Newsstand - Entitlement Mom?

This (http://www.frommers.com/rss/articles/4883.html) from Frommer's.
For someone who is supposedly an experienced travel writer it strikes me a bit odd this woman is so ill prepared - starting with not knowing when she was supposed to be boarding?
Is it just me or is she expecting way to much from FA's particularly in her list at the end "Inform your flight staff that you will need assistance throughout the flight".
She sounds an awful lot like the person I really dread being stuck next to on a plane.

Portions of the post that previously appeared in this space have been deleted. I would provide you with a reason why, but doing so would likely be against the TOS.

I simply don't understand the author's perspective and would welcome an explanation from someone.

She decided she wanted to take a little vacation with her kids.

Therefore, everyone on the aircraft, from the crew to other passengers, should make sacrifices for her -- giving her special treatment, moving other passengers' luggage for her, entertaining her kids, etc.

I've got one question: why?

What's so special about her that everyone else must defer to her needs?

Entitlement? This borders on delusional.

I hope she never decides to rely on my kindness as a fellow paying passenger. :td: I raised my kids, and have no desire to raise hers so she can have a pleasant vacation.

Talk about passive-aggressive. She refers to it as an "un-named U.S. airline," then twice in the article mentions Coninental. Either really poor writing/comprehension skills, or serious psychological issues....

Portions of the post that previously appeared in this space have been deleted. I would provide you with a reason why, but doing so would likely be against the TOS.

As she looks around enviously at passengers wearing eye masks and trying to sleep, I wonder if she thinks about the ramifications. While the author is busy with her self absorbed sob story of no sleep due to her needy kids, I spend the whole time thinking about the OTHER people who get no sleep due to her needy kids. She didn't once express any compassion for what she was putting them through.

Sounds as if on the first trip she was on vacation and others did things for her. I find it strange that some airlines will not sell me a seat for my cat because they are concerned about passengers comfort but I haven't figured out how crying babies add one thing to my comfort!

i would have to agree with the quote of "delusional."
and you can almost guarantee this wasnt her first flight with kids, so she should have learned a few things

My three-year-old was rather upset at the prospect of not having any distractions for take off, like a toy or a DVD to watch.At three years old I would sit with my brother in the back seat of the car during frequent long-haul auto trips (Chgo to New York, Pennsylvania, Mass., and shorter trips to Michigan, etc.) without a DVD and generally without toys. We had the view out the window and our imaginations to keep us busy, and we were expected not to disturb our parents.

Instead this woman sits there "embarassed" while her kids cry, and probably continually kick the seat backs.

:td:

And to start, flying with 2 young kids to/from Australia via Hong Kong (which adds about 6 hours of flight time compared to LAX) was asking for trouble.

I actually think she was being perfectly reasonable when she expected assistance from the flight crew...

She didn't once express any compassion for what she was putting them through.

I find myself needing to vent after what I, and I'm sure those seated around me, have termed the "flight from hell."

Ok - so I stand somewhat corrected. But at best the others were an afterthought, and she didn't seem to accept any responsibility for what her kids were inflicting.

You gotta be kidding...or smokin dope! Thinking that the crew should be helping with her kids. If FA's don not like to think of themselves as waitresses, I don't think nanny would suit them either.

decided not to comment after all......

You gotta be kidding...or smokin dope! Thinking that the crew should be helping with her kids. If FA's don not like to think of themselves as waitresses, I don't think nanny would suit them either.

And I guess a paraplegic passenger who needs to use the restroom should drag themselves there over the floor instead of expecting any kind of assistance fromthe FAs?

i would have to agree with the quote of "delusional."
and you can almost guarantee this wasnt her first flight with kids, so she should have learned a few things

And I guess a paraplegic passenger who needs to use the restroom should drag themselves there over the floor instead of expecting any kind of assistance fromthe FAs?

Being paraplegic isn't a self-inflicted disability....

Furthermore, this woman is able bodied and just as capable of taking care of her own business as they are of taking care of it for her. I dare say that anyone who needs a flight attendant to take care of her and her children's needs isn't a very good mother.

Being paraplegic isn't a self-inflicted disability....

Furthermore, this woman is able bodied and just as capable of taking care of her own business as they are of taking care of it for her. I dare say that anyone who needs a flight attendant to take care of her and her children's needs isn't a very good mother.

I just think it's good manners to help those who seem to need it - while reserving judgement.

Two words for this woman: tubal ligation!!

You gotta be kidding...or smokin dope! Thinking that the crew should be helping with her kids. If FA's don not like to think of themselves as waitresses, I don't think nanny would suit them either.

:rolleyes: Sadly many FAs share your opinion. On a recent flight a mother asked for help fitting a bassinet (it was just dumped in front of her before) as the FA barked 'do I look like a nanny?' and walked off. Another time, a mother asked for help fitting the infant lap belt and the FA yelled at her for not knowing how to do it.

I just think it's good manners to help those who seem to need it - while reserving judgement.

^ While it may not be 100% "required" for an FA to help, given the nature of the job, IMHO it would only be appropriate for them to give extra help to those who need it.

