dctorres

That's fair enough, and I certainly do appreciate people like you on flights. Sorry if you felt that I gave that implication.

Analise

Now I'm probably going to be lambasted for what I'm about to say, but I did not travel on an airplane until I was 6 years old. My parents believed that there was no reason to subject other people as well as themselves to the production, annoyance, and inconvenience of travelling with a baby let alone a todler. If friends or relatives wanted to see us children, they would come visit us. And people did. Children, as they told me a while ago, would have no memory of flying so why even do it. For them, it was also rude to all of the other passengers to have a baby in tow.

And this was the time before baby pictures could be emailed in seconds. I agree with my parents. Is there truly a serious reason to fly with a baby? Unless it's a life or death situation, I think to travel with a baby is totally unnecessary.

[This message has been edited by Analise (edited 08-01-2003).]

dctorres

Sure, Analise, I can give you an example. I'm from the US, my wife is French, we live in France. We have a child.

In order for my family (parents, baby's uncle, great grandparents) to see our child, we have to go to the states. My parents come to Europe regularly, but we can't well ship everyone over to Europe once a year to see him. As you can imagine, my family also likes to see the baby more than once a year.

We are mindful of others when travelling with our son and we are raising him to be correct. As I said, we are mindful of others, but others also have to understand that baby is there as well and they have to adapt to him being there, just as I adapt to others around me on the plane.

My son (less than 2 years) pays an adult fare on transatlantic flights because we refuse to hold him on our laps for 9+ hours. That said, I feel that he has just as many rights as the adult next to me who paid the same price.

I don't change the baby's nappy in the seats, and as a result, I expect the adult next to me not to waft his smelly feet or place his bags in my seat space. Respect goes both ways.

jrk1998

While I applaud your willingness to barter respect, I'm not getting my money's worth for your not changing the baby's nappy in the seats. Personally, I would expect that to fall under good manners, and whether you have any or not.

I would be more than willing to trade for a child not screaming that he doesn't want to sit down, or kicking the back of my seat repeatedly, or flipping the table up and down repeatedly, or throwing food that he doesn't like in my direction (or any direction for that matter).

Just b/c you paid the price of the seat, it doesn't mean that your child should be allowed to do what he wants.

I also believe that respect doesn't go both ways - when you have a child on board, you need to show extra courtesy to those around you. Yes, your child has just as many rights as the adult next to you who paid the same price. But a child is not as developed socially and requires extra attention from his parent... particularly as he will be confined in a smaller space than he is used to, for a long period of time.

Too many parents think that once they get on an airplane, they no longer have to monitor their child. Or they expect others around them to do it for them.

While respect does go both ways, I expect the parent to make up for what their child is incapable of... too often, IME, that doesn't happen.

dctorres

I invite you to fly AF between CDG and ORD/ATL with me. This doesn't happen with my child

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Just b/c you paid the price of the seat, it doesn't mean that your child should be allowed to do what he wants.
</font>

True, but that also means that he paid for his seat, so he will act as best he can -- as should adult passengers.
There are *many* parents who fly with children who are used to it and have learned along the way little tips to make the flight more enjoyable for all passengers (including ourselves).

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
I also believe that respect doesn't go both ways - when you have a child on board, you need to show extra courtesy to those around you. Yes, your child has just as many rights as the adult next to you who paid the same price. But a child is not as developed socially and requires extra attention from his parent... particularly as he will be confined in a smaller space than he is used to, for a long period of time.

While respect does go both ways, I expect the parent to make up for what their child is incapable of... too often, IME, that doesn't happen.
</font>

This is a contradiction In any case, I think we both agree that the parent is obviously much more repsonable for his actions than the adult -- at least when we're talking about babies or really young children. Don't think this would apply at 7 years!
[/QUOTE]

Braindrain

Ok, that's just too gross.


Different people have different values. I just deal with it on a case-by-case basis.

JS

Please re-read the first post of this thread. Emphasis added:

JS

Most air travel is discretionary, and all leisure travel is discretionary (definition of "leisure"). If the only people who bought airline tickets were in a life and death situation, the airline industry as we know it would not exist.

It's still a free country. Who are you to tell other people when they can take a baby on an airplane trip? Consider yourself lambasted.

------------------
"Where's my money?" -- Pizza the Hutt

HigherFlyer

Would it have been ok if the baby was in F? Acording to some FTers, flying in first gives you the right to crap on those around you.

[This message has been edited by HigherFlyer (edited 08-02-2003).]

AllanJ

&gt;&gt;&gt; Unless it's a life or death situation, I think to travel with a baby is totally unnecessary.

Wrong. 100.0% wrong.

If I am willing to do the best I can to ensure the infant's cpomfort and safety,paying for a seat and for child sitting services when needed, I mayt do so.

Even if the infant is too young to appreciate Walt Disney World and I want to go myself.

corbetti

Hardly

When people abuse that "freedom" and start imposing their screaming, kicking, brat on my right to a reasonable amount of peace and quiet, then their irresponsibility (you know, with freedom comes responsibility) needs to be addressed.

Being a parent isn't some sainthood or get out of jail free card - like I said before, it's ironic that we need a license to drive but not to have kids.

HigherFlyer

Too bad there's no license for manners! We could exclude the arrogant as well as the hygienicaly challenged!

[This message has been edited by HigherFlyer (edited 08-02-2003).]

JS

Manners is one thing. Please leave rights out of this.

We all have a right to travel, but we do not have the right to silence.

You need a license to drive because bad drivers kill people. Children don't, hence no license needed.

Actually, since you do need a license to marry (albeit not too difficult to achieve), and while it's not physically necessary, ideally children should be born in marriage. So I guess you could say you do need a license to have children.

DaDOKin DC

This thread has branched all over the place, but here are a few random thoughts:

People who jump to the "it is my right to do . . . " seem to confuse legality with courtesy. Sure it is everyone's 'right' to tote babies and small children just about wherever the parents want to go, but it may not be courteous. In many areas you have the right to smoke, but blowing smoke in someone's face, while legal, is not very courteous. Would anyone disagree? And not to expand this topic even more (but I will), but small children should not be taken to 5-star restaurants or the theater -- their actions are too unpredictable (yes, even your child who is so well-behaved) and then too disruptive to those around them.

As far as kids flying, I have changed my views over the past few years. I used to think, as a previous poster mentioned, that there were exceedingly few reasons a child should fly (I was 12 when I took my first flight -- that was the 1960s, air travel was expensive and less available). But times have changed, air travel is more akin to what bus or train travel was back then (for better or worse) and families are more far-flung. So I guess that is the way things are today.

I keep coming back to the health implications of the diaper changing issue (but that is my personal and professional bias). Changing a dirty diaper on a porous surface like a seat cushion is just plain unhygenic, arguments to the contrary. And pretty difficult to clean sufficiently. Would you want to be the next person sitting there? I would not count on the airlines to do an adequate job of cleaning in that situation (nor should they really have to).

As far as babies crying -- a different situation than the diaper thing. Yes it is annoying, but it is not a health hazard. And I once flew with punctured eardrum, and we descended --- man! If I did not have a client next to me, I would've been bawling like a 5 month old.

There, I am finished. For now.
(jumping off soapbox)

------------------
Da DOK

divaof travel

My kids are out of diapers now, but from 1997 - 2002, I flew many times with them. One problem is that a lot of the aircraft do not have changing table in the lavatories.

So where do you change the diaper? My wife once tried it on the floor in the back, and the FA told her to do it on the seat.

------------------
United UGS, MM
Hyatt Lifetime Diamond
Starwood Platimun