back to original Q: I would do chicago connection over going to Newark. The money saved will take care of your hotels!

Anonymous wrote:Air Canada IAD to some eastern Canadian city. Then Tokyo. Prices can be quite reasonable. Their premium seats are meh, esp if you’re in a center town of four.

I’ve done this itinerary departing from JFK. It was totally fine, and it’s certainly not (IMO) worth paying $1000 more per ticket for a nonstop. The flight from NY was delayed but enough people were connecting to the Tokyo flight that they held it for us.

I’m probably in the minority but I’d prefer the connection in SF. I really hate flights over 10 hours - I’d always prefer to break them up into two shorter legs. It’s nice to get off the plane for a while, even if total travel time is a bit longer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The connection is not that bad. More important than connection is the airline.

NP. This!!!

I flew with my 2 terns using miles on United to LAX NS last summer. Then preferred Econ EVA to Taiwan stop before Shanghai. You'd think we'd be exhausted but we were great off the plane! The EVA flight was so much nicer than UA unless you flew Polaris. Anything less wouldn't be worth flying direct. We were able to sleep on EVA. No way we would have on United unless Polaris.

Personally I'd stop in Chicago.

You can also look at one ways via other cities and mix and match for best fares and routes v just RT one choice. Sometimes you luck out on saving but typically it won't work if your areas set flying NS.

Seriously the airline is a big deal. Sleeping in that kind of long flight is key- sleeping is key even if a longer flight. Most American based airlines suck unless you fly their top tier offering.

While the flights to Asia are long and tiring, the late afternoon arrival works out well. Get off plane, immigration/customs, cab/shuttle to hotel, dinner and sleep. Next day your clock is set and you’re good to go. Though the flights to Asia are much longer, I find the adjustment much easier than the typical morning Europe arrival. Coming home from Asia , the couple times I’ve done it is the reverse. Asia to U.S. is brutal- 12+ hour flight and AM arrival.

A lot of the flights to Tokyo land in the afternoon/early evening so actually I’m not sure getting good sleep on the plane is that helpful.

Agreed about the clock reset and Asia travel is not bad bc of the evening arrival. That said, the UA back from Haneda gets back to DC around 3 pm, so not too terrible from a timing perspective.

OP, I work for a Japanese company and have done many options, depending on price. Note that my company is HQed in Osaka, so that's my final destination. (And yes, it sucks making it to Tokyo and then still having a few hours left to go!). I have no insights on the trip to downtown Tokyo from either airport.
1) Air Canada via Montreal/Toronto. I was rather unimpressed with AC altogether, both the planes and the service, and I was in business class. The clearing customs in Canada only made the process more stressful, as they were understaffed and Global Entry was not open.
2) AA via DFW. The flight over to Tokyo was on JAL, and one thing to note about the Asian-owned flights - they keep the planes HOT. The service and food were great though.
2) AA to LAX to Kansai (Osaka). This one was appealing bc of the break in between stretches. Five hours and then another 10 hours or so. But for me, clearing customs in Osaka and then being at the final destination was worth it.
4) UA direct to Tokyo. There are two flights out of Dulles a day to Tokyo, one on ANA and one one United.

As far as the airports go, Haneda is underwhelming when it comes to shopping and services. But it gets a lot of the non-Asian overseas flights (Delta, AA, United). And if you need to connect, you need to get on a bus to the domestic terminals. Narita is better for layovers and airport services.

Good luck!

Going west always easier than east. I don't know why but it is. I fly A LOT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The connection is not that bad. More important than connection is the airline.

NP. This!!!

I flew with my 2 terns using miles on United to LAX NS last summer. Then preferred Econ EVA to Taiwan stop before Shanghai. You'd think we'd be exhausted but we were great off the plane! The EVA flight was so much nicer than UA unless you flew Polaris. Anything less wouldn't be worth flying direct. We were able to sleep on EVA. No way we would have on United unless Polaris.

Personally I'd stop in Chicago.

You can also look at one ways via other cities and mix and match for best fares and routes v just RT one choice. Sometimes you luck out on saving but typically it won't work if your areas set flying NS.

Seriously the airline is a big deal. Sleeping in that kind of long flight is key- sleeping is key even if a longer flight. Most American based airlines suck unless you fly their top tier offering.

A lot of the flights to Tokyo land in the afternoon/early evening so actually I’m not sure getting good sleep on the plane is that helpful.

While the flights to Asia are long and tiring, the late afternoon arrival works out well. Get off plane, immigration/customs, cab/shuttle to hotel, dinner and sleep. Next day your clock is set and you’re good to go. Though the flights to Asia are much longer, I find the adjustment much easier than the typical morning Europe arrival. Coming home from Asia , the couple times I’ve done it is the reverse. Asia to U.S. is brutal- 12+ hour flight and AM arrival.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The connection is not that bad. More important than connection is the airline.

NP. This!!!

I flew with my 2 terns using miles on United to LAX NS last summer. Then preferred Econ EVA to Taiwan stop before Shanghai. You'd think we'd be exhausted but we were great off the plane! The EVA flight was so much nicer than UA unless you flew Polaris. Anything less wouldn't be worth flying direct. We were able to sleep on EVA. No way we would have on United unless Polaris.

Personally I'd stop in Chicago.

You can also look at one ways via other cities and mix and match for best fares and routes v just RT one choice. Sometimes you luck out on saving but typically it won't work if your areas set flying NS.

Seriously the airline is a big deal. Sleeping in that kind of long flight is key- sleeping is key even if a longer flight. Most American based airlines suck unless you fly their top tier offering.

A lot of the flights to Tokyo land in the afternoon/early evening so actually I’m not sure getting good sleep on the plane is that helpful.

Anonymous wrote:The connection is not that bad. More important than connection is the airline.

NP. This!!!

I flew with my 2 terns using miles on United to LAX NS last summer. Then preferred Econ EVA to Taiwan stop before Shanghai. You'd think we'd be exhausted but we were great off the plane! The EVA flight was so much nicer than UA unless you flew Polaris. Anything less wouldn't be worth flying direct. We were able to sleep on EVA. No way we would have on United unless Polaris.

Personally I'd stop in Chicago.

You can also look at one ways via other cities and mix and match for best fares and routes v just RT one choice. Sometimes you luck out on saving but typically it won't work if your areas set flying NS.

Seriously the airline is a big deal. Sleeping in that kind of long flight is key- sleeping is key even if a longer flight. Most American based airlines suck unless you fly their top tier offering.

Really depends on your financial situation. I once flew from JFK to save a grand per ticket and it was super painful to get in a car and drive home after a long flight. Never again.

We are high income so I would pick option 3.

Anonymous wrote:I have flown to Asia a few times and I would 100% pick option 1.

I don't mind a layover especially when breaking up a really long flight and would do that over paying $1000 more per ticket. I would also prefer a layover to having to drive to and from Newark. The last thing I want to do at the end of a long trip is get in the car and drive 4 hrs home Not to mention additional cost of parking or amtrak.

+1 I normally prefer direct but for a flight this long breaking it up is nice.

Anonymous wrote:Seems these are all United flights. If you have status with United, you may try standby the non-stop for the same day flights.

Agree that ANA plane is more pleasant - food and service, but it might be more expensive buying tickets from United on their metal. Chicago Polaris lounge just reopened if you can access. For SFO (and LAX), the first lag could be long and tiring, but you may find higher chance of second lag on ANA. I also find flights from BWI to SFO/LAX and then connect to Asia cheaper than from IAD. When flying back, the non-stop is about
12-13 hours, shorter than flying to TYO. Flying to west coast is under 10 hours so it might make sense to connect there and the second lag would be just 4-5 hours. Immigration at LAX/SFO could be slow though.

