Connect with us

Travel

The best and worst airports to have a layover, according to a travel expert who flies 200,000 miles a year

Published

7 months ago

on

The best and worst airports to have a layover, according to a travel expert who flies 200,000 miles a year

  • Connecting flights add travel time and a higher risk of delays or cancellations.
  • Flight expert Gilbert Ott says some airports are better for layovers than others.
  • The best have nice lounges, a variety of food, and are easy to navigate.

Nonstop flights are better than connecting ones — obviously. A trip with a layover adds travel time that would be better spent at a destination and opportunities for things to go wrong, from delays to cancellations.

Flight expert Gilbert Ott agrees, but sometimes, a layover is the only option.

“I try to avoid them, but a lot of the best places worth going to these days do not have direct flights from faraway places,” Ott, who flies about 200,000 miles a year and shares his insights on his blog, God Save the Points, told Business Insider.

In Ott’s experience, some layovers are more bearable than others based on where you connect.

In general, Ott says it’s best to have a layover in an airline’s hub airport in case of delays and cancellations.

“In any case, you want to be in a place where the airline has a strong presence because you’re going to have layers of support,” he said. “And if I miss a connecting flight, there’s probably another flight because it’s a hub.”

But when it comes to killing time, navigating terminals, and minimizing chances of delays, some airports offer a better layover experience than others.

These are the best and worst airlines to have a layover in, according to Ott.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading