PTravel,

I've read all of these post and responded once myself. I too would have been very annoyed if the child was truly shrieking as you have described. One thought keeps coming to mind though:

If you would have complained to the attendant at the time we would not be having this discussion.

Can we all just agree that children are welcome but the next time you are being disturbed by one, go complain to the lounge attendant.

(I don't agree with the seat on the table issue though, the floor is cleaner than most peoples hands)

first, for a dictionary entry, see the post you replied to, in which i cited a m-w entry. honestly, you cant expect something to remain "private" in a place without "privacy." then again, it looks like we have to dwandle with semantics since you posting w/o details. second, i wouldnt want to be the client of whose affairs you talk about "quietly" in a public space.

At risk of intruding on an otherwise friendly discussion ...

I often conduct casual meetings in restaurants, concierge lounges, and hotel lobbies. I particularly have these meetings with clients when I am in cities where I do not have an office. I usually pick the Marriott, Renn, Westin or Hyatt lobbies because I expect them to be more professional than the Holiday Inn. Normally, the enviroment is quiet and I don't have to worry about NASCAR, drunks or loud children. Sometimes, however, I these things happen and I find a different location. Frankly, while it's inconvenient, its life and I can always rent a meeting room or suite if I'm that concerned.

I'm often in C lounges with kids and find them no louder or misbehaved than adults in C lounges. If I'm travelling with my family, you'll see my wife and kids hanging out in the lounge during breakfast or snack hours quietly playing a game or reading a book. That's what the lounge is for and one of the reasons I stay 50 nights a year with Marriott. If I didn't get that benefit, I'd go elsewhere.

I think the concern of other posters in this forum is that OP seems to have a special concern about disruptive children -- and not disruptive folks generally. Hence, the appearance is that the OP's concerns is really a no kids in 1st class rant rather than a no disruptive and loud people in the CL. For example, the issues raised in this posting seem similar to similar issues raised in this article regarding first class travel by children including complaints by an attorney.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/20/Co...ebate__K.shtml

First class debate: Keep kids in coach?
Road Life

By STEVE HUETTEL, Times Staff Writer
Published July 20, 2005

****

Indeed, in a posting in the newsgroup alt.support childfree by the attorney quoted in that article, he stated:

If you do a dejanews search on "+xxx+airplanes +children" you will find
HUNDREDS of posts in which I advocate a total ban on young children in
airplanes.


****

Incidentally, having just spent the weekend with the family in a Marriott with a weekend CL, I noticed there were many children in the CL. I didn't find it any louder or more disruptive than in CL's w/o children. In fact, the loudest group I can think of was the group of four adults sitting a table laughing and talking loudly and the other group of adults watching the TV with the volume fairly high. We all have to get by our little annoyances and focus on the big ones.

I have said, repeatedly in this thread, that my objection isn't to children in the CL, nor was my complaint to Marriott that children were in the CL. I didn't complain about a child reading her book, or, as other posters wrote, "children being children," or "children playing." I complained about continuous shrieking by a toddler, and disregard for the most the basic, common-sense concerns about sanitation in a place where food is served.

According to you, we should have no problems with each other, since I certainly wouldn't comment on, much less complain about, a child reading a book at a table in the CL. Nonetheless, we apparently have a significant problem with each other.

What I find stunning about this thread is that it is clear that, if I had posted about some loudmouth on a cellphone, or some drunken businessmen, no one would have criticized me. Because the particular nuisance that I complained about which, of course, what the one that I encountered, was a shrieking toddler, I've been told I was "child-bashing," I was lectured on how I should conduct my business, you suggested that I was, essentially, lying about the magnitude and scope of the disruption, I was told I lacked "coping skills," and so on.

As I said, I find these responses stunning and inexplicable.

It's got nothing to do with who is a business traveler and who isn't, or who has more Marriott nights than whom. It's got to do with simple courtesy. It is rude and inconsiderate to let your hypothetical child run around the CL if that child is disturbing others in the CL. The CL is lounge that offers specific amenities to Marriott guests. It is most definitely not a playground.

You're the one who wants to make this about semantics. I'll tell you one more time: you know absolutely nothing about the nature, context or requirements of the meeting that I had with my client. I'm telling you that the CL would have been the perfect place for this meeting, but for the presence of a set of parents who can't distinguish between a public park or playground and the lounge of a business-class hotel.

You can conduct your meetings wherever and however you want. Your uninformed opinion about how I conduct my business is of absolutely no interest to me.

Please understand that parents can be more sensitive because there are quite a bit of people out there that view children, specifically, as a nuisance.

I am as annoyed as you at parents that allow awful behavior without controlling it. But the fact that they were children making the noise is irrelevant.

again you're the one who characterized it as "confidential" so explain why anyone would hold a confidential meeting in a lounge. it sounds a bit..fishy...

