This thread reminds me of two things
1. my Flight LAX-LHR back october. I was in Y and had a row of seats and was sleeping and got awoken by a little kid running around the cabin. The parents were fast asleep in the front of the rear Y cabin (bulk head row) as they had a baby with them also. I sat up and noticed the kid heading for the exit door... I jumped straight away and headed for the kid.. i know the doors are barred it was just first instinct.. got halfway, thought about it and turned around and went to back of the cabin where FA's were on a break (they had the last three rows of the cabin) and told them they had a loose child trying to open the door.. Their reaction was the same as my initial.. only the FA's then woke up the parents and she gave him a nice "talking to" more akin to a dressing down.
2. Bill Hicks' sketch about smoking on planes.. he said if I can't smoke why are there kids on planes? he remarked that "smoking affects others", it goes along that he is being annoyed by a child, he then looks at the parents who shrug and say "let kids be kids".. he then watches as the child goes to the door.. the parents get up but he stops them and says "hey let kids be kids" as the child is sucked out the open door... he then turns and says "there is a door open now, can I smoke?"
Last edited by OzinUK; Jan 8, 09 at 6:42 am.
Reason: spelling
i think that at some point in our travels, we will encounter similar circumstances. I have been punched by fellow passegers who want to get into the aisle to get to the toilet, been in noisy business class due to cabin crew, been given involuntary seat swaps and all these happen on us carriers mainly.
If its noise or inetgrity of the cabin, your only option is to get the purser to write the report.
I don't think you have much to go on based on the response of the airline.
No where on the ticket do they say they'll provide a quiet, peaceful and kid free experience.
If you're buying a first class ticket at an exceptional premium, based on the advertisement of a quiet, stress free journey, you should receive a first class experience worthy of that premium. If the experience is substantially disrupted due to *controllable circumstances*, then the pax deserves some consideration. I'm sorry but children's behavior is absolutely a controllable circumstance in this context unless they have a medical condition. Discipline the parents and insist that they discipline their children. You cuff someone if you have to, as far as the seat belt sign violations and physical issues go.
Naturally if this was to occur in Y, the exact same logic should stand, with an appropriately scaled down consideration to the pax that is in line with their fare. If I was punched by some kid along with the rest of this epic nonsense, *and* it was mishandled in-air, *and* the trip was truly -that- bad, I'd want consideration from the carrier, whether I was in F, J, or Y.
Of course it never should reach that point in the first place. The whole situation should have been resolved in-air, administratively, by adults acting like adults.
I just find it amazing that not one adult onboard that a/c could not control those children. I don't think I would resort to restraint tape, but would somehow ensure calm in my cabin. Rest assured, I would find a way
Programs: AA EXP 1.1M Hyatt Diamond Marriott SLVR HHonors GLD
Posts: 221
Maybe I'm too tolerant...
Say you're 40 years old. You've been alive roughly 350,000 hours. One 2.5 hour flight that sucks ten day old camel droppings is about 0.0000001 percent of your life to date. Even if you knock out 8-10 hours a day for sleeping, plus the entire 4-6 years of your drunken college life, you're still talking a tiny fraction of your life. It sucks for about 2.5 hours plus the amount of time you spend ranting about it. In a year, it will be forgotten.
Unless you see the same family. Then you're talking about 200% more piss-off, and that's serious!
__________________ There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who get binary, and those who don't
Programs: AA EXP 1.1M Hyatt Diamond Marriott SLVR HHonors GLD
Posts: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebkguy
If you're buying a first class ticket at an exceptional premium, based on the advertisement of a quiet, stress free journey, you should receive a first class experience worthy of that premium. If the experience is substantially disrupted due to *controllable circumstances*, then the pax deserves some consideration. I'm sorry but children's behavior is absolutely a controllable circumstance in this context unless they have a medical condition. Discipline the parents and insist that they discipline their children. You cuff someone if you have to, as far as the seat belt sign violations and physical issues go.
The behavior should never have happened - granted. But AA never promised you a quiet stress free journey. They promised and delivered a big-... seat (which I like to put my big...well, you know), free drinks, crappy snacks, maybe a cardboard frozen TV dinner, and early boarding. We're not talking first class on the QE2 in the 50's here - it's point A to point B.
You are absolutely right that these were terrible parents. If they were in a John Carpenter film, they should be sentenced to the Hell of a Thousand Screaming Toddlers on Sugar Rushes. Props to Big Trouble in Little China.
Anyway, it's one trip and it's over. Hopefully the next one will be better.
__________________ There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who get binary, and those who don't
Location: Palm Beach, FL/Hungary 2MM AA EXP, CO GOLD, Kempinski PC, Hilton Gold
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by zipadee
Did any of the bad behavior start before the flight pulled away from the gate?
And what did your wife say or do when she was hit? That's when I always have a word with the parent.
After take off the bad behavior began, we moved after the kid kept swinging the headphones at us and hitting my wife. That stopped swinging headphone and constant grabbing/poking in our faces.
After take off the bad behavior began, we moved after the kid kept swinging the headphones at us and hitting my wife. That stopped swinging headphone and constant grabbing/poking in our faces.
Actual grabbing and poking, as opposed to incidental contact??? Unbelievable (not as in "I don't believe you" but "It's unconscionable that parents would allow this to happen.")
I'd find it hard to believe that anyone in this thread can consider this acceptable behavior or "children will be children" or "this is the same as the guy getting up to use the lav when the seatbelt sign is on."
Programs: AA EXP 1.1MM, AC Member, Marriott Plat, Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm0754
After take off the bad behavior began, we moved after the kid kept swinging the headphones at us and hitting my wife. That stopped swinging headphone and constant grabbing/poking in our faces.
If this had happened to me I would have explained to the parents that if it carried on, their carry on luggage would be removed from the overhead bin and replaced with the offending brats. I don't particularly like children (they tend to give me heartburn), but I can tolerate them if they're reasonably well behaved. These offspring sound like little monsters and should be treated as such.
Location: Palm Beach, FL/Hungary 2MM AA EXP, CO GOLD, Kempinski PC, Hilton Gold
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by beachfan
Is there any legal repurcussion to telling the kid to "shut the **** up, you little ****"?
I appreciate the "tell them off" and "get back at them" argument. What made this situation unique was the kids speak little English. Parents boasted about only teaching them Spanish until they turn 6. They addressed the kids in Spanish.
As for getting back at them, I did what others did and told the FA's. The FA's gave up on the situation and urged us to write. I am indifferent about compensation because AA likes all carriers is racing to the bottom. The unapologetic letter and its content are noteworthy.
I also note airplanes of places of paranoia where pax should not congregate at restrooms, be up when flight attendants are in the aisle, observe crew member instructions, and obey seat belt signs. I don't see slipping with juice in that environment as a good move. As for telling them off, perhaps, but I had a language gap.
You don't consider the referenced information in Wikipedia a valid source.
You don't consider a test on Mythbusters which showed actual navigation interference with a real aircraft VOR/ILS receiver a valid source.
You don't consider the reports of PED interference from the NASA aviation safety reporting system a valid source.
You don't consider first hand reports of interference from airline pilots, such as myself, a valid source.
I'm wondering if there's anything short of an actual crash attributed to PED interference that you would consider valid? I fear that you'd decide that the interference shouldn't have caused the crash so it was pilot error, not PED interference that was to blame.
Quote:
Given that people leave cell phone and wifi on all the time on planes, and I've yet to read a report of one coming down over this, I'll remain skeptical.
How many flights have experienced a burned out cockpit status light without crashing? I'd guess that the number is in the millions. Yet a burned out light bulb once started a chain of events which led to a brand new L1011 crashing into the Everglades. The burned out light bulb shouldn't have led to a crash but that distinction didn't help the 101 people who died nor the 75 injured survivors. This is exactly the type of accident that could result from PED interference. The interference can start a chain of events that ultimately lead to an accident. That's why we have rules which require that all PEDs be turned off during the critical phases of flight.
Quote:
Also note that my having wifi on if they're charging for it doesn't seem to be a risk anymore and, while I could be wrong, I doubt that they've added a lot of shielding for this.
But they do add shielding. When the wifi system is installed the entire system goes through the process of being TSO'd which involves hardening the aircraft's systems from interference, testing the installation for interference and developing systems and procedures to mitigate the effects of any interference which might occur. These systems are turn off for takeoff and landing as all PEDs are required to be off during these phases of flight even on the flights with this service. The flight crew procedures are modified to include the steps to mitigate possible interference on the checklists which deal with abnormalities which could be related to PED interference. The flight crew has the ability to disable the wifi system if interference is suspected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jordyn
Actually, shielding is added as part of the installation and (as noted in the links I provided), it doesn't take much shielding to minimize the risk, but it's often not present.
One problem with PED interference is that it's shouldn't happen as long as everything is working right on the airplane but there's no way to guarantee that everything is working right. Shielding can fail. Ground wires can break. Things which shouldn't be grounded can become grounded.
Engines are not supposed to fail but we still plan and operate every flight as though one will fail. PED's are not suppose to interfere but, through the no PED rule during takeoff and landing, we operate each flight as though they will.
You don't consider the referenced information in Wikipedia a valid source.
You don't consider a test on Mythbusters which showed actual navigation interference with a real aircraft VOR/ILS receiver a valid source.
You don't consider the reports of PED interference from the NASA aviation safety reporting system a valid source.
You don't consider first hand reports of interference from airline pilots, such as myself, a valid source.
I'm wondering if there's anything short of an actual crash attributed to PED interference that you would consider valid? I fear that you'd decide that the interference shouldn't have caused the crash so it was pilot error, not PED interference that was to blame.
First, it does a disservice to take part of what a person wrote, use it out of context and then claim that they said something they did not. If you will actually read what I wrote there, and in subsequent posts, you'll see that I only considered Wikipedia a questionable source. I specifically said I had not followed the links to ascertain their veracity. I further said, after being apprised of the sources, that I did consider them valid for theoretical anaylsis. Yet you take a partial quote and out words into my mouth, things I did not say. Strike One.
Second, you make assumptions about how I would interpret evidence based on knowing nothing about me, except that, since there is evidence on both sides of an issue, I believe one more than the other. You assume that I would disregard clear evidence just for the hell of it. Strike Two.
What will you do for Strike Three?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryJ
Engines are not supposed to fail but we still plan and operate every flight as though one will fail. PED's are not suppose to interfere but, through the no PED rule during takeoff and landing, we operate each flight as though they will.
The annoying and presumptive parts of your post aside, I will say that this part makes very much sense. Again, I always do turn off all PED for takeoff and landing, more out of respect than a belief that it has an effect...but it really does only take one case.
Say you're 40 years old. You've been alive roughly 350,000 hours. One 2.5 hour flight that sucks ten day old camel droppings is about 0.0000001 percent of your life to date. Even if you knock out 8-10 hours a day for sleeping, plus the entire 4-6 years of your drunken college life, you're still talking a tiny fraction of your life. It sucks for about 2.5 hours plus the amount of time you spend ranting about it. In a year, it will be forgotten.
Unless you see the same family. Then you're talking about 200% more piss-off, and that's serious!
Actually, it's close to 0.001%, which is TEN THOUSAND TIMES what you stated!
