I know it's our favourite topic on this forum...so I'm hesitant to ask this, but here goes!:

We recently flew LHR-YVR-AKL with our 6 month old. LHR-YVR with AC, YVR-AKL with NZ. We had a bassinet for all flights, and he was travelling as a lap-child (no extra seat).

The policies on what to do with the baby during take-off/landing and during turbulence were quite different, and the difference made quite a big impact on our opinion of AC and NZ.

To summarize:

AC: baby should be held in the 'burp' position i.e. head on your shoulder, feet on your lap, during takeoff/landing. during turbulence, the baby must be taken out of the bassinet and held.

NZ: lap belt supplied which is just like the demo seat belts i.e. a length of belt that has a buckle on one end and metal tab on the other, closes into a loop, and is adjustable. This goes through your (fastened) belt and round baby. It doesn't really matter what position baby is in, although lying sideways on your lap (being nursed if needed) works particularly well. during turbulence, the covers on the bassinet must be fastened down, but the baby stays where it is.

Now, I am not an expert (is there such a thing as an expert parent?) but it seemed that the lap belt makes perfect sense from a safety point of view -- if your hands let go of the baby, it isn't going to go flying through the cabin in severe turbulence, because it's buckled to you (and you're buckled to your seat).

So my first question is: why don't all airlines offer the lap-belt option? (I know many do other than NZ). The cynic in me is that it is much easier to be concerned that the 'held in burp position' approach is not sufficiently safe, as many have made the point on this forum before; this makes it more likely that parents will book a seat for the baby = more revenue for the airline.

The difference between rules during turbulence is a bit less clear to me, in terms of which is safer: you rely on either your hands (AC) or the fasteners on the bassinet cover (NZ) to stop the baby flying everywhere if the worst comes to the worst. But from a convenience/pleasurable flying perspective it is SOOO much better if the baby can be left alone. My son actually quite liked the turbulence (it's hereditary -- I fall asleep very fast in light chop), and with a trigger-happy captain who lights up the seat-belt sign at the first bump, we really hated having to move our son 3 or 4 times during an overnight (hint: we like to sleep too!) flight.

I'm tempted to write to AC to ask why they take the approach they do, but wondered if anyone could shed any light on this -- is it an FAA vs CAA vs. [insert appropriate national civil aviation governing body] thing?

Thanks

Dave