Riding train vs flying ... some questions

[George Harris]

we're a family of four (two toddlers)

Two toddlers = a very long time with two kids trapped in car seats. You could easily both be candidates for strait jackets by the time you get there. For our kids who had lots of curiosity and considered being still for a long time torture, a two day trip approached child abuse. If the finances at all permit, take the train.

 

[benjibear]

I am not arguing that taking the train will be cheaper than driving. I am saying you need to consider more than just gas and an oil change for driving 2200 miles. The fixed costs of owning a car (insirance, restistration, etc.) is very minimal cost of driving. Owning the car and maintence is not and you need to inlcude those costs when driving.

I don not agree with the arguement "In fact a good highway drive using premium gas and a good synthetic oil change before and after can be theraputic to a car in and of itself, and actually increase its life and reduce overall costs." With this statement,, you are saying that a car should last forever if you only drive it on a highway. Any driving costs money for car replacement and maintence cost. Cars wear out and you need to include this cost in all driving.

As fas as transportation at your destination, I totally agree. That is why I asked if they needed car when they get there.

The hard thing to put value on is driving 4 days with two kids. Can they really handle it? I think this is probably the biggestt consideration.

Now if the OP wanted to save money, they would have said they were going to take coach. That would have saved them money.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

People way underestimate what it costs to drive their cars. You have to consider way more than just gas and an oil change. I know I track what it costs me to drive and the costs isn't much less than the goverments rate per mile for bussiness (currently 0.555/mile) and drive a fairly cheap car and keep them for a long time.

A car does not last forever and using 2200 miles will shorten the life of the car by that much. A care is usually good for 120-150K before starting to have major problems (I know some would argue with me on this). If you pay $20,000 for the car and it goes 150,000 miles without any repairs that is 13.3 cents per mile right there. If you finance or even if you didn't, you need to consider the value of money over time so this will go up.

Even with a car lasting 150k miles, you are going to have maintenance and repairs. If you can do them yourself and you have the time, the cost will go down. Not only $30 for an oil change, other fluids, belts, hoses, tires, brakes, battery, wipes, lamps, cleaning, and other preventive maintenance items. You may even run into other major repairs that you need to perform. Even the "good" cars that people sware by have problems. Over the life of the car, theses costs may equal what you paid for the car but most likely will exceed.

You do have some fixed costs but I feel you need to include them in as well. Some say insurance is a fixed cost, but this can go up or down depending how much you drive. You have registration, inspections, taxes, etc. that a little to the cost. When adding up what it costs to drive, these costs are very minimal and only come to a few cents a mile.

Good job! You really show that drving isn't so cheap after all.

This is one of the most irrational arguments for taking the train..........

Wait, you probably misunderstood. I did NOT say that this is an argument for taking the train. I just said thar driving your own car is not as cheap as many people think. Dosen't mean it's more expensibve than the train. If one wanted to save money one might as well take the bus. I do that a lot when trains don't have good timing, are too expensive, or "can't get there from here".

So please, do not assume that I am trying to nitpick and find little reasons that pile up gainst the car to make people travel by train. Nobody, including me, is always rational, but this time I was not being irrational like you say.

 

[VentureForth]

With toddlers it's really hard to know or even guess how a long trip - by any mode- will work out -- I've done a few by train plane and automobile when my kids were toddlers - and there are advantages and disadvantages to whatever way you choose.

Driving - you are in control, a few hundred miles of toddlers who scream can be ameliorated by a couple hours rest stop. Plan for at least 150% more than the minimum trip time. Allow for depreciation and gas and hotels - other costs -- that's for accountants.

Plane -- fastest - toddlers ears can hurt for days afterwards - cost totally depends --

Train -- depends how much you like driving - toddlers can be happy on the train - or not - the overall speed is like driving - the cost you got to figure - how much free time you have - my kids were quietest on the train - but that all depends -- you may not need a sleeper even for 30 hours - the young ones may fall asleep in your arms and you then have two seats to sprawl over --

Yo no se - it is a total tossup - pay your money, take your choice.

Wish you the best.

People way underestimate what it costs to drive their cars. You have to consider way more than just gas and an oil change. I know I track what it costs me to drive and the costs isn't much less than the goverments rate per mile for bussiness (currently 0.555/mile) and drive a fairly cheap car and keep them for a long time.

