Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > TravelBuzz
Reload this Page >

First/Business Class: Should there be age restrictions?

First/Business Class: Should there be age restrictions?

Old Sep 25, 2016, 5:28 pm
  #316  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Colorado
Programs: UA Gold (.85 MM), HH Diamond, SPG Platinum (LT Gold), Hertz PC, National EE
Posts: 5,582
The challenge is different people have different tolerance levels. A good friend of mine thinks children should not be allowed in first or even economy plus, he also thinks cell phones should be banned from airline lounges... I can be on the same flights, and in the same lounges, and I don't notice the things that bother him.

Thankfully he doesn't set the rules.
COSPILOT is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2016, 5:31 pm
  #317  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: ATL
Programs: DL Scattered Smothered Covered Medallion, Some hotel & car stuff, Kroger Plus Card
Posts: 10,742
Originally Posted by PTravel
The "very presence of young passengers" doesn't cause me "distress." Screaming children, crying babies, loud talkers and belligerent drunks annoy the heck out of me. And parents who bring screaming children and crying babies on board are just as inconsiderate as drunks who drink too much and become belligerent.

You're absolutely right. I don't get to decide who can buy airplane tickets. But I can THINK what I want about people who are so inconsiderate that they give no thought to the comfort of the dozens and dozens of strangers who are flying with them.
Absolutely agree that you can have whatever opinion you want. But your earlier post, and the posts of others, suggest that you have a desire for certain types of passengers to be outright banned from flying, or from flying in certain cabins. This requires that someone make a sweeping pre-judgement of an entire class of passengers and exclude them from an otherwise generally available service based on nothing more than, in this case, their age.

My argument is simple - rather than arguing for a rather unfair exclusion that most of us agree the airlines will never actually make into policy, someone who knows that air travel always includes the potential for other passengers who are annoying might be better served by preparing in ways within their own control to minimize the annoyance.

What you're still missing the point on is that YOU are being painfully inconsiderate by suggesting that parents who bring their children on flights are ignorant of the impact they have on those around them. Rather, most parents I know are painfully aware of this, and as a result often choose to drive to destinations when they can - spending days stuck in a car just to get to the beach for a weekend or something similar. Perhaps YOU should consider that for every dozen families doing that, there's going to be one you encounter on a plane that is going overseas for some reason, or needs to get somewhere and back quickly due to an emergency or work constraints, or any number of other reasons. Trust me, those folks don't want to have to put up with the looks people like you give them any more than you want to put up with the possibility that some kid may make some noise for a little while within your shared metal tube. That doesn't remove the fact that they need to get somewhere at a certain time, just like the rest of us, and they should be able to do just that if they are willing to pay for it. And all that is even before I get to the point about how these families shouldn't need to justify their air travel by situations where an emergency or schedule demands it - it's also perfectly okay for them to fly, y'know, just because they WANT to.
gooselee is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2016, 4:06 am
  #318  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Programs: QFF Gold, Flying Blue, Enrich
Posts: 5,366
Originally Posted by gooselee
Absolutely agree that you can have whatever opinion you want. But your earlier post, and the posts of others, suggest that you have a desire for certain types of passengers to be outright banned from flying, or from flying in certain cabins...
With all due respect I don't think that PTravel has ever said or implied that. I stand to be corrected of course, but the real problem is parents who won't attempt to manage their children.

BadgerBoi is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2016, 4:22 am
  #319  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada, USA, Europe
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 31,452
Originally Posted by Proudelitist
Either way, it's not "public"
That's exactly what it is.
LondonElite is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2016, 2:05 pm
  #320  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: The Indo Jungle
Programs: AA EXP, IHG Spire
Posts: 1,319
Just checking in to see if this has been resolved yet.
DeepUnderground is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2016, 5:49 pm
  #321  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SEATTLE, WA USA
Programs: UAL, AA, AS, CX
Posts: 1,972
IMHO - NO kids NO babies in first or business class period end of story! I guess if you are above a certain age then yes it is acceptable but be that 16 for a drivers license point of view or a 12-14 year old I don't know.

Here's my point - and for context since none of you know me I am not ordinarily an exclusionary type of person however....

Last Friday I was in First Class on a BA 747 LHR-SAN when two seats in first class were filled with Mom, Dad, a toddler and a newborn (as in less than 6 months old). First was full except for one seat. Baby cried yet the toddler threw fits throughout the first 1/3 of the flight before they both fell asleep until landing.

First class is the last respite in a travel world filled with chaos and yes it's a class-ist system but if I can afford to pay for First Class to avoid the chaos or cattle cart and get peace quiet and comfort along with hopefully better service then I will and I won't take it lightly with misbehaved or crying/screaming temper tantrum kids.

