Should J & F be AO? (Kids we dont want you in Business class!)

[markis10]

This topic has been touched on in the past in various threads but I did not think 75% agreed that such classes should be AO:

AIRLINES are being urged to segregate children or ban them from certain flights altogether to keep business class passengers happy.

In a recent survey, 75 per cent of business class travellers said they were annoyed by the presence of children on planes, the The Daily Mail reports.

The survey, run in conjunction with the Business Travel and Meetings trade show, urges major airlines such as British Airways, Virgin Atlantic and Emirites, to consider child-free flights.

Read more: Kids, we don't want you in business class: push to ban children from flights | News.com.au
​

 

[Must...Fly!]

It's public transport.

If you don't want children, get out the cash and get yourself a private jet.

 

[medhead]

A story designed to generate comment, website hits and push up the advertising fees.

 

[munitalP]

As I have said many times before, kids should be tethered to their parents and kept quiet.

How can you possibly argue with the logic of the article (even though its from no news)?

Must Fly - you obviously haven't experienced a SCREAMING kid from SIN to FRA in the seat behind you in J... trust me, the $$,$$$ forked so I could arrive at my destination able to work as I got off the plane were wasted.

Its unfair on ALL other PAX to have screaming or out of control children - it wouldnt be accepted if it was a teen sitting in their seat screaming anymore than it would be accepted an adult yelling at the top of his /her voice during the flight, so why is it OK to accept that from kids Must Fly?

Public transport or not, your statement reeks with contempt for your fellow PAX

 

[Must...Fly!]

Its unfair on ALL other PAX to have screaming or out of control children - it wouldnt be accepted if it was a teen sitting in their seat screaming anymore than it would be accepted an adult yelling at the top of his /her voice during the flight, so why is it OK to accept that from kids Must Fly?

I was more referring to the premise of the article which I understood to be outright banning of children from J&F, which I don't think is right. I understand your argument too, and I can see why you would be annoyed.

Parents DO have a responsibility to keep their children quiet and well behaved on a flight, no matter which cabin they are flying in. The article seems to be implying that Y should be some kind of kindergarten.

I think it is important that we define "children" in this argument.

5 or 10 year olds chucking tantrums isn't great and the parents should be controlling their child. But if you have a 10 month old baby, what can you do? I just don't think you can kick someone to the back of the plane just because they may have a child which will find flying an uncomfortable experience.

 

[markis10]

I think it is important that we define "children" in this argument.

Its already been defined, anyone not 18 or over who is not responsible for their actions in the eyes of the law!

 

[trippin_the_rift]

Perhaps if they created 'adult only flights' so no kids could be booked onto those....

Locking kids out of J/F is rediculous. Prime example is that I only fly premium cabins internationally, and if minors weren't allowed in J, then my kids would be flying on the same flight, down the back as unaccompanied minors Actually maybe that's a good idea

 

[NM]

It's public transport.

If you don't want children, get out the cash and get yourself a private jet.

Exactly ... very well put.

A story designed to generate comment, website hits and push up the advertising fees.

We we can put all our comments here instead of on the news media's site and help generate traffic for AFF instead

 

[tuapekastar]

As I have said many times before, kids should be tethered to their parents and kept quiet.

How can you possibly argue with the logic of the article (even though its from no news)?

Must Fly - you obviously haven't experienced a SCREAMING kid from SIN to FRA in the seat behind you in J... trust me, the $$,$$$ forked so I could arrive at my destination able to work as I got off the plane were wasted.

Its unfair on ALL other PAX to have screaming or out of control children - it wouldnt be accepted if it was a teen sitting in their seat screaming anymore than it would be accepted an adult yelling at the top of his /her voice during the flight, so why is it OK to accept that from kids Must Fly?

Public transport or not, your statement reeks with contempt for your fellow PAX

All PAX, regardless of age have the right, if they pony up the $$$, to be in whatever cabin they (or their parents) choose to be in.

Yes, there can be issues with screaming kids, and we've all encountered them to varying degrees of disruption/discomfort. My only issue is if/when the parents don't give a toss and make no effort to bring the infants' noise under control.

There are plenty of (alleged) adults out there who can and have been far more offensive and disruptive than any babies. It's quite a silly notion to 'ban' infants from premium cabins just because some of them cry and annoy other people - you read many more stories about disruptive adults than kids.

For the life of me, while Must...Fly!'s comments are blunt and to the point (is it possible to be blunt and pointy at the same time?), I fail to see even a modicum of contempt in them.

The survey and story, as medhead alludes to, both rank pretty low on the credibility scale. I suspect this thread will go the way of most others on this subject. :shock:

 

[el_rooto]

What about having 18+ only areas of the cabin in J. EG upper deck on the 744.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Its already been defined, anyone not 18 or over who is not responsible for their actions in the eyes of the law!