Cheers,

I think it's more the attitude that everyone should just rush around and help because after all she's a Mother.... yes, generally I'll lend a hand when I can to anyone but those who don't do anything to help themselves and just expect everyone to accomodate them just really irritate me.

I just think it's good manners to help those who seem to need it - while reserving judgement.

I help those who help themselves. :rolleyes:

I help those who help themselves. :rolleyes:God!! Is that you?? :eek:

Sorry.... couldn't resist ;)

God!! Is that you?? :eek:

Sorry.... couldn't resist ;)

I think that requires at least 10,000 posts.

I'm not sure why anyone in their right mind would consider doing that trip with 2 small children...making connections, alone.The winters can't be that bad for god's sake! It also seems that if someone needs help doing personal things i.e. going to the bathroom, help with eating etc., they should be travelling with someone to assist them. Fastening a bassinet or help with a seat belt is dealing with equipment of the plane...the other is personal and if a FA decides to lend a hand that's great.

And I guess a paraplegic passenger who needs to use the restroom should drag themselves there over the floor instead of expecting any kind of assistance fromthe FAs?Last time I checked, paraplegia wasn't a life style choice. People choose to have children. Who chooses to be paralyzed?

I actually think she was being perfectly reasonable when she expected assistance from the flight crew...Why? Do you really think the flight crew is supposed to baby sit her kids? Do you really think the flight crew should move bags of other passengers so that hers are near her?

I'm serious -- what kind of assistance do you think it was reasonable to expect?

I like how she thinks it's okay for her daughter to break the rules and use a DVD player on takeoff but that it's not okay for the FA break the rules to use her cellphone on landing. :rolleyes:

I just think it's good manners to help those who seem to need it - while reserving judgement.


I agree with erik123 that it's evidence of good manners to help out those who seem to need it, but it's evidence of bad manners for one to expect others to help out just because one thinks one deserves it. This woman brought this situation on herself. She could have stayed in, was it New Jersey? While it would have been very nice for an FA or passenger to offer to keep an eye on the kids while the woman went to the restroom, it isn't their responsibility to do so. The Blanche DuBois mentality was overwhelming in her piece.

While I see her side - it would have been nice if the FAs had been more helpful - I agree with all of the posters who have said that their job does not include those services. The fact that she chose to make this trip alone means she and she alone was responsible for making it work. Years ago when my kids were smaller I had to do a three hour flight alone for a family emergency, and while I certainly appreciated the small things that were done for me by the flight crew, I certainly did not expect that I would have any help and planned accordingly by only carrying one bag that I could easily manage and making sure everyone was fed, watered and had gone to the bathroom before getting on the plane. That didn't mean that the trip was seamless by any means - trust me, I was thrilled to get off of that plane - but on a trip for leisure of that length, I surely wouldn't have attempted it.

Do you really think the flight crew is supposed to baby sit her kids?
...
I'm serious -- what kind of assistance do you think it was reasonable to expect?My opinion of this woman isn't very high. That said, I think it's the job of the crew to make the flight as enjoyable for pax as possible. If that means doing a bit more than usual to assist this woman--our opinions of her aside--so that the rest of the pax around her could have a more pleasant flight, they should do it.

My opinion of this woman isn't very high. That said, I think it's the job of the crew to make the flight as enjoyable for pax as possible. If that means doing a bit more than usual to assist this woman--our opinions of her aside--so that the rest of the pax around her could have a more pleasant flight, they should do it.It seems like the women wanted the crew to cater specifically to her needs and would require a good deal more than her "share" of the crew's time. A little extra I can see - time permitting but to announce to the crew that she would require their help (in her list) seems really a bit mutch. It is one thing to have assistance after the rest of the plane is taken care of and quite another to expect to snap your fingers and have them drop everything for you....

I hadn't really looked at it from the angle that oneant did - that by helping the mom, it would have benefited all the passengers around the family. I guess that's as legitimate a reason as any for FAs to help out as much as possible and as time allows, but for most of us, the "announcement" by the passenger that assistance would be required for the entire flight is what really sticks in the craw...

Last time I checked, paraplegia wasn't a life style choice. People choose to have children. Who chooses to be paralyzed?


Lots of Para's and Quad's made a lifestyle decision to put themselves at risk and ended up paralyzed. They didn't plan on it, but they put themselves at risk and paid the price.

Lots of Para's and Quad's made a lifestyle decision to put themselves at risk and ended up paralyzed. They didn't plan on it, but they put themselves at risk and paid the price.Sorry, but that's hardly the same thing. You're not seriously equating having children with a physical disability, are you?

I just can't believe that she ate her own kids meal, instead of leaving it for her when she woke!

I just can't believe that she ate her own kids meal, instead of leaving it for her when she woke!

AA doesn't even offer those any more (not even in F) - CO often has very good kids meals so I can sympathize.

AA doesn't even offer those any more (not even in F) - CO often has very good kids meals so I can sympathize.One would hope that a kid flying in F would eat something other than chicken fingers or corn dogs....

The Frommer's article's author wrote:

"But if it meant a chance to escape a New York winter and spend a month in Melbourne, Australia with a stop-over in Hong Kong, then I was willing to take the risk."

Apparently she wasn't after all.

Yes, an entitlement mom.

Kids can eat grown up food. If they won't, it's the parents fault for having low expectations.

I've done AUS-IAH-LAX-SIN-KUL and back with kids (not solo though). Well-parented, they will make it through okay... and without driving neighbors bonkers.

The hour written on her boarding pass by the GA? Sounds to me like she's not the experienced traveler.... more like she wasn't paying attention and was late.

Sounds to me like the FAs might have been friendlier; but it's mainly self-inflicted misery.

One would hope that a kid flying in F would eat something other than chicken fingers or corn dogs....

Kids meals in BF are often very good - e.g. from Italy melon with parma ham and shaved parmesan followed by a great pasta dish. Sorry - don't know the Y kids meals....

[/QUOTE] and shaved parmesan followed by a great pasta dish. Sorry - don't know the Y kids meals....[/QUOTE]
I was being facetious..... I meant that a child flying in F should be able to eat an adult meal - that it wouldn't be quite the horror the writer seemed to imply if there was not a kid's meal available....

Maybe someone should bring it to the Frommer's editor attention that if they have such inexperienced people writing and giving advice, that we would not be buying their books and etc, since they obviously don't know what they are talking about to begin with. Like how are we to take them serioulsy are knowlegable resources related to travel?

The writer bills herself as an experienced traveler, yet she whines like a first time flyer when the flight attendants don't live up to her absurd expectations. Does anyone else get that disconnect? She made the choice to fly with two kids alone and most of the problems that arose were of her own making.

She might have a point or two about the meal service, but otherwise she comes off as whiny, demanding and anything but the experienced flyer she claims to be. The particular routing she chose, along with arriving at the airport late and packing like she was going on a polar expedition take away any credibility she might have otherwise had.:rolleyes:

and shaved parmesan followed by a great pasta dish. Sorry - don't know the Y kids meals....[/QUOTE]
I was being facetious..... I meant that a child flying in F should be able to eat an adult meal - that it wouldn't be quite the horror the writer seemed to imply if there was not a kid's meal available....[/QUOTE]

I thought she was in Y - any meal would be a horror!

Why? Do you really think the flight crew is supposed to baby sit her kids?

The crew usually say "if there is anything the crew can do to make your flight more pleasant, please let us know." I don't think the crew should have to babysit her kids but I still think some compassion is in order. Maybe offer to warm up the child's milk, offer the mother a toy (if the airline carries any,) help fit the infant seat belt and bassinet (as I said before.) I am not asking for the crew to bend over backwards for her or do something completely out of their way.

I was once traveling with my tennis racket - which was rather oversized. On that flight, the overhead bin space was completely full. The attendant made sure that enough room was made for my racket to be near me. In her case it only meant re-arranging the bags within the overhead bins but the point is that she was willing to do it. If I got so much attention for the a tennis racket, I'd expect at least the same attention for someone with a baby. (and no, I don't think the baby should be stored in the overhead bin :p )


Do you really think the flight crew should move bags of other passengers so that hers are near her?


No, but I think the crew should have made an effort and asked passengers around her if they minded - other pax can store their baggage under the seat in front of them (I am not saying they are required to, morally or otherwise but it would still be a nice thing to do. I certainly would) whereas she could not. Since she was travelling with a young child, it is more likely that she would need frequent access to that bag.

I recently traveled on GF and saw a parent use their "Sky Nanny" service. While it was quite nice, I (inadvertently) thought that FAs of most airlines are trained to help parents with kids. Now I see that I was very,very wrong. :o

Cheers,

Sorry, but that's hardly the same thing. You're not seriously equating having children with a physical disability, are you?

serious question:

Would you think that the mother deserved more help if she was raped (God forbid) and not allowed to abort the child (as is the case in a few countries.) i.e. the child was not her 'fault,' and she was being deported to her home country with her child. i.e. the purpose of the trip was not her 'fault.' ?

(FWIW, in the OP's case, I agree that the mother's decision to make that trip was foolish at best.)

I am sure the crew was accomodating as possible, this woman and her children were not the only ones of the flight! FA:Passenger ratio is not 1:1! In addition to assisting ALL passengers, FA's have additional responsibilities on flights.
I am rather shocked Frommer's would have published this - the writer does come across very poorly.

serious question:

Would you think that the mother deserved more help if she was raped (God forbid) and not allowed to abort the child (as is the case in a few countries.) i.e. the child was not her 'fault,' and she was being deported to her home country with her child. i.e. the purpose of the trip was not her 'fault.' ?

(FWIW, in the OP's case, I agree that the mother's decision to make that trip was foolish at best.)

Your question makes no sense and is way off topic.

Has anyone seen the resonses on the Frommers site? I tried finding the full thread there but was unsuccessful. It would be interesting to see how non FT'ers responded to her plight.

