I have had it with these Adorable babies on this adorable plane!

Kannon wrote:

I have severe migraines. Screaming kids tend to be a pretty active trigger. (Even Kannon Jr.).

Here's the thing: Kids cry. Often for no actual discernible reason. As long as you've given a shot at getting the kid calmed down, I don't really care.

Now, if your kid up and bites me and you don't do anything about it, THEN we've got problems. That's not usually a problem on planes, though.

Here's the thing: Life is full of annoyances big and small. I generally dislike people, and I absolutely hate crowds. I still have to go grocery shopping.

Agreed. I will not be happy if I become a were-child.

I feel like this is something the market would've solved if it was a real problem. I drive most everywhere *because* I don't like screaming babies...and other tall people and smelly people and germ infested flying metal tubes and sleepless, overworked airline/airport staff and the TSA and digital porno-imagers and delays and paying for parking and...well in the big scheme of things screaming babies are barely blips on the radar of the deluge of complaints I have with flying.

My point is that if crying babies were a problem that could be fixed with money, "baby-less flights" would already exist. Otherwise...meh. our species still needs to replace itself.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:

Farscry: That is my biggest annoyance when flying! I don't mind if you lean your seat back, but, for god's sake, have a little god damn common courtesy, turn around, and ask if it's okay, then lean your seat back.

Or you could be like me. My thighs are as long (if not longer) than the space between the seat back in front of me and mine. People cannot lean their seats back and give me dirty looks.

Maq wrote:

Sometimes a baby on a plane can be utterly delightful and transfix a nearby passenger for a good hour while they make funny faces and play peek-a-boo. Sometimes the baby will be scared and uncomfortable and in pain and cry for that same hour. That's babies for you.

One of my favorite flights was one where the seats in front of me held a father and his kid (toddler age; the "terrible twos"). When the plane hit cruising altitude and the seat belt lights came off, the dad let his little girl unseatbelt and stand up in her seat so she could look around. She ended up playing some sort of peek-a-boo with me and played with some toys on the back of her seatrest throughout the flight. I was entertained, she was entertained, and her dad just looked happy that she was behaving.

This was, of course, before most people realized just how sudden and dangerous drastic turbulence could be; I doubt that little girl would be standing in her seat on a flight now. (or at least, I hope not)

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

As long as the parent is actively trying to do something about it, I may be annoyed but also tolerant. Sometimes there's just nothing you can do and I don't have a problem with that. The infuriating thing I've seen in many public venues (including flying and especially restaurants) is the parents whose kids cry, scream and throw tantrums (in some cases objects even) and they do absolutely nothing about it.

This is pretty much how I feel about it.

I quit smoking more than 10 years ago, but I smoked for 10 before that. I was always hyper-aware of how my smoke affected others in shared spaces, and made sure I wasn't smoking where it would bother non-smokers. Now, it's easy to just choose not to smoke in public places, so it's not a perfect analogy, but there are plenty of parents who have learned to completely tune out their children, and have no idea how they are affecting the environment around them.

However, there are also plenty of parents who are really trying to keep them quiet, and, well... children are children - sometimes you just can't get them to settle down. It happens. While the crying is still annoying, I accept this and try to ignore it as best I can.

I have been on flights where a baby was crying and the parents were doing what they could to quiet it down, and I felt for them. Conversely, I have been on flights where a baby was crying and the parents were basically ignoring the kid the entire time, and I was ready to throttle them. My willingness to put up with it is directly proportional to how much the parents actually appear to give a sh*t.

Seth wrote:

I feel like this is something the market would've solved if it was a real problem. I drive most everywhere *because* I don't like screaming babies...and other tall people and smelly people and germ infested flying metal tubes and sleepless, overworked airline/airport staff and the TSA and digital porno-imagers and delays and paying for parking and...well in the big scheme of things screaming babies are barely blips on the radar of the deluge of complaints I have with flying.

My point is that if crying babies were a problem that could be fixed with money, "baby-less flights" would already exist. Otherwise...meh. our species still needs to replace itself.

The market has already solved it. It's called First Class, and there's many fewer crying babies up there.

