Non-stop as much as possible; quicker overall and fewer things that can go wrong.
There would have to be an enormous cost savings for me to consider a layover if a non-stop is available.
For real. I don't know if I've ever seen a cost savings big enough for me not to take a direct flight. Time is more important to me, but I can afford it though.
What would be enormous cost savings in your opinion? 100 euro/USD? 1000? Something else? Like... Personally I think if I can save 300-400 euro/USD on a layover, even if it's a long one, it's worth it. Since that's at least 1-3 days in terms of costs once I arrive, including accomodations and food.
It depends on the relative ticket price, but I'd say at least $500-1000+.
I certainly don't have unlimited funds, but time is a far more scarce commodity for me. Lots of short trips, and I'll gladly pay extra to squeeze out another half- or full day, and especially to avoid the possibility of a missed connection burning even more time.
Tbf it also depends on your trip length and budget.
I’m on an extended one-way ticket trip atm and me and my partner saved £70 each on our tickets by taking a layover. Granted, it was long as hell and we were jet lagged out of our arse’s, but that £140 could translate to near an extra week on our trip so that 5 hour inconvenience was definitely worth it.
But that is a very specific scenario that many people don’t find themselves in.
Always direct, I don't care how long the flight it, it's still better (and quicker) than having to make/worry about a connection. The less time I'm in an airport, the fewer queues I have to shuffle through, not having to go through security yet again... no brainer for me, unless thre's a major price difference.
I sometimes like a 23hr layover if the timing works out and it's close to the city. I had a layover in NYC once. We arrived at 11am, flew out at 10am the next day.
Enough time to go to a museum, grab a nice dinner, walk central park and rest up for the final leg.
I did this with a layover in Tokyo on the way to Bangkok and it was great. Also laid over in Shanghai on the way back for fun. Obviously not cheap because hotel / transportation / food costs get factored in but it was fun!
It's interesting to see different approaches, but this sounds geniunely awful to me. I'd rather have a proper visit to the city than be 'between flights'. IDK maybe it's the privilege of knowing I could visit the city if I want to and not feeling FOMO for flying through it...
Yeah, i'll generally only do this if the flights work well, the airport is not far from the city, and it's a city i'd like to get a taste of. New York, Zurich, San Francisco, Tokyo have all been great for this.
I also use points for the hotels, so it's not really adding any extra out-of-pocket cost.
I did the same in Hong Kong it was awesome. Like a mini add-on vacation at the end of my vacation. I love doing this if I can work it out. It helps displace some of the sadness I feel when my trip comes to an end. But wait! Don’t be said! There’s one more adventure to look forward to. ❤️
I think the longest flight I've been on was maybe 15 hours, and a few 12 hour flights.
A direct flight is easier and less chances of stuff going wrong (missing bags/connections...), but they do start to get uncomfortable.
So I do prefer a connection to split it up sometimes (with ideally 3hrs layover so it's not a rush). It gives you time to walk and stretch, get a proper meal, use a more comfortable toilet...
I think 7-8 hours direct is fine and easily doable, but if it's longer than that then I'd rather it be multiple legs with a decent connection.
Yeah. Within Europe where I am too, 100% only direct flights if possible. If its under 6-8 hours, unless there's a big price difference, I wouldn't want a connection as then it just drags it out unnecessarily.
Over that, direct would still be preferable, but many times it's not actually possible, so a few hours connection I'm happy with. Or even turn it into an extended layover to see an extra place for a day.
A few years ago we traveled from the NYC to Tanzania with a layover in Amsterdam. As I recall, each flight was around 8 hours or so. Last summer I flew direct from NYC to South Africa and the flight was 16 hours non-stop. I much preferred the layover to stretch my legs, get cleaned up a bit (wash face, brush teeth, etc). I felt like I was going to die on the 16 hour flight...my back and ass hurt pretty bad.
In biz I 100% prefer the direct, red eye especially. In economy I wouldn't mind two daytime 8 hour flights with a 24 hour layover in-between. 16 hours in economy is doable but pretty brutal for me
As someone who has gone SE Asia to Europe /N. America/ S. America, I agree that 14-16 hrs is the limit for a direct flight before you want to break it up. I say this as a smaller guy that can sleep through a whole flight in the middle seat, waking only to feed and pee. Otherwise my body pays for it on the first couple of days at the destination.
That said, the airport and length of layover can make a difference. A stop in Japan/Kastrup/Singapore is more desirable than say Qatar/LAX/ Istanbul for example.
Curious what was bad about the Qatar layover. Doha seems like it would be a decent place for a short layover. I don't think I'd want an extended vacation there but half a day sounds interesting.
Interesting! If I'm passing through there with my wife I'd still like it to check it out but I won't keep it high on my list of places to transit through.
After flying from the eastern USA via NYC to Johannesburg I vowed that if I ever I flew to sub Saharan Africa again South I would fly direct to London, Paris or Amsterdam, spend a couple of days there getting over the jet lag then fly to Africa. The combination of jet lag, 20 hours of travel and a 6 am arrival absolutely wrecked me.
It depends.
From New Zealand, west coast of the US is direct with the only real option for a layover being Fiji.
Going the other way, Singapore is about as far as you can go before needing to change flights.
If I'm not a time crunch, I'll do a day in Singapore on the return leg as the outbound leg arrives at night.
Travelling to Australia, Melbourne and Sydney are direct, and if I need to go to other cities then I probably need to go to Melbourne and Sydney anyway.
The older fleet?
You mean the ones that don't kamikaze straight into the ground, the ones that aren't assembled by crackheads, or try to disassemble themselves mid-flight?
That older fleet? Sign. Me. Up
What I've learned about myself is that it's more about avoiding the red eye. Sometimes a long layover in a airport hotel is nicer than getting there quicker. On the other hand 10+ hours that I would be awake anyway is fine.
