h a l f b a k e r yNot from concentrate.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I propose child-free flights that are available for a slight increase in fare. As a person who values comfort and quiet, I would pay a premium to fly in an airplane surrounded only by adults. It seems like every flight I've ever been on has contained at least one set of screaming children. They are
usually seated near me, and often find it enjoyable to kick my seat repeatedly. Any other place this could happen in our world I can get up and leave the area - this is not true in a small metal tube that's 20,000 feet in the air.
Don't get me wrong - I have sympathy for the poor parents of said children who must have some way of transporting them. I think these families may even be more comfortable on the remaining non-child-free planes.
Though I admit this idea is rant-like, I do feel there is a large market of consumers who would highly value this option. Please let me know if this idea is baked. It is absolutely conceivable to me that those in-the-know are traveling in child-free comfort, while all of the families are routed to my flights.
Squalling section
http://www.halfbake...squalling_20section
"Put families with infants in their own section of the airplane." [waugsqueke, Oct 05 2004, last modified Oct 17 2004]
(?) Silent Class
http://www.halfbake...idea/Silent_20class
[FloridaManatee, Oct 05 2004, last modified Oct 17 2004]
Baby Helmet
http://www.halfbake.../idea/Baby_20Helmet
another approach [beauxeault, Oct 05 2004, last modified Oct 17 2004]
(?) Child-Free Airlines
http://www.ski.com/...TS/kidsfree2ski.htm
Oh, *that* kind of free. [DrCurry, Oct 05 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]
(?) Already baked?
http://www.hootersair.com/
The airline no sane parent would *want* their kids on. [flicken, Oct 05 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]
for ato_de
http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/
You can rest easily, ato. Girls, gays, and the godless aren't allowed in your precious boy scouts. [Worldgineer, Oct 05 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Do your part.
http://www.vhemt.org/
At least I don't feel the need to breed. [Amishman35, Oct 05 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Actually happening
http://www.stuff.co...ree-zones-on-planes
Malaysian airlines are doing this (partially) [neutrinos_shadow, Feb 12 2013]
[link]
|
| |
Maybe a whole child-free airline. NC-17 Air? |
|
| |
Can we also have drunk-free sections at sporting events? +1 |
|
| |
It must be awful for you, living in a
world with children in
it.
Let me propose an
alternative - as there are probably
fewer people who are rabidly
anti-children than those who have
children, lets have special
aeroplanes for *them* - they can
pay a substantial premium for this
service and fly secure in the
knowledge that on the flight
they're (shudder!) unlikely to come
into contact with anyone too
different from themselves. |
|
| |
I'm just glad they're screening people for SARS before they get on planes. Perhaps they can extend that to everyone snuffling and sneezing and sharing their germs with all and sundry. |
|
| |
[hippo] How is that an alternative? Please re-read idea. BTW: I'm happy there are children in the world. But then, I'm also happy there are chainsaws in the world - but wouldn't like to sit next to a running one for 8 hours. |
|
| |
It was funny when Dilbert was stuck on a plane going to the colicky baby conference. |
|
| |
//They are usually seated near me, and often find it enjoyable to kick my seat repeatedly// //I'm also happy there are chainsaws in the world//
You do the math. |
|
| |
children? //but wouldn't like to sit next to a running one for 8 hours.// |
|
| |
What's the joke about kids carrying a chainsaw onto an airplane to decrease the chances that there'll be a terrorist on board with a second chainsaw? |
|
| |
Maybe the premium could work like this: The fliers who want a child-free flight could take up a collection sufficient to ensure that the children already booked fly free on the next flight (i.e., the children's fares are refunded as an inducement to the family to fly later). That way both flights are child-free. |
|
| |
[Worldgineer] Only a subtle
diffference in language: Instead of
being "Child-free flights!" it
becomes "A premium service for
the prejudiced!"... :-) |
|
| |
[bozo] Could work, but seems more expensive than it needs to be. Just have every other flight be child-free. Charge a bit more for the child-free flights and use that money to reduce the fare a bit for families to compensate them for the reduced schedule availability. |
|
| |
[hippo] You parents are so touchy. Yes, I'm prejudiced to the opinion that just because someone is a child, they will be more likely to be loud, smelly, and/or annoying. I don't feel either that this characterization is unfair or that I'm alone in this opinion. That being said, I don't think your advertising campaign will be very successful. |
|
| |
"What's the joke about kids carrying a chainsaw onto an airplane to decrease the chances that there'll be a terrorist on board with a second chainsaw?"
Oddly, it also reduces the chances a terrorist will board with a child. |
|
| |
The best solution here is to make a very loud point about how bad the child is being and what lousy parents it must have. This will:
a) Get you relocated and/or
b) Get the child relocated and/or
c) Get you some alcohol, gratis
Hey, it's worth a try. |
|
| |
[pho] I guess I could complain loudly, but it seems a bit cruel. On the most recent flight I was on I felt really bad for the poor woman behind who was trying to keep her unruly child and her bawling baby quiet. She already seemed very embarrassed, and my calling a flight attendant over would not help. I guess if the flight wasn't so full I could have moved or tried for the free drink, but there must be a more elegant solution. |
|
| |
your offspring is requiring a kleenex. |
|
| |
his kids should have been strangled at birth. |
|
| |
Substitute the word "smoker" for "child" in Wordgineer's idea. And then re-read all the negative annotations that in some way imply Worldgineer is being discriminatory, intolerant, or elitist. Would those annotators change their tune? I think quite a few might be guilty of expressing a double standard by extension. |
|
| |
[bliss] If it's come up before it's probably because there is a real need for a solution. I'm sorry people marked it as a rant and had it deleted - if the poster was serious and looking for a solution this could be a viable idea. |
|
| |
I find your a problem with your reasoning [jurist] in that, until there is legislation allowing discrimination against travelers with children much as there is today against travelers with burning cigarettes, there isn't an equipoise between the two. At least not enough to reasonably argue that the two groups are interchangeable. |
|
| |
I think it's legal in the US to discriminate against anyone you want as long as it's not a protected class. And even then only if it's not important to your business (you don't see any male waiters at Hooters, do you). |
|
| |
"You must be this tall to ride this airplane." |
|
| |
Worldgineer, you're the one with the problem (intolerance of children). Why should others (parents, airlines) go out of their way to solve it? I have no doubt the first airline to offer this service would receive so much negative backlash that they would immediately discontinue it. |
|
| |
If you don't like kids on planes, then don't fly on planes. Charter a flight, or drive. |
|
| |
jurist, that asinine comparison almost makes me angry. |
|
| |
Sorry waugs, I thought we were here to identify and solve problems. Maybe we should just tolerate everything annoying about our world instead of trying to find a solution. |
|
| |
You have no right to say others make asinine comments after that "don't take planes" thing. I am surely not the only one who's bothered by screaming children on planes. |
|
| |
No need to apologize. I don't consider this a problem that needs solving. It's one step away from racial segregation in my eyes. |
|
| |
// Maybe we should just tolerate everything annoying about our world instead of trying to find a solution. // |
|
| |
You are more right than you know. |
|
| |
Indeed, a screaming kid is not a pleasant thing to deal with on a flight. But I think it's ridiculous to suggest there should therefore be flights that ban their presence. What about obese people? Or people who snore.. or people who won't stop talking long after I've made it obvious I'd prefer silence? Or Carrot Top? Yes, let's have flights that ban all of them too. |
|
| |
Comparing children to smokers is at least asinine, and a few other things. |
|
| |
[waugs]//I don't consider this a problem that needs solving.// Let me guess, you have children. |
|
| |
//ridiculous to ... ban their presence on flights// About as ridiculous as banning their presence in hot tubs. I still don't get your objection. |
|
| |
//What about (banning other annoying things)// Sure, if you really think people are as annoyed by these activities. They already do in a way - some airlines limit the number of alcoholic drinks you can have, probably in response to annoying drunk people. Can you play a radio loudly on a plane? Doubt it. |
|
| |
[UB]Children are loud, ear pressure or not. The specific incidents that prompted the idea for this posting occurred before the plane was in the air. |
|
| |
//until you've grown up a bit// Insult ignored. |
|
| |
//never a child yourself// I'm sure I would have loved to be on a child-filled plane back then. I see a lot of flame from parents, but little evidence of why you don't like this idea. |
|
| |
//don't pretend this is about solving a problem ... pandering to your intolerance// Please try to step out of your selfish parent-centric world and acknowledge that not only have the riders around you been very tolerant for a very long time, but that this is a real problem that we would like to solve. |
|
| |
Funny that [egnor]'s "Squalling section" is +8, -3 while this is currently +2, -5.
