Flight LON-->SAN FRAN-->NYC-->LON

richardw

When going to the USA always get a direct flight to the nearest point of arrival, because if you go indirectly you may get stuck at immigration and miss your connecting flight. It is false economy and simply isn't worth the hassle. Indirect flights when leaving the USA are OK.

Cardew

blindman wrote:

Not the route I quoted it's not

Sorry Blindman I got that wrong about 'open jaw' ticket.

As a point of interest I wonder if flying LHR to SFO, SFO to LGA and JFK to LHR would be termed open-jaw. AA fly to both LGA and JFK. (both New York airports)

I would also stress that in addition to the £15 booking charge, telephone prices on AA are more expensive than booking on the web.

payless

Virgin atlantic site allows LON- SFO & NYC - LON on one booking ( without being silly one way fares)- alhough its £687 fro the dates you mention ( seen it half that price in April)

Lots of internal flight options from the major players

expedia have the SFO-NYC at £133 ( non direct) although you may find their are Low cost operations that aren't listed on expedia


BUT Due toVirgin hifgher prices on those dates I doubt if this will be cheaper than a single provider / multi desti this time

Cardew

richardw wrote:

When going to the USA always get a direct flight to the nearest point of arrival, because if you go indirectly you may get stuck at immigration and miss your connecting flight. It is false economy and simply isn't worth the hassle. Indirect flights when leaving the USA are OK.

Whilst I would agree it is preferable to fly direct where possible I would not agree that it is a false economy to fly indirect.

Direct Flights to West Coast USA from London are usually the cheapest and best option anyway.

However that is often not the case if you want to fly to other cities in the USA particularly if Manchester/Glasgow/Birmingham is your chosen airport.

For example take the case of the popular Florida destinations - Orlando/Tampa/Miami etc. I believe that the only direct flight to Orlando from Manchester is with Virgin and Miami on winter weekends with AA. The prices for indirect flights are often much cheaper and there is more choice even if going from London. It is often just as inconvienient and expensive to fly/drive to London.

The added advantage of indirect flights to the USA is that you clear immigration/customs at the first stop and it is a quicker passage at your final destination.

richardw

I did fly indirect once, never again, it is one of those things that you don't realise how bad it is until you do it. Connecting at gatwick or Manchester is OK.

Cardew

richardw wrote:

I did fly indirect once, never again, it is one of those things that you don't realise how bad it is until you do it. Connecting at gatwick or Manchester is OK.

Why is it so bad? Millions do it every year as there only a few Gateway cities in the USA.

I fly indirect several times a year and have done for a long while.

I have never missed a outbound flight connection in the USA, but did once on the way home.(was put up in a hotel and had a nice tour around Boston the next day)

I fly from Manchester and indirect flights are often much cheaper. My Alternative would be to Fly or drive to London and take a direct flight. What advantage is there in doing that?

payless

I would rather flight indirect from BHX via CDG or AMS , than drive to LGW / LHR

richardw

The response was given in the context of the traveller starting at London. It is just from personal experience, I don't recommend the AA terminal at JFK. If you are going to do it choose a seat near the front of the plane so you are off the aircraft before others. Immigration is something to consider and you should allow enough time. It is a cost/convenience balance to consider. There are more flights from the regions to the USA, on Continental and AA, and also via Canada, some better than others.

nelly_2

I think your experience was a one off richard, sitting at the front makes no difference at all you still have to wait for your bags. Were allways the last off the plane, everyone tries rushing off only to be stood waiting for their bags.

richardw

nelly wrote:

I think your experience was a one off richard, sitting at the front makes no difference at all you still have to wait for your bags. Were allways the last off the plane, everyone tries rushing off only to be stood waiting for their bags.

It does, because you get through the first bottle neck, Immigration, first. If I hadn't got to the front of the Immigration queue, I wouldn't have made my connection. We didn't have to wait for our bags at JFK they were there waiting for us.