I pose a travel question for you.
(This is a legitimate question....I do not know the answer.)
Which is better?
1. Traveling 16 hours by plane + 2.5 hours by train and paying $2000 more
or
2. Traveling 14 hours by train, 8 hours by plane, and 2.5 hours by train and paying $2000 less?
Keeping in mind that all of this travel is going to be lame anyway, because you will have 2 children with you. :)
Then the next question is (in case flights change)....at what price does your answer change??
3 comments:
2. Can't you move around more on a train? I feel so confined on airplanes with little ones.
Agreed...it seems like there is more room on trains for kids to go crazy and eventually lay down than on planes. Regardless, I'm a big fan of Benadryl to knock a kid out during travel. Don't quote me on that. I think the breaking price would have to be less than $500. There is an awful lot you can do with $2000 that doesn't include being crammed like sardines into a flying saucer. :)
We're taking a flying saucer? Awesome!
Post a Comment