OK, I'm being flippant. But also I'm not - the air travel industry won't miss an opportunity to take more money from it's customers. So why isn't it? My theory is that while people will complain 'till they're blue in the face, what they won't do is reach into their wallet to solve the problem. Air travel is incredibly price-sensitive, and the margins involved are razer-thin. It's not in an airline's interests to split it's customer base into childless flights and child-friendly flights. Now they have to run 2 airplanes on the same route, which is not feasible for any but the busiest routes, and both planes will likely have more empty seats than a single plane.

If the option presented is $400 for a ticket, or $600 for a ticket on a childless flight, how many of the complainers will actually put up that extra $200? Not many, I'd warrant, and certainly not enough to make a watertight business case for them.

Ranger Rick wrote:

I have been on flights where a baby was crying and the parents were doing what they could to quiet it down, and I felt for them. Conversely, I have been on flights where a baby was crying and the parents were basically ignoring the kid the entire time, and I was ready to throttle them. My willingness to put up with it is directly proportional to how much the parents actually appear to give a sh*t. :P

I don't get pissed at the kids, just the parents, and only if they're not doing anything to try to help their child.

Jonman wrote:

If the option presented is $400 for a ticket, or $600 for a ticket on a childless flight, how many of the complainers will actually put up that extra $200? Not many, I'd warrant, and certainly not enough to make a watertight business case for them.

I am firmly childfree, and I'd have trouble justifying the extra cost. I know there are childfree cruise lines, but I'm sure, at least in the states, there are anti-discrimination laws that prevent flights from saying "no kids." Even if there aren't, just look at the uproar from parents whenever a restaurant says children aren't welcome. Airlines would lose much more than they'd gain from offering childfree flights.

Thankfully, there's EmptyJets. Unfortunately, they rarely go anywhere I need to be.

As others have mentioned here; bring noise-cancelling in-ear headphones.

Like Clover, I've travelled a lot. So I agree with everything she says.

The fact that people don't adequately prepare for the pollution of possibly all five senses is their own fault. If they're annoyed at having to deal with the repercussions of being crammed into a tiny space with dozens upon dozens of strangers for a long period of time...guess what? Their expectations are grossly uninformed. Even though it's expensive, planes are still public transit.

Child-free here, too. Bring on the babies, just don't let them puke on me (again), please. It's just more white noise, get over it.

To my knowledge, airplanes are *not* public transit. They are owned by airlines. Are people using public transit as shorthand for transportation utilized by strangers at the same time?

Seth wrote:

To my knowledge, airplanes are *not* public transit. They are owned by airlines. Are people using public transit as shorthand for transportation utilized by strangers at the same time?

Are trains public transport? They're owned by train-lines. Same deal.

Are you confusing public transport with state-owned public transport?

Jonman wrote:
Seth wrote:

To my knowledge, airplanes are *not* public transit. They are owned by airlines. Are people using public transit as shorthand for transportation utilized by strangers at the same time?

Are trains public transport? They're owned by train-lines. Same deal.

Are you confusing public transport with state-owned public transport?

Yes. Yes I was. Thank you.

IMAGE(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wV4UAl8BsEA/TahioH6-BCI/AAAAAAAAAME/yADMoJEMTAI/s1600/grinds-my-gears11.jpg)

NSMike wrote:

It was the comparison of a screaming infant to a life-threatening health crisis that threw me.

Yeah. Not sure how you *choose* not to have an appendicitis.

DSGamer wrote:
NSMike wrote:

It was the comparison of a screaming infant to a life-threatening health crisis that threw me.

Yeah. Not sure how you *choose* not to have an appendicitis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christi...

Tanglebones wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
NSMike wrote:

It was the comparison of a screaming infant to a life-threatening health crisis that threw me.

Yeah. Not sure how you *choose* not to have an appendicitis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christi...

There we go, back properly on the flight to Cleveland.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:

Now that the conversation is out of the pictures thread, I will chime in. I'd say the question about whether or not it's socially acceptable to take babies on a plane is irrelevant. People are going to do it no matter what. So, since the likelihood of a screaming baby is medium to high, everyone who's going to bothered by it should take earplugs or noise cancelling headphones with them. There's just no way around it since airlines allow it.

