View from an aircraft window across the wing onto turquoise lagoons and low-lying islands, the sun setting between cumulus clouds on the horizon.

Compare flights, then book with intent

Fewer connections, calmer dates, honest prices — instead of a rushed checkout.

Advertising: this button takes you to offers from our partner Kiwi.com. If you book there, we receive a small commission – the price stays the same for you. The button opens a new window.

Compare first, decide second

A fare is rarely a fixed quantity. The same route costs noticeably different amounts depending on the weekday, how far ahead you book and which connection you take — and the cheapest hit is not automatically the best one. So when you compare, look past the number: how long is the layover, is it one through-ticket or two separate bookings, and is baggage included? That last question is no side issue. Airlines’ worldwide ancillary revenue — baggage, seat selection, catering — was estimated at 148.4 billion US dollars for 2024, or 14.9 per cent of industry revenue.[1]

Separately booked legs are often cheaper, but if the first flight is late the risk sits entirely with you. The reason is not that the second airline knows nothing about your first ticket — the air passenger rights regulation attaches to the booking: where two separate tickets are involved, the carrier operating the onward leg is not liable for the delay of the first.[2] Conversely, a journey made under a single booking counts as one unit, even when two legally unconnected airlines operate it.[3] Comparing pays off most on routes served by several carriers; on thinly served ones it rarely changes much.

Early booking or last minute: what the data actually shows →

Direct or connecting — what actually matters

Our own reading is that a connection carries a climate cost: it means an extra take-off and more distance flown than the direct flight — even when it looks cheaper on the booking page. We did not find sourced figures for how much of a single flight’s fuel goes into take-off and climb, so we offer this as an assessment rather than a fact. Then there is the honest arithmetic: two hours saved on the price tag against five hours more travel and the added risk of missing the onward leg. Where you have the choice, the direct flight usually wins on both counts. If a connection is unavoidable, give it a realistic buffer: at large hubs an hour is rarely enough once checked baggage or a terminal change is involved.

When the train is the better call

On short distances flying is the most climate-damaging way to travel. The German Environment Agency puts a domestic flight at 290 grams of greenhouse gases in CO2 equivalent per passenger-kilometre against 26 grams for long-distance rail — roughly eleven times as much, with the flight’s non-CO2 effects weighted by a factor of 1.5.[4] On time, the door-to-door calculation is what counts: a 2022 ADAC comparison of 20 European city trips found a threshold of around 400 kilometres as the crow flies — below it the train tended to be quicker, above it the plane.[5] Price does not carry the argument on its own either: on ten domestic German routes, fares at least doubled within three months in 2025, with Frankfurt–Berlin rising from 86 to 431 euros.[6] None of this makes flying wrong in principle — for far-away destinations there is often no sensible alternative. It only means the question belongs before the price comparison, not after it. And when you do fly, fly less often and stay longer. That is the idea behind slow travel — and it usually costs less in the end, too.