Babies and safe flying
 

Hi all

I have a question regarding flying with babies.

I understand that they are normally nursed on one's seat but it struck me that this might not be terribly safe. If there was severe turbulence there might be a real chance of the child being flung around inside the aircraft.

Is there some sort of seat add-on (a sort of mini bassinet) that is availabel on any airline and clips onto the seat infront yet holds the child very securely? Basically such a device would sit where the dinner tray normally folds out thus holding the child securely but not using up extra space,

I'm concerned as it is probable that I shall fly with a young baby early next year for the first time and what could be more important than my child's health and safety?

cheers Peter

Peter,

If you're planning to nurse your baby then I have an even more pertinent question than that... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

The wife will be coming along also.

cheers Peter

Most airlines have a bassinett that you can put on the wall in a bulkhead seat..you have to prereserve for them tho' so ask when you make your reservations ..happy baby! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Yes, most airlines do have bassinetts, but be aware that they don't incorporate any sort of restraint (at least they didn't 9 years ago, the last time that we used one). If you're concerned about your baby being tossed about in turbulence, the bassinett won't make any difference.

BA has bassinets but not sure about any restrains incorporated. I have seen these full body harness like things that attache to the adults seat belt that can be used for lap children and could probably be used effectively in a bassinet too.

Another option (one that I have used) is to bring the infant car seat along and strap it in to the airplane seat next to you. It means paying a bit more but at least you are certain the baby won't go flying. Also, as noted above the bulkhead seats are not always available and even if you have confirmed your seat assignment unfortunately there is no guarantee these days that you will get that seat or that they will have a bassinet available when you actually show up to fly.

So far the answers you have received are pretty accurate. There are no restraints in the bassinets because if turbulence occurs (or the seatbelt sign illuminates because turbulence is anticipated) you must remove your child from the bassinet. No airline would provide a restraint or encourage you to leave your child in a bassinet because for the following reasons.

They are only held in by three push pins that lightly lock into the wall. Who would trust the integrity of these pins over the strength and security that will be found in a paternal embrace? These bassinets are only weight listed to a maximum of twenty pounds. A ten pound infant can exert a twenty pound plus force if the aircraft is seesawing side to side or moving violently up and down (or can be catapulted from the buoyancy obtained in some situations). That is why infants must be removed when we start jerking you around http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

If you do not go the route of a car seat, as suggested, hold your infant in the burp position. You will be in a more secure position to react protectively and quickly. In a split second, if you feel your child is in danger of becoming airborne, you can instinctively tighten you grip to prevent this and the burp position has proven to leave the parent in better control to cover every direction that your child could be launched from. This same advice is given by way of our training in a planned emergency. You, and the shield your body provides, is the best protection your child can get.

Your love is the best defense and protection your offspring have and this has been proven over and over.

Thanks everyone and in particular Flygirl.

The trouble with turbulence is that one may not always get enough warning and time to secure the baby. I had in mind some sort of system that restrained the baby well at all times.

I just was just discussing this issue with my wife and she made mention of a baby carrier (as she described it) which is some sort of fabric pouch which holds the baby to you.

This would probably be ok as in a sudden bit of turbulence the holder of the baby could instantly clutch the baby providing additional security.

Seems to me to be an area that the airlines could do a little more more investigation into in the interests of passenger safety.

cheers Peter

I really appreciated this thread and particularly Flygirl's post. Thanks! While I have a stepson form my previous marriage and a foster child, I never flew with either until they were at least 5. We are expecting our first baby in October and were just discussing the flight arrangements to fly to my wife's parents house at Christmas. I had previously told my wife something about thinking that crying babies ought to go to the back of the plane, because they disturb those who are trying to work. We are debating whether to go in first or coach. I am a big guy and rarely sit anywhere but the exit row in coach and the idea of being crushed into a regular coach row, perhaps routinely and for many years!!! terrifies me. On the other hand getting 3 seats in first so the baby can have a car seat does seem a bit much to me, and we're much more likely to have an empty seat next to us in coach. Maybe I'll get one in coach and one up front and my wife can sit up fornt with the baby and I'll take an exit row seat? This may be a recipe for marital strife however... With the two older boys I just get 2 exit row seats and two seats in the next row in front or behind. This has worked well for us. My boys are very well behaved on the plane, perhaps better so than I am. Traveling with a child too young to be told there is a consequence for misbehaving on the plane is pretty scary for me!

Good post Flygirl, thanks, and I couldn't agree with your last sentence more http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Trouble with simply holding a lap child is that in certain instances the forces involved are too great, additionally if turbulence should hit whilst you are reaching for the diaper bag and do not have a firm grasp on your child your reaction may not be quick enough.

