Pmcdonald From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4675 times:
Definitely prefer a nonstop trip when traveling great distances. It makes the whole trip go by so much more quickly and smoothly. It can mean the difference in taking an entire day to travel or having some valuable time left in the day when I reach my destination.
Though I will say when I was younger I often times wouldn't mind stopping over at an airport if I had never been there before just to experience it. But you can only fly though ORD or DEN so many times before it gets old.
Scand_Flyer From Norway, joined Nov 2000, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4666 times:
If the non-stop flight would take more than 8 hours I prefer a connection. It lets you experience another take-off and landing and perhaps another type of aircraft, as well as stretch your legs and walk around another airport.
The downside is that if your first flight is delayed you risk loosing your connection, and the more legs your trip consists of the higher the risk that your luggage gets lost somewhere along the way...
Captaink From Mexico, joined May 2001, 5116 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4616 times:
I love connections between flights that are for the most two hours.. LIke GND-SJU, SJU- MIA, MIA-NAS a route I did before. Once the flight is 5 hours or more, I want a direct flgith becuase I would get tired of flying and the novelty of the airlplane(s) would wear off and i just wanna get where I am going. I go to NY with US and it is GND-PHL, PHL-LGA and you the see the frown I have when I get to PHL and know I have to run now.. to catch yet another flight.
Alpere1 From Spain, joined Sep 2000, 134 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4577 times:
Give me a nonstop, no matter if it's an 8 hour or a 14 hour flight
There is nothing worse for me than waiting at an airport in the middle of nowhere for a connecting flight, so I am always determined to pay more for a nonstop flight, and avoid airports and waiting to continue my journey
10000moh From United States of America, joined May 2001, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4562 times:
I don't mind connections at all! Another takeoff and landing, more airplanes to watch, another airport to visit--the novelty hasn't worn off yet.
That's assuming the stop is during the day; an airport late at night isn't much more entertaining than a bus station.
Dinker225 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1077 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4550 times:
I like connecting in another city. For me I usually don't have a choice since there isn't any commercial service connecting Denver and Melbourne. Usually 2 stops on the way. I like connecting. Gives you a chance to get up and walk around and usually get a different seat on the next plane.
Two rules in aviation, don't hit anything and don't run out of gas, cause if you run out of gas yer gonna hit something.
Sushka From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 4784 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4512 times:
I think connecting is fun. But it is always a hard decision. for instance: Should I take the 9 hour flight on the 777 or should I split it up on a 767 and A319?
It all depends on the planes, airports, airlines, etc.
DeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8950 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4478 times:
On flights longer than four hours, I prefer a stop. It's one thing to walk 60 feet on a 737; its another to walk a good half-mile and get some blood moving while laying over. It just helps to refresh me by moving around, and also, since I have a limited form of ADD, it is rather difficult for me to stay in one place for a prolonged period of time.
IMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6440 posts, RR: 31
Reply 14, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4434 times:
I concur with DeltAirlines. I can tolerate up to 6 hours in an airplane then I go stir crazy. I get paid the same whether sitting in an airport or on an airplane. Not to mention the fact that a person who just spent 14 hours on an airplane is in no condition to conduct any business. At least if I have 2 hours between flights, I can get exercise and be fresh upon arrival. It also minimizes jet lag.
I am glad I was around to fly before de-regulation.
727_gal From United States of America, joined Sep 2002, 325 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4401 times:
depends on where I'm going and what time of day i'm departing
for early morning flights, i prefer nonstop - i'm not exactly a morning person, and the idea of a trudging through ATL at 7am just doesn't appeal to me
for later in the day flights, i tend to like connections - especially if i have enough time to stretch, look at planes and perhaps grab a bite to eat
also, if i'm going someplace i've been a million times, i rather like to make connections; if i'm going someplace new, or to see someone i haven't seen in a long time, then i like as direct a route as possible
as a whole, i like connections, especially ones that are at least 1.5-2hrs. it breaks up the monotony of sitting in a cramped seat staring at the clouds (not that i don't enjoy that, mind you - i just like people and plane watching a little better!)
ERJ135 From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 695 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4353 times:
I'd probably opt for a connect if I change airlines or aircraft type or stop in a place I've not been to before. Recently I made sure oh a stop in DFW just so I could continue on America West Express CR7 which was the first on that airplane and also coming home to Australia I opted to stop in Auckland just because I got a 737 into Sydney, it's possible that will be the only chance I got to fly an NZ 737 as they will be replaced with A320's.
However if there is nothing new to experience I'd go non stop and save the time.
Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4748 posts, RR: 32
Reply 18, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4310 times:
For some of us who litterally fly all the time, I will always take the nonstop flight. I can understand the desire for enthusiasts to want to get more landings, more takeoffs and another destination, but for some of us, I just want to get there
Blink182 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 5493 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4205 times:
It depends where I'm going and knowing that I will have to make a connection either way. For example, do I go DFW-NRT-SYD or DFW-LAX-SYD? It all depends, If I am going to be in an area that I know I won't be in for at least another couple of years, I'd say an extra stop is worth it. Say I am going to Sydney, I figure a connection in SIN might be worth an extra couple of hours.
These are only exceptions. More times than not, I'd rather take a 15 hour flight than 2 8 hour flights with a 3 hour layover in between. Afterall, the goal is to get to the final destination.
Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
La Carlota From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4115 times:
If it's a route I haven't flown before, I take nonstop always.
If not, I look for alternatives, taking into consideration things like type of aircraft, airlines, airports to explore, new routes, and of course price (expecting to be not too expensive for all the diversions...).
Sometimes I'm in a rush and can't do it, but I usually manage to get it...
For example, I live in ATL and travel often to BCN. I've done very strange stuff to get to my destination. Some examples:
Instead of the DL direct flight (summer only) ATL-BCN, I've done things like:
B747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4109 times:
Scheduling and price are the two keys. I don't like nonstops longer than 12-13 hours, so a tech stop or transit stop is a nice break. Connections should be avoided on business trips unless you want extra miles and have a flexible schedule.
: I try and get the cheapest price, really. (Assuming it doesn't become absurd, with three stops and a one leg in a prop).
: It depends were the flight is going. If it was a long haul flight, say to HNL, i'd prefer connections because I don't like staying in a confind space
: Is a long haul nonstop flight cheaper than a long haul flight which is split in 2 flights ?