$$ vs. Time, Are You Willing to Pay More to Fly Non-Stop?
 

Just curious...do you usually look for the cheapest flight regardless of stops, connections, plane changes, etc. or are you willing to pay more for a non-stop flight?<BR><BR>Personally, I'll pay more for the convenience. But I read many posts where it seems the opposite. For example: Fly into London (generally cheaper) and then catch another (generally budget) flight to the final destination. At what point does the extra time and headache outweight the cost?

Non-stops translate into less chance of connection problems,loosing luggage,mechanical problems with planes at connections,etc.. Not to mention once you take off you know at the next stop you'll be there. There is a $$$ limit of course,but it's worth it.

Absolutely will pay up for non-stop, for the exact reasons mentioned by Doc above.

I always fly to London or Paris and then go on from there. Fares are decidely cheaper that way. Plus I like to spend my last night in one or the other of those two cities.

I've never taken a stop over flight because I fear the consequences, too many reasons for something to go wrong<BR><BR>But...<BR>if there were an airfare differential of $250-300 or so, I'd consider it and go with a carry on bag. That would prevent luggage loss and a missed connecting flight due to a late arrival

I didn't say that properly, what I meant was that if I had my luggage with me I'd worry less about a missed connection

We will pay more for an upgrade to business class. We can't take cattle car class anymore.

The only negative experience I have in my annual trip to Europe is looking for airfare. When I find a good fare I buy it, if it is direct flight wonderful, if I have a decent connection thats ok too. Purchased Minneapolis - Frankfurt last November from Iclandair for $530 taxes included for a mid June departure 19 day trip. Taking advantage of the stopover in Iceland on the way home.

I got non-stop flights into Europe for many years (it was easy when I lived in NYC). <BR><BR>I'm flying in Feb and have a crazy connection in JFK (1:40 to change from Terminal 3 to 7). I booked this crazy connection because I got a ridiculously low fare. But, I'm already regretting having booked it. <BR><BR>I definitely think its worth paying more.

Lynlor.. Are we all that bad in Cattle car class, Or do you not fit in the seats?

I would love to take a non-stop, but I don't live in a hub city.

I've been whining b/c when I booked my flight to CDG for May, it was non-stop. Got email couple weeks ago from US Air saying that flight was discontinued and must connect in PHL. Bummer.

From Baltimore to Frankfurt via Philly last June, our US Air flight was delayed out of Balto because of severe thunderstorms. What had been a 1-1/2 hour wait in Philly ended up with me running through PHL and arriving at the FRA flight gate soaked in sweat just as they were getting ready to pull the tube away from the aircraft--we got on our flight, but, of course, our luggage did not. If we had used carry on luggage, I could not have made it to the plane in time while carrying the load. So I'm glad we had checked the luggage so we could catch the flight, but it was unpleasant to get to Bamberg Saturday afternoon to find out that clothing stores would be closing in 15 minutes and not open again until Monday.

<BR><BR>The way I see it, saving time isn't the only advantage of a non-stop. There's also less take-offs and landings and, therefore, less chance to be in an accident since approximately 80% of all airplane accidents happen during take-off or landing.

Yes I will pay more for nonstop (although often you don't have to pay extra if you really scour the internet for various airlines' schedules). Time, convenience, and safety all play a part.<BR>

I am exactly the opposite. Non stop for flights shorter than 6 hours, yes. BUT I get completely restless even in that amount, so when faced with non-stop LA -Paris vs. a stop on East Coast, I took the stop. Nothing to do with $$, I've just got to take a break in there somewhere and scooting up the aisle in the plane is not enough. <BR>

Also, the time factor is more important for a short vacation - if it's less than a week I begrudge an extra half day spent travelling in each direction, and choose a non-stop flight.

I live in Southern California. I'll pay more for a non stop flight, perhaps as much as 25% extra just so it's a non stop flight. I'll drive to L.A. from San Diego and leave my car at long term parking as long as I catch a non stop flight to Europe. Convenience over money. I can handle 10 to 11 hours on a plane but after that I get panicky and claustrophobic.

Yes, we paid more to get non-stop to paris, then flying to rome, training to Venice and then flying back to Paris for a couple of nights before going back home. The convenience of not having to have long waits and worry about baggage and flying when we wanted to and where we wanted to (not leaving for the airport in Venice at 4;45 Am for example) was worth the extra dollars.

Yes I would pay more for non-stop but it depends on the aircraft too. From CLE_LGW there is a nonstop but it is a 757. With only one aisle there is no room to move around. In spring we drove to DTW to get a NW direct flight to LGW on a DC-10. It was worth the drive to be able to move around inflight.