The crew usually say "if there is anything the crew can do to make your flight more pleasant, please let us know." I don't think the crew should have to babysit her kids but I still think some compassion is in order. Maybe offer to warm up the child's milk, offer the mother a toy (if the airline carries any,) help fit the infant seat belt and bassinet (as I said before.) I am not asking for the crew to bend over backwards for her or do something completely out of their way. Other than the toy offer (I don't know any US airline that does that), I don't have a problem with what you're suggesting here. Less-than-helpful crews are a chronic problem on US airlines. However, we all cope with them. The problem I have with this "mom" is her belief that, because she was traveling with children, she was entitled to special treatment that, in virtually every instance, far exceeds what would have been reasonable.

I was once traveling with my tennis racket - which was rather oversized. On that flight, the overhead bin space was completely full. The attendant made sure that enough room was made for my racket to be near me. In her case it only meant re-arranging the bags within the overhead bins but the point is that she was willing to do it. If I got so much attention for the a tennis racket, I'd expect at least the same attention for someone with a baby. (and no, I don't think the baby should be stored in the overhead bin :p )Rats, you beat me to it. ;)

No, but I think the crew should have made an effort and asked passengers around her if they minded - other pax can store their baggage under the seat in front of them (I am not saying they are required to, morally or otherwise but it would still be a nice thing to do. I certainly would) whereas she could not. Since she was travelling with a young child, it is more likely that she would need frequent access to that bag. Well, I respectfully disagree. This was CO, yes? CO pre-boards families with small children (UA does not, which is one reason why UA is now my primary carrier). This woman had plenty of opportunity to get herself situated, but failed to do so. Also, when boarding a transpac plane, the FAs have an awful lot to do just getting everyone situated. I think it would have been unreasonable for them to ask passengers to inconvenience themselves for this woman and, if I was a passenger, I would have thought it was unreasonable to have been asked. I'm sorry, but all of this simply reeks of the kind of entitlement that, unfortunately, has engendered an anti-family backlash that has also made it more difficult for considerate and responsible parents.

I recently traveled on GF and saw a parent use their "Sky Nanny" service. While it was quite nice, I (inadvertently) thought that FAs of most airlines are trained to help parents with kids. Now I see that I was very,very wrong. :o

Cheers,"Sky Nanny" is fine if it's offered as a provided service. So are in-flight massages that Virgin features (featured?), but I wouldn't expect an FA to rub my neck. ;)

serious question:

Would you think that the mother deserved more help if she was raped (God forbid) and not allowed to abort the child (as is the case in a few countries.) i.e. the child was not her 'fault,' and she was being deported to her home country with her child. i.e. the purpose of the trip was not her 'fault.' ? Wow. Um . . . yes, I suppose I'd be more inclined to help. We are, however, talking about two distinct issues. One is the extent to which I'd be inclined to assist someone who is traveling with children. The other is the extent to which someone traveling with children is entitled to demand special assistance. In your extreme example, I'd be inclined to help. That does not, however, mean that such an unfortunate person could demand my help as an entitlement.

(FWIW, in the OP's case, I agree that the mother's decision to make that trip was foolish at best.)In one of the threads about accommodating seat-switching requests, someone posited a family traveling at the last minute in an emergency to attend a funeral and asked me would I then be willing to switch seats so that they could sit together. I replied that I would, provided that either the FA or the parents explained the situation to me. My focus in these kinds of discussions is always on the concept of imposition: no one has the right to impose on someone else. However, if an imposition is sought, it can be asked as favor. Whether that favor will be granted will be determined by the person of whom it is asked solely on their determination of the extent to which the request is compelling.

Give me a good reason why I should help you and I almost always will (assuming I think it is a good reason). Demand that I help you because you think that you have a good reason and I almost certainly won't.

Your question makes no sense and is way off topic.

As is your post. :)

Since Mom ate the kids meal, I wonder what the kid got to eat?

I looked at the Frommer's website, and it appears that it is an article rather than a forum post. Not able to post a reply to it, and it's on the homepage instead of being in the discussion/forum area of the website.

From the article:

After take off and a bit of calming down, nobody came to open the bassinet, so there I was with a sleeping baby on my lap, cutting off my left arm's blood circulation for at least an hour before I cornered an indifferent attendant and requested some help. She installed the very tatty-looking bassinet, but then left without offering to set it up or even lay down a blanket so I could comfortably move the sleeping infant from my arms to a horizontal position without waking her.

Most mom's I know are capable of holding their baby for hours without limbs falling asleep. And I've also seen moms take their babies from a parked car, out of their car seat, through a few doors, into the house, detour to the kitchen to possibly heat up a bottle and then up to the crib without the child waking up. You'd think this mom could handle the pass off to the bassinet.:rolleyes:

Sorry, but that's hardly the same thing. You're not seriously equating having children with a physical disability, are you?

If anyone would do that it would be you. Me, I like children, but I hate disabilities. I only pointed out that some paraplegics made a choice that resulted in Paralysis. Now that I think about, sometimes parents don't choose to have children, but they still do despite efforts to prevent them.

