Your baby is in my seat
Mar 22, 2005, 5:21 pm
#46
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: Hyatt Globalist, AA Executive Platinum
Posts: 1,932
Originally Posted by Lindisfarne
Is there any strong research which suggests children in car safety seats in airplanes are safer than being held? The increase in safety might be so marginal so as to make it far more worthwhile to spend the money you would spend on the plane ticket for the child on something which would really increase the child's safety/wellbeing, e.g., organic food, safer toys, safety gadgets for the home, or you could work a few hours less (since you don't have to buy the ticket for the child) and spend that time with the child!
I know some have argued that kids who are held in airplanes are actually safer than being in car seats in an automobile because air travel is safer than car travel.
The horror stories of kids flying around the airplane cabin (pun intended) are really statistical aberrations; statistically, a child's home is probably a far more dangerous place, yet you wouldn't keep your child in a safety seat 24 hours a day at home! You also wouldn't refuse to drive your child around town, despite it being more dangerous than than the child being held while flying. Playing at a park is statistically almost certainly more dangerous than the child being held while flying.
It's important to keep your perspective when it comes to the "safety" argument!
Of course, you might feel your child having it's own seat will make the flight more comfortable for you and the money spent is worth the additional comfort (I personally can bear 2-4 hours of discomfort to save $300 + - although I would try to find flights that are typically not full to capacity - I don't have kids but have nieces and nephews who I've flown with!)
And I agree with all the comments about the flight attendant ultimately being responsible for the situation! S/he completely mismanaged the situation from the initial request from the mother to put the car seat in the airplane seat.
I know some have argued that kids who are held in airplanes are actually safer than being in car seats in an automobile because air travel is safer than car travel.
The horror stories of kids flying around the airplane cabin (pun intended) are really statistical aberrations; statistically, a child's home is probably a far more dangerous place, yet you wouldn't keep your child in a safety seat 24 hours a day at home! You also wouldn't refuse to drive your child around town, despite it being more dangerous than than the child being held while flying. Playing at a park is statistically almost certainly more dangerous than the child being held while flying.
It's important to keep your perspective when it comes to the "safety" argument!
Of course, you might feel your child having it's own seat will make the flight more comfortable for you and the money spent is worth the additional comfort (I personally can bear 2-4 hours of discomfort to save $300 + - although I would try to find flights that are typically not full to capacity - I don't have kids but have nieces and nephews who I've flown with!)
And I agree with all the comments about the flight attendant ultimately being responsible for the situation! S/he completely mismanaged the situation from the initial request from the mother to put the car seat in the airplane seat.
The FAA and AAP (american Association of Pediatricians) both recommend using a car seat on an airplane. However, there are studies that suggest making it mandatory would force more families to drive, and in the long wrong cause more deaths.
As far as whether the costs outweigh the benefits, that's a decision only the parents can make. 4-5 deaths every 10 years seems like good odds. On the other hand, if I could have saved my child's life for $300, I don't think I'd ever forgive myself.
Here's the AAP's policy paper. Here's the FAA's recommendations. And Here's the UCSF study claiming more children would die if the FAA made seats for infants mandatory.
Mar 22, 2005, 6:09 pm
#47
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,067
Thanks for those links.
That rule might have saved four deaths in 10 years!? Holy cats is that a low return on investment.
I'd bet that if you could magically steal $100 from every air traveling family with babies/toddles, you'd cause many multiples of four deaths in 10 years. Such a reduction in resources would likely lead a small, but measurable, number of families to forego some other safety related product or service.
Saving lives is very complicated.
That rule might have saved four deaths in 10 years!? Holy cats is that a low return on investment.
I'd bet that if you could magically steal $100 from every air traveling family with babies/toddles, you'd cause many multiples of four deaths in 10 years. Such a reduction in resources would likely lead a small, but measurable, number of families to forego some other safety related product or service.
Saving lives is very complicated.
Mar 22, 2005, 6:27 pm
#49
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 345
I wonder how many childrens' lives would have been saved if the money parents spent on airline seats over 10 years had instead been invested in insurance programs for uninsured children ... more than 4-5 in 10 years, I'm sure.
How many changes are there that you could you make in your day-to-day life- which would have an even better chance of saving your child's life- that you don't make? For example, do you drive your child in the safest vehicle available? Like I said, it's important to keep things in perspective.
Originally Posted by dhuey
Thanks for those links.
That rule might have saved four deaths in 10 years!? Holy cats is that a low return on investment.
I'd bet that if you could magically steal $100 from every air traveling family with babies/toddles, you'd cause many multiples of four deaths in 10 years. Such a reduction in resources would likely lead a small, but measurable, number of families to forego some other safety related product or service.
Saving lives is very complicated.
That rule might have saved four deaths in 10 years!? Holy cats is that a low return on investment.
I'd bet that if you could magically steal $100 from every air traveling family with babies/toddles, you'd cause many multiples of four deaths in 10 years. Such a reduction in resources would likely lead a small, but measurable, number of families to forego some other safety related product or service.
