I probably know the answer. But I am looking at airline connections on Delta where I will be catching in Atlanta a connecting flight to Madrid at 5:45 pm. I am looking at two local flights that are scheduled to arrive respectively in Atlanta 90 minutes and five hours before the connecting flight? If the first flight gave me another 20 minutes or so, I would go for it. But at 90 minutes, because of the possibility of bad weather, especially for an afternoon flight, I have concerns. 30 minutes late taking off, an extra 20 minutes in Atlanta trying to get to the gate, and either we or our bags might miss the connecting flight. And missing an international flight is a pain. Am I making sense or just too risk-averse?
Posted by
Knoxville, TN, USA
7209 posts
Take the one with the long layover. Those long layovers have a way of vaporizing into 30 minutes way too easily and often. I would not take a chance on an international flight.
Posted by
Downingtown, USA
2430 posts
Agree, take one with longest layover, you said it yourself about bad weather or other things that can delay flight.
Posted by
Portland, Maine
2916 posts
I agree with the long layover. Atlanta is notorious for flight-delaying thunderstorms, and the airport is enormous.
Posted by
Columbia, SC
989 posts
I agree with opting for the longer layover since it's your outbound flight, a missed connection isn't nearly as devastating on the flight home.
Atlanta's airport, though huge, is easily navigated and takes very lttle time to get from one end to the other with it's subway-like system. With lots of restaurants, bars and window shopping options, it's probably my favourite sirport for a long layover.
Posted by
OP
Mandeville, LA, USA
543 posts
Gail, Elaine, Tim and Robert, thanks for the responses. I suspect strongly you are right. I was looking for assurances to give me the courage to book the later flight with the 90 minutes connection time on paper to avoid a five hours plus layover. However, under any costs-benefits analysis with an international flight, the earlier flight even with the much longer layover is the smarter and safer decision. On a domestic flight, I will take my chances. On an international flight, with a direct flight to Madrid, there is too much to lose.
Posted by
Redding, CA, USA
1568 posts
Longer lay-over. Never know what the weather will be like.
Posted by
Bloomington, IL, USA
9369 posts
For $38 you can buy a day pass to the Delta Sky Club, which is a great place to wait. Free snacks and drinks (even alcohol), close to the food court, lots of great seating, a business center area, a nap room with dim lighting and comfortable chairs, and - best of all - private shower rooms. I had a four hour layover there going to Madrid, and 6 hours coming back. It is amazing how quickly the time goes by, and it was so great to head to the shower on arrival back to the US.
Posted by
Denver, CO, USA
1591 posts
I would go for the shorter layover. I am not one to hang out at an airport for 5 hours even with lounge access if I have the option of an earlier flight. Ultimately, it comes down to your comfort level and amount of risk you are willing to take on. The 5 hr layover minimizes your risk but adds 3.5 hours to your travel time. Keep in mind that if there is bad weather in ATL, there is a good possibility that your next flight is also going to be late.