Pet Peeve - Lap Babies
Apr 1, 2012, 8:03 pm
#61
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: BOS-TLV
Programs: Lots of them, no status
Posts: 1,318
The FAA's own words: "Did you know the safest place for your little one during turbulence or an emergency is in a government-approved child restraint system (CRS) or device, not on your lap?"
http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_children/crs/
Apr 1, 2012, 8:08 pm
#62
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 22,778
Not the case at all. See below.
The FAA's own words: "Did you know the safest place for your little one during turbulence or an emergency is in a government-approved child restraint system (CRS) or device, not on your lap?"
http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_children/crs/
The FAA's own words: "Did you know the safest place for your little one during turbulence or an emergency is in a government-approved child restraint system (CRS) or device, not on your lap?"
http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_children/crs/
As to your plug in about a CRS, you are flat wrong. Your child will be safer in a tank.
Apr 1, 2012, 8:53 pm
#63
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 13,573
Child in car seat, facing direction prescribed - safest
Lap Child in lap belt - safer (car seat excluded) for other passengers
Lap child not in lap belt - safer (car seat excluded) for baby.
I never looked into the reasons why U.S. airlines don't provide infant belts to
parents. Something should be provided for securing a lap child.
Lap Child in lap belt - safer (car seat excluded) for other passengers
Lap child not in lap belt - safer (car seat excluded) for baby.
parents. Something should be provided for securing a lap child.
- Infant lap belts are prohibited.
- Parents claim that an FAA approved car seats make children safer.
Apr 1, 2012, 9:10 pm
#64
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 22,778
Airline liability for carrying the exyra weight is limited. By liability of a baby is not. Do you think anyone can put a value on a baby?
Apr 1, 2012, 9:20 pm
#65
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: n.y.c.
Posts: 13,988
Got it. ^
Apr 1, 2012, 9:27 pm
#66
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York and Vienna
Programs: PA WorldPass Platinum, AA, DL, LH. GHA Black, SPG and HHonors Gold
Posts: 3,870
WestJet today announced a solution perhaps, the child-free Kargo Kids program. 
Apr 1, 2012, 9:55 pm
#67
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: PDX
Programs: DL, UA, AA, BA, AS, SPG, MR, IHG, PC
Posts: 862
WestJet today announced a solution perhaps, the child-free Kargo Kids program.
Apr 1, 2012, 11:04 pm
#69
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NOC/LAX
Posts: 432
To the issue at hand... the discussion should have nothing to do with comparing the safety of cars to the safety of an airplane. Or whether or not the only way to truly keep a baby safe on a plane is to put them in a tank.
Again, people bring these things up because they have weak arguments so they're trying to steer the conversation away from the point. Which is...in this day and age, regardless of the risks, sometimes families with infants need to travel in cars. The safest way to do this is with the infant in a car seat. And in this day and age, regardless of the risks, sometimes families with infants need to travel on planes. The safest way to do this is with the infant secured with a seat belt in a seat, just like everyone else on the plane is required to be. The logical way to do this is with a car seat. There are many stories of people flying into the air and getting injured (even killed) in severe turbulence. Obviously this would easily happen to a baby that had no way of being properly secured. Sorry, mama's arms don't count. As it stands now, the law is wrong about this and any parent who takes their baby onto a plane without using the safest method and just crosses their fingers that they won't hit rough turbulence...well...I just don't know what to say about that. In all honesty, it's a little frightening.
Apr 2, 2012, 12:03 am
#71
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: PHL
Programs: Former long-time US GP; now AA dirt
Posts: 4,904
Moineau is 100% right. Just because there are other annoyances on a plane that might keep someone awake doesn't change the fact that children do also. People bring up drunk passengers, etc. to try to change the topic at hand (most likely because they have obnoxious kids as a result of their bad parenting) but it doesn't work for those of us with common sense. You can list a dozen things that may be annoyances on planes, but it will never change the fact that children are near the top of the list.
To the issue at hand... the discussion should have nothing to do with comparing the safety of cars to the safety of an airplane. Or whether or not the only way to truly keep a baby safe on a plane is to put them in a tank. Again, people bring these things up because they have weak arguments so they're trying to steer the conversation away from the point. Which is...in this day and age, regardless of the risks, sometimes families with infants need to travel in cars. The safest way to do this is with the infant in a car seat. And in this day and age, regardless of the risks, sometimes families with infants need to travel on planes. The safest way to do this is with the infant secured with a seat belt in a seat, just like everyone else on the plane is required to be. The logical way to do this is with a car seat.
There are many stories of people flying into the air and getting injured (even killed) in severe turbulence. Obviously this would easily happen to a baby that had no way of being properly secured. Sorry, mama's arms don't count. As it stands now, the law is wrong about this and any parent who takes their baby onto a plane without using the safest method and just crosses their fingers that they won't hit rough turbulence...well...I just don't know what to say about that. In all honesty, it's a little frightening.
To the issue at hand... the discussion should have nothing to do with comparing the safety of cars to the safety of an airplane. Or whether or not the only way to truly keep a baby safe on a plane is to put them in a tank.
Again, people bring these things up because they have weak arguments so they're trying to steer the conversation away from the point. Which is...in this day and age, regardless of the risks, sometimes families with infants need to travel in cars. The safest way to do this is with the infant in a car seat. And in this day and age, regardless of the risks, sometimes families with infants need to travel on planes. The safest way to do this is with the infant secured with a seat belt in a seat, just like everyone else on the plane is required to be. The logical way to do this is with a car seat. There are many stories of people flying into the air and getting injured (even killed) in severe turbulence. Obviously this would easily happen to a baby that had no way of being properly secured. Sorry, mama's arms don't count. As it stands now, the law is wrong about this and any parent who takes their baby onto a plane without using the safest method and just crosses their fingers that they won't hit rough turbulence...well...I just don't know what to say about that. In all honesty, it's a little frightening.
Apr 2, 2012, 1:19 am
#72
Join Date: Apr 2010
Programs: HGP/SPG: Apprentice Kettle; UA/AA/DL: Journeyman Kettle
Posts: 866
Every time a parent/guardian makes the decision not to spend their life's fortune on the baby in their care they are placing a value on said baby. Every time a parent/guardian decides not to obtain the best/safest/healthiest/least risky item or service, regardless of expense, inconvenience or required effort, for the baby in their care they are placing a value on said baby.
It is a reality for most people and societies that resources [including money] have to be allocated. And that allocation assigns value relative to all other things being considered.
Last edited by MIT_SBM; Apr 2, 2012 at 1:34 am
Apr 2, 2012, 3:49 am
#73
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 185
No doubt within ten messages someone will say "if you don't like it then go buy a private jet". It's the way these threads go.
Apr 2, 2012, 3:54 am
#74
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 185
Moineau is 100% right. Just because there are other annoyances on a plane that might keep someone awake doesn't change the fact that children do also. People bring up drunk passengers, etc. to try to change the topic at hand (most likely because they have obnoxious kids as a result of their bad parenting) but it doesn't work for those of us with common sense. You can list a dozen things that may be annoyances on planes, but it will never change the fact that children are near the top of the list.
Apr 2, 2012, 5:45 am
#75
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 22,778
Every time a parent/guardian makes the decision not to spend their life's fortune on the baby in their care they are placing a value on said baby. Every time a parent/guardian decides not to obtain the best/safest/healthiest/least risky item or service, regardless of expense, inconvenience or required effort, for the baby in their care they are placing a value on said baby.