 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Destinations USA and CanadaEuropeAustralia and NZAsiaLatin AmericaCaribbean IslandsAfricaTravel Types Air TravelCruisesRV Travel |
Travel Forum / Travel Types / Air Travel / June 2005What does the airline owe me if a screaming infant ruined my flight?
What does the airline owe me if a screaming infant ruined my flight? A reader says, "I recently spent eight hours on a transatlantic flight in which an infant two rows ahead of me screamed the entire time. When I asked the flight attendant to move the family with the screaming infant away from my section, I was told that the airline could not force the family to move. The flight attendant was also unwilling to move me into an empty seat in first class (away from the infant) because I had purchased a coach ticket. The screaming infant ruined my flight. Do I have any recourse now? Should the airline have moved me to a different seat as I requested?" At this point, your chances of legal recourse are slim. You might want to submit a formal complaint, and the airline might offer you something as a "gesture of good will," but it doesn't have to do anything at all. Airlines have a legal responsibility to fulfill the terms of the ticket: to get you safely to your destination. If an airline fails to do this in a timely manner, for reasons other than weather or some external "force majeure" problem, you're probably due some compensation. Federal law specifies compensation when you're bumped due to overbooking, and the airlines' own policy statements require them to provide meals and overnight accommodations in cases of extended delays. While no specific rules or regulations cover other circumstances, general contract law provides adequate recourse for consumers. Although airlines are required to provide a seat, however, nothing entitles you to a specific seat or a seat that is not near a crying babyor, for that matter, a seat that isn't next to someone who hasn't showered in a week or who chews gum noisily. Flight attendants are supposed to solve such problems with tact, on the spot where possible. In such cases, the normal solution is to move you to a different seat. But when all other seats are full, there isn't much you or the airline can do. On your flight, the attendant should have moved you to that available first-class seat regardless of the fare you paid. I've heard of many such instances when a coach passenger in a bad seating situation was allowed to move to first class if no coach seats were available. It was your bad luck to run into a stickler for details. But now, after the fact, you can't do anything about that. My suggestions: * Write a formal complaint letter to the airline, noting the distress you experienced and the attendant's refusal to move you to an available seat in first class. Ask for some modest compensationsomething like a discount voucher toward a future flight or, say, 5,000 additional frequent flier miles. * If you get no reply, or a brushoff, you might think about taking the airline to small claims court. But your chances there would be iffyand maybe not worth the hassle. It's your call. http://www.smartertravel.com/advice/askanswer/advice.php?id=9100&source=dealaler t&value=2005-06-09&u=SL4F6B4DC5 === "In the future, my private life will be expressed solely through art." -- Britney Spears Get real. Get a life. Buy your own set of ear plugs, a stiff drink, take a nap. Your complaint is akin to complaining "the sun is in my eyes" while walking down the street. > What does the airline owe me if a screaming infant ruined my flight? <snip> > On your flight, the attendant should have moved you to that available > first-class seat regardless of the fare you paid. I've heard of many > such instances when a coach passenger in a bad seating situation was > allowed to move to first class if no coach seats were available. It > was your bad luck to run into a stickler for details. But now, after > the fact, you can't do anything about that. Absolutely not. What makes him more special than anyone else? The whole plane had to sit through the wailing. > My suggestions: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the airline to small claims court. But your chances there would be > iffy-and maybe not worth the hassle. It's your call. That's just stupid. For all the whining I hear about "infants screaming the entire flight" I have only once been on a flight where the infant actually cried most of the time. Usually it's a wail here or there, fairly short in duration. I fly a lot - and have for years. Personally, I think people like to exaggerate this point to make themselves the victim. I hate to break it to the whiners, but kids get to fly as well. People travel. Infants are people. They have as much right on a plane as the business person or the Granny. The only *valid* complaint is that kids don't have top pay full price on some flights -which is not fair. Now, I hate unbehaved kids and inattentive parents as much as the next traveller. But that's the fault of the PARENT - not the FA, the airline or anyone else. If you are sue happy, sue the crappy parent. But you have a fat chance of winning. -L. > the infant actually cried most of the time. Usually it's a wail here > or there, fairly short in duration. I fly a lot - and have for years. Infants can't clear their ears hardly at all to adapt to pressure changes. I usually have a lot of sympathy with them since tend to have that problem myself. Just listen to them when you have deep congestion from a cold, stifling your own screams, and wondering why their parents don't understand and treat it like fussiness. Seems like airliners are really clumsy in setting the pressure, clunking it on suddenly at even ground level, and leaving the pressure boost on even when you have descended low. > Infants can't clear their ears hardly at all to adapt to pressure > changes. I usually have a lot of sympathy with them since tend > to have that problem myself. Just listen to them when you have > deep congestion from a cold, stifling your own screams, and > wondering why their parents don't understand and treat it like > fussiness. I believe there needs to be more education done with parents; specifically that you do not take an infant on a flight when the child is experiencing ear or nasal problems. > Seems like airliners are really clumsy in setting the pressure, > clunking it on suddenly at even ground level, and leaving the pressure > boost on even when you have descended low. And I have noticed likewise. I have to clear my ears when the pressure changes and have found out that some flights are better at pressurization than others. Regarding the specific problem with the passenger and the screaming infant, the suggestion is to always carry ear plugs with you on each and every flight. I have even made friends by passing out extra ear plug sets to those seated nearby. Granted, the airlines cannot move everyone to first class in order to escape the noise, but they could offer everyone a set of ear plugs. And to me it seems like this is the least they could do. > Infants are people. I was with you until this bit of madness ...  SignatureCraig > > What does the airline owe me if a screaming infant ruined my flight? > <snip> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Absolutely not. What makes him more special than anyone else? The > whole plane had to sit through the wailing. I agree and I have had this happen to me. This is exactly why I now travel with an iPod and a good pair of headphones. Works like a charm. >I hate to break it to the whiners, but kids get to fly as well. People >travel. Infants are people. They have as much right on a plane as the >business person or the Granny. The only *valid* complaint is that kids >don't have top pay full price on some flights -which is not fair. I don't accept the current belief that infants belong on airlines. Thirty years ago, an infant on an airline was an extremely rare thing. Why? Because parents felt that the trip was unduly stressful and that infants gain no benefit from such travel. Infants are best cared for at home, not dragged all over the planet because their idiot parents "can't bear" to be without their snotminers. Unless there is a compelling (legal) reason to put an infant on a transcontinental flight, the infant should stay home. Grandma wants to see the baby? Fine. Grandma can book passage to East Bumfuck, Iowa and visit the goddamn baby. Got travel plans to Europe? Great! Leave the infant in the care of relatives or professionals, then enjoy your trip. Infancy does not last forever. Unless air travel is absolutely necessary, children should not travel until they are capable of traveling without irritating the crap out of everyone on the plane. Same goes for restaurants. If your kid is too young or too immature to behave appropriately for a given situation, then the kid shouldn't be brought into that situation. This dictum is not evil or unfair. I grew up in a family of six kids. My parents allowed us to eat at restaurants and do other nifty adult stuff only when it was determined we could do so without making a spectacle of ourselves. The older kids went out to do cool stuff while the younger ones stayed at home. As we aged and matured, we were immersed in cool stuff. What, exactly, is the purpose of bringing an infant on a transcontinental holiday? And how is it that my parents had some magical immunity to the current trend of "baby goes everywhere"? - TR > I don't accept the current belief that infants belong on airlines. that's fine if you don't want to be confused by reality. i recommend that you see a mental health professional about this problem as soon as possible. > > I don't accept the current belief that infants belong on airlines. > > that's fine if you don't want to be confused by reality. i > recommend that you see a mental health professional about this > problem as soon as possible. Actually I think maybe you should take some of that advice. Babies cry on an airplane for one reason: It hurts; they are in pain. More often than not the parents are taking them on the plane not for the benefit of the child but for the benefit of the parent. Maybe they're going on vacation and don't want to spring for a sitter to take care of the child. Maybe they just don't want to be separated from the child. In any event, when you make the decision to have a child you are accepting certain responsibilites. One of them is to make sacrifices in your own life in order to benefit that child. If you want to go on vacation but the child will be in pain because of it, then your obligation is to skip the vacation. If you're not willing to accept the responsibility of having a child, don't have one. It's just that simple. > Babies cry on an airplane for one reason: It hurts; they are in pain. So, this is the ONLY reason they cry on planes. So, why do they cry when they are NOT on planes, and why would those reasons not apply on a plane? > > Babies cry on an airplane for one reason: It hurts; they are in pain. > > So, this is the ONLY reason they cry on planes. Not, but it is the primary reason. Babies can't equalize the pressure and it causes pain in the inner ear. Sometimes it lasts the whole flight. Sometimes it can do real damage. But then that avoids the actual question, doesn't it? Selfish parents are the culprits, not the kids. > So, why do they cry when they are NOT on planes, and why would those > reasons not apply on a plane? >>>Babies cry on an airplane for one reason: It hurts; they are in pain. >> >>So, this is the ONLY reason they cry on planes. > > Not, but it is the primary reason. Yes, but you did say there was one reason for babies to cry on planes. Recently fired Cisco troll/netkook/pedophile/psychopath Michael Voight "mrtravel" kooked: >>>>Babies cry on an airplane for one reason: It hurts; they are in pain. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Yes, but you did say blah blah blah, troll troll troll, kook kook kook *SLAP!* Shut up, kook. You're posting at 4 in the morning. Finished molesting your daughter for the night so you thought you'd get some trolling/kooking/harassing in? IP cpe-70-93-94-226.socal.res.rr.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 07:00:09 EDT = *4 am PDT* Psychopath. You need help. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.dcom.sys.cisco/msg/5a5a6acaf4a70129 >> > Babies cry on an airplane for one reason: It hurts; they are in pain. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> So, why do they cry when they are NOT on planes, and why would those >> reasons not apply on a plane? Tchiowwwa: Why didn't you answer mrtravel's last question? > Not, but it is the primary reason. Babies can't equalize the pressure > and it causes pain in the inner ear. Sometimes it lasts the whole > flight. Sometimes it can do real damage. DS doesn't seem to be bothered by changes in air pressure. There is only one time I can recall where he pulled at his ear or seemed in discomfort. He doesn't cry on planes. -L. > Babies cry on an airplane for one reason: It hurts; they are in pain. As you admitted later in the thread, they cry for other reasons as well. As to the pain issue, though, babies and young children have a more difficult time than adults having the pressure in their ears equalize. If the equalization does not happen, the pressure builds up, and begins to cause pain. If something does not happen to equalize the pressure, the pain continues. Of course, this could be the case with an adult who was unable to equalize the pressure as well. So, yes, many infants and some children and a very few adults wil expereince pain based on the equalization issue on flights, but for many of them it will be shortlived. For anecdotal evidence, just see how many of the infants and young children are screaming shortly after takeoff and continue screamiong for some time the next time you know there are several on a plane. One or two probably will. But most will probably not. Young children (not infants) can frequently be assisted by chewing gum or blowing up ballons. With infants, the best bet is to be feeding them or at least have them suck on something during takeoff, and landing. Often, giving them some infant pain reliever ahead of time will also help if they do begin to experience pain. > More often than not the parents are taking them on the plane not for > the benefit of the child but for the benefit of the parent. Maybe > they're going on vacation and don't want to spring for a sitter to take > care of the child. Maybe they just don't want to be separated from the > child. Sure. I could argue that, especially for infants, being separated from their parents for longer than a day or so is bad, so it IS for the child that the parents are bringing them (in fact, many parents would probably like to have the brief time away from their children). However, I agree that typically infants come along for convenience or cost. But then, this is why most of us fly. Or is there some reason that I am missing that requires everyone without children to have to fly? > In any event, when you make the decision to have a child you are > accepting certain responsibilites. One of them is to make sacrifices in > your own life in order to benefit that child. From what I have seen (in the US at least, and admittedly just based on anecdotal evidence, not a throurough understanding of US law) your are required to accept very few responsibilities, in fact. The one you list, as far as I can tell, is not one of them. I agree that you should take more responsibility, but the law from what I have seen is mostly limited to basic necessities and responsibility for the child committing criminal acts (and even this has limitations). If you want to go on > vacation but the child will be in pain because of it, then your > obligation is to skip the vacation. If you have been in situations where you know your child will have significant difficulties with the pressure equaliztion, then yes, you should have an extremely good reason for taking that child on a plane. Of course, since many children do not experience significant pain, this would not impact most people flying with infants. > If you're not willing to accept the responsibility of having a child, > don't have one. It's just that simple. It's nice advice, but unless you are incredibly naive it is not that simple. Responsibility is not an either/or. In my experience, most parents are responsible parents most of the time. Very very few are responsible all of the time, and a few are hardly ever responsible. And the "decision" to have a child is very rarely made with a full understanding of what it will entail. This does not mean it is made lighlty. I could just as easily say "If you don't want to be on a flight with a screaming baby, then charter a flight or don't fly. It's just that simple." Babies being on airlines is "simply" a matter of cost for the airlines. If airlines lose customers, or find that a significant number of customers would pay significantly more (as a few on here have indicated they would) then things may change. That is unlikely, though, at least for most airlines, as many, many air travellers continue to prove (via ticket purchasing habits) that cost is the number one factor (and when not, still almost always up toward the top) in determining when and with what airline they fly. -Robert > > More often than not the parents are taking them on the plane not for > > the benefit of the child but for the benefit of the parent. Maybe [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that the parents are bringing them (in fact, many parents would probably > like to have the brief time away from their children). I think you're wrong. Yes, it is bad for the child to be separated from the parents. But the solution to that is that the parents stay home. Again, the decision to get on the plane and go somewhere is done for the parents benefit, not the child. Big promotion? Got to fly? Then the parent is saying "my career is more important than my child" and that is wrong. > However, I agree > that typically infants come along for convenience or cost. But then, > this is why most of us fly. Or is there some reason that I am missing > that requires everyone without children to have to fly? No. But those without children can fly without harming their child. And that makes a big difference. > > In any event, when you make the decision to have a child you are > > accepting certain responsibilites. One of them is to make sacrifices in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > anecdotal evidence, not a throurough understanding of US law) your are > required to accept very few responsibilities, in fact. Legally, you're right. Morally, I think is a different issue. <space snip> >>>More often than not the parents are taking them on the plane not for >>>the benefit of the child but for the benefit of the parent. Maybe [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > parent is saying "my career is more important than my child" and that > is wrong. Why cannot it be "my successful career is important for my child?" Certainly, short term possible problem vs. long term signifcant potential gain, which will significantly benefit the child. As I said before (and you quote below), I do agree that when infants are taken, it is almost always a matter of cost and/or convenience, and the parent is not looking at some long-term benefit. >>However, I agree >>that typically infants come along for convenience or cost. But then, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No. But those without children can fly without harming their child. And > that makes a big difference. I still believe, based on personal experience and discussion with a professional about ear issues, that flying is not automatically harmful to all children. >>>In any event, when you make the decision to have a child you are >>>accepting certain responsibilites. One of them is to make sacrifices in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > <space snip> Oh, I don't argue. In fact, part of what you snipped indicates that. Overall, it seems to me that your argument is that anytime you bring an infant on a plane you will cause the infant pain, so you should not ever bring an infant. I'm pretty certain that it is not true that every time you bring an infant on a plane, you will cause the infant pain. So using that as a reason why no infant should ever be brought on a plane is not effective. -Robert > >>>More often than not the parents are taking them on the plane not for > >>>the benefit of the child but for the benefit of the parent. Maybe [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Why cannot it be "my successful career is important for my child?" Because you can postpone that move until the child is old enough to travel comfortably. If you end up with a middle class job instead of being wealthy, so be it. You made that choice when you made