A car does not last forever and using 2200 miles will shorten the life of the car by that much. A care is usually good for 120-150K before starting to have major problems (I know some would argue with me on this). If you pay $20,000 for the car and it goes 150,000 miles without any repairs that is 13.3 cents per mile right there. If you finance or even if you didn't, you need to consider the value of money over time so this will go up.

Even with a car lasting 150k miles, you are going to have maintenance and repairs. If you can do them yourself and you have the time, the cost will go down. Not only $30 for an oil change, other fluids, belts, hoses, tires, brakes, battery, wipes, lamps, cleaning, and other preventive maintenance items. You may even run into other major repairs that you need to perform. Even the "good" cars that people sware by have problems. Over the life of the car, theses costs may equal what you paid for the car but most likely will exceed.

You do have some fixed costs but I feel you need to include them in as well. Some say insurance is a fixed cost, but this can go up or down depending how much you drive. You have registration, inspections, taxes, etc. that a little to the cost. When adding up what it costs to drive, these costs are very minimal and only come to a few cents a mile.

Good job! You really show that drving isn't so cheap after all.

This is one of the most irrational arguments for taking the train..........

Wait, you probably misunderstood. I did NOT say that this is an argument for taking the train. I just said thar driving your own car is not as cheap as many people think. Dosen't mean it's more expensibve than the train. If one wanted to save money one might as well take the bus. I do that a lot when trains don't have good timing, are too expensive, or "can't get there from here".

So please, do not assume that I am trying to nitpick and find little reasons that pile up gainst the car to make people travel by train. Nobody, including me, is always rational, but this time I was not being irrational like you say.

My arguments for irrationality were based on Benjibear's post. You got caught in the crossfire of agreeing with him. Oh, I know I can be just as irrational as the next guy.

In this gentleman's case, I think that the best option with kids really would be to fly. It would be done and over with in just a few hours, reduce the time necessary in hotels, and the kids would love it. But, in the future, should another lengthy trip be deemed necessary and the proper budgeting of money and time is in place, I HIGHLY recommend the train. I almost guarantee that the kids would remember it more than the plane.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

People way underestimate what it costs to drive their cars. You have to consider way more than just gas and an oil change. I know I track what it costs me to drive and the costs isn't much less than the goverments rate per mile for bussiness (currently 0.555/mile) and drive a fairly cheap car and keep them for a long time.

A car does not last forever and using 2200 miles will shorten the life of the car by that much. A care is usually good for 120-150K before starting to have major problems (I know some would argue with me on this). If you pay $20,000 for the car and it goes 150,000 miles without any repairs that is 13.3 cents per mile right there. If you finance or even if you didn't, you need to consider the value of money over time so this will go up.

Even with a car lasting 150k miles, you are going to have maintenance and repairs. If you can do them yourself and you have the time, the cost will go down. Not only $30 for an oil change, other fluids, belts, hoses, tires, brakes, battery, wipes, lamps, cleaning, and other preventive maintenance items. You may even run into other major repairs that you need to perform. Even the "good" cars that people sware by have problems. Over the life of the car, theses costs may equal what you paid for the car but most likely will exceed.

You do have some fixed costs but I feel you need to include them in as well. Some say insurance is a fixed cost, but this can go up or down depending how much you drive. You have registration, inspections, taxes, etc. that a little to the cost. When adding up what it costs to drive, these costs are very minimal and only come to a few cents a mile.

Good job! You really show that drving isn't so cheap after all.

This is one of the most irrational arguments for taking the train..........

Wait, you probably misunderstood. I did NOT say that this is an argument for taking the train. I just said thar driving your own car is not as cheap as many people think. Dosen't mean it's more expensibve than the train. If one wanted to save money one might as well take the bus. I do that a lot when trains don't have good timing, are too expensive, or "can't get there from here".

So please, do not assume that I am trying to nitpick and find little reasons that pile up gainst the car to make people travel by train. Nobody, including me, is always rational, but this time I was not being irrational like you say.

My arguments for irrationality were based on Benjibear's post. You got caught in the crossfire of agreeing with him. Oh, I know I can be just as irrational as the next guy.

In this gentleman's case, I think that the best option with kids really would be to fly. It would be done and over with in just a few hours, reduce the time necessary in hotels, and the kids would love it. But, in the future, should another lengthy trip be deemed necessary and the proper budgeting of money and time is in place, I HIGHLY recommend the train. I almost guarantee that the kids would remember it more than the plane.

