Thread: Hell: Bad parenting 101 (formerly Control your spoiled brat, please!) Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000612

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
This story has been raising eyebrows this side of the pond. For fifteen minutes, an entire plane was delayed because a three year old refused to sit in her seat. She was hitting her parents, who were being magnificently ineffective. They were all asked to leave the plane. The airline has since apologized, refunded their money, and offered them free tickets anywhere. So - there's the reward for having a kid who runs the show.

The parents said "kids are kids". It's hard enough raising three well-mannered children without having other parents basically acting like their kids are entitled to disrupt the lives of 115 people trying to go somewhere.

All children need to learn that there are times when they are not the center of the universe. That's most of the time, in fact. I'm sick to my death of entitled kids and their hopeless parents. Your kids don't need you for a friend. They need parents.

[changed thread title to accurately reflect my intention in ranting. Because I'm an admin and I can. [Big Grin] ]

[ 04. April 2007, 13:39: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
 
Posted by Jimmy B (# 220) on :
 
Great - what does the airline do? Reward them. [Roll Eyes]

Refunding their money *or* giving them tickets for the same destination at another time would have been sufficient.

They had their money refunded *and* they got free tickets.

~Waiting for avalanche of parent-coached toddler tantrums from ppl trying to exploit the system!~
 
Posted by Pax Romana (# 4653) on :
 
The flight attendants did the right thing. Nobody has the right to hold up a plane with 115 people on it just because of a restless three-year-old.

It was not the fault of the child. The parents needed to exercise some control.

Maybe I am showing my age here, but I was NEVER allowed to disrupt things like that when I was little, and I was absolutely never allowed to hit my parents. And look how I turned out!

[Biased]

Pax Romana
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
If someone who is not a parent, but was a child at one time might be allowed to comment...

If you want to have children, that is fine with me. HOWEVER, if you have children, please raise them and be a parent and not their best friend. I get very disgusted at children who do not receive effective discipline from their parents and then are let out into the streets. [Mad]

If I had been running the airline, I would have given the money back and informed them that we did not desire any of their patronage in the future.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
It's good to be reminded from time to time how many people hate children.

From the article, it sounds like the crisis and the delay were both caused by idiot cabin staff. Three year-olds throw tantrums. Even the ones who have strict parents. All the cabins staff I've ever seen deal with this remarkably common sort of situation de-dramatise and offer concrete tips for getting the kid into the seat. It sounds like on this occasion they shouted at the parents from the aisle while waving a large stopwatch in their faces. I hope the got career counselling and are now working somewhere that their hatred of children can be put to good use. An English restaurant for example.
 
Posted by Izzybee (# 10931) on :
 
While I do want to give this family the benefit of the doubt (wondering if perhaps their child has a disability that makes things tougher on them, or makes it harder for the child to relate to bucking into a seat restraint), I have to say that as a mother of a 5 year old who flys fairly regularly, I wonder how they get her into a car seat when they're taking her anywhere. Flying in a plane is the exact same concept, but with the added freedom (certainly in my daughter's mind) that she doesn't have a five-point harness, just a tiny lap-belt that makes her feel very grown-up indeed.

Having read the story linked to above, it seems that the parents actually argued with the flight attendants about whether she should have to wear a seat belt or not, asking whether she could just sit on her mother's lap instead. That's one thing I've always tried not to do - argue with someone about my childs safety, or the procedures of any place we happen to be visiting, and especially while my daughter is watching. How does she grow up listening to people who are telling her what she needs to do if she feels that she can overrule any authority whenever she chooses? There are some times in life where negotiation is not appropriate, and that is generally when you're at the mercy of someone elses rules - in this case the FAA.

This really irritates me. I've always gone out of my way to make sure my daughter causes the least possible problems to anyone we happen to be on a plane with. It takes preparation, planning, and a whole lot of attention to my daughter and her behavior (and on one memorable occasion, some childrens benadryl). The result of this is that not only do my fellow passengers have as pleasant a journey is possible on a transatlantic coach flight, but my daughter has a better time too. Structure is a good thing.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Izzybee:
The result of this is that not only do my fellow passengers have as pleasant a journey is possible on a transatlantic coach flight, but my daughter has a better time too. Structure is a good thing.

That's marvellous. Next time I see a kid screaming in agony because he has a cold and his ears won't clear properly during take-off, and all the other passengers are making soto voce comments about the parents, I'll make sure I tell those parents that their child needs more structure.

Plenty of adults become irrational when faced with the prospect of flying, but getting all three year-olds to behave rationally is a simple question of structure. Marvellous...
 
Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :
 
I agree that one child cannot be allowed to hold up a whole airplane full of people. However I do remember flying with a two year old and being offered an extender strap for my seat-belt so that she could sit on my lap during take-off and landing (the noisiest and so scariest part of the flight for children.) Is it so hard to work around these problems?
 
Posted by Otter (# 12020) on :
 
Count me in on the "angry that the airline rewarded the family" group. I'm sure it was horrible to be removed from the plane, but I just can't feel that they deserve any more than an alternate flight home.

I am soooo glad that the Otter Pup is finally big enough that we don't automatically get stuck in the Kid Ghetto at restaurants, etc. I understand why it happens, since it's not obvious if we had one of the problem children or not. We've always he insisted the he behave like a civilized human being, and it really sucked being stuck in with the brats.

And what is it with parents taking kids to age-inappropriate places? (Not saying that smalls shouldn't be on airplanes, just a related rant!) What part of an R-rating made you think this was a good movie for a five-year-old, who is now crying in terror? Why are you dawdling over your late meal at a very fancy restaurant with an obviously bored/tired toddler?
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Otter:
Count me in on the "angry that the airline rewarded the family" group.

Has anyone here read the article?! The family turned down the "reward". But don't let that get in the way of a good rant...
 
Posted by R.D. Olivaw (# 9990) on :
 
At first when I saw the headline and the picture of the kid I thought that I had accidentally clicked The Onion. I travel with my kids (10 and 4) all of the time and I cannot imagine letting them act that way. Sit your butt down, put a sock in your pie hole and stop your belly aching. Now.

I know a child like the girl in question and she's like a feral mongoose. I had her over once and she bit my daughter and drew blood over a cookie. I'm not joking. You see kids like this all over the place running, screaming, snarling, spitting...hair like a fright wig, shoes on the wrong feet, barking orders like little generals. They're usually followed by a beleaguered, mealy mouthed mother handing out treats and praise and apologizing to those caught up in the whirlwind.

I realize it's impolite but I want to say, "Nut up! Woman! Your kid's a menace." Instead I whisper to my little darlings..."if you EVER act like that..."
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
It's good to be reminded from time to time how many people hate children.

I don't hate children. I hate parents who can't be bothered to discipline their children.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
It's good to be reminded from time to time how many people hate children.

I love children, and you can go to Hell for suggesting that someone who thinks children deserve good parenting hates children. Oh, we're already there. Anyway, apparently you think the way to "love" children is not to teach them how to behave and to be considerate of others.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
That's marvellous. Next time I see a kid screaming in agony because he has a cold and his ears won't clear properly during take-off, and all the other passengers are making soto voce comments about the parents, I'll make sure I tell those parents that their child needs more structure.

In this case, there was no "agony" because the plane couldn't take off. I absolutely hate it when people expand the rant to include things not ranted about. The rant is aboutnot getting in your seat so the plane can take off. A sick kid, is a sick kid, and that's a totally different story. I say this as somebody who regularly has helped overwhelmed parents entertain kids on a plane and who has flown internationally with small children.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
The original rant had nothing to do with "structure" either. There are 101 reasons why the child may not have wanted to do up her seat belt. How was her last flying experience, for example (this was a return flight, right?) I'm writing this as someone who has also flown with children, but who doesn't think that every tantrum by anyone else's child has to be used to bolster my own parental insecurities.
 
Posted by Smudgie (# 2716) on :
 
The fact that they turned down the offer is irrelevant - it should never have been offered. There is no evidence from the account that there was any medical reason for the child to react adversely to being buckled in - I am sure the family would have mentioned it if there were. And I would guess that she had flown before, if we assume that that was how they got to the grandparents' in the first place. We only have the parents' account as to the way in which the cabin crew reacted.

What struck me was that the child was in a seat in front of the seats of the parents. Why was she not sitting alongside one of them and the other parent sitting separately if the only seats available were in twos? A lot of this situation might have been avoided if that were the case.

It is not necessarily child-hating to expect a child to be raised to behave in a way that keeps them safe, sociable and aware of behaviour boundaries. There is too much information missing from this news story to form a clear judgement on the situation. But it is an indictment of the way currently in society that nothing is ever our "fault" or "just one of those things" that the airline felt they had to over-compensate the family. Had my children behaved in that way and we had been asked to leave the plane, I would certainly not be questioning that decision, furious though I might be at the situation I then found myself in. But then every child I have cared for has found that when they undo their car seat, the car stops.. and that when they tantrum or misbehave when we're out, we soon find ourselves back at home... and even with the ADHD children and the very young children I have cared for, it hasn't taken them very long at all to catch on that actions have consequences, regardless of your age.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
It's good to be reminded from time to time how many people hate children.

I love children, and you can go to Hell for suggesting that someone who thinks children deserve good parenting hates children. Oh, we're already there. Anyway, apparently you think the way to "love" children is not to teach them how to behave and to be considerate of others.
Ah, but at the tender age of three it is abusive to require anything of the little sweetums. [Roll Eyes] Wait 'til they are in nursery school, better yet kindergarten, to get someone else to rein them in. Saves wear-and-tear on the poor, beleaguered parents.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
Clairvoyant or what? From another version of the story:
quote:
Her mom thinks it may have been because of the ear surgery Elly underwent earlier this month, and perhaps her memory of the discomfort and ear pressure she endured during the plane’s descent into Florida.
Recently post-operative child, anticipation of ear-ache following bad experience of outward flight. But you're right, Laura, the parents should just have beaten her senseless for the good of the other passengers.

[ 30. January 2007, 18:03: Message edited by: Melon ]
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
I do remember flying with a two year old and being offered an extender strap for my seat-belt so that she could sit on my lap during take-off and landing (the noisiest and so scariest part of the flight for children.) Is it so hard to work around these problems?

That's legal with a two-year-old, but not with a three-year-old. FAA rules, not within the discretion of the flight attendants.

It does sound as though part of the problem was that the child was not seated next to either parent, but was sitting on the row in front of them. One thing the flight attendant could have done (and perhaps should have, and maybe did) was asked for volunteers to swap seats so that the child was seated between her parents. That might have solved the problem with less drama for everyone.

Or maybe not. Without knowing more, it's really hard to say.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
But you're right, Laura, the parents should just have beaten her senseless for the good of the other passengers.

Wow, Melon. I had no idea you disliked me so much that you attribute that sort of sentiment to me. Believe it or not, I'm actually sort of hurt by that. I don't ever recall having any unpleasant interaction with you before, or ever saying anything that would make you think I advocated child abuse.

In any case, if the parents knew she'd had this sort of trauma before and after 15 minutes weren't getting anywhere, they should have said so and taken her off the plane. It doesn't matter why a three year old is delaying an entire plane-ful of people. It matters that the parents have the responsibility to solve the problem one way or another, and in this case if that was not just ex post facto justification on their part, they were tormenting her by keeping her on the plane.
 
Posted by Izzybee (# 10931) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Clairvoyant or what? From another version of the story:
quote:
Her mom thinks it may have been because of the ear surgery Elly underwent earlier this month, and perhaps her memory of the discomfort and ear pressure she endured during the plane’s descent into Florida.
Recently post-operative child, anticipation of ear-ache following bad experience of outward flight. But you're right, Laura, the parents should just have beaten her senseless for the good of the other passengers.
So you're flying with a post-operative child why exactly? Ear pain sucks during take-off - I've had it myself (resulting in an inner ear condition) and had to control a then-two-year-old who had it - and she was in severe distress. It doesn't mean I let her hit me the next time we got on a plane. Thing is, you've bought tickets for a flight. You've agreed to abide by the rules and regulations of the flight and the FAA. If a cop pulls me over and my child isn't buckled in, I can't give him a story about how the kid doesn't like it.

There are rules. There are rules for a reason. If you're going to be flying, then you have to follow the rules set forth in the airplane. If your child has just had surgery, then move your plans or drive instead.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It does sound as though part of the problem was that the child was not seated next to either parent, but was sitting on the row in front of them. One thing the flight attendant could have done (and perhaps should have, and maybe did) was asked for volunteers to swap seats so that the child was seated between her parents. That might have solved the problem with less drama for everyone.

I didn't understand this, either. A three year old needs a parent next to him or her, or a flight can be really scary. I would have thought that a little shifting around might have been in order to deal with that, if that was the problem.

[eta: I should have titled this thread Bad Parenting or similar, and not said anything about the kid. A three year old's misbehavior is not the child's fault, but the parents' fault.]

[ 30. January 2007, 18:22: Message edited by: Laura ]
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Izzybee:
If a cop pulls me over and my child isn't buckled in, I can't give him a story about how the kid doesn't like it.

In fact, there was an awful accident lately nearly where a child had been badly injured because she just wouldn't stay in her child seat and so the parents just let her roam the car, the way we all did in the olden days. It's a safety issue, at least for cars, and in the air it certainly can be, too.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
[crossposted with Laura and others, so a bit of repetition here]

Melon, your peculiar confusion is that anyone's blaming the child. Whatever was making the kid cry doesn't really matter, in this case, because the long and short of it is that the parents didn't handle it right. If the child was crying for a good reason, the parents should helped her there if possible or taken her off the plane to help her elsewhere if necessary. If the child was cryign for a bad reason, the parents should have used appropriate* discipline to force the child to sit in her seat or have taken her off the plane to handle the situation somewhere else.


*note I said appropriate here, so don't pretend I said beat senseless here, that's just what Laura does when her kids won't eat their vegetables [Big Grin]

[ 30. January 2007, 18:24: Message edited by: Gwai ]
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
Apologies in advance for injecting some more inconvenient facts into everyone's invective, but this article says that the reason given for removing the family was that the child had assaulted another passenger (ie her mother [brick wall] ) and that the attendant "helping" spent the whole time with a walky-talky pressed to her ear. The outward flight went fine (and the mother had lots of colouring books, which is structure, which is A Good Thing, right?)

And the company statement says
quote:
We do believe the situation could have been handled differently... We will use this case as a means to train our agents on dealing with this type of situation on our flights... While there are FAA regulations that mandate all passengers have to be securely fastened in their seat belts before a plane can depart, we need to work with our customers in situations like this to help them — and that is what we will focus on.
Idiot airline staff, which the carrier recognises, but, never mind, keep blaming the three year-old...
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Why does a manager exceptign blame to avoid a law suit mean there was actually fault? Please remember we're not evil and stop and breathe!
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
It's good to be reminded from time to time how many people hate children.

From the article, it sounds like the crisis and the delay were both caused by idiot cabin staff.

95% of the report is from the kid's family. It would sound like that.
quote:

Three year-olds throw tantrums. Even the ones who have strict parents. All the cabins staff I've ever seen deal with this remarkably common sort of situation de-dramatise and offer concrete tips for getting the kid into the seat. It sounds like on this occasion they shouted at the parents from the aisle while waving a large stopwatch in their faces.

You are taking what the brat's family is supposed to have said at face value. Were you on the plane?

Still it all ends happily: The Kulesza family won't travel AirTran again and AirTran won't have them aboard again.

[tangent] I used ridicule with the most tantrum prone toddler of ours. "Call that a tantrum? I've seen hamsters throw better tantrums than that" or similar. Raised a few eyebrows in Sainsbury's.

[ 30. January 2007, 18:30: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
If the child was crying for a good reason, the parents should helped her there if possible or taken her off the plane to help her elsewhere if necessary.

Hellooooooo? Maybe you can still wander around American airports as if they are shopping malls, but getting off a plane that is prepared for take-off in Europe would delay the plane for far longer than it would have taken to calm down the three year-old. AFAICT, if I want to blow up a plane in the US, I put the bomb in my suitcase, get onto the plane, get off the plane because I forgot to water my swiss cheese plant and retire to a suitable vantage point from which to watch the explosion. Is that really how it works?
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
You are taking what the brat's family is supposed to have said at face value. Were you on the plane?

No, but the airline appear to agree with me.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
You are taking what the brat's family is supposed to have said at face value. Were you on the plane?

No, but the airline appear to agree with me.
The airline are doing what every big commercial organisation does: making itself look as sweet as possible.

As for the second article to which you provide a link : it has in big letters across the top "OPINION". Not news. Probably written by someone who think kids should rule the world.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The airline are doing what every big commercial organisation does: making itself look as sweet as possible.

I see. So the parents and the airline appear to agree on who was to blame, but The Truth Is Out There. So y'all have a theory that operates independently of any evidence?
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Apologies in advance for injecting some more inconvenient facts into everyone's invective, ...

These "facts" all appear to come entirely from the family, not a wholly unbiased source, perhaps?

I think Sioni's point was that the airline is saying what you'd expect it to say.

[ 30. January 2007, 18:44: Message edited by: Laura ]
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
*note I said appropriate here, so don't pretend I said beat senseless here, that's just what Laura does when her kids won't eat their vegetables [Big Grin]

Better be quiet. Melon appears ready to brand me an advocate of child abuse for suggesting that in order to fly, a child should be strapped into a seat even over her protests. I should hardly wish to be reported to the authorities for vegetable insistence.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
Ok, so you are discounting any evidence from the family AND anything that the company says? Does that leave anything on which to base the OP apart from naked prejudice?

I'm sure the 3 year-old hadn't packed a gas cylinder in her suitcase, which is what held up one flight I took recently. In terms of taking off on time, I'll go for a plane full of families any day, especially if it means we can jettison the childless couples who have mistaken the plane for the smoking room of the Ritz. On another recent flight, a group of singles insisted in sitting in the emergency exit seats and then fought a running battle with the stewards to avoid putting their luggage in a safe place. In that case, it wasn't just their safety, it was potentially the lives of everyone on the plane. But they weren't three years old, so they were cut more slack.
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
On the whole, I agree with those who say that the parents should have a better grip on things. However, it is not easy to stem a major tantrum in a confined public place. I would need to know the family to judge if they were useless at parenting, or whether this was a very bad day in an unfortunate place.

Actually, the only bit of the story to amaze me was that the luggage was left on. Over here, if you're not on the plane, nor is your luggage - at least in theory. I've been on one flight where they were on the point of unloading the luggage to reove the bags of the no-shows, when the offending parties finally showed up (to ironic applause).

I did endure one hellish tantrum from SC on a bus once. He screamed the place down. I couldn't get off, as I was going to pick up 5 year old BC from a sports training, and the next bus wouldn't be for half an hour. The worst aspect of the tantrum was an old woman on the bus who kept up a running commentary about stupid and ineffective modern parents, and urging me to give him a good spanking. I eventually told her that he was behaving badly because he was two years old, tired and cross. "What's your excuse?" I asked. It's the only time I can remember being deliberately rude to another adult in public. Rude and a terrible parent, all in one hit! Go me!
 
Posted by Izzybee (# 10931) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
(and the mother had lots of colouring books, which is structure, which is A Good Thing, right?)

Coloring books is not structure. Letting your child know where their boundaries are is structure. Letting them know that there are rules that not even god-like-mommy-and-daddy can ignore, and that there are consequenses for not following those rules is structure.

In my mind, structure is preparing your child for the flight - talking to them about what to expect and how they should behave appropriately, making sure that they can easily follow your directions when the time comes. Structure involves doing what is possible to make your childs experience easier, but not at the expense of everyone around you.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Melon appears ready to brand me an advocate of child abuse for suggesting that in order to fly, a child should be strapped into a seat even over her protests.

Have you ever tried this? The whole problem with passenger seat belts in the first place is that they don't secure passengers very well, and they secure three year-olds less securely than anyone else. That's why anything designed to secure a three year-old is three or five point.

To stop my kids from slipping out of a two-point seat belt when they were that age you'd have to have tightened it to a point where it cut grooves in their pelvis. If you have a parent each side and a third person to do up the belt (which means putting down the walky-talky), it might just work, otherwise the only solution is a negotiated solution.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Izzybee:
In my mind, structure is preparing your child for the flight - talking to them about what to expect and how they should behave appropriately, making sure that they can easily follow your directions when the time comes.

The outward flight apparently went like a dream, so they obviously had all that taped.
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Smudgie:
What struck me was that the child was in a seat in front of the seats of the parents. Why was she not sitting alongside one of them and the other parent sitting separately if the only seats available were in twos? A lot of this situation might have been avoided if that were the case.

Yes, I was thinking that myself. This was not right at all.

If the parents were sitting together, they screwed up bigtime, because one of them should have been sitting with the child.

If they ended up seperated, they could have pressed the handy call button and asked for assistance from staff.

If they knew the child had ear issues, they should have consulted their doctor and asked for advice on mitigation for flights (Benadryl, hard candies, etc.)

Where staff training comes in is that staff should have been able to do a quick assessment (in the absence of parents being unable to articulate this for themselves) and ask for volunteers to move seats. Once I was on a Southwest flight and the older child* seated next me away from family started crying. The flight attendant was on it like white on rice and I swapped seats with momma pretty fast to spare the plane an unhappy child. [Biased]

* He looked to be about five. SWA allows parties travelling with under-5s (maybe under-6s) to pre-board precisely so the tinies can get settled properly, although if they were late at the gate, they were SOL.
quote:
It is not necessarily child-hating to expect a child to be raised to behave in a way that keeps them safe, sociable and aware of behaviour boundaries. There is too much information missing from this news story to form a clear judgement on the situation.
Exactly.

The airline staff needs sensitivity training as well (and perhaps a lot more "empowerment" by the powers that be - SWA is generally a good experience because of that empowerment), but the parents dropped the ball.

Charlotte
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
If you have a parent each side and a third person to do up the belt (which means putting down the walky-talky), it might just work, otherwise the only solution is a negotiated solution.

I think that no three-year old should be without a parent on each side -- and if the airline is responsible for that lack in this situation, then I think they did screw up massively. With a parent right next to the child, it can work. But three year olds should not be "stranded" away from parents. I made the gate attendant reassign us all when the airline somehow forgot the seats we selected on booking, so that we could have at least one parent by each child under 13. A three year old alone is madness.

I can't figure out why, if there were two parents, the child wasn't next to at least one parent -- what's the deal with that? Airlines usually don't care if seats are swapped around.

[ 30. January 2007, 19:24: Message edited by: Laura ]
 
Posted by Pânts (# 999) on :
 
If it was Alien making that kind a fuss, I'd take her off and leave her behind.
 
Posted by Qestia (# 717) on :
 
I have little sympathy for these parents too. I usually have to manhandle my toddler to get him into his carseat, he screams like a banshee, for about a minute (feels like longer) till he realizes I'm serious and we will not be moving unless he is strapped in. So too with the little girl in the OP, the issue was not noise, but the fact she would not be belted in. Sometimes you have to force the little buggers to do what's best for them. It sucks rocks, especially if it involves them screaming in a public place, but it still must be done.


quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
[tangent] I used ridicule with the most tantrum prone toddler of ours. "Call that a tantrum? I've seen hamsters throw better tantrums than that" or similar. Raised a few eyebrows in Sainsbury's.

When our little one is pitching a fit we often ask him "How's that working for you? Getting what you want yet? No?" I feel mean... but it sometimes works.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Melon, do you know many companies that like bad PR? Because I don't. No shit they're making nice. That's not an admission of fault. Ask any lawyer.

quote:
Hellooooooo? Maybe you can still wander around American airports as if they are shopping malls, but getting off a plane that is prepared for take-off in Europe would delay the plane for far longer than it would have taken to calm down the three year-old.