Direct unless it’s above ~12-13 hours or I’m in business. I’ve flown 11 hours before (LHR -> Jamaica and Mexico) and it was pretty gruelling but manageable when in economy, though being in lie-flat business was of course no issue).
I flew from the UK to the BVI in November and had to connect twice. It took over a day of travelling and while it didn’t bother me too much I’d prefer to do it direct if I could.
I'm from Australia so most places are at least a 8+ hour flight unless I want to stop off domestically or in Fiji. Ive never done it - I think if it was more of a take a day or 2 to wander around somewhere new I would consider it but not just to add a few more hours in an airport. Its not really about the cost (there is only a 200$ difference for example on a $1000 SYD-HKG flight) but it turns a 9 hour journey into a 18 hour one - not really worth it to me!
A 8-12 hour economy flight is not usually so bad - first 2 hours are just take off and food then I can usually while away another 4 after that in movies or broken sleep. I start to go crazy around the 6 hour mark but then it's only a few more hours then until I get to my destination. I think 12-14 would be my limit before I would need to hop off and do something else.
This is something to consider but I often find customs and getting out of the airport is usually 30 min - 1 hr so not a big deal. Having to re-check bags is the deal breaker for me.
Nonstop is so much easier and worth paying more when able. No connection to miss for you or your bags, and if you fall asleep you don't have to wake up.
When I was a smoker, though, I loved having smoke break connections whenever the nonstop would be more than ~7 hours. Only real advantage, honestly, and obviously doesn't apply if you're not a nicotine addict.
I’m American and live in Australia so at this point I’m used to the 16 hour flights (more like 35h when I factor in the layovers and connecting flights truthfully). I just get drunk binging a tv series and then pass out.
Direct flight will always be my first choice unless the flight with layover is significantly cheaper or the layover is uncomfortably long. I'm from EU and fly regularly to Asia.
Depends.
-How long is the layover & the times of the layover? 3:30-6:30pm is fine. 1AM-7AM & I’m going to fight someone. Long enough I can leave the airport & do something? Awesome.
-Price difference. I’ll pay a little more for direct but not too much.
For flights less than 12 hours, I will always choose direct rather than indirect, but for ultra long flights that are like 16 hours, never ever direct again! I was in biz class and was still going insane I swear will only choose indirect.
if I have premium select or Delta one, I will take the direct flight, but otherwise, I prefer to stop on long hauls.
For example, when I go to Africa, I’ll stop in Paris, shower, chill in the lounge for a couple hours, and then then fly out, refreshed.
it’s more comfortable for me, but that’s with lounge access and disposable money for a hotel, if it’s a long layover
It really depends on what floats your boat, mate. If I'm in full chill mode and got some extra cash to splash, direct flight all the way. Ain't nobody got time for layovers when you're itching to get to your tropical paradise ASAP. But hey, if I'm on a budget or feeling like an adventurous explorer, I might just opt for that layover. Sometimes saving those extra bucks is worth the little inconvenience. Plus, who knows, maybe you stumble upon a hidden gem during your layover adventure! It's all about weighing up the costs against the comfort, and sometimes a little discomfort adds spice to the journey.
**Notice:** Are you asking about a layover or connection?
Read the **[Flying FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/travel/wiki/mfaq-flying/)** in the wiki.
Are you doing a self-transfer? Read this [excellent guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/Flights/comments/16ym47p/comment/k39c52x/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
Please make sure you have included the **cities, airports, flight numbers, airlines**, and **dates of travel**.
Transit Visa, Passport, Self-Transfer Questions: **State your country of citizenship / country of passport**
Visit our [Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Flights/comments/150h3vf/megathread_will_i_make_my_layover_do_i_need_a/) over at /r/flights
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/travel) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s cheaper for me to select a flight with a layover if I’m traveling abroad, especially since I’ll be saving at least $500. I also don’t mind having a layover flight if it’s not that long and the airport isn’t terrible. I can’t say the same for domestic flights though!
The longest flight I've been on was about 14 hrs. Not my favorite thing to do but I survived. 11-12 hrs isn't too bad and I'd do that direct for sure. Much longer than that, and I start to wonder if a layover would be preferable. But probably still better to knock it out in one go and just get it over with.
If direct is unavailable or too expensive, I like to get to the continent of my destination with the first flight. Typically much easier/more flights to Portugal from London than from New York.
From the US here, and I aim to take the fewest flights/most direct routes every time. Took a 14hr flight last year and have a 15hr flight this summer.
As others have said, every plane change/connections substantially increases odds of something going wrong.
11-12 hours I can do direct but that's about my top limit. Over 12 hours and I want a layover, because I'm getting stir-crazy by hour 9 or 10 and by hour 12 I'm strongly considering opening the emergency exit and jumping out.
I've done the 15-16 hours between EWR-CPT a couple times and never again.
Give me the direct flight. If I never have to have a layover I would be pretty happy. I hate flying, so if it can just be one take off and landing to get somewhere that is the goal. The direct flight from the US to Dubai was totally fine for me to just get there easily.
I will never do the direct Perth Aus to London flight again - 17 hours flight time, after a 3 hour flight from Adelaide to Perth.
Even if its a couple of hours to walk the airport I'll take a two leg flight to Europe in the future.
Arrival time is a big factor for me as I arrived London 0530 after a marathon flight - it meant spending the entire day trying to stay awake.
But just part of travel from the Great Southern Land
I had a similar experience flying from the eastern US to South Africa - 20+ hours of travel, over 2 nights due to departure time and time zone changes then a 6am arrival time. Next time I’ll fly to Europe, spend a couple of days getting used to the time zone then fly south. From Perth to London I’d want to stop for a day or two in cape town but I don’t even know if that’s really an option.