Well ain't that a noble cause...To cure the world of rudeness. :rolleyes:

Let me know how that works out for you...say by 2050?

while i don't like rude/obnoxious people...I think it's a given that one will encounter one or two during a lifetime. Getting all uppity about it isn't going to solve much except more stress to deal with.

The criticism here is really related to the appearance that your concern is really about children in the lounge and not otherwise disruptive adults. Indeed, folks on this board figured that out without having read thousands of other posts by a SF attorney who regularly complains about children in airplanes, restaurants, hotel lounges, Las Vegas, etc. Indeed, I've seen this same story posted by that attorney in 2003. Must be a run of bad luck.

On a purely legal issue, do you think it is lawful under the laws of some states which ban discrimination based on age for places of public accomodation to ban children from restaurants or hotels? Obviously, federal law doesn't apply since it only protects those 40 or over but many states prohibit age discrimination regardless of age. I suspect one could make that argument in a number of states.

Some folks who express concerns about racism suggest that people are more likely to call the police about behavior by people of color than those who are white who engage in the same conduct. Do you have a similar bent toward behavior by children?

[QUOTE=C17PSGR]...... For example, the issues raised in this posting seem similar to similar issues raised in this article regarding first class travel by children including complaints by an attorney.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/20/Co...ebate__K.shtml

First class debate: Keep kids in coach?
Road Life
By STEVE HUETTEL, Times Staff Writer
Published July 20, 2005
****

Indeed, in a posting in the newsgroup alt.support childfree by the attorney quoted in that article, he stated:
If you do a dejanews search on "+xxx+airplanes +children" you will find
HUNDREDS of posts in which I advocate a total ban on young children in
airplanes.


*************************************


PTravel....

You are the individual quoted in this article, aren't you???

Funny that you didn't mention it in the above posts.

:td:

I hear ya, but then we have to talk about kids in Business Class on airplanes.

Except that I didn't say anything about being concerned about children in the lounge. In fact, I've said several times, I'm not at all concerned about children in the lounge. Do I need to use a bigger font?

Do a search on my name and see how many threads I've started or participated in that involve children. Then look at my post total.

And you did not see this story posted in 2003. This happened Tuesday morning of this week.

Clearly it's not unlawful. States can extend rights more extensive than those secured by the federal Constitution and some do. Neither the federal Constitution nor any federal legislation preclude against age discrimination, except with respect to employment of those over 40. Some states preclude discrimination on the basis of age in contexts that can include discriminating against children.

Yes, that's true.

I have no interest, one way or another, in the behavior of children. My concern (and you'd know this if you actually read my posts) is unjustified imposition on others, particularly when that imposition is demanded as an entitlement. I'd suggest you review some of the posts people have made to this thread for some examples.

[QUOTE=baglady]Quote:
Originally Posted by PTravel
I didn't "complain to everyone." I complained to Marriott, and posted here. Apparently, it was a good thing I did, because it would seem some parents who post here think allowing their children to shriek in the lounge, and using tables where people eat as an extension of the floor, is acceptable conduct.

Question from Baglady:
I went back and re-read all the posts and I did not see any of us condoning this. Can you please advise the post(s) that did?

QUOTE]

I'm hoping the third time will be a charm, PTravel. Would you please reply to to my post.

[QUOTE=flyerwife]This is what I said in the article by Steve Huettel:

"Lawyer Paul Tauger recalls the transcontinental flight from southern California where he went to the lavatory and left a laptop on his seat. When he came back, a kid from another row was tapping on the keyboard. His parents took offense when Tauger told him to put it down."

This happened. Coincidently, that same laptop wound up being stolen from my motorcyle in the Tenderloin area of San Francisco. I didn't mention it to Huettel, because he had called to ask my opinion about uncontrolled children on aircraft, and not homeless drug-addict thieves in San Francisco. I find the latter a more serious concern.

As for the seven-year-old post that you've evidently dug up, context is, of course, everything. However, since you brought up the subject, did you see this quote in the Huettel article?:

"This is one of the most contentious issues in travel," says Joe Brancatelli, a veteran business travel writer and publisher of the Web site JoeSentMe.com. "You hate kids in first class til you have them and want to take your kids up front."

Or how about this from aviation consultant Stuart Klaskin, who was quoted right after me:

"It's like the stuff people don't like to talk about: fat passengers, smelly passengers, people with loud voices," he says. "Kids are kids, but the difference is kids have parents in charge of them . . . and they don't have a level of consideration for fellow passengers."

Read this thread and, particularly the posts by some of the parents who posted here, and mull over the meaning of Klaskin's last sentence.

And, by the way, while you're doing searches, see how many times I've written something along the lines of, "it's not all parents, or even most parents." It is, however, some parents.