Because OHMIGOD! What if they had to be put onto another plane, that would be the ENDOFDEWORLD! Oh wait, that happenned anway after much misbehavior on the parents' parts (and, if the airline refused to reseat, on the flight attendant's parts.)
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
Was the kid actually seated in front of the parents, or was she just sitting (on the floor) in front of the parents when they were asked to leave the plane?

quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
If you have a parent each side and a third person to do up the belt (which means putting down the walky-talky), it might just work, otherwise the only solution is a negotiated solution.

One of the problems around here is that saying or doing anything to another person's child is likely to get you smacked.

When I was a kid, it was generally accepted that if anyone bigger than you told you to quit misbehaving, it was a good idea to listen. That meant that I could tell the kid in the grocery store pulling the boxes off the shelf to knock it off, and the parent would back me up, and usually be thankful for the help.

These days, there's a good chance that they'll yell at me for talking to their kid or interfering with their parenting or calling them a bad parent when I was just trying to help them out a bit.

On the plus [Disappointed] side it fuels the reality TV industry, since I think there are now half a dozen nanny and wife swap programs about people trying to get their kids back under control.

The airline no doubt has a policy about how to handle unruly passengers. It realizes that the policy can't be used with kids the same way it is with adults. They have yet to develop a policy for handling unruly kids, but will soon. And in the meantime they're trying to make everyone happy.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Qestia:
When our little one is pitching a fit we often ask him "How's that working for you? Getting what you want yet? No?" I feel mean... but it sometimes works.

I've seen my sister burst out laughing at her sons tantrums. Well as she said if he wanted her to believe it was for real, checking he was safely on the rug first (i.e. had a safe landing space if he wanted to lie down and bang his feet on the floor) was not the way to go.

It of course worked, but the laughter has to be genuine.

Jengie
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Hellooooooo? Maybe you can still wander around American airports as if they are shopping malls, but getting off a plane that is prepared for take-off in Europe would delay the plane for far longer than it would have taken to calm down the three year-old.


Because OHMIGOD! What if they had to be put onto another plane, that would be the ENDOFDEWORLD! Oh wait, that happenned anway after much misbehavior on the parents' parts (and, if the airline refused to reseat, on the flight attendant's parts.)

No, what Melon means is that in Europe, removing someone from a flight would delay the whole flight for a very long time. Because your luggage cannot ever travel without you, so if someone leaves a flight, all the luggage in the hold has to be unloaded so that the departing passenger's luggage can be found and removed. It would also be common practice for all hand-luggage to be unloaded from the cabin lockers and 'claimed' by the owners, so that the whole plane can be then checked for any left-over items. This is standard anti-terrorism protocol that has been in place since the '70s.

Getting off a plane is a big deal here, and will cause a major delay to everyone involved. It might even have a knock-on effect on subsequent flights in small airports. It would almost certainly be quicker and less disruptive to calm the child somehow.

This is not, in my experience, the case in the US, where it seems you can just wander off leaving whatever you like on the plane.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Iole Nui, fair. But in the end, I gather they did get removed from the flight, so that delay must have happenned anyway. So the best course would still be to voluntarily admit there's a problem instead of making everyone wait while your kid throws a fit and then being asked to leave anyway.
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
Iole Nui and Melon - that's actually the way it's supposed to happen in the Excited Snakes as well. My entire flight was boggled on Dec 23 when, after sitting on tarmac for 20 minutes waiting for our luggage to be located, we learned that it had gone on the previous flight without us. It is the only time I've ever had Bad Baggage Fu with Southwest - I suspect that due to all the delays that we had that day none of the handlers were really sure what flights happened when.

I'll tag that one on the airline, no problem.

Charlotte
 
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Was the kid actually seated in front of the parents, or was she just sitting (on the floor) in front of the parents when they were asked to leave the plane?

I took it to mean on the floor in front of the parent's seat(s). It also said she was crawling under the seats, which seems to support this view.

I believe it is an FAA regulation for a kid below a certain age to be sat next to a parent (or other designated guardian adult).

However, they do not require two adults - which would be tough on single parents, obviously. Moreover, airlines absolutely will not guarantee you 3 seats together under any circumstances.

Ditto what Melon said about airline seat belts and small kids. However, I assume there had to be a five-point car seat somewhere in the picture. Presumably it had been checked with the baggage for the drive/ride home from the airport? Had they had it on the plane, they could have forced the child in. Still would have screamed bloody murder till Tuesday, but would have been restrained.

Long and short of it - even the best behaved toddlers throw tantrums and when they are in the thick of it you can work them through it or forcibly restrain them / beat them. I'm sure it made a great difference in the GDP by getting those folks off that plane and taking off 10 minutes sooner. Seems like everyone concerned could have done a better job in the moment, but it is far from clear this is any reflection on the child's upbringing.

As a discount carrier based in Atlanta, Air Tran flies a lot of tourists to Florida (think Disney!), so forcing a family from a plane is a public relations nightmare of the first order.

Air Tran was once ValueJet, for whatever that is worth.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
I'm with Melon. Manners are so bourgeois. Why should parents compel their children to adhere to rules that are clearly below them? Rules are for the unwashed masses and their offspring...those destined for servile positions and brown nosing. Our children are free spirits and are above the arbitrary rules of "the man." Who are you to expect that my child will sit in her seat on an airplane? Those might be the rules for others, but my child and I are above the rules. I should be given adequate time to "comfort" her...even if that takes an hour. If you miss your connection, meeting, whatever, it is of no importance to me. And those awful flight attendants, they act as if they have something better to do than to help me deal with little angel and convince her to sit down. Well we're not sitting down! We're standing up for our "rights". Why should children be expected to act in a civil manner in a restaurant? I've paid my money and with my meal comes the right for my child to express himself freely and not be dictated to by staff (they are staff, after all) fellow patrons, or management unless they want to apologize to little Zoe. Of course, do not kick my seat on the plane, but find it adorable when my child does it to yours...after all he is an energetic little guy...what do you expect? When she climbs under the seat and hits me and screams upon being asked to fasten her seat belt she is just showing the kind of spirit that you draconian hum-drums want to suck out of that fabulous fantasy called "childhood." She will not conform...we resist! She is the most special little child in the world and you cannot see that you'll be getting a call from our lawyer.
 
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
Is Melon the only one sticking up for them? **hmm tried to insert a false support of melon but couldnt quite manage it*

Melon sweety - what would *You* do if your kids were doing that? Or do they regularly tantrum and you just expect the world to revolve around them??
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
But in the end, I gather they did get removed from the flight, so that delay must have happenned anyway.

Actually, part of the shock! horror! what a horrible thing for the airline to do! aspect of the story is that their bags flew on without them, leaving them stranded with just their carry-ons for a day until they could get another flight.

Bags are supposed to travel with their people but sometimes they get separated - it's happened to me both in the US and in France.

[ET use right words]

[ 30. January 2007, 20:50: Message edited by: saysay ]
 
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
[Overused] art dunce - thats the reply I would like to have written!!

*arent cross posts wonderful!*
 
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 
I'm a terrible parent.

I lose my patience and physically force them into their car seats, being at my wits end and having no alternative. Then I try to calm them down, but that might work and it might not - certainly will take longer now that I've been brutal. So we'd leave more or less on time but it would be far noisier for far longer.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
Let's all blame the parents, because if a child has tantrums that the parents can't control, it's clearly their faults. If only they had begun smacking the child harder and earlier, it would never have tantrums again.

Because, of course, the only children that have repeated tantrums are ones that are parented poorly.

You people are either sadists or clueless about children, especially difficult-to-parent ones.

[ 30. January 2007, 21:17: Message edited by: MouseThief ]
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Melon, do you know many companies that like bad PR? Because I don't. No shit they're making nice. That's not an admission of fault. Ask any lawyer.

Right, so in that case we can't trust anything the parents say or anything the company says, which means that we have no information at all. Or am I missing something? What information do we have that hasn't come via the biased parents or the cowed company?
quote:
Because OHMIGOD! What if they had to be put onto another plane, that would be the ENDOFDEWORLD! Oh wait, that happenned anway after much misbehavior on the parents' parts (and, if the airline refused to reseat, on the flight attendant's parts.)
If I tried to get off a plane voluntarily at that point in a European plane journey, I'd expect to find myself wearing handcuffs. If that sort of thing is the norm in the US, expect more planes to hit more buildings at any point in the future.
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
... the Excited Snakes ...

Excited Snakes on a plane!

Anyway, the thing that disturbs me the most about this story is that their bags were left on the plane. I was on a flight recently were we had to remove some bags whose owners hadn't been allowed board for undisclosed security reasons discovered at the gate and, while they were removing them, they found a whole bin of bags that were meant to be on another plane!

It does make you a little resentful of all the new security hoops we have to jump through as passengers if they can be so careless with bags.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
If I tried to get off a plane voluntarily at that point in a European plane journey, I'd expect to find myself wearing handcuffs. If that sort of thing is the norm in the US, expect more planes to hit more buildings at any point in the future.

I'm not a Frequent Traveller, but I was under the impression that once you give your baggage to the people at the front desk, you're supposed to get on that airplane, full stop. And if you don't, then they have to find and pull your baggage off it while everybody waits.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Melon sweety - what would *You* do if your kids were doing that? Or do they regularly tantrum and you just expect the world to revolve around them??

Emma, darling, I've dragged my kids all over the place by most means of transport, and at one point I used to take them on day trips by plane to Britain just to use their baggage allowance, so I suspect I have a little more experience in this area than you.

They are children, so of course they throw tantrums from time to time, and once or twice it has happened while in public transport. In each case I've sorted things out as quickly as possible, and that involves calming the child down and, generally, dealing with the inconsequential detail that for them is a huge problem. It generally takes about two minutes.

I have a vague recollection of one of my kids announcing that they would not get on the plane full stop. I do remember that they got on the plane, and that there wasn't a scene because I managed to talk them down. The "just make them do it" option only works if you want to inflict a controlled crying regime on the entire plane. My kids are quite capable of screaming all the way from Marseille to London if they set their lungs to it. So I reckon that a negotiated solution is in everyone's interests.

It doesn't sound like the woman with the walky talky was willing to give the parents the time or the space to do that, which is why the company is in total agreement with the parents that the woman with the walky talky is an idiot.

The plane took off 15 minutes late. In that time they got the family off the plane, and they probably missed their slot too, so the delay caused directly by the behaviour of the child was, what, two minutes? No-one claims that the parents refused to address the situation. The parents say that they were addressing the situation when the idiot with the walky talky accused a three year-old of assaulting her mother.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
I'm not a Frequent Traveller, but I was under the impression that once you give your baggage to the people at the front desk, you're supposed to get on that airplane, full stop. And if you don't, then they have to find and pull your baggage off it while everybody waits.

That's definitely how it's supposed to work in Europe, and, if that's how it's supposed to work in the US too, Gwai's suggestion is nonsensical. Whatever the regulations, AirTran put the lives of the other passengers at risk by letting the family leave the plane without their luggage.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Let's all blame the parents, because if a child has tantrums that the parents can't control, it's clearly their faults. If only they had begun smacking the child harder and earlier, it would never have tantrums again....

You people are either sadists or clueless about children, especially difficult-to-parent ones.

Right. Because smacking them was what everyone was suggesting.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Right. Because smacking them was what everyone was suggesting.

What everyone was suggesting is that it was assuredly the parents' fault (see thread title). That's fucked up.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Because OHMIGOD! What if they had to be put onto another plane, that would be the ENDOFDEWORLD! Oh wait, that happenned anway after much misbehavior on the parents' parts (and, if the airline refused to reseat, on the flight attendant's parts.)
If I tried to get off a plane voluntarily at that point in a European plane journey, I'd expect to find myself wearing handcuffs. If that sort of thing is the norm in the US, expect more planes to hit more buildings at any point in the future. [/QB]
So the French generally say plane when they mean jail? [Biased]
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
Nothing in any of the articles linked so far suggest that the plane's 15 minute delay was caused solely by the time it was taking to get the child seated and seat-belted. They read to me like "we're already 15 minutes late, so we're not going to apply any more patience to anything else going on the flight." If so, that's an over-reaction.

Applying the "no hitting other passengers" rule to a child who has hit her mother sounds lunatic. Not that I support children hitting their parents, nor parents their children, but let's get some proportion here about which situations pose dangers to the physical safety of the crew and other passengers.

If flight attendants appeared out of nowhere the very first time to say "get her in her seat now", then at most did some off-scene consulting, and then returned to say "off the plane, now" -- that is a very poor way to handle it, and TransAir is right to be saying they'll be looking at improved ways to handle things in future.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
The plane took off 15 minutes late. In that time they got the family off the plane, and they probably missed their slot too, so the delay caused directly by the behaviour of the child was, what, two minutes?

The plane had already been delayed 15 minutes when they made the decision to remove the family. So, depending on when she started the tantrum, the parents might have been trying to deal with it for two minutes. Or, if the plane boarded on time, they could have been trying to deal with it for more than half an hour. I'm guessing they'd been trying to deal with it for a significant amount of time - long enough that the flight crew thought that there was a good chance the problem was not going to get resolved any time soon. The parents' suggestions of resolutions (holding the child in their lap) violated the law.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
FWIW generally only the Captain of the plane can throw people off, so I think it was more than the cabin crew with the walky talky making the decision.

Assuming that the child's refusal to sit in the seat and wear the seatbelt had already delayed the plane 15mins, without blaming anybody I want to know what the solution is?

Is it reasonable that the plane and its 115 passengers wait indefinitely for the family to comply with legal safety requirements?
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
Before I had children of my own, I was involved in an episode that made me swear I would curb my future children's behavior.

My husband and I were visiting my cousin and her family at a summer biological research facility. My cousin asked us to watch her two children while she went to the supermarket. Her children were fine, but a little boy we had never seen wandered in.

He did a number of objectionable things. The only one I can recall is his tearing up a toy the three-year-old had made from a milk carton. He didn't break it playing with it; he deliberately tore it up. After we had had enough of his objectionable behavior, my husband said it was time for him to leave and walked him to the door. He called us the worst words he knew, which weren't very bad.

What shocked me about this was the intensity of my dislike for the child. I liked kids and normally enjoyed them, but I couldn't stand this one.

My cousin said that no one liked the kid, and he knew it.

I swore then that when I had kids I would insist that they behave in such a way that most adults liked them most of the time.

Aside from setting boundaries, I had to anticipate situations that the child would find very hard to handle. In these situations, I petted and sympathized with the child while I insisted on the things that wers absolutely necessary. Anything that was not necessary was ignored.

Moo
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
FWIW generally only the Captain of the plane can throw people off, so I think it was more than the cabin crew with the walky talky making the decision.

While the plane is cleared for takeoff, the flight attendants have control of the plane. That means that, at the gate, they, not the captain, are the ones with the legal authority to throw people off the plane.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
What everyone was suggesting is that it was assuredly the parents' fault (see thread title). That's fucked up.

OK, so let's leave aside the issue of fault. The flight crew's responsibility to fly the plane safely, which includes getting everyone on board to wear a seat belt. The parents' responsibility is... what, exactly? OliviaG

PS I'm not convinced that a child who hits a parent poses no threat to anyone else. If I had been on that plane, I'd be thinking the exact opposite: if she hits people she loves, what will she do to people she doesn't like?
 
Posted by chicklegirl (# 11741) on :
 
I absolutely agree with what Laura said about parents need to be parents, not friends, to their children. That's a huge problem I see all the time, and it really becomes a major issue when kids become teens and don't respect their parents' efforts to discipline them if their behavior is dangerous or irresponsible.

In this instance, there isn't enough evidence from any of the obviously biased sources to say if this tantrum situation was exacerbated by bad parenting, bad customer service on the part of the flight crew, or (as I suspect) some combination of both. But even for good parents, a tantrum can be hard to deal with in a venue (such as a plane) that doesn't have a quiet place to help a child de-escalate.

For those with no personal experience, let me dispel a common myth: it's virtually impossible even for a strict disciplinarian to prevent a 3-year-old from throwing a tantrum in the moment it occurs. Whoever coined the term "terrible twos" missed it by a year; three is the age at which you become certain you gave birth to the anti-christ. The combination of increased motor skills, ability to articulate, and awareness of autonomy but still limited reasoning capacity is diabolical. I used to sit in church or stand in the grocery line and make snarky remarks under my breath about "other people's children." Perhaps that bad karma has come back to bite me in the butt, as I work with an extremely energetic, smart and intense 3-year-old son (thank heaven he'll be four in March).

Once a tantrum begins, you have a few options: relocate to an isolated venue to let it run its course (unwise to try and rush a kid into calming down, or they just get more agitated), ignore the tantrum and hope it will end quickly, or overreact and turn it into a speed-dial call to child protective services. Once the screaming starts, the point of no return has been passed and you're unlikely to be able to stop it no matter how good of a parent you are.

The trick is to stack the deck in you and your child's favor by avoiding situations that can trigger a tantrum in the first place. Tantrum prevention requires a keen understanding of your child's temperment, what kind of mood they're in, if they're tired/hungry/ill--and then realistically planning your own activities to accomodate that. I'm not saying that you make your child the center of the universe, but you help them to succeed in having appropriate behavior by not making unreasonable demands of them. That said, I've failed to do this several times and reaped the consequences, at which time I perform a hasty extraction if we're in a public place. I've actually left a cart full of groceries at the store and gone back to finish my shopping after my son was in bed for the evening. I let my son know in no uncertain terms that accompanying me to the store, the post office, or a restaurant is a priviledge that will be revoked if behavior becomes unacceptable. That's usually enough to produce acceptable behavior. But I've also noticed that if I'm in a rush, feeling stressed or even under the weather, my son will become a barometer and reflect that right back at me--so again, I benefit from accurately assessing if either of us are really up to running errands.

Unfortunately, when families are travelling the time constraints make this difficult. I think these parents would have been wise to postpone travel until their daughter was recovered, book a flight early in the day when she was alert and happy, board early, insist on being seated next to their child, and as a last resort, ask to be bumped to a later flight if they were unable to help their daughter calm down in a timely way.
 
Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
While the plane is cleared for takeoff, the flight attendants have control of the plane. That means that, at the gate, they, not the captain, are the ones with the legal authority to throw people off the plane.

Which makes sense. I suppose the Captain is in charge while the plane is in the air or taxiing, when throwing people off might be more problematic.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
Oh, for crying out loud. What do people think chloroform was invented for?
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chicklegirl:
The trick is to stack the deck in you and your child's favor by avoiding situations that can trigger a tantrum in the first place. Tantrum prevention requires a keen understanding of your child's temperment, what kind of mood they're in, if they're tired/hungry/ill--and then realistically planning your own activities to accomodate that.

This is solid gold advice. I know people with kids who go nuts when the blood-sugar drops. They travel with bags and bags of trail mix and pb sandwiches. Just in case.
 
Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
I know memory mercifully fades with time (so I don't really remember any bad tantrums, not our kids, oh no...) but it became very clear very quickly what situations to avoid; tiredness and hunger/low blood sugar were on the list all the time.

Though I reckon having been taught to eat broccoli with the aid of a few thousand volts selectively applied helped too.

All that said, I don't think our two were aware that not sitting in a seat was an option, not at three.

[ 31. January 2007, 00:26: Message edited by: AdamPater ]
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
Friends of ours travelled with Singapore Airlines from Australia when a similar problem to that described in the OP happened. The whole family (two parents, the bratty 3yo and the well behaved 7yo) was chucked off and informed their patronage was no longer welcomed by that airline. Further to this they were then told that, pending an investigation, they may be offered refunds minus departure tax (as they'd technically already 'departed' the terminal) and a 35% deduction off the remainder for administration, additional baggage handling and extra running costs. They ended up getting offered these partial refunds for three of the four tickets (the 3yo being the one confiscated) and also being sent a Families SA parenting psychologist referral.

While the parents were furious about this, they also conceded that it was their fault and that they were lucky to even get the amount refunded that they did. That was four years ago and they still haven't flown again, preferring to stay in country for their holidays now.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Josephine:
While the plane is cleared for takeoff, the flight attendants have control of the plane. That means that, at the gate, they, not the captain, are the ones with the legal authority to throw people off the plane.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which makes sense. I suppose the Captain is in charge while the plane is in the air or taxiing, when throwing people off might be more problematic.

Not in Australia-not sure how they do things elsewhere. The cabin crew have no legal authority to offload passengers, if the doors are closed only the Captain has the right to do so, if the doors aren't closed then ground law enforcement must approve it. Cabin crew can request or suggest but a higher authority must approve. ALso I would have thought it would have to be the Capt's decision to takeoff with the offloaded passenger's baggage onboard (although with all the stricter security measures I would have thought that that was a no no these days).
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Jesus Christ, Melon, what the fuck crawled up your ass and died? I expect Mousethief to be a deliberately contrary ass, but you usually seem so reasonable. Setting aside the whole issue of being beholden to a three-year-old to take it upon herself to behave, there are logistics to consider. When there are over 80,000 flights per day in the US, any delay in a flight's departure can has a massive chain reaction.

Then again, my mother would have tanned my hide so badly I would still not be able to sit down if I'd pulled a stunt like that.
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Then again, my mother would have tanned my hide so badly I would still not be able to sit down if I'd pulled a stunt like that.

That would not have been a good move on her part given that sitting down and putting on a seat belt is at the heart of the issue.

ETA: Melon, any parent who does not make every effort to put the bloody seatbelt on their kid should be locked up for child abuse. The seatbelts are actually there for a good reason. Sometimes when I'm driving I feel like deliberately cutting off and/or brake-testing parents who can't keep their kids belted up. Except that women in SUV's are the most dangerous road users so I don't want to try my luck.

[ 31. January 2007, 02:05: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
OK, so let's leave aside the issue of fault. The flight crew's responsibility to fly the plane safely, which includes getting everyone on board to wear a seat belt. The parents' responsibility is... what, exactly? OliviaG

I'm not sure that's the right question. The question is, what could/should they have done? And it's impossible to know that, because you and I don't know what works to calm down their particular child.

It may be that they don't know how to calm down their child. Not because they're bad parents, but because nothing they've ever tried, or read in books, has worked yet. It may be in that case you just shouldn't fly with that kid until you figure out the solution to the tantrum question. It certainly would be more considerate to your fellow passengers.

Of course maybe they have a method that usually works, and it wasn't working this time because the child was especially worked up, or because the flight attendant with the walkie-talkie was exacerbating matters.

The long and the short, from my point of view, is that to automatically assume this is a failure of parenting is a knee-jerk reaction that's uncalled-for and very likely unfair.

Thank you, Erin, for justifying my "beating" comment.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Right. Because smacking them was what everyone was suggesting.

What everyone was suggesting is that it was assuredly the parents' fault (see thread title). That's fucked up.
It's funny how one can read things differently from others. I got the gist that some people - rather than 'everyone' - were suggesting that the behaviour of a very young child might actually be the responsibility of its parents. We all have faults and failure to control a child might or might not be one of them; but surely a parent could never reasonably wish to distance themselves from their responsibility for what their very young children do and the consequences? Maybe it's a fine line, though.

I was 2 and a half when I first went on a plane, with my 4 year old brother and my mother; a completely new and rather terrifying experience and as it happened we were very well behaved apart from extensive use of the 'boke bags' [Big Grin] . But whether we had behaved well or not would have been my mother's responsibility, whether fault came into it or not.

What she would not have been responsible sor - beyond the common responsibility we all share - was the safety of the craft and passengers, that belonging to the captain or senior flight attendant; and any situation tipping over into their area of care would have been for them to decide one way or the other in the best interests of all.

It's certainly a pertinent point as to whether or not airline staff gave the parents every opportunity to exercise their responsibility.
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
Good grief. The child is three. It seems she's been put in the row in front of her parents, which is particularly stupid on the part of the airline staff (who frankly should know better), but ....

could her daddy not have swapped seats with her and sat in front, so that she could sit in the row behind with her mother? Or her mother, so that she could sit with her father?