Here is the vest I was talking about earlier for lap child use.
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/perfectl...-turbvest.html

Steffo, I too am a big fellow (6'4" 200lbs+) who cherished the exit row seats (except the ones that don't recline http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif ) but I have found that when my wife and I travel we do great just buying 3 coach seats (window-center-aisle). With our child in the seat between us in her car seat it is almost like having an empty seat next to you and your legs have plenty of room. It is a cheaper alternative than sitting up front and as an extra bonus you will not have to endure the foul looks of the ignorant pax who think that children have no place up front (also if you enroll in the BA household account you child will travel for 50% off in AA and 25% off in BA but your child will earn 100% miles which can be pooled with those of the parents or older household members).

For an older child (toddler), the following might be an option especially if their car seat is getting too heavy (this only weights 4 lbs and having carried a 25lb car seat, a 30lb infant, and a full diaper bag for what seemed like miles in London before getting through immigration and in to the baggage claim area where there are baggage carts I can tell you that LIGHTER is BETTER http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif )though I should caution that this product is not approved for aircraft use though it looks like it would work well for the purposes of turbulence and emergency landing. It is approved for use in a passenger vehicle afterall.
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/dmart/costravves5p.html

Travel with small children is a bit of a challenge but if done with preparation, planning (for example I usually fly LGW-ATL and I do a stop over in ATL before flying ATL-ORD-STL the next day to give my daughter a chance to recover from the trasat flight, outbound it is all in one shot though), and a bit of effort on the parents part in-flight, it can actually be fun for the child and the parent/s (barring ear or sinus problems which obviously are going to cause a child to cry, and some adults too I might add, the following link may be of help).
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/familyon...aneschild.html

This is a good product that can help avoid the difficulties that I have experienced in London. It is a car seat/flight seat. It weights 14lbs but quickly converts to a stroller once off the plane and diaper bag/carry on can be attached to hook on handel (or could get the optional mesh bag, a bit steep at $20 though). http://store.yahoo.com/perfectlysafe/sitnstroll.html


Hope you have a good experience http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif



[This message has been edited by Mvic (edited 08-20-2000).]

Most airlines block off that centre bulkhead for bassinets don't they?

------------------
~ Glen ~

Center bulkhead with bassinet in front of me? Oh I think I am in heaven http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Nearly as much heaven as the pax sitting near those 3 screeching kids on a 14 hour flight! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Score the exit row in coach on a 747 and you mostly score a few kids next to you in the bulkhead row. Fun trip sometimes!

------------------
~ Glen ~




[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited 08-20-2000).]

Thanks for all the great info and links Mvic! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

One thing I learned from having our first baby and flyinf soon after, is that some of the crying is caused of course by ear pain, children not knowing or being able to "pop" their ears during take-off and descent. There-for, we always tried to nurse our son during these times, as the swallowing helps to un-plug the infants ears. It has worked well, so far!

Also, be sure and tell the res agent that you have a lap child and would like to try and block the middle seat, if this is the way you go. Also, be sure to carry proof of age (immunization card, birth cert., passport) because if the airport agent doesn't believe your child is under two, and you can't prove it, you can be forced to buy a ticket.

Thanks for the link Mvic regarding the child carrier that links onto a parent's seatbelt. I have never seen or heard of it before and I can guess that many other flight crew members haven't either. Do you know if these carriers have a tag sewn onto them identifying the pouch as FAA approved for airline travel (outside of the times in bold print)? I ask because without this identification, coupled with the lack of knowledge regarding the safety testing and or company approval of these pouches, flight crews might take the "safe" stance of denying a parent the use of them onboard.

Many child products are on the market that use "safe for airline" travel as an advertising platform without clarifying that they are not acceptable during takeoff, landing or when the seat belt sign is illuminated. Parents are then surprised or upset when advised that their child has to be removed from the restraint devices during these phases of flight. Examples of these products are belly loops, snuggies or booster seats.

Airlines caution their employees to only accept car seats that are stickered or tagged as certified for on board aircraft use. In North America this would be endorsed by the FAA under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard-213 or CARs under Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard-213 or 213.1. When shopping for one, parents should ensure that the brand of car seat they purchase displays this approval.

These pouches appear to be an excellent solution for situations such as you described when a parent's attention cannot be focused solely on their child's safety. Thank you for bringing this invention to the attention of all of us and lets hope that the airline companies endorse their use and convey this endorement to their front line staff in short order.

