Aer Lingus airline vs. United

hz80408 · December 2011

Our goal is to lock in our flights for our April trip to Europe within the next 3 weeks. We're planning a multi city flight, ORD to Amsterdam and Heathrow to ORD returning.

Right now with our schedules, it looks like we can fly direct both ways with United/Continental or we can fly Aer Lingus with a 3hr layover in Dublin on our way to Amsterday and a 1.5 hr layover in Dublin on our way home from London.

Arrival time in AMS, would be 9:30am for United and 2pm with AE. Departure from London is 12:50pm with United and 10am with AE., so flying AE we'd lose a few hours of time to tour/visit.

Flying Aer Lingus would save $300 for the two of us, and I've heard that European airlines are typically nicer than US. Would you recommend saving the $300 and put up with the layovers; or would you rec spending the extra $300 to get direct flights?

rikki311 · December 2011

While a lot of European airlines are nicer than those in the US, Aer Lingus is not one of them. I would definitely pay the extra $300 to have a direct flight on United.

RedPeony · December 2011

For a difference of only $300, I would pay to fly direct. I hate dealing with layovers.

I've never flown United to Europe but I've heard that some of the planes they use are older and not equipped with your personal TV. If that really matters to you, then check out www.seatguru.com. It will tell you what to expect on your flight.

We've flown Aer Lingus and liked it. It had the TVs in the seats and we were fed both dinner and breakfast. That was a few years ago so the service could have changed.

kirnat848 · December 2011

we've flown both and they were both fine. For $300 though I would def. fly direct

hz80408 · December 2011

Interesting. Not quite what I expected, but I appreciate your input considering I've never flown Aer and haven't flown United internationally. This totally sways opinions. And thanks for the site RedPeony.

MerRhosyn · December 2011

I would definitely fly direct from ORD *or* connect domestically in order to fly a carrier like Virgin Atlantic (IAD-LHR, or maybe JFK would let you achieve non-stops both directions in European carriers). I wouldn't hassle with the DUB connection given the difference in cost. The LHR departure times are irrelevant - you won't really be able to sightsee in the morning. The earlier AMS arrival time is preferable, however. I've flown United internationally and it gets the job done. Certainly nothing to write home about. If it's important to you, you may want to consider Economy Plus for the extra leg room.

alithebride · December 2011

id absolutely pay the 150 more PP to fly direct.

jenncoyle05 · December 2011

I am a frequent flyer w/ United and have flown Lingus 2x to Dublin. I have also been on other european airlines...although Aer Lingus is really nice- I dont think its the same as the other airlines. I thikn that Luftansa and even Korean Air is the really nice airlines - to me personally. Aer Lingus is a really nice airline and the attendants are super nice- but because the flights aren't too long to Ireland...it's not the typical European flights that you've heard of . Luftansa caters to long flights and are typically bigger planes. I wouldn't waste a 3 hr layover in Ireland i'd just pay the extra money and fly direct. OR save money and use it to stay a day or two in Dublin if you havent been there before. AMAZING city

Susie Derkins · December 2011

When we went to Italy we opted to do the layover in Dublin to save the cash. Similar situation to what you describe. We were doing a multi city itinerary (JFK-DUB-LIN, then FCO-DUB-JFK), and Aer Lingus saved us some coin - I think more than $300.

It was my 2nd time flying Aer Lingus this year, and transatlantic, they're great. I have nothing but good things to say about my JFK/SNN and JFK/DUB flights this year. Dublin airport was great too - helpful staff, etc. My DUB/FCO and DUB/LIN flights were not so awesome though, and there were points when I was desperate to just get where I was going. The layover was kind of a pain. Plus it induced some stress when we were (really) late getting off the ground at FCO. It's not like there's a plethora of flights from DUB to JFK throughout the day in case we missed ours. (We didn't. But we didn't have much time to spare.) Plus, you have to go through security and get your passport stamped in Dublin, which takes time and is a hassle. A 1.5 hour layover may not be enough if you're at all late leaving London.

I think next time I would pay for the direct flights. Especially if it's only $300.

hz80408 · December 2011

Susie Derkins:

When we went to Italy we opted to do the layover in Dublin to save the cash. Similar situation to what you describe. We were doing a multi city itinerary (JFK-DUB-LIN, then FCO-DUB-JFK), and Aer Lingus saved us some coin - I think more than $300.

It was my 2nd time flying Aer Lingus this year, and transatlantic, they're great. I have nothing but good things to say about my JFK/SNN and JFK/DUB flights this year. Dublin airport was great too - helpful staff, etc. My DUB/FCO and DUB/LIN flights were not so awesome though, and there were points when I was desperate to just get where I was going. The layover was kind of a pain. Plus it induced some stress when we were (really) late getting off the ground at FCO. It's not like there's a plethora of flights from DUB to JFK throughout the day in case we missed ours. (We didn't. But we didn't have much time to spare.) Plus, you have to go through security and get your passport stamped in Dublin, which takes time and is a hassle. A 1.5 hour layover may not be enough if you're at all late leaving London.

I think next time I would pay for the direct flights. Especially if it's only $300.

Thanks for the insight from a tried-and-true experience

Aer Lingus airline vs. United

Re: Aer Lingus airline vs. United

Choose Another Board

Search Boards