Travel with Children - AA First Class Babys

Heading from NRT to DFW next month and trying to find the best way to set up our 5 mo on AA 777 in First. So far when asking the f/a on my flight last week, they said they can't suggest anything but hold him for the 12 hr flight. One said, the seat was big enough for us both to sleep. Any suggestions or advice other than purchasing him his own FC seat?

Another F seat for a 5 month old? Unless your money is burning a hole in your pocket, I don't think that's necessary. Besides, I'm sure baby will be more comfy with you holding onto him/her anyways.

Another seat would be nice but hardly worth the price. I can't think of any special F advice.

My advice, from the bottom of my heart: don't do it!

It's a terrible idea for a number of reasons.

It's a very long flight of more than 12 hours. People on that flight are usually business people and they pay very handsomely for first class so they can either get away from the stress or work in peace. This is what the First Class product was conceived for and it is how it is used.

Nobody can guarantee that a 5mo infant will not disturb the flight. One (speaking for myself and other considerate people) would not take a five month old baby into a high-end restaurant, an opera or concert, a research library for precisely that reason. It would be inconsiderate to the point of being rude.

On such a long flight where there is no escaping and where the space is even longer and the money paid for peace and quiet even more, it makes the offense just more egregious.

This is the first and most important reason, in my eyes.

The second reason is that there is such a thing among humans as envy. Flying in first with a baby will incite envy. If you like to be an object of envy or like to inspire that feeling in others, bringing your baby into first is a sure fire way to achieve that. I wouldn't.

The third point is that you can easily buy one F seat and an entire row of bulkhead economy for the price of two F seats let alone three. If you have an entire row of bulk head just for one person and a baby you will be very comfortable installed with plenty of room for both.

The other person can sit in first and possibly the parents can take turns caring for the child and enjoying FC. (Ask airline if that is possible.)

So while you think of the comfort of your child only (and quite likely your own) and you think of that by purchasing expensive seats and ancillary products, do spend a minute to think about the discomfort that could cause your fellow passengers and about a sound decision that gives you, your baby and other pax more comfort but costs you less money.

Spend the money left over on a super nice dinner or a present for the wife. Or give it to charity if that doesn't seem too "good human". ;)

Till

I'll just chime in to counterbalance the above post by saying "do it!"

You have just as much right to be in the FC cabine as anyone else in there, and don't let anyone try to tell you otherwise. In my experience there's more chance of being disturbed in an FC cabin by ill-mannered adults as there is a 5-month old baby, who will probably sleep most of the way anyway if you make it comfortable.

If you were to consider coach, make sure you were doing it because it makes sense to you, not due to some perceived issue about what others might think.

The second reason is that there is such a thing among humans as envy. Flying in first with a baby will incite envy. If you like to be an object of envy or like to inspire that feeling in others, bringing your baby into first is a sure fire way to achieve that. I wouldn't.


I think this is absolute nonsense! Besides the fact that it isn't true (except maybe for this particular poster), you have every right to bring a baby in first class if you are willing to pay for it.

That said, I agree that it would be more comfortable to buy an extra seat in economy so the baby has his own seat.

In my experience there's more chance of being disturbed in an FC cabin by ill-mannered adults as there is a 5-month old baby, who will probably sleep most of the way anyway if you make it comfortable.

I don't agree. It's highly likely a 5 month old is going to have at least one crying jag, probably while everyone else is trying to sleep. I'm pretty sure no adult is going to do this!

Flying in first with babies is a common topic here. Many posts, lines clearly divided. There are the "it's your right, if you can afford it, why not types" and there are the "rather be considerate and spend money more wisely types". I count myself among the latter.

Personally, I actually believe that it should not be allowed to bring babies into FC. The highly paid comfort and quiet of the F cabin is its raison d'etre. A baby (unless it's a baby on valium) will run counter to this.

Think about how people post that they find it annoying when babies cry on a flight. Unfortunately, it is inevitable and unfortunately many people fly with their babies for their own pleasure not thinking of how that causes stress on 150 people in the same metal tube for hours.

The best chance one has to avoid this type of stress is to buy a seat in first. It's a little bit like buying a Mercedes S-Class because you know it will be a very safe car. Until the point where somebody cuts your brakes. You might have just as well died in a Trabant. :D

So just that it is "one's right" to do so, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

If one has an issue with an adult the issue can be taken care of, e.g. adult uses open headphones and you have to listen to his/her music for hours while you'd prefer to sleep or concentrate on work (both being essential to earning enough money to afford F in the first place). Very infuriating. If the issue cannot be sorted out among the two adversaries, an FA can be asked to help.

With a baby that is simply not possible. This is a fundamental difference in the annoyance factor of babies and adults.

I reiterate my suggestion from another thread of a "baby cabin" at the back of the aircraft. It would have several advantages:

- separate early boarding possible making things easier for the parents and the other pax
- walled separation will diminish noise in the rest of the cabin
- proximity to toilets
- possibility to let kids crawl around a little without too much danger and bother
- proximity to exit and position in tail of aircraft increase safety and survival chances for the young family

The cost would be almost zero to the airline (except for the separation wall and curtain). When no children are traveling it can be used as part of the normal seating contingent or possibly sold even at a higher price.

