Ear plugs wouldn't have worked in that case, but in general they are a godsend. That said, why would anyone want to be in a PC, screaming baby or not? I mean, why not sit in the airport chapel. It's just as boring, but free.

Cova I've read and respected your posts many times but I must disagree with you on having the club room over 18. I too am a lifetime member and when travelling overseas the club room's are a life saver for myself when I travel. Add to it, it's even more important when I have my wife and kids with me. I see a lot more problems with adults wandering around the club room pacing all over screaming into their cell phones so that no matter where you sit you get to hear the entire conversation then with kids in the club room and other behavior by adults then by kids. And I don't think you are anti-family, I think you are pro-PClub room etiquette or you are just pro-common sense.

There's a lot of improvements that could be done to the club rooms (but it starts at basic etiquette) but making them over 18 only is not what I would suggest to solve the problems and I don't think you believe that would solve the problems either. I dunno I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I fully agree that there are etiquette changes that need to be made inside the club room's, but also and more importantly enforcement of the rules and etiquette by the current staff. Rarely have I seen a staff member take up issues with a member like asking them to lower their voice or such. I'd love to see them actually have and enforce some common sense etiquette rules inside the club rooms.

Hard to believe you'd bother writing that response.

Ok, maybe the kid was five or six. It doesn't take a ten-year old to push the "door open" button on an elevator.

It was done intentionally. The parents were praising the child for being so polite and holding the "door open" button while I was running to the elevator.

Why is it so hard to believe that a young child would know how to hold an elevator door open???

deleted

I've been quiet on these boards for a while now, but I just have to weigh in on this. I guess it struck a nerve with me. As someone who flies between IAH - CDG roundtrip once or twice per month for my law practice based in both those cities, I've seen it all in the PC's at this point, and I'd offer only these humble observations.

First, as a father of four sons aged 2, 4, 6, and 8, all these TATL trips can be *quite* the production with the entire family in tow, as you might imagine. Second, we all use the PC clubs regularly, and I am thankful to have them. Third, for those who are wondering, I expect the same (high) standard of behavior from my children at home and in public because having two standards is (1) confusing for the kids, and (2) hard on the parents!

Because I found the subsequent postings in this thread more interesting than the OP entry, I'd like to address those first. The most salient of them include:

KosraeTV: "I see a lot more adults wandering around the club room pacing all over, screaming into their cell phone..."

Yes! I agree completely! The fact is, there are far more adults who behave like children in the President's Club than there are actual children who are misbehaving!

Consider only these vignettes from this past Friday at the "Flagship" PC in the new terminal at IAH. While laying over after arriving from CDG (with my older 3 sons, mais sans Ms. LawFlyer) awaiting our flight up to DFW, there were an embarassing number of men acting like complete boors. Some were drunk, some were screaming orders into the cellphones to their "colleagues" back at the office, some were recounting mindless detail of their upgrade or nonupgrade experiences in extremely disruptive tones of voice -- and I remember thinking to myself, "My sons are actually better behaved than many of these adults." In fact, my son Jean-Marc asked me, "Daddy, why is that man yelling 'cuss' words so loud? I thought those were really bad words. He must be very mean." Well, my friends, out of the mouth of babes. . .

Given that the above description is actually typical of my experiences in a PC recently, I have wondered whether it is a suitable environment for my children not because they are misbehaving and disturbing the peace (which they aren't, and they know better!), but rather because I don't think that seeing drunken adults and hearing abusive language is appropriate for them. And this brings up a post by Cova.

Cova: "It used to be an Executive Lounge for business travelers to work and conduct business. . .[but now the PC is] not the quiet and reserved place it used to be."

I understand Cova's sentiment (and I often agree with much of his posting), but I disagree here. I have been flying CO for a LONG time now, using the PC clubs (in their past incarnations) since I was a kid flying around with my parents. I don't ever recall the PC's being all that quiet or reserved, and I never thought of it as "just" for businessmen. To the contrary, I've always viewed it as a club, a lounge, a place reserved away from the general chaos of the open terminal. And with four young sons (and three of them who make the TATL crossing regularly), I find it a haven of rest, assuming there are no drunken cell-talkers blathering away.

