The Ethical Dilemma Of Child-Free Flights
Amanda Pleva October 18, 2016
“This is how selfish people are – when you’re on a plane and a baby’s crying, you think that’s happening to you. ‘This is going to ruin my flight!’ Well, look at the parent! Because that person is holding a crying baby on a plane. Which means they’ve been traveling with a baby, all day. Which means they have a baby. Okay? So their life isn’t even good!” – Louis CK
Indian Airline IndiGo recently announced new Quiet Zones on its flights, barring children aged 12 and under in rows 1-4 and 11-14. While some applaud the move, others call it age-based discrimination. But, like it or not, the move toward adult-only flights or zones onboard is gaining fervent support. Simply look at the hashtag #childfreeflights on Twitter and you’ll find scores of people begging for the idea to catch on with the airlines.
This attitude is made very obvious not just online, but onboard. When a baby starts crying on an airplane, there’s always someone who will inevitably turn around and glare, make a snide comment in passing to the family, or get the attention of the crew to demand that we somehow do something about it. If we were capable of instantly and consistently stopping babies from crying, we would likely not be flight attendants. We would have religions devoted to us.
I’m a flight attendant, but also the mother of what was, at one horrible time, a screaming baby on a plane. I’ve certainly been on all sides of this situation, and I have to say I love the idea of a “Quiet Zone.” However, banning children from entire flights is discriminatory. Parents, by choosing to fly with their children, have committed no wrongdoing, and this needs to be absolutely underlined. Many parents do their best not to bother anyone, and have the same right to travel as others. I’ve seen some families even offer bribes like these to other passengers out of fear of upsetting anyone should their child start crying, but it makes me cringe, because again – traveling with a child is not a crime. By apologizing, it is made to be one. So a Quiet Zone, like quiet cars on trains, offers those who really can’t stand being around a child the option to avoid them, at least directly. It puts the onus on the person who knows they want quiet, and not the family.
For those who call the idea of Quiet Zones mean-spirited or discriminatory, I have this to say – it is the result of the age of entitlement. The current culture which demands that the world must cater to one’s own needs and wants alone is why people are drawing a line in the sand. It’s not the fault of the exasperated parents who are trying their hardest to keep their children’s feet off the seat, their volume down and for “please” and “thank you” to be spoken. It’s the families (who have grown in number over the years, in my experience) who let their children run up and down the aisles, have their tablets on at full volume without headphones, use the fuselage as a sticker book. The parents with children for whom rules and social mores don’t apply because they are “just children”. It has limited the patience of fellow travelers, and for good reason. It has now caused the first babble or whimper of any child to be viewed as a prelude to a flight of misery, whether the parents are guilty or innocent. It’s a shame. I can’t blame people one bit for wanting a quiet space. It doesn’t feel good to have judgmental eyes cast on you when it’s you carrying your beloved child down the aisle, but experience is teaching people to expect the worst. As a parent, shouldn’t it be a comfort for people with the least amount of patience for children to sit elsewhere?
That said, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for those who go completely mental over a baby’s cry when they have not prepared for this to potentially be the case. For those who don’t have or want headphones, earplugs, or tolerance. To me, this is like being angry about a passing rainstorm but refusing to bring or buy an umbrella. You are in public, where families are allowed. You can not expect a baby to “behave” because they simply can’t yet. Babies cry and children are children, and you have chosen not to fly private. If an errant foot smacks into your seatback once or twice in a flight (with the intervention of a parent), it is what it is. Flying commercially means people aren’t excluded, and, like it or not, children are people. The concern I have for Quiet Zones and child-free flights is that it may likely lower the already low tolerance level people have for families. Should child-free flights not exist on a specific route or time of day that one needs to fly, for instance, will a crying baby send that person over the edge because it wasn’t an option to be isolated from him or her? If Quiet Zones come to pass on more airlines, it should be viewed as a luxury, not a requirement.
It all boils down to being considerate toward one another on both sides. Families should understand that the crew and all adults seated nearby are not babysitters, so children acting as if they are home is unacceptable. This means no running, no swinging on the armrests, no kicking the seats or making a mess. Conversely, those staring daggers at parents trying to console an upset child are also upsetting the parents, who in turn will make the child more upset. Try to be understanding, and maybe even be of assistance if there’s a way you can help. But since tolerance and caring are in short supply, the best thing we can do is offer Quiet Zones.
[Photo: Shutterstock]
Airlines are common carriers. Kids with tickets have as much right to be on them as anyone else. Don't like it, hire a fractional jet or other general aviation solution. This isn't an area for negotiation.