Really, in a competition between the airline staff and the parents for who was the most stupid, it's a photo finish.
 
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Because OHMIGOD! What if they had to be put onto another plane, that would be the ENDOFDEWORLD! Oh wait, that happenned anway after much misbehavior on the parents' parts (and, if the airline refused to reseat, on the flight attendant's parts.)
If I tried to get off a plane voluntarily at that point in a European plane journey, I'd expect to find myself wearing handcuffs. If that sort of thing is the norm in the US, expect more planes to hit more buildings at any point in the future.
What the fuck are you smoking?

1) The people who crashed their planes into the WTC, were not hiding in the luggage of people who got off the plane.

2) The people who currently want to blow up planes in mid-flight are quite happy to blow themselves up as well. If bombs are getting on planes you have already fucking lost.

3) The problem with the child was either the child's fault or the parent's fault. I find it a bit rich to blame the average three year old for misbehaviour. Apparently the previous flight traumatised the child and the parents didn't deal with it.
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
You're rather excitable these days, the raptor.

Perhaps a nice cup of tea would make you feel better.
 
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 
No this isn't excitable. Excitable was when I posted several page diatribes about random things that pissed me off.

This is bored, and grumpy because it is to fucking humid and I don't have AC.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
So the French generally say plane when they mean jail? [Biased]

No, when the French say "anti-terrorist measure" they mean France, not Iraq. Letting people walk on and off of planes as if they are buses is an open invitation to have your planes blown up.
quote:
Originally posted by Saysay:
The parents' suggestions of resolutions (holding the child in their lap) violated the law.

No, asking a question is not yet illegal, even in America. If I was in that situation, and didn't know what the law was, I'd ask that question too. I've heard other parents ask that question numerous times, and the response in each case as been a courteous explanation of what the law says and why, at which point the parents have found another solution. It doesn't sound like the parents in this case got an explanation before they were back on the tarmac.
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
I'm not convinced that a child who hits a parent poses no threat to anyone else. If I had been on that plane, I'd be thinking the exact opposite: if she hits people she loves, what will she do to people she doesn't like?

Good point. Any three year-old who hits her mother in the process of having a tantrum should be sent to a small island near Cuba and made to wear a red suit and handcuffs for the next five years while we decide what to do next. After all, the security of the world is at stake!
quote:
Originally posted by chicklegirl
it's virtually impossible even for a strict disciplinarian to prevent a 3-year-old from throwing a tantrum in the moment it occurs [snip] Once a tantrum begins, you have a few options: relocate to an isolated venue to let it run its course (unwise to try and rush a kid into calming down, or they just get more agitated), ignore the tantrum and hope it will end quickly, or overreact and turn it into a speed-dial call to child protective services. Once the screaming starts, the point of no return has been passed and you're unlikely to be able to stop it no matter how good of a parent you are.

Right, and, as you say later in your post, none of those options are available in a plane. Being "processed" by an airline is an extremely novel and potentially very unsettling experience for any small child, and just how unsettling has at least as much to do with the competence of the airline staff as with anything the parents are able to do in that context. If the airline really did put the three year-old in a different row, the whole incident is 300% their fault, because it displays stupidity on a "can you tie my shoelaces for me?" level. Even if they didn't, it sounds like the staff did nothing to calm the child or the parents, which is what all the airline staff I've seen in action would have done.

This is where all the self-righteous "structure" ranting breaks down. You can only guarantee a structured environment for your kids if you are in control, and the whole point on a plane is that you are not in control.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin
Setting aside the whole issue of being beholden to a three-year-old to take it upon herself to behave, there are logistics to consider. When there are over 80,000 flights per day in the US, any delay in a flight's departure can has a massive chain reaction.

Yes, of course, which is why the best solution is for everyone to work together to calm the child and their parents (if the parents are totally stressed out, you don't have a hope in hell of calming the three year-old). Almost all my flying happens on budget airlines where missing a slot has big financial consequences, and airline staff calm the passengers, rather than throwing them off the plane. That's partly because they have an IQ in double figures, but also because throwing a family off the plane takes a lot of time, especially if you bother to remove their luggage too.
quote:
Originally quoted by The Giant Cheeseburger
Melon, any parent who does not make every effort to put the bloody seatbelt on their kid should be locked up for child abuse.

Yes, but what does that have to do with anything? None of the articles says that the parents refused to make their child wear a seat belt. They simply asked if it was really necessary. As we seem to have agreed above, it's actually impossible to restrain a 3 year-old using a 2-point harness.

(I ran this experiment on someone else's 3 year-old before I had kids, when said kid kept climbing out of his high chair. Fortunately, I had to hand one of those ratchet belts that truckers use to retain palettes. The parents were up for the experiment. The 3 year-old stopped escaping about the time his toes started to go blue. And that was in a hard seat designed for a three year-old.)

Back to this "structure" thing. When my son was three, I took him to England for the weekend. It was the first time he had ever been away from his mother overnight. I planned it all meticulously, the flight out and all the driving around the UK went fine.

Then we missed our plane home (entirely my fault, due to getting lost in Buckinghamshire and then missing the Stansted exit on the M23). No flights anywhere useful until the morning. In the next 24 hours we hired a second car, drove to friends of friends who my son had never met to spend the night, left after 5 hours' sleep to return to the airport, flew back to the wrong airport, hired a third car, drove for four hours in a heatwave to the right airport, picked up my car and drove another 90 minutes home.

Sorry, but I don't think that another pack of felt-tipped pens would have sorted the above. I've seen plenty of adults freak out in far less trying circumstances. Hell, some adults freak out if they hear a three year-old crying on a plane, how screwed up is that?

The "structured parenting" response is that I shouldn't have missed the plane, or maybe that we should never have made the trip because the poor dear was too young. Really, guys, I fear for your kids. When they go to university and are separated from their box of structured wax crayons for the first time you just know they are going to end up in the university hospital with alcohol poisoning within a week.

There were three points in that 24-hour journey from hell when things got fraught. The first was when we got to the house of the total strangers at midnight and my son announced that he was sleeping in the car. I said I wasn't, and left him in the car for ten minutes. When I returned, he agreed to investigate the house. In the end, he settled for the double bed, which left me sleeping in the cot, but, hey, it got us through the night. That's an example of setting priorities. So no major meltdown there.

The second occasion was when we were hanging around trying to hire a car, and my son spotted the toys on the other side of a glass partition, which were reserved for children travelling alone. Slight meltdown there. But the kid was overtired, homesick, and fed up with running on adult priorities, so it wasn't entirely unexpected either. I got him out of the airport, into a car and then stopped at the first McDonald's which had a ball park. That bought me another few hours' goodwill.

The third occasion was 30 minutes before we got home, when he just started screaming and screaming in a totally incomprehensible way. There were only the two of us in the car, so that didn't matter in logistical terms, but eventually I worked out that he wanted a meringue and bought him one, which meant he was all sweetness and light by the time he got back to his mother. Three days later I realised that he had been screaming [i]ce truc blanc[i] ("that white thing"). That's an example of the worst case scenario, where the kid is so stressed out that communication becomes pretty much impossible.

But he was an angel on the planes and in the restaurants, which is clearly the only thing that matters in English-speaking society. No wonder your countries need ethnic minorities to bolster your birth rates.
 
Posted by birdie (# 2173) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:

PS I'm not convinced that a child who hits a parent poses no threat to anyone else. If I had been on that plane, I'd be thinking the exact opposite: if she hits people she loves, what will she do to people she doesn't like?

My son, who is just two, hits and pinches me, with the occasional headbutt, rather a lot. He is the same with his father to a lesser extent. He has never, to my knowledge, hit any other adult, and has never hit a child.

He hits me because he has many frustrations connected to the fact that he is not yet walking and has a lot of energy he doesn't know how to burn off. I am fairly sure he is like it with his parents and no-one else precisely because I am his main care-giver and he is accustomed to me, and feels safest expressing his frustration with me.

It has little or nothing to do with who he loves most.

Please note I am NOT saying that I just let him get on with this. I am teaching him that it is not acceptable to hit mummy. This is harder than I would ever have imagined before I had a child, and I can well imagine people who don't know our situation looking in from the outside and seeing a violent child with an ineffectual mother.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
The people who currently want to blow up planes in mid-flight are quite happy to blow themselves up as well. If bombs are getting on planes you have already fucking lost.

They are happier not to blow themselves up as well, and there are plenty of examples of people trying to blow up planes without blowing themselves up, which is the logic behind "luggage goes with passengers" legislation. Why do you think you can't walk off a plane and leave your luggage in most countries?
quote:
The problem with the child was either the child's fault or the parent's fault.
or the fault of those who control the environment within which parents and child were operating, or, most likely, a combination of all three.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
OliviaG:

quote:
PS I'm not convinced that a child who hits a parent poses no threat to anyone else. If I had been on that plane, I'd be thinking the exact opposite: if she hits people she loves, what will she do to people she doesn't like?
Since when did a small child present a clear and present threat to travellers on a plane? Perhaps Samuel L. Jackson will make his next movie 'Toddlers on a Plane' in which a crime lord insinuates an upset three year old onto an aircraft in an attempt to kill a protected witness. Bring it on, as they say.
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Since when did a small child present a clear and present threat to travellers on a plane? Perhaps Samuel L. Jackson will make his next movie 'Toddlers on a Plane' in which a crime lord insinuates an upset three year old onto an aircraft in an attempt to kill a protected witness. Bring it on, as they say.

There was a story on Today Tonight just last week about a gang of criminals using children as young as five to burgle shops. But then again, I find this hard to believe since Today Tonight, the seven network's idea of a current affairs program, is about as credible as Snakes on a Plane. So I wouldn't be too worried just yet.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
The only thing we need to know is whether the adults provide a structured burgling environment for the children.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
OliviaG:

quote:
PS I'm not convinced that a child who hits a parent poses no threat to anyone else. If I had been on that plane, I'd be thinking the exact opposite: if she hits people she loves, what will she do to people she doesn't like?
Since when did a small child present a clear and present threat to travellers on a plane? Perhaps Samuel L. Jackson will make his next movie 'Toddlers on a Plane' in which a crime lord insinuates an upset three year old onto an aircraft in an attempt to kill a protected witness. Bring it on, as they say.
[my italics]

Don't let kids into the control cabin for a start. All those lovely switches and levers! It must be playtime.

There are any number of things passengers mustn't touch in the cabin too although "Do Not Blow In This Hole" will provoke adults, let alone children, to do just that (true story from my father, RAF Colerne, 1968/1969).

[ps, Melon, I like the concept of "structured burgling". No point nicking stuff if you haven't a fence.]

[ 31. January 2007, 09:42: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
The people who currently want to blow up planes in mid-flight are quite happy to blow themselves up as well. If bombs are getting on planes you have already fucking lost.

They are happier not to blow themselves up as well, and there are plenty of examples of people trying to blow up planes without blowing themselves up, which is the logic behind "luggage goes with passengers" legislation. Why do you think you can't walk off a plane and leave your luggage in most countries?
If a bomb gets on a plane you have already lost. No ifs buts and wheedling.

"luggage goes with passengers" is security theatre, a security measure that doesn't actually make people safer, and often makes them less safe (this describes the majority of airport "security"). It is not that hard to find some stupid fuckhead that wants his 72 virgins.


quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
The problem with the child was either the child's fault or the parent's fault.
or the fault of those who control the environment within which parents and child were operating, or, most likely, a combination of all three.
No, the airline don't control the fact the child had an ear operation and found the last flight distressing, nor that they are required to have all passengers belted for take off. Or that the parents couldn't physically restrain the child.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin
Setting aside the whole issue of being beholden to a three-year-old to take it upon herself to behave, there are logistics to consider. When there are over 80,000 flights per day in the US, any delay in a flight's departure can has a massive chain reaction.

Yes, of course, which is why the best solution is for everyone to work together to calm the child and their parents (if the parents are totally stressed out, you don't have a hope in hell of calming the three year-old). Almost all my flying happens on budget airlines where missing a slot has big financial consequences, and airline staff calm the passengers, rather than throwing them off the plane. That's partly because they have an IQ in double figures, but also because throwing a family off the plane takes a lot of time, especially if you bother to remove their luggage too.

Maybe in France, but not here. They don't even leave the gate until the flight attendants tell them that everyone is secure in their seats. If I'm a flight attendant and we're already fifteen minutes late -- for whatever reason -- and I have two parents who refuse to pick up their child and forcibly put her in the seat, then I have a decision to make. I can wait and then hope she doesn't lose it again while the tower is trying to slot us into the other flights taking off, or I can say, "look, you've on board for half an hour, at least*, and it's not getting any better, so you'll need to take a later flight".

*Even the times that I was sprinting to the gate as they were closing the door I still had a ten-minute wait before we began taxiing to the runway, so they had had way longer than 15 minutes to shut the brat up.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
I should be amazed at the posts on this thread from people I otherwise regard as sensible and level-headed, but I'm not. Most people really do believe that you're a bad parent if you can't prevent (or are unwilling to use violence to prevent - thanks for that, Erin) your children from inconveniencing them in some way.

I've got news for you - parenting is a project that lasts at least until your kids are adults. You don't start with a clean slate, a perfectly behaved, perfectly intelligent, infinitely educated and trained child that will act with perfect sense and zero disruption to anyone unfortunate enough to encounter said child unless and until one of the stupid or lazy parents makes a mistake and fucks up its pristine perfection.

Parenting is a combination of protecting, caring and teaching. In this case you seem to be saying misbehaving child = failure to teach correct behaviour = bad parenting. It's about as reasonable as walking into a classroom and telling the teacher they're incompetent because their class of five year-olds doesn't know a tensor from an eigenvalue.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:

Then we missed our plane home (entirely my fault, due to getting lost in Buckinghamshire and then missing the Stansted exit on the M23).

If you were looking for the Stansted exit on the M23 (as opposed to the M25), then you really were lost!

Re tantrums, as a father to a normally-well-behaved-but-occasionally-prone-to-tantrums toddler aged 2 and a bit, I can vouch for the fact that once a tantrum is underway, 9 times out of 10 you have to let it run its course until the child calms down and bear in mind that the child probably hates it more than you do. The good news is that they only tend to last a few minutes on the whole before they blow themselves out, but during that time it's well-nigh impossible to get any kind of co-operation from the child, still less wrestle them into a seatbelt. I know this because the Blacket threw an uncharacteristic wobbly this morning when I was trying to get him to nursery; he has a bad head cold and eczema and it hurt him to get dressed - as a result he was purple in the face with screaming by the time I got him to the car and took me over five minutes to get him into his car seat. There will come a time shortly when I will be unable physically to achieve that - certainly before he is the age of the child in the OP.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
No, the airline don't control the fact the child had an ear operation and found the last flight distressing, nor that they are required to have all passengers belted for take off. Or that the parents couldn't physically restrain the child.

The airline controls whether the staff work with the parents to solve the problem or whether they alternate between chatting with their friends on the walky talky and shouting at the parents.
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
"luggage goes with passengers" is security theatre, a security measure that doesn't actually make people safer, and often makes them less safe (this describes the majority of airport "security"). It is not that hard to find some stupid fuckhead that wants his 72 virgins.

You seem to be forgetting that, quite aside from suicide bombers, large parts of the world regularly deal with bombers who prefer not to be blown up. The UK and Spain - just to name two off the top of my head - have to deal with IRA-spinoffs and ETA respectively on an ongoing basis (not to mention random rogues like the Soho nail bomber, the unabomber, etc).

While non-suicide bombers may be not be currently the fashionable worry, they're still there and still blow things up given half a chance. Making things easy for them by letting them put stuff on planes then leg it does not seem like a good idea.

(I'm genuinely surprised that the US has the same luggage rule, because I've personally seen it ignored, even since 9/11. Oh well, you learn something new every day.)
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I'm a flight attendant and we're already fifteen minutes late -- for whatever reason -- and I have two parents who refuse to pick up their child and forcibly put her in the seat

Do we have any evidence from any article that the parents refused to pick up the child, even before we discount all the evidence because it's from either the biased parents or the cowed airline? However you add up the times, there was time for an extended period of interaction with the parents if necessary before everyone else was seated, if the cabin crew had chosen to spend their time that way.

In my experience, the last people to sit down are always middle aged women without children who do not understand the concept of "stow your baggage safely", and the main role of cabin crew is to stop those women from blocking access to the entire plane for 15 minutes by standing in the aisle checking every single item in their handbags, which, inevitably, are bigger than a family suitcase.

However, the vision of you serving coffee to hassled airline passengers, dressed in a short skirt and a blouse that is one size too small (is that a FCC regulation?) will keep me smiling through the rest of the day.
 
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
"luggage goes with passengers" is security theatre, a security measure that doesn't actually make people safer, and often makes them less safe (this describes the majority of airport "security"). It is not that hard to find some stupid fuckhead that wants his 72 virgins.

You seem to be forgetting that, quite aside from suicide bombers, large parts of the world regularly deal with bombers who prefer not to be blown up. The UK and Spain - just to name two off the top of my head - have to deal with IRA-spinoffs and ETA respectively on an ongoing basis (not to mention random rogues like the Soho nail bomber, the unabomber, etc).

While non-suicide bombers may be not be currently the fashionable worry, they're still there and still blow things up given half a chance. Making things easy for them by letting them put stuff on planes then leg it does not seem like a good idea.

(I'm genuinely surprised that the US has the same luggage rule, because I've personally seen it ignored, even since 9/11. Oh well, you learn something new every day.)

IIRC the PanAm/Lockerbie disaster was caused by luggage checked in and the passenger not boarding - so perhaps it's not quite so theatrical.
 
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 
No, it is theatre because if a bomb gets on a plane you have already lost. It isn't that hard to set up a patsy to physically get the bomb aboard (or infiltrate the cleaning staff). Worrying about people leaving bags on planes, takes brain power and eyes away from worrying whether a bomb is on aboard the plane.

It also completely ignores the fact that there are plenty of just as good terrorist targets, that have next to no security (movie theatre's, shopping malls, the queues before the security checkpoint, etc)
 
Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
IIRC the PanAm/Lockerbie disaster was caused by luggage checked in and the passenger not boarding - so perhaps it's not quite so theatrical.

I thought it was a bomb.
 
Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :
 
I don't think the screaming is the main issue. The issue is the child not sitting in the seat.

From the flight attendants' point of view, here are the options:

  1. Ignore the brat running around the floor
  2. Tell the parents to control their child
  3. Physically restrain the child themselves
  4. Eject the family from the plane

1 is not an option since it's a safety risk and against the law. 2 had been tried for a considerable amount of time. 3 would result in them getting arrested for touching someone else's child. So what else could they do?

Now, the parents had these options:

  1. Ignore the brat running round the floor
  2. Talk to, reason with and coax the child into the seat
  3. Physically restrain the child
  4. Leave the plane on their own volition

1 is still illegal. 2 is a great idea, but it seems they tried that. I don't know if they tried 3, and if not they should have done. But if both methods 2 and 3 do not result in a child remaining in the seat, the only reasonable option is to leave the plane.

OK, it may mean a baggage search, but if the plane can't take off until the child is restrained anyway, it's probably the best option... who knows how long the tantrum may go on for?


I've just remembered another option... drug the child. Get some of that headache medicine that makes them drowsy. Would help with the ear problem _and_ reduce tantrum energy.


Amorya
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
It also completely ignores the fact that there are plenty of just as good terrorist targets, that have next to no security (movie theatre's, shopping malls, the queues before the security checkpoint, etc)

Probably because they are only targets if terrorists target them, and, on the whole, they don't. When they have been targetted (as in Northern Ireland), security around those targets increases. The current batch of terrorists seem to want to blow up planes, so it makes sense to try to stop them from blowing up planes. Your complaint would make sense if there were weekly bombings in European or American cinemas. There aren't, so it doesn't.
 
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Probably because they are only targets if terrorists target them, and, on the whole, they don't. When they have been targetted (as in Northern Ireland), security around those targets increases. The current batch of terrorists seem to want to blow up planes, so it makes sense to try to stop them from blowing up planes. Your complaint would make sense if there were weekly bombings in European or American cinemas. There aren't, so it doesn't.

There aren't weekly bombings (or even foiled bomb plots) on airlines either. And it is better to prevent bombs getting on board at all, rather then worrying that the bomber is not aboard.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by the Raptor:

quote:
No, it is theatre because if a bomb gets on a plane you have already lost. It isn't that hard to set up a patsy to physically get the bomb aboard (or infiltrate the cleaning staff). Worrying about people leaving bags on planes, takes brain power and eyes away from worrying whether a bomb is on aboard the plane.
No it's security because it means that a terrorist cannot board a flight and then suddenly get a phone call from his aged aunt telling him to rush home at once, conveniently leaving a suitcase full of nitroglycerine in the hold. If terrorists of the 'don't blow up your own militants' school of thought want to blow up a plane they cannot use that method of getting luggage on board.
 
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
I've just remembered another option... drug the child. Get some of that headache medicine that makes them drowsy. Would help with the ear problem _and_ reduce tantrum energy.

And then get sued when a child has an adverse reaction. Oh and all the press about "AIRLINE DRUGS CHILDREN".
 
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
No it's security because it means that a terrorist cannot board a flight and then suddenly get a phone call from his aged aunt telling him to rush home at once, conveniently leaving a suitcase full of nitroglycerine in the hold. If terrorists of the 'don't blow up your own militants' school of thought want to blow up a plane they cannot use that method of getting luggage on board.

If he got a bomb on-board there are half a dozen other scenarios he could pull off that don't involve killing himself.

EDIT: I am finished discussing this here, because I realise I am pissing off the purg hosts.

[ 31. January 2007, 12:07: Message edited by: the_raptor ]
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
I think the parents' fundamental mistake was failing to prepare the child for the plane trip.

If she had had severe ear pain on her last flight, it was natural for her to fear that the same thing would happen again. Her tantrum was probably brought on by this fear.

The parents should have talked to the child about her bad experience and told her they would get her some medicine to make sure it didn't happen again.

Parents need to anticipate problems and, if possible, solve them before they happen.

Moo

[ 31. January 2007, 12:08: Message edited by: Moo ]
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
From the flight attendants' point of view, here are the options:
  1. Ignore the brat running around the floor
  2. Tell the parents to control their child
  3. Physically restrain the child themselves
  4. Eject the family from the plane

You missed

5: Help the parents to sort out the situation to everyone's satisfaction

which is what every cabin crew I have ever observed does. There's no evidence that this happened, let alone that it happened "for a considerable time".

My reading of the various articles is that the plane was delayed for other reasons, boarding was eventually allowed and whoever was on the other end of the cabin staff idiot's walky talky said "we can hit our slot if the cabin is locked down in 90 seconds, otherwise we'll have to wait another half an hour". At that point, the cabin crew panicked, cocked up big time, and the airline apologised for the cock-up.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by the raptor:

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
No it's security because it means that a terrorist cannot board a flight and then suddenly get a phone call from his aged aunt telling him to rush home at once, conveniently leaving a suitcase full of nitroglycerine in the hold. If terrorists of the 'don't blow up your own militants' school of thought want to blow up a plane they cannot use that method of getting luggage on board.

If he got a bomb on-board there are half a dozen other scenarios he could pull off that don't involve killing himself.
Yes, but not that one.

quote:
EDIT: I am finished discussing this here, because I realise I am pissing off the purg hosts.*
Really? the Purgatory Hosts have mounted a hostile take-over of Hell? When did that happen?

*Translation: I'm losing the argument so I'm not going to play anymore.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
I am finished discussing this here, because I realise I am pissing off the purg hosts.

Are the purg hosts running hell now? Is that a new security measure?
 
