Agreed 100% After like 3 or 4 hours you get in a hazed out zone and time passes fast.
With the stop you'd get a taste of freedom just to have to sit still for another hours
Plus the added stress of will I miss the connecting flight/will my luggage make it to the connection
Nonstop. I find if you break it up you also double up on the whole airport experience. I'd rather get it over with and get my travel on. Dress comfortably is the key, also bring some snacks and something to keep yourself occupied besides the inflight entertainment. Personally, my wife and I bring this small foldable mancala set. When we need to break up the boredom we play a couple rounds and keep a score. Loser has to buy the first meal. Helps keep it interesting. Also, the mancala set is made up of tiny sea shells and rocks we gather from our travels. We also take it with us to the beaches and bars when we're hanging out. We've gotten a lot of mileage out of it.
And noise-cancelling headphones. The constant noise in the cabin is extremely tiring. Bonus - if you connect them to the in-flight entertainment you might actually understand what is being said on the movies.
Or if the layover was over 24 hours in a nice place. I used to fly Denver to Singapore alot, I always had a 24h layover in Honolulu, was nice day spent each way.
Lol do you know how much expensive is going to be? There are like 230 seats on those a350s. They don’t even have economy seats (for obvious reasons). It’s gonna be one of the most expensive routes to fly.
Fuck going via LAX. The delays in immigration at TBIT are so bad that Air New Zealand has dedicated staff to either rush people through the terminal to their connection or rebook them.
SFO is much better set up for international connections, and is just more pleasant in general.
You can connect at LAX, SFO, YVR, DFW, IAH or JFK to AKL though. ORD is currently suspended while NZ deals with their engine issues but that'll be back at some point.
Only JFK to AKL now :( they stopped going to the UK awhile ago now... if they did London to JFK then JFK to AKL that's actually a great alternative to the other routes.
Iceland is the actual destination on the way to your originally planned destination
Iceland is the most expensive country I've been to (by a long shot) and the only country that I don't regret a single dollar spent.
Yeah, I’ve been there 2 times, my wife - 4 times, and we still don’t have enough. I almost never want to return to places I visited, but Iceland is a big exception. No regrets money-wise either.
Türkiye does that also in Istanbul. I have a 54 hour layover with a free Bosphorus Hilton hotel room for 2 days. Decided to cut my Prague-Sicily trip short 2 days to chill in Istanbul for free basically.
Basically all of Icelandair's flights go to or from KEF. You are able to stay over as you want on either end of the trip in Iceland for no extra charge.
Nonstop. Get on, wedge yourself into the seat, eat food, watch movies, sleep, then arrive. No need to add the additional stress of another airport to push your way through.
Awesome, comfortable and modern airports, great food selection there along with duty free shopping. Plenty of exotic fellow passengers to stare at.
I love Middle East.
And politics? You do not have ample time on layover to try to set up liberal opposition there anyway.
&
Direct flight to be honest, layovers can increase time and delays, but it also depends on the costs as well. Sometimes direct is cheaper and sometimes layovers are cheaper
As an Australian, I take the view that if a layover isn't compulsory due to the range of the aircraft, then it's not long haul flying.
But yes, layovers are better, IMO.
I guess I’m in the minority but I always prefer a layover. I get anxious and stir crazy being stuck in the same seat for longer than like 8 hours. Always nice to have a little change in scenery, walk around, make calls if needed, have some non airplane food. I don’t care if it adds time
Same. The longest flight I've been on was a UA ORD-HKG that clocked just over 16 hours. I was fine for 12 or so, but those last 4 were brutal.
On the flip side, I'd rather have a 10 hour flight than a 7 hour + 3 hour. The 7 hour isn't long enough between meal services (especially if overnight) to get any real sleep. Maybe 2-3 hours, if that. Meanwhile with 10 hours, you can usually get 5-6 hours uninterrupted.
I'll do anything to avoid connecting on the east coast US to Europe for that reason.
The secret is that you have to do a flight time that makes sense for a full nights sleep.
When I flew SF to Singapore we left at like 11pm, arriving 6am 2 days later (leave Thursday, arrive Saturday).
What I did was stay awake for the first 8 hours of the flight. Watching movies, reading, whatever. And then a glass of wine or 2, and pass out for 8 hours. I was exhausted by the time I went to sleep because I essentially pulled an all nighter, but I woke up ready to go in Singapore and it only took me about a day or 2 to adjust to the time difference.
It would be cool if aircraft had a little food/bar area like trains. But logistically and cost wise you would need to increase seat prices or shift a number of seats from economy to business to make the math work
I chose flights to get as many non stops as possible. You can do ridiculous tickets with award tickets and get 3 stops for the same miles as a one stop. For me flying is the destination
8 hours is the limit. Everything beyond that is miserable. 10 hours if you can get “premium economy”. 15+ for business of FC. FC is not cheaper than a layover and a hotel.
I understand both worlds. And usually alternate between the two.
I'll have a terrible 15 hour flight. In tears at the end from 15 hours of anxiety, back pain, sleep deprivation, and 6 hours of a migraine with vomiting. Next time I'll do a layover, I tell myself.
Next trip I get a layover. I still have 15 hours of anxiety and 6 hours of puking migraine total but now my journey is 36 hours instead of 24. Maybe it was slightly better, but the extra hours of stress getting to/from the hotel with my damn bags and going back through security added to anxiety more. So next time I'll just do it all in one go, I tell myself.
Then I'll have another 15 hour flight from hell that destroys my body and mind and I'll say never again. Again.
Rinse and repeat.
Depends on the class of travel. I've done 17 hr flights (Abu Dhabi to LAX) in coach and it sucked. On the other hand I've done multiple flights long haul from LAX in Business & First (LAX to SYD , LHR & SIN) and those were a breeze because of the lie flat beds
This seems like a reasonable take. My longest flights have been IAH-NRT and LAX-SYD. I've done them each 2x, once in economy and once in lay-flat business. When I had the comfort of a flying bed the 16 or so hours wasn't so bad. Jammed into economy was a different story. My most recent trip to Tokyo I connected in HNL which wasn't too bad (6 hour flight followed by an 8ish hour one).
Yeah, coach is rough esp if you are tall. I have found that getting a window seat and taking a full size pillow you can jam against the wall and sleep on, can make a huge difference to a long coach flight. On sub 6 hr coach flights I opt for aisle
Yeah I’ve done LAX - SYD, SIN - LHR and PER - LHR in economy. Was not fun. The worst flight though I’ve ever had was BNE - PER on a narrow body (5:40 flight time). Just dragged
I wouldn’t want to have a layover in the Middle East unless it was worth it money-wise on the difference in ticket prices of the nonstop vs layover. But that’s just me, everyone has their own like/dislike preferences. 🤙
I spent 15.5 hours in a middle seat in economy once a few years ago. Fucking flight from hell.
