Child-free flights: discrimination or something worse?

MrCreosote

So a few Asian airlines are bringing in child-free areas on planes, (and possibly pushing for child-free flights)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274854/Peace-Air-Asia-rolls-child-free-zones-stop-screaming-infants-ruining-travellers-flights.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#axzz2Ka1JR8Qn

Is this another example of the worsening discrimination for society towards children and their parents?

Utter disgrace, if you ask me.

summerskin

As a parent I'm outraged! This should have been done years ago!

seriously, a great idea.

kneemos

Great when they're yours otherwise just annoying.

The first seven rows in the economy cabin are off-limits to children under 12 on flights from Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia to Australia, China, Japan and some other destinations.

First 7 rows, oh no


He added: ‘The airline is not banning kids from travelling, but instead, is enhancing the array of product offerings on board to suit its guests’ individual needs and preferences.’



^ That's exactly what they are doing, advertising more products. You pay extra to get the quiet spaces.
No discrimination

MurdyWurdy

I have a child on the way and will need to take a long-haul flight with said child this time next year to visit family. I'm already dreading it. I've had many a flight sitting near a screaming child almost crying with tiredness and wanting sleep, and yes I know the parents/child can't always help it.

I think child-free spaces on airlines is a great idea. I'd be more comfortable having a crying baby on a plane if I knew that people had had the option to go in a child-free areas. I'd feel much less guilty.

MrCreosote

They can dress it up any way they want- banning kids from an area is discrimination pure and simple

MrCreosote

MrCreosote wrote: »

They can dress it up any way they want- banning kids from an area is discrimination pure and simple

Are you going to sue all the nightclubs so? Good luck with that

Annasopra

I'm actually outraged...

that people are calling a minor thing like this discrimination

Sofiztikated

I'm staying away from this one. Work away, MrCreosote.

MrCreosote

There's already few enough spaces set aside for infants, without them being reduced still further.

You pay to be flown halfway around the world- halfway around the frikkin world!- and people complain about petty little things like a little noise.

Ban pissheads, they're the real danger in the air.

johnr1

If you want to whine about discrimination, then find an area where it actually exists OP.

This is a great idea.

shruikan2553

They can still fly its just some people don't want to sit near your bored child. Your child may not be the special little angel you think it is and could be an annoying brat. But I suppose kids will be kids and I don't understand because I don't have any.
This will probably come down to an argument between parents who can't understand why maybe other people don't want to be around their children and everyone else.

Angron

Well it's not like they are putting the kids in a cage for the duration of the flight (as appealing as that may seem at times).

tritium

johnr1 wrote: »

If you want to whine about discrimination, then find an area where it actually exists OP.

This is a great idea.

Agreed. What about the airlines that won't allow male passengers to sit beside a child - you know, because he might be oneof them paedo thingies. Now theres blatant discrimination. This on the other hand is pretty sensible, and I say that as a parent

Gee_G

I think it would be discrimination IF they don't allow kids on certain flights,but just not letting them in a certain few rows?What about it!

ScumLord

MrCreosote wrote: »

Is this another example of the worsening discrimination for society towards children and their parents?

No. Not even remotely close.

OP - what's the "something worse"?

hoodwinked

You know societies turned their head and ignored it when groups of human beings were forced to sit at the back of buses, now here we are in 2013 and its children being forced to the back rows of aeroplanes...


you'd think people would learn to treat all humans equally....

MrCreosote

tritium wrote: »

Agreed. What about the airlines that won't allow male passengers to sit beside a child - you know, because he might be oneof them paedo thingies. Now theres blatant discrimination. This on the other hand is pretty sensible, and I say that as a parent

It's not like the man is bumped off the flight, or made to pay extra.
By reducing the number of seats available to parents, they are making it less likely they'll get on a flight- that will increase the (already high) cost for them

Gee_G wrote: »

I think it would be discrimination IF they don't allow kids on certain flights,but just not letting them in a certain few rows?What about it!

This is the thin edge of the wedge. Child-free flights are next, Ryanair have already been looking to bring them in.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

OP - what's the "something worse"?