Posted by The Man With No Name (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
IIRC the PanAm/Lockerbie disaster was caused by luggage checked in and the passenger not boarding - so perhaps it's not quite so theatrical.

Yes. If Al Meghrahi is the bomber (and he was convicted of the crime) then it seems he checked the case on to a plane in Malta, for a flight connecting to Pan Am 103 in Frankfurt. He did not, I think, then even leave Malta.

The case was transferred from one plane to another at Frankfurt, and then remained on the plane at Heathrow. So there were three opportunities for three different teams of baggage handlers to note that one passenger had apparently not boarded the flight despite checking his luggage on board.

But tragically, no-one either noticed or thought anything of it.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Man With No Name:
So there were three opportunities for three different teams of baggage handlers to note that one passenger had apparently not boarded the flight despite checking his luggage on board.

But that's ok, because they could have blown up a cinema instead, so there's no point in trying to stop them from blowing up a plane. Makes perfect sense to me. No, really. And of course the owner of the bags wasn't a three year-old, so why would they expect him to be homicidal?
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
Returning, to the OP …

The deal, as far as I see it, is that we have a right to take our child on long-haul holidays. We have the responsibility of ensuring that she follows the rules and is strapped in at appropriate times. And that she behaves reasonably well. We also have the responsibility of bringing toys and books, something to drink and a snack, enough drugs to stun an elephant etc. And anyone else has to accept with the fact that she may whine occasionally as it’s a long flight. You cut her the same slack as that grown up four rows back snoring really loudly.

Most 3 year olds will have times when they will not be strapped willingly into their car seat. In our house, this is usually dealt with a combination of brute force, shouting and threats / bribes. Not being strapped into the car seat before setting off is not an option.

Most 3 years olds are also capable of picking up when mummy or daddy is stressed and riffing on that. And most 3 year olds are also total drama queens who have absolutely no shame about playing to the gallery. From the news articles, not only were there two parents, there were attendants and other passengers all trying to “help”.

There are few things worse than when your child has a public meltdown. You don’t only have to deal with the meltdown – you have to deal with the reactions of people around you. Most of whom are giving it some serious “tut” because they would never have let their child behave like that / behaved like that when they were children / handled it that way as it was totally wrong …

It sounds, from the news articles, that it was six of one and half a dozen of the other.

The parents didn’t respond to the situation quickly enough to take control and get the child into the seat. (There is usually a window of opportunity between the start of the tantrum and total meltdown but you do need to be quick). They weren’t familiar with safety rules for children – if they’d flown with her when she was under two, they might not have realised that now she was three, the rules were different.

The flight attendants seem to have been very heavy handed. They weren’t familiar with the seating plans. They talked into walkie talkies while interacting with the parents. And it isn’t clear how much they tried to help the parents calm the child down or how much information they gave them.

The ground staff don’t sound much better from the parent’s account – no one needs a lecture about child behaviour after an experience like that. And basically announcing that there are no flights cause you're banned and you’re stranded for 24 hours – well, that’s marvellous that is! No wonder the airline is frantically back-peddling.

Tubbs

[ 31. January 2007, 12:31: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by The Man With No Name (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
And of course the owner of the bags wasn't a three year-old...

...especially a three-year old who'd just assaulted his own mother...

quote:


...so why would they expect him to be homicidal?

Indeed. [Killing me]
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
It also completely ignores the fact that there are plenty of just as good terrorist targets, that have next to no security (movie theatre's, shopping malls, the queues before the security checkpoint, etc)

Many such places do have security measures. For instance, last time I checked, we still don't have litter bins in UK train stations, because people used to put bombs in them, and station concourses are regularly checked for abandoned luggage. (ETA: as are airport concourses, before security. It was rather unreported, but Edinburgh airport was closed and evacuated last week because a new rucksack was found abandoned in the pre-security area, and was destroyed in a controlled explosion. The city bypass was closed and blocked off on the same day due to a 'related incident'. Further details have, rather mysteriously, not been forthcoming.)

A car parked in a sensitive place is likely to be checked out, because people have, quite regularly, put bombs in cars and blown up shops, the BBC, etc.

Besides, the consequences of a plane blowing up can be rather less contained than those of a building or a train blowing up. Any of the surviving residents of Lockerbie will tell you that.

Not letting people put mysterious packages on planes then wander off to watch from a distance is plain good sense. Assuming that all bombers are suicide bombers is, well, suicidal.

[ 31. January 2007, 13:02: Message edited by: Iole Nui ]
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
I am finished discussing this here, because I realise I am pissing off the purg hosts.

Are the purg hosts running hell now? Is that a new security measure?
Yes. And there's a secret ship-tap program now, too. It takes pictures of what you're really doing while posting on the ship.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
We also have the responsibility of bringing toys and books, something to drink and a snack,

We are not allowed to take drinks on airplanes in this country. [Frown]
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
We are not allowed to take drinks on airplanes in this country.

That does make sense: the drink is the favourite weapon of the homicidal three year-old. If a toddler can spill orange juice over those she loves, just think what she could do to other people!!!
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
We also have the responsibility of bringing toys and books, something to drink and a snack,

We are not allowed to take drinks on airplanes in this country. [Frown]
Yes, you are (or atleast, you were last weekend when I took three domestic flights in the US); you're just not allowed to take drinks through security (except for baby milk; and unless you're diabetic). Anything you buy in the terminal is yours to carry on (subject to size restrictions).
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
I am finished discussing this here, because I realise I am pissing off the purg hosts.

Are the purg hosts running hell now?
If only. Because then you'd have to provide some support for your half-assed opinions.

quote:
Originally posted by GrayFace:
I've got news for you - parenting is a project that lasts at least until your kids are adults. You don't start with a clean slate, a perfectly behaved, perfectly intelligent, infinitely educated and trained child that will act with perfect sense and zero disruption to anyone unfortunate enough to encounter said child unless and until one of the stupid or lazy parents makes a mistake and fucks up its pristine perfection.

I'm sure all the parents on this thread who hadn't figured this out yet are deeply grateful for your willingness to enlighten them.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm sure all the parents on this thread who hadn't figured this out yet are deeply grateful for your willingness to enlighten them.

No charge for the service.

It's a slippery slope though. It starts off with complaints about kids on planes, and before you know it you're sunk in the depths of moaning at us for putting our kids in buggies.
[Snigger]
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
We are not allowed to take drinks on airplanes in this country.

That does make sense: the drink is the favourite weapon of the homicidal three year-old. If a toddler can spill orange juice over those she loves, just think what she could do to other people!!!
no, no, no Melon - the toddler can now take a drink on board, but only up to a set number of mililetres of it, the bottle of which must be in a bag. Even if the devious little creature can get the bottle out of the bag, the bottle opened (and it must be sealed, remember) they can only make a limited amount of sticky spillage.

FWIW, I personally don't mind a kid yelling on a plane - I mean, it's not ideal, and I'd rather not have my entire head reverberate to the racket a disgruntled miniperson can make - but tantrums do happen (that bloody 'no' word had a lots to answer for).
I would, however, be very pissed off if the plane I was on missed its takeoff due to a child refusing to be belted in and the parents not taking responsibility for it by either calming the situation or physically restraining the child.

It is the parents' responsibility to care for their child and the cabin crew's responsibility to care for the whole planeload of passengers. The parents should have known their child well enough to forsee that the flight back might be a flashpoint and mentioned this at check-in - so the cabin crew were prepared to help out. It's not fair to expect cabin crew to be able to deal with someone else's toddler as the parents are the ones who know the child. The parents should also have known how best to prepare their child for the return flight, and be willing after the event to own up to the fact that they, as the adults directly responsible for the child, are the ones upon whom the onus falls. For them to complain and grumble about the airline is unreasonable in the extreme, and they should be amazed that they were offered any sort of compensation at all - whether they accepted it or not.

[ 31. January 2007, 15:55: Message edited by: luvanddaisies ]
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
If only. Because then you'd have to provide some support for your half-assed opinions.

The onus of proof is on those who claim to know that It Was The Parents' Fault, but who have also decided to discount any statements by the parents as well as any statements by the company, ie all the information we have from which to form an opinion.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
It's a slippery slope though. It starts off with complaints about kids on planes, and before you know it you're sunk in the depths of moaning at us for putting our kids in buggies.

Unless the kids are adults, in which case you would have a God-given right to break the law and endanger the lives of everyone else in the plane, building, whatever by blocking the fire exits with their wheelchair.

[ 31. January 2007, 15:59: Message edited by: Melon ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
If only. Because then you'd have to provide some support for your half-assed opinions.

The onus of proof is on those who claim to know that It Was The Parents' Fault, but who have also decided to discount any statements by the parents as well as any statements by the company, ie all the information we have from which to form an opinion.
Bullshit. The onus shifted to you when you made this outrageous statement:

quote:
It's good to be reminded from time to time how many people hate children.

 
Posted by Pânts (# 999) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
We are not allowed to take drinks on airplanes in this country.

That does make sense: the drink is the favourite weapon of the homicidal three year-old. If a toddler can spill orange juice over those she loves, just think what she could do to other people!!!
no, no, no Melon - the toddler can now take a drink on board, but only up to a set number of mililetres of it, the bottle of which must be in a bag.
Nope. We had a bottle of drink for Alien which we weren't allowed to take on. We were only allowed to if it was a real baby bottle with a teat.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm sure all the parents on this thread who hadn't figured this out yet are deeply grateful for your willingness to enlighten them.

No charge for the service.

It's a slippery slope though. It starts off with complaints about kids on planes, and before you know it you're sunk in the depths of moaning at us for putting our kids in buggies.
[Snigger]

It's fine with me if you put your kids in buggies. You can carry them around in shoeboxes for all I care, or push them around in wheelbarrows. Just don't delude yourselves that any of them is "the apple of every grandfather's eye."
 
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
WTF has wheelchairs got to do with it?!?! You do seem to be on a crusade for the world revolving around kids. [Frown]

Last time I went on a plane those immediate to the exit doors are checked to be able bodied and/or swapped so of a quick exit.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:

In my experience, the last people to sit down are always middle aged women without children who do not understand the concept of "stow your baggage safely", and the main role of cabin crew is to stop those women from blocking access to the entire plane for 15 minutes by standing in the aisle checking every single item in their handbags, which, inevitably, are bigger than a family suitcase.


It's good to be reminded from time to time who the middle-aged women haters are.

In my experience of travelling it's occasionally families with very young children and older people - quite naturally, I'd say - who take their time to settle down, and who need a little extra assistance here and there. I try not to hate them because in the case of the former travelling with youngsters can be stressful, and in the case of the latter I shall very soon be one of their number.

Anselmina: that awful thing ie, a middle-aged woman without children, but who knows how to pack for travel and is more than capable of looking after herself, and who reckons she's not the only one amongst this category who have learnt how to travel efficiently without becoming a burden on the worthier younger public.
 
Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Just don't delude yourselves that any of them is "the apple of every grandfather's eye."

Awww Ruth! That was the one bit of that story that I really liked. I am sure that if my Dad were to meet this girl he too would delight in her, and be the apple of my Dad's eye as well.

Just as an aside, Melon, what were you thinking of sleeping in a cot when your son was in a double bed?! The first thing that came to mind was that double beds are meant to accommodate two adults, and can easily fit an adult and a child.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Last time I went on a plane those immediate to the exit doors are checked to be able bodied and/or swapped so of a quick exit.

Not so on the planes I've been on in the last couple years. There was a court challenge, and now those by exit doors self-certify that they are able to carry out the requirements of sitting by an exit door. That is, "please ask us to find you another seat if you would not be able to carry out these tasks in case of an emergency {tasks listed}."

Except for Melon's initial strong statement about the events necessarily exhibiting hatred of children, I agree with everything else he's said.

[cross-posted... Oh, and I don't agree about who's last to sit down, since I've never paid attention.

There's just not enough information in the articles on a thoughtful reading to conclude that this is necessarily a case of nasty undisciplined kid and oblivious unprepared irresponsible parents.]

[ 31. January 2007, 16:25: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
 
Posted by Pânts (# 999) on :
 
Families and disabled (or whatever the politically corret term is) get to board first so they get longer to get themselves sorted.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
What's missing in the articles is any indication of actions by the cabin crew in assisting with the sorting, or alerting the family of impending timetables of when they needed to be sorted by apart from "NOW!", or any useful interaction at all before the boom was lowered.

There are gaps that can filled in either way. I'm surprised at the almost universal willingness here to fill in the gaps in the most critical way possible to the family.

For example -- the plane was 15 minutes late. We don't know if it was late because everyone had been strapped in already for 15 minutes waiting for one last child to be seated, or if it was 15 minutes late for other reasons already.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Just don't delude yourselves that any of them is "the apple of every grandfather's eye."

Awww Ruth! That was the one bit of that story that I really liked.
It made me want to hurl. Grandparents who think everyone will adore their grandchildren the way they do are like pet owners who think their pets are just the most specialest animals on the planet.

[ 31. January 2007, 16:45: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
Almost every ocurrence of this story is obviously from the same original. There is a slightly different take - on the parents side - from Dianne Williamson of the Worcester Telegram and Gazette and a slightly different take from the Orlando Sentinel from which it appears that the trouble with the toddler had gone on for fifteen minutes. I have huge sympathy for the parents here, but I can see why (if this is the accurate picture) after fifteen minutes of attempting to resolve the situation and perhaps with no end in sight, the airline took the action it did. I guess the airline may have thought something more could have been done because none of this could have been ggood for them either.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
OK, something I agree with RuthW on.

I wanted to hurl because, even if true, it was utterly irrelevant.

[cross-posted with BroJames]

[ 31. January 2007, 16:46: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
We don't know if it was late because everyone had been strapped in already for 15 minutes waiting for one last child to be seated, or if it was 15 minutes late for other reasons already.

I don't see how that matters. Even if the plane had been delayed for 15 minutes due to the mechanics having to duct-tape the wings in place, the parents still had those 15 minutes (plus the previous 30, at least) to deal with the child. I've flown enough to know that you get on the plane and you sit your ass down in the seat and you stay buckled until the captain tells you that you are free to move about the cabin. It's uncomfortable as hell, my knees are always jammed into the back of the seat in front of me, I hate the whole experience, and I want it over as soon as possible, so everyone on the plane needs to sit down and shut the fuck up. Even adults, whom I've been known to holler at when they've taken too long to sort their 90,000 carry-on bags (hell, once I was screaming from the MSP jetway because it was -10º out and the asshat frat boys couldn't figure out where to put their ski gear).
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pânts:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
We are not allowed to take drinks on airplanes in this country.

That does make sense: the drink is the favourite weapon of the homicidal three year-old. If a toddler can spill orange juice over those she loves, just think what she could do to other people!!!
no, no, no Melon - the toddler can now take a drink on board, but only up to a set number of mililetres of it, the bottle of which must be in a bag.
Nope. We had a bottle of drink for Alien which we weren't allowed to take on. We were only allowed to if it was a real baby bottle with a teat.
How odd. this is what the dept of transport says.

That said, the rules for carry-on have changed so often recently that not all check-in staff know exactly what's what. When I fly, I tend to have a viola/violin/saxophone/sundry other instrument with me, and the Musicians' Union produced a really handy little laminate flyer quoting the DFT regulations on instruments.
quote:
Musical instruments are, as an exception, allowed as a second item of cabin baggage, but will need to be screened and passengers should check with their airlines if special arrangements (e.g. purchasing an extra seat) for these large instruments will be required.
It's been used a good few times, and is invaluable. What I don't understand though is why cellists have to pay full-price for their cello - I've never heard of a cello having a tantrum about doing up its seat-belt, and they don't eat or drink much.
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
There are gaps that can filled in either way. I'm surprised at the almost universal willingness here to fill in the gaps in the most critical way possible to the family.

I'm not. Not at all.

It seems true, clear, and blindingly obvious to most people that a child's behavior correlates precisely and directly with the quality of the child's parents. It's as fundamental and axiomatic a belief as "water is wet" or "the sun rises in the east," and more fundamental and axiomatic than anything most people believe about God.

I don't know why, since it is manifestly false. Maybe it's the baleful influence of Freud. Maybe it's the fact that it allows people to feel smugly superior, and relieves them of the responsibility to be charitable or helpful. Maybe something else.

But it certainly doesn't surprise me.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
Further info here about third or fourth post down. [ETA clearly a v. difficult situation all round]

[ 31. January 2007, 17:12: Message edited by: BroJames ]
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Well, I for one am completely convinced it was the parents' (mostly the father's, perhaps) fault after seeing the eyewitness account from BroJames' link. So many parents who ignore their child that way. No wonder the kid makes noise. She was unhappy and her being ignored.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It seems true, clear, and blindingly obvious to most people that a child's behavior correlates precisely and directly with the quality of the child's parents. It's as fundamental and axiomatic a belief as "water is wet" or "the sun rises in the east," and more fundamental and axiomatic than anything most people believe about God.

No, it's complete and utter baloney. If it were true, it would mean that the parents in question were of a very high quality on the first flight when the child behaved well, of a very low quality on the infamous second flight, and of a very high quality on the third flight when the child behaved herself again.

I think it's true that good parents tend to produce good children, but you have to take the long view - ie 20 years or so, not judge on the basis of one incident.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
Melon, you do realize that Josephine is agreeing with you?
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It seems true, clear, and blindingly obvious to most people that a child's behavior correlates precisely and directly with the quality of the child's parents. ... I don't know why, since it is manifestly false.

My mother used to say, "I don't take any credit, and I won't take any blame." However, she did take responsibility, which, to me, is what all this is about. I'm still really having trouble understanding why it was apparently physically impossible to simply pick her up, put her in the seat and do the seat belt up. She must be one of those Toddler Mutant Ninja Turtles or something. OliviaG
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Melon, you do realize that Josephine is agreeing with you?

Melon would have to exercise a few more brain cells to cotton on to that. Not outside the realm of possibility, but I wouldn't put money on it.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
I don't take credit for my kids being generally easy going. They probably came that way. But it isn't like parents have no influence on their kids -- come on! There is no self-respecting 3 year old who doesn't know where she can push her parents. If the parents give a lot, she'll push a lot. Kids want to find where your boundaries are. Kids need to find where your boundaries are -- it's part of the process for learning to set your own boundaries when you're older. I've seen calculating behavior in a little relative when he does or says "X" to Mommy -- the look in the eyes that says "this got such a satisfying reaction last time, I think I'll see what happens when I do it again."

So it's both -- the kid and the parents, feeding that ever-turning wheel of happiness and misery that is raising children.

P.S.: Ruth -- the grandfather's comment also made me want to "call God on the big white phone". [Projectile]
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
Sometimes, you all drive me completely around the fucking bend. It's a good thing I love my fellow Shipmate. *breathe in... breathe out... yes I really do love my fellow Shipmate...%^$%^&*

why do these things always have to be either/or?

I love children. especially my own. (really, I'm pretty lukewarm on everyone else's) but the parents needed to be better parents in this situation, end of story.

I have flown with a 3-year-old. it fucking sucks. end of story. even Mother of the Year is ready for a padded room after that experience.

before I go there, a quick reality check- airlines are not public facilities and no one on the freaking planet has any right to be on a plane and fly. they are private carriers, and if the owners say you don't get to play, tough shit. let's just be very clear on that. if some 3-year old warps out in my place of business and can't follow the rules, I can tell the parents to get the kid out of there and I don't need to justify it to the world.

okay, moving on.

there are tantrums and there are tantrums. not all three year olds have mastered this art - I'd even say most are green amateurs. I have three children. all of them pulled the tantrum card in their threes. only one earned the title of Grand Master. (Hi Chasee!) As a parent, you may think you've seen tantrums and can handle them, but you may have been dealing with your garden variety toddler.

take my word for it. After being trained by the Queen of Tantrums, my boys had no chance of getting away with anything.

The thing is - that kid may very well have been completely off-the-deep-end warping out, which is a massive stress to anyone within the same time zone - this still doesn't justify the parent's not handling it in a way that minimizes the impact on others.

they know their kid. kid has a tantrum issue? plan for it. bring benedryl if necessary. (shut up. even some doctors recommend this) don't fly with said tantrum-prone child. don't fly if kid is recovering from ear surgery (what the FUCK???).

Chasee was like this. I tried taking her to movies and quickly learned this was not an option. I quit taking her to movies. period. what's more, the following two didn't go to movies until they were freaking old enough to handle the responsibility of sitting still and being quiet in a public setting. you just don't go there.

It's not about blaming the kid. there is precious little you can really hold a 3 year old accountable for, you can't even really count on them to control their bladder yet.

the reality is, you know your child, you plan for how they will most likely react to a situation, and you plan for worst-case scenario. personally, I would say you don't put them in a warp-out situation unless you have to. (moving? okay. vacation? hell no)

and the correllary is that the airlines and their staff and the rest of the travelling public did not chose to have your children and does not have to put up with their rotten behavior. Don't wait to be kicked off the plane - if you can't unemotionally control your child, you ask to be let off. (how humiliating to have to be asked to leave!) You make it clear to said child, once you are out of the situation, that their behavior led to these consequences. again, unemotionally - this isn't a fucking drama play, it's life skill training.

and just to be clear - I don't support those judgemental fucks who go around grumbling about how rotten other parents are either.* get some fucking tolerance. have some compassion. a tantrum is sheer parent torture and a violation of human rights. (well, it should be!)

three year olds are hell, as has been pointed out already. luckily, they are still cute while sleeping - it keeps them alive. So, the world needs to be patient, and parents need to quit being apologists and start being teachers/guides/disciplinarians/drill instructors.

[tangent]
and furthermore - all the talk of abusive parenting is such a wad of horseshit and just shows how those who brought it up haven't got a real argument to stand on here. Erin's post was illustrative, but not exactly meant to define the terms, you narrowminded twats. I was raised with zero physical discipline in my home. my parents chose this. I never got away with shit behavior and had an extremely strict household. my husband and I have actually tried both styles - discipline with and without spanking. we found that 100 percent of the time with our children, physical punishment did not produce the desired results so we don't do it, and we get better results. That is our family, and our choice, and there are more ways to skin a cat. I'm not making a judgemnt on anyone else's methods.

effective discipline does not mean abuse. please, cease the polarizing bullshit. you're embarrassing yourselves.
[/tangent]

most certainly I've crossposted with the world here. so be it.

* Laura, this isn't directed at you - more towards those people who see your kids running in the grocery store aisle and start making loud remarks to their neigbors about how "some people" should control their spawn, etc etc. I'm sure you know the type.
 
Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
It made me want to hurl. Grandparents who think everyone will adore their grandchildren the way they do are like pet owners who think their pets are just the most specialest animals on the planet.

It made me want to hurl too, but as far as I could tell it was about the only part of the story that didn't have any spin on it.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
and one more thing, dammit, what kind of freak allows the airline to seat their child away from themselves? what the fuck is the matter with these people?

ahem.

thank you.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Melon, you do realize that Josephine is agreeing with you?

Melon would have to exercise a few more brain cells to cotton on to that. Not outside the realm of possibility, but I wouldn't put money on it.
Very sorry Josephine. I typed that 2 minutes after walking in from accident and emergency, after my daughter broke her arm in two places. I'm sure it's either my fault or my wife's, I just haven't had time to work out which yet.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It seems true, clear, and blindingly obvious to most people that a child's behavior correlates precisely and directly with the quality of the child's parents. ... I don't know why, since it is manifestly false.

My mother used to say, "I don't take any credit, and I won't take any blame." However, she did take responsibility, which, to me, is what all this is about. I'm still really having trouble understanding why it was apparently physically impossible to simply pick her up, put her in the seat and do the seat belt up. She must be one of those Toddler Mutant Ninja Turtles or something. OliviaG
Too true, there comes a time in every parent-child relationship when only fear will do. [Cool] To get their attention that is.

