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.