I responded to this post recently and it has been bugging me ever since.
http://www.fodors.com/forums/threads...amp;dirtyBit=1

Perhaps I posted in haste. Actually, there are several factors to consider when selecting the best flight to Europe. Here are the critieria that I consider, in rank order:
1. price
2. total length of flying day
3. airline/aircraft model
4. arrival/departure times in Europe

I never consider the departure airport since that becomes a function of the above.

Now I am curious. Am I missing a point here? How would you rank your criteria? This could be interesting.

For me there is only 1 criteria,direct flight.

My order would be:

1. price
1. (tie) non-stop, length of flight
3. airline

I used to fly out of PHL. Once I flew out of Newark because of the low price. Not only added hours to the journey (worried about train delays), after adding the travel costs, it came out to be = not worth it.

Everything is important, so one should consider everything as a whole, as each person's situation and each trip is different. This is what I mean -

- Arrival/Departure time. If one has a week of holiday each year, then arrivial/departure time in Europe should be the most important. Many flights arrive Europe early in the morning, so you don't waste that day. In contrast, if you go for low-fare alone, that may mean changing from Gatwick/Heathrow to Luton/Stansted in London to catch Ryanair or easyjet. After you add the 4-5 hours MINIMUM for connection and the extra flying time, plus possible alternate airport Ryanair uses, you may arrive at your destination THAT NIGHT. Whole day wasted. It's fine for someone who have extra travel days, but is totally ridiculous for others to even consider. [And if your return flight leaves early, that may mean connecting to London the day before. Another half-day wasted.]

- Airline and FF program can mean a lot to those who fly enough (25,000miles in a calendar year) to qualify for "elite" status with that airline. Benefits include bonus miles for the next year, preferred seating (like the Economy + seats on UA with extra legroom), seperate check-in line, shorter security line at hub airports, AND have more seats available to you for mile redemption. 3-4 roundtrip to Europe a year will give you all above benefits for the next year, which is not insignificant especially if you fly a lot.

- Airline/aircraft model. It can make a huge difference, especially if you have long legs. American has extra legrooms on most of its Atlantic flight (except 757). And a personal video screen can make time pass much faster, with more A/V choices plus movies. Trans-Atlanic isn't as important as Trans-Pacific in this regard, but not to ignore. I once flew BOS-LGW on a really old 747, and there's so little room that I cannot sleep at all for the entire flight. It doesn't matter if this particular airline is supposed to have the better onboard service.

My point is, everything is important. I will not just rank the criteria, but consider everything as a whole, including the nature of the trip, duration, etc...

If I wrote as well, I'd have replied as Rkkwan did.

I'm buying a service, just as I might in a restaurant. Granted, regardless of the route or the carrier, I don't really enjoy the flight. But I will pay just a bit extra for what I percieve to be a better, or less bad, experience - a better economy product.

I'll pay perhaps $50 more for an AA transatlantic flight on a 777 than I would for a Delta flight because for me, the "misery index" drops considerably and I at least feel the extra is worth it. Another example - you could not get me on a United flight trans-pacific flight because of the comfort issue. I'll always choose Qantas, or Air New Zealand in a pinch. Great airline, but not OneWorld.

I can't justify spending my own $ on business class, so this seems like a fair compromise. Additionally, from a "big picture" aspect, I wonder if pursuing the lowest cost doesn't encourage those things we all dislike, such as smaller seats, etc.

I also prefer sticking to one carrier/partnership when I can, so that I can, from time to time, enjoy the perks of a single bank of ff miles.

I agree that in going to Europe a direct flight - and if at all possible a nonstop flight is the only option (I will stop only if there's a gun to my head). An overnight flight is bad enough - extending it even one more minute than necessary is simply ridiculous IMHO. Everything else is secondary. (It is really worth it to arrive at your destination exhausted and stressed to save a few $?)

A good price is nice - and I'll select the best one available - after the most conveient flight and the safest airlines.

From the west coast we put a premium on legroom and seat selection. I actually don't mind changing planes somewhere en route; we have limited nonstop destination alternatives from Seattle (LHR, AMS, CPH) so if we're going someplace else, it actually makes sense for us to break the journey in Chicago or on the east coast if the next segment can be a nonstop to our ultimate destination.

We flew BA's World Traveler Plus last month SEA LHR and the extra room was a major plus. The big plus was that on the (hour-longer because of headwinds) return we got upgraded to Biz, with the flat beds, all that. Wow - like the old ad said, the onnnly way to fly!

OK--I agree it is a balancing act between several criteria. But how much more would you pay to get your choice of direct flight, airline of choice, or departure airport of choice. Clifton says $50 more to get his choice of aircraft--what about $200?

Another example I had:
Last Nov I flew from PHL to FCO. In order to save about $200, I ended up taking BA PHL-LHR, then a 6hr layover for a connecting flight on BA LGW-FCO. Needless to say, by the time I arrived in Rome, it was late in the afternoon (1st day all wasted) and I was completely exhausted. For $200 more, I could have taken a better connection from LHR-FCO soon after my 1st flight. That would have gotten me to Rome around noon instead of 6pm.