Other than the toy offer (I don't know any US airline that does that), I don't have a problem with what you're suggesting here. Less-than-helpful crews are a chronic problem on US airlines. However, we all cope with them. The problem I have with this "mom" is her belief that, because she was traveling with children, she was entitled to special treatment that, in virtually every instance, far exceeds what would have been reasonable.


Fair enough, I actually agree with you on that. I just read the article as "I was expecting was too much, but CO didn't help me at all (rather than helping me a little.)


Well, I respectfully disagree. This was CO, yes? CO pre-boards families with small children (UA does not, which is one reason why UA is now my primary carrier). This woman had plenty of opportunity to get herself situated, but failed to do so. Also, when boarding a transpac plane, the FAs have an awful lot to do just getting everyone situated. I think it would have been unreasonable for them to ask passengers to inconvenience themselves for this woman and, if I was a passenger, I would have thought it was unreasonable to have been asked. I'm sorry, but all of this simply reeks of the kind of entitlement that, unfortunately, has engendered an anti-family backlash that has also made it more difficult for considerate and responsible parents.


We don't know that for a fact. While it is quite possible that the woman boarded late because she was out shopping in the terminal, I would not say that's likely. We don't even know that pre-boarding was possible (yes, it is offered technically, but pre-boarding these days really is a joke) All we know is that when she boarded, the space was gone.


"Sky Nanny" is fine if it's offered as a provided service. So are in-flight massages that Virgin features (featured?), but I wouldn't expect an FA to rub my neck. ;)

Again, I agree. I was just pointing out that I now realized the merit in offering such a service.


Wow. Um . . . yes, I suppose I'd be more inclined to help. We are, however, talking about two distinct issues. One is the extent to which I'd be inclined to assist someone who is traveling with children. The other is the extent to which someone traveling with children is entitled to demand special assistance. In your extreme example, I'd be inclined to help. That does not, however, mean that such an unfortunate person could demand my help as an entitlement.

But then would someone who is disabled demand your help? In a sense, I get what you are saying - no one can demand special treatment (although the mother did in this case.) But I still think that it is reasonable to expect some sort of assistance. You are by no means entitled to it, and shouldn't make a big scene, but it would certainly look favorably on the airline if the attendant helped you a bit since you clearly had your hands full.

And regarding the example - (unfortunately) I know someone in that exact situation.

Cheers,

If anyone would do that it would be you. Me, I like children, but I hate disabilities.What are you suggesting, that I like disabilities? That's just ridiculous. I hate disabilities, but have considerable sympathy for people who are afflicted by them.

I only pointed out that some paraplegics made a choice that resulted in Paralysis.And that's just ridiculous. The skier who breaks his back didn't say, "I think I'll break my back today -- my parents will be so happy!" That's not a choice. Getting pregnant is.

Now that I think about, sometimes parents don't choose to have children, but they still do despite efforts to prevent them.Really? In what state are people required to bear children? In what state are people required to raise unwanted children? The U.S. has not quite reached this point.

We don't know that for a fact. While it is quite possible that the woman boarded late because she was out shopping in the terminal, I would not say that's likely. We don't even know that pre-boarding was possible (yes, it is offered technically, but pre-boarding these days really is a joke) All we know is that when she boarded, the space was gone.If a passenger has special needs (and this applies whether those needs are the result of disability, flying with children, or any other reason), it is up to that passenger to take the necessary steps to ensure that they are met, and to do so without imposing on other passengers. No one's personal needs are ever the responsibility of strangers. This woman was supposed to be an experienced flier. If so, she (1) knew it would be difficult flying with a baby and toddler, and (2) should have been proactive in assuring that she could get early boarding (it's available on CO, even if she had to ask for it).

Again, I agree. I was just pointing out that I now realized the merit in offering such a service.I wouldn't like the costs of such a service being amortized by my ticket price. And, quite honestly, I would prefer to fly an airline that isn't "family friendly," in the hope that I'd find fewer children on board.

But then would someone who is disabled demand your help?Demand? No -- I've never had a disabled person demand my help. Then again, if I'm in a situation were I see a disabled person and I think my help would be appropriate and appreciated, I offer before I'm asked.

In a sense, I get what you are saying - no one can demand special treatment (although the mother did in this case.) But I still think that it is reasonable to expect some sort of assistance. You are by no means entitled to it, and shouldn't make a big scene, but it would certainly look favorably on the airline if the attendant helped you a bit since you clearly had your hands full.I guess it all depends on the kind of assistance that's expected. It's appropriate to expect an FA to warm up a bottle. It's not appropriate to expect an FA to drop everything he or she was doing to do it on the spot. However, it's never appropriate to expect other passengers on the plane to incur any kind of imposition whatsoever.

And regarding the example - (unfortunately) I know someone in that exact situation.

Cheers,Wow, how terrible! Well, for what it's worth, if I had known of the situation, I would have been happy to assist her.

