Can't get there from here

Since there's talk of sending me to far-flung parts of the world (other than the usual, "Get out of here! Go far, far away!" sort of thing) I got wondering how long it takes to fly to Australia.

I figured rather than doing it all in one butt-numbing ordeal, I could break it up by flying to California first, spending a couple of days, then heading Downunder. Okay, how much more would that cost?

I went to a travel site that searches all the other travel sites. The results also show travel times. The shortest one I found was 13.5 hours, but only on the return leg. Flights to Australia ran from 17 to 28 hours. I clicked for details. The 17-hour flight from Los Angeles went through San Francisco. 

Okay, what if I were to make San Francisco my jumping off point instead of LA? I plugged in SFO and searched again. The flight was 18.5 hours, because they want to fly you through Los Angeles first—via Palm Springs. Doh.

Okay, low fares are about suffering inconvenience. I get that. So you can get the shortest direct flight by paying more, right? No. In fact, the flights got longer as the prices increased.

Comments

[Linda]

So true. From Salt Lake I'm flying to Las Vegas
for Christmas. We stop first in Long Beach. Direct flights were considerably more expensive. I flew from St. Louis to Salt Lake in October, with the first stop being Atlanta, GA. They do what they do.

[Connie]

When Conor returned home from his mission in So. Calif. He flew out of the Ontario airport on Delta (which has many direct flights to SLC from Ontario)to LAX. He had a 3 hour layover at LAX before getting on a another Delta flight to SLC. Going to the mission field, he went via San Francisco.

I realize that going by the "scenic route" was the Church's way of getting the cheapest fare. But I think it was a little ridiculous.

[Richard Reiser]

Let's see. First LA. Then Honolulu. Then Fiji. Then New Zealand. Then Australia. Home via Tokyo, Hong Kong, and London. On tramp steamers.