Why don't airlines just seat passengers with kids under age 5 in the back of the plane?
May 28th, 2000, 04:19 PM
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bill, it's a little presumptious of you to assume you know all about my childhood. You don't.
FYI, we were never spanked, and I personally don't believe in spanking children. It only perpetuates violence and teaches kids to hit when they're angry; and anger is simply powerlessness. Will I intervene if I see someone spanking their kid in public? NO. Different people believe different things, and I don't expect everyone to conform to my beliefs.
The issue here is parents who REFUSE to administer any discipline to their children. I don't think we'd even be talking about a separate section for kids in a plane if that problem didn't exist. Too many people allow their kids to get away with anything, and not only is it annoying to others now, wait until these kids grow up and learn that they can't do whatever they want whenever they want to. That makes for very unhappy adults, when they have never had to abide by any limits in their lives before.
Kids are not the source of the problem, and no one here stated they hated kids. That's an example an earlier poster pointed out - people are twisting words for their own ends, trying to make those who disagree with them sound extremist.
The parents who allow unruly behavior are the real problem. They are ignoring the responsiblity they accepted when they decided to become parents. I reiterate, if you choose not to teach your kids how to behave, please don't unleash them on the rest of us.
FYI, we were never spanked, and I personally don't believe in spanking children. It only perpetuates violence and teaches kids to hit when they're angry; and anger is simply powerlessness. Will I intervene if I see someone spanking their kid in public? NO. Different people believe different things, and I don't expect everyone to conform to my beliefs.
The issue here is parents who REFUSE to administer any discipline to their children. I don't think we'd even be talking about a separate section for kids in a plane if that problem didn't exist. Too many people allow their kids to get away with anything, and not only is it annoying to others now, wait until these kids grow up and learn that they can't do whatever they want whenever they want to. That makes for very unhappy adults, when they have never had to abide by any limits in their lives before.
Kids are not the source of the problem, and no one here stated they hated kids. That's an example an earlier poster pointed out - people are twisting words for their own ends, trying to make those who disagree with them sound extremist.
The parents who allow unruly behavior are the real problem. They are ignoring the responsiblity they accepted when they decided to become parents. I reiterate, if you choose not to teach your kids how to behave, please don't unleash them on the rest of us.
May 28th, 2000, 06:12 PM
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Nemo -
Yeah, sorry to make assumptions about you and your father, but you were laying into Cindy because she had to talk to her 4 and 6-year-old kids, over top of some stranger, about not bickering. You explicitly criticized her because her little kids didn't live in fear of her or her husband's retribution and act like automatons.
In describing your upbringing, your words were: "My father, a military man, simply did not stand for it and there were swift and immediate consequences for behavior. Believe me, we knew better, whether seated near him or not. I can remember just dying to ask for a certain toy or food at times but knowing that if I did it would be denied. My parents did not tolerate whining, period."
That sure reads, to me, like a family situation where whining got your hide tanned. I knew people who experienced that kind of fear growing up and one was the son of a career military man, as you were. He may have thought he was brave soldier boy, but he was a coward who terrorized his children so they would be "perfect". And of course they were, but they ended up hating him. How about we let kids be kids. Cindy was trying her best to control the NATURAL behavior of her young kids, and you were castigating her because they didn't sufficiently fear her.
Yeah, sorry to make assumptions about you and your father, but you were laying into Cindy because she had to talk to her 4 and 6-year-old kids, over top of some stranger, about not bickering. You explicitly criticized her because her little kids didn't live in fear of her or her husband's retribution and act like automatons.
In describing your upbringing, your words were: "My father, a military man, simply did not stand for it and there were swift and immediate consequences for behavior. Believe me, we knew better, whether seated near him or not. I can remember just dying to ask for a certain toy or food at times but knowing that if I did it would be denied. My parents did not tolerate whining, period."
That sure reads, to me, like a family situation where whining got your hide tanned. I knew people who experienced that kind of fear growing up and one was the son of a career military man, as you were. He may have thought he was brave soldier boy, but he was a coward who terrorized his children so they would be "perfect". And of course they were, but they ended up hating him. How about we let kids be kids. Cindy was trying her best to control the NATURAL behavior of her young kids, and you were castigating her because they didn't sufficiently fear her.
May 28th, 2000, 06:37 PM
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bill, please stop trying to put words into my mouth or anyone else's.
Kids should fear the consequences of bad behavior, like immediate removal from a situtation or loss of priviliges or favorite activites. The consequences should be sufficent that the kids will not want to engage in bad behavior. For me, not being able to watch T.V. for a week was a good deterent. That was brutal!
