In Saturday's tragic crash of a Metroliner in Canada, the only fatality was...you guessed it...a "lap child".
There were also injuries on the plane (no word how many injuries were caused by the unrestrained child).
Enough.
This is the single stupidest rule in ALL of aviation. (and aviation has some doosies!) The ridiculous claim that allowing lap-babies saves lives because parents would otherwise drive to see grandma instead of paying for an airline seat for their children is asinine. If you want to use that logic, get rid of the TSA and MANY more people will fly instead of drive. You'll save thousands of lives.
Every human being needs to be restrained...PROPERLY restrained.
I don't care how much you love your child, you CANNOT HOLD ONTO HIM IN AN ACCIDENT. At best, he'll go flying through the cabin and his impact will be absorbed by the soft, cushy body of another passenger. At worst, you will crush him yourself.
Every human being gets belted into a seat.
Every.
Single.
One.
The ridiculous claim that allowing lap-babies saves lives because parents would otherwise drive to see grandma instead of paying for an airline seat for their children is asinine.
No, it's perfectly logical and is backed up by statistics, not emotion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by airmotive
If you want to use that logic, get rid of the TSA and MANY more people will fly instead of drive. You'll save thousands of lives.
That makes no sense because with no security, terrorists would go on a killing spree.
That said, there must be a way to attach a child onto the parent's seat belt. That way, the parent will not have to buy another seat and the baby will be restrained.
__________________
My incredible photo trip report in OZ/TG/LX F: The departure and the return.
No, it's perfectly logical and is backed up by statistics, not emotion.
That makes no sense because with no security, terrorists would go on a killing spree.
That said, there must be a way to attach a child onto the parent's seat belt. That way, the parent will not have to buy another seat and the baby will be restrained.
Why not have entire families stand (like RyanAir's little publicity stunt suggestion?). You could cheaply fit a family of eight into a single row that would ordinarily hold three people. Think of all the lives that would save. Just hang little handholds on the ceiling like on city buses.
No.
A human being belongs in a seat, and that human being needs to be restrained in that seat. Two people in one seat does not work in an accident.
One person crushes the other.
Simply being tied down does not work. The restraint must be proper.
Several accidents involving skydiving aircraft have demonstrated that simply being restrained during an accident in NOT sufficient.
(skydivers typically loop a floor-mounted seatbelt through their harness)
PROPER restraint and support is required. This is NOT provided by a mother's lap, even if the baby is tied to the mother.
Baby goes into a proper carrier; carrier is properly secured into a seat. Anything less is absolutely unfit for air travel.
__________________
Okay, I get it. This topic has been discussed in another thread. Just like every other topic. No need to point it out.
That said, there must be a way to attach a child onto the parent's seat belt. That way, the parent will not have to buy another seat and the baby will be restrained.
Why shouldn't they have to b uy another seat?
Babies are people, babies consume space, for safety babies need to be buckled in.
Parents the majority of the time CHOOSE to have children(if they don't WANT the children there are adoption agencies and other options available).
If you can't pay for the costs associated with flying with children maybe you shouldn't fly with children and/or have children in the first place.
In the event of a crash or a hard landing a baby in a lap is a projectile, why would any parent subject their child to that?
Airlines should provide a proper restraint for babies to sit in their own seat for parents who buy that seat. Maybe they should change the lap child age to <1 yr. But one incident like this does not change the facts that many more infant lives have been saved by encouraging flying instead of driving. Your emotionally charged response is how we have been tricked into giving up so many other freedoms in the name of 'safety'
Programs: MR PLT/LT PLT, SPG PLT50/LT GLD, HH Gold, US LT SLV, AA GLD, EK SLV, Hertz 5*
Posts: 11,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by airmotive
The ridiculous claim that allowing lap-babies saves lives because parents would otherwise drive to see grandma instead of paying for an airline seat for their children is asinine.
I don't find it hard to believe that at least 1.5% of air travelers would chose to drive instead of stay home, were they forced to buy additional seats.
Find me more than 1 lap-child death this year. I can provide you thousands of child deaths by auto.
While any child death is a tragedy, nothing is perfectly safe - don't make the good worse by trying to be perfect.
No, it's perfectly logical and is backed up by statistics, not emotion.
Indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommyleo
That makes no sense because with no security, terrorists would go on a killing spree.
Well we can get rid of the TSA and still have screeners like used to be the case before the fall of 2001.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommyleo
That said, there must be a way to attach a child onto the parent's seat belt. That way, the parent will not have to buy another seat and the baby will be restrained.
