XP: WWYD - travel with infant $ question

[Deleted]

Hi! I posted this on the travel board, but that place is dead, and this question is sorta MM - and I want to book in the next hour or two.

We are just about to book flights from Toronto-Ft Lauderdale for January. We will have DS who will be 8 months old then.

Would you pay an extra $70 per person per flight (so $140 extra) for non-stop flights? I'm thinking YES. Its a difference of $650 (non stop there, 1 stop back) and $785 for non-stop both ways. I should say that the $650 is total for TWO people including taxes, so is the $785. The kid is only like $20 and will sit on our laps.

I'm just thinking it would be a huge PITA with a child in the airport. The extra $$ won't break the bank - we may drink less on our cruise (we are dropping the kid with the ILs in FL for a few days).

Thanks!

[aspentosh]

We are flying DC to San Diego next month with DD who will be 9 months. We will DEFINITELY pay the extra money for a direct flight.

[SusanBAnthony]

It would depend on how much time the layover adds. If you have a short layover and it is relatively on the way (ie you aren't flying halfway across the country only to turn around again) a layover can be nice as a change to get out and stretch your legs. That said, at 8 months your baby might be crawling, might not, and it probably wouldnt matter much compared to a 2 year old, where I would like a layover to go run some energy off.

[runblondie26]

Direct flight = yes X 1,000

[Mrs.Syntax]

For that age, yes, it's definitely worth the money!

[drloretta]

I didn't mind layovers with DD. But if you can afford it, go for it

[Deleted]

Ok, Im thinking yes. The flight is only 3hr 10min non-stop, so a layover adds like 2+ hours to our travel, plus its an extra chance for the airline to lose luggage & baby gear.

3 hours won't be terrible with an infant. Its the flight to London England a few months later that might be a nightmare!!

[ECB]

Having just done an almost 4 hour flight w/ a 3.5 year old.... direct. It's not THAT long of a time that even my energetic kid needed us to stop to run off energy, or what have you.

[Redpoppy]

We've done one connecting flight with DS only because there were no nonstop options. If was okay but I'd prefer nonstop in any case I can avoid it. I'd totally pay the extra.

[aurora]

Yes, absolutely. But I would pay the extra just for me and DH even without a child. I have been stranded in airports due to delayed flights way too many times in my life.

[pbandj]

non stop all the way!

[blueshirt2003]

I would pay the extra and enjoy that you'll only have 1 single airplane ride to handle.

[iheartbanjos]

It depends on how long the layover is. We usually try to do direct, but sometimes it's nice to break it up a bit too. One time, a 45 min layover turned into 4 hours, though. That got a little long.

[MixedBerryJam]

Even WITHOUT the kid I'd pay extra for a non-stop.

[niki]

Yes, I would pay the extra, except I would buy an extra seat for the kid. It is safer and you will be so grateful to have your hands to yourself. Here is a great article about it: carseatblog.com/6599/airplanes-carseats-and-kids%E2%80%94what-you-need-to-know-pt-1/

And a great video explaining it further: carseatblog.com/16971/lap-babies-on-airplane-a-warning-all-parents-must-see/

We just got back from Cancun and were grateful we had our kid in a carseat during the rough turbulence.

[frlcb]

I said this on travel but direct for sure. And we fly to England often with our kids, and have since they were born, and the flight over is a piece of cake cause it is overnight, it is the flight back that isn't as much fun

[Deleted]

Sept 7, 2012 10:00:37 GMT -5 niki said:

Yes, I would pay the extra, except I would buy an extra seat for the kid. It is safer and you will be so grateful to have your hands to yourself. Here is a great article about it: carseatblog.com/6599/airplanes-carseats-and-kids%E2%80%94what-you-need-to-know-pt-1/

And a great video explaining it further: carseatblog.com/16971/lap-babies-on-airplane-a-warning-all-parents-must-see/

We just got back from Cancun and were grateful we had our kid in a carseat during the rough turbulence.

Hmm. I sent this to DH to see what he thinks. We had no intention of having the kid have his own seat.

Does anyone else do this for short flights?

[dragonfly08]

Sept 7, 2012 7:59:16 GMT -5 SusanBAnthony said:

It would depend on how much time the layover adds. If you have a short layover and it is relatively on the way (ie you aren't flying halfway across the country only to turn around again) a layover can be nice as a change to get out and stretch your legs.

This is what I was going to post. The first time we flew with DD (from NJ to FL), I was actually grateful for the layover. DD needed the time to stretch and babble without us shushing her for the comfort of other passengers. Plus, flying did NOT agree with her tummy and we lucked out that we weren't in the air when that became apparent. Changing her diaper and her clothes was a lot easier in the airport bathroom than it would have been on board!

[SJ]

Sept 7, 2012 9:54:36 GMT -5 MixedBerryJam said:

Even WITHOUT the kid I'd pay extra for a non-stop.

Me too.

[hideme]

I would do non-stop.

Unless you're thinking about buying a third seat for your infant. I would do that with the layover over doing non-stop with seats for just you and your H.

[h]

No, I wouldn't pay the extra. I think layovers can actually be useful with kids--a chance to let them move around and stretch, get some food, change them somewhere other than a cramped airplane bathroom, etc.--so it would not be worth much to me to avoid one.

ETA -- My answer would change if it meant avoiding a long layover (like more than 1.5-2 hours).

[stephm0188]

I don't mind layovers when I'm flying alone. With the kid though? I want to get him from point A to point B as quickly as possible. He's always been a good traveler, but boarding and deboarding and dealing with the stroller in the airport and feedings and blah blah blah... no. Just give me a direct flight.

[WOT?*]

DS will be eight months old. I'd pay for the non-stop at that age so you're not haggling with checked-at-the-gate items like strollers (which I'd recommend gate-checking so you'd have it at a layover) and lugging baby-bags between gates and the like. For a toddler or pre-schooler I might consider a layover if it was a longer flight with a long enough layover to allow him to run off some steap but a three or four hour one I'd also pay for non-stop, again so you don't have to wrestle with kid and bags. I'd not do layovers until you don't have to worry about baggage and wrestling kids at the same time.

[mollybrown]

Sept 7, 2012 12:17:59 GMT -5 SJ said:

Sept 7, 2012 9:54:36 GMT -5 MixedBerryJam said:

Even WITHOUT the kid I'd pay extra for a non-stop.

Me too.

I'm in this camp.

We had a layover on our last trip with kids, and it wasn't helpful at all. It just delayed the agony.

[pamela]

We prefer 2 shorter flights when traveling with DS because we can get off and take a break, let him run (or crawl) around.