Comments

fishbaneFebruary 11, 2006 6:03 PM

I'm still waiting for enforced sedation during flights. Hey, it might save money - the deaths might cost less than stacking 'em like cord wood.

PeterFebruary 13, 2006 2:16 AM

I wonder if it is deliberate that she is in the line for the set of gates that includes K9?

AlexFebruary 13, 2006 5:54 AM

@fishbane:

I've been in favour of mandatory sedation ever since I started flying. I can't stand the noise of screaming kids, kids who are often too young to understand *why* their ears are hurting them, only that they're in pain. All kids should be sedated before flying. Failing that, kids should just be banned from aircraft.

Eh, since a kid-free airborne utopia is unlikely to happen, I guess I'll just have to slip on my noise-cancelling headphones instead.

J.D. AbolinsFebruary 13, 2006 11:56 AM

Actually, the muzzle measure for the passenger with incisors that are too long is a departure to the current practice with banned items. If the checkers followed the current approach, they would demand that the passenger yank out the offending teeth or not fly. If she yanked the teeth out she could mail them back home instead of discarding them.

All of the above is in jest. TSA, disregard the cartoon and the above comment. Nothing to see here.... move along....

Pat CahalanFebruary 13, 2006 3:03 PM

@ Alex

> I've been in favour of mandatory sedation ever since I started flying.
> I can't stand the noise of screaming kids, ...[snip]... All kids should be
>sedated before flying. Failing that, kids should just be banned from aircraft.

This is a flip side argument.

If you can't stand noisy kids, maybe you should be required to take a sedative in order to fly, or be banned from the aircraft.

Crying kids on airplanes isn't the easiest thing to deal with, I'll grant you, but saying that the children are the ones that ought to be sedated is backwards. Adult biochemistry is more robust and able to deal with sedatives.

It is, after all, *public* transportation. Children have just as much of a right to travel on a plane as anyone else.

A mother I know was recently treated very badly when her youngster had a crying fit in First Class... the general attitude was, "I'm in First Class, I shouldn't have to listen to this," which is uncharitable at best, sanctimonious at worst.

"If you can't afford a charter plane, you have to deal with the rest of the passengers."

JanniaFebruary 13, 2006 6:50 PM

>Crying kids on airplanes isn't the easiest thing to deal with,
>I'll grant you, but saying that the children are the ones that
>ought to be sedated is backwards. Adult biochemistry is
>more robust and able to deal with sedatives.

Right, but the kids are the ones *in pain*. Based on my experiences flying with a head cold a couple of years ago, I'm halfway convinced that taking a young child on a flight counts as child abuse. We don't let people ram hot pokers in children's ears on occasion becase they want to, why should we let them take them on planes?

Pat CahalanFebruary 13, 2006 7:04 PM

> We don't let people ram hot pokers in children's ears on occasion becase they
> want to, why should we let them take them on planes?

Any other solutions for getting a child from point A to point B? I hope you're not seriously suggesting that children only travel internationally via train and tramp steamer?

Davi OttenheimerFebruary 13, 2006 7:35 PM

"the kids are the ones *in pain*"

no, we're all in pain from flying. the kids just haven't accepted yet what is considered acceptable by adults (both in terms of giving and receiving). in that sense, children are a good reminder of a "normal" human response versus a sort of conformity we might have squeezed and boxed ourselves into.

while the cartoon shows what some adults might deem as "un/acceptable", i must say it's odd that the woman appears to be wearing her shoes (let alone clothes) and carrying a large black box through the scanner.

Elda TalutaFebruary 14, 2006 1:17 PM

@Davi

- He was refering to the inability for small children, particularly those with headcolds, to perform the valsalva maneuver. Not to being packed in like sardines.

ratdogAugust 14, 2006 2:50 PM

A response to the comment about a child crying in first class. On a recent flight I was sitting in coach. A mother in first class had a small child with her. Every time the child started screaming, they sent her back to coach to sit behind me in an unoccupied seat. In this case it was "we shouldn't have to listen to this in first class. Go inflict the slobs in coach with the squalling brat".

NavyNCAugust 7, 2007 2:43 PM

I'm sorry if this sounds heartless, but I pay a lot of money for the peace and quiet of first class. I don't think that children should be allowed to sit in first class. It isn't fair to those of us who have paid a higher fare.

frustratedMarch 12, 2008 9:14 AM

Oh my god who do you think you are - how dare you say children have any less right to sit in first class - if you don't like the noise go charter a flight you arrogant pompous characters. I'm going to make sure my kids make as much noise as they want to, if they're happy i'm happy!!!!!!!
Happy Flying!

Grumpy FlyerAugust 14, 2008 11:52 PM

Having just been sleep deprived on both legs of a flight from Denmark to Australia, thereby missing out on being able to do anything interesting once I landed except sleep, and this being entirely due to screaming infants, I would politely like to suggest that airlines wall off the rows where they put parents-with-infants in a separate compartment with sound proof bulkheads, so that their noise doesn't disturb the rest of the passengers. It would not cost a huge amount (would it?) and then that group which can understand and even seems to be proud of the amount of noise their kids make could just share it among themselves.
Think about it, airlines, you already give this group a very spacious allocation compared to normal economy seats - why not use it to everyone's comfort?

JuniperSeptember 5, 2008 8:43 PM

Parenthood: When you stop being concerned about how your behavior affects others and start complaining about how other's behavior affects your child.

Honestly, as a pilot, I see no reason for kids in first. There needs to be a place for those willing to pay extra to be treated slightly better. They are paying for a better ride, better food, and a nicer cabin. That can be destroyed with a single crying child.

I travel a lot. I commute to and from work and the reality is that I can tell you which kids will be holy terrors on the plane before the flight leaves the ground. All kids may have a moment here and there but the kids that make the entire flight hell are obvious long before boarding begins and it is ALWAYS the parents behavior that tells me this, not the child's.

Having an area free from the interference of children that costs extra (first class) is not asking much. Most parents are willing to accept that other people don't want to deal with their kids. Then there are the few that insist their screaming kids should be allowed to disturb those in first class. These are probably the same parents that take their screaming kids to rated R movies.

FrustratedJanuary 24, 2010 9:01 PM

I think there should be an age restriction on children sitting in first class. I paid $70 to upgrade and a couple with 2 young kids were also in business class. The 2 year old kept throwing things at my seat and the infant screamed the entire time. When my children were young, I did not fly first class. I also did not bring my infants to evening movies. Its a short time of your life, parents, they grow up soon. Be considerate to others.

Leave a comment

Allowed HTML: <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre>

Photo of Bruce Schneier by Per Ervland.

Schneier on Security is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Co3 Systems, Inc..