rjque

The airlines didn't charge for a lot of things when there were smoking sections on aircraft.

rjque

Disagree. I think it's very beneficial for my daughter to be able to have a real relationship with her grandparents in Oregon and her aunt in the Bay Area. Absent flying, it's unlikely she would know any of her family members other than her fathers, since everyone lives more than 1500 miles away. It's not reasonable to expect people to keep their kids in a local bubble absent an emergency.

PTravel

Yes, but I don't care about her benefit. It means nothing to me whether she sees her grandparents and aunt or not. You chose to have children, as well as to live wherever it is that you live. It's none of my business, and certainly none of my concern.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. Your kids are your problem. If they create a disturbance then they become an imposition to strangers. Now, airlines don't restrict who can buy tickets, so you can take them on planes whenever you want. However, if they create a nuisance and impose on other passengers, then you are, essentially, saying, "I don't care about anyone else." In my book that's selfish. I don't expect people to do anything, other than not impose on strangers in public and, particularly, when on aircraft.

I'll also point out that what I said was this: "Emergencies are emergencies and I always always lend a hand to my fellow human beings in an emergency." If you're flying with your children and its an emergency you can count on my help. If you're flying so that your daughter can see your family members, I'm not going to make any special accommodation for you, and that includes not changing seats so you can sit together.

AlastairGordon

So how does that work? When you're asked to change seats by a family that wants to sit together, do you ask them why they are flying, so you can determine whether or not it is an "emergency" before agreeing to switch?

jrl767

no, no, a thousand times no ... kids are the parents'/guardians' responsibility

you're certainly allowed to think that your comfort and travel experience are more important than anyone else's, but the first thought that comes to my mind is "how incredibly hypocritical" ... you said it yourself:
if the parents/guardians are trying their hearts out to regain control of the situation, they're at least recognizing the need to consider that their fellow travelers have been impacted ... I suggest it's only selfish if they willfully ignore both the nuisance and the imposition

PTravel

No. My rule is I don't switch absent a compelling reason (and that's one that I find compelling). If someone gives me a compelling reason, I'll switch (and also help any other way that I can). If not, not my problem.

A distinction without a difference. Either way, your kids are of no concern to me (absent an emergency).

I never said anything of the sort. What I said is, it's rude to impose on strangers, and selfish to do so deliberately.

IF I said it (and I'm not sure that I have), it's sometime ago. My tolerance of other's rudeness grows considerably thinner with time.

What's hypocritical is claiming that objecting to someone else's nuisance is, "my comfort and convenience is more important than anyone else." How dare I object to you punching me in the nose -- that's putting my comfort and convenience before yours.

I owe you and your children nothing, other than the social contract to which we all subscribe: I won't impose on you and you won't impose on me. Don't impose on me, and I will neither know nor care that you are there. The fact that you have successfully reproduced doesn't give you special license to impose on others.

gooselee

Legitimate question: How does someone and their kids on a plane/train/bus constitute an imposition on you, but your desire for them to not travel to see their relatives because they may be annoying to you not constitute an imposition you are placing on them? Personally, I didn't chose to live thousands of miles from my family, rather my parents fled their home during a war and only some of our family ended up with the means to move back later. The rest created new lives in their new homes.

At what point does your decision to NOT reproduce give you special license to impose on others?

Additionally, some might argue that having children is a particular choice somewhat different from others, since of course none of us would be having this conversation if our parents/grandparents/etc. had decided to not have us, thus children pose a specifically different set of expectations within a broader social contract. I'm not sure where I sit on that particular argument, but it does exist and I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

rjque

My point is that your expectation to not be imposed upon by children is unreasonable. You are free to live in your own child free home, but you can't expect not to have to accommodate children in most public places. It's great that you chose not to have kids, but to expect everyone to bend over backwards creating a child free experience for you is, in your own words, selfish.

Why my daughter is flying is none of your business, and, again, to put it in your own words, the fact that you don't want children on an aircraft is your problem, not mine. I'll do my best to ensure that my four year old doesn't bother you while you fly, but it is wholly unreasonable to expect that I will keep her in a bubble simply because you don't want to be bothered by the noise of children.

Regarding changing seats, I actually have to do that quite a lot now that American has decided to shuffle seats every time they swap one 738 for an identical 738. In general, I don't often need to ask anyone to switch because the club and gate agents will usually take care of it for me in advance. The airline may choose to do that by moving someone without their consent, or they may ask. If they choose to move you without your consent, that's the airline's right under the COC, and your complaint is with the airline and not me.

PTravel

Someone and their kids on a plane/train/bus do not constitute an imposition on me. Only if their kids create a disturbance do they constitute an imposition on me (and everyone else).

As for my desires, they constitute an imposition on no one. I can want, desire, prefer or wish for whatever I like without imposing on anyone.

And that justifies your right to impose on strangers?

My decision not to have children (an assumption on your part) doesn't give me any kind of license at all. Of course, I'm not the one creating a disturbance for others, am I?