I'm not widely known as a fan of children, but that's because most children are not particularly fan-worthy. It's not children per se, it's the stuff that some children tend to do, messing it up for the others. I was in a pub one time, having a meal. A guy came in and asked the boss "Do you allow children in?" The boss said "That depends on the children." |
|
| |
// Let me guess, you have children. // |
|
| |
Nope. But I'm tolerant of the fact that others do. |
|
| |
A child has as much right to be on a flight as you do. Your idea suggests otherwise, and that's why I have a problem with it. If you still don't get my objection, then it's only because you're choosing not to. I can't be more clear than I've been. |
|
| |
//A child has as much right to be on a flight as you do.// Ok, now that I understand your problem I can address it. As a compromise, let's instead create "good behavior" flights, where if anyone screams, kicks peoples' chairs or craps their pants they get fined a few hundred dollars. |
|
| |
[UB]//is about being unselfish// to your family and apparently nobody else. |
|
| |
//Other riders paid exactly the same amount as the parents with children// Yet don't scream and cry. |
|
| |
//a first class ticket// So kids aren't allowed in 1st class? |
|
| |
//You don't think parents don't become tired of hearing screaming kids?// They chose to have them - I didn't. |
|
| |
//trolling// Insult ignored. |
|
| |
[bliss] Thank you for the kind words. I'll put my gun down now, and also stop commenting on my own idea so much. |
|
| |
Yeah, and it's getting dark out here in GMT - 5 hrs. |
|
| |
I think he's saying [Worldgineer] is / was acting like one. For what it's worth, I think he was just defending his idea, which idea certainly caused much more of an uproar than I would have thought. |
|
| |
I feel bad for kids on planes who are having pressure difficulties (which can be *incredibly* painful) esp when they're too young to understand what's happening to them. But I certainly don't like sitting near anyone who's noisy, regardless of age. |
|
| |
Here we go again. Why can't we just respect that others will think differently than ourselves? |
|
| |
"Worldgineer, you are evil... EEEEVIL. Poor children, they have to live in the same world as you". |
|
| |
Well, poor Worldgineer, he has to post his ideas in the same website as you, and I don't see much of a difference between your intolerance and Worldgineer's. I think we should be able to make use of our right/freedom to decide if we want to have a quiet flight, just as much kids have their right to yell whenever. That's why, this world would be a happier, more peaceful place if we knew we could avoid them. It's not treating them like shit, it's being honest to yourself and everyone else. It's acting FOR peace. So I think everyone should just respect others ideas. I know this sounds like a paradox (and probably it is), but it has to be explained somehow. Gracias. |
|
| |
// Why can't we just respect that others will think differently than ourselves? // |
|
| |
Because we're halfbakers ? |
|
| |
I see a simple, cheap solution. Commercial aircraft are often conveniently provided with unheated, unpressurised baggage holds. Small children are about the size of an average piece of luggage. Simply place the luggage in the airline seat, and place the child in the hold in the vacant space. Let joy be unconfined. |
|
| |
Of course, this may result in a child evolving that can survive for five hours at a temperature of -50 C and an air pressure equivalent to 37,000 feet altitude, but shoot, we'll just have to take the risk. |
|
| |
My parents live about 300 miles away from each other, meaning that every month i must travel as an unacompanied minor on airplanes. my question is, every now and then i'd like to get away from the terrible tots. could i travel on this airline? how would you determine the maturity level to fly? if so, wouldn't half the halfbakers (1/4bakers?) fail? or not?
