Lap child

Old Sep 9, 19, 4:40 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: paris
Programs: Ritz platinum, Delta flying colonel/platinum/MM, retired old men board member
Posts: 92
Lap child

Was on Delta Paris > JFK and we hit turbulence. Two seats up a baby went flying
knownothing is offline  
Old Sep 10, 19, 3:16 am
  #2  
yno
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Programs: FB, M&M, Marriot, IHG, Club Carlson
Posts: 306
A few years ago I was still flying with a lap child transatlantic, and I preferred flying AF or KLM over Delta for this reason: European airlines give you seat belts for the lap child, while Delta doesn't
yno is offline  
Old Oct 1, 19, 5:04 pm
  #3  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Back to Florida...bye London
Programs: Hilton, AA, SW, Delta
Posts: 4,915
Originally Posted by yno View Post
A few years ago I was still flying with a lap child transatlantic, and I preferred flying AF or KLM over Delta for this reason: European airlines give you seat belts for the lap child, while Delta doesn't
That's because a "belly belt" that tethers the child to another person has a greater chance of causing injury to the child, but it protects other passengers from a projectile ( the child). A child being held less likely to be crushed by being tethered, but a greater chance of hurting others as a projectile.

Take your pick. Neither are safe for the child.
nancypants and CDTraveler like this.
MoreMilesPlease is offline  
Old Oct 1, 19, 6:45 pm
  #4  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 42,860
Lap infants should not be permitted and most of all, lap tethers for infants should never be permitted (and are prohibited on US carriers).

It is a harsh reality, but lap infants are permitted because it is an economic necessity for many families.
nancypants likes this.
Often1 is offline  
Old Oct 1, 19, 7:09 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NT Australia
Programs: QF WP
Posts: 1,663
Originally Posted by Often1 View Post
Lap infants should not be permitted and most of all, lap tethers for infants should never be permitted (and are prohibited on US carriers).

It is a harsh reality, but lap infants are permitted because it is an economic necessity for many families.
I’m team “if it’s permitted for the economic benefit of those travelling with the lap child, they shouldn’t also be allowed to take out other passengers when the lap child becomes a missile”

the risk should be assumed by the guardians of the child IMO

of course my preference is for babies to have their own seat and be safe as well as everyone else but, apparently i’m an idealist
MSPeconomist and CDTraveler like this.
nancypants is online now  
Old Oct 2, 19, 3:23 am
  #6  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 88,276
Originally Posted by Often1 View Post
Lap infants should not be permitted and most of all, lap tethers for infants should never be permitted (and are prohibited on US carriers).

It is a harsh reality, but lap infants are permitted because it is an economic necessity for many families.
The reality is that lap infants are permitted because it's sensible on a basis going beyond mere economics for families. Given all the risks that there are on the ground for U2 children, there are way bigger risks in the world for the average U2 child on the ground than there is in the air for the average U2 child. It's a good thing that the US airlines and their backers haven't yet been able to pull off a general ban on lap-children on planes.

Of the millions of miles I've flown with lap children on board, I've seen more U2 children hurt on the way to/from/during diaper changes/bathroom use and during boarding/disembarking than while the children's caregivers are seated on the plane along with the U2 children. Should we ban bathroom use by U2 children as an idealist and mandate that diaper changes and U2 bladder/bowel relief be done at the passenger seats since that may reduce injuries? I would be opposed to such a ban too.
nancypants likes this.

Last edited by GUWonder; Oct 2, 19 at 3:29 am
GUWonder is offline  
Old Oct 2, 19, 3:13 pm
  #7  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: paris
Programs: Ritz platinum, Delta flying colonel/platinum/MM, retired old men board member
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by GUWonder View Post
The reality is that lap infants are permitted because it's sensible on a basis going beyond mere economics for families. Given all the risks that there are on the ground for U2 children, there are way bigger risks in the world for the average U2 child on the ground than there is in the air for the average U2 child. It's a good thing that the US airlines and their backers haven't yet been able to pull off a general ban on lap-children on planes.
So we should say it is economically sensible not to wear a bike helmet? Ask any senior FA how many kids she has seen injured from "flying" I know some hospitals who charge the parent with child abuse if the kid is injured which is what should happen
knownothing is offline  
Old Oct 3, 19, 3:03 am
  #8  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 88,276
Originally Posted by knownothing View Post
So we should say it is economically sensible not to wear a bike helmet? Ask any senior FA how many kids she has seen injured from "flying" I know some hospitals who charge the parent with child abuse if the kid is injured which is what should happen
You can say whatever you wish about the sensibility to wear a bike helmet, but there are places where it is legally required for at least some people to wear a bike helmet. But this is not a discussion about bike helmets, and there is no legal requirement mandating that U2 children on planes be provided a seat of their own for flights, that such children have CRS in their own seats on flights or that such children wear a helmet while on planes. Arguments by analogy have never have impressed me since the logic of such arguments make for even the most ridiculously unsound of conclusions, but if you want to continue with such sort of argument using bike helmets or anything else, you can find my response in this post already.