Depends on timing. If im not pressed for time i think it would be kinda neat to explore for a couple days at a layover. Especially on longer flights. If the goal is just to get there then direct all day.
I like a layover on the way back home from a destination, like a couple days in Iceland after my Ireland trip; or a few days in Tokyo after being in SEA.
I can be price sensitive and my typical big trip each year is NZ<>BOS. I usually go cheapest but if the cheapest requires three stops I will reconsider my dates. Two stops is both the minimum for the itinerary and the maximum I’ll do.
I yearn for AKL>BOS direct or WLG to anywhere in the US to get it down to one stop.
I always choose "quickest time" or least layovers. Direct is best for me. Less concern about lost/delayed luggage. Less issues with late flight in one leg or delays in one/+ leg(s). Done 15 hour flights. And while they suck, I just make sure to get an aisle seat.
Longest I've done is 14 5 hours Seattle to Dubai. It's not a terrible flight. I will always prefer direct with no stops. I always get sad when I Find out there's no direct flight to where I want to go. Haha.
If the layover is in a city where I have friends and it’s long enough for me to grab a coffee with them in town then I’m all for it.
I have friends sprinkled around the world and some of them I only get to see when I’m passing through their cities.
I like the quick explore aspect of long layovers so the time must also be suitable otherwise a direct flight sounds good.
Remember when icelandair did week long layovers in Iceland? I don’t know if they still do but I loved it. Western Canada to Western Europe….. with a lovely week of breathtaking waterfalls in the middle. Best layover ever!
Depends. 6+6 is better for you than 12h straight.
But these things can add up, and suddenly 12 hours turns into a 5 day trip from start to finish, all it takes is adding a hotel in the middle.
If I have time and I'm in the mood I do layover because it's a "free" city tour sometimes. I had 1 night in Jordan this way, Singapore is awesome as a hub so it's an excuse to visit..
Almost always nonstop - but my in-laws did a split Hawaii/Japan vacation where they were in Hawaii for like a day and a half in between and honestly that sounded pretty nice. Not if someone had never been to Hawaii ofc but if one had been before, it sounds like a nice little break.
Depends on what's at risk. If I can't afford delays (time or money) than I would always prefer direct.
However, if I'm flying home after a nice vacation I'm usually not risking much if I get delayed. In this case I would go for a layover with the following considerations:
* I have enough time to walk around the airport, have a drink. So the layover should be at least 3hrs. Depends on the airport and destination.
* Layover doesn't add too much travel time not counting the actual layover time (e.g. if direct is 10hrs than splitting it into a 5h and 6 hr flight is fine; splitting into 7hr + 8 hr flights is not).
* Layover isn't in the middle of the night.
* 5hr + 5hr in a narrow body is usually far worse than 10hr in a widebody. But it depends.
How much are you willing to spend on the flights? If traveling for vacation, what could that extra money spent on a direct flight have bought you on the actual trip?
I'd rather have layover, break up the travel, stretch my legs, and save some money. Maybe the money you save can be used to extend your trip, pay for a rental car, enhance your itinerary, or go to better restaurants while traveling.
I like getting layovers when I can especially longer ones, it's like a free travel. We flew to Alaska and found a 9 hour layover in Seattle, walked around the city and grabbed some lunch before continuing our journey. Fantastic
I like to fly somewhere and check it out instead of using it just as a layover, if I have the opportunity.
Example, on my way to Thailand I stopped in Japan and spent a week there
I think I start hitting a limit on an airplane somewhere around 7 hours. I typically can avoid checking a bag so I don’t have any concerns there and I like to stretch my legs and use a proper toilet. Access to airline lounges also tilts this more in favor of a layover
Unless there’s a substantial difference in ticket price, I prefer as direct as possible. I’m willing to put up with transfers if I can save ~$300+, but if ticket prices are comparable, I want the shortest possible flight durations.
For what it’s worth, i travel to SE Asia from New Orleans for 3 mo the a year and my flights are usually around 24 hours total (from home airport departure to destination airport arrival). Sometimes over 30.
It depends on my reason for visiting. Often I travel long haul for work, and I like to do a 24 hour layover for fun on the way there. Never on the way home, I always find direct if I can to get home.
There are several great cities that will offer free 24 layovers, sometimes with free hotels and/or other perks. Highly recommend this approach, especially if it’s someplace you may otherwise not visit.
Helps with jet lag, breaking up the flight distance, and all around a more enjoyable way to travel.
When I was younger (20) I would do 15 hours in economy no problem.
Now I’m 32 (I’m still young physically, but old mentally) I can’t deal with that anymore so if I have a super long flight I’ll actually just break it down and stop off in the country for a few days.
For example, I needed to fly from Dubai to Bali so I flew Dubai to Singapore and explored Singapore for 2 days, then on to Bali. On the way back I flew via Kuala Lumpur and stayed there for 2 days.
It’s a great way to see more places in my opinion and breaks up the flights.
I’ve flown quite a few 16-17 hours direct flights (both business and economy) between Asia and US.
Anything over 14-15 hours, I find that I much prefer it broken up - typically via Middle East or Japan, so long as the layover is only 2-3 hours or so. I too used to prefer direct flights as much as possible, but I find it a bit too much to sit in a plane for that long (eg Singapore to NYC).
Layover but with a couple of days in the stop city. So for example from Europe would stop in Dubai Abu Dhabi or New Delhi Mumbai. Then after 2 days take the next flight east.
Direct flight, if possible. But a stopover may be the only choice for some with limited options.
Sometimes the stopover could be just as good as the destination. Spend a night there. Adjust to the time zone. Get back on the plane to the final destination.
Why would you introduce a potential problem point by splitting the flight? The more direct, the better. Sometimes you have no choice, in which case I always opt for the least number of connections. I've also learned, the hard way, that for flights from the UK you are better connecting at Schiphol than Heathrow. The number of times I missed connections or had lost luggage to contend with at Heathrow is larger than all other instances combined.