In fact, I find that my older three sons (4, 6, 8) tend to be better behaved in a more reasonable environment, such as the PC, than in the chaotic terminal. Even though I've described how Saturday's visit to the club included misbehaving adults, it is still *usually* preferable to the general hullaballoo of the open terminal. As most parents will agree, I find that when I can give my undivided attention to my children, tend to their small needs of a snack, some juice, a book, a game. . .and most of all, some hugs, lap-sitting, small-talk, giggle-making, and general Daddy-time, they are far more relaxed and well-behaved than in the noisy, crowded, HUGE, boisterous open terminal. They are children, after all, and they like their defined spaces, as it makes them feel more in control and at-ease.

To that end, in the PC's, they are able to speak to me and ask me questions without shouting, which keeps them calmer. They can hear my response and catch my eye more quickly, which helps keep them more at-ease. ALL of these things eventually translate into better-behaved children at the airport and in the PC's. This way, the PC becomes a tool to actually help my fellow travelers in keeping my family quiet, calm, and unintrusive.

This leads to something MBM3 said. He tells the story of the kid on the plane who kicked the seat-back in front of him incessantly, much to the annoyance of the passenger in that seat. The parent of that child should have controlled such a thing ASAP, with a sincere apology to the front passenger. Even if the parent had to physically grab the kid's legs and physically PREVENT him from kicking, then so be it!! This is inexcusable on the parent's part -- and the fault lies in the parenting, not with the kid who obviously had not had the proper boundaries set.

But MBM3 has also told of helping other passengers with kids where possible. This is SO helpful, though many of you may correctly note that it is certainly not "required." And yet, I find it impossible to believe that ANYONE can go through life and NEVER need someone's help -- maybe even a stranger's help -- in a sudden or difficult situation. After all, we are on public transport. It is not an exclusive social club, or a country club, or anything else. And just as adults must get from point A to point B, so must our children. So even if an adult does not "like" children, that's fine -- but those of us that ARE rearing children should no be looked down upon merely because our kids occasionally behave like, well. . . like kids.

Consider: When one of my older boys was only 18 months old, he and I were on the overnight IAH - CDG alone, in Y. He was in his car-seat/carrier thing, which buckled into his own Y seat. This was in the middle row of 3 on a 777, and he and I had D and E. Another woman was in F. In the middle of the night, after the baby was sound asleep and covered up warmly, I had to pee like a racehorse. The woman on the other side of the baby was wide awake and reading, so I asked her politely if she would just keep an eye on the sleeping baby while I ran to the lavatory -- that I would return in just 2 minutes, tops. (After all, unbuckling the baby, waking him up, and doing all of THAT would have been much more disturbing to her and everyone else!!) She said, "Sure."

As fate would have it, when I returned, I found that the baby had woken up and PROJECTILE VOMITED ALL OVER THIS LADY! I was horrified. But by the grace of God, the woman was SO nice about it. She said she leaned over to look at his little face, and suddenly -- SPLASH! -- she was covered with pureed veggie and milk! Oops. Turns out, he was getting sick, but had shown no signs of it until then.

Of course, I did my best to get the lady cleaned up, got an FA on the scene, changed the baby, and tried to do it all silently in the middle of the night at 35,000 feet. Now here's the strange thing:

Passengers in the row behind us started complaining to the FAs about "the sick and contagious" baby in the next row, and that they could smell the vomit (doubtful, actually), and demanded that we move. (Move where, precisely, I thought?) They even disturbed the nice lady (who got barfed on) and told her "You don't have to put up with that," and "You should file suit," and "You should demand xyz. . ."

And please understand, I had done my best to clean everything up with the FA's help, assist the nice lady, and keep the hubbub to a minimum. Now, I cite this story merely as an example of things that JUST HAPPEN with kids around, but there's nothing that either the parent OR the kid can do to prevent it. These things can, and will, happen on airplanes, in the terminal, and in the PC. These events are just part of being human and moving about in the glorious world that God has given us.