"Really unfair and mean omg"

IceFjoem

MrCreosote wrote: »

There's already few enough spaces set aside for infants, without them being reduced still further.

You pay to be flown halfway around the world- halfway around the frikkin world!- and people complain about petty little things like a little noise.

Ban pissheads, they're the real danger in the air.

What a ridiculous opinion. It's about providing a quiet(er) space on the aircraft where travelers can get some rest without the inconvenience of listening to screaming infants.

A 'petty thing like noise' is the difference between arriving at your destination exhausted or well rested, especially on long haul flights.

Your comment about pissheads is equally ridiculous. First of all, loud, drunken behavior is already disallowed. Secondly, nobody is suggesting that the noise of infants is in any way dangerous. It's merely a convenience the airline is providing, similar to the old no-smoking zones.

ejmaztec

Deleted User wrote: »

OP - what's the "something worse"?

Allowing the kids to fly the planes.

MrCreosote

Deleted User wrote: »

OP - what's the "something worse"?

Increased prices for families would be one thing.

bluewolf wrote: »

"Really unfair and mean omg"

Totes!

MrCreosote

IceFjoem wrote: »

What a ridiculous opinion. It's about providing a quiet(er) space on the aircraft where travelers can get some rest without the inconvenience of listening to screaming infants.

A 'petty thing like noise' is the difference between arriving at your destination exhausted or well rested, especially on long haul flights.

Your comment about pissheads is equally ridiculous. First of all, loud, drunken behavior is already disallowed. Secondly, nobody is suggesting that the noise of infants is in any way dangerous. It's merely a convenience the airline is providing, similar to the old no-smoking zones.

You're never going to be well-rested after a long-haul flight. It baffles me why people expect to be, and then get annoyed when they aren't

Drunken behaviour is both disallowed, and encouraged by hosing booze down every red-faced moustachioed businessman's open maw...

flanders1979

If some parents could control their children it wouldn't have to come to this.

Gee_G

MrCreosote wrote: »

It's not like the man is bumped off the flight, or made to pay extra.
By reducing the number of seats available to parents, they are making it less likely they'll get on a flight- that will increase the (already high) cost for them




This is the thin edge of the wedge. Child-free flights are next, Ryanair have already been looking to bring them in.

Well to be hoNest I would not mind child free flights as long as the same service and same quality of service/flight(flight times, food,etc) was offered on both the child free flights and the one with kids

irelandrover

MrCreosote wrote: »

You're never going to be well-rested after a long-haul flight. It baffles me why people expect to be, and then get annoyed when they aren't

Drunken behaviour is both disallowed, and encouraged by hosing booze down every red-faced moustachioed businessman's open maw...

I've been well rested after long haul flights. Just because you can't sleep well on a plane doesn't mean everyone can't.

I've also been sat beside screaming babies for long haul flights. I would happily have paid money to move away from the screaming baby and in future would happily pay to ensure I wasn't sat beside a child.

Carlos Orange

hoodwinked wrote: »

You know societies turned their head and ignored it when groups of human beings were forced to sit at the back of buses, now here we are in 2013 and its children being forced to the back rows of aeroplanes...


you'd think people would learn to treat all humans equally....

If adults behaved the way some kids do on planes they would be greeted by a pair of handcuffs when they landed.

Sergeant

Other peoples children are dreadful creatures. Crying and kicking the back of the seat. I'd be in favour of put them in the cargo hold if it was allowed.

WinterSong

So parents can still travel with their children, and people who would prefer to be seated away from children can chose to pay more money to the airline for the privilege.
Really struggling to see any problem here at all...

hoodwinked

psinno wrote: »

If adults behaved the way some kids do on planes they would be greeted by a pair of handcuffs when they landed.

Sergeant wrote: »

Other peoples children are dreadful creatures. Crying and kicking the back of the seat. I'd be in favour of put them in the cargo hold if it was allowed.

stop assuming all children behave like that, we fly with our 3 year old and she has never once cried/screamed or interfered with other passengers...

tin79

MrCreosote wrote: »

and people complain about petty little things like a little noise.

