Direct VS Nonstop

[ethanegcc]

I was wondering what the general consensus was on this?

If a flight was direct but one-stop to a destination e.g. KL's AMS-EZE-SCL or AMS-TSE-ALA routes (where you can remain on the aircraft) would you be less inclined or deterred from it, opposed to a non-stop flight?

Obviously a non-stop is preferred but what I am getting at is whether it would deter you or make you less inclined to fly it.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

If I could fly non-stop from a convenient airport I would always do so, always assuming that price, timings etc were satisfactory.

However, if that convenient airport only offered indirect routing I would not normally be put off and would use it even if a more distant airport operated non-stop flights. Again though, cost, timings and overall elapsed time would play a part in my considerations.

I used to use KLM from my local airport in the South West to access North America with a change of aircraft at Amsterdam, and coming back there were sometimes two changes, eg Phoenix-Minneapolis-Amsterdam-Bristol or Denver-Detroit-Amsterdam-Bristol, all with KLM or its then partner airline Northwest.

I fly to Melbourne every year with Emirates which of course necessitates an aircraft change at Dubai. Qantas is supposedly to begin a non-stop Perth (Western Australia)-London flight. If I was returning to the UK from Perth I would seriously consider it.

 

[Pat]

I dont mind having to stop at an airport or having to transfer if its convenient for me in both travelling and cost. We use KLM from Humberside to fly to Bangkok its slightly more expensive but its only 40 minutes up the road