Giselle

I would add also how many connections could you stand if you were to be in Europe for only 9 nights?

I would prefer one, but I am wondering if I could stand two.

Two connections require a wait of two hours or more at the second destination, no matter how short the third leg is, though, of course, a short leg would make it easier.

While I'm at if, I will also ask you this: will you do a connection with a different airline, for instance American to London and Easyjet to another destination - without an overnight?

Thanks in advance to anyone who answers.

Personally, I would not change airports in one day, as I have done that before and it really is tiring.

Kristina

I try for zero, but settle for 1, unless I'm going somewhere remote.
There are many carriers which do direct connections to Europe from LAX or SFO. I guess it all depends on where you begin and end.
Last week I flew nonstop to Paris from LAX on Air Tahiti. It was only 10.5 hours and was great. We were gone 8 nights.

Giselle

Just to avoid confusion, I should add that I cannot take a direct flight to Europe because I am using FF miles on a carrier that has no direct fights.

Underhill

One is it for us, although we try always to fly non-stop from SFO.

WillTravel

I've done several trips in the past couple years where I flew to London nonstop, and then the next day took a flight from either the same airport or a different one - on BMI or Ryanair.

So a typical itinerary involved flying to London, flight the next day to the second destination, some days in that place, train or plane to next destination, train or plane to next destination, and then fly back to London.

This time I'm doing things a little differently. I got a bargain flight to Madrid, which requires going to Newark first. Then the following day, after enjoying Madrid for about 36 hours, we'll be flying to Amsterdam. Then five days later, flying to London. Then five days later back to Madrid. Then we'll have about 60 hours in Madrid.

Three separate flights on one day (the two-connection plan) makes me cry at the thought of it. This flight to Madrid will be hard enough, with one connection, as we have to leave in the morning, rather than the usual nighttime departure I take to London.

Grasshopper

I have done two (with different airports) and have been exhausted. It's easy to sit on your comfy couch and book these marathon trips but everytime I am on one I swear never again! The airport where you make the connection, as well as the airline involved makes a big difference too. For example, Denver is easy but JFK is a nightmare, unless you're flying United when JFK is not so bad.

If at all possible, use one of the connections as a layover. It lets you adjust to the time change and get a good night sleep. Particularly if a change in airports is involved (ie LHR to Gatwick).

SeaUrchin

In the past when I took longer trips abroad I would fly into New York and stay a few days to break up the flights. Now days I don't like to connect in the US because the weather is usually so bad and I would hate to get delayed while still in the US.

I only will do the one European connection, any more than that is just not worth any money-saving to me.

Gardyloo

<i>Just to avoid confusion, I should add that I cannot take a direct flight to Europe because I am using FF miles on a carrier that has no direct fights.</i>

Meaning you have to fly on your own carrier to a N. America gateway then change to another carrier to go over the water, then a third to get to your final destination? Most US/Canadian airlines w/ FFPs have partners with nonstop service from N. America to Europe, so maybe I'm a bit confused?

As for two plane changes en route, I don't find it so bad, especially if you have time to walk around and stretch your bones at the intermediate airports. Crossing 8 or 9 timezones is murder on your brain and circulatory system anyway, so the breaks might actually be beneficial, in a counter-intuitive sort of way.

As for getting off the &quot;new&quot; American airlines (in coach) and getting onto easyJet, you'll probably see little difference, aside from having to re-check your bags. Unless you need to get from Heathrow to Luton, in which case I'd seriously consider Hawaii.

WillTravel

I don't think the journey from Heathrow to Luton need be so bad. You only have to take a National Express bus which is supposed to take about 80 minutes (but could be more of course).

Patty

Only 1, but we fly from LAX. Those who don't live near major airports usually don't have much of a choice.

As for Easyjet or Ryanair, I would prefer not to fly either en route to my destination simply because of the longer layover and/or overnight necessary versus booking a single through ticket. It's usually not worth the cost savings to me.

