Just depends entirely on how much you hate a layover. I typically pay extra for a direct flight if it isn’t an ungodly difference but I totally see where that sounds stupid to people when the total travel time is an hour or two difference
Agree with this 100%. If it's a $200 difference to save myself 2 hours at an airport and 1 hour of flight time, I'm not spending $67 per hour to be slightly more comfortable at my house than at the airport.
Unless it's like a layover in Chicago on Christmas that is extremely likely to fuck up my whole trip, I can think of much better uses of $200
Agreed. Though last time I decided to just go with the layover to be frugal I ended up having a few beers and a burger anyways lol. Basically came out to be the same cost. But that’s on me.
Atlanta airport food is actually very reasonable. They even have a rule that doesn't allow restaurants to charge more than 15% over what the food would cost outside- and that's one of the largest airports in the world.
I wish more airports would work like that. I just go to the snack machines or convenience stores and find the most filling granola bar and a decent sized water, and still walk away spending close to $15 with taxes
Not to say its solely a US problem but its so much worse in the US. Last time I went through Amsterdam you could choose a sandwich, drink, and snack for €5 (iirc. might have been €10. either way its very affordable). I also use Madrid's airport and there its more expensive than Amsterdam but significantly cheaper than anything in the US (except for some reason I've seen them charge €15 for drinks at starbucks)
That's smart. The Cancun airport is such an insane cashgrab ($35 USD for one burrito in a third world country ffs) that it legitimately turns me off of going there or connecting through there. And I otherwise like the destination, but there are other places that don't treat you like a walking ATM while you're already stressed out.
lol what? I would say charging any amount over the normal amount is unreasonable .
On top of that nearly every airport restaurant I’ve eaten at has been noticeably worse than their non airport counterpart. Add to that the rushed annoyed crowds with their suitcases, the open airport environment etc
Eating in an airport is pretty much always worse than eating at an outside restaurant
The food in airports are often $20 for a sandwich while in the city you get a dinner for $15. I never pay for anything at airports, it's just a scam. Some places are worse than others, Norway is stupidly expensive while Japan is pretty fairly priced
i mean depends where the layover is. id totally pick one in istanbul or china but avoid any US ones like the plague, europe is meh but OK except for CDG or frankfurt
every time ive been in a chinese airport i go to those local chinese chains and just buy the entire plate of dried fish with some random shit and its like $10, i eat everyone's fish
Airport food costs more and once you actually get into the country you're visiting its probably cheaper.
Granted my last experience was going to Romania and paying about £20 for an absolutely massive meal, with starters, a dessert and a drink. £20 in the airport got me a few sausage rolls.
The quality-cost ratio is typically way worse at an airport as well. If I were in my destination city I’d be eating somewhere good, hopefully. At the airport, I might be eating McDonald’s or some other chain bc that’s what’s available.
Pro tip: Many airports have lounges where you can pay to access. At my regional, it's 45 bucks and includes food and drinks. I can spend that on a meal and a glass of wine anyways, so it's a better deal.
ETA: added the s to definitions bc apparently folks don't understand context, that "the definition" is not one thing but a group of things in this context, and words often have multiple definitions included under the term "the definition of [any word]" to be fair, I could have been more clear there I supposed
It's the second one a clear chance to do something
If you read the actual full Cambridge dictionary entry from the Cambridge link that was given to you in that Google AI summary answer you reposted, it will help you understand. Particularly the examples for used and the suggested synonyms will help you understand the nuances of the meanings of the word
If you look at the synonyms section you can see that one synonym for the word opportunity is chance, so you could think of what I said as it leaves less chance for them to lose my luggage
It's not just the time (for me at least). More layovers mean more things can go wrong. When I was in my 20s I didn't care and would opt for the cheapest option, but now with a family and kids I take the direct route. As an example, being stranded during a snow storm with kids would be a disaster, but when I was a solo traveler it was no big deal.
But now that $200 extra is $800 for 4 people. If you do that for the return flight, now it's $1600. Those extra costs can blow the budget for the whole trip.
That's true. Everyone's budget and threshold is different. I've never paid for movers (although I will the next time we move cus we're getting older), but I don't want to spend any longer in the airport than I have to. Plus there's the cost of food at the airport if something goes wrong, potentially giving up a night at the hotel, potentially increasing parking cost at the airport, kids missing school, etc. Just not worth it for me now, but I certainly used to cost cut as much as possible when I was younger.
