Airline Baby-Ban

[Bini]

Malaysia Airlines has banned babies in the first-class sections of its Boeing 747-400 jets. It also plans to do the same in its yet-to-be-delivered Airbus A380 superjumbo jets..

Here's one source. Should more airlines follow?

[friedmann]

I would personally say that someone flying first class expects a certain level of comfort, including extended space to sit, the opportunity to sleep during the flight and also to be undisturbed in order to work, for example. Having (small) children on board in this part of the aircraft contradicts these standards so much that there is no alternative to excluding small children from first class. They can be anywhere else though, in classes where people don't pay extra money in order not to have small sitting children next to them.

This might sound hostile, but I have spent a 12 hour transcontinental economy class flight sitting next to a maybe two year old boy. It may be nice for a while, but he was literally screaming during the whole flight and his mother did not make any efforts to calm him down at least a little bit. Now, I didn't say anything since it was a cheap ticket I bought (and I would be able to stand some suffering in return), and no one else complained, as far as I could see, but if I would have met the same boy in the first class department and would have paid $10k to fly from Los Angeles to Frankfurt, there might have been another reaction. Even by me family-friendly fellow.

Edited July 13, 2011 by friedmann

[HoosierGuy]

Babies are human and have, basically, the same rights as someone in their teens, twenties, eighties, etc... A ban on babies is prejudiced and wrong.

[Dravin]

Here's one source. Should more airlines follow?

I don't know that more should follow. Really depends what you mean by should, I don't think people have any sort of right to a baby free environment. Now businesses are free to discriminate based on things that aren't a protected class. As far as I know being a baby is not a protected class (obviously this thinking is highly ethnocentric) and if a business thinks they can capture market share by eliminating babies from first class they are free to do so.

If it's a smart move money wise (and thus something they should do in that sense) is something the market would tell I suppose.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest]

I have a whole mess of kids, and I've flown cross-country with them, and even though they did beautifully (with a lot of work and preparation on our part) it wasn't easy. I wouldn't be insulted if those who pay for a first-class experience want to fly child-free. Kids don't need extra leg room, anyway.

[Guest Sachi001]

Flights within Continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii can not ban. It is age discrimmination.

[FunkyTown]

Flying with kids is tough. Young kids don't really understand that their ears will pop and they'll feel pain, so crying and screaming is a very normal experience. It's hard to explain, 'Okay - Plug your nose. Now blow. This will equalize the pressure.' to a kid under three. Or 3. Heck - When they're screaming, it can be a whole lot older.

If I had paid a ton of money and was sat next to a screaming child, I think I would not be happy.

[pam]

The poll doesn't really give an indication as to my thoughts. I would agree that if I spent a ton of money to fly first class, I would be highly annoyed over a crying baby during the flight. When I flew to Georgia last year, I sat next to a couple whose baby cried almost the entire way. I was highly annoyed as it was a red eye flight.

Yet the poll doesn't give options about thoughts on older kids. Many older kids can be very well behaved and I wouldn't have a problem with them in first class.

[Bini]

The poll doesn't really give an indication as to my thoughts. I would agree that if I spent a ton of money to fly first class, I would be highly annoyed over a crying baby during the flight. When I flew to Georgia last year, I sat next to a couple whose baby cried almost the entire way. I was highly annoyed as it was a red eye flight.

Yet the poll doesn't give options about thoughts on older kids. Many older kids can be very well behaved and I wouldn't have a problem with them in first class.

Pam, I should have added a fourth poll with the option which you've suggested. However, after reading a couple articles on the topic, it's my understanding that the baby-ban applies to children that are 2-years of age and younger. At least, for that specific flight and in First Class. But it has been rumoured that there are (if not already in the process of doing so) other airlines that will be following suit and banning children all together from some flights? I'm assuming by "children" this could be anyone 12-years of age or younger?

We don't fly First Class. It's too expensive for us. But we are frequent flyers in Business Class for abroad trips. I agree that First Class should remain a kid-free zone, so to speak, and keep Business and Economy family-friendly. In most cases that we've flown, we haven't encountered that many "families" in Business Class. So I don't really have many complaints about crying/misbehaving children. Maybe we've been lucky? That's not to say I haven't heard it, or haven't heard it coming from the cabin behind us in Economy.. Most families with young children are reserved seats upfront by the "bulkheads" which is RIGHT NEXT to Business Class.

[Canuck Mormon]

Why not have 3 seperate sections:

First Class - No one under the age of 12

Family Class - No one under the age of 4

Nursery Class - Familes with children of all ages

Have a hard partition between each section and everyone is happy.

[Gwen]

I don't think it's ethical but the airlines have that right. If they think there is a big enough market for "kid free flights" then why not have one or two and see if ppl want it. I think it would be foolish of them to make it as uncomfortable as possible for ppl to fly with their family, but again that's their right.

I think the trend is more a reflection of where we are as a society. It's sad that kids are that ill diciplined that ppl don't want to be around them. I also think it's sad that ppl are that offended by children.

