Its all about degrees or risk. That lap child is safer on the plane than in a tub being bathed. Under this logic, we "endager" children by bathing them, leaving them with a baby sitter, giving them a polio shot, etc.. More kids were killed or injured in these activities than being lap children
"lap" Children Flying On Aa
- Thread starter laura62
- Start date
Royal Ambassador
Advanced
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2003
- Messages
- 142
- Reaction score
- 20
I can understand the airlines lobbying the FAA to allow lap children, as the airlines don't care about the child's well being, it's all about $$$. However it's mind boggling to me that the FAA won't allow a carry on bag or laptop to become a "missle", but thinks it's OK for a child. I was on a flight once that had to nosedive to avoid a mid air colision. EVERYTHING that was not strapped in was on the ceiling, including humans. Of course ambulances met the plane and some flight attendants never flew again. True, this is rare, but it CAN happen. I don't think parents are intentionally risking their child's life, they are just not educated in the risk.
TWAnr
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2002
- Messages
- 1,003
- Reaction score
- 0
mrman said:
Care to cite the source of those statistics? We are not discussing the frequency of catastrophic accidents. Injuries due to turbulence are not as rare as most people think.
Even if those statistics are not old wives tales, you must take into account a benefit vs. risk analysis of the respective situations.
For example, the Polio vaccine has virtually eradicated a devastating disease. For each child who develops complications as a result of the immunization, thousands are spared the crippling effects of the illness.
Similarly, not bathing a child will result in adverse health effects that will be far more damaging than the infinitesimal risk involved in giving a baby a bath.
Lastly, in my not so humble opinion, leaving a child with a baby sitter is no worse than having the child cared for by a parent who insists on traveling with the infant as a lap child.
mrman said:
Although you are correct - there are lots of activities that are more dangerous than holding your child on your lap on an airplane - I respectfully disagree that your observation supports the policies permitting lap children.
What is really at issue is whether people should be compelled to behave in the most reasonably safe manner for each activity, not whether one activity is inherently more risky than another unrelated activity.
Riding as a passenger in an automobile is much safer than many other daily activities, but we don't allow people to forego the use of child seats and seat belts because of it, now do we? As a society, we generally require people to take reasonable precautions to protect their infants' safety, even if those precautions cost money.
And IMO, a 50% infant fare ticket is a reasonable expense to impose on someone who is already buying one or more 100% tickets.
I see plenty of families with several kids at the airports and on board, especially in the summer and at the holidays. So buying $800 or $1,000 or more of airfare for the family isn't breaking them. Some of those families also lay out another $100 or so for their under-24 month old kid. That's what I did when my kids were under 24 months. Of those who don't, I don't buy the antiquated notion that they might drive instead if forced to buy that $100 ticket.
We could afford the $1,000 to fly the brood to MCO, but we'd drive if forced to buy the youngin a 50% ticket for $100. Uh-huh. Maybe one or two Bubbas in this country would decide that, but not too many.
If so many people really would drive rather than buy their infant a 50% ticket, we wouldn't see so many families with children at the airports, especially in the summer.
Like I've said many times - if you can't afford (or are unwilling to pay) another $100 or so for a 50% ticket for your infant, perhaps you should re-evaluate whether you can really afford the trip at all.
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,373
- Reaction score
- 1,431
What I find interesting in this whole thing is that many of the people who are "saving" money by sitting their kid in their lap for a flight will also shop for the biggest, baddest, "safest" SUV on the market, then strap their kid in securely to protect them on the 35 mph jaunt to the grocery store, but they think nothing of holding them as they hurtle down a runway at 200+ mph, and then cruise in skies filled with "unforseen turbulence" at close to the speed of sound.
IMHO, what airlines need to do is this...offer the parent the option to buy a seat for a reduced rate, and if they decline, have them sign a form acknowledging that they were offered a reduced fare seat, but declined, and releasing the airline from any liability for the death or injury of their child that results from encounters with turbulence or rough landings, or any other "risk" that is encountered in flying. That would help when the person whose kid was injured tries to sue the airline for "negligence".
IMHO, what airlines need to do is this...offer the parent the option to buy a seat for a reduced rate, and if they decline, have them sign a form acknowledging that they were offered a reduced fare seat, but declined, and releasing the airline from any liability for the death or injury of their child that results from encounters with turbulence or rough landings, or any other "risk" that is encountered in flying. That would help when the person whose kid was injured tries to sue the airline for "negligence".
KCFlyer said:
How do you know? I suspect you are making this up.
I'm not one of the people who buy an SUV in the name of "safety". I don't know if there is a relationship between unnecessary SUV purchase and lap children, but if there is, I suspect that it would be the opposite of that which you describe -- buying a SUV because you have one child seems just as stupid as paying $100 for an infant seat on an airplane.
Bad idea. Airlines (well, most corporations in general) do everything possible to avoid admitting liability. Even though the form says "I promise not to sue", in our messed up court system, that translates to "you admit there is a liability, and now I can sue".
