PTravel

I have no hostility to children -- that's just pure BS. I have hostility to parents with a sense of entitlement who think it's fine to impose on strangers. I have written extensively about this and you are well aware of my views. Not wanting to be near screaming kids or having my seat kick is not, in any rational universe, "hostility towards children." However you, like some others (including a couple in this thread) apparently believe that anyone who not only doesn't want to be disturbed by their precious darlings much less engage with them when flying is a "child-hater." And, as usual, you, and parents like you, have turned it personal and nasty.

Indeed, and I have responded to you like one.

You question my credibility? If you've read this thread, you know that I was strongly on the OP's side in this, right up until he threatened to falsely accuse someone of a crime in response to what is universally agreed WOULD BE an extremely and unacceptably rude pax.

[Comment on moderator action deleted.]

invisible

But you have to admit that is extremely bad choice of such example. I personally got one more proof why I should avoid sitting next to a parent travelling with kid.

rbwpi

*1^

PTravel

Okay, let me clarify. I believe that your wife was re-seated. IF events transpired as you've described, that was absolutely unacceptable, as was 1K's behavior. IF.

I'm a lawyer, and I take threats to falsely accuse someone of a crime very, very seriously because I am well aware of what can result for someone falsely accused. The idea that someone would do something like that, even a million-miler GS, is so beyond the pale that I have to question your perception of what happened, for example that your lap-child toddler was the perfect little angel you claim. Maybe she was. I simply don't know at this point.

I'm out of here. As I'm not a frequent flyer at the moment, this topic has become one of academic interest only, and I am, frankly, fed up with the knee-jerk, "you must be a child-hater" accusations of some posters (though, to your credit, not you).

WBrinegar

Sure. Saying you may do something is one thing, following through is another.

But 1K was not at all a victim in this. Just an individual prejudiced towards children. My wife was the victim in this by being inconvenienced, made to feel unwelcome by his tirade.


Guess it's just dog pile on the rabbit now..

WBrinegar

Thanks. My inflammatory comments aside, The academic question here is more about where does the prejudice line get drawn? Should a passenger who has not caused any problem be reseated due to someone's prejudice because they are black, white, Muslim, Hispanic, female, fat, Asian, Eskimo, tall or in this case TWO?

UA should have a policy in this place to clearly define an action in one of these cases. I don't feel that UA acted appropriately.

TomVexille

Apparently the child was the person seated in 1K

Rut Dog

Is that you, Mr. L?

Flubber2012

I was sympathetic to the OP's sentiments at first, like most posters here.

However, some things don't add up.

WBrinegar seems to want us to believe that he has an idyllic life with a youthful, beautiful, charming wife and a darling, always well-behaved child. What happened here happens all the time...people behave badly to each other. If one has such a perfect life, why the need to rant? How about letting water roll off your back? I don't purport to have a perfect life; thus I go on more rants.

Next, while 1K undoubtedly acted like a jerk, OP's wife allowed herself to be inconvenienced. Her unassertiveness probably makes for a more harmonious marriage for the OP. However, her unwillingness to stand up for herself appears to have triggered her move which really seems to be the event that outraged the OP. Perhaps he should put some of that outrage on his wife for that part of what happened.

Last, the fact that the OP would consider, to the extent that he would post here, falsely accusing a passenger of assault for what happened is incredible. When told that what he proposed is morally and legally wrong, WBrinegar defends his post.

The smell of BS is strong here.

Stasia13

Honestly, I would have asked to be reseated for completely different reasons. I don't hate children but I have had too many experiences with bad parenting on flights. Parents who didn't bother to bring toys, snacks or anything and who think it's just fine for their angel to kick my seat back or pull on the tray the whole flight. Yup the whole flight.

I have an auto immune disorder that causes joint degeneration and severe pain. I've already had to have one spinal surgery because of it. So for me and my immune system, I would request a reseat. Any accidental bumping that I can avoid is a good idea. I couldn't expect a toddler to be still the whole flight. At least not in my years of experience. I'm sure there are exceptions, I've just never been lucky enough to be seated with them.

CarolynUK

What I don't understand is why the cabin crew decided to move the TWO passengers already seated and settled in favour of the one who had just arrived.

Surely it would have been easier (and quicker) for all concerned to move Mr 1K as he was still on his feet.

But yes the OPs wife allowed herself to be treated like a doormat - her right to her allocated seat was if anything greater than the late arrival - if only because of the extra space in the front row.

Steve Weagant

I bet she poached the seat. She had a toddler and wanted the bulkhead. Then the 1k guy came and claimed the seat. The FA simply enforced what was in the boarding passes. The FA already could see that 1k was going to say no.

Mchamp

Since this is only a short hop away I personally would have not cared and simply put my noise canceling headphones on.

If though, say this was a 12hr+ long haul flight and I was a passenger that was paying $6k USD, I would absolutely NOT want to have a child sitting too near me or even in the same cabin for a matter of fact. Sure while the child sitting beside MAY be a frequent flyer and have no problems whatsoever you simply just don't know that and paying 6k you shouldn't have to worry about that. You would be more relaxed in a cabin full of business travelers and your mind at ease absolutely KNOWING no crying would ever occur therefore able to enjoy the sleep and food as to your desire. Isn't that why people buy insurance? For peace of mind just in case (with the exception of legality in some states)?

Why not just have a strict no children policy in F or C class and only in Y class? If parents are traveling with them and want to sit in C or F then simply pay a Y class fare for the child plus a bit extra and have the FA attend to them while the parents relax in C or F class? And just to not sound so horrid, 80% of my travel (150k a yr) is in Y class just FYI.

Bttc

Did you even read the first post?

I try not to be too far pro- or anti-children, but the lack of both caring and effort make it hard to endure some of the anti-children camp.

robyng

Perhaps I'm missing something - but - looking at the pictures - isn't that child rather large to sit on someone's lap during a flight? I know that a lap child has to be < 24 months - and this child was 22 months. Still...

Apart from anything else - I think there's a safety issue. A large child like this who isn't strapped into a seat can become an unsecured flying object if there's an emergency. This is dangerous for the child - and perhaps for other passengers as well.

Also - this was a pretty short haul flight. And I wonder what the OP's wife had to unpack and repack for this flight - and where all this stuff was when Mr. L. got to his seat? Robyn

P.S. I think this is the equipment on this flight:

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Uni...767_400_ER.php

No storage for these seats on the ground in front of the seats.