the choice to be a parent. > Overall, it seems to me that your argument is that anytime you bring an > infant on a plane you will cause the infant pain, so you should not ever > bring an infant. No, but that's part of it. In addition, nearly every time you bring an infant on a plane you will interfere with the comfort of other passengers around you. Remember, *YOU* are the one who decided to have a child. *YOU* are the one responsible for that child. *YOU* are the one who should make sacrifices for the child. Having a child comes with responsibilities and sometimes you have be be inconvenienced because of that. Being a parent myself I know that the benefits far outweight the inconveniences. However, *IT'S YOUR CHILD*. You have no more right to impose your child (and the inconveniences that come with the child) on other people. No more than you have the right to blare a boom box, blow cigarette smoke, have a barking dog, etc. around other people. If your child cannot fly on a plane without causing inconvenience to other passengers (whether due to pain or something else) then you have no right to bring the child on the plane. *YOU* made the choice. *YOU* live with your choices. Do not impose the consequences of *YOUR* choice on others. That's really all I'm saying. >> Why cannot it be "my successful career is important for my child?" > > Because you can postpone that move until the child is old enough to > travel comfortably. If you end up with a middle class job instead of > being wealthy, so be it. You made that choice when you made the choice > to be a parent. I don't think you will find many people who will forego a lifetime of wealth to avoid bringing an infant on a plane once. miguel SignatureHit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan > >> Why cannot it be "my successful career is important for my child?" > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I don't think you will find many people who will forego a lifetime of wealth > to avoid bringing an infant on a plane once. I agree. Unfortunately. > miguel > -- > Hit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu > Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan > Because you can postpone that move until the child is old enough to > travel comfortably. If you end up with a middle class job instead of > being wealthy, so be it. You made that choice when you made the choice > to be a parent. Oh please. That is so ridiculous I can't believe you even typed it out with a straight face. > > Overall, it seems to me that your argument is that anytime you bring an > > infant on a plane you will cause the infant pain, so you should not ever > > bring an infant. > > No, but that's part of it. My son doesn't experience pain while flying. He smiles and giggles, and is a happy little guy during the entire flight. If he was in pain, he'd cry. He doesn't. The one time he had apparent discomfort, he merely pulled at his ear briefly - and that was one flight out of 17. >In addition, nearly every time you bring an > infant on a plane you will interfere with the comfort of other > passengers around you. You apparently don't have a child so how would you know? Every time we bring our child on a plance, people comment about him after we land - how good he was and that he was quiet. I can't say he has "interfered" with anyone else - certainly no more so than any other person interfered with anyone else. You are starting to sound like the uber-childfree who want to bitch about kids regardless of whether or not a child has actually caused them any problem. It's getting old, ya know - quit crying wolf. >Remember, *YOU* are the one who decided to have > a child. *YOU* are the one responsible for that child. *YOU* are the > one who should make sacrifices for the child. As I do. > Having a child comes with responsibilities and sometimes you have be be > inconvenienced because of that. Being a parent myself I highly doubt this. >I know that the > benefits far outweight the inconveniences. However, *IT'S YOUR CHILD*. > You have no more right to impose your child (and the inconveniences > that come with the child) on other people. No more than you have the > right to blare a boom box, blow cigarette smoke, have a barking dog, > etc. around other people. If you were talking about an ill-behaved unruly child, I would agree with you. Not all children are unruly or ill-behaved. A much better aproach for you would be to look at how many children are present on plane you fly on, and make count of how many of those actually throw a wobbly. You will find - as I have - that by-and-large, the children are quiet. We have had people comment that they didn't even know a baby was on the plane. I, myself, have been surprised on many occasions to find that there were babies on a flight. All of this incessant bellowing by infants you complain about simply does not happen often, in my experience. I can only think of one flight where a baby screamed for an extended period of time - and this is over the last 15 years or so that I can recall. I do understand that it happens. I just doubt it happens as often as those who constantly bitch about it say it happens. > If your child cannot fly on a plane without causing inconvenience to > other passengers (whether due to pain or something else) then you have > no right to bring the child on the plane. I agree with this. > *YOU* made the choice. *YOU* live with your choices. Do not impose the > consequences of *YOUR* choice on others. That's really all I'm saying. Then quit lumping ALL children into the same "brat" pot. Like it or not, kids are going to fly. Fat people, stinky people, loud people, drunk people, and obnoxious people are, as well. Either develop coping skills, or don't fly. It's really that simple. -L. > > Because you can postpone that move until the child is old enough to > > travel comfortably. If you end up with a middle class job instead of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Oh please. That is so ridiculous I can't believe you even typed it out > with a straight face. Why? Because your needs outweigh the child's? Because no one but you has any rights? > > > Overall, it seems to me that your argument is that anytime you bring an > > > infant on a plane you will cause the infant pain, so you should not ever [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > he'd cry. He doesn't. The one time he had apparent discomfort, he > merely pulled at his ear briefly - and that was one flight out of 17. Your child doesn't experience pain during take-off and landing? Remarkable child. Have you contacted X-Men to see if he's eligible? > >In addition, nearly every time you bring an > > infant on a plane you will interfere with the comfort of other > > passengers around you. > > You apparently don't have a child so how would you know? I have 2 wonderful children. I don't believe that I have the right to impose them on other people. It's called "courtesy". > Every time we > bring our child on a plance, people comment about him after we land - [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > about kids regardless of whether or not a child has actually caused > them any problem. It's getting old, ya know - quit crying wolf. I sat on a Singapore Air flight from Singapore to London. I paid extra for Business Class so that I could sleep and be ready for work when I arrived. That cost me about $3,000 extra. A screaming child kept me awake the entire flight. As far as I'm concerned the parents of that flight deprived me of what I paid $3,000 for. It's not crying wolf. It's the reality that many of us face. Particularly those of us who have to fly a lot. > >Remember, *YOU* are the one who decided to have > > a child. *YOU* are the one responsible for that child. *YOU* are the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I highly doubt this. Doubt it all you'd like. I raised my kids to be polite and courteous. Not to say "My rights outweigh everyone else's rights so I'll impose my children on people around me". You're like the smokers who demand the right to smoke anywhere, regardless of how it affects others. Or dog owners who believe that they have the right to turn their dogs loose in public parks to chase children. You are not willing to take responsibility for your decisions. > >I know that the > > benefits far outweight the inconveniences. However, *IT'S YOUR CHILD*. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If you were talking about an ill-behaved unruly child, I would agree > with you. Not all children are unruly or ill-behaved. Infants cry. I'm not talking about ill-behaved. I'm talking about completely normal behavior for infants. > A much better aproach for you would be to look at how many children are > present on plane you fly on, and make count of how many of those > actually throw a wobbly. One is enough. > You will find - as I have - that by-and-large, the children are quiet. Simply not true. Some, yes. Majority, no. > We have had people comment that > they didn't even know a baby was on the plane. I, myself, have been [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > drunk people, and obnoxious people are, as well. Either develop coping > skills, or don't fly. It's really that simple. Again, I'm not talking about "brats". I'm talking about normal infants behaving like normal infants. I have coping skills. Maybe you should develop some "courtesy" skills. Again, you do not have the right to impose your decisions on others. You made the choice to have a child. Your choice. Your responsibility. If your child can't fly without disturbing others, you shouldn't take him on a plane. If he can, thats a different story. > > > Because you can postpone that move until the child is old enough to > > > travel comfortably. If you end up with a middle class job instead of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Why? Because your needs outweigh the child's? Because no one but you > has any rights? No, becaus,e how on earth do you think the parents are going to suppor the child(ren)? Jobs are hard to come by these days - if someone gets a good job offer, they ARE going to take it regardless of family status. Raising a family is not inexpensive. Or I guess you would rather all parents just go on welfare instead of taking higher-paying jobs? <snip> > Your child doesn't experience pain during take-off and landing? nope. Like I said the only discomfort he seemed to have was during one landing - where he tugged at one of his