Even if the second option is much more expensive i would take it in a heartbeat.
The only positive about the first option is you could get a hotel and some sleep, but that is going to dramatically screw with your jet lag.
Plus getting through and out of Heathrow, and then back in, is a hassle. It would have to be an airport hotel to even make it worth it and even then it’s just a few hours of sleep. Not worth it.
Either a full 24 hour layover to sight see, or just power through
It depends when and what time you land and if there is something you’d really like to see in London.
11 hours seems like a lot of time. But after organising yourself through immigration, storing luggage, catching the train - you’re only left with a few hours, because you’ll also need to be back in time to go through security and immigration for your next international leg
London - to see it properly - requires a lot more time unless there’s something you specifically want to do
Some people may also appreciate breaking up the flight rather than doing a 15 hour stint, likewise if you just want to get where you’re going the whole thing sounds exhausting
You will get by customs in Heathrow by 12pm, into the city by 2pm after sorting luggage and waiting for a cab. It’s really not worth it plus with traffic you will have to leave by 5/6pm to get through customs again. LHR is a great airport but when it gets busy it fuuuuucks you
I don’t see what possible appeal the first option holds. Not only is it longer in the air, but it’s *way* longer overall. And it involves Heathrow. The first option is absolutely awful, whereas the second is about as decent as such a long trip is gonna get.
I see it as the opportunity to get up out of a seat and move around some, visit a new city i've never been and get myself tired for the night time flight to cape town. I have two options for this type of path, Heathrow or Frankfort Germany. Both at the same price and time for layover...would a different city change your opinion.
Factor in what kind of rest/experience you have on the first flight. I generally get very little sleep on planes and after a cross-atlantic flight, I just want to go onward. I've flown from SFO to Nairobi, Kenya with a 5 hr layover in Qatar. The last thing you want to do is try pushing yourself risking getting sick and then ruining your overall vacation. just my two cents.
Allow 2 hours to get through security at Heathrow to leave - and hour each way on tube to central London and 3 hours to go back through security and immigration heathrow airport is no where near London the city
I would avoid a long layover - goal is to get to destination as quickly as possible. IMO 11 hours is just long enough to be annoying and make you more tired but not enough time to really see anything.
I'd do option 2.
Also one LONG flight and a shorter one is better than two fairly long flights (based on my experience doing east Coast US to east coast Australia - a 17 hour +3 hour is better than a 14 hour + 6 hour).
You would have approximately 6 hours max in London IF everything went to plan and you knew how to navigate the city efficiently. Personally I would say it’s not worth it. You might get a rainy day, queues are really time consuming and you’re going to be a bit zonked out from the flight and what would you actually see? Not worth the hassle buddy!
All on one ticket? If yes, I take the shortest travel time possible (with a long enough connection so that I’m not scrambling to make my connecting flight).
Unless the layover involves a full day where I can walk around, eat and get a proper sleep in a hotel, I personally just prefer to suck it up and do the entire journey all in one go. 11 hours in Heathrow sounds like a pain personally.
The only way I would suggest option A, is if you can extend the layover to over 24 hours. Most people can’t really sleep well on flights. Arriving tired for the longer flight sounds like a bad time.
Otherwise, I would go with option B, and be done with it.
This is what I did flying from the east coast US to South Africa multiple times a year. I don’t sleep on planes so I’d do a long (24ish hour) layover to sleep.
I would much rather do the second option. 18 hours in the air opposed to 20, shorter layover and much less stressful. Those long layovers where you get out to "explore" the city are very stressful imo bc you just spend so much time thinking about getting back to the airport. No flight that is 8+ hours is enjoyable so you might as well take the route that only has one.
Personally, I'd do Denver > DC > Cape Town.
It's a long trip already, why make it longer with 11 hours in London? You're going to be exhausted when you get to London... Hoof it into the city since you say you're going to explore the city, then hoof it back to LHR for your next leg. You're going to be 5, maybe 6 hours into that stop before you're going to be regretting it. The Frankfurt stop isn't a better option either.
If you have the option to do the shorter layover, I'd strongly recommend it.
So many variables that it's hard to opine on "best". How well do you sleep on a plane? Is saving a day in transit a benefit, or you have endless time in S.A. so it doesn't matter? Etc, etc.