One of the keys to effective parenting is knowing when it matters. Kid screaming in your car, that's a pain but it doesn't matter. Kid screaming on a bus, an inconvenience (but crying kids have been put off buses in this town because they "distract the drivers" ). Kid screaming on a plane and parents unable/unwilling/ whatever to strap the child in is another matter, especilly because the law says they must.

OK, the airline have undertaken to review their methods but is there a chance that Elly's family will learn jack shit from this? I thought not, why should they?

[eta: Melon, I hope your daughter and your family will be OK. [Votive] ]

[ 31. January 2007, 18:28: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Pânts (# 999) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Melon, you do realize that Josephine is agreeing with you?

Melon would have to exercise a few more brain cells to cotton on to that. Not outside the realm of possibility, but I wouldn't put money on it.
Very sorry Josephine. I typed that 2 minutes after walking in from accident and emergency, after my daughter broke her arm in two places. I'm sure it's either my fault or my wife's, I just haven't had time to work out which yet.
What the fuck you doing here then? Shouldn't you actually be spending time with her rather than wasting time playing on your computer. Probably was your fault, not your wifes, because you were on the computer rather than 'watching' her.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
I'm sure it's either my fault or my wife's, I just haven't had time to work out which yet.

Sorry to hear, Melon. When my son broke his elbow it was nobody's fault. Well, it was his fault for running on the sloppy floors at Food Emporium and my fault for not spotting the spilt milk. Answering what I recognized as the "making sure you're not a child abuser" questions at NY Presbyterian hospital was the punishment.

Though I was later told that what's really my fault,was not suing the Food Emporium to start his college fund. Oh, well.
[Frown]
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
We don't know if it was late because everyone had been strapped in already for 15 minutes waiting for one last child to be seated, or if it was 15 minutes late for other reasons already.

I don't see how that matters. Even if the plane had been delayed for 15 minutes due to the mechanics having to duct-tape the wings in place, the parents still had those 15 minutes (plus the previous 30, at least) to deal with the child.
Because the chain of events leading to the final event, matters.

There's a difference between a plane running on normal time, or even time to spare, where everybody gets boarded in stately order, and each wave has had time to get seated and stowed before the next rush of people comes down the aisle, and all the final problems of figuring out where to stash all the carry-ons has been taken care of, and one family is noticeably unable to get with the program even after several reminders by the cabin crew and offers of whatever appropriate assitance ("appropriate assistance" = "whatever is going to most likely going to get everyone buckled in safely in the least amount of time without precipitating a battle of walkie-talkie wills"),

vs.

a plane that arrives late, everyone is rushed on pell-mell, where even if the families with children get on first there's a continual hurried chaos of people scrambling to get on, such that anyone who has more difficulty getting them seated the hell down and buckled in has that difficulty compounded.

Not that this was necessarily at one extreme or the other, but where on the spectrum was it?

How do you know they had at least 45 minutes to deal with the child?
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
comet: If I wanted to have babies, I'd want you to raise them. [Overused] OliviaG
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
comet: If I wanted to have babies, I'd want you to raise them. [Overused] OliviaG

[Hot and Hormonal] thank you.

I determined awhile ago that the world would be a better place if it were all run my way. unfortunately, the powers that be aren't listening to me. what's with that? [Biased]
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Well, when my arm got broken the first time it was DEFINITELY my father's fault, as he was the one who slammed the car door on it. It's been more than 25 years and I still get fabulous mileage out of it.

Why am I assuming they had nearly 45 minutes? They weren't making a connection, so there was no frantic dash from one end of Terminal A to the ass end of Terminal B. Every US airline, without fail, allows families to "pre-board" in order to get settled. Now, if they weren't ready to board when the airline called for families that is SO DEFINITELY their fault, because there was nothing holding them up besides their own stupidity.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pânts:
What the fuck you doing here then? Shouldn't you actually be spending time with her rather than wasting time playing on your computer. Probably was your fault, not your wifes, because you were on the computer rather than 'watching' her.

You're right, I should have been blogging.

Your comment illustrates all that is wrong with this structured parenting claptrap. I was walking towards casualty within 2 minutes of my daughter walking in the door, because broken limbs count as a priority in our household. I was willing to spend as much time there as necessary, because that's what parents do.

But once I got back home, there was no crisis, so why manufacture one? We walked to casualty because that's what people do when there's no crisis, and "no crisis" is the message I wanted to send. There were no tears, a lot of questions and a faltering explanation of the discovery of x-rays that made me realise that I need to refresh my memory on that score.

I'm sure I should be making a huge fuss in the hearing of my daughter about whether the bones will set right and phoning distant relatives who did a year of medical school to check that my child is receiving the very best treatment and and and...

And this would stress out my daughter, which would give me an opportunity to show my magistral parenting skills in consoling her, and then I'd have to phone up everyone I know to tell them how well I coped, and maybe start a couple of prayer chains, and then I could go to bed feeling very proud of myself.

But I'm afraid it's not our way. We deal with stuff and move on. And that's the kind of blasé attitude that makes you look like a really bad parent in the eyes of the structured felt tip brigade. Because structured parenting is all about demonstrating how hard you are working to do what your average cocker spaniel does naturally and without wax crayons. Your spectacular display of commitment to the task means that no-one had better dare criticise you, and that you get to criticise everyone who isn't trying as hard as you. It never occurs to structured parenthood fanatics that maybe they have to try so hard because they have no natural aptitude for relating to children.
 
Posted by Pânts (# 999) on :
 
Slacker. You should now be setting up a prayer chain that her arm will heal without the need for plaster. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
quote:
Comet wrote:
and one more thing, dammit, what kind of freak allows the airline to seat their child away from themselves? what the fuck is the matter with these people?

ahem.

thank you.

In a TV interview, the parents made it sound as it they were all sitting together and that the child was on the floor in front of their feet. Of course, I can't be sure what the parents were saying because the kid was squirmy, screaming, and slapping her mother's head during the entire interview -- which makes me wonder about what kind of parents push a child into the 15-minutes-of-fame spotlight like that.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Of course, I can't be sure what the parents were saying because the kid was squirmy, screaming, and slapping her mother's head during the entire interview -- which makes me wonder about what kind of parents push a child into the 15-minutes-of-fame spotlight like that.

That interview sounds like great publicity for the airline, so far.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
Melon, seriously, what are you going on about?

we're not talking about regimented lines of uniformed Von Trapp children here. We're talking about teaching acceptable social behavior as it fits a given situation.

sounds like you handled your child's crisis as I would have. I don't see how that is somehow in opposition to controlling a 3-year-old's outbursts.

what's the issue?
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
We deal with stuff and move on.

Then your daughter's accident doesn't really explain your failure to figure out that Josephine was agreeing with you. [Roll Eyes]

I'm sure you're a fine parent, Melon -- but the ones this thread is about aren't, and you look stupid defending them.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm sure you're a fine parent, Melon -- but the ones this thread is about aren't, and you look stupid defending them.

We don't know that, and you look stupid attacking them.
 
Posted by Hermes66 (# 12156) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
quote:
Comet wrote:
and one more thing, dammit, what kind of freak allows the airline to seat their child away from themselves? what the fuck is the matter with these people?

ahem.

thank you.

In a TV interview, the parents made it sound as it they were all sitting together and that the child was on the floor in front of their feet. Of course, I can't be sure what the parents were saying because the kid was squirmy, screaming, and slapping her mother's head during the entire interview -- which makes me wonder about what kind of parents push a child into the 15-minutes-of-fame spotlight like that.
[Killing me] [Overused]
 
Posted by Hermes66 (# 12156) on :
 
It's threads like this which remind me why I chose not to procreate.

Thank you all! [Smile]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm sure you're a fine parent, Melon -- but the ones this thread is about aren't, and you look stupid defending them.

We don't know that, and you look stupid attacking them.
We do know that, and if you think I look stupid, then I know I'm on the right track, given how good your judgement is.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
Please explain how you know the parents are bad parents. Use specific examples, and medical history of the girl to show that her temper tantruming in this instance and/or their inability to control it was due to their inability as parents.
 
Posted by Jimmy B (# 220) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
In my experience, the last people to sit down are always middle aged women without children who do not understand the concept of "stow your baggage safely", and the main role of cabin crew is to stop those women from blocking access to the entire plane for 15 minutes by standing in the aisle checking every single item in their handbags, which, inevitably, are bigger than a family suitcase.


It's good to be reminded from time to time who the middle-aged women haters are.

In my experience of travelling it's occasionally families with very young children and older people - quite naturally, I'd say - who take their time to settle down, and who need a little extra assistance here and there. I try not to hate them because in the case of the former travelling with youngsters can be stressful, and in the case of the latter I shall very soon be one of their number.

Anselmina: that awful thing ie, a middle-aged woman without children, but who knows how to pack for travel and is more than capable of looking after herself, and who reckons she's not the only one amongst this category who have learnt how to travel efficiently without becoming a burden on the worthier younger public.

Mm. Well said.

Great rant too, comet. [Overused]
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
They obviously failed the Old School method: a rolled up sock and stout length of duct tape.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Please explain how you know

Nope, not gonna explain anything to you. It's a waste of energy. And the same goes for you as for Melon -- the onus shifted to you when you went off the rails early in this thread:

quote:
Let's all blame the parents, because if a child has tantrums that the parents can't control, it's clearly their faults. If only they had begun smacking the child harder and earlier, it would never have tantrums again....

You people are either sadists or clueless about children, especially difficult-to-parent ones.


 
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
and one more thing, dammit, what kind of freak allows the airline to seat their child away from themselves?

For kids under five, absolutely none. Not even AirTran. Because such a seating plan would also be against FAA regulations. The kid was crawling around on the floor at their parents feet (and under the seats), not in the row in front of them.

---------------

Perhaps the parents could have been better prepared with stuff (e.g. a five point car seat). Maybe it was their first time flying with the kid. We learned a heck of a lot after our first plane trip with a child (and again on our first trip with two).

It is a terrible overreaction to say the child has been poorly brought up or these are terrible parents generally based on what there is to read here.
 
Posted by R.D. Olivaw (# 9990) on :
 
I don't think that you have to be nearly a "perfect parent" to be able to get a three year old to sit in a seat when it's required. Tantrums are a part of childhood and there isn't a parent who hasn't experienced the awful feeling of seeing their child completely unhinged. I have walked away from full grocery carts to take my children to the car, sat patiently by the side of the road until they would leave their seat belt on, carried them to their room and put them on their beds and let them writhe and scream until they exhausted themselves. I made sure that a tantrum NEVER got them what they wanted. But the time spent waiting was mine and mine alone....not 160 people trying to live their lives. A three year old child can understand that everyone gets angry, scared, sad....you name it and it's normal and okay to feel these feelings...what is NOT okay is expressing or acting on those feelings in a way that is hurtful, violent, or disruptive. This is not an 18 month old that is all impulse but a three year old who is probably in playgroup, or more likely pre-school and must learn to navigate the world in a way that is acceptable. She was described as hitting her parents which I find alarming. No one is allowed to hit in my house and it is made clear that it is never acceptable behavior. Pre-verbal children hit and bite out of frustration but once children learn to speak and are taught to communicate with words, there should be no hitting. If she always had to stay in her car seat her parents could say..."this is just like the car and you must stay in the seat...I know your angry but... look...everyone is in their seat, buckled up...mommy and daddy, too...and it's the rule. period...cry all you want but you must sit down, now." If you can't get that basic level of cooperation then it's probably dangerous to have her on the plane. What if she popped her belt off during take off or landing? What if she wouldn't listen in an emergency? Sorry to go one, but three is one of my favorite ages, (my son just turned four) and I think that three year olds are much more capable than some on this thread have given them credit for. This isn't about being "mean" or "perfect" but about knowing when you can spend thirty minutes on a hissy fit and when you cannot...and separating what is uncomfortable (crying, whining) and what is not negotiable (seat belt).


As for the parents, their choice to go public and thrust this poor kid into the spotlight so that they could kvetch says more about them then the plane incident.
 
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 
Preboarding for families went out sometime in the last 5+ years or so.

General procedure these days is to board First Class about 30 minutes prior to the flight (no problem here but time). This is usually followed by a general call to board 'all elite frequent fliers, all families with kids, and all those needing a little extra time'. There are usually at least 10-20 such frequent fliers on coach who beat a family into line every time. Trying to haul all your stuff (like a car seat, food, and toys to keep the kids quiet for the whole flight) past them (because families are usually put in the back) means you are lucky to be in your seat with everything packed by 10 minutes before pushing back.

According to Air Tran's website, they only give preferential boarding to families with infants (<2 yrs old) and those with disabilities.
See here and here.
Since boarding is preferential by seat (in a zone system) and discount fares only get seats assigned at check in on AirTran, this family was probably among the last to board the plane.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
the onus shifted to you when you went off the rails early in this thread:

So the onus is on me to prove you have no proof they're bad parents? That makes no sense at all.
Fact is, you don't know the history here, so you don't know if they're bad parents or not.
 
Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
Could someone explain to me what 'structured parenting' is? I have tried Googling, and have found places where it is mentioned, but the ones I have looked at don't actually say what it is.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
the onus shifted to you when you went off the rails early in this thread:

So the onus is on me to prove you have no proof they're bad parents? That makes no sense at all.
Then it shouldn't be too hard to figure out that that's not what I meant. The onus is on you to back up your position.

quote:
Fact is, you don't know the history here, so you don't know if they're bad parents or not.
Parents who allow their 3-year-old to hit them are bad parents (see Presleyterian's post). If this kid had relevant problems, I'm sure these attention-seekers would have told the media all about it.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Then it shouldn't be too hard to figure out that that's not what I meant.

On the contrary. If you were 100% rational all the time, this might be the case. Unfortunately that's not the way the wind blows.

My position is that we don't know the history. Books upon books have been written about "explosive children" that go off the rails for no reason. If your kid is like that, and you don't know why or what it means, you're not likely to go bragging about it to the media.

Oh and thanks for the new debating principle. If anyone displays strong emotions, they automatically lose and I don't have to back up my position, however absurd or unfounded. I'll call it argumentum ad ruthium.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Please explain how you know

Nope, not gonna explain anything to you. It's a waste of energy. And the same goes for you as for Melon -- the onus shifted to you when you went off the rails early in this thread:

quote:
Let's all blame the parents, because if a child has tantrums that the parents can't control, it's clearly their faults. If only they had begun smacking the child harder and earlier, it would never have tantrums again....

You people are either sadists or clueless about children, especially difficult-to-parent ones.


Now I'm really confused. My irony meter went right up to red when I read MT's post. Was it intended to be taken literally?
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
It is a terrible overreaction to say the child has been poorly brought up or these are terrible parents generally based on what there is to read here.

If I came across as calling these parents terrible parents, I apologize. I don't think they were terrible parents. I think they were ill-prepared and too lenient. I say this from the 20/20 hindsight of having gotten three of the little monsters past the tantrum stage. Have I ever been an ill-prepared or too-lenient parent? oh hell, yeah. The trick is to take note when you screw up, apologize where appropriate, never let that happen again, and not blame the world for your own family issues.
quote:
R. D. Olivaw said:
I have walked away from full grocery carts to take my children to the car, sat patiently by the side of the road until they would leave their seat belt on, carried them to their room and put them on their beds and let them writhe and scream until they exhausted themselves. I made sure that a tantrum NEVER got them what they wanted. But the time spent waiting was mine and mine alone....not 160 people trying to live their lives.

A-freaking-MEN.

this is key.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Now I'm really confused. My irony meter went right up to red when I read MT's post. Was it intended to be taken literally?

I think it was the last bit, which was serious, that she was taking offense at. Surely she couldn't be so stupid as to think the first bit was my own position, even given things she's said on this thread.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Please explain how you know the parents are bad parents. Use specific examples, and medical history of the girl to show that her temper tantruming in this instance and/or their inability to control it was due to their inability as parents.

I know I'll be sorry to get involved in this but how about the eyewitness from BroJames' link and the witness of the girl throwing a fit during the interview Presleytarian watched?
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Calling people who disagree with him sadists was hyperbole, not irony.

quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
If anyone displays strong emotions, they automatically lose ...

Not what I said. But as I doubt you'll learn to read for comprehension any time soon, I won't be back here to counter your flailing.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
choirboy, I'm obviously not disputing your evidence, but recently when I flew airtran they still offered preboarding for the elderly, families and anyone needing a little extra time getting up the jetway, so I don't t hink it's the same everywhere even if it should be.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I know I'll be sorry to get involved in this but how about the eyewitness from BroJames' link and the witness of the girl throwing a fit during the interview Presleytarian watched?

I'd say that's more evidence this girl has a problem and her parents don't know how to cope with it. I'm not sure how it proves they're bad parents, however. Not all children are textbook angels, and some parents just don't know what resources exist for parents of such children, or even that it is worth it to seek professional help. Some don't have the time or energy to do the kind of research it takes to determine what is really going on, what kind of expert you need to take the child to, etc.

I think until we have firm evidence that this child's behavior is strictly due to bad parenting, we need to give the parents a break and the benefit of the doubt.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I won't be back here to counter your flailing.

Promises, promises.

I just love the argument, "you disagree with me, hence you can't read for comprehension." So insightful. So iron-clad. What can counter it?

ETA: Ah, the light dawns! "Going off the rail" means "using hyperbole." How foolish of me!

[ 31. January 2007, 21:53: Message edited by: MouseThief ]
 
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Last time I went on a plane those immediate to the exit doors are checked to be able bodied and/or swapped so of a quick exit.

Not so on the planes I've been on in the last couple years. There was a court challenge, and now those by exit doors self-certify that they are able to carry out the requirements of sitting by an exit door. That is, "please ask us to find you another seat if you would not be able to carry out these tasks in case of an emergency {tasks listed}."
Er - and the difference between being able to carry out tasks in case of emergency - ie quickly openeing door and getting ramp down/helping people/whatever it is and what i said is...?!?!?! I think youve just proved my point? Anyway its irrelevant.

Melon - I think youre missing the argument...

People arent saying the parents were necessarially the worst parents in the world, but just that ultimately the kid is the parents **responsibility**. All kids have tantrums etc etc, but ultimately you have to have kids in seats to fly. If every plane waited for hours while everyone was seated then how on earth would they organise an airport? Usually parents and kids get on first so they have plenty of time to settle.

I really think this one is a no-brainer.

[Much like your code then.]

[ 02. February 2007, 11:57: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:

OK, so maybe "bad" is the wrong word. What other words do these points suggest? OliviaG
ETA: Cod. I mean code!

[ 31. January 2007, 21:55: Message edited by: OliviaG ]
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
OK, so maybe "bad" is the wrong word. What other words do these points suggest? OliviaG

Overwhelmed? Exhausted? Unable to cope? At wit's end?
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
MT, I can't speak for anyone else here, but from my perspective whether this child has some underlying issue is irrelevent. I know lots of kids with special needs, including one of my own. it is up to the parent to make accomidations for whatever those needs are.

my daughter had temper tantrum "issues" just like this kid. It was my job as a parent to work with that. I chose to avoid certain situations, remove her from others, and battle my way through yet others. just because she had the temperment of a skittish racehorse at the age of three doesn't excuse me from my job as her mother to teach her the approriate behavior for a given situation.

I would say this applies to all parents and all kids, no matter what their special needs might be. within reason - and I think the majority of society will cut families slack when they're dealing with wheelchairs, or deaf kids, or boinky ADDers. it's when the parents allow it to become everyone else's problem that I take issue with.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
my daughter had temper tantrum "issues" just like this kid. It was my job as a parent to work with that. I chose to avoid certain situations, remove her from others, and battle my way through yet others. just because she had the temperment of a skittish racehorse at the age of three doesn't excuse me from my job as her mother to teach her the approriate behavior for a given situation.

If you were able to do so, (1) well done, and (2) clearly your child isn't as bad off as some.

I'm not saying that there is no way on earth these are bad parents. I'm saying we don't KNOW that, and should be prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.

And knee-jerk "blame the parent-ism" helps no-one, particularly people with the REALLY difficult children.

[ 31. January 2007, 22:01: Message edited by: MouseThief ]
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
for the record, I was responding to this:
quote:
I think until we have firm evidence that this child's behavior is strictly due to bad parenting, we need to give the parents a break and the benefit of the doubt.

 
Posted by mertide (# 4500) on :
 
If you knew you had an "explosive child", whether or not you knew all the implications and possible treatments, why on earth would you put the child through the stress of an airline flight? Since the child behaved according to witnesses the same way before boarding as well as during the television interview, it's not likely that this was the first episode of uncontrolled behavior. Wouldn't it enter the parent's minds that if the child is subject to uncontrolled explosions, that just possibly an unfamiliar environment, emotional stress from meeting and then leaving grandparents, and being made to sit still for hours might trigger it, and that just perhaps it might be better to stay home and perhaps fly the grandparents up to visit instead?
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
If you were able to do so, (1) well done, and (2) clearly your child isn't as bad off as some.

1) you win some battles and you lose some and 2) shut the fuck up, you don't know what you're talking about. there is no such thing as an unguidable, unteachable child.

quote:
I'm not saying that there is no way on earth these are bad parents. I'm saying we don't KNOW that, and should be prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I never said they were bad parents.
 
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
If I came across as calling these parents terrible parents, I apologize. I don't think they were terrible parents. I think they were ill-prepared and too lenient.

Sorry - the horizontal line in the post was to distinguish comments on the quotation from you from the rest of the post.

I don't know about too lenient - we don't really have a time frame. If they had a clear idea (which it seems) that the kid was freaking out because she had had ear surgery and the last flight hurt, I think I'd have a hard time blaming them for not just telling a toddler to just suck it up and force them back into the seat without trying other things first.

Poorly prepared, yes. No car seat, squirmy toddler, cramped conditions requiring need to be still adds up to bad move. But bad parenting? A poorly brought-up child? Good lord, there'd be no good parents on earth if you were not entitled to learn from experience!

How many times has this family flown before? We don't know.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mertide:
If you knew you had an "explosive child", whether or not you knew all the implications and possible treatments, why on earth would you put the child through the stress of an airline flight? Since the child behaved according to witnesses the same way before boarding as well as during the television interview, it's not likely that this was the first episode of uncontrolled behavior. Wouldn't it enter the parent's minds that if the child is subject to uncontrolled explosions, that just possibly an unfamiliar environment, emotional stress from meeting and then leaving grandparents, and being made to sit still for hours might trigger it, and that just perhaps it might be better to stay home and perhaps fly the grandparents up to visit instead?

Yes. I believe I said as much in an earlier post, although not so eloquently.
 
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Melon - I think youre missing the argument...

People arent saying the parents were necessarially the worst parents in the world, but just that ultimately the kid is the parents **responsibility**.

Some people were. The original thread title in fact was about controlling a spoiled brat. Others certainly came across as saying these were terrible parents.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
shut the fuck up, you don't know what you're talking about. there is no such thing as an unguidable, unteachable child.

I didn't say unguidable and unteachable. But there are some children that no amount of "guiding and teaching" is going to prevent their having explosions. If you don't know that, then I clearly know more about this than you do.

quote:
I never said they were bad parents.
You're not the only person who has posted on this thread, are you? May I direct you to the thread title?

[ 31. January 2007, 22:09: Message edited by: MouseThief ]
 
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
my daughter had temper tantrum "issues" just like this kid. It was my job as a parent to work with that. I chose to avoid certain situations, remove her from others, and battle my way through yet others. just because she had the temperment of a skittish racehorse at the age of three doesn't excuse me from my job as her mother to teach her the approriate behavior for a given situation.

I assume that was probably a process that took a few trials to sink in for a given situation. So is the family to avoid flying to keep out of this situation or are they to try their best, realizing the first few times, it is going to be difficult?
 