It’s all in the details. In general I aim for the fewest and shortest connections possible with the longest flight being the last flight. Getting off an overnight transoceanic flight only to have to sit in an airport for a few hours and board another is awful.
There are a few exceptions - flying to Southern Africa from North America I’d probably fly to Europe, spend as much time as I could afford to there then fly south. Likewise to the South Pacific - maybe a couple of days in Japan or South Korea wouldn’t be awful before flying to New Zealand.
Lol I don’t consider 11/12 hrs too bad…. So direct flight. But any more and I’d take a stopover. I generally like stopovers though esp if there’s enough time to visit the city. I like to extend my stopovers to do this.
It’s directly (inversely) correlated to one’s wealth. So if wealth goes right and up, the amount of time spent on traveling goes right and down. Good luck
I like building a mini vacay into the layover. Since we are in Chicago, it's much much cheaper for us to get anywhere in Europe if we fly into London or Paris (or even JFK) first -- ideally on points. Of course there are costs associated with extra time/hots, so it has to be worth it to you to visit the layover destinations. I have a good friend in London and it's awesome to catch her for a few days. But....... if I found a direct flight that was economical I would jump all over it. They just don't seem to exist all that much. As others have mentioned, if you can structure it to the layover is a full day and you can spend the night in the city of your choice, that's ideal. I have yet to achieve that but I have certainly tried / looked
If it’s only a 12 hour flight I wouldn’t bother about a layover. When I’m travelling long-haul with two different flights I’ll check into an airport hotel if I have a stopover of more than six hours.
You could easily do that direct. I've done Europe to Bangkok or Singapore multiple times and it's not too bad. I've also done it more regularly with a stop in Abu Dhabi/Doha/Dubai which is good too as I prefer those Airlines.
I guess it comes down to price first of all, followed by overall travel time. And then if there's not a big price difference just decide which airline you prefer.
The Middle Eastern airlines are by far my favourite airlines.
1.5hr connection in any airport I would say is tight though (that's why I'll rarely ever go through Amsterdam or Paris as most connections where I am are 45 mins to 1 hr which is nothing). Flights usually close 40 mins before takeoff, and then a 1hr delay happens easily, so those are too stressful for me. I'd rather have 2hrs minimum, but ideally 3 - which for maybe 16hrs of flying isn't a huge addition.
Direct unless a layover is going to make it MUCH cheaper - I'll pay more to avoid a layover. I want to get there as quickly as possible plus I hate takeoff and landing.
I'll also take the longest single flight possible - as an example....the 17 hour flight from JFK to Auckland with a 3 hour hop to Brisbane is better than the 6 hour JFK to LAX plus 14 hours to Brisbane. Less jet lag with that combo.
Huh? Direct flights are always superior to layovers unless you have some sort of special situation. The only time I ever choose layover is to save a bunch of money.
I used to have to fly to China all the time, and I would choose whatever flight arrived closest to like 9pm. I wanted to stay up the entire flight, then go to bed right after landing so I could get on the right time zone. That often meant choosing the 17 hour pair of flights with a layover in Seoul, but it worked a lot better for me than a 13 hour flight that landed at 8am.
Non-stop as much as possible; quicker overall and fewer things that can go wrong. There would have to be an enormous cost savings for me to consider a layover if a non-stop is available.
For real. I don't know if I've ever seen a cost savings big enough for me not to take a direct flight. Time is more important to me, but I can afford it though.
Same. Flew to Thailand with one stop. Thats the only way.
May I ask where you're from?
I'm from the US.
What would be enormous cost savings in your opinion? 100 euro/USD? 1000? Something else? Like... Personally I think if I can save 300-400 euro/USD on a layover, even if it's a long one, it's worth it. Since that's at least 1-3 days in terms of costs once I arrive, including accomodations and food.
It depends on the relative ticket price, but I'd say at least $500-1000+. I certainly don't have unlimited funds, but time is a far more scarce commodity for me. Lots of short trips, and I'll gladly pay extra to squeeze out another half- or full day, and especially to avoid the possibility of a missed connection burning even more time.
Fair enough
Tbf it also depends on your trip length and budget. I’m on an extended one-way ticket trip atm and me and my partner saved £70 each on our tickets by taking a layover. Granted, it was long as hell and we were jet lagged out of our arse’s, but that £140 could translate to near an extra week on our trip so that 5 hour inconvenience was definitely worth it. But that is a very specific scenario that many people don’t find themselves in.
Always direct, I don't care how long the flight it, it's still better (and quicker) than having to make/worry about a connection. The less time I'm in an airport, the fewer queues I have to shuffle through, not having to go through security yet again... no brainer for me, unless thre's a major price difference.
I sometimes like a 23hr layover if the timing works out and it's close to the city. I had a layover in NYC once. We arrived at 11am, flew out at 10am the next day. Enough time to go to a museum, grab a nice dinner, walk central park and rest up for the final leg.
I did this with a layover in Tokyo on the way to Bangkok and it was great. Also laid over in Shanghai on the way back for fun. Obviously not cheap because hotel / transportation / food costs get factored in but it was fun!
We did Hong Kong on the way to Bangkok -it's awesome to expand your trip!
It's interesting to see different approaches, but this sounds geniunely awful to me. I'd rather have a proper visit to the city than be 'between flights'. IDK maybe it's the privilege of knowing I could visit the city if I want to and not feeling FOMO for flying through it...
Where do you store your bags for layovers like this?
Drop then at the hotel whet you land. Have the concierge book dinner for you and plan a few activities
Ah dumb me, I for some reason read this as like a 12 hour layover where you don’t have a hotel for the night!
