clevelandbrown

I read than an Asian airline (Malaysia, I think) has a new policy banning children under the age of two from the first class cabin. I think if they find out you have such a child, they bump you to business class. The airline said this was in response to many complaints from customers who said their sleep had been disturbed by children.

I wonder if they will extend the line. Should known snorers be banned? Should obese people be banned because they might snore?

Stinkerbell

I have to side with airlines. People pay alot of money for first class. A child crying can be tiresome.

julia1

There's a huge difference between a child wailing and snoring.

P_M

It's very rare that I ever fly first class. But if I were to spend the money and/or mileage points for that experiece I would want to have comfort and silence, especially on an overnight flight. Earplugs can usually block out the sound of snoring, but not a screaming child. I would be OK with this rule.

simpsonc510

Me too!

RonDace

I'm good with this rule also. For the price of a first seat I would expect not to have to put up with a child crying. I have had to listen to many of them but there are also those who stay quiet. It seems unfair to lump all children and keep them out of first but I can't think of a better way to address this particular issue.

clevelandbrown

I have a problem with public transportation limiting access because of status.

I don't enjoy crying children any more than anyone else, but I know that they will stop crying once the cause of their discomfort is removed. By contrast, a snorer will go on forever.

And I think their policy could get to strange ends. What about obnoxious drunks, heavily perfumed women (or should I say people?), or people who have nut allergies, or people who chew peanuts or tobacco? It just seems poor form to me to ban some people who can afford the plush seats.

julia1

clevelandbrown -

a. It's based on age, not <i>'status'</i>. Theaters and concert halls limit access based on age also - do you have a problem with that? Or do you not mind babies crying or young children screamimg and interrupting your enjoyment of a film or concert?

b. They don't always stop, sometimes they just scream because that's what babies do. Any parent knows that.

c.<i>'...a snorer will go on forever.'</i> True, one of the inconveniences we have to put up with if we choose to travel with strangers rather than in a private jet, but much easier to tolerate than a screaming baby.

d. What are you going on about - drunks, perfumed women, nut allergies, chewing peanuts or tobacco??? This is crying babies we're talking about here. Not everything is a slippery slope.

e. <i>'It just seems poor form to me to ban some people who can afford the plush seats.'</i> Perhaps a whiff of resentment or class envy here?

fmpden

..I have a problem with public transportation limiting access because of status...

I would agree IF it was public transportation. BUT it is not public transportation. It is a private airline who is free to set any policy it wants that does not violate the law. Go fly another airline that permits babies in first class. Your choice !!!

janisj

"<i>I have a problem with public transportation limiting access because of status.</i>"

You want public transportation - take a city bus.

First class is not the place for infants/toddlers IMO.

MissGreen

On one hand I can fully understand them saying no to babies in first class. A friend of mine once complained about a baby crying in first class. She said she felt like a pompous upstart but she said she paid a lot of money to get a good night rest on a long flight. On the other hand I say that if the baby has paid for a first class seat along with their parents or nanny why should they be denied what they can afford.

suze

I think it's perfectly reasonable. Heck they can say no one under 16 would be even better. There are age limits for lots of things in life when that is appropriate. I think the 1st class cabin on an airplane is a good place for a no kids allowed rule.

I agree it's not "public transportation" it's a private business venture that can and should make their own rules to best satisfy their paying customers.

clevelandbrown

In point of fact Air Malaysia is not a private venture; it is owned lock and stock by the government.

And any enterprise, no matter it's ownership, that offers off-site transportation to the public is in the public transportation business, and is subject to laws governing public transportation.

Julia1, sorry to have stirred what must be very unpleasant memories for you. We took our kids to concerts, plays, and operas with no difficulty; I wasn't aware it was banned.

julia1

cb-

We're talking babies here, not 'kids'...

I'll pass up commenting on your little dig, except to say no unpleasant memories here...one of the reasons I always fly long-haul in first or business is because I plan to keep it that way...

nz101

I too would have to agree with the airlines, but I would also take it a step further and include business class as well. To spend so much money, either in first or business - then have some screaming baby or naughty kid in there as well, would be too much. I agree with someone else who mentioned an age restriction.

I'm definitely not a baby hater either. I will never forget flying with my then one year old baby son, who screamed blue murder the minute we stepped on board and just didn't shut up. I couldn't do a thing about it, he was just over tired and had worked himself up into a real state. I was highly embarrassed and thankful that I was in economy and not up the front with the 'haves'.

travelgourmet

<i>And any enterprise, no matter it's ownership, that offers off-site transportation to the public is in the public transportation business, and is subject to laws governing public transportation.</i>

I don't believe that children are a protected class under US law (except for limited protection for housing). Accordingly, transport providers can freely ban them from their services. Perhaps children are a protected class in other countries, but I'd be surprised if there were more than a handful of countries where that is the case.

Jaya

The problem with crying babies and toddler is when the parent(s) seem inept at comforting and quieting them down, or worse, are oblivious to the annoyance the on-going crying is to other passengers.

OTRAgain

I don't have a problem if a child or infant is in First Class. If the ticket is paid for, the child has every right to sit there

suze

Babies aren't allowed in adult only resorts, bars, or strip clubs either.

filmwill

<<In point of fact Air Malaysia is not a private venture; it is owned lock and stock by the government.>>

What is Air Malaysia? Malaysia Airlines, you mean?

Irrespective of stakeholder ownership or any of their partners, they are still a private business, not a public transportation outfit. Your take on it having to abide by "laws governing public transportation" is completely off. Which laws, pray tell, are they following? ICAO laws (those aren't laws...just guidelines, BTW)?...the Malaysian Public Bureau of Air Transportation Guidelines?

It's completely legal and within their right to determine which passengers are and are not allowed in their cabins. How their customers react to that with their dollars-to-spend is a different story. Whether you protest, object or anything in between, Cleveland, this is not going to change. I suspect this will only help, not hurt, their long-term business objectives.

BTW, I thought a quote from this article from the Indian press about the change in policy was hysterical:

<i>Smita Saxena, mother of an infant echoes the same. “It’s a funny decision. A mother will travel in first class, and her kid will be seated in economy class, is that what it means? I hope other airlines don’t start following their footsteps,” she says.</i>

I think you have lots more to worry about with snotty first class passengers who would rather leave their children in coach than considering flying "back there."