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

clover wrote:

Weight only matters if you're shipping them cargo class to Grandma's.

And with that, Clover solves the entire thread.

Farscry wrote:

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. :)

Yeah, that's some model intervention right there. Gold stars.

fleabagmatt wrote:
clover wrote:

Weight only matters if you're shipping them cargo class to Grandma's.

And with that, Clover solves the entire thread. :lol:

My dad retired from the USPS... don't think parcel post wasn't mentioned as an option when I was a kid

Honestly I would love to live in a world where people with kids could pile as many children into the seats they purchased as possible. Someone go start that airline. Then someone else start the inevitable competing airline that's childfree. I'd be happy with that.

I'm empathetic to parents. Honestly, I am. The eye-opener for me was seeing the reality of car seat laws. When I was a kid you just buckled yourself in, even in the front seat. Maybe someone carried the baby. I'm not advocating that, but the result of the child safety laws is that literally it can require a 4 row SUV for a reasonable size family. Once you take into account how old kids can be and still require a car seat it's mind-blowing.

IMAGE(http://www.adventuredad.com/images/070403carseats.jpg)

Once I saw that I realized the full extent of the burden this puts on a parent. But, I think it must always be understood, that these are choices. And choices have consequences that it's not necessarily everyone else's job to accomodate.

I'm not saying that I want anything extra out of the deal, just that the airline is very happy to sell full priced seats to kids.

Edit: and lots of carriers in europe offer discounts for kids, it's just not in the business plan for American buffet style travel anymore.

One benefit of another full price ticket is that i can usually check an extra bag for free, so there's that:)

Yep, that's how we roll. It's crazy, but once you've seen the video of the crash tests with kids in the forward position, you'll keep em in that backwards configuration til they're 18.

I think that it's hilarious that some people think that their airline ticket is for anything other than a seat on a plane that will arrive at a destination.

OG_slinger wrote:

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.

Are you being sarcastic? If you tried to charge extra for an infant (who doesn't even need his own seat) to fly, there would be bedlam. Then again, while we're at it, why should the burden be on the large person to make sure she has a seat with extra legroom, or an extra large seat? The burden should be on everyone else who wants the same thing you do - to get from A to B.

Jayhawker wrote:

I think that it's hilarious that some people think that their airline ticket is for anything other than a seat on a plane that will arrive at a destination.

I often feel like you come in with these posts that are snarky about everyone involved in the thread.

jonnypolite wrote:

Yep, that's how we roll. It's crazy, but once you've seen the video of the crash tests with kids in the forward position, you'll keep em in that backwards configuration til they're 18.

I totally get that. I think what really sunk in for me (and I couldn't find a good photo to show this) is that you could buy a giant Ford Excursion and fill it up with car seats. Especially since small children older than toddlers might still require them.

sometimesdee wrote:

Are you being sarcastic? If you tried to charge extra for an infant (who doesn't even need his own seat) to fly, there would be bedlam. Then again, while we're at it, why should the burden be on the large person to make sure she has a seat with extra legroom, or an extra large seat? The burden should be on everyone else who wants the same thing you do - to get from A to B.

No, I'm not being sarcastic. There is simply no excuse for 180+ people who all paid good money for a flight to have the already stressful experience made even worse by a bunch of screaming or squirming kids. It's ridiculous that the default position is "well, you know, it's a kid and therefore the burden is on you to make sure you aren't annoyed by their tantrums and meltdowns."

I say this from years of flying in and out of Orange County and Los Angeles. You don't know the meaning of hell until you're getting on a flight on a Sunday for work and you see that it's filled with nothing but overstimulated kids who've just been torn away from Disneyland.

And the burden is already on the large person or the person who wants extra legroom. The big guy has to purchase two seats and whoever wants extra legroom had either better be one heck of a frequent flyer or be willing to cough up extra money.

