Do You Fly Direct or Have Stops and/or Drive Elsewhere to Save?

Just wondering if others fly directly to the city of their cruise port?

Or do you book flights with say 1 or 2 stops to save money?

Or do you fly out of, or to, an airprot nearby?

 

We will have around a 3hr flight from Toronto to Fort Lauderdale (plus airport time, etc). However, since prices are so bad now (and Canadian dollar doesn't help), dh wants to look at option of either flying out of Bufflao (which would be an additional 3hr drive) or flying to Miami and then driving to Fort Lauderdale. We will be flying the day before our cruise so this is a feasible option.

 

Howver, I prefer to pay a bit more and fly direct. First, it's a long day to begin with and we are coming with 2 kids. Second, I have back issues and can't sit for long, so adding extra travel will most likely flare me up.

 

What do others do?

Just wondering if others fly directly to the city of their cruise port?

Or do you book flights with say 1 or 2 stops to save money?

Or do you fly out of, or to, an airprot nearby?

 

We will have around a 3hr flight from Toronto to Fort Lauderdale (plus airport time, etc). However, since prices are so bad now (and Canadian dollar doesn't help), dh wants to look at option of either flying out of Bufflao (which would be an additional 3hr drive) or flying to Miami and then driving to Fort Lauderdale. We will be flying the day before our cruise so this is a feasible option.

 

Howver, I prefer to pay a bit more and fly direct. First, it's a long day to begin with and we are coming with 2 kids. Second, I have back issues and can't sit for long, so adding extra travel will most likely flare me up.

 

What do others do?

 

I always try and fly direct if possible. For us to get to most cruise ports except for Alaska . We fly from our home airport with as few plane changes as possible.

I'd say it depends on so many variables.

 

Sure, some people will probably drive to BUF to save cash but if it's only $10 per person then obviously it's a waste of time. If it's $500 per person and there's 30 people travelling then the maths is a little more favourable.

 

In some cases indirect routings aren't going to save money.

Keep in mind many people don't have an option of nonstop flights. You live in Toronto, which is a very large city connected to Sarnia, Shanghai and everywhere in between. I live in Kansas City...we're lucky to have nonstop flights to Seattle. We're just now getting one to Miami. We do have a 1x daily to Ft. Lauderdale, but that's it. And compared to many places, Kansas City is very well connected.

 

Sometimes I go nonstop, and sometimes I don't. It depends on my schedule, the price, frequent flier desires (earning miles, getting lounge access, etc.), and some other options. But I would say that, since I am not a big fan of Southwest (and they offer, by far, the most nonstops out of Kansas City), I usually do connect.

Keep in mind many people don't have an option of nonstop flights.

 

I hear you. Starting from YQB, I have either the option of a connecting flight from an airport 15 minutes from home, or driving nearly 3 hours to YUL for a non-stop flight. At different times I have done both for varying reasons. However, this has also put me in the mindframe that connections aren't evil-evil, if you gain a benefit - flying from home airport, improved service, lesser price, etc. It's whether the total package makes sense that matters to me, rather than necessarily the components taken individually.

 

Looking at your case specifically, there is an advantage to flying out of BUF that hasn't been mentioned: given that it will be a domestic US flight, no need to fuss with customs/immigration at the airport, it will already be done when you cross by car. This gives you greater flexibility for your post-cruise flight time as well.

 

However, I'd be inclined towards the flying into MIA option - in your circumstance (family of 4), I'd be renting a car anyways, so really not much worse to fly there than FLL, rent the car, stay somewhere that night (if you have a car doesn't have to be near the port, so can get something cheaper further out), then return the car and shuttle to the port for embarkation (Thrifty/Dollar and Hertz do this in FLL, possibly others).

MIA to FLL is 30 minutes and a $75 cab ride each way. If you can save more than that by flying into MIA, I'd certainly do so.

I hear you. Starting from YQB, I have either the option of a connecting flight from an airport 15 minutes from home, or driving nearly 3 hours to YUL for a non-stop flight. At different times I have done both for varying reasons. However, this has also put me in the mindframe that connections aren't evil-evil, if you gain a benefit - flying from home airport, improved service, lesser price, etc. It's whether the total package makes sense that matters to me, rather than necessarily the components taken individually.

 

Looking at your case specifically, there is an advantage to flying out of BUF that hasn't been mentioned: given that it will be a domestic US flight, no need to fuss with customs/immigration at the airport, it will already be done when you cross by car. This gives you greater flexibility for your post-cruise flight time as well.

 

However, I'd be inclined towards the flying into MIA option - in your circumstance (family of 4), I'd be renting a car anyways, so really not much worse to fly there than FLL, rent the car, stay somewhere that night (if you have a car doesn't have to be near the port, so can get something cheaper further out), then return the car and shuttle to the port for embarkation (Thrifty/Dollar and Hertz do this in FLL, possibly others).

 

The problem in Kansas City is that there is no other large place to drive to. Omaha (3 hours) has less service. St Louis (4-5 hours) has a very, very, very slight amount more (so no advantage). Denver and Dallas are both 8-9 hours away. You're pretty much stuck flying out of Kansas City.

