Location: Newport Beach, California, USA (Recently of San Francisco)
Programs: UA-1P,SPG-Gold,Marriott-Silver
Posts: 10,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhlyingRPh
I am very uncomfortable with this position. I know it's about the right to be comfortable. However, there is also a right to travel, and children, as members of society have this right.
My position has nothing to do with rights, but with simple courtesy. Imposing on others is rude. If traveling with children means imposing on others, then that is rude.
Quote:
Parents can do all that is humanly possible to keep a 2 year old occupied, and frankly I consider myself a master at this (just look at how my posts keep some Omni posters occupied for days on other threads - j/k),
True.
Quote:
but if there is something going on with the child its' going to be difficult. If we are all living in a society, it's one of those things one has to put up with, like drunk people walking past your house singing at 2:00 in the morning, or noise from a party down the street, some pratt letting fireworks off every night between July 5th and when he runs out.
The other things that you describe are rude as well. First, I should be clear: as a practical matter, the parent who does everything in their power to control their child is far less less culpable than the one who does not, and I'm sure that you're one who does the best he can to minimize any imposition. As a general proposition, however, I do not agree that children belong everywhere in an adult society. Very young children, i.e. those who lack volitional control of their conduct, don't belong in fine restaurants, at theaters, etc. Their presence is at odds with the purpose of the activity, and they are brought along, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of their parents. I believe the same rationale applies to flying. There are, of course, exceptions -- times when children have to fly for the benefit of the children, e.g. seeking medical care, re-locating, etc. However, these are the exceptions. As someone else noted, when I was a child, family vacations consisted of car trips. When I was old enough to control my behavior (I think I was 25 or 26 ), the scope of our vacations were expanded to include air travel. My parents would have been mortified if I carried on in a plane the way the kid on the Southwest flight did -- it simply wouldn't have occurred to them to inflict that kind of imposition on a planeload of strangers.
My position has nothing to do with rights, but with simple courtesy. Imposing on others is rude. If traveling with children means imposing on others, then that is rude.
True.
The other things that you describe are rude as well. First, I should be clear: as a practical matter, the parent who does everything in their power to control their child is far less less culpable than the one who does not, and I'm sure that you're one who does the best he can to minimize any imposition. As a general proposition, however, I do not agree that children belong everywhere in an adult society. Very young children, i.e. those who lack volitional control of their conduct, don't belong in fine restaurants, at theaters, etc. Their presence is at odds with the purpose of the activity, and they are brought along, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of their parents. I believe the same rationale applies to flying. There are, of course, exceptions -- times when children have to fly for the benefit of the children, e.g. seeking medical care, re-locating, etc. However, these are the exceptions. As someone else noted, when I was a child, family vacations consisted of car trips. When I was old enough to control my behavior (I think I was 25 or 26 ), the scope of our vacations were expanded to include air travel. My parents would have been mortified if I carried on in a plane the way the kid on the Southwest flight did -- it simply wouldn't have occurred to them to inflict that kind of imposition on a planeload of strangers.
I agree fully with the rationale you use for children in dining establishments, theatre's, etc. However, I think air travel is an area that participants in a modern society rely on almost to the same degree as they rely on healthcare facilities. It is an imposition on the sensibilities of one's fellow passengers if a child doesn't behave and I think it's perfectly acceptable for passengers to ask the parent to do more to help the kid become more comfortable. Perhaps apply a penalty for disturbing the peace in extreme circumstances?
Just to add, if being able to be in complete control of ones self was a requirement for boarding an aircraft, I might never be allowed to fly!
However, I think air travel is an area that participants in a modern society rely on almost to the same degree as they rely on healthcare facilities.
People in modern society probably rely more on Starbucks than health care. I still don't consider it a human rights issue. Some would disagree
I also am from the camp that grew up taking nothing but car trips until I was 9, when I was allowed to go on a train. Didn't fly until I was 18. And that wasn't that long ago (cough)
__________________
If you are concerned about United's Starnet blocking policy, visit unitedstarnetblocking.com and voice your support
My problem is that people are cheering the decision to remove the child as if they've won some sort of major victory... against the two year old. However, I agree that the parent(s) need to do all they can to keep the child occupied, which may or may not have happened in this case.
It's not against the 2 year old, it's against the uncaring parents.
It's not against the 2 year old, it's against the uncaring parents.
Right, because obviously the mother "didn't care". If only she had bothered to consult all of the childcare experts here on FT before getting on the plane. Shame on her.