And, having said that, I don't think that parents are under any obligation to squirrel children away, keep them at home, or generally make them disappear for someone else's comfort. And with that privilege comes the reciprocal responsibility for me to ensure my kids are well-behaved, clean, reasonably quiet, and respectful of the travelers around them. I set the example, and guess what? They follow it -- just as one would expect.

As XYZZY pointed out, when this system fails, "It's not the kids that are the problem -- it's the parents." A-men.

I practice international litigation, so it is perhaps in my nature as an attorney to prefer order to chaos, to prefer the expected to the unexpected, and to prefer discipline to disorder. Add to this my great love for children, and perhaps you have a dichotomy! Nevertheless, something that Flyer111 posted struck me as absurd:

Flyer111: "Yes, I do believe people with children are better than people without them."

This is insanity, and I wonder whether Flyer111 actually meant what he posted. He says he has posted his last in this thread, so we may never know. But still -- how could those of us who are parents be "better people" than those of us who are NOT parents? It's a patently ridiculous statement, and I think people on this board are intelligent enough to know that such an overreaching piece of filth-smack deserves no serious response. I love my sons more than life itself, but I am certainly no "better" than ANYONE -- and neither is Flyer111.

Oh -- and MBM3 -- another thing you said make me laugh myself silly. When referring to a baby going poopy, I think you mentioned a eupemism of "dropping a deuce." That is hysterical. I'm going to use that soon! Of course, all 4 of mine are now potty-trained -- but just barely -- so it's going to get some use, I promise!

So, back to the original issue of the parents in the PC yelling "caca" or whatever. That is ridiculous, and it should not have been handled that way. I'm glad the OP was in good enough humor to laugh about it -- but as most posters have suggested, it's NOT funny, and it's frankly a bit gross. The OP was showing more maturity than anyone else in there by just passing it off with a laugh.

And yes, the parents shoudl ALWAYS, ALWAYS take the baby to the restroom to change the diaper, and NEVER, NEVER just do it right there in the middle of the PC (I think that came up once). Same goes for the aircraft: don't change it in the seat! Go to the lav, just like the rest of us do to dispose of our waste! That's disgusting!

But again, all this is the PARENTS' fault, not the poor baby who got changed out in the open. Likewise, it's not the baby's fault he pooped in the PC -- because babies will poop wherever and whenever they want! To the contrary, the parents are the ones who mishandled that, not the baby.

So my final word on all this (as if it matters ) is that banning children or families from the PC (or from BF cabins, etc.) is NOT the answer. It is NOT their fault, and I know from personal experience. If we are to "ban" anything, let's "ban" the unruly behavior of so-called adults who get plastered in public, curse loudly in front of strangers, yell about "caca" when a little baby has a bowel movement, and who forget to treat their children with love, kindness, and respect as gifts from God. Imposing THAT ban would solve the problem I've read bout in this thread, my friends.

So much for that, anyway.

Fly safe this holiday, everyone. God bless.

I generally agree with the above quote, although, as I just wrote in another thread, I think that people with children sometimes overestimate the "need" they have to travel with their children on vacation or to visit relatives. In any case, as someone without children, all I ask is that anyone who travels with children for whatever reason and in whatever class of service show some courtesy and make an effort to be well-behaved - that goes for both the parents and the children. As you (and others) have pointed out, adults are often far worse-behaved than children.

Well-articulated, as always, LF.

Forgive me for cross-posting this little comment, but I'm not sure which of these similar threads contained my error! So, by way of apology to CO 1E:

CO 1E, in re-reading my posts, I think I was not as totally forthcoming as I could be about one small issue, and you sort of addressed it in the other thread in the past several minutes.

There, you said something like (and I'm not quoting) perhaps parents could re-evaluate how much travel little children and infants really NEED to be doing. I think you are right.

In one of my posts, I told of a few reasons why even our infants have had to do the IAH - CDG slog several times, even in their first year of life. I should *not* have given you the impression that it was always a matter of life-and-death, or serious illness because, upon reflection, that's just not honest of me.

