cynicAAl

In your response to BenjaminNYC's post (# 8), did you intentionally forget to respond to his point :Not to mention the disruption to other passengers.
or is that not something you are concerned about ? Just wondering...

zman

i don't understand why someone would endanger there <2 year old child by not having them occupy an approved Airline Seat carrier designed for children (ie like a car seat). Is the $ savings worth the risk?

A SEAT FOR THE BABY. Yes, they can fly for free in your lap until they’re two but the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) strongly recommends that all children who fly, regardless of their age, use the appropriate restraint based on their size and weight. They are far safer in turbulence or an accident. The American academy of pediatrics concurs. A baby will be a lot more comfortable in a familiar seat. You’ll be more comfortable too. Under 20 pounds, they should be in a rear-facing seat; from 20 to 40 pounds in a forward-facing child restraint. Children over 40 pounds may safely use an aircraft seat belt. Visit www.faa.gov/passengers/childsafetyseats for more information

SAT Lawyer

Nope.

I pointed out that my own son is far more likely to act disruptively if he is confined and strapped to a seat. I also noted subsequently:

Let's face reality: parents sometimes want or even need to travel with their children, a shocking concept, I know. Sometimes children can be very disruptive. As traveling parents, we have a responsibility to do our utmost to minimize any disruption caused by our children by keeping them well fed and entertained, by stopping them from engaging in annoying behavior like kicking the seat back in front of them, by trying to quiet them when they make excessive noise, and by trying to comfort and soothe them when they are upset. But beyond that, what can any of us reasonably be expected to do?

sbrower

I see this kind of comment every time we have this discussion. But can anyone point me to an actual instance where all the passengers on the plane were fine and healthy, but a "babe in arms" was injured because he/she was thrown from the parents arms? (If everyone on the plane was dead, including the baby, that doesn't count.)

If you can't point to 10 actual cases (out of the millions of lap infants who have flown), then why make such a ridiculous argument?

A better question would be "Why would someone endanger their <2 year old child by driving them anywhere in a car seat, instead of taking them as a lap child on an airplane (since the chances of death injury in a car seat in a car far exceed the dangers as a lap infant in a commercial airplane)."

ContinentalFan

I think that the seatbelt serves multiple purposes, not least of which to ensure that the center of gravity of the aircraft is maintained at critical times during take off and landing. It's a training tool--getting people to sit obediently in their seats.

AH-64D

The charge applies even if you fly on a free ticket.

AH-64D

Because leaving them at home by him/her self is a felony among other things.

alect

Firstly, it depends on what you mean by "international" - if you mean Mexico/Canda then 10% doesn't apply - free plus taxes.

Secondly, see this thread for the most recent discussion of this topic.

Thirdly, it's not necessarily 10% of the full fare of the applicable cabin - it's 10% of the lowest published fare for the applicable cabin - the difference could be substantial.

tazi

Personally, I think they should reduce the age allowable for lap children. None over one year old.

As for the OP ... buy a ticket for the kid. Two years is just too old. It might be OK for a short hop but international??? No way. Kid, parent and everyone nearby are going to be miserable.

oneant

So not flying with them means that the only other option is to leave them home alone?

jamflyer

Well said...^

BenjaminNYC

OK! But we've made the decision that we human beings should be belted in during (1) takeoff, (2) landing, (3) turbulence. Right?

Why do we not make the same decision for babies?

It must be that they're expendible.

sbrower

Did you ignore Post #19 because you agree that this is a silly argument, or because you don't have any logical answer?

SAT Lawyer

Not hardly. It is because the added expense does not justify the de minimis benefit of having a seat given: (1) the reality that many infants will not be quietly content with remaining strapped in that seat for the duration of a flight; and (2) the extremely remote possibility of a serious injury associated with the failure to have junior secured in that seat. Nobody is saying that seat belts aren't a good idea; what parents who are comfortable with traveling with their offspring as lap children are saying is that the nominal benefit is not worth the cost. [As an aside, on several of our flights where we have not purchased a seat for our son, one has nevertheless been made available to us because the flight was not full. In these cases, even if we had found a seat useful, as it turned out, paying for one would have been a wasted expense.]

Again, the question for you or any other critics of the lap child is this:
You can do whatever you want with your own children (if you have any). But why do you purport to care so deeply about what I do with mine?

BenjaminNYC

I really don't care what you do with your children, except for the discomfort of other pax.

But let's ignore that issue because as you say maybe they're more disruptive in their own seat. It seems a well behaved child is less disruptive in their own seat, and a badly behaved child is less disruptive being held.

That aside, I don't understand why the FAA makes a big deal about people wearing a seatbelt during take off, landing and rough air for adults, but not for children. Are you saying the added safety for adults is also de minimus? If that's the case, why all the extra expense of installing seatbelts and demonstrating how to use them. It would strike me that the safety added by seatbelts is actually rather large. I mean, the FAA doesn't just want them there for kicks.

So if the added safety of seatbelts is large for adults, is it not also large for infants? If that is the case, how can you justify not providing that added safety to your child. (I don't mean "you", I mean "one")

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just don't understand. If it's worth the expense (to society as a whole) to force airlines to make seatbelts available to adults and to "force" adults to use them at certain times, why does the same principle apply to infants?

(sorry if typos - on berry)