When children are traveling they can be offered these seats at a preferential family price. Other pax who don't mind being around screaming babies could opt to reserve a seat in class B(aby) at a discount price.

Mind you, this is a beautiful, negative example. These seats would have to be marketed to other pax at a discount, since the likelihood that someone pays anything extra to have the chance of being in the proximity of babies on a flight is low. By reversal this means that someone who just paid $10000 instead of $2000 for a seat from Dallas to Tokyo to have peace and quiet will be most likely very dismayed not to have that.

Till

I don't agree. It's highly likely a 5 month old is going to have at least one crying jag, probably while everyone else is trying to sleep.

Really? Have you had kids? I'd say the opposite. Sure, it's possible, but not highly likely at that age - certainly not to the extent that it would cause a problem.

Having kids is an entirely normal thing to do, and just because someone becomes a parent does not mean that they should all of a sudeden feel any kind of restriction as to the cabin they should fly in. If anyone thinks that the kind of seat they buy on an aircraft guarantees them peace and quiet then the problem is quite clearly with their expectations, as this cannot be (and is not) true.

As has been said many times before - this is public transport we are discussing here. There are plenty of types of people I think should be banned from the first class cabin, but just because I think it does not make it so.

I'll just chime in that having two seats in economy and bringing a car seat is actually the only safe way to fly with a baby but that's a whole other subject!

Even in First Class, you're constantly holding a baby. It's nice to have a safe place to put a sleeping baby and get some sleep myself! It's a sanity-saver and well worth the slight inconvenience of bringing the car seat on board. Actually, the car seat was never really a problem. I was organized and had it on some sort of wheels to get it through the airport.

Using a car seat does NOT mean your child has to stay in it the whole time and for take-off and landing, the baby does not need to nurse or suck on anything. They can stay sleeping in the car seat, no problem with ears!

Both points are true. People have the right to fly in First with a baby. As a Flight Attendant, yes, they were quicker to complain about a crying baby. "Can you do something?" they'd ask before going into a description of the work they need to do before arrival.

Really? Have you had kids? I'd say the opposite. Sure, it's possible, but not highly likely at that age - certainly not to the extent that it would cause a problem.


Your post is ridiculous :rolleyes: Of course 5 month old babies cry, and some cry quite a bit. It HIGHLY likely a 5 month old is going to do some crying during a 12 hour or more flight! Even 15 minutes of crying on a plane is going to be causing a disturbance. Whether or not I have children or grandchildren is completely irrelevant to the OP's query and none of your business, unless I chose to share this information.

I don't care about the issue of babies flying in first class; my opinion isn't going to change the rules of any airline and I did not state here that babies should be banned. Again, I think if the OP is paying for these tickets, that it would be a more economical and comfortable choice to buy a seat for the baby in a less expensive class. Holding a baby for a 12 hour flight isn't my idea of fun.

You have just as much right to be in the FC cabine as anyone else in there, and don't let anyone try to tell you otherwise.

I totally agree, but will add the few times I've amassed enough miles to upgrade or get an award seat in business for a TATL, I am not happy to see a baby in the cabin, and yes, I have children of my own.

In my experience there's more chance of being disturbed in an FC cabin by ill-mannered adults as there is a 5-month old baby, who will probably sleep most of the way anyway if you make it comfortable.


Now this, I'd have to absolutely disagree with. There is no way a five month old baby is not going to cry on a 12 hour flight or sleep most of the way. It's not a newborn. If I was the parent having to hold a five month old baby for 12 hours, I personally would be crying myself. Everyone is free to make their own choices, but you cannot enjoy a premium cabin experience holding a baby.

I have never ever been disturbed in F or C by an adult, but I've listened to many crying babies.

OP - it appears you are traveling solo with this baby? If you stay in F, suggest you have some type of carrier (sling) so you can at least be hands free some time so you can eat. What will you do with the baby when you need to use the lav? Best of luck, I never enjoyed traveling with a lap child, and remember several trips from hell.

We've done it many times and in F and it isn't difficult at that age.

If travelling alone request a free seat next to you at check-in (if available). If not possible - ask on board if someone is willing to reseat. Take a car seat to the gate - gate check if no seats are open.

You can easily sleep with the baby on your stomach (my wife never had a problem doing this) - also an option is a small moses basket (similar to a bassinet that AA doesn't provide anymore) and place is on the floor when the seatbelt sign is turned off (but you won't be able to recline fully).

On any US carrier - don't fly Y long-haul with an infant - it's miserable.

I also highly suggest a car seat. Eclipsepearl made a couple of really good points. Plus, a car seat means the baby will be surrounded by a familiar environment. At 5 months you are probably still using the infant bucket type seat. That makes things so much easier since it is much more portable than a convertable seat.
If you won't/can't use a car seat, consider a body carrier such a moby wrap or an ergo. At some point you are going to need the use of both hands. Unless you want to put the baby on the floor of the bathroom. :eek:

Now that we've gotten the requisite no babies in F rants out of the way, I will also chime in and say don't do F.

Do C. You can likely get 3 seats in C for the same price, and it is MUCH more comfortable for all involved. You don't have to hold baby the whole time (but there's still enough room if you like), you can use your car seat if the baby prefers (and it is safer).

