Originally Posted by
serioustraveler
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?
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.
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.