Question on Flying Times
Feb 28, 2013, 10:12 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Traveling the World
Posts: 6,072
Question on Flying Times
A friend and I were having a debate on the reasoning to avoid JFK/EWR all together on international flights.
For instance a flight from Rome-SFO via EWR lists the flying times as:
FCO-EWR 9 hr 50 min
EWR-SFO 6 hr 40 min (with layovers of either 5 hours or 2 hours)
FCO-MUC 1 hr 35 min (with a layover of 2 hrs. Leaving 12:05 PM FCO arriving MUC at 1:40 PM
MUC-SFO 11 hr 55 min Leaving MUC at 4:05 PM arriving SFO at 7:00 PM
Munich has an easier connection than EWR/JFK since Lufthansa is all in one terminal.
While the EWR flights do arrive SFO about 6:30 PM customs at EWR/JFK can be a hassle vs SFO customs.
If the pricing is about the same why would one go via EWR when I can fly on Lufthansa via MUC and leave Rome later in the day. There are no customs until SFO and no domestic-International security connections albeit a quick security at MUC .
The Customs at SFO seems better because you can clear in about 45 minutes vs longer at EWR/JFK.
Lufthansa in my opinion offers better amenities in the Y cabin such a AVOD(some United flights such as their 747 don't offer it) and alcohol is included on LH.
It would seem Jetlag recovery is better on the FCO-MUC-SFO routing.
Whats your opinion.
For instance a flight from Rome-SFO via EWR lists the flying times as:
FCO-EWR 9 hr 50 min
EWR-SFO 6 hr 40 min (with layovers of either 5 hours or 2 hours)
FCO-MUC 1 hr 35 min (with a layover of 2 hrs. Leaving 12:05 PM FCO arriving MUC at 1:40 PM
MUC-SFO 11 hr 55 min Leaving MUC at 4:05 PM arriving SFO at 7:00 PM
Munich has an easier connection than EWR/JFK since Lufthansa is all in one terminal.
While the EWR flights do arrive SFO about 6:30 PM customs at EWR/JFK can be a hassle vs SFO customs.
If the pricing is about the same why would one go via EWR when I can fly on Lufthansa via MUC and leave Rome later in the day. There are no customs until SFO and no domestic-International security connections albeit a quick security at MUC .
The Customs at SFO seems better because you can clear in about 45 minutes vs longer at EWR/JFK.
Lufthansa in my opinion offers better amenities in the Y cabin such a AVOD(some United flights such as their 747 don't offer it) and alcohol is included on LH.
It would seem Jetlag recovery is better on the FCO-MUC-SFO routing.
Whats your opinion.
Mar 2, 2013, 3:26 pm
#2
Join Date: Jan 2010
Programs: UA, AS
Posts: 2,393
If I were flying in coach I'd want United for the E+ seating.
Mar 4, 2013, 1:36 am
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: London & Sonoma CA
Programs: UA 1K, MM *G for life, BAEC Gold
Posts: 10,224
New York is quite some distance out of the direct route from FCO to SFO, so you would be flying further - this accounts for part of the extra time (but would yield more miles if that's important to you).
New York airspace is very crowded and the timetable presumes there will be commensurate delays - that accounts for more extra time.
Having to go through Immigration, Customs and TSA in New York requires a significant amount of time vs the much less involved process in MUC. That needs time to be left for it in the schedule. The process in SFO comes after the end of the schedule so is not accounted for - that accounts for the remaining time. As the OP realises, SFO is a far better port of entry to the US.
All of this is absolutely true - but the Achilles Heel of the argument is having to sit for 12 hours in a LH 340 with no E+. Personally I'd try to route through FRA and take a UA flight from there - although you'd end up on a UA 747 which isn't much better.
New York airspace is very crowded and the timetable presumes there will be commensurate delays - that accounts for more extra time.
Having to go through Immigration, Customs and TSA in New York requires a significant amount of time vs the much less involved process in MUC. That needs time to be left for it in the schedule. The process in SFO comes after the end of the schedule so is not accounted for - that accounts for the remaining time. As the OP realises, SFO is a far better port of entry to the US.
All of this is absolutely true - but the Achilles Heel of the argument is having to sit for 12 hours in a LH 340 with no E+. Personally I'd try to route through FRA and take a UA flight from there - although you'd end up on a UA 747 which isn't much better.
Mar 8, 2013, 7:37 am
#4
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SJC/SFO
Programs: UA lifetime gold; Hilton Gold; Marriott/SPG Plat; Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 2,954
I think the food and service is better in Y on LH vs UA but the seat is terrible. I would take E+ any day and bring my own food
The other issue is that some cheaper flights on LH may not give you miles with UA and certainly do not qualify for million miler status; also it is probably easier to upgrade UA to business vs upgrading LH to business.
Many of us are just plain loyal to UA no matter how bad the food or treatment we get.
The other issue is that some cheaper flights on LH may not give you miles with UA and certainly do not qualify for million miler status; also it is probably easier to upgrade UA to business vs upgrading LH to business.
Many of us are just plain loyal to UA no matter how bad the food or treatment we get.