More specifically, I tend to characterize my 'desire' to have my family all together, and my sons' inherent 'need' to be with both parents as a coherent whole, as a true NEED, not a WANT. So -- I guess that's a thorny issue. Some would tell me, "If your famile NEEDS to be together all the time, then stop traveling." Well -- that's a nice suggestion, but it's not possible. Even if I quite my job and took a domestic litigation position, I would miss our family on one side or the other, and my children would, too.

So, the compromise we hit years ago before having children is: there will be lots of travel. And when the kids are truly infants (up to about 12 months), let's avoid it whenever possible. And we do! But sometimes, even when no one has died, or no one needs a blood transfusion, or Granny is not on her deathbed, I just want to put all four of my kids to bed everynight -- read their stories, do their bath and prayers, have dinner with them, and rock the youngest to sleep.

As silly as that sounds, I do tend to characterize it as a "need," and I should not have dismissed your point so quickly. Your definition of a "need" is actually more accurate than mine -- because mine is all clouded with "son-blindness" as I call it (topic for another post!).

I apologize for that. I think you have the better point to make.

LF

OK. I will break my promise because I was misunderstood.
Obviously, we parents are not "better" than non-parents. How do you even measure "better"?
My comment was only because I could not stand the arrogance of someone who had his company pay for his travel and complain that some kids made noise in the PC.
I agree with most of what you said, and I did not mean to be patronizing. I realize that some people are not parents out of choice. I pity them, but it is their business.

My company doesn't pay for my Amex platinum card, which gets me into the PC, nor does it pay for my RCC membership. Now explain to me what difference it makes when it comes to kids making noise in the PC. Have I "earned" the right to complain?

No, not patronizing at all.

Flyer111: I think that does clarify what you meant. I think we should always be cognizant that couples -- and familes -- without children are sometimes without them because (1) they could not conceive, (2) a child has died, (3) the couple is a same-sex couple, (4) there is a genetic problem should the couple reproduce, (5) the couple does not feel they want any children, or (6) a thousand other things. All of these things are totally legitimate.

I think your more recent post shows that you would NOT disagree with the notion that we should bestow the gift of compassion and understanding to all families -- and couples are, indeed, true families with or without children. (Of course, I think this goes for all individuals, not just "families," but since children and family are the source topic. . .)

By way of furthering that goal, I want to share what a couple without children recently told me. They do not have children by choice -- there are no medical problems. But they take an extremely active role in their church with the children there, as well as with many of the children in the husbands medical practice (he is a pediatrician). Being biologically childless has enabled them to give an enormous measure of love and charity to other children who desperately need it -- love and charity that otherwise (and properly) would have gone to their own children if they bore them.

So, rather than pitying those who do not have children (whether by choice or by circumstance), I'd rather look at those couples as possessing a wondrous gift that I DO NOT have: the gift of time and love that they can bestow on others who truly need it so very much. And even if it's not bestowed on other children, childless families are often more involved in community charities, fundraising for worthy causes, and other meaningful activities because they have the (1) time, (2) money, and (3) energy that biological parents spend on our own kids.

And just as we applaud their efforts and the joy they receive by investing themselves in other important endeavors besides rearing their own kids, I think they do by and large applaud ours for raising another healthy, happy, and loving generation.

. . .and that means we're all gonna be in the PC together at some point, no?

Thanks for clarifying your earlier post.

LF

So, just to be clear: Only people who are travelling on leisure trips have the right to complain and not people who are on official business trips?

And why on earth would you try to correlate arrogance and someone who had his/her work pay for his/her travel?

Based on the many posts responding to your comments, flyer111, you must realize that all who are reading your remarks -- including those of us who have children, as well as those who do not -- are finding your words bizarre, illogical, and offensive. You say you don't mean to be "patronizing", but then go on to say that you "pity" those who choose not to be parents. You were not "misunderstood". Believe me, it is very clear to all of us exactly what you think.

LF - Thanks for typing this up (and it's nice to see a parent who understands those who do not have children). I am perfectly happy assisting my sister in raising my nephews and donating money to families with children who need it, but can't provide on their own due to sad circumstances.

Back to the specific topic at hand, I am fine with children being around as long as the parent is involved and keeping an eye on them. I don't expect restrictions in the PC or FC, but I do expect parents to be accountable.

alm

LOL OMG where's that ignore button.