The crew usually say "if there is anything the crew can do to make your flight more pleasant, please let us know." I don't think the crew should have to babysit her kids but I still think some compassion is in order. Maybe offer to warm up the child's milk, offer the mother a toy (if the airline carries any,) help fit the infant seat belt and bassinet (as I said before.) I am not asking for the crew to bend over backwards for her or do something completely out of their way.

Compassion is fine in theory, but there is also a liability involved, especially when it comes to children. You would be surprised at how quickly parents jump to blame the crew if even the slightest thing doesn't go perfectly when they are trying to assist the child.

Some examples and the consequent policy changes.

a) FA assisted a parent with 2 kids to walk down airstairs in icy cold weather by carrying one child down the stairs. Gust of wind blew the child's hood off and the child coughed. Parent subsequently wrote to airline claiming compensation for NEGLIGENCE as the FA failed to take adequate care of the child while walking them down the stairs and put their health at risk from exposure to the cold. Policy change was that FAs are now no longer permitted to assist parents with children during disembarkation.

b) Child of extremely conservative parents was offered an activity kit that featured a colouring book. One of the pictures in the colouring book featured children of opposite genders playing together in a park. Parent complained to the airline that this "propoganda" went contrary to their religious beliefs and demanded an apology. Policy change was that the airline stopped offering activity kits to children.

c) I've personally dealt with unreasonably demanding parents who constantly rebuffed well meaning offers of assistance from the staff. I remember a mother with a pre-teen quadriplegic daughter who insisted that only female staff should be permitted to serve her daughter as she feared the male staff would attempt to sexually molest the child. She actually physically slapped the hand of and verbally abused a male Flight Attendant who was attempting to set up the tray table for her daughter, leading to a brief flaring of tempers on both sides until the female purser intervened and calmed the situation down.

In situations like this, which admittedly are the tiny exception rather than the rule, the only way the airline can reasonably avoid liability or confrontation is to simply offer minimum levels of service and prohibit the staff from proactively offering assistance to protect themselves from liability exposure.

If a passenger has special needs (and this applies whether those needs are the result of disability, flying with children, or any other reason), it is up to that passenger to take the necessary steps to ensure that they are met, and to do so without imposing on other passengers. No one's personal needs are ever the responsibility of strangers. This woman was supposed to be an experienced flier. If so, she (1) knew it would be difficult flying with a baby and toddler, and (2) should have been proactive in assuring that she could get early boarding (it's available on CO, even if she had to ask for it).



But even despite best efforts, things such as pre-boarding can be difficult or impossible to get even if technically offered. I'll give an example:

Me and my sister were flying as UMs from Karachi, Pakistan on Emirates. EK offers pre-boarding for UMs, and knowing that this was a B777 that was fully booked and that overhead space would be tight, I wanted to take advantage of it. I walked up to the desk before boarding had started to inquire about / confirm pre boarding and was snapped at to go back to my seat and only come back when pre boarding had actually started. As soon as the announcement was made, no fewer than 200 people got up and started crowding towards the gate. No passengers, whether disabled, young, or in J could have pre boarded no matter how proactive they had been and no mater how hard they tried.

I would like to say such a situation is an exception rather than the norm - but these days it isn't. I tried to take advantage of pre boarding on AA recently and was told that since the load was 'light' (70%+ full on an M83) they were not offering it so I was SOL.



I wouldn't like the costs of such a service being amortized by my ticket price. And, quite honestly, I would prefer to fly an airline that isn't "family friendly," in the hope that I'd find fewer children on board.


I meant for parents with kids. :p

Cheers,

But even despite best efforts, things such as pre-boarding can be difficult or impossible to get even if technically offered. I'll give an example:

Me and my sister were flying as UMs from Karachi, Pakistan on Emirates. EK offers pre-boarding for UMs, and knowing that this was a B777 that was fully booked and that overhead space would be tight, I wanted to take advantage of it. I walked up to the desk before boarding had started to inquire about / confirm pre boarding and was snapped at to go back to my seat and only come back when pre boarding had actually started. As soon as the announcement was made, no fewer than 200 people got up and started crowding towards the gate. No passengers, whether disabled, young, or in J could have pre boarded no matter how proactive they had been and no mater how hard they tried.

I would like to say such a situation is an exception rather than the norm - but these days it isn't. I tried to take advantage of pre boarding on AA recently and was told that since the load was 'light' (70%+ full on an M83) they were not offering it so I was SOL. I don't know if the Emirates situation is common. I've certainly seen similar on many Chinese airlines. I'll still stand by what I said, however: it's up to the passenger with special needs to address the problem, and then, only with the airline and never with other passengers. I've never been fortunate to fly Emirates (though I'd love to -- I heard it was wonderful), nor am I very familiar with what is considered appropriate conduct in Pakistan. If it had happened here in the U.S. (for example, your AA incident), I would have stood my ground with the gate agent and insisted, politely but firmly, that some arrangement be made and, if necessary, called for a station manager if the response I received was unsatisfactory. That's because (1) it's my problem, and therefore my responsibility to get it resolved, and (2) my problem is only with the airline and I wouldn't want to impose on other passengers. :)

I meant for parents with kids. :p

Cheers,Oooh . . . zinger! :)

