7 months vs 15 months

[neptuneflame]

7 months! Took DD at almost 10 and just over 16. You don't know for sure that she'll be walking at 15 months and she may not be accomplished at it (our DD started at 14 months and we wouldn't have considered going if she wasn't walking). At 10 months, she was crawling all the time and it was difficult finding a place to let her out. That being said, it was great being able to keep her in a front pack while on the rides -- she wouldn't let us do that at 16 months! At 10 months, we could go at our pace and let her nap in the stroller (she was great about that; still is); at 16 months, it was all about her. At 10 months, her food was bottles and a few baby food jars with a bit off our plate. At 16 months, she was all solids and were navigating a newly developed peanut allergy. We had fun at both ages though, so go with whatever works! We're taking her little brother in a few weeks and they'll be 32 and 4 1/2 months respectively. I'm more worried about her and than the baby!

[WantToGoNow]

I would say 7 months. Ds11 had his first trip at 6 months. It was so easy. He was content to chill in the stroller and watch every thing going on around him. Dd9 went for her first birthday. Big difference. She started walking 2 weeks before we went and she wanted out - all the time. The smaller baby was also easier to carry in the lines then the heavier skirmy toddler. It was easier come mealtimes though because dd was on table food and cups and ds had bottles, formula, and baby food.

[AshleeH]

I would prefer 7 months because of the lack of mobility, but we will be taking our youngest when she is about 17 months. However, we'll be driving across country two months after she's born to go to Disneyland (our options were taking a two month old or waiting another year and a 30 hour road trip with a one year old is my equivalent to a nightmare!).