Saving lives is very complicated.
On the other hand, if I could have saved my child's life for $300, I don't think I'd ever forgive myself.
Last edited by Lindisfarne; Mar 22, 2005 at 7:11 pm
Mar 22, 2005, 7:26 pm
#50
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by dhuey
Thanks for those links.
That rule might have saved four deaths in 10 years!? Holy cats is that a low return on investment.
I'd bet that if you could magically steal $100 from every air traveling family with babies/toddles, you'd cause many multiples of four deaths in 10 years. Such a reduction in resources would likely lead a small, but measurable, number of families to forego some other safety related product or service.
Saving lives is very complicated.
That rule might have saved four deaths in 10 years!? Holy cats is that a low return on investment.
I'd bet that if you could magically steal $100 from every air traveling family with babies/toddles, you'd cause many multiples of four deaths in 10 years. Such a reduction in resources would likely lead a small, but measurable, number of families to forego some other safety related product or service.
Saving lives is very complicated.
As far as I can find, there is yet to be a reliable study of how many injuries could be prevented by mandating age and size appropriate restraints for children.
Mar 23, 2005, 2:48 am
#51
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Saipan, MP 96950 USA (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands = the CNMI)
Programs: UA Silver, Hilton Silver. Life: UA .57 MM, United & Admirals Clubs (spousal), Marriott Platinum
Posts: 15,039
Originally Posted by Analise
If we are blessed to have children, we will do what our parents did when we were growing up. We didn't fly until we were old enough to know how to behave in public. Age 6 or so.
I won't put a baby through the ordeal of flying.
I won't put a baby through the ordeal of flying.
Originally Posted by Analise
The woman then stated again that my being there would cause the baby to scream the entire flight. I retorted, "then you clearly won't be elected mother of the year by anybody with a brain". People laughed.
Originally Posted by Analise
By the way, the baby was fine during most of the flight. She cried only a few times but that's pretty much par for the course. Again, I had my music so I was in my own world.
Hindsight is 20/20 on the IDB. I wouldn't have thought of it at the time, either. Having to wait six hours, with your husband already aboard, likely wouldn't have been worth it.
Sorry to hear about the problem at security.
Mar 23, 2005, 9:59 am
#52
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 55,189
Originally Posted by SPN Lifer
Hindsight is 20/20 on the IDB. I wouldn't have thought of it at the time, either. Having to wait six hours, with your husband already aboard, likely wouldn't have been worth it.
Originally Posted by SPN Lifer
How did the mother behave during the rest of the flight?
Mar 23, 2005, 10:16 am
#53
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,067
Originally Posted by SptCA
But how about preventing non-fatal injury, which the study did not evaluate? I know if the plane crashes, odds are all passengers, car seat or no, will die. But what if we hit major turbulence and passengers are tossed around? Or experience a sudden huge drop in altitude where passengers are tossed around? I've been in both of those circumstances and seen unrestrained children injured.
As far as I can find, there is yet to be a reliable study of how many injuries could be prevented by mandating age and size appropriate restraints for children.
As far as I can find, there is yet to be a reliable study of how many injuries could be prevented by mandating age and size appropriate restraints for children.
http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_safe/turbulence/
Each year, approximately 58 people in the United States are injured by turbulence while not wearing their seat belts.
From 1980 through June 2004, U.S. air carriers had 198 turbulence accidents*, resulting in 266 serious injuries and three fatalities.
At least two of the three fatalities involved passengers who were not wearing their seat belts while the seat belt sign was illuminated.
Generally, two-thirds of turbulence-related accidents occur at or above 30,000 feet.
*The National Transportation Safety Board defines an accident as an occurrence associated with the operations of an airplane in which any person suffers death or serious injury or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.
So, that's about 11 serious injuries or deaths per year from turbulence. There's no mention of ages of the injured, but one would think that very few of these 269 were babies or toddlers.
Speaking of non-fatal injuries, has anyone here lugged a 30 lb. baby carrier for 30 rows down a narrow aisle, with lots of passengers seated in the aisle seats? How about with other bags and while coaxing baby's big sister to keep moving? It's a minor miracle I never hurt anyone else or myself while doing this.
Mar 23, 2005, 11:16 am
#54
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by dhuey
This from the FAA:
http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_safe/turbulence/
Each year, approximately 58 people in the United States are injured by turbulence while not wearing their seat belts.
From 1980 through June 2004, U.S. air carriers had 198 turbulence accidents*, resulting in 266 serious injuries and three fatalities.
At least two of the three fatalities involved passengers who were not wearing their seat belts while the seat belt sign was illuminated.
Generally, two-thirds of turbulence-related accidents occur at or above 30,000 feet.
*The National Transportation Safety Board defines an accident as an occurrence associated with the operations of an airplane in which any person suffers death or serious injury or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.