Yeah. My wife and I being bigger means we fly 1st class almost exclusively. Frequent flier status and miles help, but we also believe it's the right thing to do to not crush someone. Not sure why that thoughtfulness can't flow both ways, as it did in the original post.

The part I'm sympathetic to is the logistics of a baby. It seems unsafe to just hold a baby in the event of heavy turbulence or an accident. But I don't know that the kid having its own seat would help.

jonnypolite wrote:

Yep, that's how we roll. It's crazy, but once you've seen the video of the crash tests with kids in the forward position, you'll keep em in that backwards configuration til they're 18.

Considering how much safer air travel is than travel by car, do parents actually have a very *good* reason for not driving when they can fly?

Is having children a luxury parents choose to enjoy, or a responsibility they choose to take on to create the next generation of people?

Flying is the only option when you live in Australia and need to travel the distances we do.

Flown with my son a few times, our five month daughter hasn't flown yet (she's an angel though, so I don't expect trouble). We've had mixed experiences - some flights he is calm and sleeps through anything and everything; other flights, I'd be pacing up and down the aisle with an angry baby and generally casting apologetic glances at everyone around me.

Toddlers tend to get very frustrated because they're over-tired from not being able to sleep in-flight (they are creatures of routine so it's hard for them to settle if they are in an unfamiliar area and it's sleeping time), and they vent by throwing tantrums to let you know their discomfort. Sometimes, as a parenting technique, you just have to let them exhaust their frustration by venting and then calm them down (although this might look like the parents are being indifferent to everyone else).

It also doesn't help if you have other passengers on a flight who are using their overhead lights / talking loudly during overnight flights when everyone else is trying to catch some sleep (or trying to soothe their over-tired child into sleeping).

So to sum up, as a parent with young kids, I have sympathy for those that do earnestly try to calm their kids down. What I don't tolerate on flights is deliberate indifference to the inconvenience caused to fellow passengers (yes I still hold a grudge against the couple across the aisle that kept the lights on and played cards loudly while the air stewardess and myself tried to calm an angry child down).

DSGamer wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

I think that it's hilarious that some people think that their airline ticket is for anything other than a seat on a plane that will arrive at a destination.

I often feel like you come in with these posts that are snarky about everyone involved in the thread.

Well, I do come into threads with the purpose of stating an opinion. In this case, I think that snarky comment makes that opinion blatantly obvious.

Thanks for your concern, though.

LarryC wrote:

Is having children a luxury parents choose to enjoy, or a responsibility they choose to take on to create the next generation of people?

A luxury they choose to enjoy (edit: although I have an issue with the whole luxury/necessity dichotomy--I think it's a false one in many cases). I don't know anyone outside of religious zealots where the desire to take on that responsibility plays a necessary role in their decision. Their own personal enjoyment is sufficient, whatever ideas about responsibility may be in their heads. In a way it's like building a solid house: you build it because you'll enjoy it, but you're also doing something that will provide shelter for the next generation of people. You don't get the same kind of credit for doing something you were going to do anyway just because it makes the world a better place as you do for making a sacrifice for the good of the many.

Screaming babies/young kids on a plane -- unavoidable. People only have a finite amount of vacation and time to get places. Unfortunately, this is the way of the world.

Screaming babies/young kids at a PG-13 or R rated movie. Kick them and their parents out of the theater.

CheezePavilion wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Is having children a luxury parents choose to enjoy, or a responsibility they choose to take on to create the next generation of people?

A luxury they choose to enjoy (edit: although I have an issue with the whole luxury/necessity dichotomy--I think it's a false one in many cases). I don't know anyone outside of religious zealots where the desire to take on that responsibility plays a necessary role in their decision. Their own personal enjoyment is sufficient, whatever ideas about responsibility may be in their heads. In a way it's like building a solid house: you build it because you'll enjoy it, but you're also doing something that will provide shelter for the next generation of people. You don't get the same kind of credit for doing something you were going to do anyway just because it makes the world a better place as you do for making a sacrifice for the good of the many.

Responsibility is the way it's viewed around where I live; arguably it's viewed that way historically. Having children is not something everyone wants to do. With all the cost involved and all the sacrifices, it would have to pay off better than a monthly luxury cruise around the world - except that it doesn't, or at least not for everyone.

Being a parent is like having a second job, except that you're not getting paid to do it. Compare the position to that of teachers. Teachers get the benefit of people thinking that they're doing an admirable task for society, but they're really only performing a supplementary educational role - parents should always be the primary and core educators of children. Teachers still get the respect of their students, they get the smiles, and they get accolades. What do parents get? Years of sleepless days slaving away to take care of the next generation and a whole lot of baggage.

I had my children because I like playing with and taking care of them, but it's also to discharge my responsibility to make sure that there is a next generation in my society. Raising them up right is part of my contribution to making the world a better place.

The original complaint was that it was unfair that the extremely thoughtful and proactive couple felt they had to apologize in advance of inconveniencing everyone.

I think that the discussion has illustrated that its a two way street. Some understanding, forgiveness and compassion is appropriate from unburdened passengers, and a certain duty of care is expected of the parents.

Things evolved beyond the context if the infants mentioned. Toddlers are a whole different ball game.

I do however feel like there is a current default state where other passengers are to be grovelled and scraped to by the offending parents; and it should be more of an effort of mutual understanding.

What I wish for is giving young single travellers the peace I found when I could hear a baby crying as something else. And I wish to give young parents some sense if peace in knowing that its ok if you're doing what you can; because I have never had that peace of mind.

I tackled the core values first because I think that's the key difference in perspective between my own views, and most of the views being mentioned in this thread, even by people who have kids - that those children are luxuries, not responsibilities.

I come from a place where people live in very close proximity to each other. I can hear the neighbor's kids wailing their voices out everyday from down the street. If it's annoying me this far out, I can't imagine what it can be doing at close range. It must be maddening. I'm willing to cut that mother a little slack on a daily basis, because she is taking on the responsibility of raising the next generation of our society. Even when I did not have children of my own, I was often asked and tasked to take care of other people's children for various reasons. That was my bit then.

I don't begrudge the childless for their lifestyle choices. That is their choice to make about their lives. However, we also live in a society and we have certain obligations and responsibilities to meet in doing so, as part of our families immediately and in a larger sense of our society and species. You can choose to not partition 80% of your net salary to take care of the next generation, and to spend most of your non-working life pursuing luxury activities and not putting in your bit at a pro bono teaching position and such things. I only ask that you tolerate the temporary inconvenience it may cause you when we're doing our non-paying jobs raising the next generation of people so our society doesn't collapse when we're all old and unable to work.

You don't have to help. Just please stay out of the way.

LarryC wrote:

I don't begrudge the childless for their lifestyle choices. That is their choice to make about their lives. However, we also live in a society and we have certain obligations and responsibilities to meet in doing so, as part of our families immediately and in a larger sense of our society and species. You can choose to not partition 80% of your net salary to take care of the next generation, and to spend most of your non-working life pursuing luxury activities and not putting in your bit at a pro bono teaching position and such things. I only ask that you tolerate the temporary inconvenience it may cause you when we're doing our non-paying jobs raising the next generation of people so our society doesn't collapse when we're all old and unable to work.

You don't have to help. Just please stay out of the way.

I'm sure I'm taking this the wrong way, but at least half of the childfree folks I know either work as teachers or in some way work with/care for children. We just don't want any of our own.

Yeah, in the US there's no danger of underpopulation or questionable community survival. The decision to have children here is very much a lifestyle choice, whether the parents specifically view it that way or not, or about families being interested in preserving their personal bloodlines.

Many, many people here choose to have children simply because "it's what you're supposed to do". Survival doesn't enter into it so much.

Do they do so pro bono, outside of their normal day jobs?

If so, then they're part of the child-rearing part of society. They have every right and concern to intervene with a parent in their supplementary roles if the occasion warrants it - such as a child grossly misbehaving in public to the obvious material detriment of others.

LarryC wrote:

Do they do so pro bono, outside of their normal day jobs?

Some do both. Some don't. Just like people with kids.

Edit: supplementary roles in the US are radically different from what you're used to, Larry, because our culture is so intensely nuclear-family-oriented.

clover wrote:

Yeah, in the US there's no danger of underpopulation or questionable community survival. The decision to have children here is very much a lifestyle choice, whether the parents specifically view it that way or not, or about families being interested in preserving their personal bloodlines.

Many, many people here choose to have children simply because "it's what you're supposed to do". Survival doesn't enter into it so much.

I highly disagree. Survival is always a question, because humans are always and constantly dying - of accidents, illness, or simple old age. Moreover, everyone in society has an obligation to see to the education and care of the next generation.

"They" don't have children. There is no "they" here. We have children, you and I; or not as we choose. Each person is a valid participant. There are no faceless "they." If there is no problem of underpopulation, it is because people who choose to be parents are doing their part to keep it that way.

Raising the kids right is another question also. If you have a problem with the "nosy kids" not behaving right, you will have to ask yourself what you did to make sure that did not happen. If you did nothing, it's your own fault. You contributed to that.

supplementary roles in the US are radically different from what you're used to, Larry, because our culture is so intensely nuclear-family-oriented.

It seems to me that it's just differently structured. If you work a day job, and then after work you go to school to engage in pro bono teaching or day care work until 10 pm - that's a fairly straightforward child-rearing role, IMO. You may not be related to the kids by blood or proximity, but the work you're doing is similar to what relatives would be doing in my culture.

LarryC wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Is having children a luxury parents choose to enjoy, or a responsibility they choose to take on to create the next generation of people?

A luxury they choose to enjoy (edit: although I have an issue with the whole luxury/necessity dichotomy--I think it's a false one in many cases). I don't know anyone outside of religious zealots where the desire to take on that responsibility plays a necessary role in their decision. Their own personal enjoyment is sufficient, whatever ideas about responsibility may be in their heads. In a way it's like building a solid house: you build it because you'll enjoy it, but you're also doing something that will provide shelter for the next generation of people. You don't get the same kind of credit for doing something you were going to do anyway just because it makes the world a better place as you do for making a sacrifice for the good of the many.

Responsibility is the way it's viewed around where I live; arguably it's viewed that way historically. Having children is not something everyone wants to do. With all the cost involved and all the sacrifices, it would have to pay off better than a monthly luxury cruise around the world - except that it doesn't, or at least not for everyone.

It's not something everyone wants to do, but it's something enough people want to do so that the next generation of people are created.

Being a parent is like having a second job, except that you're not getting paid to do it. Compare the position to that of teachers. Teachers get the benefit of people thinking that they're doing an admirable task for society, but they're really only performing a supplementary educational role - parents should always be the primary and core educators of children. Teachers still get the respect of their students, they get the smiles, and they get accolades. What do parents get? Years of sleepless days slaving away to take care of the next generation and a whole lot of baggage.

They often also get someone much younger than them who will be there for them when they get older. We come in and go out of life toothless and in diapers. As we age, the roles often reverse. In fact, haven't you told me that where you live, children are a form of protection, even for the very rich? Sounds like parents get a lot more benefits from having kids than teachers when you include those factors. It might be a second job, but let's face it: having kids is also a form of insurance against the effects of old age.

I had my children because I like playing with and taking care of them, but it's also to discharge my responsibility to make sure that there is a next generation in my society. Raising them up right is part of my contribution to making the world a better place.

Right, but if playing with and taking care of them was sufficient motivation, your other motivations are irrelevant to some extent. You can't claim to be making a sacrifice for the good of society where even if raising them up right wouldn't contribute to making the world a better place, you would have had them anyway.

