To the OP's title in the thread, Does Continental hate Inter-continental babies? I think the answer is for the most part yes. I (and other parents I know) have had significantly better experiences on Lufthansa flying between USA and Europe than on Continental. The flight attendants are much friendlier and go out of their way to help you ensure your child is not a distraction to the other customers.

I wish I could say that it is just pure luck that we have had had better FAs on LH than CO, but we have done too many of these trips lately as have other families. The situation seems to be the same each trip.

It may not be so much that CO hates babies, but LH seems to like them.

Very interesting about LH vs CO FA treatment of kids on intl flights. LH is an option for us, too. There are definitely some carriers more attuned to families.

Is your impression based on a large sample size?

The intolerance openly displayed (one might say bragged on) by some in this thread is breathtaking.

Yes...let's ban children from flights...at least until they stop throwing fits...let's say around age 6. And we should also ban old folks. You know...the ones who tend to have heart attacks and cause medical diversions...I think age 60 is a good cut-off point. And of course folks from the fine State of New York because they talk louder than folks from, say, Texas.

Get a life folks. Everyone has the right to fly if they pay. If you don't like it, drive to Europe. If I buy a seat for my kids, why should I sit in the back if I've paid for the seats just like you have. Good thing none of you were ever children and threw fits.

I flew GVA-EWR on a 764 last week and I was sitting in the bulkhead aisle seat, the other aisle was a woman with her baby. The middle seat was supposed to be empty so I was glad but the baby just took it and was poking me the entire flight, dropping toys and other random crap over me... infants should be restricted on airplanes to like the last row or something, not to an elite-reserved or high-fee "premium row".

Thats my own view, however the CO flight attendants were really really nice to this particular baby. If it wasn't for my noise cancelling headphones i would've killed myself LOL

You are unbelievably wrong. No one has a right to fly. Period.

From a purely business point of view I suggest there is enough people who travel for a living that a case can be made for no leisure travellers on board (read no kids). There would likely be a hefty premium for that service and admittedly it would be difficult to implement.

I have 2 young boys and I know my kids. Taking them together on a plane is a good way to upset a whole lot of other folks. Seperately they are fine. But as noted by another poster the travel is actually harder on them - discomfort, loss of control, and the all-mighty BOREDOM. So the best answer is not to fly them - thus Hawaii has been off the radar, as well as Europe, etc...

The OP notes that family visits must be paid - I suggest that fa,ily can come to visit. There myriad ways in which infants can be accomodated - airplanes are just one solution and absolutely NOT a right.

And no one has a right to demand that others not be permitted in "their" plane, either. If you want to control who is permitted on board or where they sit then buy all the seats. Otherwise deal with the fact that you're using a public means of conveyance.

The suggestion that your needs somehow trump someone else's needs is ridiculous. Is your business to the airline better or worse than someone else paying the same money?

Well said flying is not a right. Therefore what makes you think business travelers have any rights to demand who flies and doesn�t fly. Airlines is a business and obviously they know they can�t just cater to business trips, otherwise they would have used that for their model. They need people to fly on holiday also. They also need people to fly in the back of the bus in order to make the flight profitable. Sure the people in the back don�t provide much profit for the airplane, but they need them since it is difficult to fill a plane with all premium seats on the multitude of routes they have to fly.

And the suggestion not to fly shows how international you truly are. There are many of us with families on the opposite side of the world. It is absurd to expect all the cousins, parents, grandparents, siblings, and friends to fly over and spend thousands of dollars each (just in Y) to fly to come see you, every time you want to have your child see them. You want your kids to grow up knowing their family, and to visit the land were their parent(s) were from, and be exposed to different cultures so they aren�t narrow minded (which is the view that most of the world already has on us Americans, and I am starting to see why through forums like this).

Anyway I for one will continue to fly yearly or every other year on our 2 long haul legs back to RSA with our kids in whatever class I can afford at the time or have miles for. And I look forward to sitting next to anti-kid types who think kids don�t deserve to fly.

The world has spoken and the person who deserves to fly is the one who can afford it. If you don�t like get a private plane or start up an airline that only caters to business travel. Good luck with getting a network that has any depth that will be profitable.

P.S. Is this serious your view or are you just trying to stir the pot?

If I was a paranoid mind I would start to feel that perhaps you have decided to target my posts..... however

I would turn your argument back on you. How is your DESIRE to bring your children on board a public conveyance a trump to my desire to be able to travel to my work site with some semblance of peace?

I am not for banning anything or anyone. I am willing to support a business that offers me the option. I am also willing to support the RIGHT to decide of a business that chooses not to sell tickets to children - regardless of how stupid and reprehensible that descision.

Given that the airlines have made it quite clear they are willing to put up with "my" business (n.b. I have no kids) it seems to me that neither your nor my preference matters. The point is that it isn't our decision. We all must play by the rules that are set by the common carrier.

Glad we cleared that up.

Indeed, any business could do that. And they wouldn't be in business for long.

"" CONTINENTAL AIRLINES BANS CHILDREN UNDER 6 " Boy wouldn't the press, the lawmakers, and the lawyers have fun with that one.

BTW: thats 6 years old, not 6 inches high. :-)

These threads show up on FlyerTalk all the time, they drive me completely insane. My point of view:

- Your enfant may be special to you
- Your little Johnny with ADD may be special to you
- Your Grandmother with Alzheimer�s my be special to you
- Your 500 lbs body may be special to you
- Your 15 preflight cocktails may be special to you
- Your elite status may be special to you

None of these are special to me. All I want is the seat I paid for. And for no one seated next to be to make my flight miserable.

We have become a society were because your �special� you get to make me miserable. Fire away, I can take it.

The infant doesn’t make me special, neither does not having a baby, or being on business. But it is a part of life, part of society. If you want to be in a serene, totally undisturbed place take a private jet or buy out the entire first class. Otherwise what makes you so special that you think you can restrict the people next to you. I hear you, I would love to say who can sit by and who can’t. Only the Swedish Bikini team please. But unfortunately, and fortunately our society isn’t exactly what we want. It is part of this great thing called life, where things are different around every corner to keep you on your toes. After all the time is limited that you have to “put up” with the small inconvenience and is minimal in the grand scheme of things. I don’t like being sick but it happens sometimes. I don’t like sitting next to crying kids for a 11 hour flight, but it could happen. I don’t want my kid to cry on the plane but it could happen. I don’t want someone to sit next to me and die mid way through the flight but it could happen.

I couldn't disagree with you more. This is is not about that thing happen, of course they do. But rather the thing that happen to you and are caused by you are your responsibility. The things that I cause are my responsibility. Why are your problems and actions my responsibility? And very often these are not "small inconveniences". And yes, I have three children and have traveled with them since they were enfants; mant internationl flight.

Also how come you assume it's my responsibility to be grasious. Are you absolved of your your responsibility to be grasious because you have some "special" need?

How about those old folks that take forever to get on and off the plane. Such a nuisance...

But wait... not selling people tickets because they are old would be age discrimination (I presume)... and I would think the same would be true if an airline decided to ban children from their flight.