I also wouldn't consider changing airports en route as a cost saving measure. Too much hassle IMO.

linawood

We fly from Seattle and just keep going until we get where we want to go which sometimes means 3 legs. Even though it is hard at the time, the 2nd day is often kind of a waste and this way we get the major travel over with. We've flown Seattle-Copenhagen-Milan-Catania, Seattle-Copenhagen-Milan-Palermo, Seattle-Amsterdam-Zagreb-Dubrovnik. Last year we did Seattle-Amsterdam-Milan followed by a 5 hour train to Trieste and 8 hours bus/ferry the following day to Veli Losinj, Croatia. Every trip absolutely worth it and the best way to enjoy a far off vacation with limited days IMO.

suze

Zero (by that I mean that I am not willing to make a transfer at a U.S. airport on the way to Europe).

So mine is Seattle nonstop and overnight to London, then one more local flight to get to my destination (Amsterdam, Geneva, Paris, etc.).

Patty

Giselle,
What program do you belong to and where are you flying to and from? Have you looked at all of the partner airline possibilities? Or is it more of an issue with award availability?

susanna

For only 9 nights I would only take one stop because if something goes wrong and you miss your connection it is taking a bigger part of your vacation than if you were going for 2-3 weeks. I also like to fly from SFO to somewhere in Europe and then connect, that way, if I am stuck, at least it is somewhere in Europe and I can make a better time of it. I also put a lot of weight on the time between connections...I won't take a connection under 2 hours or over 3hours.
Grasshopperhi) that said, I am connection thru JFK in September for Zurich, switching from American to Swiss...why is it a nightmare??

Giselle

Patty, I didn't exlain myself enough. I am with Alaska Airlines miles. They have many partners.

Only one partner will allow you to fly for 40,000 rather than 50,000 off season. That partner is American, and from Seattle they connect in a US city. There are no two airlines I'm flying to Europe on.

I must not have made that clear - maybe connection is the wrong term for flying from Seattle to Detroit to London, for example. Then thinking of London to Budapest, for example, all on a nine night trip. Two overnights in London would be pricey and cut into the vacation...but.

And, no, I don't want to buy miles up to 50,000 -- at least not yet, if I can help it. I'm already buying miles on one of the tickets. This will be a budget trip.

Boy, people really have different MOs on this issue! WillTravel, you are intrepid. I'm not sure I am, but I AM thinking about American's non direct stop to Europe, then another to my European destination for this 9 night trip. Just thinking.

Anyone else want to share how they feel about connection endurance?

rkkwan

3 flights to Budapest is fine. But only if you don't have to change airport in London. No way would I spend hours changing airports there.

And make sure you leave yourself a lot of time for that off-line connection. The low-cost airlines don't transfer luggage, so you need to enter the UK, claim luggage, and recheck. If you miss the check-in cutoff, you need to buy a new ticket.

Gardyloo

On an AA award ticket you likely wouldn't be sent via London anyway - more likely Seattle-Chicago-Brussels-Budapest, or possibly via Zurich as long as AA's codeshare agreement with Swiss lasts (which won't be long as they've gone over to the Dark Side - i.e., Star Alliance.)

You'd be able to ticket and bag-check all the way through, and changing at BRU or ZRH would be infinitely easier than London.

booklady

I absolutely hate to have to make connections. But I'm in Seattle and don't always have a choice. My usual choice for Europe is London, and thankfully, BA flies direct.

Next spring, however, we're branching out and going to Italy. Tentatively, we plan to fly to London, stay one or two nights, then take a cheapie flight to Venice. I'd rather get over the jetlag in a city I know well.

Giselle

Hey there, Gardyloo, I've flown AA Seattle to London on FF miles before!

But thanks for reminding me how much easier Brussels would be than Heathrow.

It's been interesting to hear all your opinions.

Giselle

Although I'm forgetting, AA usually flies into Gatwick from Seattle, not Heathrow.