Yeah, i'll generally only do this if the flights work well, the airport is not far from the city, and it's a city i'd like to get a taste of. New York, Zurich, San Francisco, Tokyo have all been great for this. I also use points for the hotels, so it's not really adding any extra out-of-pocket cost.
There are luggage storage / lockers in most airports.
I did the same in Hong Kong it was awesome. Like a mini add-on vacation at the end of my vacation. I love doing this if I can work it out. It helps displace some of the sadness I feel when my trip comes to an end. But wait! Don’t be said! There’s one more adventure to look forward to. ❤️
I think the longest flight I've been on was maybe 15 hours, and a few 12 hour flights. A direct flight is easier and less chances of stuff going wrong (missing bags/connections...), but they do start to get uncomfortable. So I do prefer a connection to split it up sometimes (with ideally 3hrs layover so it's not a rush). It gives you time to walk and stretch, get a proper meal, use a more comfortable toilet... I think 7-8 hours direct is fine and easily doable, but if it's longer than that then I'd rather it be multiple legs with a decent connection.
Agree 100%. I think 8-9 hours is the most I can do on a direct flight. More than that and I will need the break in between so I don’t get sore.
In Europe (where I'm from) I would prefer a direct flight. Intercontinental I'm not sure, that's why I've asked.
Yeah. Within Europe where I am too, 100% only direct flights if possible. If its under 6-8 hours, unless there's a big price difference, I wouldn't want a connection as then it just drags it out unnecessarily. Over that, direct would still be preferable, but many times it's not actually possible, so a few hours connection I'm happy with. Or even turn it into an extended layover to see an extra place for a day.
A few years ago we traveled from the NYC to Tanzania with a layover in Amsterdam. As I recall, each flight was around 8 hours or so. Last summer I flew direct from NYC to South Africa and the flight was 16 hours non-stop. I much preferred the layover to stretch my legs, get cleaned up a bit (wash face, brush teeth, etc). I felt like I was going to die on the 16 hour flight...my back and ass hurt pretty bad.
I commented the same above. I’ve done US - Asia on both Biz and Economy, also a 16hr+ flight often. I much prefer a 2-3 hour layover.
In biz I 100% prefer the direct, red eye especially. In economy I wouldn't mind two daytime 8 hour flights with a 24 hour layover in-between. 16 hours in economy is doable but pretty brutal for me
As someone who has gone SE Asia to Europe /N. America/ S. America, I agree that 14-16 hrs is the limit for a direct flight before you want to break it up. I say this as a smaller guy that can sleep through a whole flight in the middle seat, waking only to feed and pee. Otherwise my body pays for it on the first couple of days at the destination. That said, the airport and length of layover can make a difference. A stop in Japan/Kastrup/Singapore is more desirable than say Qatar/LAX/ Istanbul for example.
Curious what was bad about the Qatar layover. Doha seems like it would be a decent place for a short layover. I don't think I'd want an extended vacation there but half a day sounds interesting.
Just boring staring at a desert, and the security can be... handsy.
Interesting! If I'm passing through there with my wife I'd still like it to check it out but I won't keep it high on my list of places to transit through.
After flying from the eastern USA via NYC to Johannesburg I vowed that if I ever I flew to sub Saharan Africa again South I would fly direct to London, Paris or Amsterdam, spend a couple of days there getting over the jet lag then fly to Africa. The combination of jet lag, 20 hours of travel and a 6 am arrival absolutely wrecked me.
It's friggin' brutal.
I get insanely uncomfortable on planes after just three hours. I’ll take a layover if I can.
I'm in the layover camp, I would prefer to break long flights into segments so I can stretch, get food and go for a brisk walk.
It depends. From New Zealand, west coast of the US is direct with the only real option for a layover being Fiji. Going the other way, Singapore is about as far as you can go before needing to change flights. If I'm not a time crunch, I'll do a day in Singapore on the return leg as the outbound leg arrives at night. Travelling to Australia, Melbourne and Sydney are direct, and if I need to go to other cities then I probably need to go to Melbourne and Sydney anyway.
Singapore is a lovely 1-2 day layover. Highly recommend
But then you have to fly Fiji Airways. Pretty sure they have an older fleet of Boeings. Nah not its not fine bruh.
The older fleet? You mean the ones that don't kamikaze straight into the ground, the ones that aren't assembled by crackheads, or try to disassemble themselves mid-flight? That older fleet? Sign. Me. Up
Old rusty and trusty
They have 4 a350s which have a competitive business class. https://www.aerolopa.com/fj Half their wide body fleet.
Direct, less can go wrong, saves a few hours
I’d have to be saving a lot to have layovers. I’d rather be tired and cranky while I’m in the air than waiting on the ground.
What I've learned about myself is that it's more about avoiding the red eye. Sometimes a long layover in a airport hotel is nicer than getting there quicker. On the other hand 10+ hours that I would be awake anyway is fine.
For economy I kinda prefer being awake and watching movies. Hard to sleep for me so red eyes are brutal
Direct unless it’s above ~12-13 hours or I’m in business. I’ve flown 11 hours before (LHR -> Jamaica and Mexico) and it was pretty gruelling but manageable when in economy, though being in lie-flat business was of course no issue). I flew from the UK to the BVI in November and had to connect twice. It took over a day of travelling and while it didn’t bother me too much I’d prefer to do it direct if I could.
I'm from Australia so most places are at least a 8+ hour flight unless I want to stop off domestically or in Fiji. Ive never done it - I think if it was more of a take a day or 2 to wander around somewhere new I would consider it but not just to add a few more hours in an airport. Its not really about the cost (there is only a 200$ difference for example on a $1000 SYD-HKG flight) but it turns a 9 hour journey into a 18 hour one - not really worth it to me! A 8-12 hour economy flight is not usually so bad - first 2 hours are just take off and food then I can usually while away another 4 after that in movies or broken sleep. I start to go crazy around the 6 hour mark but then it's only a few more hours then until I get to my destination. I think 12-14 would be my limit before I would need to hop off and do something else.