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
Hmm - how many flights does an airport have a day? How many kids on each plane? Suppose each plane has *just* one kid flying for the first time/with tempter tantrums..... how will that work if we all work around that?
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
shut the fuck up, you don't know what you're talking about. there is no such thing as an unguidable, unteachable child.

I didn't say unguidable and unteachable. But there are some children that no amount of "guiding and teaching" is going to prevent their having explosions. If you don't know that, then I clearly know more about this than you do.

If that's truly the case, then the child does NOT need to be on a flight unless it's a dire emergency. Vacations do not count. If that means you don't get to fly to Fort Myers then that's just too damn bad.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
Yeah, that's probably the best solution if the child really is uncontrollable. Then again some parents are in serious denial that there's "anything wrong" with their kids. That, however, I won't try to excuse.
 
Posted by mertide (# 4500) on :
 
Difficult is one parent holds the child while the other fastens the belt. Noisy, stressful, and emotional but effective. If the parents aren't capable or willing to in the final circumstance impose their will on the kid, then yes, they avoid flying.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
I don't know about too lenient - we don't really have a time frame. If they had a clear idea (which it seems) that the kid was freaking out because she had had ear surgery and the last flight hurt, I think I'd have a hard time blaming them for not just telling a toddler to just suck it up and force them back into the seat without trying other things first.

you make an important point - that they were already travelling before this started. they may not have known this would be an issue until it became an issue. I'll grant them that. but still, I think the leniency comes in when you look at how badly this escalated.

I wasn't there, I can't judge. but I've seen the following scenario a gazillion times before:

Child says no, stomps foot. mom is embarrassed and says, softly, "now honey, we've talked about inappropriate behavior before. do you remember what we said?"

child sticks tongue out and runs away. mom scurries after all embarrassed, tries to "reason" with child some more.

scenario continues as mom and dad work through their repetoir of reasoning, bribing, threatening, and begging. Soon escalates until you get Veruca Salt demanding her squirrel.

that is the kind of parenting behavior that is common, that I have been guity off in the past, and that I would like all parents to stop doing now because it feeds the crap behavior of little children.

and, IMHO, causes brats to become greedy, demanding, and self-centered adults. which is where the real problems come in.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
They talked into walkie talkies while interacting with the parents. And it isn’t clear how much they tried to help the parents calm the child down or how much information they gave them.

I'm not a great fan of tucker chuckers in general but I think they're being treated really unfairly by some in this discussion. How the hell should cabin crew know how to calm a kid down, when her own parents completely fail. Give me a break that's not their job and they would probably cop an earful from the whingy parents if they said anything to the brat anyway. Cabin crew have a lot of safety duties to perform to get the cabin ready and safe for takeoff and trying to be a child psychologist is not only not part of their job or skill set but distracts from their other important tasks. The cabin crew told the parents they needed to control the child and make it sit in the seat with the seat belt, the parents are the only ones legally allowed to manage the child, they failed so why should an entire plane load of people be delayed because of a child who can't be controlled?
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
I wasn't there, I can't judge.

If everybody on this thread had taken this reasonable attitude, I might never have posted here at all.

And yes I've seen the dreadful parenting episodes you've described before, too. It makes you want to slap somebody, and not the child.
 
Posted by Professor Kirke (# 9037) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm sure you're a fine parent, Melon -- but the ones this thread is about aren't, and you look stupid defending them.

I really don't understand how anyone in our position can know this.

And these types of responses:

quote:
Nope, not gonna explain anything to you. It's a waste of energy.
aren't helping your position. Why are some here so intent on proving that these adults are bad parents and deserve the full brunt of the blame for this individual, isolated situation?
 
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
I would have to say they are "bad parents" simply because they don't know their child or they were unprepared or in denial of her problem. If she has medical and/or emotional issues that are exacerbated by flying, then they had absolutely no right to subject her to that situation.

To those who say the most important issue at stake is making this situation comfortable for the entire family, I say poppycock. There are just some places you can't take kids, especially some kids. I had a kid like that, and I rarely ever have played the disability card to make things easier. We took him where we could, or one of us stayed home with him if that was best.

On a much lesser level, I used to see little kids at the flea market, crying in their strollers, miserable because they couldn't get out, weren't getting any attention, bored (literally) to tears. It just wasn't a good place to take a kid. And don't get me started on those gigantic strollers.

People need to realize that part of parenting is often learning a different lifestyle. You just can't always keep on doing things the way you always have. And if you have a kid that has problems flying, you need to take the car or stay home.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
shut the fuck up, you don't know what you're talking about. there is no such thing as an unguidable, unteachable child.

I didn't say unguidable and unteachable. But there are some children that no amount of "guiding and teaching" is going to prevent their having explosions.
...And when youare the parent of those particular types of children, you avoid trigger situations. this applies to all kids everywhere. if your child is allergic to nuts, you don't feed them nuts. if you child is likely to melt down in public places where you can't get them away for a time out, you avoid those public places. If you child is recovering from ear surgery, you don't take them above 10K feet.

a parent, any parent, of any child, has a responsibility to meet the needs of their particular child. not just for society, but for the child themselves. you're not doing a spoiled child any favors.

tangent:

quote:
If you don't know that, then I clearly know more about this than you do.

This is really your issue, isn't it? you really need to establish your dominance.

this isn't a pissing contest. I don't care how perfect and wonderful you are, MT. I openly admit to being a flawed human being. I've even been known to be wrong.

It's okay. you get to be line leader today if you want.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
sorry. that was out of line.
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Hmm - how many flights does an airport have a day? How many kids on each plane? Suppose each plane has *just* one kid flying for the first time/with tempter tantrums..... how will that work if we all work around that?

As has been stated several times, the temper tantrum isn't really the problem. I think all of us who have flown more than a couple of times have a Screaming Child story. The problem is that the child refused to sit down and get buckled in, without which the plane cannot leave the gate (FAA rules). Nobody seems to have been up to the task of wrangling her into the seat, so they needed to leave the plane.

What was the story with Joel Osteen's wife? Curious why she didn't think the rules applied to her.

Charlotte

[ 31. January 2007, 22:38: Message edited by: Amazing Grace ]
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Overwhelmed? Exhausted? Unable to cope? At wit's end?

And if they are all those things, and don't want to give up their daughter for adoption, they need to do something different. As Einstein said, "Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them." I hope that those who are close to the family IRL give them support, not just for what they are doing, but to change what they are doing. OliviaG
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Er - and the difference between being able to carry out tasks in case of emergency - ie quickly openeing door and getting ramp down/helping people/whatever it is and what i said is...?!?!?! I think youve just proved my point? Anyway its irrelevant.

My bad, I interpreted that you used "able-bodied" to mean, among other things, "doesn't use a wheelchair." The difference between a self-certification vs. an automatic move based on the flight crew's assessment would be in people's own estimation of their abilities, vs. onlookers' safety concern that they have overestimated their abilities.

I thought there was a connection in Melon's original wheelchair comment, and not a complete "WTF" as you found it, hence not completely irrelevant to try to understand the basis for what he was saying.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Yeah, that's probably the best solution if the child really is uncontrollable. Then again some parents are in serious denial that there's "anything wrong" with their kids. That, however, I won't try to excuse.

I wholeheartedly agree with both these sentiments.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
The article in the Orlando Sentinel that BroJames linked to had this statement by the child's mother.
quote:
"We weren't given the opportunity to hold her, console her or anything," Judy Kulesza said.
Who was stopping her from holding or consoling the child? If she means she wasn't allowed to hold the child in her lap for takeoff, that's against regulations. I don't think anyone tried to prevent her from consoling the child.

Moo
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Interestingly I'd say they were bad parents not because t hey handled their child badly--I'd guess they did but one can't prove that from available evidence, I'll admit. They're bad parents because when a disaster happenned they seem to have fought leaving the plane, and they seem to have though they have the right to inflict their problem on others. That's simply rude.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
...

To those who say the most important issue at stake is making this situation comfortable for the entire family, I say poppycock. There are just some places you can't take kids, especially some kids. I had a kid like that, and I rarely ever have played the disability card to make things easier. We took him where we could, or one of us stayed home with him if that was best.

On a much lesser level, I used to see little kids at the flea market, crying in their strollers, miserable because they couldn't get out, weren't getting any attention, bored (literally) to tears. It just wasn't a good place to take a kid. And don't get me started on those gigantic strollers.
...

I am so dead tired of parents who drag around their babies looonnnngggg past their bedtime in...malls...movie theaters...everywhere...restaurants.

The baby is so exhausted but the parent(s) refuse to put the needs of the baby before their own. They just ignore the screams of the child...

If you ever have worked in retail...you know what I am talking about. This happens pretty much daily.

My brother has 4 kidlets. I have been around so much they slip and call me "a parent". I have sat outside with a baby on my lap screaming or taken a small child into the van with me...or on a walk when they misbehave. The dad/mom and all us us will volunteer to take a disrupted child away if they disturb the peace.

I do not understand while more parents simply DO NOT GET THIS.

And I concur as an auntie of an asberger kid who used to scream so loud at night when he was 4, the police were called (and left after figuring out he was not being abused).

These parents of the screaming kidlet...well...they

S - U - C - K

PS: GRITS, I love "Poppycock". I am going to borrow that one. [Biased]
 
Posted by WatersOfBabylon (# 11893) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
I would have to say they are "bad parents" simply because they don't know their child or they were unprepared or in denial of her problem. If she has medical and/or emotional issues that are exacerbated by flying, then they had absolutely no right to subject her to that situation.

...

People need to realize that part of parenting is often learning a different lifestyle. You just can't always keep on doing things the way you always have. And if you have a kid that has problems flying, you need to take the car or stay home.

Alright, y'all, I keep seeing this point, but why aren't we registering that this was their return flight? They couldn't stay at home. They needed to go home. Wasn't much they could do about lifestyle choices at that point.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Well, if it was a return flight, then I presume that they must have taken a flight before, and had managed then. If the kid's okay on the flight down, what has changed that renders the flight back impossible?
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Interestingly I'd say they were bad parents not because t hey handled their child badly--I'd guess they did but one can't prove that from available evidence, I'll admit. They're bad parents because when a disaster happenned they seem to have fought leaving the plane, and they seem to have though they have the right to inflict their problem on others. That's simply rude.

That's not bad parenting per se, so much as bad humaning.
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Well, if it was a return flight, then I presume that they must have taken a flight before, and had managed then. If the kid's okay on the flight down, what has changed that renders the flight back impossible?

Maybe the girl saw a clown in the terminal, and was terrified. Maybe she was hungry, or sick, or teething, or over-tired from the visit with the doting grandparents. Maybe she was afraid she was never going to see her grandparents again. Who knows?

Whatever the situation, the family had return tickets, for that date, at that time, and changing the reservations if the girl got up cranky probably didn't occur to them as an option.

Seriously, if they had done the responsible thing, called the airline and said, "Excuse me, but our little darling didn't sleep well last night, and seems to be cutting a new tooth. I'm afraid she might be a bit difficult to handle at the airport. Would you kindly exchange our tickets for a later flight?" what do you think the airline would have done? I know exactly what the airline would have done -- said, sure they can do that, but they would have to pay the difference between their advance purchase ticket and the full, undiscounted price of the tickets for the later flight, plus a penalty of some sort.

So that didn't sound like a reasonable option, so they decided to try to get her home on the scheduled flight. It didn't work.

And maybe they could have done something different, and gotten better results. And maybe they couldn't. Maybe they're lousy parents. Maybe they're fabulous parents with a really difficult child. Maybe they're okay parents, with a child who is pretty reasonable most of the time, and this one day just threw everyone for a loop.

Not enough information to know.
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
Golly, some of you have very high expectations of parents there.

One three year old throws a hissy fit on a plane and she and her parents are ejected. The dumb-arse airline crew stuck her where she was (presumably) not happy to be (try quite frightened) and her dumb-arse parents don't swaps seats so that she's with one of them, instead of where she can't see them.

They get chucked off the plane. They get their money back.

End of story.

It doesn't make the child the worst, most uncontrollable child in the world or even somewhere vaguely approaching that, and comparisons with such children aren't helpful. In fact, they're meaningless.

Her parents were stupid to sit where they were told, but heck, it's hardly a hanging offence. It shouldn't disqualify them from flying with her ever again. I'd say they probably learned quite a lot from the experience and next time will have a smooth trip.

Parenting is hard, thankless and often (these days at least) lonesome work. No one hands out a booklet. Not everyone has family support. More often than not, no one comes in to assist when things get tough and the kids lose their tempers, or get too tired, or get frightened to the point of hysteria. You just trudge on. Tough luck if you are in public at the time, because the only thing anyone around will do, it sit and stare and tut tut.

It's not much good saying, "Don't take your small children shopping/flying because they will get too tired and scream and upset other shoppers and staff", unless there is a viable alternative to taking said child. Not everyone has a granny to shove the kids on to when they want to go somewhere.

Christ knows I've dragged three kids under four about supermarket aisles often enough, and once or twice they did their nuts and created a scene. It was awful and I hated every moment of it and if I could have avoided it, I would have done so, but I had little choice if we were to get food into the house.

Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck whose pleasant shopping experience around the aisles of Safeway was marred by a tantrum.

People don't have to stop going out in public because they have kids. They can't stop going out.
 
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
EDIT: I am finished discussing this here, because I realise I am pissing off the purg hosts.*
Really? the Purgatory Hosts have mounted a hostile take-over of Hell? When did that happen?

*Translation: I'm losing the argument so I'm not going to play anymore.

No, I got confused about whether I was in Hell or Purg (which shows the thread was too Purgatorial anyway), and I probably did piss the Purg and Hell hosts off by getting thus confused.

Oh and you can go fuck yourself for suggesting that my attempt to not derail yet another thread, had ulterior motives (much more Hellish). I stated my opinion, you stated your opinion, there isn't much more to do except call each other idiots with subtle variation. But start another thread about it if you wish.

[Second code edit for you in 20mins. Learn to use preview post, you fuckmuppet.]

[ 02. February 2007, 12:04: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck whose pleasant shopping experience around the aisles of Safeway was marred by a tantrum.

People don't have to stop going out in public because they have kids. They can't stop going out.

That's all well and good, and I generally don't mind your screaming brat in Publix, but if your satanic spawn cause me to miss my tight connection because you're too entitled to act like the parent in the situation then you can fuck right the hell off.
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
But by the age of three kids are old enough to know better. The only three year olds that throw tantrums are the ones who have worked out it's a decent way to get what they want, the ones who turn their parents into slaces. And the best way to stop that is just stop giving them the attention that turns them into spoiled brats.

I know this quite well as I have had a lot of contact with my youth pastor's kids at that age, and also with my cousin who turned three a few months ago. My pastor and his wife are quite strong parents, and not afraid to do things like unplug the TV, take away toys, ignore their kids until they stop and so on. Their kids are as a direct consequence great kids that people like having around at church and so on, even to the point that youth group kids volunteer to babysit them.
My uncle and aunt are shocking in the way they spoil their little brat and will just give her anything to shut her up. She's already quite overweight, she's terribly addicted to sugar so she chucks a fit whenever her blood sugar level drops. She's bound to have major diabetes problems when she's older, especially as her parents are blind to all of that and just swapped doctors when one told them she had major weight and sugar problems. And we don't invite them over for meals any more because we can't handle the stress.

Parenting requires you to make the tough decisions, not just the easy ones to hand over a lolly. If it means you have to put up with tantrums at home instead of feeding them more sweets then that's part of the job. At three years old, kids will quickly stop having tantrums if parents show a bit of backbone, stop giving in to them and start doing the job of a parent not a servant.

X-post: Erin [Overused]

[ 01. February 2007, 01:32: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
 
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
Sorry -- rereading this thread reminded me of this. Almost every kid's going to try this at some time or another and maybe catch his parent off guard. However, if it's a habit, the good parent will learn how to deal with it. I know a lot of you loathe James Dobson, but learning to "bend the will without breaking the spirit" is pretty good advice.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
But by the age of three kids are old enough to know better. The only three year olds that throw tantrums are the ones who have worked out it's a decent way to get what they want, the ones who turn their parents into slaves.

You're just wrong. Try doing some reading. You might even enjoy it.
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
Erin, I said I thought the parents in the plane were stupid to sit where they did. But freaking hell, the plane was held up for 15 minutes.

15 minutes. That's all. And evidently no-one tried anything much to find a solution.

My point was that once the tantrum thing has started, there's precious little that a parent can do to just stop it. They can't.

Fucking hell. Check out a few of the tantrums that go on here among grown adults, and see if they calm themselves down nicely because others are watching.

You know, if fellow passengers are really so desperate to get off the tarmac and into the air, they could always say, "Is there anything I can do to help here?" and maybe someone would say, "Well, yes, actually, would you mind swapping seats with this child?" and maybe (just maybe) that would do the trick.

It might not, but it's probably something people could think about instead of just getting all crabby about whether they'll be 15 minutes late.

Everyone in this world is just so damned focussed on themselves and their little bit of space.

cheeseburger, if you think three year olds have it worked out, you are seriously deluded. You haven't even worked out how to behave in public, and how old are you?

[ 01. February 2007, 01:37: Message edited by: Left at the Altar ]
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
Early behavior modification techniques work best for controlling your Hell spawn. Once they have reached 3 years, it's too late... there's nothing left for your sanity short of lobotomy, straight-jackets or shock therapy.

The ex-wife and I agreed, early in our parenting experience, that we would not reward tantrums, screaming, kicking, flailing-about, or any obviously extreme anti-social behavior with any reaction but immediate isolation. It was apparent to us (as it is to any observant parent) that there is a difference between a cranky child who is sick, hungry, uncomfortable from poopy pants, fearful or suffering pain and a cranky child who is frustrated from 'not-getting-their-way', bored, exploring their boundaries or just being a miniature, manipulative butthead. Whatever...

The reaction to a tantrum was an immediate, one-way trip to their room, no argument, no castigating, no hugging, no appeal... door shut, isolation. If they chose anti-social behavior, they chose to act it out alone. At first, the screaming and wailing reached crescendos unheard of outside an opera or slaughter house. As soon as there was silence however, they were immediately picked up and returned to our company. It was amazing how quickly this method reduced the frequency and duration of tantrums. Cruel? Possibly. Effective? Absolutely no doubt. When my sons were old enough to walk and talk, they had become the epitome of polite society and other parents complimented the boys on their remarkable good manners. Screaming fits in public? Never.
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
Yup, that's a solution, Gort. Actually, my kids rarely mucked up. They're worse now that they're into their teens (that's another thread of its own [Roll Eyes] ) and they don't care if they don't get hugs. In fact, the prefer it that way.

I can't stand most children for very long. I can stand even less parents who sit by and let their children be obnoxious (and plenty do). However, if the children are little, I cut them slack, because it's a mighty steep learning curve.

Obnoxious (truly obnoxious, as distinct from repellent) children are almost always over three. I know a few 9 year old boys I think should be castrated now, before they can breed.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
Everyone in this world is just so damned focussed on themselves and their little bit of space.

Including the parents of these entitled children.

That is still beside the point, however. As I pointed out previously there are over 80,000 flights EVERY SINGLE DAY in the US. A 15-minute delay from Fort Myers into Logan would be bad enough, but if they had to fly into Hartsfield-Jackson, which is the AirTran hub, that 15 minutes is absolutely crucial. It's not just the fact that they're delaying the 160 people on that flight. That plane and flight crew are scheduled for other flights which will then be affected. If the delay is too long it can cause them to have to ground the current flight crew and have another brought in. The towers have to delay other flights arriving and departing in order to slot the late flight in. And so on and so forth.

In the US, fifteen minutes at the gate because the parents didn't put the child into the seat is absolutely unacceptable. It's barely acceptable if the engine falls out of the fuselage onto the tarmac.

Oh, and I am still trying to figure out how you guys know that the child was assigned to a seat in front of the parents -- I have missed that in every article that I've read. Can someone point it out to me?
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
erm, it's the bit about how instead of sitting in her seat, she kept climbing under it to whack her parents on their legs - it reads as though she was in the row in front.

Erin, I have recently flown on a 24 hour flight from London to Melbourne. I saw wailing kids and kids I thought should be drugged and it was effing awful. So effing awful, even my kids said they'll only fly Business Class from now on. I agree that a brat on board is loathesome.

However, so was the chap next to us who farted non-stop from London to Singapore and the utter cow in front of me who reclined her seat all the way back the whole flight - even during meals.

And a million things can delay a flight - fog, latecomers, no-shows, late arrivals.

Air travel sucks. Really, it's a stressful business at the best of times and just about everyone else on board is vile.
 
Posted by Professor Kirke (# 9037) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Interestingly I'd say they were bad parents not because t hey handled their child badly--I'd guess they did but one can't prove that from available evidence, I'll admit. They're bad parents because when a disaster happenned they seem to have fought leaving the plane, and they seem to have though they have the right to inflict their problem on others. That's simply rude.

No, it's not simply anything. Any one of us would have fought to stay on that plane like they did, asking for one more minute to calm the child. Precisely because they know their own child better than any flight attendants or ship of fools shipmates.

At some point, a decision had to be made about the schedule of the planes vs. the tantrum's effects, and that decision was made. The family was compensated. No bad parenting, no bad airline policy -- just tough decisions.

The only seriously bad decision I see evidence of was sending the luggage on while making the family stay back. That would seem to be completely unacceptable.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
I don't know about anyone else, LATA, but I wasn't talking about kids crying on planes. I was talking about when a kid can't be fastened in so everyone can take off. They can cry while fastened in, that's okay. But if they're not fastened in for takeoff, plane doesn't take off. They can then cry all the way to Sweden if they must, but they should be able to tolerate being strapped in for takeoff. If not, then they really can't be flying, because under current rules, that's the way it works.

Crying babies in flight don't bother me at all. I either help, or put in earplugs. I assume nothing bad about crying babies or parents of crying kids. But not being able to be strapped in is the problem here.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
... The only seriously bad decision I see evidence of was sending the luggage on while making the family stay back. That would seem to be completely unacceptable.

Hrmmph, pip-pip, rauther old chap, cough, hrmmph.

No, Kirke, you pompous, affected sack of hot air, the only "completely unacceptable" bad decision was not airing out the little brat's head with a .45 caliber hole.
 
Posted by WatersOfBabylon (# 11893) on :
 
Cheeseburger, I'm glad to see that your vast knowledge of childcare comes from such a wide and plentiful range of experience. [Roll Eyes]

My very limited knowledge comes from working at a preschool, but what I learned there is that no matter the quality of the parents, kids tantrum.

Sometimes because they have learned that they'll get their way, sometimes because they're sick, and sometimes just because they are three years old. It happens.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Crying babies in flight don't bother me at all. I either help, or put in earplugs. I assume nothing bad about crying babies or parents of crying kids. But not being able to be strapped in is the problem here.

Agreed. I will gladly take being in the air with a child screaming at the top of his lungs over sitting on the tarmac with Mommy and Daddy trying to reason with him.

I myself am all kinds of cranky and irritable when I'm stuck on a plane for hours and I've learned impulse control. (Mostly.) I can't imagine being three years old and in that situation. And I know flights are delayed for all kinds of unavoidable reasons, but a three-year-old who refuses to get in her seat is not an unavoidable reason. If between the two parents they cannot get the kid strapped into the seat and physically restrained long enough to get the damn plane in the air, then the balance of power in that family is fucked all to hell. And I refuse to suffer or be inconvenienced because the parent doesn't want to actually be the fucking parent. That's their problem, not mine.
 
