Originally Posted by
joecool1885
Didn't say I had a problem with him weighing in on it, didn't say I had a problem with his view, didnt say he'd be the only person with that view.
The issues I take are 1. The formatting: answering his own question in a way that makes the answer sound definitive/factual and not open to opinion.
And 2. It's self serving to take a stance against noise that bothers him (the more recent article about people not wearing headphones) while simultaneously taking a stance backing bringing a baby on board that's almost certain to create noise that bothers others.
And I'm sympathetic to parents, and frustrated with people who dont wear headphones, but to take such a cavalier attitude about people who are looking for peace/calm up front... that they should fly private if that's what they're after?
Effectively... as I see it... 'if you didnt want to deal with my noisy baby in first class, you should've flown private' and at the same time 'I'm not going to fly private, but you need to put headphones on and accommodate me'.
I see. Well, I have the same views as he does on both subjects and suspect it's pretty common for people to think it's appropriate for children to exist in first class and inappropriate for adults to refuse to use headphones. (Putting aside that there are rules requiring headphones but not banning children.) I don't see there being a contradiction, and think there is an obvious difference between people demanding to exclude paying humans from a cabin and those asking for those in a cabin to have a modicum of respect for others around. As the linked article discusses, it is not "certain" that a child will be more disruptive in a cabin than an adult. It is certain that playing music/video without headphones is disruptive.