Some examples and the consequent policy changes.

a) FA assisted a parent with 2 kids to walk down airstairs in icy cold weather by carrying one child down the stairs. Gust of wind blew the child's hood off and the child coughed. Parent subsequently wrote to airline claiming compensation for NEGLIGENCE as the FA failed to take adequate care of the child while walking them down the stairs and put their health at risk from exposure to the cold. Policy change was that FAs are now no longer permitted to assist parents with children during disembarkation.

b) Child of extremely conservative parents was offered an activity kit that featured a colouring book. One of the pictures in the colouring book featured children of opposite genders playing together in a park. Parent complained to the airline that this "propoganda" went contrary to their religious beliefs and demanded an apology. Policy change was that the airline stopped offering activity kits to children.

c) I've personally dealt with unreasonably demanding parents who constantly rebuffed well meaning offers of assistance from the staff. I remember a mother with a pre-teen quadriplegic daughter who insisted that only female staff should be permitted to serve her daughter as she feared the male staff would attempt to sexually molest the child. She actually physically slapped the hand of and verbally abused a male Flight Attendant who was attempting to set up the tray table for her daughter, leading to a brief flaring of tempers on both sides until the female purser intervened and calmed the situation down.

In situations like this, which admittedly are the tiny exception rather than the rule, the only way the airline can reasonably avoid liability or confrontation is to simply offer minimum levels of service and prohibit the staff from proactively offering assistance to protect themselves from liability exposure.

Interesting, and all too believeable.

These examples bring to mind a situation I saw a few months ago, in which a mom was flying with her children (probably about 1 and 5 years old). Mom gets on the plane late in the boarding process, and pretty much orders people to rearrange themselves so the three can sit together. I'm fine with wanting to sit with your kids, but she didn't ask the pax or FA for help - she ordered people around. (Sound like a feeling of entitlement, similar to the Frommer's author?)

Now here's the kicker: A little while into the flight, mom gets into a situation where she needs to chase down the older kid (who is now running around the cabin), and has difficulty doing this while carrying the younger kid around. FA sees this and offers to help with the younger kid. Mom very indignantly (and loudly) tells FA that "I can take care of my own kids without your help" (despite the fact that she obviously can't). After seeing that situation, I can certainly understand FAs staying as far from situations like this as possible.

My opinion of this woman isn't very high. That said, I think it's the job of the crew to make the flight as enjoyable for pax as possible.


I agree....I find it really upsetting when the captain refuses to come out mid-flight and rub my feet.....you know, to make the flight as enjoyable for me, the pax, as possible :D

Seriously, there're limits as to what I expect the flight crew should do. If I can't expect the capt'n to provide my feet-rub, then I can't see why others should expect FAs to provide baby-sitting?

<SNIP>
(and no, I don't think the baby should be stored in the overhead bin :p )


I'm glad you say that, neither do I....but I do think that some parents, including the one in this article, deserve to travel as cargo...

Seriously, there're limits as to what I expect the flight crew should do. If I can't expect the capt'n to provide my feet-rub, then I can't see why others should expect FAs to provide baby-sitting?I never said I expected FAs to baby-sit. If Mommy-Entitlement is telling the truth, then the FA's sure could have made a bit more of an effort.

If I were one of the pax near this charlie-foxtrot of a "family," I would be annoyed equally with the mother and the FAs.

Personally, I don't see the logical leap between an FA paying a bit more attention to the idiot mom and the capt rubbing your feet. The former is a benefit, not only to the mother but, to everyone around her. The latter is just silly.

But maybe if the capt had come out and rubbed Mommy-Entitlements feet...............

What are you suggesting, that I like disabilities? That's just ridiculous. I hate disabilities, but have considerable sympathy for people who are afflicted by them.

How in the heck did you get that from what I said? :confused: I have read your posts for years, both here and on another forum (RTA) and I have always had the impression that you do not like children.


And that's just ridiculous. The skier who breaks his back didn't say, "I think I'll break my back today -- my parents will be so happy!" That's not a choice. Getting pregnant is.


Skiing is not the only way people break their backs. Surely you are not suggesting that there are no people who take foolish risks and end up paralyzed. How about a guy who chooses to drive drunk and ends up paralyzed after a crash? What if Evel Kneivel had ended up paralyzed after trying one of his stunts? Lots of people are not as lucky as he was. They chose to take a risk and the result was not what they intended to happen, but they should have known it was a possible result.


Really? In what state are people required to bear children? In what state are people required to raise unwanted children? The U.S. has not quite reached this point.

Again, how in the heck did you get that from what I said? :confused:

A man and a women try to prevent pregnancy using birthcontrol, but for whatever reason, their method fails and the woman ends up pregnant. That is not the result that they intended, but it happened because BC methods don't always work. They chose to take the risk. I siad nothing about states or governement.

You've already stated that you think those with special needs should get some assistance, so this side discussion is no longer necessary.

