Infants-in-Arms...it's time to end this madness.
Dec 28, 2012, 11:49 am
#16
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,508
Knee jerk reaction to a 1 in a million event with people calling for new laws and regulations.
How many babies died in plane crashes over the past week? 1.
How many babies died in car crashes over the past week? I don't know, but I can safely assume it's a lot more than 1.
Calm down OP.
How many babies died in plane crashes over the past week? 1.
How many babies died in car crashes over the past week? I don't know, but I can safely assume it's a lot more than 1.
Calm down OP.
Dec 28, 2012, 1:15 pm
#17
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Central California
Programs: Former UA Premex, now dirt
Posts: 6,531
Without jumping into this dogfight with both feet, something like this would actually be a good idea. I have shared rows with mother/lap child combos several times on short flights with no problems. OTOH, several years ago, I flew back from Japan-USA with a lap infant directly behind me. That was the most miserable 11+ hours in my air travel life and I couldn't really blame the baby. The mom and adjacent "auntie," I could definitely blame. That is just too long to expect any child to stay in a lap.
Dec 28, 2012, 2:13 pm
#18
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Programs: DL DM, HH Gold, SPG Gold, Hyatt Plat
Posts: 2,874
People reacting like the OP blow my mind. You can't expect to have the government or others have a regulation for every possible unlikely scenario. This is a freak accident that does not require a change that would affect millions of people. It's not like parents are prohibited from purchasing another ticket/seat for their child. People are free to weigh the risks and decide for themselves.
On a side note, I do think that airlines could institute some policy to makes things a little easier for parents to get a reserved seat for the child on a space-available basis. For example they could offer an infant fare at 10% the adult fare which would allow you to reserve an extra seat for the infant. The seat would still be up for sale, but in the event of the flight being under capacity, you could hold an empty seat right next to you. If the flight does fill up and that seat is sold, the 10% fee is refunded.
Many airlines will allow you to bring a car seat on for a lap infant if there are seats available, but that usually means moving people around to get 2 seats together.
Last edited by roknroll; Dec 28, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Dec 28, 2012, 2:16 pm
#19
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
And that's probably why the U.S. regulation has settled upon 2 years old. It is a middle ground that balances the drive vs. fly fatality data with aviation safety/evacuation and inflight comfort factors.
There are a couple cities for us that were flights with no kids that are now drives with 2 kids. (Minneapolis, Chicago) We took a lot of trips with infants, although we got pretty good and selecting such off-peak flights that the kids almost always had a seat to themselves. But I completely see how the regulations alter the mix of fliers and drivers. It certainly did for us.
If they really wanted to create a complex regulation, they'd restrict the infant rules to flights within a fairly narrow distance range - say, 300 to 600 miles. That's where the real drive vs. fly decision is made. Infant rules aren't causing people with 3-year-olds to drive SFO-NYC. When we want to go to the East Coast (say, 950 miles to DC), it's always a flight - period. When we want to go to St. Louis (250 miles), it's always a drive. It's really these 6-8 hour drives where you think about the pros and cons of drive vs. fly.
(No, I don't actually want them to create a complex regulation.
)
There are a couple cities for us that were flights with no kids that are now drives with 2 kids. (Minneapolis, Chicago) We took a lot of trips with infants, although we got pretty good and selecting such off-peak flights that the kids almost always had a seat to themselves. But I completely see how the regulations alter the mix of fliers and drivers. It certainly did for us.
If they really wanted to create a complex regulation, they'd restrict the infant rules to flights within a fairly narrow distance range - say, 300 to 600 miles. That's where the real drive vs. fly decision is made. Infant rules aren't causing people with 3-year-olds to drive SFO-NYC. When we want to go to the East Coast (say, 950 miles to DC), it's always a flight - period. When we want to go to St. Louis (250 miles), it's always a drive. It's really these 6-8 hour drives where you think about the pros and cons of drive vs. fly.
(No, I don't actually want them to create a complex regulation.
)The madness that needs to end is the emotional overreaction that would increase deaths.
Dec 28, 2012, 2:19 pm
#20
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,338
Good responses here...
One small point however.... While flying is no doubt safer than driving, the use of "distance travelled per fatality" as the measure of proof worries me somewhat...
....as it has been pointed out that by THAT measure (in isolation) the Apollo missions to the moon were the "safest" form of transport ever devised...
One small point however.... While flying is no doubt safer than driving, the use of "distance travelled per fatality" as the measure of proof worries me somewhat...
....as it has been pointed out that by THAT measure (in isolation) the Apollo missions to the moon were the "safest" form of transport ever devised...
Dec 28, 2012, 2:42 pm
#21
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: STL
Posts: 1,546
Since the whole interference argument has been pretty much debunked as the reason for no electronics under 10,000 feet, the other reason commonly given is that you don't want someone's electronic device flying through the cabin in the event of a crash during take off or landing.
Fair enough. But if I can't use my iPad during takeoff or landing because it might become a projectile, then it makes no sense to allow infant in arms. Maybe babies need to be safely stowed in the overhead cabins during takeoff and landing.
Fair enough. But if I can't use my iPad during takeoff or landing because it might become a projectile, then it makes no sense to allow infant in arms. Maybe babies need to be safely stowed in the overhead cabins during takeoff and landing.
Dec 28, 2012, 3:25 pm
#22
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Programs: United MileagePlus Silver, Nexus, Global Entry
Posts: 8,798
Dec 28, 2012, 3:41 pm
#24
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Programs: DL DM, HH Gold, SPG Gold, Hyatt Plat
Posts: 2,874
fresh out of popcorn from the DL SkyMiles Change Rumor thread... be back in a sec after running to the store 
On a similar note, it is legal for parents to carry their infants on buses and shuttles, and sometimes even in taxi cabs.
On a similar note, it is legal for parents to carry their infants on buses and shuttles, and sometimes even in taxi cabs.
Dec 28, 2012, 3:51 pm
#25
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: HP/US Gold, Hilton Gold, Starwood Gold
Posts: 711
Do parents realize that in an emergency landing, that infants have to go under the seats as if they are luggage? A hard/crash landing and the adult would likely crush the kid and/or lose control and the kid becomes airborne.
Dec 28, 2012, 5:02 pm
#26
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: PHL
Programs: Former long-time US GP; now AA dirt
Posts: 4,904
Good responses here...
One small point however.... While flying is no doubt safer than driving, the use of "distance travelled per fatality" as the measure of proof worries me somewhat...
....as it has been pointed out that by THAT measure (in isolation) the Apollo missions to the moon were the "safest" form of transport ever devised...
One small point however.... While flying is no doubt safer than driving, the use of "distance travelled per fatality" as the measure of proof worries me somewhat...
....as it has been pointed out that by THAT measure (in isolation) the Apollo missions to the moon were the "safest" form of transport ever devised...
Dec 28, 2012, 5:11 pm
#27
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,719
People reacting like the OP blow my mind. You can't expect to have the government or others have a regulation for every possible unlikely scenario. This is a freak accident that does not require a change that would affect millions of people. It's not like parents are prohibited from purchasing another ticket/seat for their child. People are free to weigh the risks and decide for themselves.
Dec 28, 2012, 6:26 pm
#29
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
There's a reason we don't (or shouldn't) make sweeping rules in response to isolated, emotion-evoking incidents. The math and logic behind the status quo policy are clear enough. Especially irksome is the melodramatic defense of extreme regulatory ideas, "If it saves one [person's] [child's] [baby's] [cat's] life, it's worth it." No it isn't. Every rule and regulation in society is based on some cold calculus about how much life we are willing to lose in return for certain advantages.
In some places they do.
Some other kinds of buses that are used to service passengers even have in-built flip chairs that become child/infant seats -- this I find quite often in some parts of Scandinavia when using some kinds of bus services to/from some airports.
Dec 29, 2012, 3:51 pm
#30
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Houston
Programs: United Platinum, Chase Presidential Plus
Posts: 299
If the rationale of the baby rule is to save more lives from car accidents, then I don't understand why the U.S. government doesn't invest in rail to allow for safe travel in and between nearby cities. Think of how many lives that would save. I am all for the cold calculus of numbers, but it doesn't seem to be applied consistently to public transit, but rather, to benefit the airline industry. Just one administrative law lawyer's observation 
.
.