Finally, IMHO, you can't really enjoy the difference between C and F when tending to an infant, so why waste the money on yourself (let alone the infant)?

And, yes, I also think it's considerate to keep infants in C rather than F, where the larger cabin makes it less likely that you will significantly disturb the ambiance.

All that said, if you can afford a premium cabin, by all means, do it! Y on such a long flight is miserable, any way you slice it, and adding an infant only makes it that much worse.

IMHO, the only thing to absolutely NOT do is split the family. Everybody loses: the family suffers because one parent is stuck dealing with the baby at the time, and both cabins suffer because you will inevitably want to visit/swap throughout the flight, and that will disturb people around you in both areas. I find this to be the least considerate booking choice, and it's also frequently against the rules to visit/swap, FWIW.

Thanks everyone for the information and for weighing in. We live in Bangkok and have taken our now 3 mo to Chiang Mai, Tokyo, Gold Coast, Sydney and back to Bangkok. We are fortunate in that he has had not one spout on any of the flights, could be my flight attendant wife knows how to handle him for ear pressurization.

It's unfortunate that AA has eliminated all infant accommodation in premium cabins, unlike Qantas, JAL and Emirates which cater to little travelers.

My question was really about how to logistically make him and us comfortable when they have eliminated such equipment. I do like the idea of 3 Biz Class seats with him in the middle but even that is angled and not 180 flat.

2 F seats may be the right way to go when it comes to real estate and incorporate a car seat or carry on bassinet on the foot rest.

Thanks everyone for the information and for weighing in. We live in Bangkok and have taken our now 3 mo to Chiang Mai, Tokyo, Gold Coast, Sydney and back to Bangkok. We are fortunate in that he has had not one spout on any of the flights, could be my flight attendant wife knows how to handle him for ear pressurization.

Congrats. If this is your first child you will soon find out that babies change very fast, and every trip will be different. IME, sometimes what the baby loved on the outbound will be absolutely hated on the return of the same trip. So, just as with investments, don't let past performance be an indicator of future returns. But I do wish you continued good luck.

I do like the idea of 3 Biz Class seats with him in the middle but even that is angled and not 180 flat.

True, but, my wife and I both sleep much better on an angled-flat next to a baby than on a full flat with a baby, but YMMV. Mealtimes are another big issue with lap infants that become trivial if the baby has its own seat.

Both 2 F and 3 C would be good options on AA. Though the F seat is way ahead of the C seat. If cost is much less for 2 in F (in $ or miles) I'd opt for that.

Flying in first with babies is a common topic here. Many posts, lines clearly divided. There are the "it's your right, if you can afford it, why not types" and there are the "rather be considerate and spend money more wisely types". I count myself among the latter.

Personally, I actually believe that it should not be allowed to bring babies into FC. The highly paid comfort and quiet of the F cabin is its raison d'etre. A baby (unless it's a baby on valium) will run counter to this.

Think about how people post that they find it annoying when babies cry on a flight. Unfortunately, it is inevitable and unfortunately many people fly with their babies for their own pleasure not thinking of how that causes stress on 150 people in the same metal tube for hours.

The best chance one has to avoid this type of stress is to buy a seat in first. It's a little bit like buying a Mercedes S-Class because you know it will be a very safe car. Until the point where somebody cuts your brakes. You might have just as well died in a Trabant. :D

So just that it is "one's right" to do so, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

If one has an issue with an adult the issue can be taken care of, e.g. adult uses open headphones and you have to listen to his/her music for hours while you'd prefer to sleep or concentrate on work (both being essential to earning enough money to afford F in the first place). Very infuriating. If the issue cannot be sorted out among the two adversaries, an FA can be asked to help.

With a baby that is simply not possible. This is a fundamental difference in the annoyance factor of babies and adults.

I reiterate my suggestion from another thread of a "baby cabin" at the back of the aircraft. It would have several advantages:

- separate early boarding possible making things easier for the parents and the other pax
- walled separation will diminish noise in the rest of the cabin
- proximity to toilets
- possibility to let kids crawl around a little without too much danger and bother
- proximity to exit and position in tail of aircraft increase safety and survival chances for the young family

The cost would be almost zero to the airline (except for the separation wall and curtain). When no children are traveling it can be used as part of the normal seating contingent or possibly sold even at a higher price.

When children are traveling they can be offered these seats at a preferential family price. Other pax who don't mind being around screaming babies could opt to reserve a seat in class B(aby) at a discount price.

Mind you, this is a beautiful, negative example. These seats would have to be marketed to other pax at a discount, since the likelihood that someone pays anything extra to have the chance of being in the proximity of babies on a flight is low. By reversal this means that someone who just paid $10000 instead of $2000 for a seat from Dallas to Tokyo to have peace and quiet will be most likely very dismayed not to have that.

Till

Tfar, evidently you think that sitting in FC should guarantee you a quiet, stress-free ride with no babies crying. Fine -- you're entitled to your opinion. But if any significant number of people thought the way you did, then at least one major airline would try banning anyone below 5 from sitting in FC. People like you would then be willing to pay a bit more to become customers of that airline (and people like me, who generally buys a FC seat for his almost 3-yr old -- would never fly that airline).