Ever been on a 10 hour flight with a baby with colic beside you and a toddler running riot with one woman looking after both? i have I assure you there is nothing petty about it.

And before you ask I have a baby myself, I would not bring them on a flight and if I did I would fully support designated areas.

kunst nugget

hoodwinked wrote: »

You know societies turned their head and ignored it when groups of human beings were forced to sit at the back of buses, now here we are in 2013 and its children being forced to the back rows of aeroplanes...


you'd think people would learn to treat all humans equally....

Well, hopefully Rosa Parks has some great grandchildren in nappies that can rise up against this oppressive tyranny by sh¡tting themselves in the front row and refusing to move! Kiddie Power!

homemadecider

MrCreosote wrote: »

You're never going to be well-rested after a long-haul flight. It baffles me why people expect to be, and then get annoyed when they aren't

I fly long-haul several times a year for work and I almost always have a very restful sleep on the plane. The only thing that stops me sleeping is a child bawling. I would pay extra money to sit away from children so that I can always sleep on the plane.

MrCreosote

Here's the problem, in simple arithmetic 1,2,3:

Before:

200 seats, anyone could buy any of the seats

After:

200 seats- single travellers can buy any seat. Parents and children can only access 120. They have reduced choice as a direct result of the discrimatory policies. Fewer seats=more competition=higher prices===discrimination

SEPT 23 1989

Unless you really have to get on a plane with children,i think you are better off holidaying at home or taking a ferry to France until they are at an age that they can travel on a plane without causing problems

rossit

sometime people have to bring there kids im sure that woman was doing her best with the two kids .a little understanding goes a long way.

hoodwinked

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Unless you really have to get on a plane with children,i think you are better off holidaying at home or taking a ferry to France until they are at an age that they can travel on a plane without causing problems

again what do you set the age at?


when she was 1 year old she went on a 4 hour flight (we were delayed for an hour so 5 hours on a plane) she drank her bottle taking off, fell asleep and we had to wake her to give her a bottle to suck on for landing...


now she's three she will read a book, draw on a etch-a-sketch or watch a movie on the ipad (with ear phones) she is better behaved then most adults.


so what age can a child travel without causing problems?


by the way, we fly because i suffer extremely badly from sea sickness! i would be a nightmare disturbing other passengers vomiting all over them or the boat...so we don't get on a boat!

IceFjoem

MrCreosote wrote: »

You're never going to be well-rested after a long-haul flight. It baffles me why people expect to be, and then get annoyed when they aren't

Drunken behaviour is both disallowed, and encouraged by hosing booze down every red-faced moustachioed businessman's open maw...

I sense that you're implying that a screaming child will have no effect on your ability to sleep, irrespective of the fact that a confined airplane seat is not the ideal place for a nap. Do you actually believe this?!

I think it's fair to say that the majority of people don't become raving lunatics after a few drinks. Passengers are ultimately responsible for their own actions. If people are prone to acting that way after drinking then they should abstain. The laws already in place should be incentive enough, if you feel they're not harsh enough then start a thread about those.

Carlos Orange

hoodwinked wrote: »

stop assuming all children behave like that, we fly with our 3 year old and she has never once cried/screamed or interfered with other passengers...

I can only assume you didn't read what I said at all. Please read every single word and then apologise.

MrCreosote

IceFjoem wrote: »

I sense that you're implying that a screaming child will have no effect on your ability to sleep, irrespective of the fact that a confined airplane seat is not the ideal place for a nap. Do you actually believe this?!

I think it's fair to say that the majority of people don't become raving lunatics after a few drinks. Passengers are ultimately responsible for their own actions. If people are prone to acting that way after drinking then they should abstain. The laws already in place should be incentive enough, if you feel they're not harsh enough then start a thread about those.

What I'm saying is that a cramped airplane is not a place conducive to sleep. Crying babies is not the problem- the problem is you're stuck for 12 hours with your knees in your throat.