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
quote:
Laura wrote: They can then cry all the way to Sweden if they must, but they should be able to tolerate being strapped in for takeoff. If not, then they really can't be flying, because under current rules, that's the way it works.
Exactly. AirTrain didn't throw the family off because the kid cried. They threw them off because the child wouldn't sit buckled in her seat during take-off, as the FAA requires. Where the bad parenting comes in is that the parents refused to do what was necessary to get the kid safely strapped in. Sure, the little sweethearts can be like greased pigs sometimes. But Dad was a burly EMT and Mom looked like she could hold her own. In 15 minutes, any two adults in the enclosed space of an airplane row have the physical ability wrestle a 30-pound child into a seat. I don't care how "overwhelmed, exhausted, unable to cope, or at wit's end" they might be.

<Cross-posted with Erin. I didn't copy off her paper. Really!>

[ 01. February 2007, 03:50: Message edited by: Presleyterian ]
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
Yeah, but they can be tricky little buggers sometimes. Sounds though that the parents didn't do a lot.

Howver, the common wisdom for a child who is throwing a tanty is to ignore it and walk away.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


Sheesh, isn't it amazing the crappy stories that make news these days?

TODDLER THROWS TANTRUM!
PARENTS STUPID!
 
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
quote:
Left At the Altar wrote: However, the common wisdom for a child who is throwing a tanty is to ignore it and walk away.
How about these little codicils to the common wisdom:

1) In the privacy of your own home, ignore a child who is having a tantrum and walk away.

2) In a public place, get a tantrum-throwing child to a private place as soon as practicable.

3) On a airplane, follow FAA regulations.

I'll certainly agree that crappy stories make the news these days, but the press assault was orchestrated by two attention-seeking parents, not AirTran.

[ 01. February 2007, 04:10: Message edited by: Presleyterian ]
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
Agreed.
 
Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
If between the two parents they cannot get the kid strapped into the seat and physically restrained long enough to get the damn plane in the air, then the balance of power in that family is fucked all to hell. And I refuse to suffer or be inconvenienced because the parent doesn't want to actually be the fucking parent.

I get so worried about parents who say stuff like 'I can't do anything with him. He has such a strong will', and this is when the child is 2 and a half. What one earth is he going to be like at 7 or 15 then?

Thankfully the family who were saying that just before Christmas have instigated a 'naughty step' (if you are naughty you sit on the step for a minute or two, then you may rejoin the activity). The improvement in the child's behaviour is huge, and he is learning that he can make some of the choices, but not all.

When children are small you still have the choice of physically restraining them, or making them do things that are required. Sometimes that is a choice that must be exercised.
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
Actually, when all's said and done, it is apparent that the family in question has a genetic pre-disposition to attention-seeking.

Knowing my luck, I'll be stuck next to them on the next long haul flight I take. Actually, I'll be stuck between them and someone who weighs 285lbs and smells.

God, I hate long flights.
 
Posted by Melbscape (# 11749) on :
 
quote:
But Julie Kulesza said: "We weren't given an opportunity to hold her, console her or anything.

"Elly was sitting in front of our seat crying," she said in a phone interview. "The attendant motioned to a seat and asked if we purchased it for her."

I'm trying to imagine what my three year old would be like in an airplane ('planes terrify *me*) in a seat in front of me, away from her parents, being buckled in. She'd have a meltdown, in all likelihood. And I'd ask if I could sit with her, or if she could use a supplementary belt, as has happened the other times I've flown. As with most child-being-hellion situations, some cuddles and lateral thinking would save the day.

Seems to me the parents weren't the ones being unintelligent here. You can't *make* a tantruming, probably frightened child, sit anywhere, not unless you're physically restraining them. And it sounds like the parents weren't actually allowed to do that.

The airline staff didn't take any of the usual measures available to parents. I'm finding it hard to feel judgemental towards the parents, here.

I do love the idea that if one can't guarantee a perfectly behaved child, one shouldn't fly. The world doesn't just belong to adults, with children to be suffered along the way but only if they don't act like children. I've been just as irritated by revolting adults as noisy children.
 
Posted by Evensnog (# 8017) on :
 
Has anyone yet figured out whether the child's seat was in the row ahead of the parents, or if she was supposed to be seated next to them, but was sitting on the floor at her parents' feet?
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melbscape:
I do love the idea that if one can't guarantee a perfectly behaved child, one shouldn't fly.

come on, go back and read again. who said perfectly well behaved? who even said the child had to be walking upright, housetrained, or well groomed?

there is a long way between "perfectly well behaved" and "tied down to a seat as per federal regulations".
 
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
quote:
Melbscape wrote: I'm trying to imagine what my three year old would be like in an airplane ('planes terrify *me*) in a seat in front of me, away from her parents, being buckled in. She'd have a meltdown, in all likelihood. And I'd ask if I could sit with her, or if she could use a supplementary belt, as has happened the other times I've flown.
This is getting a little annoying. For the fourteenth time on this thread -- or at least it seems -- the parents' own TV interviews suggest she was in the window seat, with them in the middle and aisle. She was "in front" of them in the sense that she was on the floor by their feet where their carry-on luggage might otherwise have been stowed. In my experience -- and I fly 100,000 miles a year -- airlines never place a child that young on their own even if the parents would prefer it that way. (And I've seen that, too.) So please let's not get all huffy that this child was forcibly isolated from her parents.

quote:
You can't *make* a tantruming, probably frightened child, sit anywhere, not unless you're physically restraining them. And it sounds like the parents weren't actually allowed to do that.
What they wanted was to hold the three-year-old in the mother's lap during take-off -- an unsafe practice expressly forbidden by FAA regulations. What they refused to do was physically place her in the seat and buckle her in. If a three-year-old is delaying the flight by sitting on the floor and refusing to be buckled into the seat, her parents should for safety's sake physically restrain her -- just as they would restrain her if she attempted to dart into the street or grab something on the stove.

They had time to try reason, bribery, blandishments, or whatever other approaches are in the arsenal. But if those don't work, the only choices are physically to force that child into the safety of a seat or to get off the plane, which is exactly what the airlines do if a drunk or belligerent adults refuses to sit down and buckle up. And yes, I've seen that, too.
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
Actually, it's rather odd that you can't hold a three year old for take off and landing, because you can do so for anyone who is 2 years and 11 months and 364 days (or one extra if it's a leap year). I can't really see that it would make a heck of a difference.

But then, I never was one for obeying rules.
 
Posted by Melbscape (# 11749) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
Actually, it's rather odd that you can't hold a three year old for take off and landing, because you can do so for anyone who is 2 years and 11 months and 364 days (or one extra if it's a leap year). I can't really see that it would make a heck of a difference.

But then, I never was one for obeying rules.

ITA - and some two year olds are much bigger than many three year olds, and one assumes mass would have something to do with it.

Presleyterian, if you are correct and I have misread the article, then my premise is wrong.
 
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
I agree that the age restriction seems arbitrary, but some cut-off is necessary. Since lap babies usually fly free, I can imagine some people stacking family members like flapjacks in an attempt to travel on one ticket.

BTW, "belly belts" -- supplemental straps that attach to the parent's lap belt -- aren't allowed on US airlines because of safety concerns during sudden deceleration.

[ 01. February 2007, 07:33: Message edited by: Presleyterian ]
 
Posted by Melbscape (# 11749) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
I agree that the age restriction seems arbitrary, but some cut-off is necessary. Since lap babies usually fly free, I can imagine some people stacking family members like flapjacks in an attempt to travel on one ticket.

BTW, "belly belts" -- supplemental straps that attach to the parent's lap belt -- aren't allowed on US airlines because of safety concerns during sudden deceleration.

They weigh hand luggage on the way in, why not pop the toddler on the conveyer belt for a quick check whether the parents can use the lap belt or not? And if they can't, then they've plenty of time to think about a strategy before they get on the plane.

That's interesting re the belly belts an US air travel.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
The Russian solution.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melbscape:
They weigh hand luggage on the way in...

What do you mean by hand luggage? Carry-on? They only weigh checked bags in the US, and that's only so they can charge you for overweight items. You'd be amazed at what your average dumbass tries to carry on to plane.
 
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
international flights here have a weight for hand luggage, and also a "shape" for them.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by R.D. Olivaw:
As for the parents, their choice to go public and thrust this poor kid into the spotlight so that they could kvetch says more about them then the plane incident.

If our family had been put off a plane because DD behaved as described in the articles, we wouldn't tell anyone, let alone the national press. We would be too ashamed.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Has Elly's family been on The Jerry Springer Show yet? I can't wait, they are naturals.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Then your daughter's accident doesn't really explain your failure to figure out that Josephine was agreeing with you.

The clue was in the words. I had just walked in the door, I skimmed the post and responded. And I apologised for getting it wrong. "I have just come in from the bowling alley" would have worked equally well as an explanation.
quote:
I'm sure you're a fine parent, Melon -- but the ones this thread is about aren't, and you look stupid defending them.
Remind me again what we know for sure about the case? We've rejected all evidence from the parents and all evidence from the airline. On that basis, do we even know that they boarded the flight in the first place?!

Last I saw, the matter was settled because one post on one board says the child was unruly. I was soooooo tempted to register on the ABC site myself and post that I was on the plane and that the air hostess was an ogre. Since when did one post on one board carry more weight than the stories given by both parties to the original event, especially when both parties agree?
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Melon, seriously, what are you going on about?

I was responding to
quote:
Originally posted by Pânts:
What the fuck you doing here then? Shouldn't you actually be spending time with her rather than wasting time playing on your computer. Probably was your fault, not your wifes, because you were on the computer rather than 'watching' her.

and continuing to wonder why so many people want to believe the worst about the parents having dismissed all the evidence up front.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mertide:
If you knew you had an "explosive child", whether or not you knew all the implications and possible treatments, why on earth would you put the child through the stress of an airline flight?

Because you had to go somewhere and your car doesn't float?
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
People arent saying the parents were necessarially the worst parents in the world, but just that ultimately the kid is the parents **responsibility**.

That's factually untrue when the child is in an aircraft cabin, which is why the cabin crew's wishes concerning the child trumped those of the parents.

More generally, obviously the parents are responsible for their child, but, equally, the context in which they try to exercise that authority can make a huge difference, and parents have almost no control over the context when they are boarding an aircraft. The same is true of teachers: there are good ones and bad ones, but even the best ones struggle to keep control if it's the last day of term and someone has stolen the blackboard and there's a wet t-shirt contest going on in view of the classroom window. Talking about responsibility as if parents either have all of it or none of it is silly unless the parents live on a desert island.

I accept that the parents could have handled the situation better, but it doesn't follow at all that the airline was therefore blameless, or that the incident would have happened if the airline had behaved differently, or that the parents needed to be basket cases in order for the incident to happen.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
international flights here have a weight for hand luggage, and also a "shape" for them.

Sometimes. At one point, Easyjet had a maximum size and no weight limit (providing you could lift it into the overhead lockers). I'm honestly not sure what the policy is right now, following several changes in UK regulations and a tax hike, but, generally, budget airlines prefer more cabin luggage and less hold luggage, which saves them money but increases deaths in the case of a crash.
 
Posted by Zosima (# 4677) on :
 
Have just seen this extraordinary thread. Of course, no one wants to live in a world where children are dictating everything to their parents, but I find it hard to believe that anyone could think that anyone was to blame except for all the adults involved at the time.

Parents for not handling their child in a helpful, reassuring way (for both child and other passengers!); cabin crew for evidently becoming too officious without real problem-solving assistance to their customers.

That all said, the roots of the problem surely lie in the fact that whatever was terrifying the child and causing it to behave in this way should have been addressed before sitting down on the plane.

Distress of this kind usually manifests itself in some other behaviour long before the crunch moment. The parents needed to have spotted this possibility much earlier and anticipated what might occur. In the end a child is just a child and parents need to take responsibility.
 
Posted by Pânts (# 999) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
... So effing awful, even my kids said they'll only fly Business Class from now on. I agree that a brat on board is loathesome.

That'll be the time the rich parents take their little precious into business class rather than having to sit near the farting lower class scum. [Snigger]
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Interestingly I'd say they were bad parents not because t hey handled their child badly--I'd guess they did but one can't prove that from available evidence, I'll admit. They're bad parents because when a disaster happenned they seem to have fought leaving the plane, and they seem to have though they have the right to inflict their problem on others. That's simply rude.

No, it's not simply anything. Any one of us would have fought to stay on that plane like they did, asking for one more minute to calm the child. Precisely because they know their own child better than any flight attendants or ship of fools shipmates.

Speak for yourself! I would have handled my child differently (for better and worse at different times, probably) for sure, and I would NOT have made a plane full of people wait for me. I think that's outrageous.
 
Posted by Pânts (# 999) on :
 
What crap PK, I'm with Gwai.
 
Posted by flighty (# 11364) on :
 
im only a new parent (he is 7 weeks old now). i have never flown anywhere in my 24 years on this rock.i dont dare infer that i have more knowledge or information to offer those of you with children past the age of elly (3) simply because i have only dealt with kids that werent mine.
but nobody here knows all the facts as noone was aboard the plane...(at least that i know of).
my father once said that there are 3 sides to every story: yours, theirs and the truth. all im saying is that in some aspects the parents seem ill-prepared to deal with their child and also that the airline suffered the same lack of preparation and/or desire to help.
but NOBODY ACTUALLY KNOWS!!
however, this is a very interesting and insightful thread, both as an observer and a parent eager to "pick the brains" of other parents who have already experienced what i am sure to come across.
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
I agree that the age restriction seems arbitrary, but some cut-off is necessary. Since lap babies usually fly free, I can imagine some people stacking family members like flapjacks in an attempt to travel on one ticket.

The "lap baby" policy differs per airline. My brother lives near a smaller airport and his carriers of necessity required a ticket for my nephew even as an infant. The good news, as he said, was that the kid at least got his own baggage allowance, which was needed with the stroller, carseat, and other baby paraphanalia.

Besides the obvious safety concerns, at a certain point even normal child movement for a lap toddler is uncomfortable for the person in front of them.

Charlotte
 
Posted by flighty (# 11364) on :
 
and it seems elly's parents were very eager to get their 15 minutes of fame. very interesting when you consider that it could almost be a story from Jerry Springer...
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Has Elly's family been on The Jerry Springer Show yet? I can't wait, they are naturals.

Indeed they are.

Betcha the kidlet will be crawling all over the set there, too!

Charlotte
 
Posted by flighty (# 11364) on :
 
sorry about the ranting here...and apologies if i cover previously communicated topics...this is an exceedingly interesting topic
werent they refunded their money AND offered other tickets when it was clear that the airline had no responsibility or requirement to do so? it just strikes me as odd that the parents werent willing to accept alternate travel at the behest of a company that requires accurate schedules to be kept, that they the parents were allowing to be put in jeapordy by not restraining their child?and then going on national television claiming injustice and allowing the viewers aan insight into their child hitting and screaming DURING the interview?
correct me if im wrong, but did the airling commit an illegal act ejecting disruptive and dangerous passengers who were delaying the flight significantly, at least in terms of airline timing?
 
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :
 
Does anybody know what happened when this delightful family unit got their free flight and flow off into the sunset.
Did God`s little gift of happiness behave this time thanks to an abundance of Prozak
 
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 
According to the article from the OP, they were offered free tickets plus financial compensation for their flight. They turned down the free flight but accepted the offered compensation for their fare. Presumably they managed to return home by air. It isn't clear to me whether their former tickets were honored or not.

As far as I know, we have no details on how the return flight eventually went.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
Velcro. On trouser-bottoms. And on seat.
Solves both buckling in and seatbelt-restraining issues.

Comed to think of it, some adults could do with it too. Maybe it should be standardised.

Melon: I think, fwiw, that people here aren't saying that these are shockinglybad parents or whatever - just irresponsible people who are whining about a decision taken for the safety and convenience (as well as legality) of other people purely because of their own desire for publicity.
Maybe they just need to wind their necks in, chalk it up to experience or 'life's rich tapestry' or somesuch, or just simply stfu.

[ 01. February 2007, 17:04: Message edited by: luvanddaisies ]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by flighty:
sorry about the ranting here...and apologies if i cover previously communicated topics...this is an exceedingly interesting topic
werent they refunded their money AND offered other tickets when it was clear that the airline had no responsibility or requirement to do so? it just strikes me as odd that the parents werent willing to accept alternate travel at the behest of a company that requires accurate schedules to be kept, that they the parents were allowing to be put in jeapordy by not restraining their child?and then going on national television claiming injustice and allowing the viewers aan insight into their child hitting and screaming DURING the interview?
correct me if im wrong, but did the airling commit an illegal act ejecting disruptive and dangerous passengers who were delaying the flight significantly, at least in terms of airline timing?

I'd love to see a video of that interview! [Two face]

What network was it on? Perhaps they post video clips.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
More often than not, no one comes in to assist when things get tough and the kids lose their tempers, or get too tired, or get frightened to the point of hysteria. You just trudge on. Tough luck if you are in public at the time, because the only thing anyone around will do, it sit and stare and tut tut.

Maybe. But the problem is, a lot of obnoxious kids have obnoxious parents. I've worked with enough small children to know that even the most well-behaved children of the bestest parents in the whole universe occasionally melt down, sometimes in public. I'm fine with that. I'm really good at ignoring screaming, and I usually offer to help if it looks like there's anything I can do.

But then things like this happen: I'm at the grocery store. I see a mother struggling with a very small child in a cart. Slightly larger child (3-4ish) has wandered away and started knocking things off the shelf. I approach child, talk to him. By the time mother has sorted out baby, I've managed to get him to not only stop pulling things off the shelf, but to help me put the things he knocked off back on. Mother approaches, screams "What are you doing?" at the both of us, takes child's hand, and marches off muttering about how the store has people to clean things up. Which makes me understand why people are reluctant to step in.

Still, I think it's unlikely that none of the cabin crew or passengers offered to help. I think it's far more likely that the parents said "oh, no, there's nothing you can do, she's just a little upset," and then asked if they could do things the cabin crew couldn't permit them to do.

If I'd been the flight attendant I probably would have picked the kid up and wrestled her into the seat my damn self. And would now be facing a lawsuit for doing so.

But I work with college students and have had it with spoiled brats and their helicopter parents who seem surprised that the rules they knew were in place when they signed up really are actually going to apply to them.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Does anybody know what happened when this delightful family unit got their free flight and flow off into the sunset.
Did God`s little gift of happiness behave this time thanks to an abundance of Prozak

Why don't you go fuck yourself, asshole? Go back under the rock you crawled out from under, and stay there permanently.
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Melbscape:
They weigh hand luggage on the way in...

What do you mean by hand luggage? Carry-on? They only weigh checked bags in the US, and that's only so they can charge you for overweight items. You'd be amazed at what your average dumbass tries to carry on to plane.
Carry on; yes; it's normally the same in Europe but there are a few exceptions that Emma may have experienced; I've given up being amazed but the majority of dumbasses, by they seem to be getting better... [Paranoid]
 
Posted by jerusalemcross (# 12179) on :
 
An American nanny of a friend used to (legally) dope up the kids whenever she had to take them between the USA and Europe. Worked every time - a very good Swiss liquid stuff that she gave them before the flight and made them just calm enough to be manageable. It doesn't however address the basic issue of teaching kids how to behave in public and setting boundaries which they need. My brother said (when his were toddler terrors) he knew from the attitude of other travellers that he was a pariah when he and wife boarded a plane with TWO toddlers....and they were pretty good at keeping them under control.

And speaking of business class, knowing I've paid all that money and STILL have an uncontrollable screaming brat whacking my seat is just the limit. But the parents are rich so it's OK, inn't it. Thank heavens for BA transatlantic Club Class where everyone has enough private space to defend it.
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
Teaching kids to behave in public is something that needs to be started early. However, in my experience, loads of adults don't know how to behalf in public, so what they pass on is just bad manners.

Frankly, I'm a right Hitler with my kids. I am classified as the too-strict mother by many other mothers I know (perhaps because I pull their kids into line too but, damnit, someone has to). However, I believe I have passable children who don't shove, demand, interrupt or be completely painful in the company of others (at home they are not so delightful).

So, I feel that I can quite confidently take them in business class and not annoy the living crap out of jerusalemcross.

In fact, I've been checking out fares just this day. No Jerry Springer riff raff* near me, thank you very much.

*I had some sympathy for the chucked-off family before I heard they'd gone on that dreadful show. [Disappointed]

[ 02. February 2007, 01:31: Message edited by: Left at the Altar ]
 
Posted by Melbscape (# 11749) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Melbscape:
They weigh hand luggage on the way in...

What do you mean by hand luggage? Carry-on? They only weigh checked bags in the US, and that's only so they can charge you for overweight items. You'd be amazed at what your average dumbass tries to carry on to plane.
I don't do a lot of air traveling, so I'm not completely au fait with it all but there *is* a point where one's luggage (be that hand or checked) is weighed. I don't see the problem with popping Junior on a scale and getting an Airline Approved sticker slapped to his forehead.

Maybe they can dole out the Phenergan Pops at the same time.
 
Posted by Melbscape (# 11749) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:

Frankly, I'm a right Hitler with my kids. I am classified as the too-strict mother by many other mothers I know (perhaps because I pull their kids into line too but, damnit, someone has to). However, I believe I have passable children who don't shove, demand, interrupt or be completely painful in the company of others (at home they are not so delightful).

I'm more like Ghandi, but my childen are reasonable, too [Smile] Ghandi looked better in orange, though.
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melbscape:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Melbscape:
They weigh hand luggage on the way in...

What do you mean by hand luggage? Carry-on? They only weigh checked bags in the US, and that's only so they can charge you for overweight items. You'd be amazed at what your average dumbass tries to carry on to plane.
I don't do a lot of air traveling, so I'm not completely au fait with it all but there *is* a point where one's luggage (be that hand or checked) is weighed. I don't see the problem with popping Junior on a scale and getting an Airline Approved sticker slapped to his forehead.

Maybe they can dole out the Phenergan Pops at the same time.

I think that the scales should be pulled out for all things going on board, with payment made accordingly.
 
Posted by Melbscape (# 11749) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
I think that the scales should be pulled out for all things going on board, with payment made accordingly.

A pity that body odour has no mass!
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
I think that the scales should be pulled out for all things going on board, with payment made accordingly.

Just the thing that people with eating disorders need.
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
That's right. Subsidised fares.
 
Posted by Pure as the Driven Yellow Snow (# 9397) on :
 
Fantastic.
Sorry sir, but you're ten dollars short.

"Eu, Eu Eu Eughhhh Yech". (Ralph for the Australians)

Free to board sir.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
"If only I can get down to 75 pounds, I could fly round trip to London for only $450."

It's a little cruel, n'est-ce pas?
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
Sadly, while a screaming child will fall asleep at some stage during a long flight, the enormous lump of person next to you will not lose more than a pound or so. In fact, people often swell a bit during flights.

It's very unpleasant.
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
Actually, in terms of hideous ways to spend a flight, my 1984 trip Melbourne to London via Athens was memorable.

Near me (thank God, not next to me) was a portly elderly woman who had two distinctly noticable traits.

One was a propensity to eat anything put in front of her, with gusto.

The other was motion sickness.

Between Melbourne and Athens (where she got off), I'd say Qantas served about 6 meals. Each time, she gobbled them up quick smart, and then spent the following half hour barfing in the barf-bags with lots of loud barfing noises.

Really, truly. She should have been made to pay triple the fare.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
If we're considering the idea so very seriously, I'm sure advocacy for having a minimum fare regardless of extremely low weight would emerge.

Something tells me the airlines would support that.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
I know! fares based on BMI! We could establish a target BMI, and charge people a certain amount extra for every unit they're off the perfect norm. Too skinny? too fat? pay extra.

[ 02. February 2007, 05:13: Message edited by: MouseThief ]
 
Posted by Melbscape (# 11749) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pure as the Driven Yellow Snow:
Fantastic.
Sorry sir, but you're ten dollars short.

