777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12804 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 days ago) and read 4215 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Latly I've been doing a bit of connecting flights to/from Australia and will be doing another connecting flight next week back from Australia. If it means getting to my arrival port at a good time, ie not late afternoon/evening/night time then I will do direct, but if a connecting flight gets me to my arrival port at a better time then a direct, like morning or afternoon then I will connect.
DeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4152 times:
Back when I was single and Delta counted segments for Medallion status I had no problem connecting every week. Now that I'm married and Delta only counts MQMs I prefer to fly non-stop so I can get home and get yelled at by wife for being gone all week earning a living. Another reason for non-stops is that the chance of a missed connection is lower due to weather issues. Luckily DL has non-stops to almost everywhere I have needed to fly in the past couple of years out of ATL.
Quoting I530j (Reply 2): but i kinda dislike stoping in ATL cuase its either DAL or FL over and over again.
As compared to...?
ORD which is all UA or AA
DFW which is all AA
DTW or MSP which is all NW
EWR and IAH which is all CO
CLT or PHL which is all US (along with WN in PHL)
"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
PanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4145 times:
It depends for me.
Airplane type? A connection might include a different type of airplane for me to add to my "I've Flown On" list. I have never flown non-stop to/from Chicago willingly with UA, as it has always meant the chance to fly on a 777 or 747-400 domestically.
Connecting city? Salt Lake City (SLC) and Denver (DEN) have spectacular views and are both very nice airports. Chicago (ORD) in late May, no...one speck of rain and three days later flights are only starting to get caught up.
Length of flight? Hard to say with that one. For me, I have no real preference, as I can get up and stretch (most of the time).
What other considerations can we come up with?
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
FLAIRPORT From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years ago) and read 4106 times:
Well, here is my situation:
Living in FLL most of my life, and living the rest of it in ATL, and making trips to BDL and LGA most often, I have only had to connect once and have a direct thru flight once. Every other flight has been n/s. I am trying something new...WN through BWI this spring break...so we shall see.
AirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 12 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4082 times:
Non-stops hands down when ever possible if the price is the same. Recently I had to fly on short notice from Phoenix to Dulles. One stop on United was $286 nonstop was over $800. I made the stop.. From Phoenix any flight to the Europe continent requires a connections somewhere..so its a case of where.
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3510 posts, RR: 43
Reply 12, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4014 times:
Connections are fun, if you ask me. The last several years I've gone AUS-MSP via DFW and ORD on AA. Now the main point of that is to get the T7 between DFW-ORD and vice versa, but its just gives you something to do. Nonstops are boring for the most part.
ExFATboy From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2974 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3995 times:
For shorter flights (say, NYC to Florida), I prefer direct flights. A connection adds 50% or more to the total time of the flight.
That being said, though, if I can connect in ATL and fly into SRQ instead of TPA, I get the hour back in not having to drive from TPA to my brother's place in Bradenton (he lives five minutes from SRQ), so I'll take the connection if the price is right.
(Even if it means paying the most I've ever paid for a Checkers burger at ATL. AAUUUGGGHHH!!!!)
For longer flights, I'll happily take a connection - it's nice to break up the monotony of a flight from NYC to California or Vegas.
Malb777 From Australia, joined Jul 2004, 462 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3938 times:
I prefer the stopovers on flights from Oz to Europe. I remember the first flight downunder was routed Lon-Fra-Bah-Kul-Sing-Syd.1974 747-200 QF
The next time it was the more traditional Syd-Sing-Bah-Lon Ret 747-300 QF
Now it is Syd -Sing-Lon and that SIng-Lon flight drives me up the wall I have tried both day and night flights but 14 hours is just to long for me .
I have looked around for airlines that offer more stops but cannot find any so it looks like the dreaded 14 hr again in March when I head back to London & Prague
thank god i was not born a bird. this type of flying is much better