Well, things like that just happen. I guess everybody was a bit confused right there, but it's fine.

 

[Nathanael]

A reason not to fly is the TSA groping/abuse nightmare, taking off your shoes and being irradiated, etc. Also, some toddlers still have serious trouble with the air pressure changes and can scream the entire length of the trip....

This might be a good occasion for a road trip, and I say this as someone who hates long road trips. Your proposed trip is unfortunately one of the less convenvient train trips possible in the US due to its three-a-week schedule, the station far outside Phoenix, long layover at night in San Antonio. If you take it, treat it as a vacation in itself.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

A reason not to fly is the TSA groping/abuse nightmare, taking off your shoes and being irradiated, etc. Also, some toddlers still have serious trouble with the air pressure changes and can scream the entire length of the trip....

This might be a good occasion for a road trip, and I say this as someone who hates long road trips. Your proposed trip is unfortunately one of the less convenvient train trips possible in the US due to its three-a-week schedule, the station far outside Phoenix, long layover at night in San Antonio. If you take it, treat it as a vacation in itself.

Less convinient? Oh, this is already really good compared to CHI-ATL. There's plenty worse than this!

 

[Nathanael]

A reason not to fly is the TSA groping/abuse nightmare, taking off your shoes and being irradiated, etc. Also, some toddlers still have serious trouble with the air pressure changes and can scream the entire length of the trip....

This might be a good occasion for a road trip, and I say this as someone who hates long road trips. Your proposed trip is unfortunately one of the less convenvient train trips possible in the US due to its three-a-week schedule, the station far outside Phoenix, long layover at night in San Antonio. If you take it, treat it as a vacation in itself.

Less convinient? Oh, this is already really good compared to CHI-ATL. There's plenty worse than this!

Really? While I can think of plenty worse (travel eastbound from Minneapolis? try to get from Syracuse, NY to Cincinnati?), I'd say Chicago-Atlanta is much more convenient: you can schedule your two-overnight trip every day of the week, the trains pretty much always depart on time, you leave in the evening and arrive in the morning on both legs, you have a day in DC.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

A reason not to fly is the TSA groping/abuse nightmare, taking off your shoes and being irradiated, etc. Also, some toddlers still have serious trouble with the air pressure changes and can scream the entire length of the trip....

This might be a good occasion for a road trip, and I say this as someone who hates long road trips. Your proposed trip is unfortunately one of the less convenvient train trips possible in the US due to its three-a-week schedule, the station far outside Phoenix, long layover at night in San Antonio. If you take it, treat it as a vacation in itself.

Less convinient? Oh, this is already really good compared to CHI-ATL. There's plenty worse than this!

Really? While I can think of plenty worse (travel eastbound from Minneapolis? try to get from Syracuse, NY to Cincinnati?), I'd say Chicago-Atlanta is much more convenient: you can schedule your two-overnight trip every day of the week, the trains pretty much always depart on time, you leave in the evening and arrive in the morning on both legs, you have a day in DC.

And you use over twice as much time as you would on a Greyhound Express. Plus you use over twice as much money. Greyhound isn't good for everything, but this is still OK.

 

[Ryan]

You can't include the fixed costs of car ownership when taking a one-off trip.

You can't take the trip, unless you actually have a car.

The only way of accounting for those fixed costs is to spread them out over all of the miles that you drive, you can't just pick and choose to make the numbers come out a particular way.

 

[Texan Eagle]

A reason not to fly is the TSA groping/abuse nightmare, taking off your shoes and being irradiated, etc. Also, some toddlers still have serious trouble with the air pressure changes and can scream the entire length of the trip....

I finished 5 flights in the past ten days, and just crossed the figure of flying 100,000 miles in the past three years, having been through 27 airports and 9 different airlines.. I am still trying to figure out where is this "TSA groping and nightmare" that some folks here keep talking about? Not once has passing security involved anything more than a 2 second scan through the machine. Not one TSA agent has ever touched me, and oh, if you are worried about being "irradiated" by the scanner, I hope you are not using a cell phone at all and living at least a mile away from nearest cell phone towers. Also I am still on the lookout for a baby that screams the entire length of a flight. I guess this species, like the Loch Ness Monster, exists somewhere, I just need to look closely maybe? Did I mention the baby who kept crying and screaming throughout my trip on the Southwest Chief?

