pm
#17
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Bregenz, Austria
Programs: AA, BAEC, Alaska, Flying Blue, United, IHG, Hilton
Posts: 2,950
I try to avoid any single sector over about 8 hours, even if the overall travel time is longer - i.e. I would take 7hrs + 6hrs over a single 11hr flight. Several reasons for this:
1. I travel in Y. This gets exponentially more uncomfortable after the 6th hour in the air.
2. I smoke. Enough said.
3. I find long haul flying incredibly tedious. Onboard wifi can help with this, but not much.
4. Connections can be up to 24 hours without counting as a stopover. This can often offer the chance to see a new city with very little extra expense.
1. I travel in Y. This gets exponentially more uncomfortable after the 6th hour in the air.
2. I smoke. Enough said.
3. I find long haul flying incredibly tedious. Onboard wifi can help with this, but not much.
4. Connections can be up to 24 hours without counting as a stopover. This can often offer the chance to see a new city with very little extra expense.
Dec 16, 2017, 9:30 pm
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,707
One small factor not yet mentioned: Takeoffs and landings are slightly less safe than other phases of flight, so by reducing total takeoffs and landings over your lifetime, you shave a bit of risk off.
Dec 17, 2017, 5:23 am
#19
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Programs: Aeroplan, IHG, Enterprise, Avios, Nexus
Posts: 8,355
It depends on the length of the flight and the purpose of the trip. Anything over 8 hours and I'm looking to split it into two. If going to South Africa I'd rather go through Europe with two shorter flights and a long layover than go through the U.S. with a 16 hour flight from JFK to JNB.
Dec 17, 2017, 6:55 am
#20
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2008
Programs: AA EXP/LTP, BA GGL/CCR/GfL, HH D/LTD, SPG/MR Plat/LTP
Posts: 10,076
This beeing FT, dont underestimate the potential benefit in some FFP, having multiple segments over the threshold of distance to max TPs. As more and more airlines turn revenue based for elite level flyers, there is still the BIS miles adding up in the EQM column. Although beeing some years ago, I have fond memories of not flying direct CPH-BKK, or even CPH-HEL-BKK, but doing CPH-LHR-MIA-LAX-NRT-BKK, using SWUs on TATL, transcon and TPAC both ways.
If all FFP go revenue based, I guess there will be less incentive for MRs
If all FFP go revenue based, I guess there will be less incentive for MRs
Dec 17, 2017, 1:58 pm
#21
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: (ORD, DCA, LGA most of the time)
Programs: AA, DL, BA, HH
Posts: 37
I try to avoid any single sector over about 8 hours, even if the overall travel time is longer - i.e. I would take 7hrs + 6hrs over a single 11hr flight. Several reasons for this:
1. I travel in Y. This gets exponentially more uncomfortable after the 6th hour in the air.
2. I smoke. Enough said.
3. I find long haul flying incredibly tedious. Onboard wifi can help with this, but not much.
4. Connections can be up to 24 hours without counting as a stopover. This can often offer the chance to see a new city with very little extra expense.
1. I travel in Y. This gets exponentially more uncomfortable after the 6th hour in the air.
2. I smoke. Enough said.
3. I find long haul flying incredibly tedious. Onboard wifi can help with this, but not much.
4. Connections can be up to 24 hours without counting as a stopover. This can often offer the chance to see a new city with very little extra expense.
I sympathize with the smoking. When I used to smoke, any long haul was miserable. I couldn't concentrate on anything after a few hours in the air, and this was after the two or more hours already spent prior to boarding at the airport. It was just brutal even with the gum and the patch.
Dec 19, 2017, 9:22 am
#23
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 92
Having a stop in the middle of a long trip does make the travel more comfortable. The primary tradeoff, of course, is time. (Misconnecting risk is a factor, too, as tjl points out above.) Even an efficient stop adds 90 minutes to the journey. LAS/PHL is only about 4.5 hours nonstop.... For that length flight I'd usually prefer to fly nonstop and enjoy those 90 extra minutes not traveling rather than in the middle of it.
We planned an Easter trip fom LAX to Boston and that one has a stop at DFW...its a 2.5 hour stop...
Thanks
Dec 19, 2017, 9:54 am
#24
Join Date: Dec 2016
Programs: AAdvantage, Skymiles
Posts: 156
I'll also add 2.5 hours is reasonable to be able to absorb most minor delays. The stress really comes into play if you're looking at planning on a layover of less than 1 hour and your second flight is the last one of the day on that particular route.
Last edited by mdkowals; Dec 19, 2017 at 9:59 am
Dec 19, 2017, 10:52 am
#25
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SJC/SFO
Programs: WN A+ CP, UA 1MM/*A Gold, Mar LT Tit, IHG Plat, HH Dia
Posts: 6,285
I avoid connections shorter than about 55 minutes (assuming domestic-domestic) because even if the first flight arrives on time there's little time left to relax on the ground before queuing up to board the next flight. And there's very little margin for delays. If the inbound flight is even 20 minutes late, you're left running through the terminal, and if it's 45 minute late you're likely missing the connection. So I look for connections ideally around 70 minutes. This allows time to land, deboard, eat some food without having to wolf it down, and arrive at the next gate in plenty of time for boarding. Plus a 30 minute delay doesn't make me sweat. Sure, I could book even longer connections to be even more safe against delays on the first leg causing me to miss the second, but especially when I'm voluntarily taking a connection I don't want to lengthen my overall trip by multiple hours!
Dec 19, 2017, 12:04 pm
#26
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: PBI/MIA
Programs: AAdvantage Gold, HHonors Diamond, Marriott Gold, Skymiles, Mileage Plus
Posts: 397
I prefer connecting if I'm going to/from Southern California and the East Coast, just so I can avoid LAX. I'd much rather have a stop in DFW, then fly to SNA or ONT than deal with Hell on Century Blvd.
Dec 19, 2017, 12:21 pm
#27
Join Date: Dec 2016
Programs: AAdvantage, Skymiles
Posts: 156
I've lived in Baton Rouge now for 10 years, and up until about last year it was home to nothing but old CRJ-200's and E-145's. As comfortable as those plane's weren't, they were also comically unreliable. Four hour delay because a sticker fell off a switch in the cockpit ... check. Complete reroute because a bag strap got caught in the baggage door ... check (with amusing visual of ground crew trying to yank the door open by jumping up and down hanging off the side of the plane and the captain and I laughing from the inside).
After a few years of that I think I've Stockholmed myself into liking longer layovers just in case.
After a few years of that I think I've Stockholmed myself into liking longer layovers just in case.
Dec 19, 2017, 1:01 pm
#28
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SEA
Programs: AA, AS
Posts: 53
Dec 20, 2017, 3:37 pm
#30
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Bregenz, Austria
Programs: AA, BAEC, Alaska, Flying Blue, United, IHG, Hilton
Posts: 2,950