Hospitals can't charge parents with anything in the US or in the EU. Just like people do on the internet, hospital personnel and others can make allegations to try to whip up a frenzy; but it neither makes for legal charges nor does it make for a legal conclusion of "child abuse"regardless of the wishful thinking and various others claims tossed about by people.

More U2 children get hurt on the way to/from/during diaper changes/bathroom use and during boarding/disembarking for flights than while the children's caregivers are seated on the plane along with the U2 children. In the interest of "think of the children" and the "war on 'child abuse'" when it comes to U2 passengers, why not suggest that such children are banned from bathroom use and that diaper changes only be conducted on the floor in the aisles or on the passenger seats? That would result in a bigger decline in injury rates for U2 children than any ban on lap children.

I know some senior FAs who have never seen a lap child get hurt on their flights while in their caretakers' lap. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It also doesn't mean that being a lap child seated on an adult's lap is the riskiest thing that happens to such children during flights or that there are no other risks on flights for such children. But the fact of the matter is that total risk elimination is not practical and that there are bigger fish in the sea to fry if you really care about the welfare of children. If people have a choice of using $80-$1000 for a ticketed seat for their own U2 child or of using that money to more frequently replace their children's car seats, paying to have the CRS installation and use facilitated/inspected, and having their own cars maintained better or replaced with newer, safer models, I would say there's more "child abuse" from use of older car seats and use of older/more poorly maintained vehicles than from not handing over more money to the airline for U2 children than is already involved.

The costs of bike helmets and a legal mandate to use bike helmets aren't such that they cause people to forego other health/safety-maximizing means in the way that trying to persecute and prosecute people for not buying a ticketed seat for U2 children would do.

For those advocates of banning lap-children on planes in the name of a war on "child abuse" or whatever, do you also propose banning children from using mass transit system buses and trains in the US or EU? Those mass transit system buses in the US and the EU most commonly don't even have seat belts and often even encourage standing up, and yet the risks on the ground are way higher than the risks in the air.
nancypants likes this.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Oct 3, 19, 8:10 am
  #9  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: paris
Programs: Ritz platinum, Delta flying colonel/platinum/MM, retired old men board member
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by GUWonder View Post

Hospitals can't charge parents with anything in the US or in the EU. Just like people do on the internet, hospital personnel and others can make allegations to try to whip up a frenzy; but it neither makes for legal charges nor does it make for a legal conclusion of "child abuse"regardless of the wishful thinking and various others claims tossed about by people.

More U2 children get hurt on the way to/from/during diaper changes/bathroom use and during boarding/disembarking for flights than while the children's caregivers are seated on the plane along with the U2 children. In the interest of "think of the children" and the "war on 'child abuse'" when it comes to U2 passengers, why not suggest that such children are banned from bathroom use and that diaper changes only be conducted on the floor in the aisles or on the passenger seats? That would result in a bigger decline in injury rates for U2 children than any ban on lap children.

I know some senior FAs who have never seen a lap child get hurt on their flights while in their caretakers' lap. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Ir.
GU: wrong Hospitals can initiate an investigation of child abuse which stays on the parent's record even if it is found negative. But with an injured child, it is becoming more common for the investigator to say "yes". Your reply of kids getting hurt going to the bathroom is off. The MOST common injury on airplanes is hot coffee on lap children with burns requiring grafting. The second most is flying kids It is impossible to hold a kid (laws of physic) if the plane drops because of an air pocket. I doubt your comment of Senior FA who have not seen a lap child injured. It is why the "association of flight attendants have pushed for no lap kids (overwhelmingly)
knownothing is offline  
Old Oct 4, 19, 5:17 am
  #10  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 88,276
Originally Posted by knownothing View Post
GU: wrong Hospitals can initiate an investigation of child abuse which stays on the parent's record even if it is found negative. But with an injured child, it is becoming more common for the investigator to say "yes". Your reply of kids getting hurt going to the bathroom is off. The MOST common injury on airplanes is hot coffee on lap children with burns requiring grafting. The second most is flying kids It is impossible to hold a kid (laws of physic) if the plane drops because of an air pocket. I doubt your comment of Senior FA who have not seen a lap child injured. It is why the "association of flight attendants have pushed for no lap kids (overwhelmingly)
Hospitals can't charge anything but money. For legal charges about child abuse, hospitals can do no more than random people off the street can do -- to try to whip up a frenzy and prompt an investigation by authorities with applicable statutory authority to make legal charges. Can you provide even one example of a conviction for child abuse in the US for U2 children going on trips as lap children on planes instead of in their own seat? Unless and until anyone provides even one such documented example of such incident, the charge of "child abuse" for U2 children traveling as lap children on planes is going to continue to be recognizable as an extreme and poorly substantiated claim.