Now, don't get me wrong, I am no big fan of flying. In fact I enjoyed the 30 hours train trip more than the 2 hour flight when I did my recent trip to Tucson, but what amuses me is how much some folks out here demonize the TSA and the entire flying experience. The fact is, here in America, one can not always take the train. Sometimes taking a flight is a much better option than taking Amtrak, and when that is the case, I see absolutely no problem in flying.

 

[PRR 60]

You can't include the fixed costs of car ownership when taking a one-off trip.

You can't take the trip, unless you actually have a car.

The only way of accounting for those fixed costs is to spread them out over all of the miles that you drive, you can't just pick and choose to make the numbers come out a particular way.

Analyzing the cost of a trip should be on avoided costs. Gas, tolls, and mileage-dependent maintenance are mileage-variable costs that are avoided by not driving. The ownership costs (purchase, interest, insurance, registration) are fixed costs that apply whether a car is driven or not. Taking a trip does not increase fixed costs. Not taking a trip does not reduce fixed costs.

The IRS allows 55.5 cents per mile for business deductions. The business deduction mileage rate includes variable and fixed ownership costs. The IRS allows 23 cents per mile for medical deductions. The medical deduction rate only includes variable costs. To determine the added or avoided cost of an auto trip, the proper rate is the variable cost rate - 23 cents per mile.

 

[jis]

A reason not to fly is the TSA groping/abuse nightmare, taking off your shoes and being irradiated, etc. Also, some toddlers still have serious trouble with the air pressure changes and can scream the entire length of the trip....

I finished 5 flights in the past ten days, and just crossed the figure of flying 100,000 miles in the past three years, having been through 27 airports and 9 different airlines.. I am still trying to figure out where is this "TSA groping and nightmare" that some folks here keep talking about? Not once has passing security involved anything more than a 2 second scan through the machine. Not one TSA agent has ever touched me, and oh, if you are worried about being "irradiated" by the scanner, I hope you are not using a cell phone at all and living at least a mile away from nearest cell phone towers. Also I am still on the lookout for a baby that screams the entire length of a flight. I guess this species, like the Loch Ness Monster, exists somewhere, I just need to look closely maybe? Did I mention the baby who kept crying and screaming throughout my trip on the Southwest Chief?

Now, don't get me wrong, I am no big fan of flying. In fact I enjoyed the 30 hours train trip more than the 2 hour flight when I did my recent trip to Tucson, but what amuses me is how much some folks out here demonize the TSA and the entire flying experience. The fact is, here in America, one can not always take the train. Sometimes taking a flight is a much better option than taking Amtrak, and when that is the case, I see absolutely no problem in flying.

Very well stated. I do close to 100,000 miles each year on 30 - 40 trips. I have not been groped (or touched) by any TSA agent yet. It is even less likely that such would happen since now I am on the TSA trusted traveler program. Indeed so far this year I have been through a millimeter wave scanner three times and an X-Ray scanner once, and the rest has been through magnetometers. So I am sure I have gotten more radiation from standing out in the Sun and using a cell phone, and of course flying at 38,000' than because of anything that the TSA did.

I just got back from India on a 15 hour non stop flight, which was as close to perfect as can be. No screaming kids, no turbulence, reasonably good food, great AVOD system with a great moving map. It even arrived an hour and 15 mins ahead of schedule. It got in so early that we had to wait for CBP to wake up and come to duty before they could let us off the plane. Took them about 20 mins to achieve that. But still I was almost home before the scheduled arrival time of the flight. And on the way I got a spectacular view of the Midnight Sun over the Arctics. What can beat that?

 

[Ryan]

Analyzing the cost of a trip should be on avoided costs. Gas, tolls, and mileage-dependent maintenance are mileage-variable costs that are avoided by not driving. The ownership costs (purchase, interest, insurance, registration) are fixed costs that apply whether a car is driven or not. Taking a trip does not increase fixed costs. Not taking a trip does not reduce fixed costs.

How exactly are you going to take a trip if you don't own a car? What miles do you get to pick and choose to amortize the fixed costs of car ownership across?

The only honest way to do it is to amortize those fixed costs against every mile the car drives. What the IRS chooses to do is irrelevant.

 

[benjibear]

You need to include the cost of buying the car when you figure what it costs you to drive. The life of a car is a combination of milage and years but for most people it is more milage dependant. If you drive very little, the age may get to a car before the milage. Saying that, you need to divide the cost to but the car by the expected milage out of a car to get cents per miles for just owning the car. You also need to include the interest you pay for a loan and if you didn't get a loan, you need to include the interest you would have received if you had it invested.