my list of queries goes on and on....ah well. |
|
| |
I'm fine with some kind of maturity or quietness test, if someone can think a good one up. I know many young people that are very well behaved. That being said, for simplicity it's probably best to have an age limit - 12 seems like a fair number, but I could be swayed in either direction. What age are kids allowed to fly unaccompanied? That might be a good limit - the airlines have surely considered these issues when coming up with it. |
|
| |
Ejector seats, triggered by noise and/or fidgeting ? |
|
| |
[8th] _ think baggage holds are pressurised and at least a bit heated. Otherwise that pack of "Old Speckled Hen" would surely have exploded on my last trip home. |
|
| |
How feasible would it be for an airline to run, on popular routes, one or two flights a day specifically for families? Seat all the kids together (dedicated child-sized seats would surely be safer, though maintaining seatbelt discipline might be a problem), put cartoons on the big TV at the front, and dedicate a couple of the cabin crew to slapping the little buggers to sleep if they get out of line *ahem* to keeping the little darlings entertained and Sunny-Delighted. Parents get to relax with a glass of wine and that Nora Ephron movie they didn't get to see before, and Worldgineer, snarfyguy and I can take another (child-free) flight. Everybody wins, unless hippo deliberately follows us onto the Adult-Contemporary flight with his calves (baby hippo =calf? I think so, anyway), just to punish us for our selectively child-avoiding ways. In which case we simply inform the crew that the child is not real at all, but is, in fact, a doll made of semtex. Slight delay, then problem solved. |
|
| |
I don't know. The offending child this idea was inspired by was definately out of the toddler range. I think the best word for the 0-12 age range is child. |
|
| |
// The offending child... // |
|
| |
The bloody nerve. See, it's that attitude that just pisses me off. The _offending_ child, indeed. _You_ were the one with the problem - the child was just being a child. So your solution is 'get that kid off my plane'? He had as much right to be there as you. It's your problem, get the hell out and walk. |
|
| |
this thread just exemplifies the madness which breaks out when too many living, breathing creatures are bundled into too small a space with no room to breathe or ability to move about at will. |
|
| |
[waugs] Fine. I'm the one with the problem. But instead of walking, can I hop onto a plane with others that have the same problem? Or are you saying I don't have the right to fly in a comfortable manner? |
|
| |
Excluding people who have just as much of a "right to fly" as you do is beyond the bounds of comfort. Don't twist my meaning. You are free to charter a flight and invite anyone you like, or don't like. |
|
| |
I'm sure I've made my opinion perfectly clear and will no longer respond to stupid questions. I'm done. |
|
| |
Is it a right, or a privilige? |
|
| |
have sympathy for the child. The reason why most children cry on flights is because of the pressure change that occurs. They don't know what's going on in their inner ears, and it hurts.
Fishbone. |
|
| |
I like friendlyfire/Tombomb's idea of a babysitting section on some flights. For that kind of service, you could charge the families extra, rather than the people who want to avoid children. |
|
| |
[waugs] How is the proposed service different than scheduling charter flights? |
|
| |
[mah] I do have sympathy for the child. However, I don't know why I have to be on the same plane as him/her. |
|
| |
How ever so tacky of you worldgineer. |
|
| |
Of course dumb clueless parents have a god given right not to be the one's to solve the problems their little angels create. |
|
| |
People like you (and I!) should just be more tolerant. |
|
| |
On the other hand ... Duct tape & rope. No crying. No kicking. No problems. (I think I'm kidding ... but then again I could be 100% right - in the 1st paragraph anyway). |
|
| |
Make that the 2nd paragraph (the one about the dumb, clueless parents). |
|
| |
I've got small children and would prefer not to sit with regular passengers if my child were being unmanageable. Perhaps the soundproof family section is the best compromise.