Now you can't do this in a plane, but if the kid knows that you as a parent will not let the behavior slide and will punish as soon as able to, he/she might think twice about it.
If you want to criticize Bill, why not be willing to share some of yourself as well, just like I did and Cindy did. I admire her frankness and her attitude, even though I may think her kids' behavior is a little unruly, and she was courteous to me, even though she disagrees with what I think.
That's an exchange of opinions, and I enjoy them. I'm not trying to control anyone's behavior, just pleading that those who have no consideration for others find some other means of travel. Sounds like I'm not alone either.
Kids should fear the consequences of bad behavior, like immediate removal from a situtation or loss of priviliges or favorite activites. The consequences should be sufficent that the kids will not want to engage in bad behavior. For me, not being able to watch T.V. for a week was a good deterent. That was brutal!
Now you can't do this in a plane, but if the kid knows that you as a parent will not let the behavior slide and will punish as soon as able to, he/she might think twice about it. If you want to criticize Bill, why not be willing to share some of yourself as well, just like I did and Cindy did. I admire her frankness and her attitude, even though I may think her kids' behavior is a little unruly, and she was courteous to me, even though she disagrees with what I think.
That's an exchange of opinions, and I enjoy them. I'm not trying to control anyone's behavior, just pleading that those who have no consideration for others find some other means of travel. Sounds like I'm not alone either.
May 28th, 2000, 06:49 PM
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
I thought you were entirely unfair to Cindy and that she was very gracious in not blasting you with both barrels.
I also discipline my kids with denial of privileges, but that's not always going to keep a 4-year-old sitting with his hands folded on his lap over a long plane flight when his parent is several seats away (except in your perfect family, of course). I thought your vilification of Cindy as an incompetent parent was out of line, that's all.
I also discipline my kids with denial of privileges, but that's not always going to keep a 4-year-old sitting with his hands folded on his lap over a long plane flight when his parent is several seats away (except in your perfect family, of course). I thought your vilification of Cindy as an incompetent parent was out of line, that's all.
May 29th, 2000, 08:43 AM
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
You know Curious, I'm also curious about something here. Why is it that these types of posts generate dozens of answers (i.e. arguments) while legitimate travel questions go unanswered? Fodor's is turning into a political chat room instead of a travel forum.
This post is not a travel question, it was designed to stir up emotions and generate arguments. There's no resolution to it and no point. Haven't you all noticed that someone keeps sending all the controversial posts to the top again, even though some of them are over a year old?
Someone is having a good laugh at everyone's gullibility.
This post is not a travel question, it was designed to stir up emotions and generate arguments. There's no resolution to it and no point. Haven't you all noticed that someone keeps sending all the controversial posts to the top again, even though some of them are over a year old?
Someone is having a good laugh at everyone's gullibility.
May 29th, 2000, 09:06 AM
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hey "Also" -
I'm guilty of contributing to the non-travel direction of this exchange, but I also contribute to some substantive travel threads (in a more positive manner, I trust). The reason threads like this attract so much attention is because EVERYONE can relate to them. Everyone either has kids, is bothered by kids on planes, or at least WAS a kid at some point in history.
The more substantive questions posted on Fodor's generally demand that responders have actually been to the location at issue, and maybe only one or two people on the board have that experience. And then, some questions are boring and nobody responds.
I think it's safe to say that if a reader sees a thread about children on airplanes that has 50 posts on it, they are on notice that a lot of the input is back-and-forth sniping (like some of my contributions to this particular thread.) But I think there's room on this site for both kinds of subjects.
I'm guilty of contributing to the non-travel direction of this exchange, but I also contribute to some substantive travel threads (in a more positive manner, I trust). The reason threads like this attract so much attention is because EVERYONE can relate to them. Everyone either has kids, is bothered by kids on planes, or at least WAS a kid at some point in history.
The more substantive questions posted on Fodor's generally demand that responders have actually been to the location at issue, and maybe only one or two people on the board have that experience. And then, some questions are boring and nobody responds.
I think it's safe to say that if a reader sees a thread about children on airplanes that has 50 posts on it, they are on notice that a lot of the input is back-and-forth sniping (like some of my contributions to this particular thread.) But I think there's room on this site for both kinds of subjects.