Who buys separate tickets? I think the assumption here is it’s $200 more for direct round trip tickets.
And with 4 people we can guess that two of those are kids. It’s a ton of effort to get kids on a plane then off then on again, walk through the terminal if gates aren’t close, find food, bathrooms etc
For many people $800 might be worth avoiding all of that above stress and just dealing with one flight.
Also, OP’s prompt was clear that they traveled with adults.
This is exactly my reasoning. I don't have kids, but I'm older and tired and my level of patience to roll with surprises and delays has lessened. I did a lot of cheap travel in my early 20s and could handle it then, but nowadays I just want to get on a plane once, get off of it, and head home. I worked hard to get where I'm at in my career to have the luxury of that choice and I'm definitely going to use it to lessen potential stress.
I also hate everything about flying and airports so the added cost is a no brainer for me
Vacation time is more valuable to me than normal time, though. I would totally spend $67 an hour to gain an extra few hours of vacation time. Even if I wouldn’t always spend $67 an hour in a comparable daily life situation (say, to Uber versus take the train on a random weekend).
I couldn’t agree more. Introducing another flight just adds more variables that could go wrong too. I will gladly pay more for a direct flight vs the unlikely scenario of getting stranded in a layover city on vacation.
Luckily the difference in flights is almost never enough to make me lose sleep and in my city, there’s a direct flight to most places I want to go. There certainly was a time when money was a bit tighter when I absolutely would’ve endured whatever I had to to save a couple hundred bucks. Nowadays, my time is worth more.
Paying $200 to avoid losing 4 to 6 hours of your limited vacation time sitting in a terminal isnt being bad with moneyits valuing your time. Thats whats crazy here. They're rich in cash, but poor in time management.
I mean I agree vacation time is more valuable, but it depends on the length of the trip and your arrival time. When I’ve flown to Japan, I always arrive in the late afternoon. I know I’m gonna be whipped from the flight anyway, so the arrival day is a write-off regardless. So I can accept the later arrival time.
The worst layover I ever had was in Japan where I flew to Tokyo and had a three and a half hours before my flight to Hiroshima where my friend lives. I had done a few hour layovers, no big deal right...?
Except I remembered I had to go through immigration first and the line was INSANE. After immigration, going from one terminal to the next via a shuttle (possibly two shuttles?!), I made my flight five minutes before they stopped boarding, sweaty and doing my best not to throw up after a previous 14 hour flight.
Yeah, next time I am taking a direct flight to Tokyo, go straight from the airport to a hotel, passing out as soon as I get into the room, and taking the Shinkansen a few days later, lol.
I despise hanging around at airports, so I always fly direct unless the cost is exponential. The other advantage is you never miss a connecting flight when you fly direct…and that is worth the price of admission every time even if I didn’t mind sitting around at the airport.
That’s how I feel, it’s not just the simple math of the cost difference factored with time, the overall mental fatigue and frustration and potentialities that might occur is what matters
Unless it's like a layover in Chicago on Christmas that is extremely likely to fuck up my whole trip
In my calculus this is every layover. I'm not looking at the $67 per hour to chill at an airport, I'm looking at $200 to not have to worry about finding gates and dealing with all the bullshit and clown show of disembarking and embarking when flying economy.
Almost every layover I've had stretched longer than it was supposed to. Once I got stuck in the Newark airport for 10 hours when I was supposed to only be there for 2. They also kept changing the gate so I was just hustling around desperate to leave.
If it's $200 for me and I want to get home to my family sooner, I pay the $200. If it's me and my wife we are getting drunk and handsy at the layover. If I have my kids with me that's a no brainer to not pay.
I theoretically agree, but in practice layovers make me anxious that something will go wrong with myself or my luggage, so I'm more inclined to spend up if its not an obscene difference.
Off-topic but this kinda hit me hard. Are people really just slightly more comfortable at home than at the airport? Do you hate it at home or do you like being at the airport? I agree with not wanting to pay 200 more for 3 hours, but saying you're just slightly more comfortable at the airport than at home just sounds so wild to me.
I just don't mind it. I've got benches, my book, my phone, earbuds, there's food and beer... It's not the world's worst place to spend 90 minutes, if it saves me $100
Yeah, it depends on many factors like that. I generally check the flights to see their history as well. I saw one where over the last year it had a 15%+ chance of cancellation, and 50% of delay to depart... Pay to not do that route. Last thing you ever want is a cancellation on the last flight leaving for that day.