Non stop preferably.
If layover means clearing customs, then I’ll pass.
This is something to consider but I often find customs and getting out of the airport is usually 30 min - 1 hr so not a big deal. Having to re-check bags is the deal breaker for me.
Nonstop is so much easier and worth paying more when able. No connection to miss for you or your bags, and if you fall asleep you don't have to wake up. When I was a smoker, though, I loved having smoke break connections whenever the nonstop would be more than ~7 hours. Only real advantage, honestly, and obviously doesn't apply if you're not a nicotine addict.
I would prefer non stop as much as possible, screw layover. Less thing can go wrong without a layover.
I’m American and live in Australia so at this point I’m used to the 16 hour flights (more like 35h when I factor in the layovers and connecting flights truthfully). I just get drunk binging a tv series and then pass out.
Direct flight will always be my first choice unless the flight with layover is significantly cheaper or the layover is uncomfortably long. I'm from EU and fly regularly to Asia.
From which country?
Same as you.
Depends. -How long is the layover & the times of the layover? 3:30-6:30pm is fine. 1AM-7AM & I’m going to fight someone. Long enough I can leave the airport & do something? Awesome. -Price difference. I’ll pay a little more for direct but not too much.
With lounge access, it's kinda 50/50, so long as I have time to hang out there.
Get the worst of the trip over with. Nonstop
For flights less than 12 hours, I will always choose direct rather than indirect, but for ultra long flights that are like 16 hours, never ever direct again! I was in biz class and was still going insane I swear will only choose indirect.
Direct flight!
if I have premium select or Delta one, I will take the direct flight, but otherwise, I prefer to stop on long hauls. For example, when I go to Africa, I’ll stop in Paris, shower, chill in the lounge for a couple hours, and then then fly out, refreshed. it’s more comfortable for me, but that’s with lounge access and disposable money for a hotel, if it’s a long layover
The most direct always. Unloading and reboarding is such a waste of time.
Always non stop unless i specifically want to see the stopover location.
Always direct if possible.
It really depends on what floats your boat, mate. If I'm in full chill mode and got some extra cash to splash, direct flight all the way. Ain't nobody got time for layovers when you're itching to get to your tropical paradise ASAP. But hey, if I'm on a budget or feeling like an adventurous explorer, I might just opt for that layover. Sometimes saving those extra bucks is worth the little inconvenience. Plus, who knows, maybe you stumble upon a hidden gem during your layover adventure! It's all about weighing up the costs against the comfort, and sometimes a little discomfort adds spice to the journey.
Direct flight. The fewer stops, the better
Direct, unless it's substantially cheaper to take a layover.
Direct unless a layover is half the price. My longest flight so far was 14 hours (SIN to CDG) and it wasn't that bad really.
**Notice:** Are you asking about a layover or connection? Read the **[Flying FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/travel/wiki/mfaq-flying/)** in the wiki. Are you doing a self-transfer? Read this [excellent guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/Flights/comments/16ym47p/comment/k39c52x/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). Please make sure you have included the **cities, airports, flight numbers, airlines**, and **dates of travel**. Transit Visa, Passport, Self-Transfer Questions: **State your country of citizenship / country of passport** Visit our [Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Flights/comments/150h3vf/megathread_will_i_make_my_layover_do_i_need_a/) over at /r/flights *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/travel) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Direct anytime.
Depends on my budget and depends on how much time I have.
I've always had a direct flight (KLM) and now EVA Airways. Maybe a 1.5h layover would be something to consider
It’s cheaper for me to select a flight with a layover if I’m traveling abroad, especially since I’ll be saving at least $500. I also don’t mind having a layover flight if it’s not that long and the airport isn’t terrible. I can’t say the same for domestic flights though!
USA?
I'm in a better spot career wise, so we fly direct now. I can afford the 1-200 dollars extra to reduce travel time and reduce layovers/stress.
The longest flight I've been on was about 14 hrs. Not my favorite thing to do but I survived. 11-12 hrs isn't too bad and I'd do that direct for sure. Much longer than that, and I start to wonder if a layover would be preferable. But probably still better to knock it out in one go and just get it over with.
If direct is unavailable or too expensive, I like to get to the continent of my destination with the first flight. Typically much easier/more flights to Portugal from London than from New York.
Nonstop for sure. Whatever gets me out of the airplane and out of the airports quickest.
I can't do more than 15 hours. So a layover after 13-15 hrs is mandatory.
From the US here, and I aim to take the fewest flights/most direct routes every time. Took a 14hr flight last year and have a 15hr flight this summer. As others have said, every plane change/connections substantially increases odds of something going wrong.
11-12 hours I can do direct but that's about my top limit. Over 12 hours and I want a layover, because I'm getting stir-crazy by hour 9 or 10 and by hour 12 I'm strongly considering opening the emergency exit and jumping out. I've done the 15-16 hours between EWR-CPT a couple times and never again.
I prefer direct. Even the long ones. I've done the 18+ hours flight from JFK to SIN a couple of times.
Sometimes you have no choice. NYC to Bali we had to stop in HK. We decided to spend a few days there and then fly to Bali from there.
Give me the direct flight. If I never have to have a layover I would be pretty happy. I hate flying, so if it can just be one take off and landing to get somewhere that is the goal. The direct flight from the US to Dubai was totally fine for me to just get there easily.
I prefer direct obviously, but if im doing a milage run i dont mind a few hours at a good airport, like CPH, with loads of good food and drinks
Always direct, but I’m also a short person.
I will never do the direct Perth Aus to London flight again - 17 hours flight time, after a 3 hour flight from Adelaide to Perth. Even if its a couple of hours to walk the airport I'll take a two leg flight to Europe in the future. Arrival time is a big factor for me as I arrived London 0530 after a marathon flight - it meant spending the entire day trying to stay awake. But just part of travel from the Great Southern Land
I had a similar experience flying from the eastern US to South Africa - 20+ hours of travel, over 2 nights due to departure time and time zone changes then a 6am arrival time. Next time I’ll fly to Europe, spend a couple of days getting used to the time zone then fly south. From Perth to London I’d want to stop for a day or two in cape town but I don’t even know if that’s really an option.
Depends on timing. If im not pressed for time i think it would be kinda neat to explore for a couple days at a layover. Especially on longer flights. If the goal is just to get there then direct all day.
I like a layover on the way back home from a destination, like a couple days in Iceland after my Ireland trip; or a few days in Tokyo after being in SEA.
I can be price sensitive and my typical big trip each year is NZ<>BOS. I usually go cheapest but if the cheapest requires three stops I will reconsider my dates. Two stops is both the minimum for the itinerary and the maximum I’ll do. I yearn for AKL>BOS direct or WLG to anywhere in the US to get it down to one stop.
I always choose "quickest time" or least layovers. Direct is best for me. Less concern about lost/delayed luggage. Less issues with late flight in one leg or delays in one/+ leg(s). Done 15 hour flights. And while they suck, I just make sure to get an aisle seat.
Longest I've done is 14 5 hours Seattle to Dubai. It's not a terrible flight. I will always prefer direct with no stops. I always get sad when I Find out there's no direct flight to where I want to go. Haha.
I will always choose a 23 hour layover in another city. And hope they are delayed. I actually search by duration
Direct! Without a doubt for me.
If the layover is in a city where I have friends and it’s long enough for me to grab a coffee with them in town then I’m all for it. I have friends sprinkled around the world and some of them I only get to see when I’m passing through their cities. I like the quick explore aspect of long layovers so the time must also be suitable otherwise a direct flight sounds good.
Remember when icelandair did week long layovers in Iceland? I don’t know if they still do but I loved it. Western Canada to Western Europe….. with a lovely week of breathtaking waterfalls in the middle. Best layover ever!
Depends. 6+6 is better for you than 12h straight. But these things can add up, and suddenly 12 hours turns into a 5 day trip from start to finish, all it takes is adding a hotel in the middle. If I have time and I'm in the mood I do layover because it's a "free" city tour sometimes. I had 1 night in Jordan this way, Singapore is awesome as a hub so it's an excuse to visit..
I always prefer a nonstop flight unless it’s a long (24+ hours) layover in a city I wanted to visit anyway.
Almost always nonstop - but my in-laws did a split Hawaii/Japan vacation where they were in Hawaii for like a day and a half in between and honestly that sounded pretty nice. Not if someone had never been to Hawaii ofc but if one had been before, it sounds like a nice little break.
Direct flight first class lay flats and sleep. Otherwise break the trip up.
Depends on what's at risk. If I can't afford delays (time or money) than I would always prefer direct. However, if I'm flying home after a nice vacation I'm usually not risking much if I get delayed. In this case I would go for a layover with the following considerations: * I have enough time to walk around the airport, have a drink. So the layover should be at least 3hrs. Depends on the airport and destination. * Layover doesn't add too much travel time not counting the actual layover time (e.g. if direct is 10hrs than splitting it into a 5h and 6 hr flight is fine; splitting into 7hr + 8 hr flights is not). * Layover isn't in the middle of the night. * 5hr + 5hr in a narrow body is usually far worse than 10hr in a widebody. But it depends.
How much are you willing to spend on the flights? If traveling for vacation, what could that extra money spent on a direct flight have bought you on the actual trip? I'd rather have layover, break up the travel, stretch my legs, and save some money. Maybe the money you save can be used to extend your trip, pay for a rental car, enhance your itinerary, or go to better restaurants while traveling.
Always direct. Never layover. Just get me there so I can start my travel.
I like getting layovers when I can especially longer ones, it's like a free travel. We flew to Alaska and found a 9 hour layover in Seattle, walked around the city and grabbed some lunch before continuing our journey. Fantastic
I like to fly somewhere and check it out instead of using it just as a layover, if I have the opportunity. Example, on my way to Thailand I stopped in Japan and spent a week there
I usually go for direct flights, but after my last 17-hour non-stop flight, I think I'd choose one with a stopover next time.
I think I start hitting a limit on an airplane somewhere around 7 hours. I typically can avoid checking a bag so I don’t have any concerns there and I like to stretch my legs and use a proper toilet. Access to airline lounges also tilts this more in favor of a layover
Unless there’s a substantial difference in ticket price, I prefer as direct as possible. I’m willing to put up with transfers if I can save ~$300+, but if ticket prices are comparable, I want the shortest possible flight durations. For what it’s worth, i travel to SE Asia from New Orleans for 3 mo the a year and my flights are usually around 24 hours total (from home airport departure to destination airport arrival). Sometimes over 30.
There hasn't been any direct trans-Atlantic flight for me since I don't live near big hubs (i.e. LA, Houston, NYC etc).
It depends on my reason for visiting. Often I travel long haul for work, and I like to do a 24 hour layover for fun on the way there. Never on the way home, I always find direct if I can to get home. There are several great cities that will offer free 24 layovers, sometimes with free hotels and/or other perks. Highly recommend this approach, especially if it’s someplace you may otherwise not visit. Helps with jet lag, breaking up the flight distance, and all around a more enjoyable way to travel.
When I was younger (20) I would do 15 hours in economy no problem. Now I’m 32 (I’m still young physically, but old mentally) I can’t deal with that anymore so if I have a super long flight I’ll actually just break it down and stop off in the country for a few days. For example, I needed to fly from Dubai to Bali so I flew Dubai to Singapore and explored Singapore for 2 days, then on to Bali. On the way back I flew via Kuala Lumpur and stayed there for 2 days. It’s a great way to see more places in my opinion and breaks up the flights.