I also think there is a difference between badly behaved children and the wee ones who are uncomfortable. So better split the family section into two. |
|
| |
After spending good money on a baby-sitter so the missus and I can have a bit of a night out, it is most annoying to end up with some screaming baby or hyperactive brat in the theater. In the same manner, it is unforgivable to be accosted from all sides by out of control children and their uncaring parental units. Having said that, the playful laughter and exuberant activity of children at play can, at times, try the patience of a non-parent and parents who live for the joy of their offspring, are reluctant to cut it short.
I see no difference between “child free flights” and “obese person free flights” and would likely avail myself of both, as I find the children of others to be less than wholesome and often unregulated terrors, while the sight of obesity renders me physically ill.
The market drives these things (up to a point), and normally I would say let the chips fall where they may. However, I live in a society that allows girls in the “Boy Scouts” and seeks to break down every dividing wall between any group and another, no matter the groups' or their own inclinations. Advocate what you will but remember, the restriction you foist onto others today will no doubt squeeze you dry tomorrow. </rant> |
|
| |
I'm against people who are against other people. I prefer to sit, stand, fly, attend movies with, order sandwiches in the company of, and grace with my presence those who loathe anyone and everyone who loathes anyone else. |
|
| |
That's why I'm sitting here by myself. |
|
| |
That would be nice, I think you can save the airline industry with this one... |
|
| |
I refuse to sit near anyone willing to sit near me. There has to be something seriously wrong with them. |
|
| |
([flicken]'s link) I like your solution. Not sure my wife would. Plus I don't live/want to go anywhere they fly. |
|
| |
[worldengineer] you completely missed my point.
missed.
completely. |
|
| |
I know - sounds like you're even on my side on the plane thing. I just don't necessarily agree with your other points. I can delete my link if you'd like. |
|
| |
If anything can increase air travel in the wake of SARS and The War (TM), Hooters Air can. |
|
| |
As for ensuring the absence of children, an H.A. flight would be the best 13th birthday present ever, and thus slightly counter-productive. |
|
| |
Or fly Business Class, so that you can escape from most of them save for the rich snooty family with spoiled brats. Failing which, you could always tell the parents, or stare at them. |
|
| |
What does 1st class on Hooters air include? |
|
| |
[worldgineer] in the intrest of being less cryptic...
