gooselee

Posting from my phone, so apologies for anything that doesn't exactly follow - I can clarify as needed.

Re: family being far away, no that does not give me any additional "right to impose" on others. My argument is that no *additional* right is needed, because why I'm flying or why my kids are flying doesn't even matter. I was responding to your earlier post where you said "You chose to have children, as well as to live wherever it is that you live." Just as I don't know your situation, you have no idea about mine or any other pax. Parents and kids shouldn't be asked to refrain from flying except in emergencies, which is what you are expressing as a preference.

Second, I think what's frustrating about this exchange is you are very clearly expressing your opinion and preference, but then as a counterpoint to others' opinions and preferences, using the argument along the lines of (my interpretation): "I'm not suggesting that airlines/parents actually do this, it's just what I'd want them to do." That statement does not in any way invalidate or counter-argue my assertion of what I would want airlines/parents to do or not do. Yes, you can have whatever opinion you'd like, and I can also have my opinion and state why I think yours is, frankly, wrong.

If parents who don't manage disruptive children are the problem, how, in your ideal world, do you suggest that we separate them from parents of well-behaved children? Is there some sore of assessment that can be done in advance?

My argument is that *children*, as a set of people, are perfectly appropriate in any class of service on a common carrier airline. Yes, parents and caretakers should care for them and correct their behavior when necessary. But in my opinion, air travel can be a near-essential form of transport for some families and we shouldn't exclude an entire subset of people just because there's a chance that an even smaller subset of them might be disruptive or annoying to others.

Again, this isn't an argument that disruptive kids are okay. They're not and their caretakers should minimize disruption and bad behavior as much as possible. But, the chance that a kid may be disruptive or annoying is not enough justification to simply exclude kids altogether from air travel. I'm not arguing that you should not have your opinion. I don't even disagree that parents should always think of the impact their kids behavior might have on others (actually, I think ALL people should think about the impact their own behavior has on others). I do disagree with the part of your opinion where you think parents and their kids should somehow self-select out of air travel. So far, the logic and argument you've employed to support that opinion are borderline absurd to me, and I'm allowed to think that.

ETA: I think I'm now reading your ask is simple that people traveling with kids do what they can to keep their kids quiet, respectful, and not-bothersome to others around them. That is completely fair and I agree. I might suggest, however, that the way you present the argument leading up to that ask comes across as far from compassionate for those individuals. Presenting it that way is, of course, up to you. But when you're asking others to be understanding and compassionate toward your preferences and desires, perhaps it helps to also be understanding and compassionate to theirs to some extent. That is honestly what I've been reacting to.

Visconti

While I can't speak for others, I don't think anyone is asking for compassion. All that is required is simply the etiquette that I not unnecessarily infringe upon you and vice versa.

Not comparing a human being to an inanimate object, but would it be ok to sit next to you while listening to music at high volume without headphones? Of course not, it would be rude not only to you, but the Pax around me.

Parents who believe others should be subjected to their baby crying baby are rude, in my view. That they believe I'm selfish to feel this way is remarkable.

PTravel

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, so I'll just comment on some of your points.

Just to reiterate, I agree -- it's none of my business.

I probably haven't expressed myself well. It's hard to find an exact analogy, but the best I can come with is flying with a cold (and, no, I'm not comparing having children to having an illness ). We all generally agree that it's best not fly with a cold because we might pass it on to other pax. Sometimes, however, there is no choice. That still won't prevent people from grousing about it on FT.

That's what makes horse races.

From what I read here on FT, young children are sufficiently unpredictable that there is no guarantee that even the best and most attentive parent can prevent disruption, which is why I would fly a child-free airline were there such a thing. However, to answer your question, just as airlines have no problem banning the disruptive drunk from future flights, I see no reason why they couldn't do so with children who are equally or more disruptive.

Do you also believe that children (and I'm speaking particularly of young children, i.e. below the age of volitional self-control) are perfectly appropriate in finer restaurants, theaters, and similar venues? Just as we can agree that there are some venues, both public and commercial, where it's ridiculous to say that the presence of children is inappropriate, can we agree that there are also some venues where children simply should not be brought? If so, then the disagreement isn't children vs. non-children, but whether a particular space should have a minimum age limit. I agree that commercial airlines are common carriers and a child-free airline is, at minimum, highly unlikely. The particular question in this thread really comes down to, "What, really, is the purpose of B and F?"

Of course you can think what you like. As I've said, that's what makes horse races. However, all I can say is that I'm old enough to remember that, when I was a child, parents did exactly that and, particularly, with respect to air travel.

"Compassion" is a loaded word because it suggests a compulsory aspect. "Sympathetic" would be better. No, I'm not sympathetic to parents who, despite their best efforts, have children are being disruptive on aircraft. That's because I see having children as a choice that, like other life choices, provides both benefits and limitations. I'm compassionate to the physically disabled, the autistic, the mentally handicapped, and to those traveling in an emergency (regardless of age) because these pax had no choice regarding their circumstances. Parents, however, choose to have their children (or, at least I hope they do). The mere fact that they are traveling with their children doesn't, in my opinion, call for compassion.

