Proudelitist

The issue is that the operator, the company that owns the vehicle, can set the rules. They COULD forbid F tickets for anyone under a certain age if they chose to.

WorldLux

Maybe you want to sleep. Headphones and spotify won't help much in such situation.

No-child sections won't help too. A couple of years ago, I had the pleasure to "enjoy" economy on the Swiss evening flight HKG-ZRH. An infant in the front section of the economy started crying. The mom then proceeded to run down one aisle and up the other aisle. That way, everybody in economy got to enjoy the screaming toddler and wake up somewhere over Asia. It lasted for 45 to 60 minutes.

Visconti

Agreed.

Not only is it likely not economically viable in the US, but the we're far too PC a nation for any public company to implement such a measure.

In Europe and Asia, if it were economically viable, we can see child free or age limits in F class in a heartbeat.

gooselee

Earplugs.

My point wasn't about two specific remedies, but the fact that people, especially frequent travelers, ought to know that annoying passengers of any age are always a possibility and take some ownership over making their own journey as pleasant as possible.

Could the kid stop whining, or the drunk stop drinking, or the talkative couple stop chatting? Yes. But if you're bothered that much by those things, you can also do a number of things yourself that help the situation without being reliant on others to bend to your particular preferences.

Or, y'know, you could just stay home. Seems like some of the people on this thread don't believe that anyone under a certain age should be allowed to travel at all. I suppose we could then infer that travelling somewhere isn't really that important for anyone, right?

roberino

And if it made economic sense they would have already done so.

Proudelitist

Either way, it's not "public"

gooselee

Good lord. Everyone here knows that "public" can be defined any number of ways. "Public transportation" is a very common term used to describe any number of transit methods that are, in fact, owned and operated by private entities.

If in doubt: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=public+definition

Or if you really want to test it, try exposing yourself on an airplane and see whether you can win the argument with law enforcement that it was not a "public place."

airplanegod

That's because it is open to the public, but you still have to abide by the private company's rules and orders.

chollie

Ear plugs don't help much if the kid is running up and down the aisles and stopping to plant his/her sticky hands all over the nearest pax. If you're sitting in the back of the bus, a kid kicking the back of your seat gets old real fast and again, ear plugs are no help.

I must be misreading your post, because I don't see where you suggest courses of action for the parents of rude, ill-behaved kids.

Visconti

Probably stating the obvious here, but if an Airline wanted to place an age limit on F, they can certainly do so; just as some fine restaurants pose an age limit for diners.

That they don't has nothing to do with anything other than their belief rev/pax will be higher by not imposing age limitations. If they find that rev/pax increases shareholder value by placing an Age limit in F (or wherever), no crying or whining on social media will stop them from doing so.

It's all about the bottom line.

gooselee

I don't disagree that the parents/caretakers of a child should act accordingly to correct or calm their kids, or that the drunkard should be less belligerent. Or that kids should be prepared in advance by being taught (by their parents) what behavior is and is not appropriate on an airplane. Or that the drunk should perhaps self-limit their intake.

However, if you're the one being annoyed by someone else's behavior, you are only able to control your own reaction. You can complain about it and bemoan the airline for not having a policy that they are unlikely to ever impose, or you can actually do something about the situation.

PTravel

With all due respect, I think the focus in your post (and in many posts in this thread) is wrong. The drunk shouldn't be "less belligerent," but should limit alcohol intake if he knows he has a problem with becoming belligerent when drunk. And the problem isn't whether kids know how to behave, but whether they should be there at all. If parents know that their kids are going to create a problem for everyone else, then they should consider whether air travel with their kids is appropriate. The kids aren't the problem -- the parents who bring problem kids on board are the problem.

Saying that the parents should try to kids is like saying the belligerent drunk should try not to be so belligerent. It's the cause that should be removed, not the effect.

KoKoBuddy

I've been in FC 100+ times and not once can I remember thinking "you know, this flight would be so much better if nobody under 18 were allowed here". However in those same 100+ flights I've thought many times how much better the flight would be if they wouldn't allow alcoholics in.

gooselee

With all due respect, I want my kids to grow up seeing their aunts and uncles and grandparents who are spread across both Americas, Europe, and southeast Asia. I will fly with them, and I will take them in a premium cabin because a) I want to make the most of our time when we visit, vs. spending days resting back up from flights and b) I have the means to do so.

I think air travel for my kids, in a premium cabin, with me or their mother being attentive to them, is entirely appropriate. I'm sorry if one of them gets a little noisy (they should and do know better, but they are children, after all), and I'll deal with them appropriately when they do. But you don't get to decide whether it is or is not "appropriate" for my kids to get on an airplane so they can see their family.

If the very presence of young passengers or other potential annoyances on a plane cause you such distress, perhaps you should consider whether air travel is appropriate for yourself. That would be an equally ridiculous proposition to the one you have presented.

PTravel

The "very presence of young passengers" doesn't cause me "distress." Screaming children, crying babies, loud talkers and belligerent drunks annoy the heck out of me. And parents who bring screaming children and crying babies on board are just as inconsiderate as drunks who drink too much and become belligerent.

You're absolutely right. I don't get to decide who can buy airplane tickets. But I can THINK what I want about people who are so inconsiderate that they give no thought to the comfort of the dozens and dozens of strangers who are flying with them.