The fact that NO US carrier has that policy (or has even considered it seriously enough to propose it) means that, for better or worse, you are in a small (though certainly numerous and non-trivial) minority.

If you really want to guarantee yourself peace and quiet with no babies, try NetJets. You'll get a much more comfortable ride than any FC seat will ever give you (and MUCH hotter FAs, too).

Cheers,
Mike

I did CX in F with a 5 month old - got some looks at the gate and in the plane, but he behaved well, had a few cries (not the desperate cries of pain) but honestly the other couple in F didn't notice as there is still quite a bit of noise in a plane. I would say flying with todlers is more troublesome

I did NRT-JFK on AA F with a 21 month. We got 3 F awards because I couldn't find 3 J. I think 3 J seat arrangement is actually easier with young kids. You don't have to stand up to care for him/her.

My child cried just a little in the beginning, and then he was sound asleep through the entire flight. We had to hold him during liftoff and landing. The seat is wide enough for both of us, but it's difficult to lay flat with baby and still want to eat. We put him in the 3rd seat after he's sound asleep with the seat belts fastened. We did check on him very regularly. (I can see him but I can't reach out to him).

I wouldn't pay for a F seat for baby. You may get lucky if they have empty seat. We also sit on 1st / 2nd row, closer to the bathroom. So when he cried, we just picked him up to go to bathroom.

My advice, from the bottom of my heart: don't do it!

It's a terrible idea for a number of reasons.

It's a very long flight of more than 12 hours. People on that flight are usually business people and they pay very handsomely for first class so they can either get away from the stress or work in peace. This is what the First Class product was conceived for and it is how it is used.

Nobody can guarantee that a 5mo infant will not disturb the flight. One (speaking for myself and other considerate people) would not take a five month old baby into a high-end restaurant, an opera or concert, a research library for precisely that reason. It would be inconsiderate to the point of being rude.

On such a long flight where there is no escaping and where the space is even longer and the money paid for peace and quiet even more, it makes the offense just more egregious.

This is the first and most important reason, in my eyes.

The second reason is that there is such a thing among humans as envy. Flying in first with a baby will incite envy. If you like to be an object of envy or like to inspire that feeling in others, bringing your baby into first is a sure fire way to achieve that. I wouldn't.

The third point is that you can easily buy one F seat and an entire row of bulkhead economy for the price of two F seats let alone three. If you have an entire row of bulk head just for one person and a baby you will be very comfortable installed with plenty of room for both.

The other person can sit in first and possibly the parents can take turns caring for the child and enjoying FC. (Ask airline if that is possible.)

So while you think of the comfort of your child only (and quite likely your own) and you think of that by purchasing expensive seats and ancillary products, do spend a minute to think about the discomfort that could cause your fellow passengers and about a sound decision that gives you, your baby and other pax more comfort but costs you less money.

Spend the money left over on a super nice dinner or a present for the wife. Or give it to charity if that doesn't seem too "good human". ;)

Till

A slightly differing opinion here..... OP probably knows his child a bit better than your broad sweeping generalizations of traveling with young children. He deserves the benefit of the doubt as far as considering whether or not his child will be a nuisance when traveling. While I agree that there can be nothing more unnerving or agitating than a screaming child on an international flight...... no amount of money that you spend (Coach/Business/FC) is going to protect you or guarantee what you are suggesting. What about protection from Sick passengers, hacker, chronic throat clearers, snorers, fidgeters, chatty folks, loud breathers, and the odoriferous lot?

On another note I just reviewed the First Class product offerings by all three major US airlines and the closest they come to offering a quiet environment is with AA offering Bose Noise Cancelling headsets. And whether you are a parent travelling with an infant, or a business man with a sense of entitlement because you paid $$$ for a FC ticket.... the fact is that airlines don't have policies against this (at least public policies) so one way or another when you fly your'e accepting that risk.

As far as your other point about Coach and Two seats.... that one might be a great valid point because I've seen that many airlines can offer bassinets or "baby hammocks" in bulkhead seats.... I think you'll need the row to enjoy that benefit though. Food for thought OP.

I reiterate my suggestion from another thread of a "baby cabin" at the back of the aircraft. It would have several advantages:

- separate early boarding possible making things easier for the parents and the other pax
- walled separation will diminish noise in the rest of the cabin
- proximity to toilets
- possibility to let kids crawl around a little without too much danger and bother
- proximity to exit and position in tail of aircraft increase safety and survival chances for the young family



Terrific idea. Maybe also label those travelers so we can keep track of them. A yellow star on the arm perhaps?

:(

Can we refrain from Shoah references??

Well it looks like AA doesn't want us up there since they are taxing us $1600 for the lap baby to be in FC with no accomodation or food for the little guy. They also are making sure that 240,000 miles are needed to get an Awards ticket for him in J.

We checked in to JAL as they have bassinets in J and CX. Too expensive and no availability.

Any other thoughts?

Well it looks like AA doesn't want us up there since they are taxing us $1600 for the lap baby to be in FC with no accomodation or food for the little guy. They also are making sure that 240,000 miles are needed to get an Awards ticket for him in J.

