Here's an idea if you're flying with a kid in a car seat, and you have connecting flights: try reserving seats on the opposite side of the airplane for each flight [i.e., put the car seat in A for one leg and F for the next.]
Chances are, you'll be torqued toward the car seat and its inhabitant for a good 75% of the flight. And if you have to sit like that, on the same side, for the entire trip, your back and neck will be screwed. up.
I'm sorry, did I say "your"? I meant "my."
[And your results may vary, of course, depending on your kids' temperament, but breaking up the cross-country flight seemed to work pretty well for the kid, who seemed happy for chances to stretch her legs and run along peoplemovers during connections. If you're doping them with the Benadryl, you're better off with non-stop. No fun running for a plane with a zonked out kid AND a car seat.]
We're about the head to California with our 14 month old twins. So far, we've always tried to find direct non-stop flights, thinking the overall travel time is better. But have people experienced with little walking kids that a break in Denver or Dallas so they can run around and burn off steam makes more sense?
Great idea with the torquing. We've got three seats for the four of us. Saving money while we still can, I guess...
[we opted for connecting flights this trip for this reason, and with all the babies running around, Denver airport looked like a Gymboree. -ed.]
All the flying we did with the kid last month made me wish they still had the "club seating" setup. People Express used to have it in the 80s (maybe some others too). The first couple rows faced each other. Which would suck in every conceivable flying situation *except* flying with kids or someone else you really like.
[people's express, classic. -ed.]