Risks of short layovers and connecting flights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It can work going through an airport like Dublin, but not somewhere like Heathrow. Dublin 60-90 minutes is OK but Heathrow you need 2-3 hours given its size and the security stops you have to make.

This, 100%.

OP. I've avoided JFK, but that one's a notorious one and I would not book a tight international connection through it.

[Anonymous]

I personally opt for layovers with min 2 hours. It's a personal decision that I just don't want to deal with any issues and 2 hours is prob the min I would do - would prefer 3-4. It's all about risk - a lot of this is common sense - there's no way you're going to make a 60 min layover at a big airport - airlines aren't timing your layovers for you - they have a lot of flights and you pick the ones that work for you. In all my years of travelling, 90 min is what you need and that's if everything is perfectly aligned meaning you exit the plane pretty easily - sitting very near the front within 10 min of landing, you have an airport that allows you to get from point A to B really easily and you know exactly where you are going and you aren't buying food/water, going to the bathroom between flights. This is mostly because you have no idea how long you're taxing on the runway before you get to the gate and you don't know how long you may sit at the gate for before exiting plane and flights typically board 30 min before departure so really even 2 hours is not a ton of time depending on how the flights are placed at the airport from one another.

[Anonymous]

It is disconcerting that airlines will build itineraries with unrealistic connection times. Seems like creating headaches for themselves, to say nothing of their hapless customers.