Any other thoughts?
Yes, lap children on international flights don't fly free on most carriers. They're going to usually charge you 10% of the adult fare and/or significant taxes and fees.

Have you looked into three seats in coach? At least the little guy would earn his own award miles.

We have done 2 seats and 2 adults in business with our lap infant. We have made the 1st round trip at 2 months old and the second trip at 6 months old. Planning another one in 2 dayside he will be 11 months old. Same route and airline as the OP, although we have additional international and domestic legs too.

We take 9AB normally and swap holding/playing with him. He likes to sleep on the floor and if the flight is smooth we have done this while he lays in our travel bassinet. PM me if you have any specific questions.

Thanks everyone for the information and for weighing in. We live in Bangkok and have taken our now 3 mo to Chiang Mai, Tokyo, Gold Coast, Sydney and back to Bangkok. We are fortunate in that he has had not one spout on any of the flights, could be my flight attendant wife knows how to handle him for ear pressurization.

It's unfortunate that AA has eliminated all infant accommodation in premium cabins, unlike Qantas, JAL and Emirates which cater to little travelers.

My question was really about how to logistically make him and us comfortable when they have eliminated such equipment. I do like the idea of 3 Biz Class seats with him in the middle but even that is angled and not 180 flat.

2 F seats may be the right way to go when it comes to real estate and incorporate a car seat or carry on bassinet on the foot rest.
If one parent and baby, I'd suggest two C seats (alignment, reach, etc). If two parents, you can get away with F and a lap-child, the foot-rest as a carrier is a good idea. Sorry to hear that the lap-child fee is so much in F.

Well it looks like AA doesn't want us up there since they are taxing us $1600 for the lap baby to be in FC with no accomodation or food for the little guy. They also are making sure that 240,000 miles are needed to get an Awards ticket for him in J.

We checked in to JAL as they have bassinets in J and CX. Too expensive and no availability.

Any other thoughts?

Trips like this are expensive. If you can't pay the freight, do what the 99% does: fly in coach. International lap infants are never (well, a very few airlines will let them be free on award tickets, but none of the ones you're considering AFAIK) free, and get pricey in a hurry in premium cabins. As others have said, if you pay for seats in coach, you at least earn miles for your money, and get the opportunity to safely strap the kid into a car seat.

He deserves the benefit of the doubt as far as considering whether or not his child will be a nuisance when traveling. While I agree that there can be nothing more unnerving or agitating than a screaming child on an international flight...... no amount of money that you spend (Coach/Business/FC) is going to protect you or guarantee what you are suggesting. What about protection from Sick passengers, hacker, chronic throat clearers, snorers, fidgeters, chatty folks, loud breathers, and the odoriferous lot?


On another note I just reviewed the First Class product offerings by all three major US airlines and the closest they come to offering a quiet environment is with AA offering Bose Noise Cancelling headsets. And whether you are a parent travelling with an infant, or a business man with a sense of entitlement because you paid $$$ for a FC ticket.... the fact is that airlines don't have policies against this (at least public policies) so one way or another when you fly your'e accepting that risk.

As far as your other point about Coach and Two seats.... that one might be a great valid point because I've seen that many airlines can offer bassinets or "baby hammocks" in bulkhead seats.... I think you'll need the row to enjoy that benefit though. Food for thought OP.

Of course, the OP has the benefit of doubt if his child will be a nuisance, for simply he can't tell if the child will be nuisance or not, as children change by age and time of day, as others have wisely said.
It would be lovely to have a guarantee but I know that won't happen because it's not politically correct. So what Airlines like AA are doing is to make it much more expensive as to dissuade one from bringing a child in F as lap child. Good call.
Protection from those other things can't be guaranteed, either. But, as I also pointed out, all those things can be taken care off. Stinky person, move away, offer cologne. All others use ear plugs or headphones. Adults you can at least try to reason with. Try calming a baby that's gone crazy. If even the parents can't do it, how can you do it? The screams of a baby pierce through earbuds easily. About the best noise reduction you get is 32db. If you are lucky the baby is seated at bulkhead and you in the last row. If you are in the F cabin, forget about it. As humans we are programmed to be very alert to baby screams and to find them stressful so that we take care of a screaming baby. Thus baby screams are "by nature" more stressful than a fidgeter or a stinky person because they appeal to primal instincts that even we as adults cannot reason with very well. So in addition to the stress it causes by simple reaction, the baby's screaming will cause stress because we cannot do anything against it. It makes us powerless. Add this to the already powerless nature of sitting in a can with 200 other people and you can understand why many pax find a screaming baby to be the worst nightmare on a flight short of anything actually life threatening. Surely, you fly F to make the flight more agreeable.

Even if it were a simple mathematical calculation, you'd lose. Say 8 F seats in the cabin. 2 are taken by the OP and wife plus lap child. Full cabin. The child will not care much for the comforts of F nor does s/he have the choice which class to fly or has to be for it. The 6 other pax do care. That's why they pay for it. Basically, that means that the OP is willing to accept the risk of 6 people having a miserable flight so that his 2 people can have a potentially better flight. I just don't think that's very considerate but opinions may differ, as we can see.