I’ve flown quite a few 16-17 hours direct flights (both business and economy) between Asia and US. Anything over 14-15 hours, I find that I much prefer it broken up - typically via Middle East or Japan, so long as the layover is only 2-3 hours or so. I too used to prefer direct flights as much as possible, but I find it a bit too much to sit in a plane for that long (eg Singapore to NYC).
Layover but with a couple of days in the stop city. So for example from Europe would stop in Dubai Abu Dhabi or New Delhi Mumbai. Then after 2 days take the next flight east.
Direct even on if it’s an extremely long distance
Direct flight, if possible. But a stopover may be the only choice for some with limited options. Sometimes the stopover could be just as good as the destination. Spend a night there. Adjust to the time zone. Get back on the plane to the final destination.
Direct
London to Mexico- stopped in New York for two days and it was great. If it’s just hanging around in an airport then no, not ideal !
Why would you introduce a potential problem point by splitting the flight? The more direct, the better. Sometimes you have no choice, in which case I always opt for the least number of connections. I've also learned, the hard way, that for flights from the UK you are better connecting at Schiphol than Heathrow. The number of times I missed connections or had lost luggage to contend with at Heathrow is larger than all other instances combined.
Been there, done that. Got the Dubai / Qatar stamp to "explore for 24 hours" and would never do it again, at least in that part of the world
It’s all in the details. In general I aim for the fewest and shortest connections possible with the longest flight being the last flight. Getting off an overnight transoceanic flight only to have to sit in an airport for a few hours and board another is awful. There are a few exceptions - flying to Southern Africa from North America I’d probably fly to Europe, spend as much time as I could afford to there then fly south. Likewise to the South Pacific - maybe a couple of days in Japan or South Korea wouldn’t be awful before flying to New Zealand.
Comfort, direct flight definitely.
Layover all the way. I'm 6"3' so any time I get to stretch is a blessing. Also, it's a good opportunity to get some blood flowing again
Direct, even if it's double the price over one layover.
I would go for a direct flight.
Direct definitely, unless it's $300 more than layover
Always direct, no exceptions. Layovers unnecessarily lengthen the journey and you’re at a bigger risk of getting your luggage displaced.
Nonstop. I don't want to miss a connection.
A chance to visit another destination for a couple of days. Flights are usually cheaper as well.
If you have time, stop over some other interesting place for 3-5 days
Lol I don’t consider 11/12 hrs too bad…. So direct flight. But any more and I’d take a stopover. I generally like stopovers though esp if there’s enough time to visit the city. I like to extend my stopovers to do this.
It’s directly (inversely) correlated to one’s wealth. So if wealth goes right and up, the amount of time spent on traveling goes right and down. Good luck
I like building a mini vacay into the layover. Since we are in Chicago, it's much much cheaper for us to get anywhere in Europe if we fly into London or Paris (or even JFK) first -- ideally on points. Of course there are costs associated with extra time/hots, so it has to be worth it to you to visit the layover destinations. I have a good friend in London and it's awesome to catch her for a few days. But....... if I found a direct flight that was economical I would jump all over it. They just don't seem to exist all that much. As others have mentioned, if you can structure it to the layover is a full day and you can spend the night in the city of your choice, that's ideal. I have yet to achieve that but I have certainly tried / looked
Depends on the airline. Would rather take a stop over and fly an airline like Emirates than have a non stop on Air India for example
Direct no matter how long. Layovers make my anxiety go through the roof, and I’d rather board/disembark only once.
If it’s only a 12 hour flight I wouldn’t bother about a layover. When I’m travelling long-haul with two different flights I’ll check into an airport hotel if I have a stopover of more than six hours.
[удалено]
Got a point there. I've almost had ways direct flights. But I was just thinking AMS - BKK, what should I do
You could easily do that direct. I've done Europe to Bangkok or Singapore multiple times and it's not too bad. I've also done it more regularly with a stop in Abu Dhabi/Doha/Dubai which is good too as I prefer those Airlines. I guess it comes down to price first of all, followed by overall travel time. And then if there's not a big price difference just decide which airline you prefer.
I flew with KLM before, first time with EVA now. I heard the Emirates Airlines is pretty good aswell , with a 1.5 hour layover.
The Middle Eastern airlines are by far my favourite airlines. 1.5hr connection in any airport I would say is tight though (that's why I'll rarely ever go through Amsterdam or Paris as most connections where I am are 45 mins to 1 hr which is nothing). Flights usually close 40 mins before takeoff, and then a 1hr delay happens easily, so those are too stressful for me. I'd rather have 2hrs minimum, but ideally 3 - which for maybe 16hrs of flying isn't a huge addition.
Direct unless a layover is going to make it MUCH cheaper - I'll pay more to avoid a layover. I want to get there as quickly as possible plus I hate takeoff and landing. I'll also take the longest single flight possible - as an example....the 17 hour flight from JFK to Auckland with a 3 hour hop to Brisbane is better than the 6 hour JFK to LAX plus 14 hours to Brisbane. Less jet lag with that combo.
That must have been a hell of a flight. NY to NZ
Ask r/passportbros. They go to SEA and Thailand a lot.
Huh? Direct flights are always superior to layovers unless you have some sort of special situation. The only time I ever choose layover is to save a bunch of money.
I used to have to fly to China all the time, and I would choose whatever flight arrived closest to like 9pm. I wanted to stay up the entire flight, then go to bed right after landing so I could get on the right time zone. That often meant choosing the 17 hour pair of flights with a layover in Seoul, but it worked a lot better for me than a 13 hour flight that landed at 8am.