When we go out to eat and we first walk in you can see the looks and stares from ppl around us. They don't want to sit by our big family. Nearly every time those same ppl as they leave come over and comment about how well behaved our kids are and it was a pleasure to sit by us. I don't say it to brag though i do like getting such comments. at the same time it saddens me because they wouldn't make such comments if it was common for kids to behave.

[rubondfan2]

I am thinking that firstly, how big of a problem is this anyway, and therefore, how much of a perceived negative impact would there be? How many passengers who have the funds to fly first class (especially on transcontinental flights) are going to be lugging along their infant to sit on their lap. For ages over two years, you'd have to pay the first class fare for them too, which I would guess most would find excessive. (Could you imagine shelling out 4 or 5 figures to have yourself and your 3 year-old with you in first class? In the end, I would guess this "ban" would only affect a very, very small percentage of potential flyers wanting to bring their little ones along.

Secondly, and to the point that was made earlier (Gwen, I think), businesses absolutely have the right to institute such a policy. We, the consumers are free to support or not support those policies with our dollars. This is what free market is all about... if there is a huge backlash from paying customers when this policy goes into effect, then the company (who in the end of it all is out to make a profit) may back off from their position. Alternatively, if consumers keep buying tickets to board those flights on that airline, then the policy will stick and might even be expanded, not only by that particular airline but by competitors watching the situation very closely.

I'm personally not excited enough about this issue to go wave a sign on the street corner, but I can see how some others might be.

[Dravin]

Flights within Continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii can not ban. It is age discrimmination.

Do you have a cite for that? The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 prevents age discrimination in employment with respect to those age 40 or older, so banning children from first class isn't an issue with either aspect. There is the Age Discrimination act of 1975, but it's unclear that it's applicable to the situation, though I do confess I'm not a lawyer.

Poking around some finds that a restaurant banned children under the age of 6 in Pennsylvania. There is an article here ( Legal to Ban Children from Your Business? | Reuters ) that suggest it is legal under federal law to do such a ban, particularly since it's more akin to having an adult only party room rather than a complete ban. Though an article on Reuters by someone from FindLaw.com isn't exactly bankable so I'm very much open for correction with something more substantial.

[Gwen]

I think businesses that make such bans ought to be very forward about it.

Just after my first was born, hubby and I decided to go to a movie. We had to drive an hour to find a theater. When we got there the only one we wanted to see (no we didn't decide before we left) started at 9pm. It was like 7 so we decided to buy the ticket and go to dinner and come back. I had the baby in my arms when we bought the ticket, the lady said nothing, there were no signs or anything. So we went to dinner and waited around till 9. We went back and on the way in someone stopped me, my baby was sleeping in a carry pouch, and told me they had a no children after 9 policy. They did offer a refund but that didn't fix the wasted evening of waiting around for nothing to make the hour drive home.

I probably could have thrown a fit but to what end? They had the right, where they messed up was the lady not telling me when we bought the ticket. I've never been back there either, that is my right. lol

[Bini]

I think businesses that make such bans ought to be very forward about it.

Just after my first was born, hubby and I decided to go to a movie. We had to drive an hour to find a theater. When we got there the only one we wanted to see (no we didn't decide before we left) started at 9pm. It was like 7 so we decided to buy the ticket and go to dinner and come back. I had the baby in my arms when we bought the ticket, the lady said nothing, there were no signs or anything. So we went to dinner and waited around till 9. We went back and on the way in someone stopped me, my baby was sleeping in a carry pouch, and told me they had a no children after 9 policy. They did offer a refund but that didn't fix the wasted evening of waiting around for nothing to make the hour drive home.

I probably could have thrown a fit but to what end? They had the right, where they messed up was the lady not telling me when we bought the ticket. I've never been back there either, that is my right. lol

Gwen, that is very frustrating. I agree that if a company/business is going to enforce certain rules and regulations, it should be posted where customers can read it and know what to expect. At the very least, have employees mention certain limitations etc upon purchasing from them.

A similar incident occured when I was a kid with my family. We were visitors in the area but were recommended to try out this up-scale restaurant. Because it was a nicer place, we knew we'd have to dress appropriately and did so, we wore our Sunday best. Turns out, after having made reservations in advance, the restaurant does not allow customers to wear open-toed shoes and men had to wear a jacket and tie.. Lol. Yeh, my dad wasn't impressed haha. Especially since he wears traditional Filipino shirt as his Sunday best and not jacket and tie.. Then there was the issue that me and my sister wore dress sandals..

[LDSJewess]

I have been in the airline and travel business for many years and began my career as a flight attendant.

From personal expreience, there have been loud obnoxious drunks in first class that were more annoying than a crying baby.

That being said, I think First class could be reserved for older children and adults so that those opting to pay the high prices for a first class ticket can get owrk done or sleep on their flight. This would be especially good for longer flights.

My pet peeves are not crying babies. Babies cry. The issue is with uncontrolled children that are toddler to adolescent. Often I have seen parents just ignore bad behavior in children and that is not just limited toi airplanes but in other public places, busses, shopping malls, you name it (even church).