So with that NO kids in first class. And when I take my niece of 10 and nephew of 8 with me - the same rule applies to me and I will be back in coach in a middle seat as they like the window and aisle and yes I will be fine with it.

I think airlines should put in policies and rules that help this notion too. There I said it. If you feel the need to flame me then be objective or don't flame me at all.
JHIN is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2016, 6:12 pm
  #322  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Programs: AA Lifetime Platinum, BA Silver, Marriott Gold
Posts: 89
Originally Posted by JHIN
IMHO - NO kids NO babies in first or business class period end of story! I guess if you are above a certain age then yes it is acceptable but be that 16 for a drivers license point of view or a 12-14 year old I don't know.

Here's my point - and for context since none of you know me I am not ordinarily an exclusionary type of person however....

Last Friday I was in First Class on a BA 747 LHR-SAN when two seats in first class were filled with Mom, Dad, a toddler and a newborn (as in less than 6 months old). First was full except for one seat. Baby cried yet the toddler threw fits throughout the first 1/3 of the flight before they both fell asleep until landing.

First class is the last respite in a travel world filled with chaos and yes it's a class-ist system but if I can afford to pay for First Class to avoid the chaos or cattle cart and get peace quiet and comfort along with hopefully better service then I will and I won't take it lightly with misbehaved or crying/screaming temper tantrum kids.

So with that NO kids in first class. And when I take my niece of 10 and nephew of 8 with me - the same rule applies to me and I will be back in coach in a middle seat as they like the window and aisle and yes I will be fine with it.

I think airlines should put in policies and rules that help this notion too. There I said it. If you feel the need to flame me then be objective or don't flame me at all.
You would have a point if the airlines advertised their First Class as being "peaceful and quiet". In that case you could reasonably expect that the airlines would do whatever they could to deliver the promised peace and quiet, including possibly imposing age restrictions. But they don't. They advertise comfortable lie-flat seats and excellent service but they do not promise peace and tranquility. There is no reason why anyone should feel that they need to impose their noisy kids on the teachers and firefighters in coach instead of the important investment bankers sitting in First.
AlastairGordon is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2016, 6:36 pm
  #323  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,332
Start your own airline up....impose your own rules...

We'll see how that pans out.
trooper is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2016, 6:58 pm
  #324  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by gooselee
Absolutely agree that you can have whatever opinion you want. But your earlier post, and the posts of others, suggest that you have a desire for certain types of passengers to be outright banned from flying, or from flying in certain cabins. This requires that someone make a sweeping pre-judgement of an entire class of passengers and exclude them from an otherwise generally available service based on nothing more than, in this case, their age.
First of all, I'm not responsible for other people post. Don't attribute their positions to me.

As for would I like to see children banned from flying? Yes, but it's hardly likely to happen and certainly hasn't happened yet, at least in the US. As for making a judgment regarding an entire class of passengers, that class is parents of young children, not the children. They are the ones who bring on young children who are incapable of exercising volitional control over their behavior.

My argument is simple - rather than arguing for a rather unfair exclusion that most of us agree the airlines will never actually make into policy, someone who knows that air travel always includes the potential for other passengers who are annoying might be better served by preparing in ways within their own control to minimize the annoyance.
I am prepared. There is no way to minimize the annoyance of the humungous lap child that kicked me seat continuously Friday on what was, fortunately, a short flight. There is not way to minimize the annoyance of the ice-pick-in-an-eye of shrieking children and crying babies, both in the terminal and on-board. And before you say, "Noise cancelling headphones or earplugs," noise cancelers don't block human speech (including young human noise), and with ear plugs I can't listen to music, which is how I pass the time on flights. The simple fact remains that it is the parents of disruptive children who impose on everyone else, and not the other way around.

No one says, "ignore the belligerent drunk." I can't imagine why anyone thinks, "ignore disruptive children" is any more appropriate.

What you're still missing the point on is that YOU are being painfully inconsiderate by suggesting that parents who bring their children on flights are ignorant of the impact they have on those around them.
They're not ignorant of the impact on others. They just don't care. How would you feel about the belligerent drunk who says, "I'm know I'm a disruptive a$$hole when I drink, and I'm really aware of the impact it has on others. But I'll drink to excess anyway."

Rather, most parents I know are painfully aware of this, and as a result often choose to drive to destinations when they can - spending days stuck in a car just to get to the beach for a weekend or something similar.
That is EXACTLY what my parents did. I didn't set foot on a plane until I was 8 years old. Somehow, we managed to take vacations, see relatives, etc. This was also back when people dressed up to fly and the only air rage ever seen was Bill Shatner's episode on The Twilight Zone.