BTW ffhound, the reason it is suggested that babies be nursed or fed a bottle on takeoff (and more importantly) descent is it allows the infant to equalized the pressure in their adorable little ears when transcending through the varied altitudes levels. It is the swallowing action that helps them "clear their ears".

Many parents surprisingly do not know this which is why you often hear a baby crying (screaming) in the cabin at these times. Crying will fortunately also aid in clearing their ears but it is an awfully painful way for them to do it.

I have never used the pouches so I don't know if they have a tag. I just ordered one to use when I have my child out of her car seat and on my lap as I do at various times during the flight. Should be here in a week and I will report back then. It does say FAA approved in the product description though.

Do the ear plug type things work?

Hey I just made FT Evangelist with this post, cool http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Mvic (edited 08-20-2000).]

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum94/HTML/000950.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum94/HTML/000209.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum94/HTML/001770.html

Thanks for the links doc but those threads seem to focus more on the question of whether children should even be allowed to fly at all. God forbid the parent has the affrontery to actually pay for their infant/child to sit in Business or First.

God forbid. (Hope he did it in WRITING!) http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

------------------
~ Glen ~

Some Scandinavian carriers provide an extra seat belt that loops into the parent's belt. It's probably ideal for linking your baby to you in case of turbulence, but your average toddler is sure to find himself confined and restrained. (E.g: Level of unhappiness is directly proportional to decibel level)..

I understand that we have at least one reader who writes for the Wall Street Journal. May I suggest in the interests of safety promotion and newsworthiness that consideration be given to an article about the issues canvassed on this forum?

With ever increasing passenger volumes I think it is a good idea to publicise the ways that parents with young children can fly safely and comfortably. Many passengers like myself may have flown before but upon having a newborn do not know where to start as far as safely carrying an infant onboard and what options are available.

With a little research such an article could also examine each of the major American airlines with a comparison as to how each airline promotes child safety aboard aircraft. Mention of the pouches and/or alternatives could be made also. You never know - it might just save a child's life one day.

cheers Peter

This is a matter of opinion, however I feel that the best place for a child on a plane is in a child's car seat. Whenever we took our children, under 4 yrs old, on a plane we always paid for a seat for them and had them strapped in during the entire trip. The tether that has been shown has not been FAA approved, and more than likely never will be as the child would be crushed when the parent has to put their head down during an emergency landing.

The worst thing about having a "lap baby" and not buying a ticket was exemplified to me when the UAL plane crashed in Sioux City, Iowa. The head flight attendant had to tell a mother, FAA rules I believe, that had a lap baby to place her on the ground at her feet surrounded by blankets. The mother survived, the baby did not. This flight attendant has since become extremely vocal about requiring children to be strapped into a child's car seat.
As for my wife and I, we would have never considered not placing our most precious cargo, our children, in a safety seat.

Great idea ffhound.

I'm with you 100% on this one zipual as far as the car seat goes (that car seat/flight seat/stroller combo is great). Buying the extra seat is an additional financial burden but it is by far the safest way to go and as you say the cargo is the most precious. However, I don't think you are right about the pouch not being FAA approved for flight (not for take off, landing, and taxiing though). I always use the car seat but sometimes on long haul flights I take my child out and let her play around on my lap and let her look out the window. In case of turbulence at those times (and diaper changing) I will be using the pouch, then it's right back in the car seat.

ROTF and LMAO at QuietLion and ffhound's response on Saturday!

If the FAA requires infants to be in a seat during flight, there will be some families who drive instead of fly, due to the resulting higher cost of flying. Since driving is far more risky than flying, an infant seat requirement will result in more infant deaths, not fewer (not to mention adults who will also be killed/maimed along with the infant in auto crashes).

Choosing the lesser of two evils means one lap child dies every so often rather than a hundred more deaths in cars.

That's great, assuming that somebody passes a law protecting airlines and the FAA from lawsuits if the non-seated child dies from being thrown about the cabin in sudden turbulence.

Ultimately, it should be a matter of personal responsibility, but with people able to sue (and win staggering judgements) based on their own decisions, I should think that every passenger carrier would insist on a seat for each infant, no matter what.

People already sue when a plane crashes. So why don't airlines require seats for infants? Because the net revenue loss from the entire family flying another airline (or not at all) is much greater.

You make a good point JSRom.

I just got the lap child pouch. The straps are made of the same material as my rock climbing slings FWIW. I would say that it is pretty good quality and sturdy yet made of a comfortable cotton (filled with polyester padding). It has a loop in the back that one would put the adulkt seat belt through and it is long enough that you could turn the infant around (about 4 inches).