 

(I had to unexpectedly drive Dallas to Kansas City a few weeks ago after I got in to Dallas from Europe and snow had everything cancelled for two days...and I just wanted to get home ASAP. It ended up taking 12 hours to get home. So I am not doing that drive again ;))

I fly direct, very fortunate to have 7 airports within 30mins to 2 1/2 hours.

Direct and nonstop in airline terms are TWO different things.

 

Nonstop is nonstop.

 

A direct flight can have several stops included.

Direct and nonstop in airline terms are TWO different things.

 

Nonstop is nonstop.

 

A direct flight can have several stops included.

 

In fact, it can be worse than just having stops. It can have entire plane changes. For example, a flight can be Denver to London direct...but have a stop in Washington DC...and even have a change of aircraft from, say, an A319 (narrowbody) to a 777-200 (widebody) with a two-hour layover at Dulles Airport. But it keeps the same flight number, so it's a direct flight from Denver to London. But it's sure as heck nothing close to being nonstop.

Just wondering if others fly directly to the city of their cruise port?

Or do you book flights with say 1 or 2 stops to save money?

Or do you fly out of, or to, an airprot nearby?

 

We will have around a 3hr flight from Toronto to Fort Lauderdale (plus airport time, etc). However, since prices are so bad now (and Canadian dollar doesn't help), dh wants to look at option of either flying out of Bufflao (which would be an additional 3hr drive) or flying to Miami and then driving to Fort Lauderdale. We will be flying the day before our cruise so this is a feasible option.

 

Howver, I prefer to pay a bit more and fly direct. First, it's a long day to begin with and we are coming with 2 kids. Second, I have back issues and can't sit for long, so adding extra travel will most likely flare me up.

 

What do others do?

 

 

We've never found a combination of flights and driving to Buffalo that make it worthwhile and we have to drive half way to Buffalo to drop our dogs off at our breeder's house for puppy sitting. Who wants to drive to Buffalo in the winter? We sometimes will take a less than ideal time flight to save a bit, but we don't sacrifice a direct, non-stop flight.

 

We have used Airmiles or got a deal through the cruise line to reduce the cost, but that just depends on what deals are available.

Direct and nonstop in airline terms are TWO different things.

 

Nonstop is nonstop.

 

A direct flight can have several stops included.

 

A nonstop flight is always a direct flight.

Thanks for the replies. It sounds like most take direct if it's possible for their travels. I've done some quick checks and it doesn't even save much or anything (or it could just be the ones I happened to pick). So I actually hope it doesn't save much as the extra time doesn't seem worth it (and I know Dh will push for it if it does). ;)

 

And yeah, there are too types of stop overs...one where the plane lands to let people off while others get on and then continues to your destination. And there is the type where you have to switch flights.

It depends on the flight schedule but we are willing to pay a little more to fly direct if the schedule works. Often it doesn't work.

And yeah, there are too types of stop overs...one where the plane lands to let people off while others get on and then continues to your destination. And there is the type where you have to switch flights.

Actually, that is incorrect.

 

"Stopover" is a term of art in commercial aviation and does NOT refer to the situations you describe. "Stopover" is when your travel is "broken" with flights that exceed the connection allowance for a through ticket.

 

What you are most likely describing first is a "direct" flight with a stop. The second is a form of "connection" or "transfer", which involves a change of flight number. Actually, the second can be a number of things, depending on how you are defining "flights".

 

I hate to say this but language/semantics ARE important when dealing with airlines and air tickets. You may mean "connection", but if you want a "stopover", you will likely pay more for your ticket. You may want a "non-stop", but the agent may sell you a "direct" flight which has multiple stops. Best to know the lingo so you aren't disappointed.

 

The most extreme example of "direct" vs "non-stop" was a flight that Southwest had between Baltimore and Oakland some years back. Though you could fly it "direct", there were 7 different flight segments, all with the same flight number - thus it was "direct". Took most of a full day to get from coast to coast, via many, many cities along the way.

Actually, that is incorrect.

 

"Stopover" is a term of art in commercial aviation and does NOT refer to the situations you describe. "Stopover" is when your travel is "broken" with flights that exceed the connection allowance for a through ticket.

 

What you are most likely describing first is a "direct" flight with a stop. The second is a form of "connection" or "transfer", which involves a change of flight number. Actually, the second can be a number of things, depending on how you are defining "flights".

 

I hate to say this but language/semantics ARE important when dealing with airlines and air tickets. You may mean "connection", but if you want a "stopover", you will likely pay more for your ticket. You may want a "non-stop", but the agent may sell you a "direct" flight which has multiple stops. Best to know the lingo so you aren't disappointed.

 

The most extreme example of "direct" vs "non-stop" was a flight that Southwest had between Baltimore and Oakland some years back. Though you could fly it "direct", there were 7 different flight segments, all with the same flight number - thus it was "direct". Took most of a full day to get from coast to coast, via many, many cities along the way.