Banning things you don't like and seperating annoyances has a nasty history of comming 'round and biting you on the ass, and eventually resulting in less freedom all around. |
|
| |
Ah, then I do agree. But who's banning? I'm adding a service - a freedom that does not currently exist. I see this as no different than waug's charter plane idea or an adults-only hot tub. It doesn't mean I'm banning all-ages hot tubs, just adding an option for people who don't want to bathe in pee. |
|
| |
You know, there is age discrimination, too, no matter how young you go. I have been flying on airlines alone since I was five years old. I was always quiet. Not all children are noisy, just some. It is impossible to tell which children are going to cry and which are not, so you are inconveniencing a lot of other people. If I were you, I would invest in a good pair of aviation headsets. I have my own pair since I fly, and when I am a passenger I use them. Why don't you just get a pair, it'd save you money (because you don't have to pay extra fare), it wouldn't inconvenience anyone, and you can actually get some sleep on the flight. I think the "no child" flight idea is incredibly stupid, no offense, and it would never work. |
|
| |
[slaparoo] //Not all children are noisy, just some.// I've addressed this before:
//As a compromise, let's instead create "good behavior" flights, where if anyone screams, kicks peoples' chairs or craps their pants they get fined a few hundred dollars.// |
|
| |
//aviation headsets// I don't see why I should have to buy and wear an uncomfortable device to avoid part of the problem (definately not all of it). |
|
| |
//incredibly stupid, no offense, and it would never work// Offense taken. Tell me why you think this or it's just an insult. |
|
| |
I am glad to see people talking about the problem instead of sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring it! This idea has reminded me of why I will never breed. |
|
| |
slaperoo2. You have been flying on airlines alone since the age of 5? |
|
| |
How did you reach the pedals? |
|
| |
Wow, I'm quite surprised by what a hostile reponse this proposal has generated. Worldgineer is not suggesting that children not be allowed to fly, even though many responders seem intent on interpreting it that way. |
|
| |
His response is not, in fact "get that kid off my plane". It's "is there perhaps a plane that I could get on that isn't full of kids? I'd be willing to pay a premium for the trouble." |
|
| |
And before there's another reference to racism or obesity, there's a difference between taking exception to something passive, like appearance, and taking exception to an active behavior, like screaming, kicking, etc. |
|
| |
If you're offended that the person next to you is Irish, that's your problem. If you're offended that the person next to you is urinating in their seat, there's a case to be made for being able to book a flight where that's less likely to happen. |
|
| |
First, I do have children. I also have grandchildren. |
|
| |
The best solution to this overall situation at no cost to the passengers seeking peace and relaxation during a flight seems to me to be fair and simple and safe. |
|
| |
My ex-husband, a pilot, always chose for our family, a seat in the tail section of the plane, saying it was the safest place to be in case of a crash. |
|
| |
Taking this into consideration, the fact that families with small children board first, and that toddlers and school age children spread colds and flu, it is logical to create a section in the tail section of the plane for families traveling with children under the age of seven.
Why the magic number? Children seven and older have been to school and have learned some control.
All children, regardless of age should be required to have their own paid seat and car seat if needed. This is basic safety. The section would be soundproof of course. Next, just infront of that section, would be families traveling with children 7-12.
First Class would be child free, 18 and over.
In case of a crash, the rescuers would have a definitive location to search for children. Kind of like the sticker we put on our windows at home in case of fire. |
|
| |
I travel alot on business and am not always able to fly first class. In coach I always get stuck close to a child who is out of control. I am tired of inconsiderate parents who allow their children to kick seats, grab the back of seats and pull my hair, scream, jump up and down on their seats and goo up their armrests and my hair with God know what (this never gets cleaned up for the next flight). |
|
| |
I resent having to PROTECT myself from these little darlings, nor should it cost me extra. I am already paying for my space and those who invade it, be it though noise pollution or a fatso draped onto my arm rest, they should be the ones to be controled in some manner. You know, a baby diaper does stink just as much as a cigarette smoker, if not more. |
|
| |
This would not be discrimination, it would be a safety factor to consider, providing health and safety(mental and otherwise) to all.