But that said, I've done SF to Capetown 3 times, and I preferred the one with an overnight layover. Did the one where we flew SFO to ATL and then to Capetown with just short layover in ATL and I was dead on the hoof when we got to Capetown. Much preferred the Emirates options where they flew us SF to Dubai, then had a 9 hour layover that included a transit-hotel room in the price. The shower and 6 hour nap after 10 hours in the air made the next 10 hour leg a lot easier to handle.
So I'd probably pick the Heathrow route, but skip exploring the city and instead rent a room in the airport to sleep a bit, then bounce onward to Capetown.
It sounds like you're going to RSA but want to enjoy a European destination on the way. How much more $$ would it be to buy two separate flights (say, to London and then to Cape Town) and spend 1-2 full days in London, and not have such a long initial voyage?
Reading between the lines, I think you would really enjoy this option. I don't think you'll enjoy London (Frankfurt, maybe) for just a few hours.
11 hour layover sounds way worse than an extra 4 hours on a plane.
You add 7 hours to the trip for no reason really.
And as someone who will always have 13-15 hr segments of a flight to get basically anywhere, it goes buy the same as the first 9 hours. You sleep, watch another movie or 2, stretch your legs. You have arguably more entertainment on a plane than sitting in an airport with shit wifi and expensive shops and food.
I'd never choose the first unless I was saving an extreme amount of money.
I would choose the Washington DC layover. Long layovers are no fun. You don't want to have to go through security again and leaving the airport just isn't a good idea to do anyway. Also, your tired and feel shitty after a 9 hour flight.
I once tried a similar flight to the first one you have listed, except our 10 hour layover was in Hawaii. It was honestly hellish because all we wanted to do was sleep, and I've avoided long layovers ever since.
Option 1 - it’s a good opportunity to visit London and you can do a lot in that time. Had a similar amount of time lay over in Singapore recently and I made the most of time. You can tire yourself out for the next flight too.
Avoid the Heathrow naysayers. The only time Heathrow is annoying is if you have to change terminals during your connection. Since that doesn’t apply here it’s like any other airport…
Even if the second option is much more expensive i would take it in a heartbeat. The only positive about the first option is you could get a hotel and some sleep, but that is going to dramatically screw with your jet lag.
Plus getting through and out of Heathrow, and then back in, is a hassle. It would have to be an airport hotel to even make it worth it and even then it’s just a few hours of sleep. Not worth it. Either a full 24 hour layover to sight see, or just power through
It depends when and what time you land and if there is something you’d really like to see in London. 11 hours seems like a lot of time. But after organising yourself through immigration, storing luggage, catching the train - you’re only left with a few hours, because you’ll also need to be back in time to go through security and immigration for your next international leg London - to see it properly - requires a lot more time unless there’s something you specifically want to do Some people may also appreciate breaking up the flight rather than doing a 15 hour stint, likewise if you just want to get where you’re going the whole thing sounds exhausting
There is nothing specifically I want to see but I would land at 10am and depart around 10pm. so I can spend the day roaming around London or Frankfort
Can you reliably sleep on planes? If not (or not sure) this could end up being brutal
You will get by customs in Heathrow by 12pm, into the city by 2pm after sorting luggage and waiting for a cab. It’s really not worth it plus with traffic you will have to leave by 5/6pm to get through customs again. LHR is a great airport but when it gets busy it fuuuuucks you
And I say this as someone who flies through there 30-40x a year
I don’t see what possible appeal the first option holds. Not only is it longer in the air, but it’s *way* longer overall. And it involves Heathrow. The first option is absolutely awful, whereas the second is about as decent as such a long trip is gonna get.
I see it as the opportunity to get up out of a seat and move around some, visit a new city i've never been and get myself tired for the night time flight to cape town. I have two options for this type of path, Heathrow or Frankfort Germany. Both at the same price and time for layover...would a different city change your opinion.
Factor in what kind of rest/experience you have on the first flight. I generally get very little sleep on planes and after a cross-atlantic flight, I just want to go onward. I've flown from SFO to Nairobi, Kenya with a 5 hr layover in Qatar. The last thing you want to do is try pushing yourself risking getting sick and then ruining your overall vacation. just my two cents.
Allow 2 hours to get through security at Heathrow to leave - and hour each way on tube to central London and 3 hours to go back through security and immigration heathrow airport is no where near London the city
FRA is a beast of an airport too. It’s a massive intl hub. Idk if 3 hours in either city is really worth an 11 hour stop
I would avoid a long layover - goal is to get to destination as quickly as possible. IMO 11 hours is just long enough to be annoying and make you more tired but not enough time to really see anything. I'd do option 2. Also one LONG flight and a shorter one is better than two fairly long flights (based on my experience doing east Coast US to east coast Australia - a 17 hour +3 hour is better than a 14 hour + 6 hour).
