chollie

IME, when someone finally speaks up about an unrestrained kid acting like a ferret on speed, you will see sighs of relief and nods of approval on the faces of other pax/lounge users - including me. I've even (in the lounge) witnessed someone smiling while miming a silent round of applause to the individual who finally stood up and said what we were all thinking.

Let's make a clear distinction here. There are crying infants. Infants do cry. Nobody likes it, sadly it happens.

Then there are kids who run around like they've never been let off the leash before, talking in their loudest 'outdoor' voices, knocking into people, grabbing people and things with sticky hands, and responding to any attempt to curb their behavior or say 'no' with high-decibel meltdown.

Zero sympathy for the latter group. There's no excuse and I have no sympathy when an airline deplanes a kid like that (and his parents/caregivers) before takeoff.

Visconti

Admittedly, many times I'd been hesitant to say something, but incredibly relieved and thankful someone else has decided to. This isn't only for boisterous/misbehaved children, but also for Adults talking loudly on cell phones and conference calls.

PTravel

As the moderator wants us cut this discussion short, I'll only respond to one point that, I think, is rather unique to the discussion we've been having:

I strongly disagree. The examples that you gave are not impositions -- "first come, first serve" is hardly an imposition.

There is no license to impose on strangers. Period. By tagging on "unreasonably," to my formulation you've introduced a very subjective term AND claimed a license to impose. As I noted, my formulation is a variation on the Golden Rule. There is no, "unless you think what you are doing is reasonable" exception. Some people think it's not unreasonable to poach seats, or to insist on seat swaps. Some people think loud conversations are not unreasonable. Some people think listening to music without phones is no unreasonable (this was in another thread just last night). Some people think it's not unreasonable to "man-spread." or to use a KneeDefender, or to leave a mess for the FAs, or to be a COS and occupy 1-1/2 seats, and so on.

There most certainly is a social contract not to impose on strangers, and that's not limited to aircraft. I would respectfully suggest that a lot of contemporary societal problems are the result of people who do not acknowledge that.

lloydah

Exactly. Isn't this what the whole thread is about? It's not the kids per se, it's what the parents do about it. If they are indulgent parents then they should expect their little darlings to be less than, what might be considered by most people, well behaved on a plane and should take steps to minimise the disturbance to others to the extent of not flying.

If they are normal parents who don't think the sun shines out of their offspring's backside then they will probably do everything they can anyway and if the rest of the cabin can see an active parent doing their best in difficult circs. then they are far less likely to get stressed about it.

Once children are of an age to understand that certain behaviour is an essential part of life - say 4 upwards - then fine let them fly in any class but if you think as a negligent parent that your lack of awareness of others in letting your 4 year old run amok while you smile at their cuteness is going to get approval from me then think again.

rjque

I certainly agree that what is reasonable is subjective, but I don't agree that there is any general rule not to impose on others. The golden rule is a great guideline - I tolerate numerous small impositions on a daily basis because I expect others to tolerate them of me. I let people into my lane even though I have the right of way, I use the bike lane even though I am entitled to use the entire car lane, and I get up for older people on public transportation even though it's not required. Those are all reasonable impositions on me, and I expect others to tolerate similar reasonable impositions.

And aren't you the one who suggested long ago that tourists should avoid riding the San Francisco cable cars during commute times because people actually use them to commute? Seems like "first come, first served" is an imposition in that circumstance.

Back to the subject of the thread, I do what I can to keep my child quiet and relaxed on board, and it almost always works. She is not allowed to kick seats, run around, throw anything, use noisemaking toys or talk in anything other than an inside voice. She is, however, a child, and occasionally has a tantrum. That's probably happened twice in hundreds of flights now. The fact that there is a statistically insignificant chance that you will be temporarily bothered by a tantrum is not a reason for me to deny her an important part of her childhood. It's reasonable to expect you to put up with that imposition.