I'm not asking anyone to be compassionate (or sympathetic) towards my preferences. I'm simply asking that all pax, parents and non-parents alike, avoid imposing on other pax. It's really just the converse of the Golden Rule: Don't do unto others as you don't want them to do unto you.

StartinSanDiego

Moderator caution:
This topic has been beat to death in this and numerous other threads. I can summarize the two main viewpoints:
Kids have rights!
Ok, but they're your kids so don't impose them on me!

The discourse here has been pleasant thus far, but tit for tat debate has a tendency to disintegrate... just sayin'...

gooselee

I'm going to heed the mod note here and respectfully bow out after just a couple final comments. Not trying to get the last word - I'll read and think about any response others may have - but the topic HAS been beat to death.

1. You're right. "Sympathetic" is a better word than "compassionate" for what I wanted to convey. I just failed to think of the right word.

2. When I travel with kids (and actually, even when at home with them), I do everything in my power before, during, and after the trip to make sure they are well behaved and not an annoyance to others. Most of the time they're great. Sometimes they're not. THAT is my expectation of others, and so long as they're doing that, the Golden Rule is satisfied in my book. I wouldn't want anyone to ask me and my family to stop travelling, thus I will not ask anyone else or their family to stop travelling.

rjque

That's not what we are talking about. I was responding to PTravel's suggestion that it is selfish for parents to bring children along for discretionary airline travel. My point is that it isn't.

rjque

No, I was saying that your suggestion that I limit my daughter's world simply because you don't think kids should be on airplanes is selfish on your part. Nothing in this conversation has anything to do with an intentional battery, and it's absurd to compare a parent bringing their child on a trip to someone who punches you in the face.

I also take issue with the so-called "social contract" you mentioned above. There is no such contract not to "impose" on one another. You driving on a freeway imposes on my ability to use the same freeway. You buying the last gougere at Tartine before I can get there imposes on me. You taking the last seat in the airline lounge imposes on me. But these are all reasonable impositions, as is bringing a child on an aircraft.

There is no social contract not to impose on others. There is a social contract not to unreasonably impose. Bringing a child on an aircraft is not unreasonable. Failing to do what you can to avoid things like seat kicking and meltdowns is unreasonable, but that's not what we are talking about here.

AlastairGordon

Fly with your kids. Take them places. Let Grandma and Grandpa see them as much as possible before they pass. Expand their horizons. And if you can afford to fly business or first class with them, do so, because this will result in fewer people being disturbed if they act up.

Obviously do what you can to keep them calm and quiet. But if despite your efforts they do disturb the tranquillity of any fellow passengers, don't sweat it. Everyone chose to get on the plane knowing full well that crying babies were a possibility, and no problem is more First World than people privileged and rich enough to be flying on an airplane (especially in a premium cabin) being irritated by a child.

Badenoch

Please understand that if your sense of entitlement combined with an unwillingness to properly control your issue disturbs my tranquility you can expect to "sweat it." Indulgent parents don't get a free pass.

AlastairGordon

I understand that far from giving out a "free pass", you have a stink-eye and you're not afraid to use it. My advice to parents would be that the kind of person who gives you a stink-eye when your children behave less than perfectly is invariably the kind of person who you should worry least about getting a stink-eye from.

I hope your next flight is calm, pleasant and tranquil!

Badenoch

A silent "stink-eye" is the refuge of the passive-aggressive. I'm not particularly passive when provoked by loser parents who don't care about their children's bad behavior.

rjque

So much bravado on this topic. Is there anything wrong with mentioning problem behavior to the person creating the disturbance, and politely asking them to stop? It worked for me on my last HKG-ORD in CX J with my four year old, when the older gentleman in front of her decided to watch videos on his phone without headphones.

AlastairGordon

And the kind of person who goes beyond the stink-eye, you should care even less about whether your kids annoy them. And in my experience flight attendants are fully on board with this sentiment. They'll smilingly pass on a complaint (usually rolling their eyes sympathetically) but I've never seen them take the side of the outraged businessman who's sputtering in purple-faced outrage over that of the harried parent doing what they can to keep their kids quiet.

Stay calm up there! It's not worth being placed in plastic cuffs over!

Proudelitist

Higher classes of service are meant to provide refuge from the common trials and tribulations of modern air travel.

This means comfortable seats, shorter lines, lavs with little or no wait time, meals, priority bags..and should also include respite from the crying babies that make the flight seem like a third world bus trip through the mountains.

I find it perfectly reasonable to include child-free as part of that package.

Badenoch

There's no need for sputtering and a purple face. An calmly-delivered public shaming of lackadaisical parenting worked wonders with the loser mommy I encountered in BA Club World who until that point let her toddler run amok. Her face turned purple, she gave me the stink-eye but she finally began meeting her obligations to keep her child under control. FA intervention was not sought or required.