Another reason to delay family air travel

It’s been almost a year since our last airline trip as a family, and it will probably be at least another year before we attempt it again.

With our extended families spread from coast to coast, we’ve traveled by plane frequently over the years to pay visits, often with children in tow. Although I put my foot down once I was pregnant with our second child – no more traveling during the holiday season – my husband and I and all three of our kids have logged plenty of miles in the sky. We’ve also logged quite a few hours on the ground, thanks to delays.

But the new Department of Transportation rule limiting delays to three hours probably won’t convince us to give air travel another go sooner than planned:

“The heart of the regulations deals with extended tarmac delays and mandates that passengers on domestic flights be allowed to disembark after three hours (provided doing so doesn’t create a safety or security issue or interfere with airport operations).”

While I certainly appreciate that we wouldn’t be stuck on board an aircraft going nowhere for more than three hours, I expect the passengers seated anywhere near my family and me would want to be rid of us in the first 30 minutes. Getting kids to sit still with the aid of a lap belt and the promise of a Disneyland destination is difficult enough; it’s downright impossible when there’s no estimated time of departure in sight, let alone an arrival time.

People hate being seated near families on airplanes. I’ve gotten nasty looks long before we boarded (and been the target of many more once we settled into our row). Three kids later, my skin has thickened such that I don’t mind the looks. I’m too busy keeping my kids occupied to be concerned with how my fellow passengers are enjoying their flight or coping with an extended delay on the tarmac.

According to MSNBC.com travel writer Rob Lovitt, the trade-off that may come with this new rule is that cancellations may increase. He quotes an airline industry consultant who posits that “we’ll probably see an enormous number of cancellations” as airlines seek to avoid fines for delays that bust the three-hour limit.

What’s worse – an extended delay or an outright cancellation? Lovitt writes: “the comparative inconvenience of being stuck on a plane for several hours versus delayed for a day or more will always be in the eye of the beholder.”

Delays are awful. Being crammed into a small space, often without food or drinks available, and sharing a tiny lavatory with several dozen other travelers is no way to spend a vacation or a business trip.

But it’s been cancellations, not delays, that have caused us the greatest headaches. A cancellation is especially inconvenient for our family because we need five seats, as opposed to just one for a business traveler. An overnight cancellation is difficult enough for one person or a couple (it’s happened to me on business travel and to my husband and me en route to our honeymoon destination); I’d probably rather spend the night on the plane with my kids than face the logistical nightmare of getting ourselves and our luggage to a hotel.

The most harrowing airline experience we’ve had was on our last trip. We flew without event from Denver to Orange County. But our return flight was canceled. The only available return flight was from Burbank, but our car rental company didn’t have a Burbank location. So we drove from Anaheim to LAX to return our car and took a SuperShuttle from LAX to Burbank. In light the associated inconvenience and expense – all borne by us, not by the airline or the car rental company – I would have much rather sat on the tarmac. At least there I could have relaxed with a glass plastic cup of wine.

Therefore, given the potential for this well-intentioned new rule to cause more cancellations, I’ll accept it as a sign that our family should continue to delay our next plane trip.

Delay or cancellation – which one gives you a bigger headache?

7 Spoke Up