The fixed costs are regustration which in my case is $36 per year. State inspection which I beleive I pay about $50. Insurance (I pay about $600). This is a total of $686 per year so if I go 15,000 miles in year is 4.6 cents. For an occasaional trip as long as your insurancee won't change because you went over a certain limit, you can ignore these costs but the bottom line is you it is money you are paying to own and drive a car.

 

[jis]

Analyzing the cost of a trip should be on avoided costs. Gas, tolls, and mileage-dependent maintenance are mileage-variable costs that are avoided by not driving. The ownership costs (purchase, interest, insurance, registration) are fixed costs that apply whether a car is driven or not. Taking a trip does not increase fixed costs. Not taking a trip does not reduce fixed costs.

How exactly are you going to take a trip if you don't own a car? What miles do you get to pick and choose to amortize the fixed costs of car ownership across?

The only honest way to do it is to amortize those fixed costs against every mile the car drives. What the IRS chooses to do is irrelevant.

Just to throw a spanner in the works, let me posit that the real market measure would be the substitution cost, i.e. if you did not own a car and wanted to drive anyway what would be the overall cost (rental + insurance + gas etc.). That would be a good market measure of the cost of driving.

I don't think completely ignoring the cost of ownership is reasonable in all cases. One needs to take into account what effect the trip is potentially going to have on the length of ownership of the car and what other potential usages would be prevented by the fact that the car was used for this trip. These are often hard to quantify, and hence one has to decide how to account for it. Of course if you are arguing that car usage costs less, then you'd make some very strong points establishing that these costs can be neglected, and in certain cases indeed such a case can be made, but not in all cases.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

Too many engineers here. :help:

Oh, wait, this is a train forum.

 

[TimePeace]

Hmmm riding train vs flying...

Well, a big thing to me is meeting people. Somehow it just don't feel right sitting next to someone for 2, or 5, or more hours, and not have a single word of conversation. I am not saying it doesn't happen, but it hasn't in my (only occasional) flying experiences.

All of the factors involving time and money are big... but this one matters to me, in helping define why I prefer the train....

 

[jebr]

Analyzing the cost of a trip should be on avoided costs. Gas, tolls, and mileage-dependent maintenance are mileage-variable costs that are avoided by not driving. The ownership costs (purchase, interest, insurance, registration) are fixed costs that apply whether a car is driven or not. Taking a trip does not increase fixed costs. Not taking a trip does not reduce fixed costs.

How exactly are you going to take a trip if you don't own a car? What miles do you get to pick and choose to amortize the fixed costs of car ownership across?

The only honest way to do it is to amortize those fixed costs against every mile the car drives. What the IRS chooses to do is irrelevant.

The problem is that the true fixed costs (registration, insurance, and to some extent car payments insofar as age takes a toll outside of mileage) do not change because you have to take the trip. Heck, for many people taking the train involves a car trip already, so the car is required for the train ride.

Let's say you have to have a car to get to work, because your work isn't accessible by public transit and a car is cheaper than taxi fare. If work was accessible via transit, you would not have a car.

In this case, how is it fair to attribute the cost of owning the car to anything other than work?

The problem is that the car, insurance, and registration is a sunk cost. While mileage can do a number to a car, I've so far been able to coax around 60,000 miles over 3 years out of a car that started at around 150,000 miles when I started taking care of it. Still runs well, with about $500/year of maintenance costs outside of oil changes. Some of those maintenance costs are due to mileage (such as tires) but others are harder to quantify (power steering fails, thermostat goes out, etc.)

 

[NW cannonball]

Too many engineers here. :help:

Oh, wait, this is a train forum.

No, this an amateur accountant forum - no - duh -

Per Jeremy Bentham - your just figure your delta cost versus your delta benefit Oh and and then factor all the future (not past) expectations into that and then adjust for the estimated value of the medium of exchange you valued it all in over all expected future possibilities. Easy-peasy :giggle:

That's the accounting theory. Rocket science is easy compared to economic science where everybody is revaluing everything on their own scale of value all the time.