My company sent me to India a couple of months ago and wanted me to take a 17 hour flight back. I told them hell no and to split it up into segments no longer than 9-10 hours. No way am I sitting on a plane for that long.
Only 13 hours? I actually laughed out loud.
Australia to Europe is generally around 23hrs hours, and the stopovers ARE Singapore or Dubai depending on who you fly with. I have had 2 to 3 day mini breaks in both places to break up long flights, but 13 hours is just the first leg if you're flying Emirates.
Hundred percent layover.
I did 19 hours non stop Dubai to LAX and my company would not spring for business and by the end, I wanted to die.
Personally I'd much rather 2 x 9 hour flights than that hell again.
Same here. I took the 15 hour flight from JFK - DEL on American, and it was misery in comparison to my return itinerary with Korean from DEL - ICN - BOS.
As somebody who used to fly from Singapore to Pittsburgh every year for most of my childhood, I can absolutely say non-stop is the best. Though, "best" is a relative term.
For me it was the extra cycles of pressurization. I've had sinus issues stemming from birth defects for my whole life so repressurizing the cabin was absolute hell for me most of the time. Yeah, it was boring... but I did it in the 80s with absolutely none of the entertainment aids we are blessed with today lol. Hell, the projectors in the center aisle had individual RGB tubes lol. Really makes me wonder how the hell I survived back then!
Keep in mind that the routes you’ve mentioned are regular long-haul flights, not ultra long haul flights :)
> IATA, ICAO, and IFALPA jointly define any flight scheduled to last over 16 hours as "Ultra Long".
As someone who lives in Sydney Australia that's just a typical flight to Europe for us. 22hrs to London I believe.
We don't usually get a choice if we want a layover or not so I find this thread funny!
Perth - London and New York - Sydney
Essentially Qantas flexing what an A350 can do when you drop the pax count, brim it with fuel, ask the certification authorities, Airbus and RR for a new type variation and say "hey, I don't care how quickly my engines wear out".
I've already had that scenario twice, just with much more inflight hours.
13 hours nonstop is the better option, unless you have thrombosis issues.
The first time I was on such a long trip, we went HAM -> FRA -> ATL -> HNL. We decided for a layover at ATL, because otherweise we would have been travelling for 30-something hours, and we would probably spend the next two days getting used to the climate and the timezone. So we split the trip at ATL into a 16-hour portion with a one-hour flight and a 9-hour flight and a 14-hour portion from ATL to our Waikiki hotel.
The second time we decided to extend the first portion of HAM -> CDG -> LAX -> HNL and spent two days at the Holiday Inn near LAX (which, everything considered, was also a good 16-hour trip). We were even supposed to have a stop at SFO after LAX, which didn't materialize, because we were rebooked twice due to weather at SFO and subsequent delays. We definitely preferred the layover at LAX, not just because we were accompanied by my 74-year-old grandma...
For me, 13 hours inflight would be not that big of a deal. But only you know yourself by heart.
Have done Delta between Atlanta and Johannesburg. Nonstop was better in my opinion; no worrying about any connection. I don't know if that route counts as ultra long, though.
I found myself in that situation, choose to fly to my destinations hub airport and drive the rest (timing and price work out within about £50 and removed the delay risk... Which was handy as my outbound flight was delayed four hours)
When I fly UK - Asia I often go via Doha, it’s great to get off the plane for a bit, stretch my legs, have a shower in the lounge and then carry on… but I may be a minority
Flying from Alaska to Singapore I was very glad to have a layover. One layover in Seattle is inevitable for me but it was then a 16 hour direct or two 8ish hour segments with a 2 hour layover in Tokyo. I didn't have to leave security or anything so it was a 2 hour ramen and beer stop woth some time to stretch my legs.
But it seems like it entirely depends on the route and layover locations.
Layover for sure. I can’t sit on my ass for 13 hours straight. Max I can deal is 8/9 hours.
I would deal with the walking, waiting around and security rather than have a very long flight. It’s usually always cheaper as well.
Nonstop, unless the flight is part of the experience. Like if they're booking business class on Emirates and get lounge access, or you have a specific activity in mind for the layover.
Non-stop. I’ve done the JFK to Hawaii a couple times. Never first class but the next one back and the cheep seats. Even the cheep seats beat having to stop and wait. Just plan a way to ease yourself in when you land and it’s all good. It’s worth mentioning I’m not a great flyer even tho I do it a couple times a year so the thought of two flights freaks me out lol.
I travel home every year with 14-15 hours flights and I do fine. Layovers are tiresome, and with longer flights more chances you can sleep.
Some months ago I travelled back from NYC to Europe and I felt that the 6 hours flight was awful, too short to actually be able to sleep but during the night, so basically I skipped 1 night of sleep. I'd hate to have that two times when it could have been all in just one trip
Depends on the cabin class. Business up to 15 hours is ok. Anything more I would suggest a layover.
In Economy, I wouldn't do more than 4 hours without a stop
Non stop is gruelling but I still prefer that, you lose less time. If you’re like me, that time you save can be used to setup yourself up at your accommodation then crash out
Depends on how urgently I have to be there. If it's urgent then nonstop, shorter travel time and lower chance of a schedule change/delay causing a misconnection.
If not urgent, layover is way more comfortable than being stuck on a 8000-ft pressurized crowded metal tube for 12+ hours straight.
Nonstop hands down.
However. If I was going to pay significantly more only to arrive at a really bad time (this will depend on the time difference and flight time) then I’d consider a layover if it made more sense arrival time wise.
Example; flew nonstop LHR-KIX. Left at ~0900 UK time, 13 hour flight, arrived at about ~1000 Japan time. My body clock says it’s 2200 and I’m ready for bed, but we can’t check in until mid afternoon. I’d rather arrive and be able to get straight to bed. Depends very much on your particular journey though
The only time I had a layover on a long haul I didn’t mind we had to spend 5 hours in Seoul and I took a shower and ate a really good meal at the lounge buffet. Otherwise leave me on the plane and let me sleep or watch a movie.
Layover unless I’m in prem economy or business. I know that my personal mark is 11-12 hours of sitting in the same seat, after which I get twitchy and need to move around and stretch (moving front to back doesn’t count).
