I don't have a flight until Friday but I'll ask the FAs then. Personally, I've never seen a turbulence injury on any flight I've been on.

I did some searches trying to find statistics, and I did find this Qantas instance, which seems to be the most recent one on Google News: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...72-661,00.html

Seems like this Qantas event was fairly newsworthy. Google News shows that there are 334 articles worldwide about this one event. Why is this getting so much international coverage if babies are being knocked into comas on flights every day because they are not properly restrained?

Children were injured, but so were other passengers and crew too. Read about the elderly woman waiting to get into the lav.

Huh? Doesn't not flying (assuming driving is the alternative) increase the chance that adults will die in an auto wreck?

I don't get it. Why don't you spend the extra money subsidizing seats for babies that are flying, if it will really make them that much safer?

I don't know. I had one on US Air the other day who started in the 70s when she was 21 and she remembered the turtle club and the making the mile high club. Those were the days.....

I've never seen a child in a car seat on a plane. I've tried with mine and every single time, I was made to put the car seat in the overhead because they aren't meant for plane use. :confused:

They have to be FAA approved (most new ones in US are). If you have child, go to AA web site and check their store, they have nice ones that are small and mobile

I was wondering when the "But, what about the children??" crowd was going to show up. "The children" have nothing to do with ME. Getting the children to and fro is the responsibility of their parents. If they want the kids safer, THEY can pay for it.

I think it would be crazy for my child, but I acknowledge that many (most?) people don't think that. Everybody has different risk tolerance for themselves and their children. Affecting that risk tolerance include how you perceive the likelihood of the event, and the marginal value of a dollar, etc.

I would guess that the data are on your side,my above hyperbole aside. Studies show that people tend to overemphasize very low probability events (i.e. we have a very hard time understanding that something with a .005 percent chance is 100 times less likely than something with a .5 percent chance).

My point is that it would be silly to legislate something that would make us worse off. If we are free to put the kid in a seat now and don't do it, then making us do it would necessarily make us worse off.

You are right. I was making a point with hyperbole. As you can see from the rest of my post, I absolutely am against legislating this, and I acknowledge that most parent don't put their kids in car seats and most parents are not crazy. :p

I am guessing that number would be very large. If we assume this is a low probability event, which you and I think it is, it would take a lot of tickets before you actually prevented an injury--making the cost per injury prevented very high. This is the same reason that we don't, as consumer, pay for safer adult seatbelts on planes.

No, not crazy; simply cheap and don't know better.

Check with your next FA - they will all tell you it is frequent - which is why their union is pushing for it

No kidding. Why do you think it is crazy for your child to fly in a plane without being restrained? Do you think it's crazy to let your child sleep in a bedroom without an automatic fire sprinkler system?

I put my kids in infant car seats on the plane all the time when they were small enough. I even had one FA lecture me that that was not certified for aviation. Then I showed her the decal on the car seat that said it was certified for aviation. It didn't shut her trap, but she didn't stop me from using the seat.

BTW, it isn't just new ones that are approved. My kid was using one in 1992.

myrgirl ... why don't you show the FA the decal that says the seat is certified for aviation and then demand the FA call for a supervisor if that doesn't work. You shouldn't have to put your kid's life at risk because of the ignorance of the FA. You should also print out:
http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_children/crs/ the next time you get a hassle and inform the airline that they will be reported if they force your kid to not use his/her approved child safety seat. That link even says:
no doubt because of common airline stupidity.

OTOH, if your car seat doesn't have the decal, then you need to find one that does. And make sure your the seat is certified for aviation use for your child's weight.

Then they can pay for it out of their pay; tax all FAs don't understand economics 101. Again, the FAA did the study that showed that more kids would die because the cost of another seat for the kid would drive some parents to use less safe ground transportation.

Seems myopic.

Family finances are finite. Do you think that buying an airline seat for an infant should take priority over:

1. Establishing college savings for the infant?
2. Health insurance for that infant?
3. Home alarm system to protect infant's bedroom?
4. Organic food for infant?
5. Dental insurance for infant?
6. Money for swim lessons for infant (to prevent drowning).
7. Adequate life insurance for parents (to care for child in case of parent death)?
8. Adequate long term care insurance for parents( to care for child in case of parent disability)?
etc.

I will check with my next FA, but where are the statistics? The unions push for lots of stuff.

If parents want to keep their children from being injured, wouldn't their money be better spent trying to improve crosswalks, bicycle safety, better school playground equipment, hire more lifeguards, etc.?

Every FA is required to carry a procedure/emergency manual while on duty (the actual term for it varies among airlines). If a FA ever disputes the wording on a car seat label, ask them to compare it to what’s printed in their manual.

yeah, I think preventing a serious injury to a baby is worth all of those. You are probably the person who buys an old clunker for your kid to drive so that when he wrecks it, the car won't cost much.

I would argue that if the family cannot afford the cost of the extra ticket for the baby, then the family cannot really afford the trip in the first place.