As far as FAA approval, it says the following on the vest itself:

"The Baby B'Air garmet is designed and approved for lap children under the age of two years DURING FLIGHT ONLY. The FAA does not approve use during take-off, taxi and landing. The Baby B'Air is tested to meet or exceed FAA stress lest levels for aircraft seats. Not for use in Automobiles."

So I guess what they are really saying is that it is not FAA approved at all but you can use it when airlines would let you use it anyway during flight. I am glad that I bought it (though after shipping it was $45.95, a little steep) and it will complement the use of a flight seat nicely for when my daughter is on my lap on those transat flights. Bottom line:if turbulence hit hard your little one would not go flying using this product.

IMO the best choice is to buy the 1/2 price ticket for the child and use the car seats. The Baby B'air vest is good for when the child has to be out of the seat.

My 2 kids have received FF miles for their tickets, except on UA or DL when using the UA or DL number. Now, I just use the partner (DL/UA) number and they can't seem to tell that it is an infant fare.

The only problem with the car seats is that they have to be on the window seat.

I know there are the cost issues with the FAA or airlines requiring infants to have a seat, but a flight attendent told me: "We secure our coffee makers and luggage on the plane, but our infants are allowed fly through the air during turbulance."

My $0.02.


[This message has been edited by AzLarry (edited 08-25-2000).]

Re the F/A quote "We secure our coffee makers and luggage on the plane, but our infants are allowed fly through the air during turbulance."

What a stupid quote. Is anyone holding the coffee maker and luggage during the flight? If everything has to be restrained on the flight no matter what, why aren't there flight attendant tethers and adult diapers for each seat? (or tethers for passengers using the restroom)


The FAA and the F/A have this mindset that the entire world revolves around air travel. If that were true, then requiring infants to be in a separate seat would make sense. But apparently members of the FAA and the F/A live at the airport, and never step foot in a car, where they are 100 times as likely to die.

A beneficial result would come from the FAA requiring infants to be in a separate seat AND requiring airlines to give the infant seat away for free. While this would result in an increase in air fares, hopefully it would be small enough to be unnoticable.

But under the current proposal, air travel cost for families with children under age two will rise, resulting in some families driving instead of flying, resulting in MORE deaths, not fewer. Ah, but they won't be noticable against the backdrop of 40,000 auto crash deaths per year, so everything will seem OK.

Also, if this proposal comes to pass, the FAA should require airlines to supply the infant "car" seats in the gate area. It doesn't make any sense to have to drag around a car seat through the airport if you arrived on a bus or train.

[This message has been edited by JSrombough (edited 08-26-2000).]

I hadn't even thought of it in those terms JSRom until I read your posts. Ofcourse you are correct that many families will opt for driving and not flying if they have to pay for a child seat (most likely those that will have to pay for several child seats).
However, where do you draw the line? Taking your reasoning to the extreme government should subsidize the airlines to give free (or almost free) travel to all so that intercity travel in motor vehicles would be reduced saving many lives.

I would be more than willing to have an extra $5 or $10 tacked on to my ticket (doubt it very much it would be more than $1 or two) if the airlines would secure a free seat with flights seat for children under 2 (so parents could take the kids to see relatives etc after they are born). For children over 2 a 50% off ticket seems more than fair and other pax are already subsidizing these fares(thanks everyone http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif ). I would also support an exception and allow children up to age 14 to fly free in cases of death and illness of a close relative.

Surely in the end it comes down to parents choices regardless of means. Some parents will choose to pay the extra money and forgo something else (maybe have a cheaper vacation or make budget cuts). Other parents will choose to save the money. I suggest that most lap children belong to parents who feel that either the extra seat is not worth the money given the small chance of anything happening and statistically they are probably right within the context of their own valuation of things. Or they may just not be aware of the risk at all.

In nearly all cases it would be cheaper and safer to just stay at home and not travel at all and that is a choice too. The family that decides to drive 400 miles because the child seats are too expensive is making the decision to do that and it seems a little hard to justify transferring the cost of a decision like that to the rest of the paying public.

[This message has been edited by Mvic (edited 08-26-2000).]

Re tax money or indirect subsidy (higher ticket price) -- Absolutely true. Why is this an issue? Because the federal government has taken upon itself the obligation of protecting us from ourselves.

Either:
A) let us decide our own risk to ourselves and immediate family members
B) forcibly reduce risk, which requires the "help" of everyone else

Requiring infant seats on aircraft, but not free, is neither A) nor B). It isn't B) (despite being compulsory), because risk is not being reduced.