I thought I've been clear: having had children doesn't give anyone rights to impose on others or, for that matter, rights superior to anyone else. As a member of society, I have an obligation to contribute to the education of young people (which I do through paying property taxes, and without complaint), and I have an obligation to help ensure that children are healthy, cared for and protected (which I do through other forms of taxation, again without complaint). I have no obligation to the children of strangers beyond that.

I've also never suggested that anyone not have children. That's a personal decision, just like the myriad other personal decisions that we all make for ourselves, such as whether or not to marry, whether or not to pursue a specific profession, whether or not to be a vegetarian, whether or not to follow a specific religion or no religion, etc. None of those choices are any of my business, just as my choices in that regard are none of yours. It is not, however, my obligation to subsidize your choices in that regard, any more than it is your obligation to subsidize mine.

If you start to claim that you are entitled to certain rights and privileges solely because of your marital status, childed status, religious preference, etc., then you are demanding an entitlement which has no rational basis. By the way, you're right, I don't have children -- that was a conscious choice on the part of my wife and me. However, that doesn't mean we go to public parks and playgrounds and demand that children be quiet, it doesn't mean that, because we are married, we claim the right to make love in the aisle of an aircraft, nor does it mean that we can go speeding through school zones because we don't have children.

On the other hand, we do expect that in theaters, finer restaurants and, yes, on airplanes where we are captive audiences, we will not be imposed upon by parents who don't recognize that their decision to have children does not abrogate their responsibility to avoid imposition on strangers. Frankly, I find it extraordinary that there are those in this thread who think disruptive children are perfectly appropriate on airplanes at all, much less First Class.

However, the bottom line is that anyone can by a ticket on an airplane. And anyone can have any opinion they want about disruptive children on airplanes.

PTravel

First of all, my expectation is to not be imposed upon by parents -- children are children.

And I don't.

I don't expect anything of the sort. I expect that, on airplanes, people won't scream or otherwise carry-on in a manner that disturbs others -- that is true regardless of age or lifestyle choice.

I never said that it was.

Is the fact that I don't want you to punch me in the nose also my problem?

As I've said, you can do whatever you want -- the airlines sell tickets to everybody, regardless of age. If there was a child-free airline, I'd fly it, but there isn't. However, I reserve the right to think not-nice thoughts about you and your family if your 4-year old has an in-flight melt-down, particularly in F, or on long-hauls or red-eyes.

Everybody faces that -- it's not a problem confined to AA.

I agree completely. My complaint would be with the airline, and not with you. Just as, if you ask me to switch and I say no, your complaint is also with the airline and not with me. Personally, I'm in favor of requiring airlines to keep parents and young children (and invalids and caregivers and other "mandatory partners") together when they book -- it would avoid a lot of seat poaching and other problems. However, as with child-free flights, the airlines in the US don't do that, so you'll have to live with the possibility that you may have to take a later flight.

rjque

I think I've already adequately addressed your other points, but this one is simply ridiculous. You're a lawyer. You must know that this is an absurd analogy.

Visconti

This!

It's not so much even having to be infringed upon, but the matter-of-fact entitlement some Parents (certainly not all) have when doing so. That if I prefer to be spared the constant wailings of a screaming baby or misbehaved child somehow makes me a selfish and unreasonable person.

PTravel

The principle is the same. Your claim was my wanting to be free from the nuisance created by your children was imposing on you. THAT is absurd.

Badenoch

Sorry to disappoint you but the rest of humanity doesn't give a rat's patoot about whether your daughter has a "real relationship" with her grandparents in Oregon.

Keep your kids quiet and under control while on board.

tartempion

Early September I boarded a QR A380 from BKK to DOH.

Biz cabin was full and I had something like 2 Arab families around my window seat, I could not count exactly all the family members: too many were interfering up and down the aisle blocking the passageway and discussing whatever issues. Behind me I noticed a Thai maid with a small child, in the middle seats behind me an 8 year young boy and next to him an other Thai maid with a 5 year young, an Arab man middle seat in front of me who did not get involved with the children at all, some Arab women all around.

An FA got stuck at my seat and I said semi-jokingly "what a market here"
He replied "I will hold the bar on this flight, after take of come and enjoy the bar"

Before take off I noticed the 8 year in his pyjamas and he went to sleep after take off.The maids took good care of the other two children and I was not disturbed at all.

This family did not look hiso at all, behaved well and it must have cost a fortune to fly them all in J, I watched the male in front of me and this was definitely not his first flight in J.

I had my champagne, wine and dine, got some sleep and watched a movie.
Was not keen on more alcohol, so unfortunately did not hit the bar.

All in all a perfect flight, except the 10 minutes after boarding.

I fly Thailand Europe 3x/year in biz, never have been bothered by children. I have a 5 year young and we take 10 domestic flights a year, she is no trouble whatsoever. I will probably take her to Europe next year when she will be 6, don't see why she would be an issue in J.

So far, children are welcome in J.