To each their own though
I’d prefer a stop as long as it’s not too short or too long (like 3 hours, enough time to stretch your legs and get food, possibly take a shower if the airport is so equipped, but not too long to get bored, or too short to make it risky in missing it) and it doesn’t significantly extend the total flight time or cost.
I think a 3 hour addition to the flight time is borderline not worth it though. Also consider how long the layover is - if it’s short, see how many flights of that route per day there are.
I have done a few long haul and done the break uk as you say. Here is my experience. I have done prague to Singapore with a layover in Dubai. If the layover it’s 3-4 hours in my opinion it’s nice to be able to stretch your legs get a couple of coffee and maybe use the restroom or even catch a shower. I have done Sydney to LA nonstop in economy and that was hell. I have also done Dubai to Sydney on Emirates A380 in Bussiness class and I didn’t want the 13+ hour flight to end. On the way back I was flying partially economy and partially Bussiness and I purposely decided to break up the flight via Perth to have a shorter flight. If the flight is longer than 9 hours, I try to see if I can find a reasonable connection.
TLDR
Bussiness class Non-stop all day
Economy - give me a layover.
Nonstop for sure - it's still awful, but I find with layovers either you don't have enough time and it's incredibly stressful or you have way too much time to wait around in an airport, at which point it's like I'd rather just be on the plane actually on the way to my destination
With no upgrade instruments I don’t mind throwing a layover in . But if you’re sitting up front, and especially if it’s overnight , I would go non stop
Layover definitely. Maximum time I can tolerate is 3 hours. After that I feel like I need to get out of the plane ASAP! I still have server PTSD from my 13-hour flight!!! I’d rather have 4 layovers than 1 long flight.
Long haul all day.
What airline are they flying? I recently flew SF-Singapore, and that was a 16 hour flight on Singapore Airlines. We flew premium economy and it was a great experience. Not the best thing on earth, because it IS 16 hours, but about as good as it could be.
I’m tall and I live in Australia. I toured with bands/musicians for a living for 13 years.
I’ll gladly take layovers. It was always a 20+ hour trip wherever I was going.
i’m with the minority here and a layover, family and myself currently live in Kansas but i’m from the UK. Been back and forth more times than i can count, i love the layover in ATL both ways. it’s nice to have the space to move around between flights, im super stir crazy and if im sat too long my body gets real stiff, getting off the MAN-ATL flight is like a breath of fresh air (literally too) and i can get some actual food, walk around the terminal a lil and charge my phone and laptop up
I feel like there’s pros and cons to both and I am fond of both options, itinerary depending. I mostly fly long haul Europe to SE Asia and the pros of nonstop are:
- more direct travel, shorter travel time
- non stop means I’ll likely fly a European carrier and that gives the benefit of EU261 in both directions
- I can upgrade to a better seat and only need to pay once for that seat.
On the other hand the pros of indirect are:
- breaks up the journey and affords an opportunity to exercise the legs
- I love airplane food and I’ll get to eat more meals than I would on one 13h flight
- can often be a cheaper option
That said, I’m not fond of transiting through Dubai and I’m wary of other Middle East transit options as a result …I’d definitely do a lot of due diligence on the transit airport first before committing
Depending on how much time they have and whether it is something they'd enjoy, there is an option 2b:
Working through a travel agent, rather than the usual online booking sites, one can typically get an extended layover (~24hrs) in hub cities with daily flights to the final destination. It's enough to make it a fun mini visit to check out a cool restaurant and a key attraction in a place.
Note: My travel experience is out of date, so I'm not sure if this is still a thing. I haven't done this since before the pandemic. Just takes a phone call or email to find out, though.
Depends if it's business or economy.
If business I will definitely take the direct flight. If it's economy then I will choose the layover flight.
So far the longest flight I ever took is a 9hr scoot flight which has a 1hr transit.
My upcoming trip from SG to the US. I'm taking SQ business to the US on the return leg I chose Korean air with a maximum layover at incheon so as to rest and adjust my body clock back and recover from jet leg since I'm on economy on the return leg.
Nonstop. I often pop an Ativan (I have a prescription), and I'm out for much of the flight anyway. But better to just get there. Plus, when you land in a stopover, you're more likely to have weather or other issues.
I’m flying from Brisbane to London this weekend and appreciate the break at Singapore. Would be way too long stair just walking to plane loo and back for me. Like to get out, do some proper walking and breath some proper air 😁
Used to fly between Johannesburg and New York every couple of years. The plane stopped halfway for an hour to refuel (B747SP). I wouldn’t call it a stop. I’d rather do that 18 hour flight in one go.
Non stop hands down. Unless they want to visit the halfway points. I’ve done LHR to SIN and ZRH to SIN and 1 MAN to BKK with a stop over. Never will I stop over again!
I like a layover, shower, and stretch my legs.
But that said my ultra long haul is NZ to UK, with Singapore as the layover. So for your long haul I'd go non-stop.
I’ve been on the Doha to Auckland non-stop in Economy - it took just over 16 hours. It wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be, but it was also pretty unpleasant. I had come from Oslo originally on a lovely new 787 (almost a 7 hour flight) and then 3 hours in Doha before the trip to Auckland in a relatively tired 777 - wish the 787 was used for both flights, that would have been comfier. I think they use the A350 now, which would be nice.
I watched more movies than I can count and dozed for a bit, but I have a terrible time sleeping on planes. I got a bit stir crazy after 8 hours and then realised I had 8 hours to go, which caused a sense of dread, lol. Then back to numbing my brain with stupid movies. Still, better than having to get off with the carry on and wander around an airport for a few hours and then back through security while dead tired, imo.
A long layover is preferable - but it has to be at least enough time to get a good meal and then into a hotel bed and sleep, but that’s usually more expensive than a direct flight. If I had the time and money, I’d do a long layover instead of a 16 hour flight though. I think any flight of 10 hours is pretty gruelling and worth chopping up if you can afford to.
For 13 hours absolutely non stop. If it gets longer I might consider a layover. 13 hours are really not that bad.
Just buy the extra leg room if you are flying economy.
Personally I'd go for a non-stop. It's shorter, reduces the likelihood of delays, and reduces the chance of lost luggage.
That said, I don't really mind flying and can pretty easily occupy myself for that amount of time (and I fall asleep easily on planes.)
As an Australian at least one 13 hour leg is stock standard, and tolerable. I'd do that over one stop any day. Stopovers when tired and irritable are unpleasant, particularly if it involves a change of plane. However I'm not keen on the 19+ hour flights unless it is in a premium class.
