Flying indirect with 4 kids - Mental?

[Lolsmum]

I would go direct *unless* that £500 would get you a seat for the youngest you aren't paying for now. In that case, not having a lap child would win out over going direct, assuming the same airline. There are some airlines (looking at you American Airlines) I would pay more to avoid.

I only have two kids, but I have flown alone with them indirect multiple times thanks to parents who live in places that cannot get direct flights from the UK. The most ridiculous one was Boxing Day last year, when we stayed over in Chicago and got a crazy early flight the next morning to save £500.

 

[disneyholic family]

I would go direct *unless* that £500 would get you a seat for the youngest you aren't paying for now. In that case, not having a lap child would win out over going direct, assuming the same airline. There are some airlines (looking at you American Airlines) I would pay more to avoid. I only have two kids, but I have flown alone with them indirect multiple times thanks to parents who live in places that cannot get direct flights from the UK. The most ridiculous one was Boxing Day last year, when we stayed over in Chicago and got a crazy early flight the next morning to save £500.

US Airways is now owned by American

I only flew with the kids by myself once when they were little.
That was the year I decided to fly via Amsterdam with a direct flight from there to Orlando.
We got stuck in Amsterdam for 12 hours instead of the 1 and a half hours it was supposed to be.
Now had I known we'd be there for 12 hours I would have taken the kids into town on the train and gone on one of the canal boat tours.
But the airline kept delaying the flight by only an hour at a time.
So there was no way to do anything but keep coming back to the info desk every hour to be told it would be another hour.
It was fine. It was just two kids and they were 8 and 10 years old.
But I don't think I would have wanted to do that with four kids under the age of five.
That was the only time I stopped in Europe.
After that I decided we would only connect inside the states so that if worse came to worse we could rent a car and drive from wherever we were, even New York.

 

[2Tiggies]

There are some airlines (looking at you American Airlines) I would pay more to avoid.

I feel that way about BA after the fiasco with this year's flights. I have had a stellar experience with AA and cannot say enough good things about their customer care. I suppose they all come with good and bad. In the end, unless you have a very flexible budget, the airlines that offer you a price you can afford usually win, whether we like them or not.

 

[DCLMan]

£500 is not that much money, I may consider it if it were £500 per person, but total, no. Direct every time.

 

[crabbie1]

£500 is not that much money, I may consider it if it were £500 per person, but total, no. Direct every time.

May be not to you and do not mean that in a bad way. With 4 kids it probably is and I know to a lot of us. Considering the time of year you are going plus added excitement of christmas I would go direct. People have their own views and opinions but only you can decide. Good luck .

 

[DCLMan]

May be not to you and do not mean that in a bad way. With 4 kids it probably is and I know to a lot of us. Considering the time of year you are going plus added excitement of christmas I would go direct. People have their own views and opinions but only you can decide. Good luck .

Look at it this way, it's a saving of £83 per person return. I don't think that is much money in the great scheme of a Florida holiday.

 

[robinb]

Look at it this way, it's a saving of £83 per person return. I don't think that is much money in the great scheme of a Florida holiday.

$134 USD is 3 or 4 counter service meals at WDW (2 adults, 2 kids, approximately $40 per meal). The whole amount saved comes out to 21 counter service meals. To put that into perspective over a 3-week trip ... that's lunch every day.

Quite frankly OP, I think that people are filling your head with a snow-boogie-man. Your connection is through Philadelphia, right? Philadelphia just doesn't get a lot of snow. If you look here: http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Pennsylvania/snowfall-december.php you will see the average snowfall in December from 1981-2010 is a whopping 3.4 inches which is about the same for London BTW. That is really not a whole lot even of it falls at at once.

I too live in a snowy city (13.5" avg for Dec) and when I travel to Orlando over Christmas/NYE every year there is rarely any snow on the ground when I leave around 12/21-12/23. Yes, you can get delayed and miss your connection. Stuff happens when you travel. Heck, a freak storm could ground you in England!

I understand that you want to make it as easy as possible, but unless you're made of money or you have an extra $840 USD to flush away, I stand by my opinion that the loss of 3.5 hours and the very slim possibility of being delayed or stranded is worth the savings.

 

[disneyholic family]

$134 USD is 3 or 4 counter service meals at WDW (2 adults, 2 kids, approximately $40 per meal). The whole amount saved comes out to 21 counter service meals. To put that into perspective over a 3-week trip ... that's lunch every day.

Quite frankly OP, I think that people are filling your head with a snow-boogie-man. Your connection is through Philadelphia, right? Philadelphia just doesn't get a lot of snow. If you look here: http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Pennsylvania/snowfall-december.php you will see the average snowfall in December from 1981-2010 is a whopping 3.4 inches which is about the same for London BTW. That is really not a whole lot even of it falls at at once.

I too live in a snowy city (13.5" avg for Dec) and when I travel to Orlando over Christmas/NYE every year there is rarely any snow on the ground when I leave around 12/21-12/23. Yes, you can get delayed and miss your connection. Stuff happens when you travel. Heck, a freak storm could ground you in England!