When I wrote Delta and asked for a travel voucher to offset the cost of the ambulance I needed when my son was bonked on the head during deplaning, half of the letter they sent to me made it very clear that they were admitting no liability at all (doesn't make it true, but that is the best they can do).
Is the 50% fare based on the ticket purchased or the highest coach base fare. In other words if I get a $99 special to ORD, and taking my kid, am I paying $50 for the kid, or $500 (50% of walkup fare)?
Also do you get charged the new fee if I book this at ticket counter, since I can't on the web?
Also do you get charged the new fee if I book this at ticket counter, since I can't on the web?
mrman said:
The 50% infant fare is based on the lowest available fare, so if you get a $99 special, you can buy a $50 ticket for the infant.
To answer the question in your followup post: On AA (as with most other airlines), you are free to use a child safety seat for a lapchild provided that the seat beside you is vacant. With AA's load factors in the 75% range these days, odds are the seat beside you is occupied. Especially since AA no longer offers seat blocking for elites like it used to. Before seat blocking was canceled (with the advent of the kiosks), elites could often count on an empty seat on AA. No longer.
The 50% ticket guarantees you a seat for your infant, a full luggage allowance, and a meal (for those few domestic flights still serving meals).
Earlier, JS mentioned someone making a last-minute trip and paying $1,000 (for Y or B, I would guess). In that case, the infant ticket would be half of that, or $500. That would be pricey. But how many families, realistically, only have just the one kid under 24 months (nobody else over the age of 2) and ever buy last-minute expensive tickets?? Ever? JS probably did once, but that is certainly the exception - not the rule.
FWAAA said:
I agree. I posted that as example to demonstrate why it should not be the job of the FAA to require infant seat purchases. I don't doubt that most infants fly on cheap fares, but taking that average and mandating it for all infants means that every so often, someone is faced with coughing up an extra $500.
Something else I didn't mention yet -- Suppose lap children are banned. Do you think the airlines will continue to offer 50% off tickets for infants? You can count on that going the way of the complimentary domestic airline meal. The only reason airlines offer 50% infant fares is because they know that if they charge full price, many parents will go the lap child route and instead of getting 50% extra revenue, they get nothing.
I prefer less government interference, but hypothetically speaking, if I were to draft a lap child law, this is what I would write:
1) airlines must continue the 50% infant discount, and
2) must refund the infant ticket if there is one empty seat on the flight
Airlines would not like provision #2 because currently they sell a lot of infant tickets to people who could have had an empty seat for free. A 75% load factor is on the high side, but if you board the plane and look for an empty seat, odds are pretty good you will find one (switch seats if necessary).
jimntx
Veteran
JS said:
Have no problem with #1; however, FAA requires that child safety seats be in the window seat, or if two child safety seats for one family, the middle and window seats. A child safety seat may not block another passenger's egress from the row.
So, if there is only one empty seat, what do you reckon the odds are that it is a window seat? The agents know to assign a window seat for a child safety seat. Say it is in 25F. If there is an empty middle seat at 13E, are you saying that the passenger should get a refund even though the empty seat could not legally be used for the safety seat?
The number of child and infant deaths has plummeted since car seats became mandatory for automobiles, trucks, vans, whatever. Whether it was ever a LARGE number is of no consequence. One child or infant death as a result of parental neglect (failure to make the child sit in the seat) or stinginess (refusal to buy the car seat) is one death too many. Children are not possessions. Parents do not have the right to protect or not protect a child.
Your argument against government "interference" could be used to say, "The government doesn't have the right to tell me I have to buy food for my child. Feeding the child was just too expensive. It cost half what my food bill is; so, I just decided to let it watch me eat."
Sometimes I don't know why I waste my time with this board. Are you being facetious, or are you really that stupid?
Parental neglect, such as starvation, and holding him on your lap on the safest mode of transportation in the world, are two totally and completely different things.
I refuse to continue to try having an adult discussion with someone incapable of distinguishing between neglect and negligible risk.
Bye!
Parental neglect, such as starvation, and holding him on your lap on the safest mode of transportation in the world, are two totally and completely different things.
I refuse to continue to try having an adult discussion with someone incapable of distinguishing between neglect and negligible risk.
Bye!
jimntx
Veteran
Hmmm. Doesn't appear to like to be disagreed with. Particularly when playing the good old government interference card. Funny how people rant against govt. interference when it prevents them from doing what they want to do or costs them money.
However, try taking away their FHA or VA loan, or cancelling the law that makes them liable for only the first $50 of fraudulent charges on their credit card, or the law that says the pilot of their a/c must not only be trained and experienced, but must be retested annually, then it's a different story.
However, try taking away their FHA or VA loan, or cancelling the law that makes them liable for only the first $50 of fraudulent charges on their credit card, or the law that says the pilot of their a/c must not only be trained and experienced, but must be retested annually, then it's a different story.