Personally, I agree that a baby's screams are the very annoying. To me, it's the second most annoying sound in the world just behind a dog's whine. At least you can't bring dogs on the plane.

Airlines probably offer earplugs if you ask for them.

Sorry Tuffalobuffalo dogs are allowed on planes now... http://www.dogfriendly.com/server/tr...

At 5 months my daughter went through a phase where she would cry in the car. I sat in the back seat while my wife drove for a family visit, 3.5hr, and after 10 minutes of crying she would stop, but if I looked at her she would start crying again. Sometimes it looks like parents are being horrible and ignoring the crying child, but they might have a reason.

My grandma is very ill and lives in Minnesota. I will be taking a plane so my grandmother can see her grand daughter before she passes away. I think driving from Vancouver to Minnesota and back would be cruel to my daughter. If a airline offered a family friendly airplane at a designated time I would take it, but considering dogs are now allowed on planes I think my 8 month old has a right to be on the plane as well.

lostlobster wrote:

Talk about First World Problems.

"Dammit! There was an infant that ruined my enjoyment of the in-flight showing of Air Bud 3 while I was hurled thousands of miles in the air across the country in six hours! It's not fair!"

You know, the whole "the world is amazing and no one is happy" and "first world problems" thing is getting kinda old. What's the end point for that rationale? Most of the US lives better than the rest of the planet. Should we never ever ever complain about anything that could be better *in the context of our society* without first qualifying that at least we're not starving in Africa?

Yes, flying is amazing. Yes getting to Croatia in 14 hours is amazing and my wife and I avail ourselves of this every year. Noise canceling headphones are amazing and allow me to ignore most noise. The Vita or DS distracts me from whatever noise gets through. So babies on a plane are no problem for me either because I've worked around it.

But that doesn't mean that parents aren't frequently selfish and irresponsible with taking care of their kids. I'm not talking about an infant crying because its ears are popping. I think it's admirable that there are people willing to say, "I have kids, I know this is a drag. Sorry". I appreciate that. Society is filled with noise pollution and people being inconsiderate of each other. I don't see the harm in someone recognizing this and trying to decrease their footprint.

But that doesn't mean that parents aren't frequently selfish and irresponsible with taking care of their kids. I'm not talking about an infant crying because its ears are popping. I think it's admirable that there are people willing to say, "I have kids, I know this is a drag. Sorry". I appreciate that. Society is filled with noise pollution and people being inconsiderate of each other. I don't see the harm in someone recognizing this and trying to decrease their footprint

Bingo, that's what I took out of the image, all the other stuff in this thread about a random act of kindness and analyzing it is just white noise to me.

Bonnonon wrote:

Sorry Tuffalobuffalo dogs are allowed on planes now... http://www.dogfriendly.com/server/tr...

NoooooooOOoooooo.

Jonman wrote:

Air travel is incredibly price-sensitive, and the margins involved are razer-thin. It's not in an airline's interests to split it's customer base into childless flights and child-friendly flights. Now they have to run 2 airplanes on the same route, which is not feasible for any but the busiest routes, and both planes will likely have more empty seats than a single plane.

If the option presented is $400 for a ticket, or $600 for a ticket on a childless flight, how many of the complainers will actually put up that extra $200? Not many, I'd warrant, and certainly not enough to make a watertight business case for them.

Why does the economic burden have to fall on the childless traveler? Why not charge $400 for the infant to fly? As someone who travels for work and doesn't have any kids, I really fail to understand why the burden falls to me to make sure a screaming kid doesn't disrupt my flight. The burden should be on the parents. They know that babies are going to get cranky, so take precautions. Hell, sedate them.

Out of curiosity, I have a question as I really have no idea how pricing works. Do airlines give a discount to seats for children under a certain age? That seems a bit ridiculous. I would have thought all seats should be the same price.