May 29th, 2000, 01:23 PM
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
O.K, I admit it, maybe it's only me, but I really thought this board was for posting comments/questions related to travel. This post has turned into a nightmare as it has little if anything to do with travel, and more to do about a debate between parenting skills and child development. Speaking, I think, for the vast majority of people who use these boards: END THIS POST!! IF YOU WANT TO DEBATE WHO IS A BETTER OR MORE CONSIDERATE PERSON/PARENT, FIND ANOTHER PLACE TO DO IT !!!! PLEASE NO MORE POSTINGS
May 29th, 2000, 06:12 PM
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
I disagree. There are plenty of threads about travel on this board, of course. There are also humorous threads. There are also political, sociological and even religious threads. These threads are obviously interesting and entertaining, which is why they often draw so many posts. If anyone doesn't like it, they don't have to click on the post. As for this post, it has plenty to do with travel (separate kids section on planes, remember?) so is appropriate on this board. What is inappropriate Wild Bill, in my opinion, is yelling at others not to discuss something that interests them.
May 30th, 2000, 05:51 AM
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear Also Curious and WildBill,
I think you are both taking an overly narrow view of what this board is about. In my opinion, this board is extremely useful for getting detailed travel information from other people. To be successful, the board should attract a great number of people in a variety of age groups, income brackets and locales. Lots of people are interested in reading thought-provoking or funny threads, and will also respond to more mundane posts while they are here. If the more interesting threads did not exist, I submit, fewer people would log on, so the quality of the travel information would suffer in the end. I just don't think there are that many people out there logging on again and again because they are just dying to give long, detailed responses to posts entitled "Questions. Please Help!"
Yes, I have heard the argument that posts like this one detract from the board because they push down all of those fascinating hotel and restaurant questions. Well, right now, there are only two long threads that strayed far from the subject at hand that are in the top 50 posts. That's 4 percent. I think that is a small price to pay to keep things interesting on this board, particularly when many of the other 48 questions could be answered with a search.
Oh, and by the way, it wasn't my intention to start a big fight. I could have come up with something far more inflammatory if that were my goal. I really thought my idea made good sense, but apparently, I am in the minority. Someone said that there would never be a "Kids-only" airline because of the economics, and that makes sense. I wonder if the airlines might just put in a Kids-only section even over everyone's objections on the theory it would give them a leg-up in attracting lucrative business travelers. They sure decreased legroom without asking anyone's opinion about it, so I wouldn't put it past them to ram this down everyone's throats also if they thought it would increase revenues.
Thank you all for your polite participation.
I think you are both taking an overly narrow view of what this board is about. In my opinion, this board is extremely useful for getting detailed travel information from other people. To be successful, the board should attract a great number of people in a variety of age groups, income brackets and locales. Lots of people are interested in reading thought-provoking or funny threads, and will also respond to more mundane posts while they are here. If the more interesting threads did not exist, I submit, fewer people would log on, so the quality of the travel information would suffer in the end. I just don't think there are that many people out there logging on again and again because they are just dying to give long, detailed responses to posts entitled "Questions. Please Help!"
Yes, I have heard the argument that posts like this one detract from the board because they push down all of those fascinating hotel and restaurant questions. Well, right now, there are only two long threads that strayed far from the subject at hand that are in the top 50 posts. That's 4 percent. I think that is a small price to pay to keep things interesting on this board, particularly when many of the other 48 questions could be answered with a search.
Oh, and by the way, it wasn't my intention to start a big fight. I could have come up with something far more inflammatory if that were my goal. I really thought my idea made good sense, but apparently, I am in the minority. Someone said that there would never be a "Kids-only" airline because of the economics, and that makes sense. I wonder if the airlines might just put in a Kids-only section even over everyone's objections on the theory it would give them a leg-up in attracting lucrative business travelers. They sure decreased legroom without asking anyone's opinion about it, so I wouldn't put it past them to ram this down everyone's throats also if they thought it would increase revenues.
Thank you all for your polite participation.
May 30th, 2000, 07:20 AM
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Here's a new wrinkle: the parents who think that, simply by virtue of *being* parents, they're entitled to all sorts of privileges that the childless among us do not deserve.
Example: a flight I took last year to Vancouver from the east coast. Long trip. Two segments. Routed through Dallas for some ridiculous reason. I wasn't feeling well when we boarded and was really not looking forward to the trip (business), but at least I had my aisle seat so I could get up and walk around if needed or make a quick break for the bathroom. (I always reserve an aisle seat if possible, but in this case I *particularly* wanted that aisle seat.)