ears. > Remarkable child. Have you contacted X-Men to see if he's eligible? Sarcasm doesn't become you. > > >In addition, nearly every time you bring an > > > infant on a plane you will interfere with the comfort of other [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I have 2 wonderful children. I don't believe that I have the right to > impose them on other people. It's called "courtesy". You assume that everyone who brings a child on a plane is "imposing" on everyone else. They aren't unless the child is disruptive. <snip> > I sat on a Singapore Air flight from Singapore to London. I paid extra > for Business Class so that I could sleep and be ready for work when I > arrived. That cost me about $3,000 extra. A screaming child kept me > awake the entire flight. As far as I'm concerned the parents of that > flight deprived me of what I paid $3,000 for. Then sue the parents who made your life hell and quit bitching about *all* parents. > It's not crying wolf. It's the reality that many of us face. > Particularly those of us who have to fly a lot. I suspect it happens far less than you make it out to be. <snip> > Doubt it all you'd like. I raised my kids to be polite and courteous. I still doubt you have children. > Not to say "My rights outweigh everyone else's rights so I'll impose my > children on people around me". You're like the smokers who demand the > right to smoke anywhere, regardless of how it affects others. Or dog > owners who believe that they have the right to turn their dogs loose in > public parks to chase children. You are not willing to take > responsibility for your decisions. I have a dog too. She's kepy in my yard when she goes out. I don't let her bark. Just as I keep my child from "disrupting" other people on airplanes. <snip> > Infants cry. I'm not talking about ill-behaved. I'm talking about > completely normal behavior for infants. Not all infants cry on planes. Mine didn't. And he flew 13 times before age 1. > > A much better aproach for you would be to look at how many children are > > present on plane you fly on, and make count of how many of those > > actually throw a wobbly. > > One is enough. Sure it is - but you are missing the point. I am sure you have been on many a flight where the children didn't make a peep. Or do you throw out the whole barrel of apples when you find one wormy one? > > You will find - as I have - that by-and-large, the children are quiet. > > Simply not true. Some, yes. Majority, no. Not in my experience. Over the last 17 months, I can recall one crying infant - who cried during a landing for about 7 minutes. Yes, it was annoying. But it wasn't "bitch about it for months" annoying. <snip> > Again, I'm not talking about "brats". I'm talking about normal infants > behaving like normal infants. Well, then, quit lumping all infants in the same shitty boat. Not all infants cry on planes. Mine never did. > I have coping skills. Evidently not - you are raging on for weeks abotut crying infants. >Maybe you should develop some "courtesy" skills. I am extremely courteous. If and when my child starts not behaving well on planes, I will cease to fly with him. As of yet, that hasn't been the case, due in part, I think, because he flys so often. > Again, you do not have the right to impose your decisions on others. > You made the choice to have a child. Your choice. No I didn't. I am inferile. My child is adopted. >Your responsibility. Absolutely. I take it very seriously. > If your child can't fly without disturbing others, you shouldn't take > him on a plane. If he can, thats a different story. Evidently - it's a "different story", then. I will fold this argument back on you - if you cannot fly without being so disturbed by other passengers, then maybe you should seek alternate means of transportation. Evidently you get so worked up about what others "do to you" that it upsets you for months. Being upset is a choice. Maybe it would be better for your health to avoid the situation altogether. -L. > > Why? Because your needs outweigh the child's? Because no one but you > > has any rights? > > No, becaus,e how on earth do you think the parents are going to suppor > the child(ren)? By working. Working does not always require flying. If it does, don't do that kind of work. > Jobs are hard to come by these days Nonsense. Unemployment in the US is at pretty much historical average. Jobs are no harder to get now than at any other time. > - if someone gets > a good job offer, they ARE going to take it regardless of family > status. Raising a family is not inexpensive. Or I guess you would > rather all parents just go on welfare instead of taking higher-paying > jobs? Is that the way you think the world is? Fly or go on welfare? You live in an odd world. I raised my 2 children by myself since they were very young. I had many opportunities to travel in my job. My boss was after me for a very long time to take on overseas projects. Until my children were gone I simply refused to accept. Family came first. Now my kids are grown and I have grandchildren. Now I accept the overseas projects and my career is doing just fine, thank you. It's a matter of priorities. > > Your child doesn't experience pain during take-off and landing? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Sarcasm doesn't become you. You're claiming you have an infant that doesn't experience pain during an airplane take-off or landing. Doctors will tell you that's just about impossible. > > I have 2 wonderful children. I don't believe that I have the right to > > impose them on other people. It's called "courtesy". > > You assume that everyone who brings a child on a plane is "imposing" on > everyone else. They aren't unless the child is disruptive. But that is the type of child we are discussing, isn't it? > > I sat on a Singapore Air flight from Singapore to London. I paid extra > > for Business Class so that I could sleep and be ready for work when I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Then sue the parents who made your life hell and quit bitching about > *all* parents. Show me where I said "*all* parents" make my life hell. Only the irresponsible ones who take infants on airplanes. > > It's not crying wolf. It's the reality that many of us face. > > Particularly those of us who have to fly a lot. > > I suspect it happens far less than you make it out to be. I fly mostly in First Class these days so I don't have much problem personally. But that doesn't mean I don't have a memory and it doesn't mean that I don't have sympathy for those who are being punished by selfish parents. I guess it also means that I didn't get hurt too badly by refusing to travel until my children were grown. Being a good parent isn't always a bad thing. > > Doubt it all you'd like. I raised my kids to be polite and courteous. > > I still doubt you have children. Why? Because I raised them to be polite and courteous? > > Not to say "My rights outweigh everyone else's rights so I'll impose my > > children on people around me". You're like the smokers who demand the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > let her bark. Just as I keep my child from "disrupting" other people > on airplanes. I see. And when she does bark outside she does it softly so neighbors can't hear? > > Infants cry. I'm not talking about ill-behaved. I'm talking about > > completely normal behavior for infants. > > Not all infants cry on planes. Mine didn't. And he flew 13 times > before age 1. Again, call X-Men. Infants cry. It's their way of communicating many times. I'm beginning to believe it is *you* that doesn't really have children. > > I have coping skills. > > Evidently not - you are raging on for weeks abotut crying infants. "Weeks"??? My first post on this was 6 days before this response of yours. But I guess this falls in the same category as "my infant never cries". > >Maybe you should develop some "courtesy" skills. > > I am extremely courteous. If and when my child starts not behaving > well on planes, I will cease to fly with him. As of yet, that hasn't > been the case, due in part, I think, because he flys so often. When are you going to pay attention? It has nothing to do with your child not behaving well. It has to do with an infant being a perfectly normal infant. (Which you claim your child isn't.) Not behaving badly. Simply being normal. > > Again, you do not have the right to impose your decisions on others. > > You made the choice to have a child. Your choice. > > No I didn't. I am inferile. My child is adopted. Excuse me? Are you saying that you were *forced* to adopt? Or is this part of the "weeks" and "my infant never cries" syndrome you seem to be suffering from? > I will fold this argument back on you - if you cannot fly without being > so disturbed by other passengers, then maybe you should seek alternate > means of transportation. Wrong. The victim is not the one who needs to change. I get on a plane and do my best not to disturb or disrupt the comfort of any other passenger. If someone disturbs me or disrupts my comfort it is *them* who is obligated to change. This is kind of like "If you don't like me smoking then go somewhere else". You are the one with the intrusive behavior. Time to grow up and accept a little responsibility. > Evidently you get so worked up about what > others "do to you" that it upsets you for months. Apparently not. I wasn't upset hardly at all. Are you one of those people who can't face a little adversity without getting upset? You seem to think that if other people criticize them must be "upset". Most of the rest of us can cope without getting upset. You need to work out some issues. > Being upset is a > choice. Maybe it would be better for your health to avoid the > situation altogether. I'd love to. Keep your crying child off of airplanes. <snip more of the same> > > I have a dog too. She's kepy in my yard when she goes out. I don't > > let her bark. Just as I keep my child from "disrupting" other people > > on airplanes. > > I see. And when she does bark outside she does it softly so neighbors > can't hear? No, she's a Basenji mix. She doesn't bark unless there's an intruder. Actually I don't think I have heard her bark in the last year...she's a really interesting dog. She's a silent hunter. <snip> > Apparently not. I wasn't upset hardly at all. Well you are sure bitching alot for someone who "wasn't hardly upset at all." <snip> > I'd love to. Keep your crying child off of airplanes. How many times do I have to knock you over the head with the fact that he never cries on an airplane? Actually, he hardly cries at all. He's a happy little guy. :) Like I said, if he starts throwing wobblies on planes. I will cease to fly with him. -L. > You're claiming you have an infant that doesn't experience pain during > an airplane take-off or landing. Doctors will tell you that's just > about impossible. Really? The audiologist I live with says otherwise, so we seem to have conflictiing expert opinions. >>>I have 2 wonderful children. I don't believe that I have the right to >>>impose them on other people. It's called "courtesy". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > But that is the type of child we are discussing, isn't it? No, as far as I can tell, you've pretty much said that no infants should fly, regardless of whther they are or are not disruptive. Or ... that only disruptive children should be kept off ot airplanes, but all infants are disruptive. If an infant flys and is not significnatly disruptive, is it okay for that child to fly? > When are you going to pay attention? It has nothing to do with your > child not behaving well. It has to do with an infant being a perfectly > normal infant. (Which you claim your child isn't.) Not behaving badly. > Simply being normal. The many infants I have been around do not show that infants are always or even frequently crying. The experiences I have had have been mostly sleeping, with some relatively quiet wakefulness periods, some very short periods of mild crying (usually to indicate a need, such as for food or comfort, and ending when that need is provided), and rare, but occasionally prolonged, periods of loud wailing, that are extremely difficult to stop. So I still don't buy that it is normal behavior for children to cry for prolonged periods on planes, or even always to cry at all, especially if they have thouightful parents, who plan ahead for the needs and the physical experience the child will go through. >>Why cannot it be "my successful career is important for my child?" > > Because you can postpone that move until the child is old enough to > travel comfortably. If you end up with a middle class job instead of > being wealthy, so be it. You made that choice when you made the choice > to be a parent. Accepting a middle or lower class job (rather than a better paying one) puts a child at a significant disadvantage in this country. Certainly, even if there is a little pain for a short flight, if it is important for a successful career, and for some reason the child must come with me, it is in the child's best interest to be on the flight. >>Overall, it seems to me that your argument is that anytime you bring an >>infant on a plane you will cause the infant pain, so you should not ever [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > infant on a plane you will interfere with the comfort of other > passengers around you. This statement just does not mesh with my experience. Sometimes, when some people bring an infant on a plane, it interferes with the comfort of others. Sometimes it doesn't. And in my limited experience, the latter is more often the case. Remember, *YOU* are the one who decided to have > a child. *YOU* are the one responsible for that child. *YOU* are the > one who should make sacrifices for the child. I agree and disagree. Yes, as a parent, you have responsibilities. But I don't think choosing not to be a parent exempts you. I believe that we all have responsibility for society, which certainly includes children as current and future members of that society. > Having a child comes with responsibilities and sometimes you have be be > inconvenienced because of that. Being a parent myself I know that the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > right to blare a boom box, blow cigarette smoke, have a barking dog, > etc. around other people. Hmm. If you are talking about legal rights ... I'd certainly say that I do have more rights. Certainly, I can legally take an infant on a flight, but I'm not allowed to smoke, as just one example. However, from your discussion to this point, I'd guess you mean some kind of moralistic right, in which case, again, I would say that I still have the right, as with an infant (or other child) we are talking about a person, not music, smoke, or a pet. > If your child cannot fly on a plane without causing inconvenience to > other passengers (whether due to pain or something else) then you have > no right to bring the child on the plane. Certainly, I have the legal right to, at this point. I would agree, though, that if you bringing your child on a plane causes significant inconvenience to others, then you should not, except in extreme situations (and I do, actually, mean extreme). > *YOU* made the choice. *YOU* live with your choices. Do not impose the > consequences of *YOUR* choice on others. That's really all I'm saying. Barring never letting the child to be in public, if you choose to be a parent, you are choosing to impose the consequences of your actions on others. > >>Why cannot it be "my successful career is important for my child?" > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Accepting a middle or lower class job (rather than a better paying one) > puts a child at a significant disadvantage in this country. What country is that? It doesn't in the US which is my home. I was raised middle class. Myself and all 6 of my siblings got University degrees. One is a doctor. We all succeeded financially just fine. > Certainly, > even if there is a little pain for a short flight, if it is important > for a successful career, and for some reason the child must come with > me, it is in the child's best interest to be on the flight. Career moves can be postponed for the short period of time that it takes for a child to be old enough to fly. Making those kinds of decisions is based on the needs of the parent, not the child. > > No, but that's part of it. In addition, nearly every time you bring an > > infant on a plane you will interfere with the comfort of other [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of others. Sometimes it doesn't. And in my limited experience, the > latter is more often the case. In my somewhat greater experience (2 1/2 million miles in the air in the past 15 years) infants almost *always* cry for some period of time during a long flight. > > Remember, *YOU* are the one who decided to have > > a child. *YOU* are the one responsible for that child. *YOU* are the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > all have responsibility for society, which certainly includes children > as current and future members of that society. We have a fundamental disagreement. Hillary's book "It takes a village" meant pretty much what you just said: It takes a village to raise a child. In my opinion, it takes parents. I have a responsibility not to harm someone's child and society has a responsibility to provide a safe environment that enables a child to grow and progress (and that includes things like education) but it is *NOT* my responsibility to have my life affected in any way, shape or form because a parent decides to impose his child on my simply because the parent wants to fly somewhere. > > Having a child comes with responsibilities and sometimes you have be be > > inconvenienced because of that. Being a parent myself I know that the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > have the right, as with an infant (or other child) we are talking > about a person, not music, smoke, or a pet. It is the moral side, of course, that I'm referring to. Again, I disagree. You do *NOT* have the right to impose the consequences of *ANY* of these types of personal decisions on others. If you are not willing to accept full responsibility for your decisions, don't make them. > > If your child cannot fly on a plane without causing inconvenience to > > other passengers (whether due to pain or something else) then you have > > no right to bring the child on the plane. > > Certainly, I have the legal right to, at this point. Yes, you do. But do you have the moral or ethical right to disrupt the lives of others for your own convenience? > I would agree, though, that if you bringing your child on a plane causes > significant inconvenience to others, then you should not, except in > extreme situations (and I do, actually, mean extreme). On that we agree. Including the exception. > > *YOU* made the choice. *YOU* live with your choices. Do not impose the > > consequences of *YOUR* choice on others. That's really all I'm saying. > > Barring never letting the child to be in public, if you choose to be a > parent, you are choosing to impose the consequences of your actions on > others. And limiting those consequences is one of the responsibilities for being a parent. I've followed your posts over the past few days and I think you are a social pariah. Your opinions are biased and your "facts" incorrect. Follow along. > > >>Why cannot it be "my successful career is important for my child?" > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Accepting a middle or lower class job (rather than a better paying one) > > puts a child at a significant disadvantage in this country. Fact? Yes - your retort? > What country is that? It doesn't in the US which is my home. You are wrong - completely, without a doubt. "Parental income while children are growing up is the single most important factor influencing children's income as young adults." "Children who were brought up in low-income families tend to have a lower education as well as lower income during adulthood than do children from affluent families. Further, the source of parental income appears to affect children's success." http://www.economica.ca/ew21p1.htm > I was > raised middle class. Myself and all 6 of my siblings got University > degrees. One is a doctor. We all succeeded financially just fine. Financially "just fine"? One of you is a doctor? In my family - ALL of the siblings are doctors - and we started traveling at age 6 months - because my fahter didn't turn down a very positive career move. > > Certainly, > > even if there is a little pain for a short flight, if it is important [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Career moves can be postponed for the short period of time that it > takes for a child to be old enough to fly. No, career moves cannot be postponed. When the right opportunity presens itself, you move. Letting a 6-hour plane trip determine the