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!

I like her style!

No wonder he's happy with indirect if he doesn't do anything. I would probably refuse to fly with him at all.

I don't think it's such a bad thing for a toddler to get to run around for an hour or two. Most toddlers don't travel well on long flights (babies are usually much easier!).

Yes, if you will only fly direct, unless you are near London, you are severely restricting your choice of destination, or forcing yourself into much longer journeys to the airport in the UK. Even Manchester has far less choice than the London airports.

We can get to most places we currently want to go to from Leeds or Manchester and are about equally close to both, but if we decided to go further afield, our choice is likely to either have to drive to London and if we have to do that, we might as well fly indirectly from either Leeds or Manchester, via Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels or even London, although going via an overseas airport is likely to be cheaper due to lower long haul taxes I believe.

But if the OPs looking after the toddler, her DH will be dealing with the hand luggage, boarding passes, passports sorting out food and drink etc then so hardly 'nothing'.

And some of the time you just hand the toddler to him and say 'your turn'.

It depends on finances and time of day. If a transfer involved getting off the plane in the middle of the night and hanging around in the small hours in a sleeping airport I would pay the extra and fly direct (if I could afford it). If the transfer was during the day and the airport shops/bars etc would be open I would take the opportunity to disembark, stretch my legs, use a proper loo and let the toddler run around.

That being said I was never brave enough to fly with toddlers or babies at all. Let alone long haul.

Your DH is a stupid dickhead. You know this!

yabu. We have travelled expensively all over the world with twins since they were 6 months old including multiply flights to Australia which required stop overs for refuelling. Direct flights with or without children are more desirable - but if these are way to expensive than no biggy getting off the plane.

I fly a lot with my toddler and those with breaks are SO much more successful than those without!

At the end of the day, this really doesn’t matter.
What u want from a relationship matters.
Stop winding yourself up in knots trying to work out if you are unreasonable or not. The question is ‘are you happy?’

TheSquiffyQuiff

Thanks - I realise this is true and that is an important perspective to bear in mind. But still, I do think it's interesting to hear others' views on things like this. I probably should have left DH out of the poet so as not to muddy the waters.

I flew indirect with small kids and wouldn't do it again if I could afford not to

*post

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.

Well he'll know for next time won't he?

his insisting that we only fly business for long haul

However, I'm very much with your DH on this aspect

DontCallMeCharlotte no, he has learnt nothing! It's all about the money

He hasn't learnt anything because it doesn't affect him at all!

Even if he is handling the bags, the bags tend to leave you alone during the flight to sleep or whatever and also don't argue with you, wander off, get tired etc.

the woman sitting behind us tapped me on the shoulder and complimented me on how well I handled the flight on my own with a toddler

Wasn’t aware this was the real issue here. You are meant to be tag-teaming the kids.

Have you told him clearly that you refuse to take an indirect flight as he was useless and if you have all the inconveniences of being a single parent* then you should at least get to decide on this. He needs to hear it IMO.

*I appreciate that it's more complicated than this for single parents.

I wouldn't. We could have gone to visit family but couldn't afford direct flights. The alternative took more than twice as long. We didn't go in the end.

We always flew direct if possible when the childen were small because dd used to throw up at every landing and frequently at take offs as well (she's outgrown that now) and reducing the number of take offs/landings was more important than the money saved.
dp would never have objected to that in the first place (being a reasonable sort) but he was the victim of dd at her first ever landing (at ~3 month) when she neatly projectile-vomited her last feed into the tiny gap between his foot and shoe. There wasn't even a drop anywhere else, like on the floor, very impressive. dp had squelchy socks all the way to my parents.

We flew indirect to Florida with children last year. Tickets were half the price. It was fine.

If you're the one who's going to bear the brunt of the extra inconvenience, which it sounds like, then no YANBU if you have the money. I wouldn't be putting up with that either, incidentally.

Did it with my sister who was a toddler at the time. The person who cried was me.

If i could afford direct, no way. An couple of hours ‘break’ to run around etc is infact an hour getting off etc, two hours around the airport trying to entertain a toddler, another hour getting back on, tickets, passes, passports, luggage. No thanks. I’d be there in that amount of time!

no, he has learnt nothing!

I take it his bags weren't lost then?