Flying with 2 kids-need advice

thanxbaby

We will be flying to Seattle about a 5 to 5hr and 45 min flight if we choose non-stop with a 4month old and an almost 4yr old this summer.  Is this too long of a flight?  I'm not sure if it would be better to have a layover rather than being stuck on a plane for 5-6 hours straight, but then we have to deal with 2 takeoffs and landings that the baby might not be happy about.  We also have a ferry ride from Seattle to Canada once we arrive.

Any thoughts?  Non-stop flights or layovers?

Jessys_Girl

I'd go with a non stop flight and schedule it for slightly later than nap time...the kids will be a bit of a mess at first but will be so tired they'll sleep on the plane....If that doesn't work out (I don't know if the 4yr old will still be napping or the 4 month old will be on a predictable schedule), then I would still do non stop.  Bring a portable DVD player, some coloring books, snacks, and a few new toys that the 4 yr can get excited about. you'll be fine.  You may have to take a few "walks" up and down the aisle from time to time, but to me that's better than having a layover and having to contain and entertain them while in an airport.

ValAndRyan

I would do straight flights. I'm sure your 4 month old will eat and sleep through most of it. Maybe get like two new small toys to occupy your 4 year old. Portable DVD player maybe...does your 4 year old watch movies?

penguingrrl

I would definitely try for a non-stop. Dealing with layovers and multiple take-offs and landings with little kids sounds really miserable!

ali2005jason

I would also say do non-stop. Yes, it does seem long but it's better than possibly missing your flight or loosing your luggage. I also second getting some new small toys to bring for the 4 year old. That way they'll be occupied at least a little while with that stuff. We also took a DVD player (with headphones), some books, color books, small toys. I flew solo with a 7 year old and a 2 year old.

Another thing would be to take a small stroller and gate check it. That way you can have it all the way up to getting on the plane and then it will be waiting on you when you get off.

shopgirl78

Another vote for direct. 

Recently, I took 3 kids through FOUR airports alone and it was pure hell.  It was not by choice... 

EXL311

Definitely nonstop.  Although I was about to go nuts on a four hour flight it would definitely beat having to unload and reload with children.

thanxbaby

Thanks everyone, nonstop is what I was leaning towards just scared of being stuck on a plane with a baby and toddler for almost 6 hours!  DH was suggesting a layover would be better but he agrees with nonstop now.

hikerbeth

With those ages I'd go non-stop.

My daughter was a fantastic traveler as long as she had her own seat and when DS was a baby he was a non-issue.

In fact, when they were just about those ages, we took them to Europe and they did great on the flights.

mulrooney

We did NYC to Seattle when my kids were 3.5 and 8 months. Honestly, it wasn't great, but it wasn't awful either. We did non-stop just to get it over with and I think it was the best option. 

 

We also did a 3 hour flight when youngest DD was 5 months old & it was a lot easier. She ate & then slept and was cool just being held. My older DD was fine both times with snacks, DVD's, and some new toys from the $ spot at Target.  

 

One piece of advice that I've recently heard but haven't taken yet: board as late as you can to save time being on the plane. If you can, let your spouse get on board to settle in the bags & gear but leave the kids off as long as possible. 

rebs

Non stop for sure. Takeoffs and landings can be hard on kids ears, I always try to minimize those.

All I would add to what the others have said is lots and lots of snacks- including some pure junk the 4 year old never gets for desperate moments.  Oh, and buy your kid a decent set of child headphones they can wear comfortably.