Surely you remember discussions posted under the BeatCal handle in this thread: To Car Seat or Not To Car Seat, That is the Question...[Merged Threads]

Your choice of words -- about physics, air pockets and charges -- in this discussion are such that I recognized it from the start. Best to at least merge this thread into that one.

Last edited by GUWonder; Oct 4, 19 at 5:26 am
GUWonder is offline  
Old Oct 4, 19, 7:44 am
  #11  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: paris
Programs: Ritz platinum, Delta flying colonel/platinum/MM, retired old men board member
Posts: 92
Will have to read that one.

Here are ones that I know of after seeing a child fly and be caught by person in seat behind when the Air France hit an air pocket last month on Paris to New York. You are correct that others agree with you. The FAA recommends car seats but has falsely agreed that driving may be more dangerous - but several articles have stated very few kids are hurt in car when in proper car seat in middle of back seat.

So GU. end of discussion. You are entitled to your beliefs even thought they are different from most experts. Have a great day

1) https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-stu...nts-1408574702
2) Time mag on laws of physics: Kids on Adults' Laps: Most Unsafe Passengers on a Plane | TIME.com
3) Aviation Safety Board: laws of physics and other: https://carseatblog.com/16971/lap-ba...omment-page-1/
4) https://www.quora.com/When-a-plane-h...with-each-bump
5) Remember Force = weight x speed

Last edited by knownothing; Oct 4, 19 at 7:55 am
knownothing is offline  
Old Oct 9, 19, 6:35 pm
  #12  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 83
Originally Posted by Often1 View Post
Lap infants should not be permitted and most of all, lap tethers for infants should never be permitted (and are prohibited on US carriers).

It is a harsh reality, but lap infants are permitted because it is an economic necessity for many families.
I don't know where I read this, but there's also a related safety reason. Driving, even with proper car seats, is still more dangerous by magnitudes than flying with an un-belted lap infant. If someone were to choose a long drive over a flight because they'd have to pay for a separate child seat, the child would be at increased risk, despite the fact that flying as a lap infant is *quite* dangerous.

But I agree with the basic premise: if at all financially possible, get a seat for the child, and bring a basic car seat along. We think that we can hold on to them during turbulence, but the reality is that we can't always.
zoned_post_meridiem is offline  
Old Oct 9, 19, 6:37 pm
  #13  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 83
Originally Posted by knownothing View Post
So we should say it is economically sensible not to wear a bike helmet? Ask any senior FA how many kids she has seen injured from "flying" I know some hospitals who charge the parent with child abuse if the kid is injured which is what should happen
No, see the post above yours. Safety-wise, child in seat > lap child > parent choosing to drive instead of flying because they can't afford a second/extra seat.
GUWonder likes this.
zoned_post_meridiem is offline  
Old Oct 10, 19, 6:52 am
  #14  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: paris
Programs: Ritz platinum, Delta flying colonel/platinum/MM, retired old men board member
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by zoned_post_meridiem View Post
I don't know where I read this, but there's also a related safety reason. Driving, even with proper car seats, is still more dangerous by magnitudes than flying with an un-belted lap infant. If someone were to choose a long drive over a flight because they'd have to pay for a separate child seat, the child would be at increased risk, despite the fact that flying as a lap infant is *quite* dangerous.
Zoned: That is the argument people give, but the facts are slightly different
Although studies vary in their methodology and findings, often-cited research(www.ntsb.gov) conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board shows that although 96 percent of parents and caregivers think they have installed their child's car sear correctly, about 80 percent of all car safety seats are actually used or installed incorrectly, which greatly reduces their effectiveness. The good news is that if an accident occurs, a correctly installed and used safety seat can reduce the risk of death in infants and toddlers by as much as 71 percent.
But despite "all" fire departments offering to check your car seat, most don't. Rarely see and infant in the middle of the back seat where they are protected against all most all accidents.
knownothing is offline  
Old Oct 12, 19, 1:35 am
  #15  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,101
Originally Posted by GUWonder View Post
Hospitals can't charge anything but money. For legal charges about child abuse, hospitals can do no more than random people off the street can do -- to try to whip up a frenzy and prompt an investigation by authorities with applicable statutory authority to make legal charges.
At least in the US that's not correct. Medical personal are mandatory reporters, meaning if there is anything suspicious about a child's injuries, police must be called and medical staff works with them to collect and evaluate evidence which can be presented in court. That's a lot more than trying "to whip up a frenzy." I speak as one who has completed mandatory reporter training and assisted in evidence collection.
CDTraveler is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread