Which travel option would you pick?

[Minnie824]

Trying to book flights for spring break and prices are crazy. We're divided which option we want so wanted to get others opinions.
1. fly into same airport as usual... but have a layover/change planes. then drive 1 hr to destination (normally we fly to this airport nonstop)
2. fly into a different airport, nonstop flight, but then drive to destination is 2 hrs.

Flights cost exactly the same amount.

 

[Floridaman999]

How long are these flights?

 

[Floridaman999]

Either way, I'd probably go with the non stop. I hate dealing with connections.

 

[ImDMous]

I would probably go non-stop. I would enjoy a 2 hour car ride much more than being couped up on a plane. And hopefully there would be somewhere cool to stop for a snack or leg stretch during that 2 hours that I hadn't seen before.

 

[Hikergirl]

I would drive an extra hour to avoid a layover and plane change any day.

 

[J'aime Paris]

Non-stop for sure

 

[L&Lfan]

I’d pay the money to go non stop to my ultimate destination. That’s just the way I roll.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

Even with an extra hour to drive, the total travel time is probably shorter than the layover/connection option, right? I’d choose the nonstop flight either way, as I’d much rather spend that extra hour in a car than stuck in an economy seat.

 

[Libbysmom2000]

Considering the fact that the last 2 times I've flown with layovers they've had huge delays (hours) I'd go nonstop and drive longer.

 

[amcnj]

In general I prefer non-stop, and a drive of one versus two hours is not that different for me, as my commute was at least 1.5 hours each way.

But how long is the layover?

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Trying to book flights for spring break and prices are crazy. We're divided which option we want so wanted to get others opinions.
1. fly into same airport as usual... but have a layover/change planes. then drive 1 hr to destination (normally we fly to this airport nonstop)
2. fly into a different airport, nonstop flight, but then drive to destination is 2 hrs.

Flights cost exactly the same amount.

I would do whichever one actually got me to my destination faster.

 

[Mainsail Minnie]

Nonstop flight. Less chance of delays, of bags being misrouted, etc. Since you have to do a short road trip in either case, I don't think a longer drive makes much difference.

 

[sam_gordon]

Lean toward nonstop. Is rental car cost the same?

 

[disykat]

I would look at the traffic. If there are no traffic issues (high density city traffic especially at the hours you'd be travelling, toll roads, etc. I'd probably take the nonstop. If there's something interesting to see I've never seen or just a place I've never been, that would be a bonus too.

 

[ronandannette]

I'm the odd one out here. On a longer flight I much prefer a layover, if it's not too long - one or two hours. I am getting to the point where I despise flying steerage and I can only take it for so long - 4 hours or more is almost beyond tolerance. A plane change where I get out and stretch my legs works better for me. No matter where we're going we pretty much have to plan to travel all day each way anyway, so spending two hours in an airport rather than in a car would be what I'd choose and just grit my teeth and get through it.

 

[Gary M]

Non-stop.

 

[tvguy]

I like to be as close as possible to my final destination when I get off the plane if the air fare is the same.
At least from my home airport, non-stops are more expensive or non-existent. You almost have to go through a hub city to get anywhere or the best fare.
We're taking a cruise out of Vancouver next month. To get there, we are going from Sacramento, to Los Angeles, change planes, on to Vancouver. Yup, 400 miles south, out of our way, then 400 miles north back over Sacramento, 2 hours in the air, and an hour layover in LA. But we save $200 a person. What is that, $66 an hour savings for my time? My boss doesn't pay me anywhere that much at work, so it's worth it.

 

[Floridaman999]

Trying to book flights for spring break and prices are crazy. We're divided which option we want so wanted to get others opinions.
1. fly into same airport as usual... but have a layover/change planes. then drive 1 hr to destination (normally we fly to this airport nonstop)
2. fly into a different airport, nonstop flight, but then drive to destination is 2 hrs.

Flights cost exactly the same amount.

Let us know what you pick.

 

[CT Yankee]

I avoid layovers whenever possible. The extra driving time is typically still less than the amount of time we would spend flying to a different airport to catch a connecting flight. I also worry about missing the connecting flight - I have just been burned one too many times in the past on this issue.

 

[ronandannette]

I like to be as close as possible to my final destination when I get off the plane if the air fare is the same.
At least from my home airport, non-stops are more expensive or non-existent. You almost have to go through a hub city to get anywhere or the best fare.
We're taking a cruise out of Vancouver next month. To get there, we are going from Sacramento, to Los Angeles, change planes, on to Vancouver. Yup, 400 miles south, out of our way, then 400 miles north back over Sacramento, 2 hours in the air, and an hour layover in LA. But we save $200 a person. What is that, $66 an hour savings for my time? My boss doesn't pay me anywhere that much at work, so it's worth it.

Sorry to go but which one are you taking? I've been scouting out Pacific Coastals for a little getaway and haven't really found a great one. TIA