To refuse to take indirect flights with a toddler

[dellacucina]

to destinations where direct flights are readily available but generally more expensive?

That's all really!

Depends- sometimes taking a break can make the journey easier.

I did it. Heathrow - Dallas - Oregon. Bit of a nightmare but on balance better to break the journey for a leg stretch/change of scenery/distraction. How long would your direct flight be?

Not unreasonable. I dread the idea of a flight with toddler full stop never mind the idea of getting on one, hauling everything off again with a most likely cranky child.

I'd pay the extra if I could or not bother going.

Your DH's idea by any chance?

I have done it. Pay off was to fly from a regional airport and we changed onward flight times to have a layover on the way (including spa and waterpark). It can work well.

i refuse to take indirectly flights even without a toddler unless there really is no other option.

the chances of baggage going missing or one flight being delayed or something going wrong is SO much higher when you have a connection, and is not worth it.

This is more a question about whether this is a reasonable expenditure.

However, just went on an indirect flight and it was a nightmare. It didn't break up the journey as the first leg was the same length (8-9 hours) as the entire journey would be direct. Ended up being more like 12-13 hours plus missed connection, plus lost bags.

I won't take indirect flights either if direct available.

Just to add. Luggage was tagged through and we managed with carry on whilst on route. It worked really well for us.

I pay for convenience often. For flights I wouldn't consider two flights of i could do it in one. And that's without taking my DC.

Thought you were more thinking logistics with the toddler. If not then direct every time. I’ve done the cheaper but indirect Emirates to Johannesburg and it was a nightmare of epic proportions for the saving of £100. Never again. Turned an 11 hour flight into a 19 hour misery marathon

I’ve done it 2 times with a toddler - long flight to the west coast of USA then 2 short flights. Bit of a pain and the second time I was pregnant but at least you get to stretch your legs/let toddler use up some energy/eat a normal meal.
Going there was much better as at least you get the long flight out of the way first!

DH just reminded me that one time it was 1 long flight then 3 short flights! Wouldn’t do that one again!

it's a fucking nightmare if luggage goes missing - I'll never fly via Athens or Madrid ever again due to this.

I only go on direct with or without kids. Only time done indirect was when direct not available. Totally worth the money for us. If you can stay for few days in stopover destination that's different.

I would only choose to go direct myself barring extraordinary circumstances. DH insisted on doing indirect (though he now says it was presented to me as an option) and is adamant that it would be wrong and very stupid to pay significantly more for the convenience factor. He feels very, very strongly. Am interested to know how commonly held this view is!

To the extent relevant, I note we could easily have paid for the direct flights.

DH also compared my opinion on this to his insisting that we only fly business for long haul.

Your DH insists on a lot, does he?

Justmuddlingalong yeah

Btw I am encouraged to see that I'm not the only person who is willing to pay to avoid hardship!

We did that last year, a slight inconvenience and extra time taken by diverting somewhere else en route, but we did save over £1000. It was definitely worth the hassle and we just had a meal in the airport so hardly noticed the delay.

My DH is very tight with money despite coming from a wealthy background but even he has no issue with paying for direct. Neither of us would pay for business class.

It depends on the length of the journey . Flying NZ to London we had a change in Singapore . It was horrendous- DD3 had ust fallen asleep and I had to wake her up to get off. I remember trying to carry the hand luggage and she was just lying in the floor crying , refusing to move in the airport. It was awful . If we could have flown direct I would have . At that age I agree it’s worth paying extra.

We often do indirect to the US, we are going in Feb. £1220 for 5 flights indirect vs nearly £4K direct and only 2 hours longer. Easy decision. We often get to clear US customs at the stopover airport and it means we walk straight out at the other end. Wouldn’t love doing it with a toddler but would do it happily if the saving is significant

If direct was an option to visit my family, I would definitely do it. (Though I think BA is starting a direct flight to one of their regional airports, so that will be amazing.) Indirect isn't bad with a toddler (my 6 year old has had a few flights, starting from around 9 months), but it would be nicer to land and be done.