I am not touching this. I have never had to fly with my daughter and I judge no one. As a fellow passenger, I would be pissed and annoyed. As a parent, I would be pissed and annoyed. No one wins.
Meh. I've been on planes where kids were losing their minds. Is it fun? No. Was it the end of my life to deal with it for the duration of the flight? No.
I've seen adults behave badly on flights as well. Actually, more than I've flown with kids who were melting down.
I think in the example mentioned the parents' planning wasn't the best, but it still sucks that they had to leave the plane and miss their flight. There's really no winner in that situation. I don't, however, think that their convenience/comfort is more valuable than any one else's on that plane.
I have no problems with the idea of "kid sections" on planes. Not just from a single flyer stance?I'd prefer it if I was traveling with a child, too. I think, as a parent, it would take a little pressure off to be in an area that was expected to be more "lively."
Meh. I've been on planes where kids were losing their minds. Is it fun? No. Was it the end of my life to deal with it for the duration of the flight? No.
I've seen adults behave badly on flights as well. Actually, more than I've flown with kids who were melting down.
Can we have a Douchebag Free flights too?
I agree with all of this, especially the bolded.
If a kid is out of control and the parents do nothing, I have an issue with the parents, not the kid. But if the kid is loud or active, and the parents are trying, I have shitloads of empathy for them.
I also have no empathy towards the azz who forgot to shower or put on deodorant, was a total shithead to the flight attendant, and ate with his mouth open, spitting food everywhere. Dis. Gust. Ing.
"We like nothing better than buffing our Zygoma. And imagining a horny time traveling long overcoat purple scarf wearing super sleuth nordic legend fuck fantasy. Get to work on that, internet." Benedict Cumberbatch
No kids =/= quiet and peaceful flight. On a recent trip, the whining from my DS was sufficiently covered by three extremely loud, drunk girls yelling the entire flight. I was slightly happy that people were complaining about them than my DS.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
I think it's a slippery slope. You can start with eliminating kids from certain flights, but then people on those flights will just find a new subset of the population to be annoyed with (old people, people who drink too much/too little, people who use their laptops, people who play music too loudly through their headphones, etc.).
Also, if what all the airlines say about their finances is to be believed, I don't think they should be turning any business away. I do not believe that more people would be inclined to fly just because there won't be kids on a flight.
Flying is terrible and I try to avoid it at all costs. I do not think this would make it better.
I understand it from both sides. When I was flying from England to Chicago, there was a set of twins with ear infections in front of me. I can imagine it was very painful for them to be in an airplane for 9 hours and the mom was very apologetic. But considering I had to work the same day I got off the plane, I would have paid good money to have a "quiet" plane.
My DH flew with J last year to meet me in Chicago after my interview, and our daycare conveniently didn't give J a nap so "he will sleep on the plane". Excellent. It didn't turn out well for DH and he was so embarrassed when he got off the plane.
I'm lucky enough that we have not had to fly with Buddy. Next April we are flying across the country with both kids for a wedding. Its my husbands best friend and he really wants our kids to be there or I'd leave them home. I'm scared to death to fly with them.
I am going to stock up on things like 5$ starbucks giftcards to hand out if my kids start acting up on the flight. Probably with a nice note that I'm sorry they are disturbing others travels.
I'm hoping to get seats near the back of the plane so the least amount of people are bothered.
Can we have this for movie theaters, too? There is seriously ALWAYS some smelly assshole who ruins the experience. It's never a kid. It's always a grown-ass adult who knows better.
How about douche-free dining?
Douche-free shopping?
Alamo Drafthouse = douche-free movies.
No texting, no talking on the phone, no talking - unless you're at a Hecklevision (then text your heckle and they put it onscreen) or a Sing Along/Talk Along showing (talk away).
Also? There's fricken BEER. :sings and dances with joy: DREAM THEATER! (And not that crappy prog-rock band).
I have serious issues with the tone of the article, and not with any airlines and any of their policies. They have the right to create kid free flights, I have the right to choose another airline.
The writer seems pretty snarky against the parents of the 3 yr old. Yes, we cannot predict what our toddler will do or how he or she will act or react, but does that mean we stop traveling with them? I mean, seriously, the writer takes issue with the parents' decision to fly red eye. I would love to do that, because my kid has slept on a plane and his schedule doesn't get messed up. But, I can see someday, because he's teething or just because, he doesn't want to be happy in his seat. I seriously don't think that causes such a hazard to the flight that they turned it around.
IDK. I have been equally annoyed sitting next to adults on planes too. I think you just have to suck it up and deal with the annoyances of being someplace public. Where I could see this kind of policy coming in handy is on trans-Atlantic flights oversees. It might be nice to have an option then of going on a kid-free flight.
Re: Thoughts on this?
I am not touching this. I have never had to fly with my daughter and I judge no one. As a fellow passenger, I would be pissed and annoyed. As a parent, I would be pissed and annoyed. No one wins.
I like this response.
I think in the example mentioned the parents' planning wasn't the best, but it still sucks that they had to leave the plane and miss their flight. There's really no winner in that situation. I don't, however, think that their convenience/comfort is more valuable than any one else's on that plane.
I have no problems with the idea of "kid sections" on planes. Not just from a single flyer stance?I'd prefer it if I was traveling with a child, too. I think, as a parent, it would take a little pressure off to be in an area that was expected to be more "lively."
I agree with all of this, especially the bolded.
If a kid is out of control and the parents do nothing, I have an issue with the parents, not the kid. But if the kid is loud or active, and the parents are trying, I have shitloads of empathy for them.
I also have no empathy towards the azz who forgot to shower or put on deodorant, was a total shithead to the flight attendant, and ate with his mouth open, spitting food everywhere. Dis. Gust. Ing.
"We like nothing better than buffing our Zygoma. And imagining a horny time traveling long overcoat purple scarf wearing super sleuth nordic legend fuck fantasy. Get to work on that, internet." Benedict Cumberbatch
<a href
I think it's a slippery slope. You can start with eliminating kids from certain flights, but then people on those flights will just find a new subset of the population to be annoyed with (old people, people who drink too much/too little, people who use their laptops, people who play music too loudly through their headphones, etc.).
Also, if what all the airlines say about their finances is to be believed, I don't think they should be turning any business away. I do not believe that more people would be inclined to fly just because there won't be kids on a flight.
Flying is terrible and I try to avoid it at all costs. I do not think this would make it better.
I understand it from both sides. When I was flying from England to Chicago, there was a set of twins with ear infections in front of me. I can imagine it was very painful for them to be in an airplane for 9 hours and the mom was very apologetic. But considering I had to work the same day I got off the plane, I would have paid good money to have a "quiet" plane.
My DH flew with J last year to meet me in Chicago after my interview, and our daycare conveniently didn't give J a nap so "he will sleep on the plane". Excellent. It didn't turn out well for DH and he was so embarrassed when he got off the plane.
I'm lucky enough that we have not had to fly with Buddy. Next April we are flying across the country with both kids for a wedding. Its my husbands best friend and he really wants our kids to be there or I'd leave them home. I'm scared to death to fly with them.
I am going to stock up on things like 5$ starbucks giftcards to hand out if my kids start acting up on the flight. Probably with a nice note that I'm sorry they are disturbing others travels.
I'm hoping to get seats near the back of the plane so the least amount of people are bothered.
I say give it a go and see what the market supports.
Alamo Drafthouse doesn't allow children under 3. We'll still go. I like the idea of a theater with no kids under 3 allowed.
My Blog
Alamo Drafthouse = douche-free movies.
No texting, no talking on the phone, no talking - unless you're at a Hecklevision (then text your heckle and they put it onscreen) or a Sing Along/Talk Along showing (talk away).
Also? There's fricken BEER. :sings and dances with joy: DREAM THEATER! (And not that crappy prog-rock band).
My Blog
Definitely this. The writer is an asss.