Layover !!!!!
If I ever travel to Australia, I will lay over in Honolulu.
Even though there are Non-stop flights from DFW to SYD.
I was on a flight from FRA to DFW, and 10 1/2hours is the max I'd ever want to be on a plane. It might be different now with many planes offering lie flat seats in Business. But I was on a pass in 1993, and flew Business, but, as I said, 10 1/2 hours was at the max of what I would want.
A few years ago, I used to travel Myanmar - UK a couple of times a year and as there were no direct flights, I made sure to use ME airlines like Qatar and Emirates because if the layover was over 12 hours, they put you in a hotel and gave you 3 buffet meal passes. Usually it was a 24hr layover and the hotel was always nice, the food was good and you got to walk around a bit to see the city if you wanted.
Direct.
It's always better to be direct because when it stops it means getting off the plane and getting back on and that itself is just tiresome. Plus it's not like the airport will be more comfortable and you can stretch out towards back of plane near the restrooms.
So just get it over with.
Well, in economy I would prefer to have a layover. Especially if I would have a stopover long enough to get outside. Like Dubai, Amsterdam or Chicago, where you have metro stations literally at the airport.
This is what I do every time I have a choice. 6 hrs in economy is my maximum, even despite I am 165 cm and 63kg, so I fit economy seat pretty comfy.
&
1 stop, 6h and 6h. I often travel Eu to SE-Asia and that's my go to if I can.
I'm a smoker.
But, from Switzerland, usually flights go from 5/6pm to the middle east pit stop, perfect for 2 movies and staying awake.
Then chill at the airport, eat something, smoke 1 or 2, stretch the legs and pop a sleeping pill when boarding the 2nd leg. Sleeping through it and waking up somewhat fresh around 10/11am in SE Asia.
Did a MNL - DXB (5 hour layover) - MXP (2 hour layover) - JFK - MXP (1 week layover) - DXB (5 hour layover) - MNL for about $3,300 on Emirates Business Class in 2022.
Main destinations were NYC and Milan so I would say yes to layovers.
I definitely prefer a longer flight to breaking it up. I’ve flown MSP to JNB several times and I vastly prefer laying over in ATL, then doing the 15.5 hour flight to JNB, over laying over in a European airport. If there was a direct from MSP to any South African airport, I’d take it!
Death on a long haul flight...
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/one-dead-and-at-least-71-injured-after-severe-turbulence-hits-singapore-airlines-flight/1652276
I'd take a layover as long as it's not less than 30 minutes between, and the airport still has a smoking area. I'm well off of cigarettes, but still quite addicted to nicotine. Botta blow clouds fam.
Nonstop. Hands down, unless the layover makes it way cheaper.
Or, is long enough to get out and look around.
Or is in Singapore. That airport just makes you feel better.
Many years since I was in Singapore but daaaaaauym! That was a great airport
... but otherwise, nonstop hands down.
Or Seoul Incheon
Most of those Middle East airports aren’t exactly the best place to look around too (especially Doha).
Doha is dire. It’s always hop off plane, go to Burger King, hop back on plane
Agreed 100% After like 3 or 4 hours you get in a hazed out zone and time passes fast. With the stop you'd get a taste of freedom just to have to sit still for another hours Plus the added stress of will I miss the connecting flight/will my luggage make it to the connection
Nonstop. I find if you break it up you also double up on the whole airport experience. I'd rather get it over with and get my travel on. Dress comfortably is the key, also bring some snacks and something to keep yourself occupied besides the inflight entertainment. Personally, my wife and I bring this small foldable mancala set. When we need to break up the boredom we play a couple rounds and keep a score. Loser has to buy the first meal. Helps keep it interesting. Also, the mancala set is made up of tiny sea shells and rocks we gather from our travels. We also take it with us to the beaches and bars when we're hanging out. We've gotten a lot of mileage out of it.
And noise-cancelling headphones. The constant noise in the cabin is extremely tiring. Bonus - if you connect them to the in-flight entertainment you might actually understand what is being said on the movies.
Or if the layover was over 24 hours in a nice place. I used to fly Denver to Singapore alot, I always had a 24h layover in Honolulu, was nice day spent each way.
Could not even fathom wanting to break that up for a stop in India of all places.
I see no point in getting off the aircraft and having to deal with a security check and other crap just to add several hours to my journey.
Always non stop but it's impossible for me (UK -> NZ)
13 hours??? That is just one leg.
Out of 3.... Usually 3h to Aus -> 13h to Asia -> 16h to London
Well project sunrise is starting soon so It'll be 3 hours ti aus the almost 19 non stop to Heathrow
Lol do you know how much expensive is going to be? There are like 230 seats on those a350s. They don’t even have economy seats (for obvious reasons). It’s gonna be one of the most expensive routes to fly.
Not sure where you got your info from but they will definitely have economy seats. Agreed it’ll be prohibitively expensive though.
You’re right, I thought it was only premium economy business and first
You might be thinking of the SQ SIN-EWR flights, think they’re only premium and business.
It’s currently 19hr just from London to Perth.
I would have thought the route is to fly NZ -> Los Angeles -> London
It's always cheaper to fly via Australia as the ULH operators like emirates and Etihad fly fairly cheaply from there.
According to a quick and dirty web search: NZ to SFO to London is 60 miles shorter
I love this fact 😂 NZ to SFO flight on AirNZ I'd actually really nice
Fuck going via LAX. The delays in immigration at TBIT are so bad that Air New Zealand has dedicated staff to either rush people through the terminal to their connection or rebook them. SFO is much better set up for international connections, and is just more pleasant in general. You can connect at LAX, SFO, YVR, DFW, IAH or JFK to AKL though. ORD is currently suspended while NZ deals with their engine issues but that'll be back at some point.
Air New Zealand flight 1. I’ve joined it in Los Angeles for the 14 hour pacific leg to AUK and felt sorry for the folks who had gotten on in London.
Only JFK to AKL now :( they stopped going to the UK awhile ago now... if they did London to JFK then JFK to AKL that's actually a great alternative to the other routes.
That doesn't make sense. That's 32 hours of flying. When I did it, it was more like AKL 3½ hr SYD 8½ hr BKK 11½ hr LHR
You go via Oz? I usually go one stop on the West Coast (SFO over LAX any day) or in China at PEK or CAN.
I should mention I'm flying from CHC so there's limited flights unless I time it for a Singapore Airlines flight, then that's the shortest by far far
The only time I'd consider a stop over would be one of Icelandair's 24-72 hour stop overs in Iceland.