I feel sorry for the 'mom with a monster' , but seated in a separate section perhaps she could relax just a bit knowing someone was not going to belt her or her child. Not to mention that the children would have other children to play with. |
|
| |
It seems to me that many parents either are ignorate and/or rude. I was reared not to interupt others, to be silent during adult conversation, to respect others, to be considerate and kind. Why aren't parents teaching these things to their children? The world is getting smaller, we need this for our survival. |
|
| |
Worldgineer, I'am with you except for the part about us paying anything at all to have some peace and quiet. |
|
| |
[taste] an interesting point you make. I was recently at a family function, and was able to observe the behaviour differences amongst my darling little cousins and second cousing, etc. It was amazing the differences between the families. A few families' children, were, whilst running about and having fun, very well behaved. They didn't scream and jump about amongst the adults that were talking, didn't break things, cry or whinge. They also had manners. Some others weren't. Of course there was, I suppose, a distribution of discipline amongst the kids. I know which group I would have been in when I was a kid. |
|
| |
Further up the page, someone mentioned that kids over a certain age would have been to school and learned discipline. I would hope that they'd have some idea to behave, perhaps even learnt from their parents, before they reached that age. "Letting your children be children" doesn't mean letting them run amok. Some parents complain that it's impossible to keep their kids well behaved, but case in point would be the parents with well behaved children, which begs the question: what is the difference. |
|
| |
I consider myself very tolerant and have never made comment to any unfortunate parent with misbehaving children in a public area, except for one occasion when I was nursing head trauma and concussion in an emergency ward. A couple had their kids with them, the father had some stomach upset (kids were healthy - very energetic). I couldn't move away as the room was really small. So I asked, quite politely and humbly if the lady could see if the kids could stop screaming, please as I was in some pain. I got yelled at until the husband told her to go easy. In my opinion as a parent you are fully responsible for the actions of your children (at least when they are in clear view :) until they are of an age to be responsible for themselves. Medical issues such as ADD (of which I know very little, recognise that it is a real issue, but can't accept that over 50% of the child population suffer, in which case I would hope there would be more awareness of it) notwhithstanding, I can't see how parents can let their kids act like that. The simple fact is that some (read most or a lot of) kids are very well behaved in public. |
|
| |
I probably wouldn't use this flight service except on business trips where I need to get some work done, even then I actually like kids, most of which, still, are more charming than annoying. I completely cannot comprehend how someone can be offended by this idea, however. It baffles me. I someone wants to introduce a extra service where I'll get fined if I sniffle and sneeze on everyone, or am unable to fly if visibly sick and contagious, or where you must have showered/used deodorant before flying, or can't talk to you neighbors, etc etc they can go ahead. It doesn't affect me at all. Likewise I couldn't give a rats arse if someone has a problem with me, as long as it doesn't change the way I live my life, or limit my choices, why should I get upset? |
|
| |
Why does this idea threaten you so much? |
|
| |
This idea suggests two things to me. |
|
| |
1. Conditions on third-world public transport (so crowded that people hang out of windows, occasional farm animals, etc.) Despite this, people generally manage somehow. Nobody shoots anybody.
2. Breathing exercises, meditative prayer and other sources of internal peace. |
|
| |
I wonder whether these two things are related. |
|
| |
//Why does this idea threaten you so much?// - Because of it's ramifications. There's nothing wrong with children-free flights, or dog-free pubs for that matter. |
|
| |
Where I live, it is up to the discretion of the landlord whether a pub admits dogs or not. As a landlord, banning dogs from your individual pub doesn't really affect revenue (dog owners being a minority) and means you have one less minor annoyance to deal with. Besides, people with a dog in tow can always have a pint in another pub which does allow dogs. Except of course there aren't any because all landlords now think like this. Allowing pubs the freedom to choose whether or not they admit dogs has massively restricted the freedoms of dog owners who like a pint. It's just market forces at work. |
|
| |
Now, imagine that you allow airlines the option of banning children from individual flights, and the airlines find that it doesn't really affect revenue (parents of small kids being a minority), and means they have one less minor annoyance to deal with... you see where this is going. |