This when you don't know if the train or plane or whatever will run on time, or your car break down, or you lose your job while on vacation or about a bazillion things that might happen, and some of them will happen and some won't. And all the guesses change every second (or day, or year ---_ [edit] - AND figure your own likely changes in utility-values and preferences over the future -- :wacko:

To the OP samalex - probably driving is safest - both in terms of the toddlers freaking out and marginal cost - and if you have to cancel the trip everyone will understand. On the other hand, flying will get you there quickest, and barring ear pressure problems with least toddler problems - but with more cost if you have to reschdule a flight, and then there's the bit about having to rent a car at the airport or depend on busy relatives for lifts. Train is safest both in terms of accidents and ear problems and car problems, but it's as slow as driving.

Got to look up my 1960's "Theory of games under uncertainties with no saddle point and imperfect information" by some famous person who has influenced international relations --

-- Duh - this is not either an accounting forum nor a theory of political games forum.

Hey OP samalex -- pay your money, take your choice - consider what you know about your toddlers you know more than anyone here - we all bless you and hope for a trip report.

 

[NW cannonball]

Hmmm riding train vs flying...

Well, a big thing to me is meeting people. Somehow it just don't feel right sitting next to someone for 2, or 5, or more hours, and not have a single word of conversation. I am not saying it doesn't happen, but it hasn't in my (only occasional) flying experiences.

All of the factors involving time and money are big... but this one matters to me, in helping define why I prefer the train....

I think the "meeting people" can be important even for toddlers. I still remember an early train trip to "out east" with my mom and baby brother and the chance to meet new people- in very safe circumstances - on the train.

My daughter (now 25) clearly remembers a trip at age 4 from MSP WAS (Dad - what was the problem with that woman in the dining car - she was telling me that those auto racks were "cattle cars"?)

Even very young kids can learn from meeting (with parental supervision) slightly deluded train passengers. How else to learn about such, if not at school, or from parent's work. (Parents, of course, are never mistaken about anything - Hah! - I think it helps to introduce kids to other adults who are slightly more delusional even than us parents - helps in the longer run - in the mid teens - dad can say "I'm not as nuts as "--")

Yeah - for kids also - meeting strangers and strange people on the train is probably a good thing - and for that, the train is better by far than private auto, air, bus - in that order. Kids need to learn,

So do us old folks .

 

[dlagrua]

I have calculated the cost of drivng my car to be 50-55 cents per mile. I keep my cars for 100K miles and replacement cost is at least $30,000. That's 30 cents per mile right there add gasoline and that's another 13-15 cents per mile and that only allows a few cents of leeway to cover insurance, tolls, parking, maintenance and repairs.

As for coach air travel; it is usually much higher than Amtrak coach fare. On our trip to CHI next year and back we are paying $780 round trip in a bedroom for two people. Comparable coach airfares (checked at the same time) are about $300 ea or $600 for two plus airport parking and the $50 luggage fees and taxes. The savings would be about $50 per person but the comparison is not a fair one. On the airlines we would be squeezed into a tiny seat like a sardine in a closed airtight can but on Amtrak we travel in a stress free comfortable environment in our own private quarters and enjoy decent meals. It takes longer by train but I would do anything to avoid the crowded, cramped, congested, filthy, dehumanizing, and unhealthy condition of airline travel.

 

[George Harris]

For the ear problems: Give the kid something to chew on or suck on. Yes, this is an appropriate time for a pacifier. Working the jaw will keep the ears popped. If the kid has stopped up sinuses, cancel if you can. The trip will be miserable.

 

[jis]

For the ear problems: Give the kid something to chew on or suck on. Yes, this is an appropriate time for a pacifier. Working the jaw will keep the ears popped. If the kid has stopped up sinuses, cancel if you can. The trip will be miserable.

That is good advice for even most adults. Just to make it more acceptable for adults substitute "chewing gum" for "pacifier" though arguably, many adults could actually do quite well with a pacifier too, but it'd look a little odd. :lol:

 

[AmtrakBlue]

For the ear problems: Give the kid something to chew on or suck on. Yes, this is an appropriate time for a pacifier. Working the jaw will keep the ears popped. If the kid has stopped up sinuses, cancel if you can. The trip will be miserable.

That is good advice for even most adults. Just to make it more acceptable for adults substitute "chewing gum" for "pacifier" though arguably, many adults could actually do quite well with a pacifier too, but it'd look a little odd. :lol:

Oh, stuff it. :giggle:

I just keep swallowing. Though my most recent flights, I don't recall doing that much and was fine.