So the quiet 16 or 17 year old watching a few movies on IFE, accompanying his father on a business trip (for example) shouldn't be there?

 

[markis10]

So the quiet 16 or 17 year old watching a few movies on IFE, accompanying his father on a business trip (for example) shouldn't be there?

According to the move quoted, yes, you are drawing a line that does not take into account individual behavior. The term "minor" may have been more in line with some traveler's wishes, personally I think such rules just take the responsibility of parenthood away which is not a good thing IMHO.

 

[JohnK]

How about keeping them kids out of economy as well?

Its unfair on ALL other PAX to have screaming or out of control children - it wouldnt be accepted if it was a teen sitting in their seat screaming anymore than it would be accepted an adult yelling at the top of his /her voice during the flight, so why is it OK to accept that from kids Must Fly?

Public transport or not, your statement reeks with contempt for your fellow PAX

Of course it is unfair on all passengers to have out of control children and parents. Luckily it has never been a major issue for me apart from a few occasions.

Parents DO have a responsibility to keep their children quiet and well behaved on a flight, no matter which cabin they are flying in. The article seems to be implying that Y should be some kind of kindergarten.

And yet some parents refuse to take any responsibility for their out of control kids. They act that way home (i.e no control over their children) so it should be OK to act that way in public. Right?

I have seen it too many times for it to be a coincidence. Unfortunately for our society the wrong type of people are having children....

 

[anat0l]

So the real answer to this all is that there need to be more powers on board to force parents who don't give a damn about their kids' behaviour to actually give a damn if they are unruly, noisy or otherwise out of control.

Problem is what kind of powers? Can't throw them off the plane (well, it'd be nice to do that whilst airborne, but unfortunately that's not physically or legally possible, yet). Can't fine them (at least I don't think you can). Help me out here...

As for screaming babies, I've heard there are plenty of techniques for calming them (apart from stuff that works on adults as well), but in the end it's really difficult to keep them under control per se. How about bassinets which act like a cone of silence?

Oh, and P.S. FAs are not babysitters or maternity nurses, people! Sure, FAs who go above and beyond in these respects should be commended, but it should not be expected of them.

 

[medhead]

I can't believe the posts here. To those who think this is a good idea (perhaps I missed the sarcasm). The problem is that to do so denies parental responsibility. Sure some parents are not responsible but this type of ban sends the wrong message. Basically it says parents do not have to be responsible for their children, hence you're banned. Instead it should be a system that enforces parental responsibility

 

[Must...Fly!]

Unfortunately for our society the wrong type of people are having children....

It's hard to disagree with that statement.

The broader problem is the lack of control some parents seem to have over their children in both their own home and out in public, whether by choice or just pure laziness.

However, in this argument, you cannot just apply a blanket rule and ban all children (however we define them in this situation) because some are being brought up in a way which leads to socially unacceptable behaviour.

I also think some parents believe that as soon as they step on to an aircraft, their children are no longer their responsibility, but that of the crew. Which is insane, stupid and plainly wrong.

 

[el_rooto]

So the quiet 16 or 17 year old watching a few movies on IFE, accompanying his father on a business trip (for example) shouldn't be there?

I've done this whilst 15-16 and my sister was 13-14... (Upstairs J 744 SYD - LAX - JFK)

Ahhh that trip involved my first experience of the new F Lounge...

 

[ChrisBNE]

Have seen equally innapropriate behavior by adults in the premium cabins, as exhibited by children.

And a side note, as a parent who has travelled with young children, no matter how vigilant you can be with their behaviour, how much entertainment/food you provide, sometimes children are just going to make noise. This can be for a variety of reasons (pain/boredom), children are not always going to adhere to rationality like adults ought to be.

This however is not an excuse for poor behaviour or poor manners, which is not acceptable for children or adults alike when flying in any cabin.

 

[wingspan]

Must Fly - you obviously haven't experienced a SCREAMING kid from SIN to FRA in the seat behind you in J... trust me, the $$,$$$ forked so I could arrive at my destination able to work as I got off the plane were wasted.

I have to say that I've wasted money in the hopes of arriving at my destination able to work as well - but due to the poor behaviour of adults. Whereas I've had flights seated next to children who have been nothing but superbly behaved. Banning children wouldn't really solve the problem. I have to agree that it's public transport and unless you fork out more money for a private transport, the problem won't go away. Of course on some (hopefully most!) flights you'll get lucky and have no concerns about passengers (child or adult) but some flight you just won't be able to have the best experience you could have had if the undesirable fellow passengers weren't there.

 

[samiam]

What about having 18+ only areas of the cabin in J. EG upper deck on the 744.

And they could install a bar and 'personal product' vending machines in the lavs.

Although I doubt Virgin would be able to pull off that strategy as a marketing ploy :evil: