Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hiya, due in a couple of weeks and wanting to visit some friends in Australia at some point in the not too distant future - preferably pre baby being 2 years old.


Is there a particular age that is "easiest" for a long haul flight?


My entirely misinformed opinion was that pre crawl \ walk age would be easier, night flights and breaking the journey by stopping off mid way for a couple of days....... any advice would be good :-) Thanks

Hi Claire


I haven't flown long haul, but just got back from Lanzarote last night with a v nearly 2 year old. The flight out (both evening flights) was not much fun as he was on our lap and didn't want to be and didn't sleep very well. Flight back much better as we got moved to have spare seat so he sat in the middle of us on his own seat and once he finally fell asleep he stayed quite happily there. Could have been due to us all being more relaxed on way back though.


Flew with baby B at 4 months and 1 year and he slept better on both of those as easily fell asleep in my lap and much lighter.


Think there are pros and cons to any age - v early on easy as only have milk to worry about and they sleep in the buggy anywhere so you can go out for evenings. However later on they start to enjoy it more so you get different perspecitive. Personally I'd avoid the early weaning stages as unless you're very chilled, easy to get a bit stressed about what to feed them.


Enjoy!

No experience with long haul flights. For shorter flights I've found 8-14 months ideal (sitting up, snacking, being entertained by surroundings but not walking) but I'm sure 3-4 months with all the sleeping is a lot easier for long haul travel. Might be worth avoiding the hottest months there with a small one (I know, babies born there survive the heat too, but as a new mum it may stress you out if you're not used to it) but in your case the summer will just be over when your baby is that age!

Have done it many times (not to Australia though) and can say that under one / not yet walking is easiest by far. Even if on solids, I didn't find that to be a problem we just brought a few jars and such and fed on the plane. Once walking, however, it becomes much more difficult not just on the flight but also in the airports....... they just want to go go go!


We did learn early on to buy our son a seat even though he was under two. After holding a 20 lb. kid on your lap for 10 hours on an overnight packed airplane, we decided his tickets would be part of the price of our trip, simple as that. Even a baby is nice to put down if you can, and we rarely end up with extra seats around us so you can't really roll the dice on that one. And I could be wrong, but there is only one bassinet (or is it two?).


Then again, in a million years I could not have made that trip with my son under several months.

We've always managed to get bassinet seats when requested - on Singapore Airlines flights to and from NZ there are a lot of them (generally 8 in economy, and you can also have bassinets in business class). They're definitely worth having if you have a young baby. Our son always slept really well in them, but my daughter didn't - but even though it wasn't used for sleeping it meant we had extra space to put the kid's stuff where it was contained, and you also have the bulkhead seats meaning there's a lot more room for the children to play.


We're heading to NZ again in February and have booked a seat this time for our daughter, who will be 19/20 months - she probably would still fit in a bassinet at a push, but is far too agile and would escape too easily!

Does anyone know the rules for bringing formula / etc on to planes? We are flying to Boston with our baby in April (she will be about four months old) and dreading having to get through security with enough milk to feed the baby throughout the flight.
We found the rules vary quite a bit - generally we've been able to take a bottle of milk on with us and taste that, then of the mini cartons of ready made stuff, quite often they seem to say you have to taste 50% - v annoying to have to open a carton, but what you can do is take a sterilised bottle with you to decant it into, if you have a cool pocket in your change bag or bottle holder thing. We hedged our bets and took loads of the cartons on, and quite often they didn't even look at t hem. Admittedly we've only gone shortish flights - longest was 3 hrs - what a lot of people do is buy the ready made stuff in Boots once they're through security, I think you can even ring to reserve it, or take powder in one of those little tubs that you can carry ready-measured amounts in, and buy mineral water on the other side.

We've always managed to take the cartons of ready made formula without any problems - I think when they see a stressed out Mum trying to juggle children/buggies/bags/hopeless husband they tend to relax the rules a little ;-) We once had to open one carton and taste it, but we had a bottle ready to put it in, and had our Avent cool bag.


As the kids have got older we've successfully taken bottles of cow's milk etc (they will generally provide it on the flight, but occasionally we've been told they don't have enough on board). Also bottles of "growing up" milk. They tried to challenge us on that, but when we explained we had 35 hours of travel ahead of us and that the Boots didn't stock the one brand our son would drink, they were fine.


I've also taken jars of baby food through security, and containers with frozen home made kids meals.

It depends on the airport, but I find Heathrow to be usually reasonable. Generally if it is in a sealed container, like a milk carton, they are fine. I have on occasion had to "sample" a jar of baby food, but otherwise they tend to be a bit more flexible with baby things. If you bring pre-mixed bottles of formula they will likely make you drink it. I would bring dry formula powder and sealed bottled water. They have plenty more water if you need it, and they won't take away powdered formula so at least you have something regardless. I also find the flight attendants to be quite nice about rinsing bottles under boiling water for you.


To be honest it all depends on where you are and the person at security. I've had a different experience every single time.


I have a feeling they will be a lot tougher at the Boston end though.