I understand that you want to make it as easy as possible, but unless you're made of money or you have an extra $840 USD to flush away, I stand by my opinion that the loss of 3.5 hours and the very slim possibility of being delayed or stranded is worth the savings.

it's not just snow - they are traveling xmas eve into one of the less efficient airports in the country...
if their plane is late getting into philly, if immigration takes long, if customs takes long, if TSA security takes long (a given in philly), they definitely could miss their connection.
And on xmas eve their chances of getting another flight aren't the greatest.

You are right. They CAN fly indirect and probably nothing will go wrong.
But the tension of all the possibilities plus traveling with 4 very very very very young children - well personally, i can't fathom traveling with that much tension.

and again - we always fly connecting flights. We have no alternative. But if we had the option of a direct flight? I would be more than willing to pay even $1,000 more for the 4 of us to get there with as few hassles as possible.

 

[chmurf]

it's not just snow

Absolutely

xmas eve madness, possibiliy of inclement weather (even if remote)

non US Citizens, luggages, 4 kids under 5

and what our distinguished DISer from Wisconcin seems to forget is that by the time OP reaches the US, they already spent 9hrs on a plane.
So just imagine that, when you fly from WI to Orlando, it might seem easy, but just add 9hrs on a plane to your journey, and you might have a very different perspective.

Most of us Europeans who fly indirect will get up at 5am to get ready and go to the airport, only to reach orlando at 8 or 10pm orlando time which is 1am UK time

Again, it may not be much of a hassle to go indirect from the US to the US, but when your journey is 20hrs long (for some of us it's 24hrs of travel time) with 4 exhausted kids under 5 ... 3.5 hours less of travel time sure seems like a good idea.

 

[wayneg]

Its obviously one of those things some of us are willing to do and others are not. To me £500 (£83pp) is enough of a saving.
But I have only done it with one child and only ever had issues with direct flights. If I did it with 4 children and/or had problems indirect then I could change my mind but I would have to try it first and save the money.
£500 is 6 months mortgage payments

 

[scoobydooby]

It is all about perspective and frankly what you can afford. Now, I'd spend £500 in a heartbeat before going through what you are considering. I have been in financially different positions though where I would have done anything to save cash. And of course may be again. My own kids would not have coped well with the journey you describe. But that's them.

 

[Zeebs]

three kids here and at Christmas I wouldn't go indirect.

as well as the possibility of bad weather from the UK airport a flight of 10 hours or so flying then the possibility of bad weather, Christmas crowds and more time waiting around, then the flight into Orlando, would in this instance sway me to a direct flight.

Any other time, if the flight and price was right we might consider it, this time we are flying into Miami and are driving up.

Kirsten

 

[robinb]

and what our distinguished DISer from Wisconcin seems to forget is that by the time OP reaches the US, they already spent 9hrs on a plane.
So just imagine that, when you fly from WI to Orlando, it might seem easy, but just add 9hrs on a plane to your journey, and you might have a very different perspective.

Most of us Europeans who fly indirect will get up at 5am to get ready and go to the airport, only to reach orlando at 8 or 10pm orlando time which is 1am UK time

Again, it may not be much of a hassle to go indirect from the US to the US, but when your journey is 20hrs long (for some of us it's 24hrs of travel time) with 4 exhausted kids under 5 ... 3.5 hours less of travel time sure seems like a good idea.

You seem to think that perhaps I have never been outside my own country's boarders. Stop for a second and read my signature. *tick-tock* Ok, done? I am well aware of how long it takes to get to the UK to Orlando. I have flown from London to Madison twice, plus another two times from Paris. The last time I went to Paris we connected through Amsterdam and then onto Paris (mostly so my DD could fly on the 2nd floor of a 747) and we had a long enough layover to visit the Anne Frank House. The two flights from Tokyo were even longer. There are no direct flights to Madison so I always need to connect at an International aiport.

it's not just snow - they are traveling xmas eve into one of the less efficient airports in the country...
if their plane is late getting into philly, if immigration takes long, if customs takes long, if TSA security takes long (a given in philly), they definitely could miss their connection.
And on xmas eve their chances of getting another flight aren't the greatest.

You are right. They CAN fly indirect and probably nothing will go wrong.
But the tension of all the possibilities plus traveling with 4a very very very very young children - well personally, i can't fathom traveling with that much tension.

and again - we always fly connecting flights. We have no alternative. But if we had the option of a direct flight? I would be more than willing to pay even $1,000 more for the 4 of us to get there with as few hassles as possible.

And, yes, I also travel in the US around Christmas to go to Orlando. It's usually around the 12/20-12/23 but I have traveled on Christmas eve. Yes, it's busy. But I would say that it's really no different than any other day of travel in the US. When was the last time you flew on a plane with empty seats?

FWIW, I *totally* understand where both of you are coming from and I would be right there with you if the difference were not so great. Especially for a family that stayed last year in an I-Drive hotel. My guess is that £500 is a lot of money for her.

OP, can you come in a day earlier? That way you would have some wiggle room built in if you end up with a delay or missed connection and still make it to Sea World for Christmas. The price for an extra night in a hotel and food will be a lot less than $840.

 

[Minniesgal]

we fly in from Paris, no direct flight for us. We have the choice between cheaper flights with 8pm arrivals, and more expensive (still indirect) flights for an arrival around 5:30pm we only have one child (6) and prefer to pay more for an earlier arrival. £500 is a lot of money. but £500 for 6 passengers is only £80 per passenger. even that is a lot of money, but I don't think it justifies 3.5hrs at a connecting airport you don't only spend more time, you go through another security check, and with 3.5hrs you'll have time to kill at the airport, possibly with cranky kids. Now the other thing to consider is the journey back to the UK if you go indirect, chances are you come back indirect. In that case it's also down to the departure time. In my experience with indirect flights, we take off from Orlando at 2pm, when other flights will take off at 8pm. This means that we don't do anything on our last day So you have to add up all of the time you will trade for £80pp I know it's not my money, and it's easy for me to say, but with 4 kids that young ... will you have strollers and stuff like that, because you're gonna walk, collect bags to go through customs, among other things at the connecting airport. I don't know if I would be brave enough to try that one ...

We also go from Paris but find it easier to drive to Gatwick for a direct flight.

 

[DCLMan]

I have an idea.


Sell the children, fly first class.

(Joke)

 

[flortlebap]

I have an idea.


Sell the children, fly first class.

(Joke)

That's the best suggestion so far

 

[pickers1982]

I live in channel islands so have to fly to the uk before connecting (hour flight) so every none uk trip is indirect. Not ideal but its fine. Usually the thought of flying with kids full stop is worse than the reality( i d be rich if i had a pound for everyone i met who was terified of taking a baby/toddler on a flight....and it always works out fine)

 

[chmurf]

OP, can you come in a day earlier? That way you would have some wiggle room built in if you end up with a delay or missed connection and still make it to Sea World for Christmas. The price for an extra night in a hotel and food will be a lot less than $840.

so, the solution here would be to spend money on an extra hotel and food (let's say $200 to $240)

and what should OP pay that for ?

Not as a safety net against delays, because if they have to spend a night at the connecting airport, it's supposed to be paid for by the airline

So OP should pay, maybe $250, just in case her flight arrives on time ...

So this advice is to pay roughly $250 as a safety net against the inconvenience of flying indirect, instead of paying $840 for the convinience of flying direct.

The main point here is that saving £80pp for an indirect flight is not worth it. But now, as the advice stands, to protect herself against a delay on the indirect flight, OP should pay for an extra night, just in case, and have that £80pp saving reduced by £26pp down to £54pp

this makes the savings vs inconvenience ratio even less in favor of flying indirect.

To avoid paying $800 for running shoes, you're willing to pay $250 more to be fitted with a ball and chain just in case you don't run fast enough to make it in time without it ... ok ... sounds logical ...

 

[disneyholic family]

I live in channel islands so have to fly to the uk before connecting (hour flight) so every none uk trip is indirect. Not ideal but its fine. Usually the thought of flying with kids full stop is worse than the reality( i d be rich if i had a pound for everyone i met who was terified of taking a baby/toddler on a flight....and it always works out fine)

they're not worried about the flights themselves, they're worried about the connection.
The US is one of the more difficult places to connect, since there is no such thing as staying on the other side of security.
You have to go through immigration, customs and then through security again, which can take a very long time (especially in philly). I've seen people miss flights when they were caught in a security line - which i can't understand. I just don't understand how the airlines let people get stuck in long security lines and miss their flights.

 

[robinb]

so, the solution here would be to spend money on an extra hotel and food (let's say $200 to $240)

and what should OP pay that for ?

Not as a safety net against delays, because if they have to spend a night at the connecting airport, it's supposed to be paid for by the airline

So OP should pay, maybe $250, just in case her flight arrives on time ...

So this advice is to pay roughly $250 as a safety net against the inconvenience of flying indirect, instead of paying $840 for the convinience of flying direct.

The main point here is that saving £80pp for an indirect flight is not worth it. But now, as the advice stands, to protect herself against a delay on the indirect flight, OP should pay for an extra night, just in case, and have that £80pp saving reduced by £26pp down to £54pp

this makes the savings vs inconvenience ratio even less in favor of flying indirect.

To avoid paying $800 for running shoes, you're willing to pay $250 more to be fitted with a ball and chain just in case you don't run fast enough to make it in time without it ... ok ... sounds logical ...

(1) US airlines do not pay for hotels in cities due to missed connections if it's due to something out of their control like security, customs or weather.

(2) If the OP's worry is that missed connection on 12/24 and getting to SeaWorld on Christmas day, then leaving a day early and spending the extra $150-$250 to do so is a viable option. It may not be what you would do, but that's OK. It's a compromise that *still* leaves at least $600USD in her pocket.

(3) While you are certainly entitled to your opinion "The main point here is that saving £80pp for an indirect flight is not worth it.", I am always amazed at how readily DISers spend other people's money for them. I thought it was limited to the Resorts Board but I guess I was wrong .