potentially life changing decision is ludicrous. To forego an opportunuity because of an irrational fear that your infant may inconvenience passengers on a plane with some crying is downright nuts. > Making those kinds of > decisions is based on the needs of the parent, not the child. No - these decisions are made based on the needs of the family and that includes the parent. When parents put children first you get spoiled children. Families are units - children are parts of that unit. > > > No, but that's part of it. In addition, nearly every time you bring an > > > infant on a plane you will interfere with the comfort of other [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the past 15 years) infants almost *always* cry for some period of time > during a long flight. My 5 million plus miles beatrs your anecdote. My experience is that the most likely source of "inconvenience" on planes is weather, airline employees, bin hogs, drunks, and the businessman (women) pissed because they couldn't get an upgrade or couldn't bring the kitchen sink on board, or heaven help us, is bumped. > > > Remember, *YOU* are the one who decided to have > > > a child. *YOU* are the one responsible for that child. *YOU* are the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > meant pretty much what you just said: It takes a village to raise a > child. In my opinion, it takes parents. Hilary Clinton, pop psychologist. It takes a functioning family unit with good economic and social access to raise a child. > I have a responsibility not to harm someone's child and society has a > responsibility to provide a safe environment that enables a child to > grow and progress (and that includes things like education) but it is > *NOT* my responsibility to have my life affected in any way, shape or > form because a parent decides to impose his child on my simply because > the parent wants to fly somewhere. If you let the inconveniences of shared public space ruin your day, you are responsible for this. Grow up - the world does not revolve around you. > > > Having a child comes with responsibilities and sometimes you have be be > > > inconvenienced because of that. Being a parent myself I know that the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > disagree. You do *NOT* have the right to impose the consequences of > *ANY* of these types of personal decisions on others. As a resident of shared common space, I have just as muich "right" to be in that space as you. Deal with it. I do. I deal with every shape and form of inconvenience without any significant downside impact. What is it about you that makes you so damned special? > If you are not > willing to accept full responsibility for your decisions, don't make > them. The child is not sitting in your lap, right? > > > If your child cannot fly on a plane without causing inconvenience to > > > other passengers (whether due to pain or something else) then you have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes, you do. But do you have the moral or ethical right to disrupt the > lives of others for your own convenience? I should ask you the same. You argue that children on airplanes are an inconvenience. I posit that traveling is a shared family experience, is important to that family, and relevant. Do you have the moral right to disrupt this family experience for your convenience? > > I would agree, though, that if you bringing your child on a plane causes > > significant inconvenience to others, then you should not, except in > > extreme situations (and I do, actually, mean extreme). > > On that we agree. Including the exception. I have never observed a child create a significant inconvenience on a plane. > > > *YOU* made the choice. *YOU* live with your choices. Do not impose the > > > consequences of *YOUR* choice on others. That's really all I'm saying. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And limiting those consequences is one of the responsibilities for > being a parent. Limiting the "consequences"? Look - I have had drunks throw up on my shoes. I have had smelly old men fart in the seat next to me. I have had women bath in Chanel prior to boarding. I have had roll aboards dropped on me. I have had all sorts of consequences from shared space. So? Deal with it. You chastise others for "inconveniencing" you yet have no problem suggesting that inconveniencing others to benefit you is somehow required in a civilized society? Where do you get off? Traveling cross country on an airplane as a family that may or may not include an infant is acceptable and appropriate regardless if it is for a job move or to visit Mickey. Your moral high road dictating what is proper etiquette is a thinly veiled attempt to rationalize your own selfishness. js > I've followed your posts over the past few days and I think you are a > social pariah. Your opinions are biased and your "facts" incorrect. > > Follow along. Gee, after such a wonderfully mature opening, how could I not? > > > >>Why cannot it be "my successful career is important for my child?" > > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Fact? Yes - your retort? Fact - No? > > What country is that? It doesn't in the US which is my home. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://www.economica.ca/ew21p1.htm Now pay attention. The statement was "Accepting a middle or lower class job", not purely "low-income" as you said. And then you compare "poor" with "affluent". Always going to be different. But what about "Middle Class"? The comment you cite does not show causality. In fact the studies demonstrate quite nicely that those in low income families who achieve at a lower rate don't do so because of money. Rather the reason that they don't achieve as well is because of the reason the parents are poor. The parents are poor (more often than not) because they didn't get a good education. Those families are more likely to fail to emphasize education to their children. Hence a higher rate of failure. The causality connection is *attitude* of the parents, not money. > > I was > > raised middle class. Myself and all 6 of my siblings got University [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of the siblings are doctors - and we started traveling at age 6 months > - because my fahter didn't turn down a very positive career move. I didn't travel at all when I was a child and neither did any of my siblings. Of the 7, 2 have incomes solidly in the 6 figures (USD) and 2 are millionaires. Having a middle class father didn't interfere with that at all. Further, when the kids were grown my father began taking more challenging assignments and ended up Vice President of the fairly large company he worked for. Seems like being middle class didn't hurt us and postponing career moves in favor of family didn't hurt him. So the premise fails. > > > Certainly, > > > even if there is a little pain for a short flight, if it is important [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No, career moves cannot be postponed. Of course they can. > When the right opportunity presens itself, you move. Only if you're selfish. > Letting a 6-hour plane trip determine the potentially life changing > decision is ludicrous. You don't have to take an infant on that plane ride. > To forego an opportunuity because of an irrational fear that your infant > may inconvenience passengers on a plane with some crying is downright nuts. You're right. Thinking about the kids first and refusing to be rude and inconsiderate to others when there is money at stake is really dumb. To hell with everyone else. I've got money to make. > > Making those kinds of > > decisions is based on the needs of the parent, not the child. > > No - these decisions are made based on the needs of the family and that > includes the parent. When parents put children first you get spoiled > children. Families are units - children are parts of that unit. You've never heard of "responsibility"? Parents are the ones responsible. > > In my somewhat greater experience (2 1/2 million miles in the air in > > the past 15 years) infants almost *always* cry for some period of time [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > they couldn't get an upgrade or couldn't bring the kitchen sink on > board, or heaven help us, is bumped. Hmmm. Weather is not inconvenient if you're asleep. And I sleep throughout almost every flight unless someone keeps me awake. Like a crying infant. Airline employees treat me just fine. I haven't had one to complain about in year. Plenty of bin space. You're right about drunks, but they should be banned from flights, too. And most are. And if someone else is pissed because he didn't get an upgrade, how does that affect me? > > > > Remember, *YOU* are the one who decided to have > > > > a child. *YOU* are the one responsible for that child. *YOU* are the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Hilary Clinton, pop psychologist. It takes a functioning family unit > with good economic and social access to raise a child. That's right. And 2 members of that unit are the parents. They have very specific responsibilities. > > I have a responsibility not to harm someone's child and society has a > > responsibility to provide a safe environment that enables a child to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > are responsible for this. Grow up - the world does not revolve around > you. I don't ask it to. I do my best not to interfere with anyone else. Why is it not proper for me to expect the same of others? > > > However, from your discussion to this point, I'd guess you mean some > > > kind of moralistic right, in which case, again, I would say that I still [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > As a resident of shared common space, I have just as muich "right" to > be in that space as you. Yes, you do. But you don't have the right to impose on others. > Deal with it. I do. So do I. But that doesn't alter the fact that it's not right. > I deal with every shape > and form of inconvenience without any significant downside impact. > What is it about you that makes you so damned special? Nothing. I never said I was special. I said that people should respect other people's rights. Is that "special" in your mind? Are you like the dog owners who believe they have the right to let their pets run free in the streets and parks, even if they are chasing and scaring children? Hey, it's "shared space". What makes those kids think they're so damn special that they