I also have an issue with airlines that do not follow the FAA safety rules of disallowing ANYONE, (especially children and elderly people), to occupy the seats in the emergency rows. I have seen this all too often on some airlines. On one particular flight we had to do a flyover (aborted landing), and of course my instincts were to mentally count the rows t the nearest exit as a percautionary measure and the row was occupied by two youing parents, a toddler and a lap baby. Had there been an emergency landing, this seating arrangement could cost lives.

[KellyLC]

My pet peeves are not crying babies. Babies cry. The issue is with uncontrolled children that are toddler to adolescent. Often I have seen parents just ignore bad behavior in children and that is not just limited toi airplanes but in other public places, busses, shopping malls, you name it (even church).

I also have an issue with airlines that do not follow the FAA safety rules of disallowing ANYONE, (especially children and elderly people), to occupy the seats in the emergency rows. I have seen this all too often on some airlines. On one particular flight we had to do a flyover (aborted landing), and of course my instincts were to mentally count the rows t the nearest exit as a percautionary measure and the row was occupied by two youing parents, a toddler and a lap baby. Had there been an emergency landing, this seating arrangement could cost lives.

I agree. The safety regulations need to be followed; keep the emergency row clear. I haven't flown in a long time, but I understand how hard it is on both sides from both a child and adult viewpoint:

When I was a little girl my family and I had to make trips back and forth to Philadephia and back because we were seeing a doctor there about physical therapy to stop a complex seizure condition (I posted more about my condition in my introduction thread) and most of the trips were by airplane. When my ears would pop from the pressure--I still remember the pain to this day--it hurt so bad I'd start screaming and crying. I can't be mad at a child if he or she's in pain and can't help it.

However, if toddlers to adolescents are throwing fits and/or running unsupervised up and down the aisles, someone needs to take action then and there and put a stop to it.

Edited July 23, 2011 by KellyLC

[PrinceofLight2000]

Perhaps there should be age limitations on first class seats?

[MarginOfError]

Babies are human and have, basically, the same rights as someone in their teens, twenties, eighties, etc... A ban on babies is prejudiced and wrong.

The comment before the ellipsis doesn't really have any relation to the one after.

Airlines are well within their rights to offer child free flights or sections of seating.

[sixpacktr]

I'm noticing a slow slide towards hostility towards children in the world at large. It used to be that people had kids, they went everywhere with them, and people adapted and put up with it. Maybe kids were a tad better behaved then or not (I don't know, I'm an older codger and just want my peace and quiet uninterrupted). Then, abortion was ruled constitutional, and the unborn were ruled to be a choice and not a viable human (I'm not trying to start a war here, just my perception of things. This is not in any chronological order either, as lots of these overlap). Then women began to enter the workforce in more and more numbers because of convenience, bills, a desire to not have to deal with kids all day, etc. (again, pls hold the darts!) and families started to shrink because of cost or convenience, etc. And as parents spent more time being away from the kids, who they put in daycare to raise their kids instead of them, they started to feel more and more guilty for not spending more time with them, so they started indulging them more with material things to compensate. And kids began acting out more, it seemed, with little discipline from their parents because they didn't want to hurt little Johnny or Suzie's ego. Now we have companies (restaurants, theatres, airlines) banning kids from certain times, or sections, or altogether.

I remember reading an article not too long ago written by a person talking about the not too distant future, in which hearing the laugh of a child will be a rare thing when you're out in public. He was talking of these types of laws that ban children so that they don't 'bother' us adults.

I used to travel a lot. 10s of thousands if not 100s of thousands of miles per year on planes both domestic and overseas. Have had my share of crying children. Worst was a flight from Korea to Atlanta (16 hours, if I remember right). I landed in Seoul from Sydney Australia (10 hours) at 5 a.m. for a 10 a.m. flight to Atlanta, and when I got to the gate, there were 2 kids screaming their guts out. Let's just say I tried to crash but couldn't. I sat about 7 or 8 rows behind them on the flight, and they screamed for most of the flight. NO ONE was happy about that! But blame the kids? Nope. I blamed the brain-dead mothers for that. Didn't do a darn thing to quiet the kids. Those kids needed some Dimetapp or Benadryl or something to take the edge off and sleep.

I've rambled long enough. I fear that Satan is winning in his war to destroy the family by making those with kids outcasts. I read somewhere that David Beckham is being ridiculed for having 4 kids. I listened to a talk show host yesterday talk about penalizing those with more kids with more taxes. And there are those in the 'green' movement that say that having kids destroys the planet.

I remember sitting in a church meeting when I lived in Japan in the 80s when our Bishop said that he had read that the Prophet Joseph said that the day would come when only LDS women would be willing to have kids. That may be a faith-promoting rumor, I never had had a chance to check up on it, and I'm sure that there are lots of other men and women out there that love kids and will have them no matter what, but aren't we as a society edging towards that now?

Edited July 27, 2011 by sixpacktr