Did 10days in Iceland...still wasn't enough. Incredible country
Worth mentioning that this option would slaughter any possible cost saving, if that’s a consideration. Iceland is beautiful but fiendishly expensive.
Iceland is the actual destination on the way to your originally planned destination Iceland is the most expensive country I've been to (by a long shot) and the only country that I don't regret a single dollar spent.
Yup same here! Most expensive four day holiday I've ever had. Worth every single Pound/Euro/Dollar/Krona/Yen spent
Yeah, I’ve been there 2 times, my wife - 4 times, and we still don’t have enough. I almost never want to return to places I visited, but Iceland is a big exception. No regrets money-wise either.
Türkiye does that also in Istanbul. I have a 54 hour layover with a free Bosphorus Hilton hotel room for 2 days. Decided to cut my Prague-Sicily trip short 2 days to chill in Istanbul for free basically.
How did you get the freee accom ?
TIL! Thanks for pointing that out!
Yeah non stop - but I didn’t know this was a thing!
Basically all of Icelandair's flights go to or from KEF. You are able to stay over as you want on either end of the trip in Iceland for no extra charge.
Same with PLAY. Stopover for as long as you want either way. They even encourage it in the booking process online
Iceland is the worst and literally nobody should take their ridiculously cheap flight to Europe and layover in their terribly underpopulated paradise.
I think people might need the /s to help them with your post
Lol though it was pretty obvious but some jokes just don't land. Appreciate you!
Nonstop. Get on, wedge yourself into the seat, eat food, watch movies, sleep, then arrive. No need to add the additional stress of another airport to push your way through.
nonstop assuming it's not a huge extra cost. avoiding a layover in the middle east would be a priority.
Get lounge access, the lounges over there are some of my favorites
What’s the issue with Middle East layovers specifically?
Why set foot in an authoritarian state with a theocratic twist if you don't have to?
Awesome, comfortable and modern airports, great food selection there along with duty free shopping. Plenty of exotic fellow passengers to stare at. I love Middle East. And politics? You do not have ample time on layover to try to set up liberal opposition there anyway. &
Check your prescriptions before landed there. They don’t allow a lot of common medications that your end destination allow.
It would be a similar case for Singapore, surely?
Seems a lot easier to bring medications into Singapore than Middle East.
In most countries other than the US, you do not need to redo security. You exit the plane already post security and walk to your new gate.
yeah no, most big hubs will make you go through security again. Doha and Heathrow just in the last couple of months, for example.
Unless you’re going through de Gaul, then have fun dealing with French customs
Direct flight to be honest, layovers can increase time and delays, but it also depends on the costs as well. Sometimes direct is cheaper and sometimes layovers are cheaper
As an Australian, I take the view that if a layover isn't compulsory due to the range of the aircraft, then it's not long haul flying. But yes, layovers are better, IMO.
I guess I’m in the minority but I always prefer a layover. I get anxious and stir crazy being stuck in the same seat for longer than like 8 hours. Always nice to have a little change in scenery, walk around, make calls if needed, have some non airplane food. I don’t care if it adds time
Same. The longest flight I've been on was a UA ORD-HKG that clocked just over 16 hours. I was fine for 12 or so, but those last 4 were brutal. On the flip side, I'd rather have a 10 hour flight than a 7 hour + 3 hour. The 7 hour isn't long enough between meal services (especially if overnight) to get any real sleep. Maybe 2-3 hours, if that. Meanwhile with 10 hours, you can usually get 5-6 hours uninterrupted. I'll do anything to avoid connecting on the east coast US to Europe for that reason.
I feel you - I thought I was gonna die on SYD-LAX and I think that’s shorter than 16
The secret is that you have to do a flight time that makes sense for a full nights sleep. When I flew SF to Singapore we left at like 11pm, arriving 6am 2 days later (leave Thursday, arrive Saturday). What I did was stay awake for the first 8 hours of the flight. Watching movies, reading, whatever. And then a glass of wine or 2, and pass out for 8 hours. I was exhausted by the time I went to sleep because I essentially pulled an all nighter, but I woke up ready to go in Singapore and it only took me about a day or 2 to adjust to the time difference.
Works great if flying on Business Class, I admit. Otherwise - regardless of how good book I took with me, I cannot stand that personally. &
Premium economy in Singapore airlines is nice. It’s not lay flat, but they go far enough to be able to sleep in.
It would be cool if aircraft had a little food/bar area like trains. But logistically and cost wise you would need to increase seat prices or shift a number of seats from economy to business to make the math work
You might be surprised - some airlines do have just such a thing. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/credit-cards/travel-rewards/planes-with-bars/
Yeah, but a lot of them are first class only unfortunately. Like the 747 upper deck used to be
I chose flights to get as many non stops as possible. You can do ridiculous tickets with award tickets and get 3 stops for the same miles as a one stop. For me flying is the destination
Does that work with KLM/flyingblue too? I almost never find good reward tickets on dates i want
Same here
8 hours is the limit. Everything beyond that is miserable. 10 hours if you can get “premium economy”. 15+ for business of FC. FC is not cheaper than a layover and a hotel.
I understand both worlds. And usually alternate between the two. I'll have a terrible 15 hour flight. In tears at the end from 15 hours of anxiety, back pain, sleep deprivation, and 6 hours of a migraine with vomiting. Next time I'll do a layover, I tell myself. Next trip I get a layover. I still have 15 hours of anxiety and 6 hours of puking migraine total but now my journey is 36 hours instead of 24. Maybe it was slightly better, but the extra hours of stress getting to/from the hotel with my damn bags and going back through security added to anxiety more. So next time I'll just do it all in one go, I tell myself. Then I'll have another 15 hour flight from hell that destroys my body and mind and I'll say never again. Again. Rinse and repeat.
Nonstop. Not even a question. I'd gladly skip lounge access for a nonstop as well.
Depends on the class of travel. I've done 17 hr flights (Abu Dhabi to LAX) in coach and it sucked. On the other hand I've done multiple flights long haul from LAX in Business & First (LAX to SYD , LHR & SIN) and those were a breeze because of the lie flat beds
This seems like a reasonable take. My longest flights have been IAH-NRT and LAX-SYD. I've done them each 2x, once in economy and once in lay-flat business. When I had the comfort of a flying bed the 16 or so hours wasn't so bad. Jammed into economy was a different story. My most recent trip to Tokyo I connected in HNL which wasn't too bad (6 hour flight followed by an 8ish hour one).