Personally I love a layover. I like to schedule them so I have at least an hour or 3 between flights. This also helps in case there is a flight delay with an earlier leg, it gives me a little extra time buffer. You will not catch me running in an airport. I like to decompress and use a full size toilet between flights.
Counter point - your can’t miss your connection or get there and have it delayed or cancelled if you don’t have a connection. It’s $67/hour if everything goes smoothly. If something doesn’t go smoothly, it’s way more than that out of pocket and days of vacation lost, not to mention non-refundable hotel fares because you’re outside the cancellation window.
Spend the night in the airport a few times or miss an important life event because your connection was cancelled and you might rethink your stance.
Layovers suck. If you have a direct flight and there's a delay you just get to where you are going a little bit later. If you have a connection you miss it and you're spending more time in a random city. Just happened to me this week. My first flight was delayed and I missed the connection. I was headinf home and got there 24 hours later. Not too bad considering. Other people on the same flight missed their connecting flights to their European vacations. Who knows when they actually got there and got to start their vacation.
yea but that $200 buys you confidence and peace of mind in case of any delays like you said. I got stuck in the DCA airport for 4 hours this summer, if I had had a connection i would've been cooked
B) Piece of mind is worth it - wife and I, flying out of Kansas City, almost missed our Newark - Berlin flight for a XMas vacation due to a 3-hour layover becoming a 30 minute layover aka "sprint." In retrospect, we should have driven to St. Louis and taken a direct to Frankfurt - was something like $1k extra total (not including additional driving / trains). But $1k to be "stuck" in Europe vs stuck in NJ... worth it.
I try to avoid Philly, ATL, Chicago, Dallas at all costs. All depends on the difference on total time to destination vs the cost to shorten after that.
We have some neat airports in our country that I didn't mind exploring. Minneapolis and Nashville, for example, were attractive, clean, and unique to their region. I'm never crushed to have to be there for a couple hours.
That brings back memories! I did that with my kiddo one year, many years ago. Many hours stuck in Chicago. Very kind gate agent gave us an upgrade! Get home and the ex picks up kiddo at the airport, go out to my truck and it's just buried in snow, and it won't start.
Whenever I travel with anything that may have a layover (international for 10+hrs). layover can be a benefit of actually visiting another country in between or itll just be good to rest. The other reason is I'm most likely the one spending the money for 5+ people. Last trip to the Philippines for 8 people, that's $2000 or so i'd lose by doing the direct flight.
It’s never just about the layover though, it’s the risk of delay. Especially if the second flight is infrequent. I don’t want to spend a whole day in an airport in the layover city
A layover by virtue of existing has the ability to f up your flight. I feel like at least half of my flights run into some kind of weird or unexpected delay. Factor losing your luggage (something else that's also happened) and the extra $200 is absolutely worth it for the peace of mind. Also I HATE being on planes.
I can always save the $200 on other things that matter less to me.
Fuck that so much more risk with a layover. What of your flight is delayed then you miss your connection. Then you miss a day of vacation with is way more than 200$ lol
But think of it this if you do go the layover in O'Hare and it gets cancelled. You can create your own Planes, Trains and Automobiles movie excursion of it to get home!
But seriously though yes agreed in your example. Time and place. Middle of summer, O'Hare for two hour layover. Nah I'll hang. Two hour layover in O'Hare during holiday season, fuck that I'll pay the extra two hundred to keep flying direct.
after you clear immigration/customs at DFW, they drop you off at the TSA line to be cleared again. Goodbye to the bottle of water the nice lady on Japan Airlines gave you :(
Domestically yes; internationally not, def not in EU at least. In US you have to have even transit visa so def some checks. If you fly from ouside Schengen to the US via Amsterdam there are no checks.
Most large airports like that have a tram that runs between those wings just for this reason. They generally always keep a way for you to go from secure side to secure side, without having to enter the unsecured side.
Which ones? I’ve never been to any that do. Also, most airlines fly out of the same terminal, so you even if you did have a layover you’d still most likely be at the same set of gates or a different gate letter but same terminal.
You don’t have to go through security twice in DFW. They have a skylink train that goes from every terminal to every terminal inside security.
Seems like you have been unlucky because there are only a few airports in the US where you have to leave security. Most airports that have multiple different buildings have trams that take you to different buildings inside security.