There is a way. Many airlines provide lap-child belts that are attached to regular seat belts used by the person holding the lap-child.
__________________
Like TSA, DL SkyMiles management treats airline customers as if they are the enemy or sheep to be fleeced and it shows.
Babies are people, babies consume space, for safety babies need to be buckled in.
Parents the majority of the time CHOOSE to have children(if they don't WANT the children there are adoption agencies and other options available).
If you can't pay for the costs associated with flying with children maybe you shouldn't fly with children and/or have children in the first place.
In the event of a crash or a hard landing a baby in a lap is a projectile, why would any parent subject their child to that?
The airlines want business from lap-child infants and their families. They get more money than they would otherwise get if not for the lap-child infant arrangements that common carriers have.
Even when the lap-child infant's transport costs a thousand dollars or more, the lap-child infant may not even get a meal. Even the lap-child holder may end up with less than stellar service despite having paid that just for transporting the infant internationally as a lap-child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serioustraveler
In the event of a crash or a hard landing a baby in a lap is a projectile, why would any parent subject their child to that?
Because it is safer to fly than to drive; because the savings from not getting a seat for a lap-child infant means additional money to make more appropriate health and safety expenditures for their own child or perhaps even other children.
Life is not risk-free. Some risk mitigation costs are a less than perfect use of money. Some risk mitigation may even be foul: like avoiding baths and showers because people die during baths/showers.
__________________
Like TSA, DL SkyMiles management treats airline customers as if they are the enemy or sheep to be fleeced and it shows.
Programs: MR PLT/LT PLT, SPG PLT50/LT GLD, HH Gold, US LT SLV, AA GLD, EK SLV, Hertz 5*
Posts: 11,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by serioustraveler
In the event of a crash or a hard landing a baby in a lap is a projectile, why would any parent subject their child to that?
Life has risks.
There were 390,000+ people killed on US roads in the last decade. There were 153 people killed on airplanes. If you question why a parent would take a kid on a plane, why in the heck would they ever drive anywhere, which has 250,000% more deaths with 6,000% more deaths per mile travelled?
Heck, there were 600 lightning deaths. Why would a parent ever take a child outside. Wait, 20,000 people were killed in home fires, why would you ever stay inside.....
I don't find it hard to believe that at least 1.5% of air travelers would chose to drive instead of stay home, were they forced to buy additional seats.
Find me more than 1 lap-child death this year. I can provide you thousands of child deaths by auto.
While any child death is a tragedy, nothing is perfectly safe - don't make the good worse by trying to be perfect.
Then we should also have the option of putting 400 people onto 737's in standing room only at $25 a person. After all, if it saves lives by allowing people who normally would have to drive but can now afford to fly...
Respectfully, you can have one side of this argument or the other; you can't have both.
__________________
Okay, I get it. This topic has been discussed in another thread. Just like every other topic. No need to point it out.
Then we should also have the option of putting 400 people onto 737's in standing room only at $25 a person.
The plane wouldn't meet the evacuation standards necessary to be certified to fly. Easier and faster to evacuate a lap-child infant from a plane than an infant buckled into a car seat.
__________________
Like TSA, DL SkyMiles management treats airline customers as if they are the enemy or sheep to be fleeced and it shows.
Programs: AA Gold 1MM, A3 Blue (* Silver), MR/SPG/PC Gold, HH Diamond, Nat ExecElite
Posts: 28,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by airmotive
Respectfully, you can have one side of this argument or the other; you can't have both.
And that's probably why the U.S. regulation has settled upon 2 years old. It is a middle ground that balances the drive vs. fly fatality data with aviation safety/evacuation and inflight comfort factors.
There are a couple cities for us that were flights with no kids that are now drives with 2 kids. (Minneapolis, Chicago) We took a lot of trips with infants, although we got pretty good and selecting such off-peak flights that the kids almost always had a seat to themselves. But I completely see how the regulations alter the mix of fliers and drivers. It certainly did for us.
If they really wanted to create a complex regulation, they'd restrict the infant rules to flights within a fairly narrow distance range - say, 300 to 600 miles. That's where the real drive vs. fly decision is made. Infant rules aren't causing people with 3-year-olds to drive SFO-NYC. When we want to go to the East Coast (say, 950 miles to DC), it's always a flight - period. When we want to go to St. Louis (250 miles), it's always a drive. It's really these 6-8 hour drives where you think about the pros and cons of drive vs. fly.
(No, I don't actually want them to create a complex regulation. )
)