The story linked to in the OP said, "The crew bounced Root and her son Adam off the San Jose-bound flight because passengers could not hear preflight safety announcements. "
Ummm. this kid was making a LOT of noise then... And based on Mom's reaction I bet the words "NO" aren't used a lot with this kid.
Honestly if I had embarrassed my parents to the point of getting thrown off a plane I have a feeling the newspaper would have been reporting my death.. not the fact that the airline was "mean to me"
Ummm. this kid was making a LOT of noise then... And based on Mom's reaction I bet the words "NO" aren't used a lot with this kid.
Honestly if I had embarrassed my parents to the point of getting thrown off a plane I have a feeling the newspaper would have been reporting my death.. not the fact that the airline was "mean to me"
I see that much these days--parents "enabling" their kids to do whatever they want. You guys traveling most of the year complaining about this kid aren't off the hook either--you just weren't around while your wife was dealing with a howling child.
Right, because obviously the mother "didn't care". If only she had bothered to consult all of the childcare experts here on FT before getting on the plane. Shame on her.
You might have said it "tongue in cheek" but in fact that is not that silly a notion.
__________________
"Bums on seats" was how Captain Eddie Rickenbacker of Eastern Airlines liked to describe the airline business.
Right, because obviously the mother "didn't care". If only she had bothered to consult all of the childcare experts here on FT before getting on the plane. Shame on her.
Watch what happens with the problem children. Never once have I seen a parent trying to deal with one more than haphazardly.
The other things that you describe are rude as well. First, I should be clear: as a practical matter, the parent who does everything in their power to control their child is far less less culpable than the one who does not, and I'm sure that you're one who does the best he can to minimize any imposition. As a general proposition, however, I do not agree that children belong everywhere in an adult society. Very young children, i.e. those who lack volitional control of their conduct, don't belong in fine restaurants, at theaters, etc. Their presence is at odds with the purpose of the activity, and they are brought along, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of their parents. I believe the same rationale applies to flying. There are, of course, exceptions -- times when children have to fly for the benefit of the children, e.g. seeking medical care, re-locating, etc. However, these are the exceptions. As someone else noted, when I was a child, family vacations consisted of car trips. When I was old enough to control my behavior (I think I was 25 or 26 ), the scope of our vacations were expanded to include air travel. My parents would have been mortified if I carried on in a plane the way the kid on the Southwest flight did -- it simply wouldn't have occurred to them to inflict that kind of imposition on a planeload of strangers.
But that's a digression the purpose of flying is a means of transportation, exactly the same as the school bus, your car, etc. It is not in any way analagous to a performance of La Boheme.
And a lot of parents end up taking their kids to Disney World or similar anyway - not done for the parents' benefit.
Thanks for the info. I'll be sure to avoid it at all costs.
Quote:
But that's a digression the purpose of flying is a means of transportation, exactly the same as the school bus, your car, etc. It is not in any way analagous to a performance of La Boheme.
And I disagree. Your screaming child is not allowed in my car. School buses are intended for screaming children. Public buses allow me to get off at the next stop if your child screams. Airplanes, on the other hand, are locked aluminum tubes in which all pax are captive audiences. Screaming children are an imposition on other passengers and parents who bring them on board are simply rude.
Quote:
And a lot of parents end up taking their kids to Disney World or similar anyway - not done for the parents' benefit.
So all those kids flying between SFO and JFK are on their way to Disney World? As I said earlier, when I was growing up, a family vacation was a car trip. It wasn't until I was old enough that my parents could count on my not being a nuisance to anyone that we flew.
And I disagree. Your screaming child is not allowed in my car. School buses are intended for screaming children. Public buses allow me to get off at the next stop if your child screams. Airplanes, on the other hand, are locked aluminum tubes in which all pax are captive audiences. Screaming children are an imposition on other passengers and parents who bring them on board are simply rude.
If you don't want to fly, you can certainly take the bus from New York to Miami or wherever. I can't imagine it being very convenient to get off in Georgia because you didn't care for the other pax. And the bus is not necessarily a cheaper option either.
Honestly if I had embarrassed my parents to the point of getting thrown off a plane I have a feeling the newspaper would have been reporting my death.. not the fact that the airline was "mean to me"
Ditto for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyverII
You guys traveling most of the year complaining about this kid aren't off the hook either--you just weren't around while your wife was dealing with a howling child.
Both groups I pity.
I pity those who tend to use sweeping generalizations to describe others.
__________________ "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." Plato
- j/k),
If only she had bothered to consult all of the childcare experts here on FT before getting on the plane. Shame on her.