Perhaps YOU should consider that for every dozen families doing that, there's going to be one you encounter on a plane that is going overseas for some reason, or needs to get somewhere and back quickly due to an emergency or work constraints, or any number of other reasons.
I do consider that. I always accommodate people, with or without children, flying for emergencies, and also parents who have adopted children overseas and are bringing them home, etc. I do not, however, believe that emergencies are 1 in 12 of disruptive families -- probably more like 1 in 100.

Trust me, those folks don't want to have to put up with the looks people like you give them any more than you want to put up with the possibility that some kid may make some noise for a little while within your shared metal tube.
Sorry, but I do not equate having to put with the glares of irritated with passengers, with those passengers having to experience the cause of the irritation. Going back to the belligerent drunk analogy, I'm sure he feels pretty bad the following day.

That doesn't remove the fact that they need to get somewhere at a certain time, just like the rest of us, and they should be able to do just that if they are willing to pay for it.
And they can do it. However, as I said, that doesn't mean I'm not going to regard those parents who bring disruptive children on board as selfish and inconsiderate. Just because someone CAN do something doesn't mean they SHOULD do it.

And all that is even before I get to the point about how these families shouldn't need to justify their air travel by situations where an emergency or schedule demands it - it's also perfectly okay for them to fly, y'know, just because they WANT to.
As I said, emergencies are emergencies and I always always lend a hand to my fellow human beings in an emergency. As for it being okay to engage in discretionary flying with children, I respectfully disagree. It's allowed; it's not okay.

In any event, I think you for a thoughtful and respectful discussion. All too often these discussions turn ugly with name-calling on both sides. I appreciate your perspective and the way you've presented it.
PTravel is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2016, 10:12 pm
  #325  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: ATL
Programs: DL Scattered Smothered Covered Medallion, Some hotel & car stuff, Kroger Plus Card
Posts: 10,742
Originally Posted by PTravel
In any event, I think you for a thoughtful and respectful discussion. All too often these discussions turn ugly with name-calling on both sides. I appreciate your perspective and the way you've presented it.
We disagree on much, but I think we agree on this. Thank you.
gooselee is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2016, 5:12 am
  #326  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Oslo
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 204
Originally Posted by AlastairGordon
You would have a point if the airlines advertised their First Class as being "peaceful and quiet". In that case you could reasonably expect that the airlines would do whatever they could to deliver the promised peace and quiet, including possibly imposing age restrictions. But they don't. They advertise comfortable lie-flat seats and excellent service but they do not promise peace and tranquility. There is no reason why anyone should feel that they need to impose their noisy kids on the teachers and firefighters in coach instead of the important investment bankers sitting in First.
British Airways seems to do:
http://www.britishairways.com/en-no/...es/first/first
"A world of calm and tranquillity"
"Your First suite is a haven of style and comfort..."
Hilde is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2016, 10:58 am
  #327  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Programs: AA Lifetime Platinum, BA Silver, Marriott Gold
Posts: 89
Originally Posted by Hilde
British Airways seems to do:
http://www.britishairways.com/en-no/...es/first/first
"A world of calm and tranquillity"
"Your First suite is a haven of style and comfort..."
The "world of calm and tranquillity" paragraph appears to be referring to the lounges, including the CCR, so one could argue that BA should not tolerate noisy children in those places and they are guilty of false advertising if they do.

"Style and comfort" OTOH is arguably referring to physical comfort, which would preclude kids kicking your seat but not necessarily crying babies.
AlastairGordon is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2016, 11:05 am
  #328  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: IAD/DCA
Posts: 31,805
which airlines do? is there a wiki here?

http://www.airasia.com/vn/en/infligh...uiet-zone.page

http://www.flyscoot.com/en/fly-scoot.../economy-class
ScootinSilence quiet zone

malaysia - A380 F and upper Y
Kagehitokiri is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2016, 11:24 am
  #329  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,727
Just as there's a smoking and non smoking section, I think it would be beneficial to offer a Pax the option of paying more for a "quiet zone." Assuming this is economically viable, I see nothing wrong with this compromise.
Visconti is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2016, 1:43 pm
  #330  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,334
Originally Posted by Visconti
Just as there's a smoking and non smoking section, I think it would be beneficial to offer a Pax the option of paying more for a "quiet zone." Assuming this is economically viable, I see nothing wrong with this compromise.
AFAIK no airline ever charged extra for a smoking or nonsmoking seat.
MSPeconomist is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.