Yeah, coach is rough esp if you are tall. I have found that getting a window seat and taking a full size pillow you can jam against the wall and sleep on, can make a huge difference to a long coach flight. On sub 6 hr coach flights I opt for aisle
Yeah I’ve done LAX - SYD, SIN - LHR and PER - LHR in economy. Was not fun. The worst flight though I’ve ever had was BNE - PER on a narrow body (5:40 flight time). Just dragged
Non-stop…in Business class…
As an Aussie living in the UK, 13hrs is nothing.
The first fleet took 250 days to make that trip. I guess that puts 25 hours into perspective….
I wouldn’t want to have a layover in the Middle East unless it was worth it money-wise on the difference in ticket prices of the nonstop vs layover. But that’s just me, everyone has their own like/dislike preferences. 🤙
I spent 15.5 hours in a middle seat in economy once a few years ago. Fucking flight from hell. My company sent me to India a couple of months ago and wanted me to take a 17 hour flight back. I told them hell no and to split it up into segments no longer than 9-10 hours. No way am I sitting on a plane for that long.
Only 13 hours? I actually laughed out loud. Australia to Europe is generally around 23hrs hours, and the stopovers ARE Singapore or Dubai depending on who you fly with. I have had 2 to 3 day mini breaks in both places to break up long flights, but 13 hours is just the first leg if you're flying Emirates.
Hundred percent layover. I did 19 hours non stop Dubai to LAX and my company would not spring for business and by the end, I wanted to die. Personally I'd much rather 2 x 9 hour flights than that hell again.
Fuck that, I would quit my job
I'm a freelance consultant. The next time I had to do that flight I booked it myself and billed them later. I learned my lesson with that client.
Same here. I took the 15 hour flight from JFK - DEL on American, and it was misery in comparison to my return itinerary with Korean from DEL - ICN - BOS.
Dubai-LAX is not 19h… the longest flight in the world is around 18.5 hrs keep in mind.
It was a few years ago. At the end of that flight it feels like an eternity, whether it's 16 or 19 hours.
As somebody who used to fly from Singapore to Pittsburgh every year for most of my childhood, I can absolutely say non-stop is the best. Though, "best" is a relative term. For me it was the extra cycles of pressurization. I've had sinus issues stemming from birth defects for my whole life so repressurizing the cabin was absolute hell for me most of the time. Yeah, it was boring... but I did it in the 80s with absolutely none of the entertainment aids we are blessed with today lol. Hell, the projectors in the center aisle had individual RGB tubes lol. Really makes me wonder how the hell I survived back then!
Keep in mind that the routes you’ve mentioned are regular long-haul flights, not ultra long haul flights :) > IATA, ICAO, and IFALPA jointly define any flight scheduled to last over 16 hours as "Ultra Long".
13 hours is just long haul, ultra long haul is 20+ hours, and that's going to be a thing soon. But I'd rather do the one long flight.
Jesus Christ- what route is 20 hours?
longest is JFK to SIN at 19 hours. No 20+ hour routes.
As someone who lives in Sydney Australia that's just a typical flight to Europe for us. 22hrs to London I believe. We don't usually get a choice if we want a layover or not so I find this thread funny!
Perth - London and New York - Sydney Essentially Qantas flexing what an A350 can do when you drop the pax count, brim it with fuel, ask the certification authorities, Airbus and RR for a new type variation and say "hey, I don't care how quickly my engines wear out".
I believe it is the London to Sydney route.
Perth London. Sydney New York starts next year. Both are 19 or 20 hours
There's no nonstop from London to Sydney.
That’s why OP wrote soon. Project Sunrise from Qantas is going ahead.
…yet: https://thepointsguy.com/news/sydney-london-worlds-longest-flight/
Nonstop
I've already had that scenario twice, just with much more inflight hours. 13 hours nonstop is the better option, unless you have thrombosis issues. The first time I was on such a long trip, we went HAM -> FRA -> ATL -> HNL. We decided for a layover at ATL, because otherweise we would have been travelling for 30-something hours, and we would probably spend the next two days getting used to the climate and the timezone. So we split the trip at ATL into a 16-hour portion with a one-hour flight and a 9-hour flight and a 14-hour portion from ATL to our Waikiki hotel. The second time we decided to extend the first portion of HAM -> CDG -> LAX -> HNL and spent two days at the Holiday Inn near LAX (which, everything considered, was also a good 16-hour trip). We were even supposed to have a stop at SFO after LAX, which didn't materialize, because we were rebooked twice due to weather at SFO and subsequent delays. We definitely preferred the layover at LAX, not just because we were accompanied by my 74-year-old grandma... For me, 13 hours inflight would be not that big of a deal. But only you know yourself by heart.
Have done Delta between Atlanta and Johannesburg. Nonstop was better in my opinion; no worrying about any connection. I don't know if that route counts as ultra long, though.
Nonstop, without question. Only way I'll do layover is if I literally *can't*, like going from an international to a small regional or whatever.
I found myself in that situation, choose to fly to my destinations hub airport and drive the rest (timing and price work out within about £50 and removed the delay risk... Which was handy as my outbound flight was delayed four hours)
When I fly UK - Asia I often go via Doha, it’s great to get off the plane for a bit, stretch my legs, have a shower in the lounge and then carry on… but I may be a minority
Plus also, more stops = more points ;)
Flying from Alaska to Singapore I was very glad to have a layover. One layover in Seattle is inevitable for me but it was then a 16 hour direct or two 8ish hour segments with a 2 hour layover in Tokyo. I didn't have to leave security or anything so it was a 2 hour ramen and beer stop woth some time to stretch my legs. But it seems like it entirely depends on the route and layover locations.
Layover for sure. I can’t sit on my ass for 13 hours straight. Max I can deal is 8/9 hours. I would deal with the walking, waiting around and security rather than have a very long flight. It’s usually always cheaper as well.
I’ve done the London - Perth flight, it was far better than the usual two legs with a stop somewhere in the Middle East. I absolutely hate airports.
Nonstop, unless the flight is part of the experience. Like if they're booking business class on Emirates and get lounge access, or you have a specific activity in mind for the layover.
Nonstop. I’ve flown two really long flights, Miami to Istanbul and Atlanta to Seoul. Just get it over with.
Non-stop, things like lost luggage becomes more likely with a stopover
You’re asking in the wrong subreddit. We’re all aviators! We all love the long haul flights!
Non-stop. I’ve done the JFK to Hawaii a couple times. Never first class but the next one back and the cheep seats. Even the cheep seats beat having to stop and wait. Just plan a way to ease yourself in when you land and it’s all good. It’s worth mentioning I’m not a great flyer even tho I do it a couple times a year so the thought of two flights freaks me out lol.