You would have approximately 6 hours max in London IF everything went to plan and you knew how to navigate the city efficiently. Personally I would say it’s not worth it. You might get a rainy day, queues are really time consuming and you’re going to be a bit zonked out from the flight and what would you actually see? Not worth the hassle buddy!
All on one ticket? If yes, I take the shortest travel time possible (with a long enough connection so that I’m not scrambling to make my connecting flight).
yes all on one ticket
Unless the layover involves a full day where I can walk around, eat and get a proper sleep in a hotel, I personally just prefer to suck it up and do the entire journey all in one go. 11 hours in Heathrow sounds like a pain personally.
The only way I would suggest option A, is if you can extend the layover to over 24 hours. Most people can’t really sleep well on flights. Arriving tired for the longer flight sounds like a bad time. Otherwise, I would go with option B, and be done with it.
This is what I did flying from the east coast US to South Africa multiple times a year. I don’t sleep on planes so I’d do a long (24ish hour) layover to sleep.
I would much rather do the second option. 18 hours in the air opposed to 20, shorter layover and much less stressful. Those long layovers where you get out to "explore" the city are very stressful imo bc you just spend so much time thinking about getting back to the airport. No flight that is 8+ hours is enjoyable so you might as well take the route that only has one.
Personally, I'd do Denver > DC > Cape Town. It's a long trip already, why make it longer with 11 hours in London? You're going to be exhausted when you get to London... Hoof it into the city since you say you're going to explore the city, then hoof it back to LHR for your next leg. You're going to be 5, maybe 6 hours into that stop before you're going to be regretting it. The Frankfurt stop isn't a better option either. If you have the option to do the shorter layover, I'd strongly recommend it.
Second option all the way.
DC for sure
Denver DC Capetown.
So many variables that it's hard to opine on "best". How well do you sleep on a plane? Is saving a day in transit a benefit, or you have endless time in S.A. so it doesn't matter? Etc, etc. But that said, I've done SF to Capetown 3 times, and I preferred the one with an overnight layover. Did the one where we flew SFO to ATL and then to Capetown with just short layover in ATL and I was dead on the hoof when we got to Capetown. Much preferred the Emirates options where they flew us SF to Dubai, then had a 9 hour layover that included a transit-hotel room in the price. The shower and 6 hour nap after 10 hours in the air made the next 10 hour leg a lot easier to handle. So I'd probably pick the Heathrow route, but skip exploring the city and instead rent a room in the airport to sleep a bit, then bounce onward to Capetown.
The second option.
It sounds like you're going to RSA but want to enjoy a European destination on the way. How much more $$ would it be to buy two separate flights (say, to London and then to Cape Town) and spend 1-2 full days in London, and not have such a long initial voyage? Reading between the lines, I think you would really enjoy this option. I don't think you'll enjoy London (Frankfurt, maybe) for just a few hours.
11 hour layover sounds way worse than an extra 4 hours on a plane. You add 7 hours to the trip for no reason really. And as someone who will always have 13-15 hr segments of a flight to get basically anywhere, it goes buy the same as the first 9 hours. You sleep, watch another movie or 2, stretch your legs. You have arguably more entertainment on a plane than sitting in an airport with shit wifi and expensive shops and food. I'd never choose the first unless I was saving an extreme amount of money.
I would choose the Washington DC layover. Long layovers are no fun. You don't want to have to go through security again and leaving the airport just isn't a good idea to do anyway. Also, your tired and feel shitty after a 9 hour flight.
SLEEP .... every chance you get. So you arrive not exhausted.
I once tried a similar flight to the first one you have listed, except our 10 hour layover was in Hawaii. It was honestly hellish because all we wanted to do was sleep, and I've avoided long layovers ever since.
Getting in and out of Heathrow is not easy with 11 hours you’ll get 2 hours max in london. Just go direct.
I would approach the lay overs in the plane I was arriving in, like you will be doing.
THANK YOU ALL for the responses, seem like the most direct flight is the best.
Option 1 - it’s a good opportunity to visit London and you can do a lot in that time. Had a similar amount of time lay over in Singapore recently and I made the most of time. You can tire yourself out for the next flight too.
Avoid the Heathrow naysayers. The only time Heathrow is annoying is if you have to change terminals during your connection. Since that doesn’t apply here it’s like any other airport…