For a single F seat you could probably book a full 3 seat row in coach. For another F seat another row, bulkhead with bassinet or car seat. You can lay flat completely in the second row. And you get extra leg room. As Eclipsepearl said, it is the safest way to travel for a baby. This would be my prime motivation before my own comfort. And frankly, just as I wouldn't take a potential nerve wrecker into a concert or a library, I wouldn't take him/her into F or C. There are simply places where peace and quiet can be reasonably expected. F is one of them, IMO.

Terrific idea. Maybe also label those travelers so we can keep track of them. A yellow star on the arm perhaps?

:(

Oooh. Terrible comment.:eek:

I re-quote myself below for easy reference. Is there a single thing, that would not benefit a young family among my suggestions? The Shoah reference is really misplaced here. Very misplaced.

And as far as labeling of children goes, pay close attention and you will see that Unaccompanied Minors are made to carry a flashy orange bag around their neck with the letters UM on it. They are also made to carry their papers in that bag at all times. And a special 'guard' accompanies them all the time to make sure they don't escape. And these are people who will actually remember such subhuman treatment (babies under 3 usually don't remember much). Do you complain about that experience? Do you think that is anything like what people went through in the Holocaust? Gimme a break!

Quote Till:
I reiterate my suggestion from another thread of a "baby cabin" at the back of the aircraft. It would have several advantages:

- separate early boarding possible making things easier for the parents and the other pax
- walled separation will diminish noise in the rest of the cabin
- proximity to toilets
- possibility to let kids crawl around a little without too much danger and bother
- proximity to exit and position in tail of aircraft increase safety and survival chances for the young family

Tfar, according to your utilitarian calculus, you can consider that a screaming baby disturbs many more people in Y than F. Therefore the OP should travel in F.

However the whole premise of your argument is false, because airlines policies make clear that baby passengers are equally valid passengers in any cabin.

So I ask you to stop telling FT passengers that the child had any less right to their premium seat that you do. It is unkind, unfair and completely incorrect.

Tfar, according to your utilitarian calculus, you can consider that a screaming baby disturbs many more people in Y than F. Therefore the OP should travel in F.

However the whole premise of your argument is false, because airlines policies make clear that baby passengers are equally valid passengers in any cabin.

So I ask you to stop telling FT passengers that the child had any less right to their premium seat that you do. It is unkind, unfair and completely incorrect.

(bolding mine)

I think there might be a shifting of airline attitude in favor of your opinion. However, realize that it comes at a risk.

Baby passengers and children are 'equally valid passengers' - and there have been recent incidents of families being de-planed (even a plane returning to the gate to do so) because the child(ren) would not cooperate with being seat-belted in or being quiet during takeoff. Some parents grumbled, suggesting that because children were involved, airline employees should have been more patient. I have seen few things that generate zero tolerance on an airline, but a pax refusing to buckle up for takeoff/landing or refusing to stay seated during taxi are not taken lightly by FAs, even if the pax is an adult. Why should there be special exemptions (including losing a spot in the takeoff queue) because a child is having a meltdown? FWIW, I wouldn't want such a child between me and the exit in an emergency.

IIRC, some airlines have now decided that if families with children want to be seated together, they may have to pay more for that privilege. No different than telling a group of adult friends or business associates who want to sit together that they may have to pay for the privilege - well, no different if you accept that kids are just 'equally valid passengers'.

At least one major airlines has eliminated early boarding for families with children. If children are no different than other passengers, this is appropriate.

If a child (whether or not the parents are at all to blame) cries during a flight, it does so with impunity. If an adult raises a ruckus of equal decibel levels, I am much more confident that there will be consequences - FA intervention, possibly even (worst case) being met with LEOs upon landing. Definitely an incentive to rein in obnoxious behavior.

Like it or no, there are implicit expectations in the front cabins. Certainly boorish behavior and disregard for fellow pax isn't limited to the back of the plane, but to dismiss such expectations because the plane is 'public transportation' is nonsense. It's more akin to a 5-star restaurant refusing to seat someone who is barefoot and shirtless - even though it is a 'public' eatery.

I flew 12+ hours in J last year. Party of 3 (two adults, one 3-year-old girl). Mom and Dad started drinking before we took off, fell asleep until just before landing. Their daughter, seated between them, kept up a running line of gab for nearly the entire flight (this was a red-eye, BTW) - in her best 'outside' voice. Her folks didn't even wake up when she needed the toilet - I was two rows up on the side, and she disturbed me as she made her way down the aisle, clutching herself with one hand and talking loudly about having to go. Completely inappropriate.

And a couple weeks ago I also took an overnight flight when three middle aged men kept up a loud and extended conversation in J. I'm not sure what the point of your anecdote is. :confused:

No-one is saying that parents should not make every reasonable efforts to control their kids. No-one is saying that children must be seated with belts or risk de-planing. I am somewhat confused as to who you are arguing against. :confused:

It is somewhat interesting to note though that your only concern for children in an emergency is that they might delay your exit.

What I am arguing against is people making blanket statements that children should not be premium travelers, since that is an inherently rediculous argument.

I take it you do not have children yourself?

And a couple weeks ago I also took an overnight flight when three middle aged men kept up a loud and extended conversation in J. I'm not sure what the point of your anecdote is. :confused:

No-one is saying that parents should not make every reasonable efforts to control their kids. No-one is saying that children must be seated with belts or risk de-planing. I am somewhat confused as to who you are arguing against. :confused:

What I am arguing against is people making blanket statements that children should not be premium travelers, since that is an inherently rediculous argument.

