Considering a flight from New Jersey to Honolulu and can't decide if it's better to take a non-stop for 10 hours and 40 minutes or to break it up and have a layover in San Francisco or LAX for a total of about 14 hours. Might be nice to get out of the plane for a couple of hours and stretch our legs and grab a bite to eat. Unfortunately we don't have the time to spend a couple of days on the westcoast in addition to the 9 nights we would spend in Hawaii.

Just looking for others thoughts.

I would look at what time you actually arrive in Hawaii. If the NS gets you there earlier in the day, that would be the deciding factor for me. Otherwise, if you want to stop somewehre on the west coast, then do it.

I always prefer non-stop--don't like how my ears feel on take-off & landing, have a better chance of sleeping on a longer flight, and don't have to worry about mssing a connection.

After a recent holiday where there were 13 take offs & landings I'd take the non-stop everytime - it's not as if you'll have any time IN SF to enjoy yourself

Nonstop, always if possible, for me. 11 hrs is not that long of a flight imo to make a break worthwhile. I'd rather just keep going and get to Hawaii sooner, than hang around SFO or LAX having a snack!

Hard to say. If you're flying coach and you're tall or have bad legs or something like that, the stopover might help, but it's a matter of what you can take. If it were me, I'd probably take the nonstop assuming the same price.

Generally, the non-stop, but with some exceptions. For example, the non-stop is on Continental, but they don't do complimentary upgrades on this flight. If the OP is a high-level elite (at least Gold, preferably Plat), then he has at least a chance of getting complimentary upgrade to first on either or both EWR-west coast and west coast-HI flights.

I'm going to offer a mild dissent. I've done the ns flight and it is long. I have heard rumors (maybe confirmed, ray?) that CO is switching to buy on board meals on this route, too. It might be nice to get out, stretch, and grab something to eat. Still not certain I'd do it, unless I were a plat or gold, but I would definitely give it serious thought.

Also, I should ask if you are actually going to Oahu. If I were going to one of the other islands, I would definitely look into connecting on the west coast and heading directly to my island from there.

People see it in the reservations about BoB on CO's IAH/EWR-HNL, but it has not been officially announced. So, I don't know. It will be risky for those sitting in the last rows of economy. If I sit there, I'll buy something in the airport before boarding.

Thanks for all of the opinions, seems like the non-stop wins out. Will be flying economy directly into Honolulu. The non-stop gets to Hawaii a few hours earlier, on the way back the non-stop leaves so late, that the stop in LAX or SF gets back to Newark earlier.

How much time you can save is one consideration. But if the multiple stop flight is convenient, I prefer it for a couple of reasons:

First, its nice to get off a plane and stretch your legs, find a real bathroom, and perhaps even a snack.

Second, if you are trying to get status as a frequent flyer, you can often pick up extra miles or points by taking a multiple stop flight. We had our choice of a direct flight from Cleveland to Denver, or a flight connecting in Houston. The price was the same, and both arrived at a convenient time. By flying through Houston, we earned quite a few more miles, and additional points.

People who fly on business can obtain elite status fairly easily; those of us who fly for personal reasons usually have to scramble to obtain and keep elite status, but I think it is worth it because some of the perks (such as not paying to check baggage) can save you quite a bit.

I vote for nonstop.

If you take a nonstop the chances are good that your luggage will arrive when you do. With multiple stops, not so much.

The most dangerous periods in air travel are takeoff and landings. If you are a nervous nellie about such things, stay in the air!

If there is more than a 10 percent difference in cost for a long flight, I would consider but not necessarily choose a one-stop ticket, but I usually prefer ns because with it you have only one chance of having a flight delayed or canceled instead of two chances. I will go with the odds unless the savings are too good to pass up.

non stop-if I'm going somewhere I want to get there as fast as Possible. Then again I guess I'm used to 10 -11 hours non stop as routine.

One other thing to consider is that if you make a stop, any delays could cause you to miss your connection. Much higher chance of not getting to Hawaii on the same day.

I would choose non-stop - less chance of lost luggage or a missed connection.