Ghostship wrote:

I do however feel like there is a current default state where other passengers are to be grovelled and scraped to by the offending parents; and it should be more of an effort of mutual understanding.

What's the mutual understanding? That the kid is going to scream its head off or annoy every passenger around them and there's nothing they can do about it--nor should the passengers expect the parents to do anything about it?

Well, you can disagree all you want, but the US is one of those "have to see it to believe it" places in many, many ways.

(Also, I didn't go into "nosy kids" at any point, or we vs. they. I'm happily part of the village, but in the US the village isn't socially permitted to participate in communal child-raising behaviors the way it is in much of the rest of the world... Here most things are considered the exclusive purview, right, and responsibility of the parent, whether they are meeting their responsibility or not. Disciplining or touching someone else's kid, even verbally, even responsibly, for almost any reason, will likely get you sharp words from the parent, a fight, or worse unless you know them well.)

CheezePavilion:

It's not something everyone wants to do, but it's something enough people want to do so that the next generation of people are created.

Correct; just like being a soldier is not something everyone wants to do, but enough do that the state is protected. Having and raising children is a core state and social interest. It's not good to take that for granted. There is no "they."

They often also get someone much younger than them who will be there for them when they get older. We come in and go out of life toothless and in diapers. As we age, the roles often reverse. In fact, haven't you told me that where you live, children are a form of protection, even for the very rich? Sounds like parents get a lot more benefits from having kids than teachers when you include those factors. It might be a second job, but let's face it: having kids is also a form of insurance against the effects of old age.

Absolutely. In my society, it's because we expect our children to directly support us financially when we become old. In your society, there does not seem to be that expectation. That means it's even more incumbent on the childless to be thankful for parents that will provide the next generation of workers that will create enough workers and income generators to fund and create value out of their retirement benefits.

In essence, those guys are enduring night after night of that crying everyone hates, so you'll have someone you can hire to fix your car when we're all too old to do it ourselves.

Right, but if playing with and taking care of them was sufficient motivation, your other motivations are irrelevant to some extent. You can't claim to be making a sacrifice for the good of society where even if raising them up right wouldn't contribute to making the world a better place, you would have had them anyway.

Is this the same reason for why teachers ought to get poor salaries?

If some people find it enjoyable to take up a necessary task you personally find distasteful, then thank god for them right? If they happen to sometimes do it in your vicinity, the least you can do is not bother them while they're doing it.

OG_slinger wrote:
Ghostship wrote:

I do however feel like there is a current default state where other passengers are to be grovelled and scraped to by the offending parents; and it should be more of an effort of mutual understanding.

What's the mutual understanding? That the kid is going to scream its head off or annoy every passenger around them and there's nothing they can do about it--nor should the passengers expect the parents to do anything about it?

I absolutely expect parents to do something. But I also understand that kids do not always cooperate.

The mutual understanding is that the parents don't want to hear a kid cry either and will do everything they can to avoid it. Passengers understand that they live in a society where some people have kids and they travel. While it might be annoying, it's part of life that most everyone accepts. If you don't, mass transit is not for you.

We flew from KC to San Francisco for my brother's wedding, which happened to be about three months after our daughter was born. Driving was out of the question due to time and the fact that taking three month old in a car for that long was dangerous in a lot of ways.

Our plan was to keep Jordan awake before the flight to increase the odds that she would sleep. We also arranged feeding so that she would be ready for a bottle at take off, as sucking will help alleviate the popped ear problem kids have. We were prepared with toys, pacifiers and anything else we could use to keep her from being a bother.

Turns out, it worked. She was quiet as a mouse both there and back. But the fact is, messing with her schedule like we did also risked irritating her and making it worse. You just don't know, so you do the best you can.

Most parents are going to be like us or the ones in the photo. We stress the entire time trying to keep the baby from going bonkers. Since I'm a parent and have been there, I feel sympathy for them when it goes poorly, because it is better to assume they are trying the best that they can.