We did Australia to visit family when our boy was 5 months and it was a good age to go. Bassinets are ideal but do make sure that you pre book and the day before flying make sure that it is definitely requested. We didn't have any problems with taking on some home made puree as our son was just starting the weaning process and also had baby rice powder. Some airports have transit pushchairs depending on the airline you fly with.Although pack in a sling. Thought about a stopover but didn't bother in the end and it worked out fine as he slept for most of the 2 long journeys to Oz and enjoyed the stopover in Singapore airport. Singapore were quite lax in our transit stopover and din't ask us to taste a thing, We found the air stewards to be really helpful and wanting to whisk away your baby for cuddles! Have done a couple of shorter flights at 12 months and they did ask us to taste 50% but the nice security gentleman wavered the formula and asked me to taste his juice! Again no problems with homemade food. They stated the extra cartons we had packed were sealed and fine. Another thing to remember is that the creams etc you need to take are the required size. To be honest it was alot easier than I thought it would be but am quietly dreading the next trip to Australia, if our trip to Spain when he was 12 months was anything to go by and he absolutely had to help with pushing the luggage trolley!!
i flew to and from trinidad, 15 hours both ways with the stopover, lily was 18months and it was good, she was very calm, as she had had a good nights sleep, we took some activities and games, her own food so she was not fussy and she pulled through quite well.
we did australia with a 4 month old going out and stayed 2 months. it was really easy ( as mainly breastfeeding and minimum equipment required). somehow the time change affected baby very positively to sleeping 10 hours ( from 6 hours) !! qantas and a bassinet . 6 months old coming was good too- but i think it would start to get a bit harder after that.

If you're taking a really young baby with you (before solids & teeth age) then do all you can to get yourself & baby breastfeeding well before you go. We took our 5 month old daughter long haul to SanFrancisco some years ago. She was completely bottle fed and I will never forget the anxiety of 'what if we run out of formula' on that flight. It was so unlikely as I had formula milk in every pocket of every flightbag we possessed, but the stress!! What if we get delayed? What if, what if etc.etc. Save yourself the hassle & breastfeed until after you get back.


Otherwise I'd echo those who say go before they can crawl 3 or 4 months seems to be a good time?


Good Luck with baby, Clare.


SW

Hi, having flown my son to South Africa, U.S. and most recently Thailand, I'd say any time before crawling/walking is definitely good. South Africa was a doddle, he was 3.5- 4.5 months (we were there a month) and both flights were pain-free. He slept most of the time, in a bassinet on BA (the bassinets only go up to around the age of 6 months). Once on the ground, he would reliably fall asleep in his car seat or buggy so that we could go out to even extremely noisy restaurants at night. The only downside was I was breastfeeding and needed to stop whatever we were doing and find a private place every 2.5 hours, for about 45 minutes, which really cut into seeing the bloody country!


That time we flew from Heathrow and they would not let us take through (emergency) ready-made formula in sealed cartons.


The U.S. at 7 months was fine too, he was in a great seat-like thing attached to the wall on Virgin Atlantic that can accomodate ages up to 2 years or something like that.


Meanwhile, Thailand with a 17 month old was an utter hell on both flights. He was overexcited, refused to sit in his seat (that we paid for - and it would have been far worse without it) and spent much of the flight either screaming or running madly up and down the aisles, stopping at times to try to make friends. On the ground, he was a pleasure and quickly got over any jet lag and well-timed onto a new schedule. he had naps in his buggy and if we wanted to have some privacy in the evening or stay out a bit longer, he would also fall asleep in the buggy out and about, then transfer to our bed later.


So ... I think it's more fulfilling in general to take them when they're old enough to actually enjoy themselves, but the flights themselves are definitely easier when they are tiny.

re: the question about seats and take-off and landing for the under-2s, we borrowed a special child seat belt from an American friend that can be used from the age of 1. On the airline we were on (Thai Airways), they don't even have the extension belts, you just hold the baby in your arms!

Any time between 9 months and 2 is likely to be a challenge - too big for a bassinet or to sit comfortably on your lap, way too small to sit on a seat and amuse themselves. If your child is a good sleeper generally then night flights are definitely the way to go, and 3-6 months is a good age.


Easiest long haul flight I ever took with a baby was when my daughter was 12 days old - just me, her, and every female between 30 and 90 looking at us all dewy eyed. She slept, I just watched movies and fed her every couple of hours.

Having flown with our daughter many times I thought I would add to this. As an 8 wk old baby she was fine and slept most of the way, if you breastfeed it's easy, otherwise take plenty of bottles. At 3 months we went to Cape Town and again she slept as it was a night flight but woke alot as we had to take her out of her bassinet due to turbulence ! (a very silly safety policy that is debatable) The hardest flight was an 8hr day flight at 2yrs as she needed constant entertainment. Playdough/sticker books/scribblers were all essential ! So all in all I would say go for a night flight, ask for a bassinet the second you get on the plane (make friends with the stewards !) and aim to travel before they want to walk. Another top tip is my husband and I took 'shifts' - ie. one gets to rest for 20-30 mins while the other is in charge, that way you stay sane ! Finally liquids !! if it says the drink/food is specifically for a child under 3 you are fine, if not they make you throw it. You will have to taste it. Check with your Airport as I believe it is their policy (not the airlines) that will be enforced.

sillywoman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I will never forget the anxiety of

> 'what if we run out of formula' on that flight. It

> was so unlikely as I had formula milk in every

> pocket of every flightbag we possessed, but the

> stress!! What if we get delayed? What if, what if

> etc.etc.


Very true and the what-ifs can happen. I once flew back to Gatwick from Amsterdam (normally about 35-40 minutes in air) with my not yet weaned, by then no longer breastfeeding 5 month old and we had a THREE HOUR emergency stopover at Manston airport in Kent (having to stay on the plane) because there was a spillage on the only runway at Gatwick and we couldn't land there. Like sillywoman I had been quite obsessive about bringing enough formula - if I had been more laid back the stopover would have been a disaster. Instead, I could give her an extra feed and then walk her to sleep in the baby bjorn while chatting with the pilot who was a sweetheart and very concerned about our well being (all other passengers were adults). It's worth taking extra food with you, if only for peace of mind. Never mind the look on the face of the security guy. That only lasts a minute whereas your flight is a lot longer!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...