Now, if you buy four seats, say for a couple and 2 kids, I would imagine you should get a nice discount because you are buying lots of seats, but that's as far as I would take it.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:

Out of curiosity, I have a question as I really have no idea how pricing works. Do airlines give a discount to seats for children under a certain age? That seems a bit ridiculous. I would have thought all seats should be the same price.

Now, if you buy four seats, say for a couple and 2 kids, I would imagine you should get a nice discount because you are buying lots of seats, but that's as far as I would take it.

Sometimes. There's a discounted or free rate if a baby/toddler rides on a parent's lap instead of having their own seat, and some airlines have a child rate when flying with a full-fare adult.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:

Out of curiosity, I have a question as I really have no idea how pricing works. Do airlines give a discount to seats for children under a certain age? That seems a bit ridiculous. I would have thought all seats should be the same price.

Now, if you buy four seats, say for a couple and 2 kids, I would imagine you should get a nice discount because you are buying lots of seats, but that's as far as I would take it.

Most airlines dropped child discounts when fuel prices went through the roof. Now the basic rule is that the kid flies free only if they can sit in their parent's lap the entire flight.

There likely wouldn't be any discount for buying multiple tickets. Most airline tickets are sold through the SABRE system which has been set up to dynamically change the price of seats second-by-second based on demand. This is why there could be hundreds of dollars in difference between the price two people sitting next to each other paid.

Thanks for the info!

As a parent of 2 younguns, age 2.5 years and 10 months, it ain't easy. Getting in and out of the plane, time adjustment, it's some work. We travel quite a bit with our boys, either for my wife's work or pleasure, and they are what i'd like to think are great travelers. Still, there are things you can't control, like equilibration during takeoff and landings. My approach has been to not let my kid be an asshole. No kicking, stay in your space, etc. I bring lots of books and toys to take up the time, and in a pinch, there's always Elmo on the Ipad. My goal is to intrude on other's space as little as possible, but i can't sedate my boys or muffle them. I paid to be there, but i am responsible for my own and their actions. And i won't let having kids curtail our travels.

Tuffalo, kids over age 2 are charged the same as adults, in the US. There are some European carriers who do better, but that's what we get here. Younger than that, you can carry them in arms and not pay extra. Wish they could charge by the pound, since we're getting a little screwed paying full price for something that weighs 20 pounds, but there you go. He takes up a seat so we pay for it.

I have seen some nightmare parents, for sure. Screaming kids, with parents yelling back "Tell it to the president of United Airlines!". That's the stuff of nightmares to any traveler.

DSGamer wrote:
NSMike wrote:

It was the comparison of a screaming infant to a life-threatening health crisis that threw me.

Yeah. Not sure how you *choose* not to have an appendicitis.

Yes parents chose to have kids. No parents did not choose have a child in an inconsolable state. Children may, infact, fly, perfectly behaved.

I disagree that the choice to have children constitutes an agreement with the flying public to not participate in flight as some kind of courtesy.

How are you getting screwed? They take up an entire seat. Weight only matters if you're shipping them cargo class to Grandma's.

jonnypolite wrote:

My approach has been to not let my kid be an asshole. No kicking, stay in your space, etc.

See, this is all I ask of parents. You'd think that's not such a high bar to hit.

clover wrote:

How are you getting screwed? They take up an entire seat.

I personally know parents who will lie about the age of their children as long as possible in order to avoid paying for that seat. It's funny when the childfree or childless get called "entitled". I find that amusingly ironic.

clover wrote:

How are you getting screwed? They take up an entire seat. Weight only matters if you're shipping them cargo class to Grandma's.

I think I agree with Clover, but I totally see where it's a "sigh" moment for you, jonnypolite.

Hopefully this keeps things lighthearted. To be clear, this is totally a joke.

IMAGE(http://www.dreamstime.com/little-kid-in-sunglasses-looking-out-red-suitcase-thumb17798925.jpg)

Hey, to bring the conversation back full circle; so I finally got to check out the photo thread that apparently prompted this, and I see that the whole debate started because a pair of parents proactively put nice little goodie bags out for every passenger on their flight.

Damn, but that's awesome, and I would've had to drop by their seats to say thank you for doing what they can in recognition that their kids might be disruptive and shake their hands.