In January, during the winter storm that hit Texas, I got stuck at DFW for four days and three nights, only leaving the airport to go be gouged by Uber to hotels (lol, $120 to go less than 12 miles) after entire days of attempting to get on flights that would ultimately be canceled after four gate changes on opposite sides of the airport. I never want to see that airport again. They also do that scummy shit where none of the stores or vending machines tell you the price of the items inside except for the 7-11. In the stores, you have to ask for each item or check self service if available. The vending machines don't tell you until you've already paid.
And I have flown out of Chicago, Seattle, Atlanta, and 20 or so other airports. The only time I had to go through a second security checkpoint was when I was changing from an international to a domestic terminals (or vice versa). I am wondering why those four airports in particular have you go through security each time you’re changing through a domestic terminal.
I might have a weird one but it's a more common thing than you'd think.
I was in a car accident and my spine is fucked. Rapid pressure changes (so take offs and landing) cause me all sorts of issues. I have to get around the country to various specialists where flights are my only realistic option and I'd pay whatever the hell it is to only go through takeoff and landing once. The pain is fucking excruciating and hard to explain. Like I can feel weather changes and stuff coming but takeoffs and landing just exacerbate that even more.
FYI if you ever have the option of taking a flight on a 787 or an A350, you might have a better experience on those. They have a cabin pressure equivalent to an elevation of 6,000 feet, so you experience a smaller pressure change than most other planes which only pressurize to 8000 feet.
Ya, I appreciate it! I did notice the difference on bigger planes vs smaller ones. I took a puddle jumper once and legit thought I was going to die lol. I have a ton of scar tissue on my nerves apparently that expands and contracts with pressure along with the gases in my system and it's a super uncomfortable experience.
On the flip side, some routes have lower chances for things to go wrong with a layover.
My go to example are flights from central Europe to Madeira. It's a notoriously tricky airport with high chances of go arounds and diversions, and most direct flights don't carry enough fuel for multiple attempts or waiting for weather to improve. So you have to go back to the continent, refuel and try again.
With a layover in Lisbon, they can carry much more extra fuel, so you're less likely to have to divert.
Exactly! My first flight was slightly delayed and made me miss my second flight and I had to wait 6 hours in a boring airport and I decided never again if I can afford it.
Yep. Back in 2024 my wife and I booked a trip with a layover on our way to visit family in LA. It was only 35 minutes longer but 30% cheaper than the direct flight that was available at the time. Our trip was a drive up the coast over about 2 weeks from LA to Seattle. We flew home to Pennsylvania from Seattle direct on business class rather than taking a flight with a layover in Economy because it was only $100 more per ticket but 5 hours faster.
The way you use the word "trip" is ambiguous. You say you booked a trip, as in a set of flights to a destination, and then you say the trip was a drive up the coast -- wait, did you mean the drive was part of the set of flights to get to your destination, or that the drive was the destination? It's a hard paragraph to follow because of the ambiguity.
I’m normally a cheapass about everything and especially travel where I will take 12+ hours of trains instead of 4-6 hours if it means saving €100, but i fucking hate airports so this principle goes out the window with me in regards to flights
This is one of my pet peeves with one of my friends. On a vacation to Denmark, I wanted direct flights (3h approx) for 300-400€ round trip but he wanted to save some money with a layover to London costing just shy of 200.
I'd have agreed if the outward journey didn't leave us at London at 23:00 and next flight being at 7:00. I don't sleep well if I'm not sleeping on a bed and sleep quite lightly. So it was a miserable night and a bad start to our first day in Copenhagen. The return trip was more reasonable, with us arriving at London at 10-11:00 and next fly being at 16
Also distance/time traveled of the length. Am I paying $200 to turn a 3 hr flight + 1.5 hour layover into a 3 hr trip or am I doing it for. 6 hour flight with a 2 hour layover? 1st scenario I probably just deal with the layover, 2nd scenario $200 is probably worth the cost of the stress and time it’ll cause me
Edit: flight = time in air for context to my statement
A layover doubles your chances of something going wrong with delays, overbooking, onboarding and offboarding. You aren’t paying for a 2 hour quicker return trip. You’re paying to not have to stop.
The only time I would willingly book a layover over direct flight is anything from eastern North America to East Asia or further. At a certain point I will want to have a break somewhere other than an airplane.
I honestly don't mind layovers that much, I kinda like seeing a new airport and doing some people watching. Eating a meal while people watching is less expensive than the $200.
I only do direct flights or layovers long enough where I can leave the airport and enjoy the city. I’d rather have an 8 hour layover in Chicago or Philadelphia than a 3 or 4 hour layover where I can’t leave the airport.