PTravel

Those are not impositions on you. Those are voluntary sacrifices on your part. An imposition on you would a car that drove in the bike lane or did not yield to you when you were using the entire lane, an older person saying, "Get up and give me your seat, sonny."

Cable cars in SF are part of the municipal transport system and are considered so when the city plans bus routes and the like. And, yes, I consider it rude when tourists use the cable cars during commute times.

Except the moderator suggested that we not, so I won't.

rjque

This is a great example of how an "imposition" is subjective. In all of my examples, I had the right to be somewhere but I tolerate infringement of that right because it is the polite thing to do. In the example of the airline, you have no right to a child free flight, yet you are suggesting that it is an imposition on you when I bring a child on board for anything other than emergency travel. Apparently, an "imposition" is just anything that subjectively bothers you.

Visconti

Agreed. I suspect no one has an issue with well behaved children.

However, everyone does have a right to expect a flight without constant screaming, seat being kicked, or otherwise being disturbed by a anyone, child or adult.

rjque

PTravel does. He suggested that it is selfish for parents to bring children along on flights in any situation but an emergency.

PTravel

Not what I said at all. And now it looks like things are getting personal, so I'm calling this discussion quits.

Finkface

I have to agree here. He has never said this. And FWIW, his opinions have always been presented in a rational and respectful manner.

I happen to agree with him 100%, but even if I did not, I appreciate the way he has presented his side, even when faced with less-than-polite comments.

rjque

I did not intend for that to be a personal jab and I apologize if it came across that way. My interpretation of your position was that you believe it is selfish for parents to bring even well behaved on an aircraft because even well behaved and monitored children cannot be controlled at all times. I thought it worthy of discussion because it is quite a departure from the consensus.

airmotive

It's quite simple to fix, and frankly needs to be the law:

Every human being on an airplane needs to be properly restrained in his/her own seat.
Infants and toddlers go into a car seat that is designed to be placed in and restrained by an airline seat.
It is the right thing to do. Seats with airbags cannot be occupied by children in car seats.

You are not allowed to use a laptop during takeoff and landing because they're too big/heavy to be controlled if things go pear-shaped, and are likely to become multi-kilogram missiles during a sudden stoppage. But a small HUMAN BEING is made an exception? (and the FAA's outdated "study" that parents will drive instead flying was proven bunk by the NTSB years ago. Don't bother with that one).

A child in his own seat is FAR less likely to fuss, is much easier to entertain and control, and is much less likely to get sticky hands on a neighbors silk blouse.

If that means mum and dad can now only afford 4 coach seats instead of 2 business class seats with two free (or practically free) lap children / human missiles, so be it.

floridastorm

I chuckle at all of the folks who are reluctant these days to speak up when people are offending them in public, especially kids. When I was a boy there was a saying, at least in the United States, that "kids should be seen and not heard". Kids were not entertained by adults in those days and, in fact, were not really tolerated. Kids were expected to behave, period. Or they got their behinds heated up. Also, adults actually acted like adults. It was expected that adult's responsibility was to be a community monitor. Kids were disciplined by an adult in the community if they acted up, even with their parents present. Of course this is all foreign to a lot of people who never lived in those times. Many younger people are probably horrified to hear me say these things as they can't contemplate that the country once was like this. But, it was, and it was a much nicer country in those times. These days "adults" are afraid of their shadows. Mostly due to draconian government laws and regulations, lawsuits, and danger of physical retaliation for any perceived affront.

nkedel

Not to put this into P/R territory, but it was a "much nicer country" for some sorts of people, and a much worse one for others.

Including (going only on your example) kids, although there are plenty of other bad differences given the crazy risk averseness of modern parenting.

Despite the common false perception that things are "more dangerous" today, the danger of physical retaliation is vastly lower today; violent crime is much less common, and physically settling difference between adults is VASTLY less socially acceptable -- a lot of things that would have been simply brushed off as "men being men" are now treated as criminal assault. This is, IMO, a good thing.