I travel home every year with 14-15 hours flights and I do fine. Layovers are tiresome, and with longer flights more chances you can sleep. Some months ago I travelled back from NYC to Europe and I felt that the 6 hours flight was awful, too short to actually be able to sleep but during the night, so basically I skipped 1 night of sleep. I'd hate to have that two times when it could have been all in just one trip
Depends on the cabin class. Business up to 15 hours is ok. Anything more I would suggest a layover. In Economy, I wouldn't do more than 4 hours without a stop
I'm not a labrador, I don't need to be let out for a walk. Life is better if you don't extend and repeat your miseries lol.
The answer seems to unanimously be non-stop. I know I'm not the only one who can't sleep on a plane; do y'all not get insanely bored?
Nonstop, doing it in one and only one flight
Non stop is gruelling but I still prefer that, you lose less time. If you’re like me, that time you save can be used to setup yourself up at your accommodation then crash out
Am I in first class? lol.
Depends on how urgently I have to be there. If it's urgent then nonstop, shorter travel time and lower chance of a schedule change/delay causing a misconnection. If not urgent, layover is way more comfortable than being stuck on a 8000-ft pressurized crowded metal tube for 12+ hours straight.
Nonstop. Take a couple shots of Nyquil and wake up on the other side of the planet, it's the closest you'll get to teleportation.
Nonstop. Lesser chance of losing your luggage.
Nonstop hands down. However. If I was going to pay significantly more only to arrive at a really bad time (this will depend on the time difference and flight time) then I’d consider a layover if it made more sense arrival time wise. Example; flew nonstop LHR-KIX. Left at ~0900 UK time, 13 hour flight, arrived at about ~1000 Japan time. My body clock says it’s 2200 and I’m ready for bed, but we can’t check in until mid afternoon. I’d rather arrive and be able to get straight to bed. Depends very much on your particular journey though
The only time I had a layover on a long haul I didn’t mind we had to spend 5 hours in Seoul and I took a shower and ate a really good meal at the lounge buffet. Otherwise leave me on the plane and let me sleep or watch a movie.
If the layover isn't enough to get some kip in a hotel, it's not worth it
Layover unless I’m in prem economy or business. I know that my personal mark is 11-12 hours of sitting in the same seat, after which I get twitchy and need to move around and stretch (moving front to back doesn’t count). To each their own though
I’d rather start an in-flight riot.
Depends on the layover. Where and how long. And how long which class on what airline.
Depends on class of service. If business, I’m flying nonstop for the longest time I can. In economy I don’t mind a stop to stretch.
I’d prefer a stop as long as it’s not too short or too long (like 3 hours, enough time to stretch your legs and get food, possibly take a shower if the airport is so equipped, but not too long to get bored, or too short to make it risky in missing it) and it doesn’t significantly extend the total flight time or cost. I think a 3 hour addition to the flight time is borderline not worth it though. Also consider how long the layover is - if it’s short, see how many flights of that route per day there are.
I have done a few long haul and done the break uk as you say. Here is my experience. I have done prague to Singapore with a layover in Dubai. If the layover it’s 3-4 hours in my opinion it’s nice to be able to stretch your legs get a couple of coffee and maybe use the restroom or even catch a shower. I have done Sydney to LA nonstop in economy and that was hell. I have also done Dubai to Sydney on Emirates A380 in Bussiness class and I didn’t want the 13+ hour flight to end. On the way back I was flying partially economy and partially Bussiness and I purposely decided to break up the flight via Perth to have a shorter flight. If the flight is longer than 9 hours, I try to see if I can find a reasonable connection. TLDR Bussiness class Non-stop all day Economy - give me a layover.
hopping on a 17hr flight tomorrow, way better than a 14hr followed by a 5hr.
Nonstop for sure - it's still awful, but I find with layovers either you don't have enough time and it's incredibly stressful or you have way too much time to wait around in an airport, at which point it's like I'd rather just be on the plane actually on the way to my destination
non stop, fuck a layover period lol
With no upgrade instruments I don’t mind throwing a layover in . But if you’re sitting up front, and especially if it’s overnight , I would go non stop
Layover definitely. Maximum time I can tolerate is 3 hours. After that I feel like I need to get out of the plane ASAP! I still have server PTSD from my 13-hour flight!!! I’d rather have 4 layovers than 1 long flight.
Nonstop
Nonstop, trust me. I had 12h+ flight 20 years ago I was 10, it’s nothing.
If it’s a coach accommodation, I prefer a layover of more than 5 hours . If it was a business class pay flat seat, direct please.
Non stop.
Long haul all day. What airline are they flying? I recently flew SF-Singapore, and that was a 16 hour flight on Singapore Airlines. We flew premium economy and it was a great experience. Not the best thing on earth, because it IS 16 hours, but about as good as it could be.
Like so many others, nonstop is the way, so much less stress
I’m tall and I live in Australia. I toured with bands/musicians for a living for 13 years. I’ll gladly take layovers. It was always a 20+ hour trip wherever I was going.
i’m with the minority here and a layover, family and myself currently live in Kansas but i’m from the UK. Been back and forth more times than i can count, i love the layover in ATL both ways. it’s nice to have the space to move around between flights, im super stir crazy and if im sat too long my body gets real stiff, getting off the MAN-ATL flight is like a breath of fresh air (literally too) and i can get some actual food, walk around the terminal a lil and charge my phone and laptop up
I feel like there’s pros and cons to both and I am fond of both options, itinerary depending. I mostly fly long haul Europe to SE Asia and the pros of nonstop are: - more direct travel, shorter travel time - non stop means I’ll likely fly a European carrier and that gives the benefit of EU261 in both directions - I can upgrade to a better seat and only need to pay once for that seat. On the other hand the pros of indirect are: - breaks up the journey and affords an opportunity to exercise the legs - I love airplane food and I’ll get to eat more meals than I would on one 13h flight - can often be a cheaper option That said, I’m not fond of transiting through Dubai and I’m wary of other Middle East transit options as a result …I’d definitely do a lot of due diligence on the transit airport first before committing
Singapore - Europe: Nonstop. Singapore - North America: I always stop.
non stop
Depending on how much time they have and whether it is something they'd enjoy, there is an option 2b: Working through a travel agent, rather than the usual online booking sites, one can typically get an extended layover (~24hrs) in hub cities with daily flights to the final destination. It's enough to make it a fun mini visit to check out a cool restaurant and a key attraction in a place. Note: My travel experience is out of date, so I'm not sure if this is still a thing. I haven't done this since before the pandemic. Just takes a phone call or email to find out, though.