How in the heck did you get that from what I said? :confused: I have read your posts for years, both here and on another forum (RTA) and I have always had the impression that you do not like children.Sigh. I've said this over and over: I neither like nor dislike children. Just like any person, I take each as an individual -- some are charming and engaging some are bratty and unpleasant. Towards most, I am indifferent. What I do not like, however, are selfish, thoughtless and/or entitlement-demanding parents, as I hold all parents responsible for the behavior of their children.

Skiing is not the only way people break their backs. Surely you are not suggesting that there are no people who take foolish risks and end up paralyzed. How about a guy who chooses to drive drunk and ends up paralyzed after a crash? What if Evel Kneivel had ended up paralyzed after trying one of his stunts? Lots of people are not as lucky as he was. They chose to take a risk and the result was not what they intended to happen, but they should have known it was a possible result.I don't see how you can analogize between the two. I'm not aware of any paraplegics who, after the accident, had the choice of avoiding their paralysis. If a woman gets pregnant by other than choice, she can abort or put the baby up for adoption. Either way, the decision to keep it is just that: a decision and one about a life-style choice.

You can treat parenthood the same as a disability if you choose. I won't. It is a lifestyle choice, no different than my own lifestyle choice to not have children. I don't ask anyone else to subsidize my lifestyle choice by granting me certain rights as an entitlement, and I certainly don't intend to subsidize someone else's lifestyle choice in this fashion.

Again, how in the heck did you get that from what I said? :confused: What I find confusing is your attempt to equate parenthood with disability. Frankly, I think truly disabled people would find that offensive.

A man and a women try to prevent pregnancy using birthcontrol, but for whatever reason, their method fails and the woman ends up pregnant. That is not the result that they intended, but it happened because BC methods don't always work. They chose to take the risk. I siad nothing about states or governement.So, the woman is pregnant. There is abortion or, if that is not an option because of religious belief, there is adoption. If she chooses to keep the baby, she has made . . . a choice.

You've already stated that you think those with special needs should get some assistance, so this side discussion is no longer necessary.I don't recall saying that. I said that anyone with special needs is responsible for seeing those needs are met -- it is not the responsibility of other passengers nor should the person with special needs believe they are entitled, as a matter of right, to impose on other passengers. However, when I see someone who is truly in need, I would, of course, assist. Absent compelling circumstances (that is, circumstances that I find compelling), someone traveling with children is not, in my opinion, someone who is truly in need nor who I would voluntarily assist to my detriment.

Parenthood is a lifestyle choice, not a disability. Being a parent does not allow you to impose on me as a matter of right. That is entitlement-demanding, pure and simple.

I agree with most of the posters on here that the flight attendants could have been a bit more helpful.

I would like to address some other things the writer could have done to make her trip better, some of which she kind of mentioned.

First, yes, arriving with an infant and a small child more than the minimum 2 hours would be a good idea. I don't know if she meant at the airport, or at the gate, but I'm assuming she meant at the airport. I can't see the airline boarding that early. Shoot, when I travel with my wife, we go straight to the gate first, just to make sure things are still in order, then go find food or a restroom. It's called being proactive.

Second, as someone else mentioned, better packing. Three carry on bags, along with an infant and child sounds like you're asking for trouble. Maybe on larger carry-on would have made more sense, or one for the baby and one for her and the child.

She somewhat aluded to this, but it seems like she didn't really ASK for help, she just expected people to come by and do it. If you want help, ask for it. I have two little nieces who are the same way, they cry and whine when they can't get something to work, but won't ask for help. It is your responsibility to ask for help when you need it, not the responsibility of others to offer.

I am sure the crew was accomodating as possible, this woman and her children were not the only ones of the flight! FA:Passenger ratio is not 1:1! In addition to assisting ALL passengers, FA's have additional responsibilities on flights.
I am rather shocked Frommer's would have published this - the writer does come across very poorly.

I am sure they were NOT accommodating as they normally are not. Today US based FAs do nothing but wheel the drink and food cart down the aisle and god forbid you even make eye contact let alone say anything. Anyone asking for assistance is automatically labeled as a 'problem'.

These old hags need to retire or get some re-education training from BA or SA

My God....what must she endure when she's home alone with the kids?

Parenthood is a lifestyle choice, not a disability. Being a parent does not allow you to impose on me as a matter of right. That is entitlement-demanding, pure and simple.

I agree completely about the "Being a parent does not allow you to impose on me as a matter of right. " so that is not an issue for me here.

I don't understand why you cannot get what I said. Perhaps my English skills are lacking. Oh well, it isn't worth it. See you on some other thread.

From the article:



Most mom's I know are capable of holding their baby for hours without limbs falling asleep. And I've also seen moms take their babies from a parked car, out of their car seat, through a few doors, into the house, detour to the kitchen to possibly heat up a bottle and then up to the crib without the child waking up. You'd think this mom could handle the pass off to the bassinet.:rolleyes:

I'll bet the backs of these babies' heads are as flat as pancakes from this "mother" leaving the kids in bassinets and strollers wherever she is and goes.

I've observed a very high positive correlation between babies with flat heads, aloof parents, and whine/brat factor from both.