 

 

My favorite was a Southwest flight about two schedule releases ago that was a direct flight from Kansas City to St Louis...via Phoenix, Sacramento, Seattle and Chicago. But it's direct ;)

 

I think it also started in Dallas before coming to KC but not sure

Like others have replied: it depends. If the time is right, the price is right, etc. Nonstop flights from a city near you are generally better because there are less variables that can go wrong (missed connections, lost luggage, driving in bad weather, stuck in traffic etc). This not always the case though. Three personal examples:

 

Once we booked a cruise out of Venice. For us the most logical flight would be non-stop from Munich to Venice. That ticket on Air Dolomiti cost 3x more than Swiss with a connection in Zurich. We went for the stop in Zurich, absolute no-brainer. better rate, better airline.

 

Last year we booked a holiday in Egypt. Because it was a last-minute thing, flights were hard to find, especially at a good price, at a good time. We ended up driving 3-4 hours each way to an airport further away because not only the price, but also the flight times were much better than what we got closer to home.

 

This year we will be on a transatlantic cruise out of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. We had 2 options from Munich: a non-stop flight out of Munich with Norwegian Air shuttle, or on Iberia with a connection in Madrid or Barcelona. We choose the second option, although the price was roughly the same after adding on luggage fees, creditcard fees, etc. Why? Because Norwegian only flies there twice per week, the next flight being 4 days later. Norwegian is a budget airline with no cooperation agreements, no code shares, no interline agreements, no nothing. The Iberia flight from Munich to Madrid is 4x a day, and there are 4 connecting flights from Madrid to Las Palmas a day. In the time frame we have to get to the ship, we have a zillion options via Madrid or Barcelona, but only 1 shot on Norwegian. What if the flight gets cancelled or luggage is lost? Budget airlines will book you on their next available flight with empty seats, not on any other carrier. A Transatlantic cruise is particularly tricky, since there are no stops on the way, so if you or your luggage miss the ship, that's it, you're out of luck big time.

Edited March 24, 2015 by UKBayern

The most extreme example of "direct" vs "non-stop" was a flight that Southwest had between Baltimore and Oakland some years back. Though you could fly it "direct", there were 7 different flight segments, all with the same flight number - thus it was "direct". Took most of a full day to get from coast to coast, via many, many cities along the way.

 

How's this for confusing on some flight for an upcoming itinerary I have? I hope BA Executive Club doesn't fall over trying to process the same flight number for flights in opposite directions!

 

How's this for confusing on some flight for an upcoming itinerary I have? I hope BA Executive Club doesn't fall over trying to process the same flight number for flights in opposite directions!

 

 

I think American Airlines is trying some sort of number saving scheme. On our trip to/from St. Maarten in January (via Miami) the segments between Miami and St.Maarten carried the same flight numbers each way. Hard to see the logic.

I think American Airlines is trying some sort of number saving scheme. On our trip to/from St. Maarten in January (via Miami) the segments between Miami and St.Maarten carried the same flight numbers each way. Hard to see the logic.

 

We have had this on flights between Vancouver BC and Orlando via DFW.

It usually means that the same plane is being used with a crew change in Miami .

How's this for confusing on some flight for an upcoming itinerary I have? I hope BA Executive Club doesn't fall over trying to process the same flight number for flights in opposite directions!

 

 

I've seen some airports where their info screens (arrival/departure screens...FIDS if you will) cannot differentiate this, and so you can be at, say, Miami and it will show flights going to Miami...because the same flight number goes out and back.

Zach1213, :D

 

We have had this on flights between Vancouver BC and Orlando via DFW.

It usually means that the same plane is being used with a crew change in Miami .

 

Well, that's normal, it allows the airlines to claim they have direct service between YVR and MCO.

 

This is the first time I've seen an airline operate flights in opposite directions between the same airports using the same flight number.

OP...would you want to fly Toronto to New York? You would be able to get to FLL easily from there.

I personally do not mind a stop in a long flight. It gives me a chance to stretch out my own soreness.

Steve

Just wondering if others fly directly to the city of their cruise port?

Or do you book flights with say 1 or 2 stops to save money?

Or do you fly out of, or to, an airprot nearby?

 

We will have around a 3hr flight from Toronto to Fort Lauderdale (plus airport time, etc). However, since prices are so bad now (and Canadian dollar doesn't help), dh wants to look at option of either flying out of Bufflao (which would be an additional 3hr drive) or flying to Miami and then driving to Fort Lauderdale. We will be flying the day before our cruise so this is a feasible option.

 

Howver, I prefer to pay a bit more and fly direct. First, it's a long day to begin with and we are coming with 2 kids. Second, I have back issues and can't sit for long, so adding extra travel will most likely flare me up.

 

What do others do?

 

All of the above. I'm not above flying into a completely different airport (MAD vs BCN for an upcoming cruise).

This is the first time I've seen an airline operate flights in opposite directions between the same airports using the same flight number.

DL has been doing this for a few years. Turnaround flights from/to ATL or DTW with the same flight number. I think that with the proliferation of codeshares combined with market consolidation, they are approaching the finite use of the 9999 available flight numbers. But then, what do I know?