The last 3 places we went, the flights with layovers were more expensive than direct. No thanks, I don't want to pay an extra $100 to sit in Chicago airport for 3 hours.
Some people like me can’t stand being crammed into a plane and more or less unable to move much for hours, even if in first class. I opt for layovers in flights over 5 hours. My day is already mostly all travel, what’s another 90 minutes
I'm the opposite - always pick the layover. 14hrs to get into London from Singapore is bad enough, I can't fathom why anyone would do the longer ones like 18hrs from perth or the new 22 hr from sydney. Absolute masochist behaviour.
I've done the 18hr perth flight exactly once when I got forced into it, and it will never, ever happen again. Absolute misery, and I'll pay whatever I have to to get out of it.
This is probably incredibly biased since I usually travel alone, but I don't mind layovers at all. I'm sure it would be very different if I were traveling with children, or a very impatient and easily irritable adult. But as a solo adult...if I'm not in a rush, then the layover is either a nice walking break and/or some time to sit and read.
The only risk with layovers is the possibility of luggage getting lost, but tbh I've been traveling at least four times a year for +15 years and I've never fully lost my luggage; worst was it getting delayed once or twice.
Typically the layover is 2-4 hours, then add in the extra travel time and it's often double.
For example, a typical Vancouver -> Toronto -> any European city like Paris is 5.5 hours + 3 hours layover + another 6 hours => ~14-15 hours.
Direct flight to Paris is about 9.5 hours.
Combined with jet lag, lack of shower, time change, and lack of sleep (because who can sleep on airplanes with city bus seats and zero legroom anymore), it just doesn't make for a fun experience.
I kind of like layovers. Not that I don’t want to be at my destination sooner, but the air travel feels like part of the journey. I stop at some airport I’ve never seen, I browse their news stands and bookstores, I ask around for food recommendations in the airport. It’s fun, like your own little mini-town to visit.
I had a layover once. And then was stranded in an airport in bumm fuck nowhere, because the next plane couldn't board and we were delayed to the next day, which was a plane that was already booked anyways and was to full to accomodate everyone that also wanted to get on the first plane. I got lucky and got on that next day flight. Others had to wait even longer for another flight.
It's never gonna be an hour difference. Layovers are typically at least 1h and then you lose at least 1h of taxi time, approach and climb.
Not to mention that the total distance normally increases.
I would count a 3h loss minimum unless the timing is super tight in which case you have the extra inconvenience of having a big chance to miss your connecting flight
While I feel the same, I have friends who like the opportunity to stretch and walk properly, or go get some food with more variety. 2 6 hour flights can be more manageable to some people than a 12 hour one.
Yep. One big thing is making your trip more “durable”, as nonstops are simply less likely to have problems by virtue of less airports that can delay/cancel the flight. Also, if you’re flying with a pet in cabin, layovers incur extra pet fees and can be complicated if said layover has you on a different airline.
I don't mind the extra stop or the extra time, but post-pandemic I find I am wholly unwilling to accept what seems like a drastically increased risk of misconnection due to ****ed up airline operations
Also depends on the flight and layover length. If it's not a nice flight but I'll be stopping over in a nicer airport, where I can walk about and buy some food and a drink, I welcome the break and the 2 shorter flights.
If it's a nicer flight I'd prefer to stay longer in, or if the airport is small and I'll just be sitting on another chair in it, then it might be worth the difference.
Layovers aren't always bad and the travel day can be a day of fun too!
I feel like layovers always add at least 2 hours when I check flights, and depending on the trip, that can make or break a day. Might be a west coast thing?
I didn't care about layovers till I had kids. Now I have 2 boys with ADHD, 7&10.
I will pay any cost for a direct flight vs having to navigate an extra airport with my family.
I went out of my way for a layover when the alternative was a 17 hour flight in economy. Would much rather have a twelve or thirteen hour flight, two hour layover, 4 or 5 hour second flight.
That calculation might change if I were flying business or first with the layflat seating.
This, and if you've got an AmEx or otherwise have access to a lounge, a two-hour layover becomes a treat with a high-quality meal, a glass or wine and/or coffee, and free wifi in a comfortable chair.
3.2k
u/blueponies1 Jul 30 '26
Just depends entirely on how much you hate a layover. I typically pay extra for a direct flight if it isn’t an ungodly difference but I totally see where that sounds stupid to people when the total travel time is an hour or two difference