I am pointing out the risks of demanding that children and infants be treated as "equally valid passengers in any cabin". That 'status' goes hand-in-hand with certain responsibilities.

"Equally valid passengers in any cabin' are not allowed to have a melt-down and refuse to stay seated and buckled in during take off. They are not allowed to make so much noise during taxi that other pax can't hear the safety briefing. They are not allowed pre-boards (except for disabilities, and age is not a disability). They are not allowed special exemption from ordinary pricing schemes or special privilege to move other pax to less desirable seats so that they can be seated en masse with the rest of the family.

The difference between an out-of-control child (for whatever reason) whose parent(s) do nothing to curb the situation and an out-of-control adult is that it's much more likely that the out-of-control adult will be met by LEOs on arrival.

And yes, I'm a parent and I've travelled with young ones. But not in the F cabin (by choice). Of course, I've also taken youngsters to 4-star restaurants and the opera - but in those situations, if there had been even a hint of a meltdown, we would have immediately left, for the sake of others. Not an option on a plane. Of course, even in Y, I still felt it my responsiblity to not infringe on other pax' comfort, and that meant controlling the kids' behavior. I'm sure it's statistically possible that some toddlers/older kids have their 'first ever, really!' behavioral meltdown on a plane, but in most cases, I suspect this is a kid who has 'melted down' before and should not be taken on public transport until he/she has been taught proper behavior. Do you really think this sort of thing will be overlooked at school? During church service? At a wedding or funeral? At a concert? In a top restaurant? In a library?

And once again I'm confused as to who you are arguing with. Who on this thread has advocated in favor of uncontrolled children on flights?

I don't get the point of your posts to be honest. You say you don't like unregulated, ill-behaved children and I think everyone would agree. I would extend it to passengers of all ages (and by the way, there are many more stories of adults being removed from flights than children).

And once again I'm confused as to who you are arguing with. Who on this thread has advocated in favor of uncontrolled children on flights?

I don't get the point of your posts to be honest. You say you don't like unregulated, ill-behaved children and I think everyone would agree. I would extend it to passengers of all ages (and by the way, there are many more stories of adults being removed from flights than children).

I quoted one phrase of yours in particular. There are reasons to defend allowing children in F. I don't think the wisest approach is to demand it because children are passengers just like every other passenger.

Infants and young children have traditionally enjoyed certain perks precisely because they are not like other passengers - bassinets, priority to bulkhead rows, lap option, pre-boarding, extra carry-on options, even FA assistance in forcing other pax to move to less desirable seats to accommodate a family's desire to sit together.

Emphasizing that children are just like any other passenger (entitled to sit wherever) plays into the airlines' current trend to take away former courtesies for kids (and it is already happening). Bassinets are disappearing, bulkhead rows are being reserved for paid or premium customers, pre-boarding for families with children has been cut at one major US airline, and there's less tolerance for bad behavior - signalled by pax with unruly children getting off-loaded instead of tolerated.

Much of this discussion will be moot, of course, at least for US carriers, if the FAA ever decides that lap infants are at risk and all pax must have their own seats. If that ever happens, I think it will be rare indeed to see a lap child in F.

And once again I'm confused as to who you are arguing with. Who on this thread has advocated in favor of uncontrolled children on flights?

I don't get the point of your posts to be honest. You say you don't like unregulated, ill-behaved children and I think everyone would agree. I would extend it to passengers of all ages (and by the way, there are many more stories of adults being removed from flights than children).

Mumble, what she is trying to tell you is what I've been trying to explain. Namely that a) children are more difficult to control than adults and b) children therefore are not equally valid premium passengers (they have special needs that should be met), finally c) that it is reasonable to expect a quiet atmosphere in an F cabin or in J for that matter.

To the point of your earlier post regarding the presumption that children disturb even more passengers in F and airline policies:

You don't get the whole picture. F has a reasonable expectation of a quiet cabin. It is one of the things people pay extra for. It is a unique selling proposition (even if not officially advertised) of the F cabin because usually people have enough decency to take babies not into F. Thus high expectations are particularly severely disappointed. In Y the expectations aren't so high, so the quality of the disappointment is not as severe, even if the child still gets on the nerves of quite a few people. To that point I stress what I said about the size of the F cabin. It is smaller and shut off. So the screams have nowhere to dissipate. Also it is at the front of the plane where the surrounding noise level is quieter. It is often better insulated against noise, too. This proves that quietness is an inherent aspect of the F cabin and the contrast of a screaming child is even starker in F than in J.

These concerns should be held in mind by someone smart enough to earn enough money to fly children (babies at that) in F. With higher means come higher responsibilities - not entitlement cloaked under political correctness of children as equal passengers. Good one! :D

As for airline regulations, I think every frequent flyer with half a brain will agree that airline regulations are neither particularly smart nor particularly known for being examples of high ethical values. Airline regulations have just very few particular things in mind: safety and profit.