have the right to enjoy that space without someone else imposing on them? Damn social pariahs!! > > If you are not > > willing to accept full responsibility for your decisions, don't make > > them. > > The child is not sitting in your lap, right? No. Crying next to me. > > > > If your child cannot fly on a plane without causing inconvenience to > > > > other passengers (whether due to pain or something else) then you have [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I should ask you the same. You argue that children on airplanes are an > inconvenience. Try to pay attention. It's not "children". It's "infants". > I posit that traveling is a shared family experience, > is important to that family, and relevant. Then let them drive a car. > Do you have the moral right to disrupt this family experience for your > convenience? I'm not the one disrupting. If the infant is disrupting others then the parents have to take the child out of the situation. Or avoid the situation in the first place. > > > I would agree, though, that if you bringing your child on a plane causes > > > significant inconvenience to others, then you should not, except in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I have never observed a child create a significant inconvenience on a > plane. I have been on long distance flights were the entire business class section complained to the flight attendants about a screaming child. > > > > *YOU* made the choice. *YOU* live with your choices. Do not impose the > > > > consequences of *YOUR* choice on others. That's really all I'm saying. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Limiting the "consequences"? Yes. > Look - I have had drunks throw up on my shoes. I haven't. Perhaps you should choose better company. > I have had smelly old men fart in the seat next to me. Constantly for hours? If you're asleep and they fart, they'd have to fart pretty loud to wake you up. > I have had women bath in Chanel prior to boarding. And I've had flight attendants move them for doing that. Actually this is a good example. Certainly the women have the right to be on the plane and the right to wear perfume, etc. But the minute that they decide to impose the consequences of their decision on you, you complain. And rightly so. That's all I'm saying. > I have had roll aboards dropped on me. I haven't. > I have had all sorts of consequences from shared space. > So? Deal with it. > > You chastise others for "inconveniencing" you yet have no problem > suggesting that inconveniencing others to benefit you is somehow > required in a civilized society? Where do you get off? No, I'm not suggesting that at all. Again (and again and again) the situation is someone is doing something that interferes with others. Asking not to be interfered with is not "inconveniencing others to benefit me". It's asking them to be courteous. Is that "inconvenient"? > Traveling cross country on an airplane as a family that may or may not > include an infant is acceptable and appropriate regardless if it is for > a job move or to visit Mickey. No, it's not. Not with an infant. > Your moral high road dictating what is proper etiquette is a thinly veiled > attempt to rationalize your own selfishness. Who said anything about a moral high road? Again, (and again and again) all I'm saying is that if you can't share that common space without imposing your decisions on others then you don't have a right to share that space. It's called acting like an adult. Nothing selfish about it. I do my best to not impose my decisions on others. Why shouldn't everyone? > js > > I've followed your posts over the past few days and I think you are a > > social pariah. Your opinions are biased and your "facts" incorrect. > > > > Follow along. > > Gee, after such a wonderfully mature opening, how could I not? Well hold on to your hat. > > > > >>Why cannot it be "my successful career is important for my child?" > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Fact - No? Income and achievement are related - yes, FACT. > > > What country is that? It doesn't in the US which is my home. > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Now pay attention. The statement was "Accepting a middle or lower class > job", not purely "low-income" as you said. PARENTAL income is THE MOST IMPORTANT factor - Behrman, Jere; Rosenzweig, Mark and Taubman, Paul. "The Intergenerational Correlation Between Children's Adult Earnings and Their Parents' Income: Results From the Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics." Review of Income and Wealth, June 1990, 115-127. This is a study and the dependent variable is Adult Earnings of Children - the relationship is based on a linear regression with a significant coefficient and holds across income ranges. It is one example of science that refutes your anecdote. Want more? > And then you compare "poor" > with "affluent". Always going to be different. But what about "Middle > Class"? It is a linear relationship with a positive coefficient - it works across ranges. Gees - did you bother to go to the link? > The comment you cite does not show causality. The associations are significant and temporal. Hence support the conclusion of causality. Science. > In fact In FACT? You wouldn';t know a fact if it bit you in the a.s. > the studies > demonstrate quite nicely that those in low income families who achieve > at a lower rate don't do so because of money. They do NOT achieve BECAUSE of the income of the parent is low - along with other factors - but income of the parent is the determinant factor - the one with the highest explanatory power in the model. Once you adjust for the covariance, the model is significantly predictive on the income variable - do you understand how Berhman ran his regression? Do you know how to run a regression model? > Rather the reason that > they don't achieve as well is because of the reason the parents are > poor. The parents are poor (more often than not) because they didn't > get a good education. Those families are more likely to fail to > emphasize education to their children. Hence a higher rate of failure. Read the study you twit. The partial coefficient for INCOME is significant AFTER covariates of parental education are controlled. > The causality connection is *attitude* of the parents, not money. No - attitude is not a significant explanatory variable - it is not operationalized in the Berhman model because it is not measurable. You want to produce data that says otherwise, go right ahead. Good luck. But making up more lies is not a good start. Cite the study that says that parental attitude toward educational achievement is the determining factor of adult earnings of their children. Go ahead, cite the study. I have Berhman on my side - who do you have? > > > I was > > > raised middle class. Myself and all 6 of my siblings got University [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > siblings. Of the 7, 2 have incomes solidly in the 6 figures (USD) and 2 > are millionaires. Goody - and your anecdote still isn't worth the bandwidth it uses. > Having a middle class father didn't interfere with that at all. Goody - and again, 3 of you DON'T have high incomes. So its a 50/50 crap shoot in your family, wouldn't you say? > Further, when the kids were grown my father began taking more > challenging assignments and ended up Vice President of the fairly large > company he worked for. And to think, he might have been President had he taken that promotion. > Seems like being middle class didn't hurt us and postponing career > moves in favor of family didn't hurt him. I'd say it hurt you socially, you misfit, and him professionally - he isn't the president of the company. > So the premise fails. Not my premise - thousands of data points over 40 years say you are wrong - there is a direct association between adult earnings of children and the earnings of the parent. In models that control for ovariates, the relationship holds. > > > > Certainly, > > > > even if there is a little pain for a short flight, if it is important [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Of course they can. No - they cannot. A career opportunity that presents itself is fleeting. It may re-appear or an alternative may appear at a different point in time. I have had a career - you? What did you end up as? A grandmother? > > When the right opportunity presens itself, you move. > > Only if you're selfish. No - because you are unselfish. Moves are hardly easy on anyone. Careers are made from sacrifice. The rewards are worth it if you have the guts, drive, ambition, and CAPABILITY. It's easy to rationalize failure by pawning it off as altruistic and for the benefit of the "children". Your lack of success, perhaps, still has you tainted? You aren't one of the millionaires and not the doctor - are you the loser in your family? > > Letting a 6-hour plane trip determine the potentially life changing > > decision is ludicrous. > > You don't have to take an infant on that plane ride. No - you don't HAVE to, but you can and should, if that's the way the rest of the family travels. > > To forego an opportunuity because of an irrational fear that your infant > > may inconvenience passengers on a plane with some crying is downright nuts. > > You're right. Thinking about the kids first and refusing to be rude and > inconsiderate to others when there is money at stake is really dumb. To > hell with everyone else. I've got money to make. Rude and inconsiderate? Now isn't that the epitome of hypocrisy. > > > Making those kinds of > > > decisions is based on the needs of the parent, not the child. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You've never heard of "responsibility"? Parents are the ones > responsible. Responsible for the care, feeding, and proper raising of children. Let's say, mom, that you have three kids, a 6 year old and a 9 year old who want to spend spring break at Disneyland, and an infant. You live in Kansas city. What do you do? Ship your 1 year old to grandmas in North Dakota for the week? Stay at home while hubby and older kids go on vacation themselves? All stay home and deny the 6 and 9 year old the chance to go to California as a family? What will it be? And the decision will be made because of the off chance that the infant might cry on the four hour daytime flight and Tchiowa puppy will be unable to get her beauty sleep - yeh, right. No way this should stop this family from a week together. > > > In my somewhat greater experience (2 1/2 million miles in the air in > > > the past 15 years) infants almost *always* cry for some period of time [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Hmmm. Weather is not inconvenient if you're asleep. Weather is inconvenient when you are sitting on the runway waiting for the storms to clear - FLL, EWR, ORD - and that's just this past two months. > And I sleep > throughout almost every flight unless someone keeps me awake. Like a > crying infant. Use ear plugs. > Airline employees treat me just fine. Yeh, I bet. And when you start bitching about the inconvenience caused by your fellow passengers? > I haven't had one to complain > about in year. Plenty of bin space. Are you the one that gets on first, drags everything on board, and then calmly watches the frustrations of others who can't put a small briefcase overhead? > You're right about drunks, but they > should be banned from flights, too. And most are. Tough to do once you are at 30K feet. > And if someone else > is pissed because he didn't get an upgrade, how does that affect me? Loud ignorant slobs ranting and raving at the gate...on board...to anyone that will listen, or not. > > > > > Remember, *YOU* are the one who decided to have > > > > > a child. *YOU* are the one responsible for that child. *YOU* are the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > That's right. And 2 members of that unit are the parents. They have > very specific responsibilities. Yes, that they do - and the first and foremost are to provide - food, clothing, shelter, love, and OPPORTUNITY. You never traveled to far off places as a child as a family, so what makes you think you can even fathom how valuable that is to a family? > > > I have a responsibility not to harm someone's child and society has a > > > responsibility to provide a safe environment that enables a child to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I don't ask it to. I do my best not to interfere with anyone else. Why > is it not proper for me to expect the same of others? If you have unreasonable expectations you will be disappointed. And that makes it your problem. You have NO RIGHT whatsoever to expect anything from anyone else. You can only expect something from yourself. Practice the golden rule - don't mandate that others do so. If you do, then you are the selfish one. > > > > However, from your discussion to this point, I'd guess you mean some > > > > kind of moralistic right, in which case, again, I would say that I still [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yes, you do. But you don't have the right to impose on others. You have no right to impose a standard of behavior on me. What makes you so damned special that you can dictate what is proper or improper? Who died and left you in charge of me? > > Deal with it. I do. > > So do I. But that doesn't alter the fact that it's not right. And that, my dear, is your myopic, selfish, opinion. It is perfectly right for a family to travel by plane and it is perfectly right for an infant to cry. It is perfectly right and if it is an imposition on you, then you deal with it. I deal with you and the likes of you every day of my life and I'm still smiling. > > I deal with every shape > > and form of inconvenience without any significant downside impact. > > What is it about you that makes you so damned special? > > Nothing. I never said I was special. I said that people should respect > other people's rights. You do NOT have the right to uninterrupted sleep on a 6-hour cross country plane trip. You do not have the right to peace and quiet while in a public place. You do not have the right to keep families off of planes. You have the right NOT to fly yourself. > Is that "special" in your mind? Are you like the > dog owners who believe they have the right to let their pets run free > in the streets and parks, even if they are chasing and scaring > children? What the hell does that have to do with it? There are leash laws where I live. And there are dog parks. When I'm in the dog park, I expect dogs to be running free. > Hey, it's "shared space". What makes those kids think they're > so damn special that they have the right to enjoy that space without > someone else imposing on them? Damn social pariahs!! It is shared when it is permitted to be so - in the absence of a leash requirement. Airplanes are shared space - no leash laws for kids - no prohibition. At least you could make your analogies analogous. > > > If you are not > > > willing to accept full responsibility for your decisions, don't make [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No. Crying next to me. Then deal with it. I dealt with your snoring on Monday's flight. I dealt with your body odor last Thursday. I dealt with your incessant chattering with your husband a week ago. I dealt with your 6 hour non-stop typing right behind me on the freakin red eye in April. I used earplugs, headphones, and mentholatum (amazing how well that works). > > > > > If your child cannot fly on a plane without causing inconvenience to > > > > > other passengers (whether due to pain or something else) then you have [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Try to pay attention. It's not "children". It's "infants". Goody for you. Pay attention - I DON'T care if you are inconvenienced - its your problem. That infant has every reason to be there and no one except the airline has the right to say otherwise. It's a public shared space. Don't preach morality. > > I posit that traveling is a shared family experience, > > is important to that family, and relevant. > > Then let them drive a car. No - you drive, they fly. > > Do you have the moral right to disrupt this family experience for your > > convenience? > > I'm not the one disrupting. If the infant is disrupting others then the > parents have to take the child out of the situation. Or avoid the > situation in the first place. No, they do not have to take the child out of the situation. Like I said - there are all sorts of inconveniences and disruptions - its part of sharing space with others. Deal with it. Parents do not purposely make their infants cry but infants fdo cry - just like you snore and smell. I get just as irate with the attitude of the snobs who seem to think kids don't belong in restaurants. I watched some biddy like you berate a parent because she was splashed by water from a fountain - a fountain she sat next to, because a 5 year old threw a penny in and made a wish. What an intolerant piece of work. She was pretty drunk and it was barely six pm. > > > > I would agree, though, that if you bringing your child on a plane causes > > > > significant inconvenience to others, then you should not, except in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I have been on long distance flights were the entire business class > section complained to the flight attendants about a screaming child. Then they all need to learn a bit more tolerance and learn how to manage their disruptions better. Why is it that you didn't use the ear plugs? > > > > > *YOU* made the choice. *YOU* live with your choices. Do not impose the > > > > > consequences of *YOUR* choice on others. That's really all I'm saying. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yes. Duct tape? > > Look - I have had drunks throw up on my shoes. > > I haven't. Perhaps you should choose better company. I tend to fly up front where the booze is free and the cheap seat upgraders tend, on occasion to take advantage. > > I have had smelly old men fart in the seat next to me. > > Constantly for hours? If you're asleep and they fart, they'd have to > fart pretty loud to wake you up. Silent farts, odiferous as they are, are a problem, especially to someone with sensitive olfactories. > > I have had women bath in Chanel prior to boarding. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > decide to impose the consequences of their decision on you, you > complain. And rightly so. That's all I'm saying. You missed the point. It's a lovely smell, you know, Chanel. Just like the little crying cherub is a sweet gift from heaven. > > I have had roll aboards dropped on me. > > I haven't. Well, then you must sit on the window side of the row. > > I have had all sorts of consequences from shared space. > > So? Deal with it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No, I'm not suggesting that at all. Of course you are. Family travel is by auto so that you aren't inconvenienced by a crying baby. > Again (and again and again) the > situation is someone is doing something that interferes with others. Exactly! > Asking not to be interfered with is not "inconveniencing others to > benefit me". It's asking them to be courteous. Is that "inconvenient"? You are asking parents of infants NOT to travel so that you are not inconvenienced if their infant cries on the plane. Duh! > > Traveling cross country on an airplane as a family that may or may not > > include an infant is acceptable and appropriate regardless if it is for > > a job move or to visit Mickey. > > No, it's not. Not with an infant. Tough - until the airlines outlaw it - it is acceptable and appropriate. > > Your moral high road dictating what is proper etiquette is a thinly veiled > > attempt to rationalize your own selfishness. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > imposing your decisions on others then you don't have a right to share > that space. Bullshit. It is not your call. You don't have the right to imose your level of morality on others. You only have the right to act according to your moral code. > It's called acting like an adult. Nothing selfish about it. I do my > best to not impose my decisions on others. Why shouldn't everyone? Because it is NOT an imposition top me to be on a plane with children and infants. Thus, applying YOUR standards, it's a toss up. My moral code says that I should be tolerant, helpful, compassionate, and forgiving. That is especially relevant as parents try their very best to provide for their children. I traveled extensively as a family growing up and when my family was growing up. These memories are priceless and precious. There is no freakin way I would EVER suggest that other families should be precluded from these experiences because I insist on getting 6 hours of undisturbed beauty sleep on a public bus with wings. You are nothing more than a selfish twit if you think that you have this right. js |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message