The problem with child free flights would be that it would mean more children on the other flights, and what would be tolerable now, would become less tolerable, so more people would feel forced to use the child free flights. I don't mind babies crying, it's the two and three year olds being allowed to run free on the plane that gets to me. I've noticed that the wiser cabin staff nip that in the bud though.
I have no problem when a baby starts crying on a plane or any public place. That's their only form of communication. I will even extend it to someone as old as 2 years old. However I have zero tolerance for such behavior for children 3 or above. They are old enough to discipline. Yes discipline, not giving in to the child for whatever they are screaming/crying about. You teach them early on what is acceptable behavior and what is not.
It seems that people with children say that they have at the right to fly with their children and people who do not say they have the right to fly without children. Personally, I do not have children and their crying and screaming upsets me. The Airlines say that children and babies cry and scream. It is just something that that no one can control. Therefor, there is nothing that they or anyone can do about it. Yet, if it were a mental dysfunction, The Airline would have them removed. The Airlines would love to make people pay extra for a quit flight. All because a few parents who are totally unwilling to pre-parpare themselves or their children for the flight. Which the airlines are setting up by giving them free seats. I think that it would be fair for all and to all, just to to charge a fair per person. I know a mother is now screaming, "Why should my fifteen pound baby have to pay the same price as a one hundred eighty pound man?". For the same reason that a couple with a total weight of two hundred seventy-five lb. (160 + 115) has to pay as a couple with a total weight of five hundred forty lb. (290 + 215 + 35). Thus, the only fair way is to pay per-person regardless of size. As for airlines charging childless people more for child-free flights or to fly in an area of the jet without children, is totally ridiculous. All people would have to do is boycott flying that airline for a few weeks and that would put a quick end to that charge or idea.
First thing I want to say is that I am a mom. And yes, I first took my son on a plane when he was three months old so that we could relocate from New Hampshire to Florida. I prepared ahead of time, made sure to have a bottle ready and pacifier for take off and descent to help prevent ear pain. I booked a flight that allowed him to have his natural nap time while on the plane. And I booked him his own seat so that he could be comfortable in his own baby bucket (car seat). Surprisingly or not, he turned out to be an excellent traveler and the people in front and back commented after the flight that they didn't even know I had a baby with me. He grew up traveling and always did very well; I like to think that I had something to do with that, but the truth is I probably was very lucky. That said, I don't see any issues with child-free zones on planes or even child-free flights, as long as there are still viable options for parents of young children. Studies have shown that the cry of young babies seems to trigger certain instincts in all of us, not just parents. I can vouch for this in myself. Hearing a little one cry makes me feel like I have to do something but reality is, of course, that I can't do anything--it's someone else's child. And once you tune into the sound, it is very hard to tune it out, even with noise-cancelling ear plugs (again, I speak from experience). And yes, babies can cry for very long periods of time. On a overnight flight from Houston to Edinburgh last year, a small one cried non-stop for eight hours straight. Of course, an hour from our destination he fell asleep out of exhaustion and I can say that most of us around him were also exhausted. No one made any unkind remarks or gave dirty looks, because the parent were worn out too. Truth is, flying can be upsetting and uncomfortable to many children, especially babies. They can become over-stimulated by all the people, sounds and sights around them and their routines upset by the travel schedule. It makes adults cranky, so why wouldn't it be even more so to kids? IMO, not every children can handle it when they're very young and that should be okay. Sometimes we as parents have to think about what is best for our kids and scale back our expectations as far as what is possible when they're little. I think the same thing when I go to Disney World, for example, and see babies and young children beat red from the heat and looking miserably sweaty and tired as the parents trot them from one attraction to the other. My husband and I used to have a phrase whenever were out with our son, that we were on "toddler time". We would slow way down, take breaks, take him out of a restaurant if he started to get overwhelmed and crabby; sometimes we just chose not to do an activity if we knew it would upset his routine at that phase in his life. It was a temporary sacrifice that we gladly accepted. And if he had had any trouble on that first flight, I probably would have waited until he was quite a bit older before flying with him again. Who needs a stressed out kid (or parents or fellow passengers?) Older children are indeed another matter, IMO, and should learn respectful travel habits. On another trans-Atlantic flight I once sat in front of a little girl (about 6-years-old) who raised and dropped the table behind me over and over again during the hour we sat on the tarmac before take-off, only stopping when I finally asked her mother to stop her. She also kicked the seat non-stop after that, spilled her fruit drink under my seat and feet, and started fighting with her brother halfway through the flight. I had other passengers come up to me afterwards and say they felt bad for me. I do try to be patient, especially if the parents are making an effort, but as some have said, that is not always the case. If you had asked me after that flight if I would pay to be in a child-free zone, I would have said yes!