Interhuman behavior regulation is not one of them. We have to take care of that ourselves and some are more capable than others in that regard. Babies are less capable because they haven't developed the necessary skills yet. But from adults it can be expected that they are considerate. They can be reminded of that. Try reminding a baby with a colic that it better be quiet. ;)

Till

With higher means come higher responsibilities

I haven't seen much of that lately.

And a couple weeks ago I also took an overnight flight when three middle aged men kept up a loud and extended conversation in J. I'm not sure what the point of your anecdote is. :confused:I'm not sure what the point of your rebuttal is. :confused:

If you were annoyed by the adults, you were perfectly entitled to approach them and ask them to be quiet(er), or to ask the FA to intercede and remind the adults of the appropriate noise level on an overnight flight. There is a very good chance that your request for quiet, or at least modified volume level, would have been granted.

If you approached a screaming child and asked them to be quiet, if would be inappropriate and ineffective. And good luck getting the FA to intercede... :rolleyes:

And good luck getting the FA to intercede...

OMG do you know how many times passengers asked me that?!?

"Can't you do something about that crying baby?"

Excuse me while I just whip out my magic wand! Yup, that should work...

I would go up to the parents and ask if they needed help but honestly, like that will stop the crying.

It was frustrating for me after I had my first because I would so want to give them advice. Get up. Take a walk. Keep things calm but that would have been inappropriate and intrusive. Once I suggested removing the very heavy sweater the baby was wearing on a warm day. The parents nearly snapped my head off (and then later took off the sweater which calmed him right down). I dared suggested picking up a crying baby but the mother immediately told me that it "was his ears". We were on the ground.

Don't blame F/A's for not intervening!!!

And good luck getting the FA to intercede...

OMG do you know how many times passengers asked me that?!?

"Can't you do something about that crying baby?"

Excuse me while I just whip out my magic wand! Yup, that should work...

I would go up to the parents and ask if they needed help but honestly, like that will stop the crying.

It was frustrating for me after I had my first because I would so want to give them advice. Get up. Take a walk. Keep things calm but that would have been inappropriate and intrusive. Once I suggested removing the very heavy sweater the baby was wearing on a warm day. The parents nearly snapped my head off (and then later took off the sweater which calmed him right down). I dared suggested picking up a crying baby but the mother immediately told me that it "was his ears". We were on the ground.

Don't blame F/A's for not intervening!!!

That is interesting. I think it is personally reasonable to give and accept advice in such a situation. Declining advice that is harmless, like moving around or taking off a sweater, is exactly part of the selfish and entitled attitude many people exhibit these days. I mean hey your baby is bugging the hell out of everyone, you might think it's exaggerated activism but your fellow passengers will be very appreciative if you at least try a few things to make the situation better. Besides, in most cases, a screaming baby is not a happy baby. So one could expect that you (talking to fictional traveler) at least try to make your baby a bit happier.

It also shows how narrow-minded people are. It's not just because this is my baby that I have the total exclusive about knowing how a baby (because even my child is A baby) should be handled. There will be people with much more experience like mothers and fathers who have already had one or more babies or doctors who might not even need to be a parent to know better than I that my child is crying because something is wrong that I might not even recognize.

I'm always on the position that I will have tried everything myself, even slightly inappropriate things, before I ask the FA to intervene. And I ALWAYS give huge compliments to parents who are doing a good job traveling with kids. I know it's not easy.

Till

Chiming in...

We have 1, 22 months old, with a second due in Sept. One thing that we had to come to terms with right away was that it wasn't always practical to swing for the premium services we had once enjoyed. They could no longer be "enjoyed" with our son in tow. Instead, they were just stressful. It is actually easier and less draining to opt for less luxury many times.

For example: Starwood hotels simply aren't as family-friendly as other chains. A Homewood Suites actually is more accommodating for us these days than a W or a Westin. Now, having a kitchen and a separate room, even if it's less swanky over all, is of more value to us. I do miss the extra amenities and atmosphere we used to enjoy, but being able to set up the crib in another room, so that I can have the lights on and watch a movie after 9 PM is more important to me right now. :)

In other cases, we now opt for a fancier choice. We tend to take a car service to the airport now instead of a taxi, as they have more room for luggage and can better accommodate my son's car seat.

Also, when we went on a cruise, we got a suite, because it offered many perks, like priority positions in lines and in-room dining, that particularly benefitted us when traveling with an infant.

So your priorities and needs change for a while, when you have a tiny human to tend to.

In this case, the first class cabins just aren't designed for use by infants or families. It likely won't be as convenient or as easy, and parents likely won't be able to fully take advantage of or enjoy all the perks available. In contrast, economy (or even business, depending on the seats and how they're set up) actually makes it easier and safer to travel with a young child. So for the next few years, your best bet may actually be to enjoy the back of the plane. This would be my preference, anyway.

Just another one of the sacrifices that come with parenthood. The good news: they get bigger! And as they do, the hope is that they also acquire the skills necessary to behave predictably on a long-haul flight, and then, hooray! You can live it up once again! They say that this happens before you know it, so while it may seem like a long way's off, we parents of infants and toddlers should not dispair.

This is my take on the issue, anyway. I'm sure wherever and however the OP ends up flying, they will get to their final destination, and they'll survive the experience -- and their cabinmates will, too.