|
| |
Now, [World] isn't suggesting restricting children to a few "family" flights, he is suggesting (very reasonably) that there are a few flights which are child-free. Unfortunately the ratio of child-free flights to child-friendly flights will soon be established by the market, and [World] suggests that there is a //large market// for child-free flights. |
|
| |
ah, so you are suggesting we restrict the free market to protect a "minority". not sure how I feel about that, on several levels, what with parenthood being a clear lifestyle choice, unlike most other discrimination issues. no really, not being sarcastic, just need to mull that one over. still not sure why we're all so uptight about it, though, not like it's about to happen.. |
|
| |
On point however, being the idea of limits/restrictions being placed on the behaviour of the children (and for that matter, all passengers, I would expect a minimum level of decency from any traveler) Of course, and absolutely I would exempt infants crying/bawling from that. Anyone complaining about a crying baby is rather heartless, I'm whingeing about misbehaving kids. |
|
| |
I dunno, this could be via a declaration of some sort, really don't know how to administer it, but I think a key issue being overlooked here is the expectation of a minimum level of behaviour, hygene, etc to be displayed in public, or in this case, the confined cabin of a passenger aircraft. |
|
| |
-just to reiterate, crying babies are not an issue with me. at all. Unruly kids however are an altogether different kettle of fishies. |
|
| |
Thanks for the link [neutrino]. |
|
| |
Ten years later, with a 4-yr old son of my own that's been on countless flights, has my opinion changed? |
|
| |
Not in the slightest. I routinely select seats near the back because there are fewer people around, it's easier to get seats together, and that's where the families seem to end up. |
|
| |
I think I like Malasian Air's solution a bit better than mine, no reason we can't break airplanes into sections, but wouldn't mind less airplane selection in exchange for a cheaper fair. |
|
| |
What I really like is an idea I read about years ago here with a padded play room for kids. That would rock. |
|
| |
Clear Plastic Garment Bags, like those from a dry
cleaner, make excellent toys for children and the
children playing with them eventually get very, very,
very quiet. Problem solved. |
|
| |
That's easy, kids ride for free, on the outside. |
|
| |
Glad I sat this one out. But as far as paying extra -
maybe World could ride first class? Rarely are kids
up there. |
|
| |
Why not a child only airplane? Two decks of seats. |
|
| |
All passengers and plane personnel must be under 40 inches tall. |
|
| |
Would make the remaining planes mostly child free. |
|
| |
One enormous playpen in the sky. |
|
| |
a pair of noise isolating in-ear phones, the ones
with the silicone gromments works very well, but
not well enough.
Now, I also have a pair of musician's in-ear
monitors. These are custom versions of the
above, they are molded to fill the whole central
part of the ear to block out stage noise. These
work better, and you can kind of replicate them
for less with some in-ear phones and some of that
self-setting "Sugru" plastic. |
|
| |
On my last flight, I used some in-ear phones AND a
pair of folding ear defenders, like people use for
shooting and construction. The two combined
meant I could hear NOTHING. Recommended. |
|
| |
//a pair of noise isolating in-ear phones, the ones
with the silicone gromments works very well// |
|
| |
But how do you keep the kid from spitting them out? |
|
| |
But seriously ladies and germs, had a crying baby two
seats away from me just last
week. It finally made it's point and went to sleep but
the
first part of the flight was pure hell. Hella-bun for
this one. [+] |
|
| |
// But how do you keep the kid from spitting them out? // |
|
| |
Gaffer tape, and a staple gun. |
|
| |
// Hella-bun for this one. [+] // |
|
| |
Could they simply be seated on the outside of the plane. Do I have to do all the thinking around here? |
|
| |
If you tape them to the fuselage, it increases
drag, and on the wings they would ruin the
aerodynamics. Best is the cargo hold. |
|
| |
//If you tape them to the fuselage, it increases drag, |
|
| |
Only until the tape unravels. |
|
| |
Yes, but then you have FOD issues. Leaving
stuff on the runway is not going to be
popular. |
|
| |
How about storing them in the undercarriage
bays ? |
|
| |
//How about storing them in the undercarriage bays ? |
|
| |
Not so much space there, so I'm guessing the children would need to be diced first, to make the best use of the available room. |
|
| |
Could be done as part of the check-in procedure, checked luggage go on one conveyor belt, children on another, the screeching of metal blades... |
|
| |
Would also be handy if the plane runs out of in-flight meals, under the Titus Andronicus brand name. |
|
| |
//FOD issues// What is this 'FOD' which you have
recently discovered? |
|
| |