"Eu, Eu Eu Eughhhh Yech". (Ralph for the Australians)

Free to board sir.

Just one more little wafer...
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
But your point was that heavy people cost more to fly, wasn't it? If that's the case perhaps we can determine if people are endothermic or exothermic, and to what extent. People who give off heat will be charged more in situations where the air has to be cooled (on hot days); people who absorb heat will be charged less on those days. And then we'll switch it when the air has to be heated, and charge the energy sinks more, and the walking radiators less.

Also in airplanes, oxygen has to be piped in, and/or carbon dioxide removed. People who tend to give off more carbon dioxide can be charged more, and people who give off less can be charged less.

And of course it goes without saying that people should pay to use the restroom on the plane. And the feminine supplies dispenser should be coin-op. It's that kind of emergency situation, too, where you can charge a lot and people will have to pay it because they're in a tight spot. Credit card readers in the restrooms will be de rigeur.

And every time you press the button for the flight attendant, that should be a charge. Or if they turn the lights out and you use that little light to read. Electricity ain't free!

Boy there's all sorts of ways to make people actually pay for the proportion of the cost of flying that they actually make use of.
 
Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
Yeah, but fat people should pay more. Even if they do chuck a wobbly at the thought.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
up here in "small plane country" you are expected to disclose your real weight, and if you try to shine them on they pop you on the frieght scale. in a small plane, it makes a huge difference. weight has a direct impact on fuel burned.

I'm sure the big jets are the same, they just estimate that each passenger is 300 lbs to be safe.
 
Posted by mountainsnowtiger (# 11152) on :
 
So do they make you pay extra if the freight scale shows that you weigh more than an allotted amount?
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
In fact, I've been checking out fares just this day. No Jerry Springer riff raff* near me, thank you very much.

*I had some sympathy for the chucked-off family before I heard they'd gone on that dreadful show. [Disappointed]

Point of fact. I cannot see a posting which says they appeared on the JSS; just various posters opining that they are the sort of people they would expect to go on it.

This parallels various other turns this thread has taken - in fact, is of the essence of the thread - that Poster A says X, then Poster B comes down like the wolf on the fold, perceiving in A's opinion a gross offense (which may or may not be there).

I don't have a dog - or a child - in this fight, but I have observed that if you want a thread that runs to a couple of zillion pages, all of them hot to the touch, just mention parenting. It's all it takes.
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
Yep, parenting and obesity. Recipe for thread success.

(apologies to the family for any false accusation on my part that they appeared on Jerry Springer's dreadful show).

ETA: I don't care what people weigh. I just don't like their flobbily bits oozing onto my seat and pressing against my leg and my arm and .... errrrr.

[ 02. February 2007, 08:41: Message edited by: Left at the Altar ]
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
Yeah, well, it's tall people that I hate. Those bastards.

They try to make you feel sorry for them as they squeeze under the overhanging baggage thingy and struggle to jam their unnaturally long legs into the footwell. They two minutes after takeoff they shove their pointy elbows into you, sprawl their bony knees into your footwell and generally sit so far into your seat that you have to travel 2000 miles at a 90 degree angle with your face practically in your other neighbour's lap.

They're the ones who should be made to pay for two seats. At least fat people are squashy.

And don't get me started on people who read broadsheet newspapers that take at least 3 seats worth of room to manipulate adequately.
 
Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
Tall and fat, they're the worst. [Disappointed]

Except for tall fat people with kids having tantrums. And who don't know grammar as well as I do. Or who know it better.
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
Yeah. Fatties and Lankies should be forced to pay double.

Fat Lankies - triple.

Fat Lankies with obnoxious kids or newspapers - banned.
 
Posted by bradleys (# 11361) on :
 
Broadsheet reading fat lankies with body odour and lap sitting infant who have a window seat and constantly need to get up to go to the toilet.

Ever had one? NOTHING worse!
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
Except (possibly) barfing fat ladies.
 
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :
 
A couple of years ago was on 10hr flight and there was a 3 year old who kept getting up hitting other passengers. The stewardess was very good.
She told the parents to take themselves and child to place at back of plane and keep the child under control and away from other passengers.
This happened and peace descend for next 9 hours.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jerusalemcross:
My brother said (when his were toddler terrors) he knew from the attitude of other travellers that he was a pariah when he and wife boarded a plane with TWO toddlers....and they were pretty good at keeping them under control.

One of the problems I have with my kids as soon as we leave France is their unreasonable expectations that, for example, adults should respond when they say "hello". It's much easier to tell children that their behaviour is upsetting the man in the seat behind if the man in the seat behind hasn't made clear from the outset that he hates children.

(In my earlier account of "Around Europe with a toddler", I skimmed the bit where said toddler chased after the Little Chef cook demanding a kiss goodbye.)

[ 02. February 2007, 11:43: Message edited by: Melon ]
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
(In my earlier account of "Around Europe with a toddler", I skimmed the bit where said toddler chased after the Little Chef cook demanding a kiss goodbye.)

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me] What a marvellous mental image that conjures. It's not on YouTube, is it?
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Have I shared my eternal annoyance that when people see a small woman they think that she thusly doesn't need (read deserve) all of her seat, so they start sticking knees, newspapers, elbows or thighs onto her seat.
 
Posted by Izzybee (# 10931) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
One of the problems I have with my kids as soon as we leave France is their unreasonable expectations that, for example, adults should respond when they say "hello". It's much easier to tell children that their behaviour is upsetting the man in the seat behind if the man in the seat behind hasn't made clear from the outset that he hates children.

But I'm also not happy about being accused of hating children if I decline to amuse and entertain your child for the entire flight while you flip through a magazine or tune them out with headphones.

**Note** I'm not talking about you specifically here, Melon, since I'm sure you're intelligent and caring enuogh not to do that, but I've been in situations where so much as smiling fondly when a child says hello is apparently an implied offer to babysit for eight hours.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
Yep, parenting and obesity. Recipe for thread success.

(apologies to the family for any false accusation on my part that they appeared on Jerry Springer's dreadful show).

ETA: I don't care what people weigh. I just don't like their flobbily bits oozing onto my seat and pressing against my leg and my arm and .... errrrr.

When I was a bit heavier, my fat ooozzeed out and made the arm rest pop up. This guy I was sitting next to got very angry. He demanded a new seat. The flight attendent told him no. So he kept pressing the arm rest down and my fat kept making it pop up, not to mention that my hip fat oozzed out and touched him. I used to develop a back ache trying sit in a way as to control fat ooozzing out but it was no use.

After some weight loss, the little arm rest STILL freakin' pops up! My fat nowhere touches the next party....but that dang thing always wants to pop up. I get to watch the person next to me press it down...and then see the thing pop up.

Airplane seats really should be just a couple inches wider. They are smaller than restaurant seats I have sat in everywhere in the world I have been in...there is nothing as small as them.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Look, the real problem is that airplanes have turned into Flying Greyhound Buses of Sheer Hell. If all the seats were bigger, and there was a little more space, and a little better service (for which I'd be willing to pay an extra 50-100/ticket, for sure), then a lot of the stuff that seems intolerable would be able to be brushed off better, like upset kids or fat seatmates. The fact that we're all basically in a torture chamber for eight hours to get to Europe really makes everyone less charitable.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
That's unfair on the buses, which are much more comfortable.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
And don't get me started on people who read broadsheet newspapers that take at least 3 seats worth of room to manipulate adequately.

It says something, probably terrifying, that in the suburb I grew up in we were taught in elementary school how to fold a newspaper so as to be able to read it, including turning the pages, without getting in your neighbour's space. Proper preparation for a generation of dutiful train commuters.
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Look, the real problem is that airplanes have turned into Flying Greyhound Buses of Sheer Hell. If all the seats were bigger, and there was a little more space, and a little better service (for which I'd be willing to pay an extra 50-100/ticket, for sure), then a lot of the stuff that seems intolerable would be able to be brushed off better, like upset kids or fat seatmates. The fact that we're all basically in a torture chamber for eight hours to get to Europe really makes everyone less charitable.

Hear hear. The seats are ridiculously narrow and the amount of leg room too little. The difference between an Air France economy seat and a Qantas economy seat is two centimetres (I think Air France provides all of 36sm and Qantas 34cm), but the difference over 12 hours is significant. Now that's ridiculous.

Mr A and I were talking about this last week. I said that I'd be happy for airlines to charge a bit more and provide decent seating. I stick by that.

[ 02. February 2007, 19:15: Message edited by: Left at the Altar ]
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
That's unfair on the buses, which are much more comfortable.

I was gonna say the same thing. My last Greyhound ride was an ordeal, and it was still better than flying. You don't have to go through all that ridiculous security crap and you can carry your house keys with you. You can keep an eye on your luggage, increasing the chances of it arriving at the same place you do and decreasing the chances of theft. You can get on and get off even in the middle of nowhere. If your plans change, you can use the ticket later (within a year for Greyhound Canada) with no hassles. I've never made a reservation, and if the bus happens to be full, they really do their best to get you on another one and get you to where you're going somehow. OliviaG
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
And don't get me started on people who read broadsheet newspapers that take at least 3 seats worth of room to manipulate adequately.

It says something, probably terrifying, that in the suburb I grew up in we were taught in elementary school how to fold a newspaper so as to be able to read it, including turning the pages, without getting in your neighbour's space. Proper preparation for a generation of dutiful train commuters.
The mind boggles as to where you went to school, AR!
My flatmate says the headmistress in her school taught them how to do the Times crossword. Maybe your headteacher was related...
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
That's unfair on the buses, which are much more comfortable.

See I far prefer flying. At least planes arrive and depart when they say they will! Greyhounds are always late and there's no assigned seating, so you have to be always on your guard to get up and run to the line when it forms. One time I didn't and didn't get a seat! There wasn't another non-express for 12 hours! Fortunately I was a young worried looking female, so the man I talked to asked the next express driver to make a special stop! Every ride I've taken since then I've had to worry about such things. Now that's stress. Taking my shoes off is nothing compared to it.

[ 02. February 2007, 20:39: Message edited by: Gwai ]
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
At least planes arrive and depart when they say they will!

Remind me what started this thread? Something about a flight being delayed? OliviaG
 
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
You don't have to go through all that ridiculous security crap and you can carry your house keys with you

What's all this about house keys? Never knew they were banned items on flights - mine are always in my carry on bag.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
At least planes arrive and depart when they say they will!

Remind me what started this thread? Something about a flight being delayed? OliviaG
And all this fuss (are we on t he seventh page yet?) about a plane that was delayed only fifteen minutes. I've been on a train that was delayed six hours.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
You don't have to go through all that ridiculous security crap and you can carry your house keys with you

What's all this about house keys? Never knew they were banned items on flights - mine are always in my carry on bag.
IIRC, that temporary insanity was finally stopped after a few people had luggage (labelled with their home address) with their house keys inside stolen. The whole security thing is insane. I've decided I won't participate in security theatre without an Equity contract. [Razz] OliviaG
 
Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 
Everybody who has ever been on an airplane knows that, given enough GIN, they would scream as loudly and as longly as any infant/toddler on a flight. Putting that many unpleasant strangers together is a recipe for anarchy.

Moreover, there is an evolutionary imperative at work here: if we strangle screaming children on an airplane now, in a generation, there may be fewer people flying in airplanes, and the airlines will make the seats wider.

Failing that, just keep strangling children on airplanes. We may not live long enough to enjoy the fruits of our labors, but at least we can pay attention to the in-flight movie.
 
Posted by Wet Kipper (# 1654) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
I said that I'd be happy for airlines to charge a bit more and provide decent seating.

Otherwise known as "premium economy", business class, first class etc, depending on the size of your "bit extra"
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Have I shared my eternal annoyance that when people see a small woman they think that she thusly doesn't need (read deserve) all of her seat, so they start sticking knees, newspapers, elbows or thighs onto her seat.

To which the perfect comeback is (although hard to carry off on an airplane): "Oh, am I in your way? Do you need more room? How stupid of me not to realize. Here, let me stand so you'll be more comfortable."
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
At least planes arrive and depart when they say they will!

What airline do you fly, my dear? Have they never heard of ground stops?
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wet Kipper:
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
I said that I'd be happy for airlines to charge a bit more and provide decent seating.

Otherwise known as "premium economy", business class, first class etc, depending on the size of your "bit extra"
My bit extra is probably premium cattle class. However, the fat bloke next to me thinks different.
 
Posted by KenWritez (# 3238) on :
 
The fat bloke next to you could have been me. Not only am I a wide load, I'm also tall. When I get situated into a typical "economy" flavor seat (the only kind besides first class I've seen on domestic carriers I've flown), I have to either wedge my knees against the back of his chair (no room to recline for him) or straighten them and slide my legs under his seat. Should he recline, my legs are trapped, as am I--no getting up for me!

I do my damndest not to intrude on my seatmate, contorting myself to fit wherever I can, but physically, that's an impossibility. I've only had one person complain about being sat next to me, and he was only a bit smaller than I was! Luckily, it wasn't a full flight and the stewardess re-sat me in an empty row.

I hate flying because the chairs are small and too close to their mates in front and back. Recently, a US tv news program highlighted the frustrations of flyers, and inadequate seat and leg room were high on the list of gripes.

American Airlines touted a new legroom expansion plan several years ago; rows of seats were removed to allow more legroom. That program was scrapped. (AIUI, because of insufficient sales.) The missing seats were added back in.

Southwest Airline's seat width, as reported in USA Today, is 17.25 inches.

When I tried to purchase an extra seat for myself on a recent LA -> Miami flight I took on American Airlines, my seat cost was $400, the extra seat would have cost me $1047, since we were going to purchase the extra seat some days after we'd already bought our own. I talked to the AA customer service rep: Could they please cut me a deal on this seat? No, not even with a cat in a hat. Screw you, Jack. The rep said I could ask the gate agent at the time of flight for a bulkhead seat if any were available. Well, guess what flight AA oversold? And no, on AA you cannot raise the arms on bulkhead seats because of their swing-out tray tables.

The one time I did purchase an extra seat for myself on Southwest, the airline personnel had no idea how to handle it! We received conflicting check-in advice, the extra ticket in my name caused major security problems, the gate agents seemed never to've heard of this bizarre "purchase am extra seat for oneself" concept. As it was, they almost sold my extra seat as a "no-show,", thus contradicting the reason I bought the damn thing!

Devoting more space to leg room and seat width decreases the amount of saleable seats on a plane. What airline would willingly decrease its per-flight profits in order to provide more comfort to its passengers?

(I'm not even going to talk about airplane toilets and large people. No liquids or food the night before the flight is a good idea for big people.)

The airlines refuse to change because to do so would result in less profits, is my guess. Not something you want to justify to a shareholder board of inquiry.

Airlines won't change until the cost of not doing so is greater than the cost of doing so. When that point is reached is anyone's guess, but if Americans really are becoming larger, then at some point airlines will see profits fall as fatter passengers use alternative transport.

My answer is, I choose not to fly anymore until I've lost enough weight I can fly comfortably. The seats are much more roomy on Amtrak.
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
KW, I agree wholeheartedly that airline seats are way too narrow and too close to the seat in front for any person to enjoy a flight. They should all be wider and further apart. I'd like to sit beside you, really I would. I'd like airlines to say, "Well, heck, a significant proportion of our population is large either vertically or horizintally or both, so we need to either make all out seats bigger, or have a portion of the seats bigger so that bigger people can fly with us, without being squashed in, and without squashing their neighbours". But they don't.

[ 06. February 2007, 05:48: Message edited by: Left at the Altar ]
 
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :
 
In the good old days the American airlines used to have a reputation for good seating, sad to see that lost.
What is the situation with cramp seats etc and risk of Deep Vein Thrombois in US
Am lucky that when I fly via Airbus there is good leg room and space for an old fart and it is easy to go for a walk up theailes without causing problems for others.Often flight is not full and one is able to spread out and have a kip.
It used to be only the chartered flights which were cattle trucks.
 
Posted by calisnenath (# 11927) on :
 
Well I need seats lower down, or with foot rests. I'm only 5 feet tall (1m53) and dangling legs for a 16hour flight to Japan with a baby (well behaved I hasten to add!) was NASTY!
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
Anybody else remember the jingle, "You get three feet for your two legs on Western Airlines"?
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
I'd like airlines to say, "Well, heck, a significant proportion of our population is large either vertically or horizintally or both, so we need to either make all out seats bigger, or have a portion of the seats bigger so that bigger people can fly with us, without being squashed in, and without squashing their neighbours". But they don't.

I thought they did -- the portion of seats that are larger are called First Class, and they cost more, but most airlines have them. Don't they?
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by calisnenath:
Well I need seats lower down, or with foot rests. I'm only 5 feet tall (1m53) and dangling legs for a 16hour flight to Japan with a baby (well behaved I hasten to add!) was NASTY!

I have this problem everywhere, and though I don't fly often, I've certainly experienced that. I recommend putting a backpack or something under your feet. It makes the whole thing a bit less uncomfortable.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
I heard somewhere of someone who genuinely could not fit into his Cockroach Class seat. He was simply too big. The airline upgraded him to Business Class.
 
Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I heard somewhere of someone who genuinely could not fit into his Cockroach Class seat. He was simply too big. The airline upgraded him to Business Class.

I've heard of someone who couldn't fit into an economy seat, so they insisted he purchase a second one.
 
Posted by marmot (# 479) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I heard somewhere of someone who genuinely could not fit into his Cockroach Class seat. He was simply too big. The airline upgraded him to Business Class.

I've heard of someone who couldn't fit into an economy seat, so they insisted he purchase a second one.
That happens more often than you might think. I know someone who as a Person of Size (the airlines' PC term) now automatically buys two seats rather than face humiliation and judgment at the check-in counter.
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
I'd like airlines to say, "Well, heck, a significant proportion of our population is large either vertically or horizintally or both, so we need to either make all out seats bigger, or have a portion of the seats bigger so that bigger people can fly with us, without being squashed in, and without squashing their neighbours". But they don't.

I thought they did -- the portion of seats that are larger are called First Class, and they cost more, but most airlines have them. Don't they?
Right. So fatties and tallies are required to purchase first class seats.

Not so fatties or tallies can purchase business class.

And we thin shorties can fly for cheap.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
From marmot (my bold):
quote:
That happens more often than you might think. I know someone who as a Person of Size (the airlines' PC term)...
Heh. From now on, you fine people can refer to me as a Person of Scotch.

Alcoholic is no longer acceptable.

[ 09. February 2007, 04:20: Message edited by: Gort ]
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
And I should like to be referred to as a Person of Opinion and Lines.

Wrinkly old Bigot is also no longer acceptable.
 
Posted by KenWritez (# 3238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
I'd like airlines to say, "Well, heck, a significant proportion of our population is large either vertically or horizintally or both, so we need to either make all out seats bigger, or have a portion of the seats bigger so that bigger people can fly with us, without being squashed in, and without squashing their neighbours". But they don't.

I thought they did -- the portion of seats that are larger are called First Class, and they cost more, but most airlines have them. Don't they?
Yes, most all airlines have them, but I've noticed some airlines' First Class seats are actually no wider, or are barely wider, than coach. They're merely much more cushy and trimmed in leather, and the dickhead airplane engineers *still* put the headphone, volume, channel and seat control on the inside of the FC chair arm, where they're oh-so easily reached despite my fat thigh mashed up against them. (sarcasm alert)

ETA: (I've just noticed I'm at 9996 posts. I so do not want to mark my 10,000th post complaining about difficulties flying my fat butt through the not-fat-friendly skies. [Disappointed] )

[ 09. February 2007, 05:27: Message edited by: KenWritez ]
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
Help is on the way, KenW! Check out first class accommodation on the new Boeing 777!
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
An economy airfare on Qantas from Australia to Europe or the US will cost between $2,000 and $3,000. A business class airfare, between $9,000 and $12,000. First class will cost about $14,000.

It's not like everyone can just say, "Oh heck, I feel like a bit of space for this trip - I'll go first".
 
Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
I read that the Netherlanders are now the tallest nation, with an average height of 1.83 m (6 ft) for adult males and 1.70 m (5 ft 7 in) for adult females. In 2003, ceiling heights for new buildings were raised to 2.60m (8.5').

It seems that efforts are being taken in the Netherlands to accommodate tall people, but how do they fit in other nation's seats?
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
I've noticed some airlines' First Class seats are actually no wider, or are barely wider, than coach.

Yes, that's my impression - they're usually the same size, but further apart. So more comfy for rich tallies, but not much better for rich fatties.

Like Gwai and Calisnenath, I find airline seats don't comfortably accomodate my wee short legs. The floor is too far away, and if I sit right back in the seat the end of the seat is in the wrong place for my knees. Eventually my legs go numb. Best to put some bit of luggage (or possibly a small child) on the floor for my feet to rest on, but the airline staff make you move it if they spot it.
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Wot a nice game you're playing here: PC terms for people types.

Bugger off and play it in the Circus.

Sarkycow, hellhost
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
Period pain?
 
Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
ETA: (I've just noticed I'm at 9996 posts. I so do not want to mark my 10,000th post complaining about difficulties flying my fat butt through the not-fat-friendly skies. [Disappointed] )

What was the worst bit, Ken?
 
Posted by Nats (# 2211) on :
 
If I win the Premium Bonds I am flying all my family to see my parents in Japan 1st Class. Including my toddler and pre-schooler. Just because I will be able to. And I want to go Singapore air now on a nice 777 please! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
Like Gwai and Calisnenath, I find airline seats don't comfortably accomodate my wee short legs. The floor is too far away, and if I sit right back in the seat the end of the seat is in the wrong place for my knees. Eventually my legs go numb. Best to put some bit of luggage (or possibly a small child) on the floor for my feet to rest on, but the airline staff make you move it if they spot it.

Understanding I got from one (short) stewardess was that as long as I moved it for take-off and landing, it was okay during flight. That may not be universal though.
 
Posted by Mr. Spouse (# 3353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
up here in "small plane country" you are expected to disclose your real weight, and if you try to shine them on they pop you on the frieght scale. in a small plane, it makes a huge difference. weight has a direct impact on fuel burned.

Yeah, we experienced that at check in for a flight on a 9-seater in Florida. The gate staff panicked when a transfer passenger turned up without having checked in beforehand. They had to bring the pilot out to check that he wasn't too heavy to fly!
 
Posted by marmot (# 479) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Spouse:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
up here in "small plane country" you are expected to disclose your real weight, and if you try to shine them on they pop you on the frieght scale. in a small plane, it makes a huge difference. weight has a direct impact on fuel burned.

Yeah, we experienced that at check in for a flight on a 9-seater in Florida. The gate staff panicked when a transfer passenger turned up without having checked in beforehand. They had to bring the pilot out to check that he wasn't too heavy to fly!
Yah, on the inter-island shuttles, the pilots even arrange the passengers for balance, which means that once in a while, I get to sit in the cockpit. Sweet.
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
The last time I went to Victoria, the ferry back to Seattle was overbooked because one of the boats had conked out.

My friend and I got offered seats on the seaplane back to Lake Union. I am sure that the ferry agent took a look at us and saw good candidates - two not-overweight women with one "carry on" type bag each. (It was kewl. I loved it.)

Re standard airline seats, Southwest seems to have just enough extra room that it's not horrid for my five-nine body unless someone leans the seat in front of me back.

Charlotte
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
Although total weight is an important factor in light planes, I think your worried pilot was more concerned with balance. You would never find all of the 300 pounders on a passenger list sitting in the back rows.

[cross-posted with marmot]

[ 09. February 2007, 23:32: Message edited by: Gort ]
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
Period pain?

No, people pain.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
Period pain?

No, people pain.
I was going to suggest that it was the kind of period pain related to the period of time from logging on to the Ship to host, to the time of logging off [Big Grin] !
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0