Planning your first international honeymoon should be exciting, but for one couple, it quickly turned into a disagreement over something seemingly simple: how early should they leave for the airport?
With their flight to Japan fast approaching, the wife wanted to arrive four hours before departure to ensure plenty of time for potential delays, bad weather, and even time to relax before their long flight.
Her husband, a nervous first-time international traveler, insisted that waiting around the airport would only worsen his anxiety, claiming two hours before departure was plenty of time.
But when the reality of their airport experience left them with hours to spare, was she right to push for the extra time, or did she go too far? Keep reading to see how this tension played out.
A wife wants to arrive 4 hours early for their flight, but her anxious husband disagrees
From the moment we book a big trip, different anxieties quietly move into the passenger seat. In this story, the OP and her husband are trekking toward their first international flight (excited, nervous, hopeful) and they find themselves on opposing tracks because each is navigating fear in their own way.
At the emotional heart of this disagreement is the dance between anticipation and preparation. The OP wants to leave home early to build a buffer of time against traffic, weather and the unknown.
Her husband, new to flying internationally and anxious about the machine of travel itself, fears that being early will give his mind too many hours to stew in worry. They’re both trying to mitigate risk, just in different realms. He sees waiting as risk; she sees rushing as risk.
Psychological research explains both of these behaviors. The article “How Uncertainty Causes Anxiety” explains that our brains evolved to predict and minimise uncertainty, and when prediction fails, anxiety rises. “Your brain is a prediction machine… anxiety is your brain’s response to uncertainty.”
Another piece, “Avoidance Maintains Anxiety,” shows that short‑term safety tactics (like avoiding waiting) can paradoxically fuel longer‑term fear: “Avoidance may help you feel safer in the short term but can keep you feeling anxious over time.”
These ideas map right onto the couple’s stand‑off: one prepares for uncertainty (by arriving early), the other avoids the anticipation of it.
Looking at it through a fresh lens: the OP’s husband fears the internal turbulence of anxiety, the buzz of waiting, the unknowns of new skies. The OP fears external turbulence, traffic near Los Angeles International Airport, weather delays, and check‑in chaos.
Their conflict isn’t about time; it’s about the version of risk they each feel more vulnerable to. She’s protecting the external world; he’s protecting the internal world.
Considering both perspectives, the decision to err on the side of arriving four hours early emerges not as selfishness, but as pragmatic alignment with the bigger risk. The OP carried the logistics and planning of the trip; she owns the contingency.
When everything fell into place, leaving early allowed them to avoid heavy rain and delays, the outcome validated her concern and effort. The husband’s anxiety did surface, but he managed and the trip began smoothly, reinforcing that the buffer was helpful.
Let’s dive into the reactions from Reddit:
These commenters strongly agreed that given the size of LAX, the uncertainties of international flights, and current airport conditions, 4 hours is justified
This smaller group questioned if the issue was really just the timing
This group offered compromise: arriving 3 hours early instead of 4, or staying at an airport hotel
So, was the wife in the right for pushing the four-hour rule? While it’s easy to sympathize with her desire to avoid stress, her husband’s anxiety deserves a little more understanding too. Was she being a bit overboard? Or was she just trying to make sure everything went smoothly?
What do you think? Would you insist on arriving hours early or let your partner take the lead on timing? Share your thoughts below!