Not sure if other airlines are being considered, but American flies to TYO through DFW and LAX. We had luck to fly JAL A351 Biz from DFW to HND, something I would not hesitate to do again.

You can only access the Polaris lounges if you are in Polaris.

If you can’t do the nonstop, I’d rather connect in Chicago or NYC area than the west coast. Coming off a long flight and getting on that flight back to DC from CA will make that second shorter leg feel longer than the first.

The connection is not that bad. More important than connection is the airline.

Seems these are all United flights. If you have status with United, you may try standby the non-stop for the same day flights.

Agree that ANA plane is more pleasant - food and service, but it might be more expensive buying tickets from United on their metal. Chicago Polaris lounge just reopened if you can access. For SFO (and LAX), the first lag could be long and tiring, but you may find higher chance of second lag on ANA. I also find flights from BWI to SFO/LAX and then connect to Asia cheaper than from IAD. When flying back, the non-stop is about
12-13 hours, shorter than flying to TYO. Flying to west coast is under 10 hours so it might make sense to connect there and the second lag would be just 4-5 hours. Immigration at LAX/SFO could be slow though.

Not sure if other airlines are being considered, but American flies to TYO through DFW and LAX. We had luck to fly JAL A351 Biz from DFW to HND, something I would not hesitate to do again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Consider the value of your time is taking a flight which requires intermediate stops, especially over very long distances. You may effectively lose most of an additional travel day, depending on the connections, and you may also end up much less well rested if the transfers disrupt sleep. You also have increased potential for travel disruptions and delays, since you're involving more than a single aircraft and flight segment.

Nonstop flights are expensive, but add value for most people.

Sure nonstops add value but we are talking about $1000 pp for 2-3 hours here. For most of us that is not good value.

Second the recc to fly in/out of Haneda if you can as it is more convenient to Tokyo (you can search WAS—TYO to get all the airport options for those two cities)

Is it just 2-3 more hours? It's 15 hours and 25 minutes nonstop from Dulles to Seoul. Adding in a layover seems like it would increase total travel time by more than a couple of hours unless you have a pretty tight connection, and then you have the risks associated with missing the second flight if the first one is delayed. If you can find connections which only add 2-3 hours, maybe that makes sense, but I wonder how feasible that actually is?

14 hours nonstop IAD-NRT (that's heading west. Eastbound return is faster). There are options through ORD or Toronto that are 16.5 hours. This can be easily searched/compared on Google Flights.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Consider the value of your time is taking a flight which requires intermediate stops, especially over very long distances. You may effectively lose most of an additional travel day, depending on the connections, and you may also end up much less well rested if the transfers disrupt sleep. You also have increased potential for travel disruptions and delays, since you're involving more than a single aircraft and flight segment.

Nonstop flights are expensive, but add value for most people.

Sure nonstops add value but we are talking about $1000 pp for 2-3 hours here. For most of us that is not good value.

Second the recc to fly in/out of Haneda if you can as it is more convenient to Tokyo (you can search WAS—TYO to get all the airport options for those two cities)

Is it just 2-3 more hours? It's 15 hours and 25 minutes nonstop from Dulles to Seoul. Adding in a layover seems like it would increase total travel time by more than a couple of hours unless you have a pretty tight connection, and then you have the risks associated with missing the second flight if the first one is delayed. If you can find connections which only add 2-3 hours, maybe that makes sense, but I wonder how feasible that actually is?

We actually just flew Newark to Zurich, then Zurich to Dulles. We saved about 600$ which includes the 30$ Amtrak fares on the way up. It would have saved more with roundtrip Newark, but this was my compromise. It all went smoothly although I will say I was sweating a little when we sat on the track outside Baltimore for 25 minutes. We originally had almost 4 hours at EWR, but the train time changed by a half hour bc I booked it so early, and then the train delays made it so we had about 2.5 hrs there instead. I don't know if I would do it again, depends on the $$.