And I agree most people don't become raving lunatics after drink. But they do become boring obnoxious windbags who keep me awake.

hoodwinked

psinno wrote: »

I can only assume you didn't read what I said at all. Please read every single word and then apologise.

i do realise you said some children, but you are arguing all children should be treated the same and made sit down the back in a child-zone (re: my post you quoted in your post) for the actions of 'some'.


if thats the case why don't we stop all adults from being in planes because of the actions of some....oh wait... :rolleyes:

Carlos Orange

MrCreosote wrote: »

Here's the problem, in simple arithmetic 1,2,3:

Before:

200 seats, anyone could buy any of the seats

After:

200 seats- single travellers can buy any seat. Parents and children can only access 120. They have reduced choice as a direct result of the discrimatory policies. Fewer seats=more competition=higher prices===discrimination

I know reading articles before commenting is old fashioned but if you did it you would see the child free seats are priced higher.

Carlos Orange

hoodwinked wrote: »

i do realise you said some children, but you are arguing all children should be treated the same and made sit down the back in a child-zone (re: my post you quoted in your post) for the actions of 'some'.


if thats the case why don't we stop all adults from being in planes because of the actions of some....oh wait... :rolleyes:

All I argued was that people are held to different standards inherently. Children aren't treated the same as adults. Please address other peoples arguments by replying to their posts.

tritium

MrCreosote wrote: »

It's not like the man is bumped off the flight, or made pay extra
n.

Oh well thats ok so, silly me! Call me a paedo by all means once you can visibly escort me to my new seat of shame

MrCreosote

psinno wrote: »

I know reading articles before commenting is old fashioned but if you did it you would see the child free seats are priced higher.

As I said the single traveller's can choose any seat they want. The competition for the family friendly seats will drive up prices there (fewer seats=fewer cheap seats)

Last year we flew through Dubai to Nairobi for safari- the price for all of us was bad enough then. I'm not even sure if we could have afforded it if they'd been higher. That's the end result of discrimination.

MrCreosote

tritium wrote: »

Oh well thats ok so, silly me! Call me a paedo by all means once you can visibly escort me to my new seat of shame

No-one is calling YOU a paedo. They're saying you're male, and most paedophiles are male. And they have a simple solution to prevent any accusations flying around.

If you want to get heated up about something minor then feel free...

kunst nugget

MrCreosote wrote: »

As I said the single traveller's can choose any seat they want. The competition for the family friendly seats will drive up prices there (fewer seats=fewer cheap seats)

Last year we flew through Dubai to Nairobi for safari- the price for all of us was bad enough then. I'm not even sure if we could have afforded it if they'd been higher. That's the end result of discrimination.

That's like saying giving a person the choice of flying first class drives up the price for everyone else.

MrCreosote

MrCreosote wrote: »

No-one is calling YOU a paedo. They're saying you're male, and most paedophiles are male. And they have a simple solution to prevent any accusations flying around.

If you want to get heated up about something minor then feel free...

No-one is saying that YOUR kids will scream and cry and kick the back of other passengers' seats. They're saying that most people who scream and cry and kick the back of other passengers' seats are children. And they have a simple solution to give people the option of not being surrounded by that.

If you want to get heated up about something minor then feel free...

Grayson

MrCreosote wrote: »

You're never going to be well-rested after a long-haul flight. It baffles me why people expect to be, and then get annoyed when they aren't

Drunken behaviour is both disallowed, and encouraged by hosing booze down every red-faced moustachioed businessman's open maw...

So we shouldn't put up with drunken people, but we should put up with children.

I see this as me being stuck with a baby screaming next to me. I wander up front and say to a guy who's not sitting next to one, "I'll give you 100 quid if you swap seats with me".
Only this is all sorted beforehand. I pay more and I get a nice quiet seat.

Then again, maybe we should just charge full fair for a baby on a plane.

Either way I know you'll disagree. You like children more than Jimmy Saville.

OldGoat

The OP is looking at this from the wrong perspective. They are creating child-frendly areas of the plane, removing children from the adult areas and putting them with their (age) peers.
I'd be delighted to see flights advertised as Child-Frendly. When I look for hotels I always look for those that are Child-Frendly and then I cross them of the list.