Originally Posted by
nicolas75
Nobody says noisy businessmen are better than noisy children in club lounges. We just say that it is easy to understand that customers who pay for club lounge do not want necessarily have the feeling to be in a noisy business meetin g/ crowded pub / kindergarten.
At some properties, it is so obvious that rules are followed strictly with no restriction (certainly because it is perceived as a major disturbance and/or it is easier to manage than asking afterwards someone to leave the lounge).
Same story at some airlines business lounges (I can clearly remember Air France staff asking some German passenger at Sao Paulo lounge making loudly a phone call with Skype to stop his conversation or leaving the lounge; and at JFK a family being asked to leave the lounge because of the noise made by the children, which did not seem to be a problem for the parents).
On the plane, FA can take action if passengers disturb the others. With young kids crying, it is of course a different case as noone can obviously blame a baby crying, even if - and I experienced that on a long haul fligh in J - it can be very painful).
I think you have summed it up well.
In essence with noisy adults, the adults can be held directly responsible for their own behaviour and there are some options open to other adults. With kids, the attitude is the opposite and that it is kids being kids and the onus is transferred onto everyone else to simply have to compromise their desire for peace to the childrens needs to be kids and be noisy. This is made worst now because over time parenting has become less concerned about the discomfort of others. There is no other solution to that conundrum. The conclusion therefore of allowing adults wanting better odds of a more serene adult environment is to allow that occaisional sanctuary for which you pay a premium. I think that seems reasonable to most reasonable people. The idea that kids should be allowed anywhere and everywhere isn't a human rights freedom issue.
I think those that make the arguments that there are other and equal forms of annoyance are obviously correct but it simply fails to confront this one.