So, was saving the $200 worth it? To me, yes. I travel budget, so $200 = 3-4 nights' hotel, or 1/2 of another ticket to Europe (as I was departing from the East coast). To others, probably no. If someone is taking a once-a-year trip to Europe and staying at $250-300/night hotels, an extra $200 is probably worth it (espeically if that person is flying from West coast).

The price issue is an interesting one. I recently had faced this issue. By doing everything myself as opposed to buying stuff on Orbitz, I probably saved about $100. The connections ended up being quite comparable, but in terms of time wasted, this probably wasn't worth it. I ended up paying about $1200 for my whole complicated trip, and trying to lower costs was probably a matter of pride -- it seems a little insane and extravagant to pay over $1000 for a trip to Europe (even though I'll be making a few stops).

Yesterday Orbitz showed some flight combinations what would have enabled me to fly nonstop to NYC from Amsterdam for about $150 over what I had paid. Maybe if I had known this earlier I might have gone for it.

That's the other issue -- the flight combinations that will show on Orbitz will change depending on availability. So will prices. So in a way the target is sort of moving as well.

For my next next trip to Europe, I'm considering this issue (already resolved for the upcoming trip).

I can sometimes get cheap flights from YVR - LON. I can leave at the end of a workday, so minimize the loss of vacation days. I like visiting London anyway. It's a 9-hour nonstop flight. Then I can take a low-cost carrier to/from London. I have to count on each of these flights costing $50-75 USD when all fees are considered.

Alternatively, I can go from Seattle and take any of a number of connecting flight options to Europe and even get an open-jaw flight. I have to take a shuttle bus (3 or 4 hours) to Seattle. I have to stay overnight at a Seattle airport hotel (total with taxes and fees about $45 on Priceline). I won't have a nonstop flight to Europe unless I choose KLM or SAS (I can fly to London cheaper from YVR). In this case I'm thinking of going to Italy, so there are no nonstop options anyway.

Then for the return, if I arrive back in Seattle and cannot catch the last 7 PM shuttle bus, I have to spend $45 on another Priceline hotel overnight, plus miss the next day's work. If I take LON-YVR, I won't miss the next day's work and my husband will pick me up at the airport.

With the Seattle return options, I'm pretty well stuck with early morning departures out of Italy, which I really hate.

I've run several cost analyses for trips this winter, and the total cost for each method
(YVR-LON + 2 low-cost flights
vs.
SEA-Italy + shuttle to/from Vancouver + airport hotels)
is about $800 USD on the low end. There's no dramatic savings either way. So it will come down to which I prefer, if I decide to go.

One might ask why not just fly to Italy from YVR - but so far most of the options involve two connections and are much more expensive.

I would pay a premium to fly on a plane that had seats that do not recline. I fly about 80,000 miles a year, and my company does not pay for business class. I am upgrade to Premium Economy, but you still can't even put your tray all the way when the idiot in front of you reclines all of the way. I am only 6 feet tall, so I can't imagine how tall people handle this. Unless the person in front of me reclines all of the way, I do not put my seat back more than a few inches.

This is one of my demons. When I'm sitting on my couch in the comfort of my living room, booking the best fares I can find on my laptop, I am always so pleased with what great cheap fares I have come up with.

Then when I am actually negotiating the connections, and going through yet another security and crammed into a middle seat, I would gladly pay a <b>bunch</b> more money for a better situation!

But travel is fortunately a lot like labor. Good thing too, or there would be no more people born and we'd all stay home!

I was thinking about the $200 question, Bob. I'd said $50 originally, but I'm honestly not sure what the figure is.

I've been looking at fares from St. Louis to Bucharest, Romania and then returning from Budapest for late October. Unlike the fares to Italy or London, this routing never seems to budge much. It's been $950-ish for 2 solid months on an AA and BA combo (OneWorld Alliance partners), with healthy connections each way in Chicago and Heathrow.

I just saw a flight on one of the consolidator sites for those dates and almost the same connections, expect through Frankfurt on the way back. It's $880. But, it's on United to O'Hare; Air India to London; Tarom Romania the remainder. Coming back, it's SpanAir, Air India and American.

It's more than a $50 gap, but I just don't see the wisdom in changing carriers on this one. I think the limit is also one of those subjective things, all things NOT being equal.
I'd be a lot less willing to be flexible in my spending when judging two competing non-stops to London.

Without a doubt PRICE is my number one criteria when looking for flights from the westcoast to europe. After finding the best price around my preferred dates (and since I really don't like flying) I then concentrate on finding a NON-STOP flight. Of course, the &quot;non-stop-direct flight&quot; factor always adds more $ to the bottom line, but if it's only $100 to $200 more for the total fare, I'll go for it! Tne other elements of my search (aircraft, times of departure/arrival) are secondary to my &quot;getting there&quot; by the cheapest and most direct method possible.

Cheers!