So, that's about 11 serious injuries or deaths per year from turbulence. There's no mention of ages of the injured, but one would think that very few of these 269 were babies or toddlers.
Speaking of non-fatal injuries, has anyone here lugged a 30 lb. baby carrier for 30 rows down a narrow aisle, with lots of passengers seated in the aisle seats? How about with other bags and while coaxing baby's big sister to keep moving? It's a minor miracle I never hurt anyone else or myself while doing this.
http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_safe/turbulence/
Each year, approximately 58 people in the United States are injured by turbulence while not wearing their seat belts.
From 1980 through June 2004, U.S. air carriers had 198 turbulence accidents*, resulting in 266 serious injuries and three fatalities.
At least two of the three fatalities involved passengers who were not wearing their seat belts while the seat belt sign was illuminated.
Generally, two-thirds of turbulence-related accidents occur at or above 30,000 feet.
*The National Transportation Safety Board defines an accident as an occurrence associated with the operations of an airplane in which any person suffers death or serious injury or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.
So, that's about 11 serious injuries or deaths per year from turbulence. There's no mention of ages of the injured, but one would think that very few of these 269 were babies or toddlers.
Speaking of non-fatal injuries, has anyone here lugged a 30 lb. baby carrier for 30 rows down a narrow aisle, with lots of passengers seated in the aisle seats? How about with other bags and while coaxing baby's big sister to keep moving? It's a minor miracle I never hurt anyone else or myself while doing this.
a) incidents are underreported for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to airlines wishing to avoid liability
b) The NTSB definition has a lot of wiggle room as to what consititutes as in-flight injury.
As there is no breakdown of the injured by age group, it isn't reasonable to assume that "very few of these 269 were babies or toddlers" - how do you know if the ratio of injured children to adults is equal to the ratio of children to adults flying overall? What would your reaction be if you learned that children represent 30% of those injured, but only 5% of the total flying population?
And, yes, I have carried a car seat, child and carry-ons down the aisle of quite a few planes without injurying anyone. It really wasn't very difficult at all.
Mar 23, 2005, 11:36 am
#55
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,067
I'm guessing that the percentage of babies/infants among the seriously injured is small, because if it were large, we'd probably see it highlighted either by the FAA or by one of the studies looking at baby/infant deaths due to turbulence. Also, it seems to me that those at greatest risk during unexpected turbulence would be people standing up -- something babies and toddlers don't do too much on a plane.
Even if every one of the 11 seriously injuried or killed passengers were lap babies/toddlers, it would still be a dubious proposition to mandate the purchase of the extra seat for the reasons outlined by UCSF. If extra driving would cause extra deaths, it would surely cause extra non-fatal injuries as well.
I'll go with the reported stats; you can go with the supposition that airlines and their employees are violating their injury reporting obligations to the FAA in a big way.
Even if every one of the 11 seriously injuried or killed passengers were lap babies/toddlers, it would still be a dubious proposition to mandate the purchase of the extra seat for the reasons outlined by UCSF. If extra driving would cause extra deaths, it would surely cause extra non-fatal injuries as well.
I'll go with the reported stats; you can go with the supposition that airlines and their employees are violating their injury reporting obligations to the FAA in a big way.
Mar 23, 2005, 8:48 pm
#56
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: GEG
Posts: 217
Originally Posted by dhuey
Also, it seems to me that those at greatest risk during unexpected turbulence would be people standing up -- something babies and toddlers don't do too much on a plane.
Mar 24, 2005, 9:12 am
#57
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: near Nashville, TN USA
Programs: Marriott Bonvoy Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 185
When we lived in Las Vegas, we flew frequently with our 3 young children. On every flight home we saw people pointing at us and whispering. Our children were well-behaved but we were obviously horrible parents dragging our little children to Vegas so we could gamble. 
Mar 24, 2005, 10:42 am
#58
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 55,189
Originally Posted by MarTN
When we lived in Las Vegas, we flew frequently with our 3 young children. On every flight home we saw people pointing at us and whispering. Our children were well-behaved but we were obviously horrible parents dragging our little children to Vegas so we could gamble.
Mar 24, 2005, 11:29 am
#59
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: أمريكا
Posts: 26,763
Originally Posted by Lindisfarne
(I personally can bear 2-4 hours of discomfort to save $300
Originally Posted by dhuey
Also, it seems to me that those at greatest risk during unexpected turbulence would be people standing up -- something babies and toddlers don't do too much on a plane.
Mar 24, 2005, 11:48 am
#60
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,067
Originally Posted by Doppy
As infant fares are only 20% of the adult fare, this would mean you're taking 2 hour, $1500 one-way flights. What route is this?
I wouldn't assume that. Lap children aren't restrained either, and infants are more fragile.
I wouldn't assume that. Lap children aren't restrained either, and infants are more fragile.
Here's something from the National Transportation Safety Board to back up my assumptions.
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/1999/meet...ler/sld001.htm
The NTSB puts it well: "Don't Solve Problems by Creative Problems..."