Hello!

My DH and I are planning another graduation trip for our next niece/nephew for summer 2021. We are discussing the pros (DH) and cons (me) of flying into Heathrow and staying for a few days to get a taste of London and flying out again (via Heathrow) to continue with the trip.

Background: DH and I are in our 40s, travel to Europe most years, but have never visited the UK. We promised each of our six nieces/nephews a graduation trip, as they have never traveled any further than the New England states. We flew Icelandair with our niece and enjoyed a 72 hour layover in Iceland and DH feels that a similar strategy with Heathrow/London could be achieved. I disagree.

Why Heathrow? We have Avios points to cover most of the costs. In fact, we will have enough to cover business class tickets, which prompts DH to think that the perks will make passport control and security a breeze for a 72-hour visit.

Full disclosure: I hate flying and would rather train it to another destination, but our goal destination (at this very early point of the trip planning!) is probably Munich and moving south from there. We know that multiple destinations and flights is not the way most people here recommend traveling, but we believe that the teens do better with the faster itinerary. When it's just the two of us we are ridiculously lazy and having a teen with us actually prompts us to see historical sites and stay moving.

I would love to hear about your experiences with traveling to and from Heathrow. Maybe I am just being overly cautious?

You are being overly cautious.

Heathrow is just a big airport, nothing more. I suspect the many cases of "I hate Heathrow" are mainly from people who haven't done it lately, or not very often. To me, given the amount of air traffic that arrives or departs from LHR, it actually does a pretty good job. It's like a lot of airports with multiple disconnected terminals (LAX, JFK...) in that switching terminals is a bit time consuming, but Heathrow handles it quite well.

While of course it's pointless to speculate about travel two years from now, one thing to consider is how you'd spend those 72 hours. If you stay outside the city to the west (maybe Oxford, or Windsor, or even out to the Cotswolds, for example) then flying to Munich from Heathrow might make the most sense. However, if you're spending those three days in central London, then maybe you could look at flying from London City airport (LCY) which offers nonstop flights to Munich that at present are the same price, or cheaper, than flights from Heathrow. "Door to door" times would be way shorter from most places in the city, and LCY is much easier to navigate than Heathrow.

If you're using Avios, remember that BA flight awards are for point-to-point travel; you won't pay any more Avios by stopping over in London for a few days than you would if you just connected and went on to Munich. And for intra-Europe travel, it's always worthwhile to find out the cash price for short-haul flights (e.g. London to Munich) before committing to using Avios. Sometimes the short flights are so cheap in cash terms that it's better to save the Avios for other travel. This is especially the case with BA award flights, which typically carry high out-of-pocket costs for taxes and added fees, making the value of your Avios a lot less.

Thank you, Gardyloo, for your response! I fully admit that much of my hesitation is due to my dislike of flying.

And thanks for the tips about the Avios points. (DH is the points master and I'll make sure his considers all of the options.) And since our goal would be to spend out time in central London we will look into flights out of LCY.

Thank you!

Or you take the Eurostar to Paris, and continue from there.

It's 2 years from now, it's anyone's guess if the UK will still be in the EU then. If you want to avoid immigration/passport control, it might be easier to fly into a Schengen country, since travel between Schengen countries is (slightly) easier. On the other hand, London is the largest city by far in Europe, with tons to do for teens. 72 hours is very little time there.

I'm not sure what your actual concerns are. But just VERY quick . . . If you are flying in the front of the plane, LHR is a piece of cake. You get off the plane first, get expedited immigration, and can use the arrivals lounge. And when you are flying back out you have the departure lounge AND expedited security.

Yes I flew in the front of the plane last week and got a slip of paper for expedited immigration which took longer than those who were in the regular line.

>>which took longer than those who were in the regular line.<<

Something special must have caused a snafu because I have flown business into the UK many times and never spent more than a few minutes in the expedited immigration queue. Longest I ever waited was this July when it took about 15 mins - usually it takes 5 mins or less.

Thanks, Everyone! We have witnessed ridiculous passport control wait times in Paris and I was a little afraid that Heathrow might be a nightmare. It is great to hear that (presently) the passport control lines move quickly.

And, of course 72 hours is a ridiculously short amount of time to spend in a fabulous city, but our goal is to give our nephew a taste of the city.

Thank you!

>>It is great to hear that (presently) the passport control lines move quickly. <<

They can sometimes still be enormous . . . But NOT for you because you''re flying Business. You wouldn't go through the same lines . . .

As a very rough guideline, you should be aware that the main performance metric is under 45 minute wait for non-EEA (non-EU essentially) citizens and under 25 minute for EEA citizens. Terminals 4 and 5 tend to hit this target in the high 90% range for non-EEA. Targets are typically achieved in high 90s in all terminals for EEA. Terminals 2 and 3 tend to lag with more problems for non-EEA citizens, hitting the target in the low 90% range. This is not a good indicator of rare outlier wait times and their severity but I think it's the best way to get a view of it. Fast-track will probably be much better and have a decreased chance of being caught in severe delays but that's just my assumption.

Beware of views based on anecdotal casual observation. I use LHR almost once per week on average and I don't claim to have a good first hand grip on wait times other than that (from my very limited view) they seemed to have improved significantly in the last few years. There are four terminals and many hours in the day.