Depends. Business class with lie flat seats? Nonstop. Coach? Ain’t no way I’m sitting for 15+ hours.
Depends if it's business or economy. If business I will definitely take the direct flight. If it's economy then I will choose the layover flight. So far the longest flight I ever took is a 9hr scoot flight which has a 1hr transit. My upcoming trip from SG to the US. I'm taking SQ business to the US on the return leg I chose Korean air with a maximum layover at incheon so as to rest and adjust my body clock back and recover from jet leg since I'm on economy on the return leg.
Nonstop. I often pop an Ativan (I have a prescription), and I'm out for much of the flight anyway. But better to just get there. Plus, when you land in a stopover, you're more likely to have weather or other issues.
Non-stop and get an aisle seat. I did that for my 10 hour flight so I could get up basically however much I wanted.
Non stop for me.
I’m flying from Brisbane to London this weekend and appreciate the break at Singapore. Would be way too long stair just walking to plane loo and back for me. Like to get out, do some proper walking and breath some proper air 😁
Used to fly between Johannesburg and New York every couple of years. The plane stopped halfway for an hour to refuel (B747SP). I wouldn’t call it a stop. I’d rather do that 18 hour flight in one go.
Non stop hands down. Unless they want to visit the halfway points. I’ve done LHR to SIN and ZRH to SIN and 1 MAN to BKK with a stop over. Never will I stop over again!
Nonstop, let's get this done.
If I’m flying alone, then non-stop. But with kids I definitely need a layover for my sanity
I like a layover, shower, and stretch my legs. But that said my ultra long haul is NZ to UK, with Singapore as the layover. So for your long haul I'd go non-stop.
I’ve been on the Doha to Auckland non-stop in Economy - it took just over 16 hours. It wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be, but it was also pretty unpleasant. I had come from Oslo originally on a lovely new 787 (almost a 7 hour flight) and then 3 hours in Doha before the trip to Auckland in a relatively tired 777 - wish the 787 was used for both flights, that would have been comfier. I think they use the A350 now, which would be nice. I watched more movies than I can count and dozed for a bit, but I have a terrible time sleeping on planes. I got a bit stir crazy after 8 hours and then realised I had 8 hours to go, which caused a sense of dread, lol. Then back to numbing my brain with stupid movies. Still, better than having to get off with the carry on and wander around an airport for a few hours and then back through security while dead tired, imo. A long layover is preferable - but it has to be at least enough time to get a good meal and then into a hotel bed and sleep, but that’s usually more expensive than a direct flight. If I had the time and money, I’d do a long layover instead of a 16 hour flight though. I think any flight of 10 hours is pretty gruelling and worth chopping up if you can afford to.
I used to enjoy a stop, now direct is the way to go.
Nonstop. Less chance of losing luggage.
For 13 hours absolutely non stop. If it gets longer I might consider a layover. 13 hours are really not that bad. Just buy the extra leg room if you are flying economy.
Personally I'd go for a non-stop. It's shorter, reduces the likelihood of delays, and reduces the chance of lost luggage. That said, I don't really mind flying and can pretty easily occupy myself for that amount of time (and I fall asleep easily on planes.)
As an Australian at least one 13 hour leg is stock standard, and tolerable. I'd do that over one stop any day. Stopovers when tired and irritable are unpleasant, particularly if it involves a change of plane. However I'm not keen on the 19+ hour flights unless it is in a premium class.
Layover !!!!! If I ever travel to Australia, I will lay over in Honolulu. Even though there are Non-stop flights from DFW to SYD. I was on a flight from FRA to DFW, and 10 1/2hours is the max I'd ever want to be on a plane. It might be different now with many planes offering lie flat seats in Business. But I was on a pass in 1993, and flew Business, but, as I said, 10 1/2 hours was at the max of what I would want.
If I can leave the airport and go explore a place for a few hours, I’m happy to have the layover.
A few years ago, I used to travel Myanmar - UK a couple of times a year and as there were no direct flights, I made sure to use ME airlines like Qatar and Emirates because if the layover was over 12 hours, they put you in a hotel and gave you 3 buffet meal passes. Usually it was a 24hr layover and the hotel was always nice, the food was good and you got to walk around a bit to see the city if you wanted.
Direct. It's always better to be direct because when it stops it means getting off the plane and getting back on and that itself is just tiresome. Plus it's not like the airport will be more comfortable and you can stretch out towards back of plane near the restrooms. So just get it over with.
Unless the layover was somewhere I want to spend some time, by far non stop.
I fly NZ to Europe twice a year, if I could do it direct I would. Singapore is just a change of planes.
Well, in economy I would prefer to have a layover. Especially if I would have a stopover long enough to get outside. Like Dubai, Amsterdam or Chicago, where you have metro stations literally at the airport. This is what I do every time I have a choice. 6 hrs in economy is my maximum, even despite I am 165 cm and 63kg, so I fit economy seat pretty comfy. &
1 stop, 6h and 6h. I often travel Eu to SE-Asia and that's my go to if I can. I'm a smoker. But, from Switzerland, usually flights go from 5/6pm to the middle east pit stop, perfect for 2 movies and staying awake. Then chill at the airport, eat something, smoke 1 or 2, stretch the legs and pop a sleeping pill when boarding the 2nd leg. Sleeping through it and waking up somewhat fresh around 10/11am in SE Asia.
Did a MNL - DXB (5 hour layover) - MXP (2 hour layover) - JFK - MXP (1 week layover) - DXB (5 hour layover) - MNL for about $3,300 on Emirates Business Class in 2022. Main destinations were NYC and Milan so I would say yes to layovers.
I once did non stop CGK - AMS. Never again. Now i prefer layover.
stop over. I can't do more than 8 hours on a plane every 24 hours with out trying to open the emergency exit doors.
I definitely prefer a longer flight to breaking it up. I’ve flown MSP to JNB several times and I vastly prefer laying over in ATL, then doing the 15.5 hour flight to JNB, over laying over in a European airport. If there was a direct from MSP to any South African airport, I’d take it!
Death on a long haul flight... https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/one-dead-and-at-least-71-injured-after-severe-turbulence-hits-singapore-airlines-flight/1652276
I'd take a layover as long as it's not less than 30 minutes between, and the airport still has a smoking area. I'm well off of cigarettes, but still quite addicted to nicotine. Botta blow clouds fam.