Hello,
I'm going to Italy in Sept., and someone on this board smartly suggested that the cheapest way to fly would be to book round trip tickets from Boston to London, and then tickets from London to Italy. That does seem to shave $200 or so off the flight. What I'm wondering is, if the first flight to London is delayed, and we miss our flight to Italy, would we be out of luck because the tickets aren't linked? Or would the other airline still note that we late because of an airport delay and put us on the next flight, as they would if we ordered our tickets the "regular" way?

Hi bride,

Depends on who your European carrier is.

Check with your airline.

If you are flying into Gatwck and out of Stansted, you will need a lot of time between flights.

I don't think that the other airline would have any obligation, to put you on the next flight, if you missed your flight due to a late connection. That said, most airlines are fairly reasonable and will try and accommodate you but it might mean quite a wait - you might get stuck in London for the night at your own expense. As well as BA (the best and most reliable) there are lots of low cost airlines that fly London to Italy from £50 (Easyjet and Ryanair are the most popular). However, you should be aware that they fly from airports other than Heathrow so factor that into your transfer time. BA and British Midlands fly from Heathrow. I would suggest you book on their websites rather than through a travel agent.

I'd definitely stay overnight in London for the return trip.

For the London - Italy trip, I wouldn't leave less than 6 or 7 hours between the flights, because of the possibility of delay and the fact that the second set of tickets would be nonrefundable and have to be repurchased at full price if you didn't make the flight.

Bride,I dont think is worth the hassle and the worry that goes with it..
Besides, from the time that you take a taxi or others means of transportations to a different airport, without counting that you may not have a connecting flight right away, your saving would be minimal..
Do you think is worth it?

No answer to your question, bride, but I think that the savings can be worth it if you're able to leave from the same airport you're flying into.

I agree that is makes sense if both flights use the same airport. Or even if they use Heathrow/Gatwick. There is a fast direct coach between the two airports that takes an hour give or take depending on traffic. But most any other airport combo makes the connection more difficult and/or longer.

The savings is because the Italy flight is more likely on one of the budget carriers from a more remote airport. And most of the low cost airlines are VERY unforgiving about missed flights - or even missed check-in time.

So the general answer is - YES it makes sense if both flights are at convenient airports OR if you leave more than ample time for the connection. But NO if you cut it too close and miss your flight and have to buy a much more expensive new ticket and/or stay ovenight in London. There goes all the savings plus some.

Allof THIS to save "$200 or so" off the cost? But don;t get me wrong...200 bucks is 200 bucks which can be spent on a lot of goodies. But to offer an opinion:
the connecting carrier has NO obligation if you miss a flight...and whether or not "most carriers are reasonable" offers comfort but guarantees nothing, unfortunately.

Then there's the luggage issue: are you connecting to one of the low-cost airlines which will charge you everything they can for anything beyond the specified weight limit? Are you prepared to deal with this PRIOR to departure by packing less and, again, is it worth the "savings?"

The cheapest way is not always the most hassle-free way and sometimes "cheap" ends up being more expensive in terms of time, money, outlook, etc.

I really hope this works out for you and that you've learned a valuable lesson in the process.

Well, you could argue that if the price of a ticket is $1,000, $200 amounts to a 20% saving. I'd take a 20% saving if the hassle is not significantly increased.

I'm not too much of a risk taker myself, but some risks are more worth taking than others. Obviously lots of things can go wrong, but if you think that the probability of things going wrong is not that great, then go for it.

There're a couple of defensive things you can do, like check the real-time arrival times of your flights for a couple of days to see what the chances of making your connection are. Lots of airports offer these sorts of information these days.

This is also a good plan if the original poster would like to spend some time in London.

I'd also suggest looking at total flight and layover time.

In my case, I can fly to London on a nonstop and then get a budget carrier to any number of places. If I want to go to many of these cities on a single ticket, I often have to accept two connections and a *really* long travel day. Even then it costs hundreds of dollars more. So in my particular case (flying from YVR) the London + budget carrier option is often cheaper and more pleasant.

I have been one of the people to advocate this strategy. It makes the most sense if:

1. a night or two in London is desirable, even at the expense of shaving off that time from the &quot;down line&quot; destination. I think that many travelers enjoy/benefit from getting over their overnight transatlantic air travel in an <i>English-speaking</i> country.

and/or

2. There are 3,4, 5 or more travelers involved (such as a sizable family). The multiplier means a greater difference in the financial impact.

I never assume that a delay in a transatlantic flight will be free of consequences, even if it is the same carrier via the same airport. And especially if Stansted or Ryanair are involved, I recommend building an overnight - - unless it just wouldn't matter.

The bus trip from LHR to STN is pleasant enough and makes for a nice nap, after a sleep-deprived transatlantic flight; it used to seem reasonably cheap, though the cost has gone up. Moving in and out of <i>central</i> London just to save on airfare can sharply reduce any savings, of course.

Best wishes,

Rex

Thank you all. You've pointed out some great stuff. I'll look into it further and let you know what I decide!

Even major carriers like British Airways are using 3 different London airports these days. There is cost for the coach &amp; time involved when transfering between them. So factor this in to any potential savings if an airport change is part of the itinerary. If it's a Heathrow/Heathrow connection with plenty of time, I'd consider it.

I'm with Singletail,unless your budget can't absorb $200.00 flying direct is the way to go.Most times it saves you most of the day including layover time that can be used to sightsee which is the reason for the trip.

The very best scenario is if you can avoid changing airports in London. I see by a previous post you fly out of Boston &amp; want to fly into Venice. I know BMI (British Midlands) &amp; I think Alitalia have flights from Heathrow to VCE. Your other option is to consider using Delta out of JFK non-stop to VCE. I'm less familiar with Florence routes.

It might be worthwhile to check with consolidators ( if you haven't already) to see if you could nab a well-priced nonstop flight to Italy. I think if you check previous posts you'll find some reputable names listed on the forum.

If that doesn't work, find out what happens with delays if you ticket on partnered airlines like American and BA.

Good luck!