Manchester Layover - Too tight?

Check into flying thorough Charlotte. I've been looking and there are some very good rates for March and part of April. Don't know when you are flying, though. This is on USAir- but I haven't had probems with them, esp on inernantional flights. They fly into Gatwick from Charlotte, and there is a flight to/from Rome also. Plus, I have to brag a bit- our airport is rather nice.

I might be missing something here, but wouldn't it be easier to do a non-stop flight to Heathrow or Gatwick from Chicago? From Chicago there's no reason to do any layover.

I have found nothing direct out of Chicago to Gatwick. Plus, it's quite a bit cheaper with the layover.

How about Heathrow? As much as I hate Heathrow and prefer Gatwick, I would still choose a non-stop flight to Heathrow over connections to Gatwick. You'll save a lot of time.

I had to do a one-hour layover in Manchester. I personally found it to be a bit of a nightmare, because I was on a flight from Seattle to Reykjavik to Manchester to Glasgow. Sigh. I am tired just writing that, but it was the only flight I could find at the time that wasn't terribly expensive, and BA was on strike, so I was flying Iceland Air (not something I'd do again, unless BA is on strike, but even then there are alternatives). Anyway, I had to go through security in Reykjavik, which apparently prides itself on being the "toughest" security checkpoint in Europe, sigh again; then in Manchester, what I thought was going to be a simple matter of sitting on the tarmac for an hour, was turned into a logistical nightmare, as we all ran through the entire terminal (not bypassing the shopping opportunities, I noticed, since that seems to be part of the reason for doing this to you) wherein we were required to go through security AGAIN, even though we had gone through security once already in Reykjavik, so very tough and comprehensive. But.... in Europe, apparently, the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing, and no country trusts the other to do tough security checks, and so they each do their own. If I had to do it again, making the same kind of decision you're making (my choice was to do the layover in Chicago) I'd choose Chicago, since at least in Chicago, I wouldn't have to go through this after 9 hours of flying (remembering I was coming from the West coast). Totally unnecessary, such a bad idea. Don't do it to yourselves.

You will have to go through passport control when you disembark in Manchester, plus another security check before you board the second plane. The speed of passport control will depend on how many immigration officers are working when you arrive. The last time we went through Manchester, there was only one passport officer, and it took a while. I assume you'll be traveling on a single ticket, so that your bags will be checked through to your final destination. Otherwise, you'll have to retrieve them in Manchester & recheck them for the second flight. In which case you'll never make a one-hour connection. If you don't have to retrieve your bags, you'll probably make the connection. Assuming your flight from the U.S. gets there on time!

We actually looked briefly into flying Iceland air too since they have great fares to Lon – but it didn't make sense since we are flying open jaw out of Rome. Thanks for your insight. I think we'll lean towards the layover stateside in Atlanta to avoid the panic of passport control/security check time in Manchester. It is a single ticket flight but an hour or less layover anywhere makes me uneasy, let alone overseas. Although there are direct flights to Heathrow from Chicago – they are still pricier compared to our flight with the one-stop. Plus our location in London is easily accessed through the Victoria station – another reason why we prefer Gatwick.