Parents of toddlers - would you spend an extra 2 hours on a plane to save over $400?

[Minnesota!]

We love flights with layovers with the kids. I would take the longer, cheaper flight without a second thought.

 

[juliana023]

We are going to Disney for the first time in October, and it is all of my kids' first plane ride (ages 7, 5, and 18 months). We are paying more for a nonstop...it wasn't even a question whether to fly direct. Its my worst nightmare to be stuck in a airport for an unknown amount of time with young kids, especially babies. Direct flights are totally worth it to me for more piece of mind!

 

[Candycane83]

I think the least amount of time of flying would reduce the stress of not only the toddlers but for you and your wife as well. That being said, at 7 months, I took my DS on a 17-18hour flight to Asia. (This was direct). My DH and I survived. I think that if you're in a situation where you have no choice, you would make it work anyway and survive to tell the tale.

 

[Ava]

Thank you all for your input - I ended up finding direct flights on Delta this morning for $295 RT! And we're flying out of JFK which I prefer over LGA. The only downside is the fees for checking luggage on Delta, but even adding $200 in bag fees it's still cheaper than the other direct options. Whew.

 

[DisneyWishes14]

I would pick the flight that best suits your child's schedule. Forget about the money! We had a 5-hour delay a few years back when we were traveling to Captiva Island and didn't arrive at the resort until midnight. My DS (who was 1 1/2 at the time) actually did ok, but he went to bed at 1 am and woke up at his regular time - 5 am. I was so exhausted the next day. It was absolutely awful. I would have gladly spent an extra $400 to have a chance to enjoy my vacation.

 

[Jess_S]

I'm glad you found a cheaper direct flight. We've done frequent cross country flights with my almost 3 year old starting when he was a few months old. Keeping a toddler entertained in a confined space for 5 hours is exhausting.

 

[SweetPeas9825]

Im cheap and like to save money wherever i can so yes, i'd save the extra $400. We are traveling in October with a 6, 4 & 9 month old. Got direct flight one way but the other has a layover. Wherever we can save, we will do it and everything will work out fine.

 

[hallen4]

We went direct last time we took our kids (DS3 and DD1) from Providence to Orlando. I am thankful we did. My son was great, absolutely no problems. My daughter however has the same problems with descent and her ears that I have and she was so miserable. The less the better in my opinion. Happy planning!

 

[I M Fearless]

Aren't you all glad you don't live in the UK!

The shortest direct flight for us is 9 hours and 10 minutes in and 8 hours 10 minutes home.

I always feel for the families who try that with a 2 year old, even the best behaved kids struggle.

 

[h2ostore]

We have a 1 year old and a three year old. Been flying with them since the oldest was 6 months always on connecting flights and it has not been a big deal. Having the break in between has actually worked well for us.

 

[lost*in*cyberspace]

Please note that most of you mean nonstop you are talking about direct flights. A direct flight has stops, a nonstop flight doesn't.

Whenever you have a stop, you're adding another chance for delays and luggage misconnects. I always chose nonstop when possible and definitely would when traveling with kids.

 

[StarsForAlice]

Nope. But I see it as my and my husband's time is worth $100/hour each. I'll pay $400 for 2-hours less of a possibility of tantrum and meltdown. Plus, staying on the same plane does not mean you won't have a delay.

And, I'm saying this in a really sincere tone because it could be you or the wife: who bears the brunt of tantrum management and who is better at gauging the kid's moods? Chances are, it is the same person for both and that is the parent who should probably be the one to make the final decision.

I totally agree with this part. My daughter is 14 months and we recently did a 2.5 hour nonstop flight to Orlando. I am the her favorite right now, not daddy. So I was on the hook for entertaining her, holding her, etc. on our flights. I would pay the extra money for peace of mind that your flight will go well!

 

[Lavitz]

Hmm, $400 savings round trip, but less than ideal take off time and more time on the plane. Tough one.

First I'd like to say 2 extra hours on a plane isn't really anything. People travel to other continents all the time, I travel from Toronto to Europe (7ish hours) every year or two and have had a 2 year old with for the last 4 trips. Bring toys, a dedicated tablet with movies/games for them and you're fine.

However, for my family personally we might not do it. Eldest DD would scream bloody murder during takeoff (sometimes landing) since it hurt her ears when she was 2. It would last for some time as well. $400 to save her this would be well spent.

 

[MrsSaraG]

I can't decide what to do about flights for our August trip. Non-stop flights on JetBlue are running ~$415 RT per person, for times that are less than ideal. There is an itinerary on Southwest that we could take that includes a stop but no change of planes. It adds about 2 hours onto the flight time, but would save us over $100 per person RT. With 4 of us, that's a pretty significant savings. However, my wife thinks 5 hours on a plane with our 2-year-old will be a disaster. I think we'll survive and the savings will be worth it.

Can other parents of toddlers weigh in? Would $400 be worth the additional flight time to you?

I would save the money. My daughter will be 2 in July and she has already flown on 3 separate occasions (Disney will make 4!) It's totally doable. I think this coming flight will be the easiest yet. If you have iPad/Tablet I'm sure your 2 year old will likely be mesmerized by that (mine sure is) but also we make sure to take plenty of snacks and activities and she goes great. To me, it's definitely worth that kind of savings but it's a personal choice and you know your child best!

 

[djp0630]

I'd pay the extra $ if you can afford it!

 

[Princess Disney Mom]

I would

 

[Kelly014]

Nope. We flew to New Zealand when my DD was a month under 2 and are doing it again when DS is a month under 2 (cheap international tickets for under 2 year olds). I'm sure this skews my opinion but if I can survive 36 hours of travel and 3 layovers I can totally handle 5 hours. Minus one overtired fit on the way there she did really well. Bring lots of stickers and snacks and you'll make it.

 

[ammag]

That's a hard choice, but if the $400 isn't a complete deal breaker spend it. I don't fly much but extra time with my kids, especially my son would be awful!

 

[Lisaloo]

Tough choice. We once paid $500 more for a shorter flight (4 kids under 6) and ended up sitting on the runway for 3 hours for the Vice President to land in Airforce 2. My husband and I couldn't help but laugh. So much for the savings.

 

[Apopper74]

If they prescribed Ambien for toddlers, than yes I would go for the longer flight to save money. But since they don't and my toddler drives me nuts on quick trips to the store than "HECK NO". Vacations are for relaxing and recharging, it's bad enough a Disney vacation is usually not relaxing I need the flights to at least be as stressfree as possible.