So then a couple boards with infant in arms. I can't recall, now (it was about a year ago) whether their assigned seats were next to me or behind me or where, but it ended up that they wanted my seat so that they could sit together. She wanted to breast-feed and didn't want to sit by herself or with a man in the row, if I recall correctly.
In any case, they asked for my aisle seat. I said I was sorry, but that I wouldn't trade an aisle for a window or middle seat; I might have done so "just this once" if I hadn't felt so yucky, but as it was that aisle seat was my salvation. So they went to the flight attendant and asked her to make me move. She came and asked if I would move. I said if she could find me another aisle seat, I'd be happy to, but that I had confirmed my seating preference well in advance and really wanted to be on the aisle.
Finally, after much fuss, someone in the row behind me rearranged their seating so hubby, wife and baby could have their seat preferences. I then had to endure, throughout the two-hour flight to Dallas, loud remarks from these two about how insensitive I was and how if I only had children I would understand, yadda yadda. Every time I got up, I would see them looking daggers at me.
All I could think was, when did *their* failure to confirm the seats they wanted ahead of time become *my* problem? And how did it suddenly become *my* responsibility to fix their problem--and when I wouldn't, I became a bad person who hated kids?
That's the kind of parent that drives me crazy--the kind that thinks the mere fact that they have kids means that their needs and desires trump everyone else's.
Example: a flight I took last year to Vancouver from the east coast. Long trip. Two segments. Routed through Dallas for some ridiculous reason. I wasn't feeling well when we boarded and was really not looking forward to the trip (business), but at least I had my aisle seat so I could get up and walk around if needed or make a quick break for the bathroom. (I always reserve an aisle seat if possible, but in this case I *particularly* wanted that aisle seat.)
So then a couple boards with infant in arms. I can't recall, now (it was about a year ago) whether their assigned seats were next to me or behind me or where, but it ended up that they wanted my seat so that they could sit together. She wanted to breast-feed and didn't want to sit by herself or with a man in the row, if I recall correctly.
In any case, they asked for my aisle seat. I said I was sorry, but that I wouldn't trade an aisle for a window or middle seat; I might have done so "just this once" if I hadn't felt so yucky, but as it was that aisle seat was my salvation. So they went to the flight attendant and asked her to make me move. She came and asked if I would move. I said if she could find me another aisle seat, I'd be happy to, but that I had confirmed my seating preference well in advance and really wanted to be on the aisle.
Finally, after much fuss, someone in the row behind me rearranged their seating so hubby, wife and baby could have their seat preferences. I then had to endure, throughout the two-hour flight to Dallas, loud remarks from these two about how insensitive I was and how if I only had children I would understand, yadda yadda. Every time I got up, I would see them looking daggers at me.
All I could think was, when did *their* failure to confirm the seats they wanted ahead of time become *my* problem? And how did it suddenly become *my* responsibility to fix their problem--and when I wouldn't, I became a bad person who hated kids?
That's the kind of parent that drives me crazy--the kind that thinks the mere fact that they have kids means that their needs and desires trump everyone else's.
May 30th, 2000, 07:42 AM
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ok, I'll preface this with saying I don't have any kids. Also, I would not do this to any and all kids sitting next to me on a plane. . . BUT, if I were "Lee" enduring the Clampitt Family, I would have taught those small impressionable children EVERY swear word I know, including the absolutely gross ones. . . then I'd have taught them how to "backtalk" to their parents, using these appropriate words. . .and then . . well, you get my drift. But then, kids like that could probably teach me more swear words and more about ill-mannered behavior than I could them!! Also, if their parents were sitting directly in front of me, WOW - would their back hurt by the time we landed -- course my knees would also have been bruised. Patience is not one of my virtues.
Jun 22nd, 2002, 07:15 AM
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Kids must sit in the back of the bus...er I mean plane??? Do you just mean the black ones or is this for the white ones too??? Descrimination went out a long time time ago. I think people with hairy arms and bad breath that insist on talking to you just because you have to sit beside them should have to sit in the back.
Jun 22nd, 2002, 12:13 PM
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
How about just making 1st class in the back instead of front. Seat all people with kids in the front as they need to get off first anyway with the kids.
Better yet, create special flights for those who can't stand the thought of a kid. I'm sure those folks would be willing to pay a bundle for their privilige.
Better yet, create special flights for those who can't stand the thought of a kid. I'm sure those folks would be willing to pay a bundle for their privilige.
Thread
Original Poster
Forum
Replies
Last Post
addison637
Air Travel
16
Nov 9th, 2010 11:05 AM