A Flygirl: You mentioned that in an emergency situation you are trained to have parents hold their infants to protect them. Yet in the Iowa crash the mother was required by the flight attendant to put her child on the floor at her feet despite the mother's protests. Do you know if this is a difference in procedures among US and Canadian airlines? Or is there ever a situation where you would also require infants to be placed on the floor?



[This message has been edited by letiole (edited 08-26-2000).]

Give me B for 0-2 year olds, A and B (50% off fares) for 2-14 year olds, and A for the rest. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Does anyone know whether the ticket policies for infants/children are the same across all airlines? Also, whether these policies are federally mandated or individually set by airlines. A priori, I would have guessed that airlines would have found it in their interest to offer more of a discount for families traveling together. Or that the policies might differ for shorter flights (where there's the option of driving) versus longer ones.

Letiole, Yes it is a regulation set by Transport Canada under CARs on my home turf and cannot be diluted, altered or dictated on by individual airlines. I can only guess that it would be the same or similar under the aviation regulations governed by the FAA or regulatory bodies in other countries.

Frankly I found it appalling that an fa would instruct a parent to place their child on the floor especially in an emergency situation. This must have been the "brainstorm" of a very inexperienced fa or one who's training did not sink in properly.

The only association that can be made for safer conditions at floor level is: objects placed on the floor are not as susceptible to the effects of turbulence. Experiment next time by taking that beverage sloshing around on your tabletop and placing it on the floor and you will notice that the displacement is not as great nor is it as likely to tip over. When turbulence hits suddenly and unexpectedly we will often quickly put our coffeepots, glass bottles, and other hazardous items on the galley floors before diving into our own seatbelts. This minimizes the potential damage when there is not time to stow the equipment properly.

Never would a crew member be trained by an airline to place a innocent, defenceless human life on the floor hoping that this "trick of the trade", meant for inanimate objects during turbulence, would sustain or protect that life in an emergency situation.

I cannot believe the blind faith, or more likely the blind fear, that compelled that mother to meekly followed this illogical instruction. She paid such a dear price for doing so.

I once had to take a firm stand with a mother who wouldn't pick her child up off the floor when the seatbelt sign came on. She responded that her child was a hinderance while she was eating her meal and demanded I find somewhere else to "put" the infant until she was finished eating if I kept insisting that the floor was inappropriate. Without having to resort to legal threats, I was finally able to convince her to pick up her child by describing in detail the potential injuries her child could receive, expounding on the nasty microscopic life that was probably thriving in the carpet to start with, and by pointing out the horrified reaction evident on the faces of the people seated around and beside her who were privy to the confrontation...in that order. It took plan "C" for her to react.

Thanks for the response and information A Flygirl. I too could not understand what compelled the mother to follow these directions ... although given the nature of the crash and the forces involved it's unlikely she would have been able to hold on to her child upon impact. I read an essay by the mother and it was without doubt one of the most heartbreaking stories I've ever read.

MagMile

Policy is set by individual airlines on child ticketing fares and are not federally regulated. Because it is a "selling feature" most airlines have the same or a similar policy to be competative.

As to the last portion of your post...shame on you. As a member of this board you should have the aviation corporate strategy figured out by now. Airlines are much more interested in appeasing or accomodating the frequent business traveller...not the family of four/five/six that will take one or two vacations together per year. The company vision, no matter which airline in operation, is to get the best buck for every seat and that is how the revenue per seat, per mile is calculated. The unknown factor of how many children, potentially discounted, per flight would soon throw the standard formulas out the window and send general ticket prices soaring so that a conservative buffer could be built into every ticket sold.

Can you imagine what a fare from anywhere in North America to Orlando (for eg.)would cost if there was a discounted fare structure for children? A popular destination would all of a sudden become a money loser as there is often more children than adults on board this flight. It's one of the consequences of opting to have a family...you pay for travel of each addition you beget and as you chose to expand your family. Other singular, adult travellers would have to subsidize the fare that could have been realized in place of a discounted child fare occupying the same seat by paying higher fares so that the operating/profit margin expectations of the airline are maintained.

It might not sound fair to you but I feel comfortable stating that drastic change to this policy will not be realized or considered for the reasons I've outlined.

To take this to the other extreme...are large or overweight people charged more for occupying the same seat that a 6 year old could occupy? Are seniors charged more or less? Age or size isn't a factor; it's just business; a body present occupying a seat available in the financial scheme of aviation structure.

I shall await your rebuttal with interest. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif