The time has come...

This hasn't come up yet, so I'll mention it. Last month I flew with my almost-2 year old from London to Germany on Lufthansa. We both had tickets. So I buckled her into her seat, she is big enough to use a regular seat belt now, but the flight attendant came by and asked me how old she is. Since she was under 2 (by one week), she was not allowed to sit in a seat by herself unless she was in a car seat (her car seat is way too big now to cart onboard). So I was required to strap a second seat belt from my seatbelt, and put her on my lap with the seatbelt extension loop, for take off and landing. I know US airlines don't do this, but it's better than nothing. Although I thought she would have been better in her own seat. Anyone know why US airlines don't do this?
 
docmirror said:
The time has come(long past, really) to get the govt out of family issues and let parents decide the risk associated with their kids. If a parent wants to risk an airplane flight without restraints on the child, then so be it. If they want to buy an extra ticket, child safety seat, and buckle them in they can do that. If the parent wants to alternatively go by ground, or sea, or walk they can do that.

Go away with your laws, rules, regulations for children outside of the workplace. Just go away.
Click to expand...


:yeahthat::yeahthat::yeahthat::yeahthat:

All of our millions of good intentioned laws, every single one of them, has taken another chip out our freedoms. Our laws are also responsible for us all having to pay the salaries of the millions of government employees needed to write and enforce them.

Every law we add, makes our government just a little bit bigger, and a little more powerful.

We already are in first or second place for being the most regulated people on earth.

Why do we all think that we are the ones who know what is best for others?

For our nation to survive, we need to start ridding ourselves of laws and regulations, not adding to them.

"Why do we need 35 millions laws in order to enforce the Ten Commandments.?"

-John
 
The last commercial flight I was on, American I think, the lady behind me had a lap kid. We were getting buckled up and the FA told her the kid was too large and needed her own seat (after I saw the kid, I wondered how the gate agent, or anybody, could have let her get that far.). The flight was full so one of the family members had to stay behind and catch the next flight.
 
Matthew said:
The last commercial flight I was on, American I think, the lady behind me had a lap kid. We were getting buckled up and the FA told her the kid was too large and needed her own seat (after I saw the kid, I wondered how the gate agent, or anybody, could have let her get that far.). The flight was full so one of the family members had to stay behind and catch the next flight.
Click to expand...

Good on 'em.
 
bluee said:
Well then don't complain when you hear screaming kids.
Click to expand...

I, for one, don't complain about screaming kids when flying commercial. Admittedly, however, that's because in the big scheme of annoyances, they're a pretty small piece of the overall ordeal experience of modern-day airline travel. Kids cry. That's part of the deal. It's in their contracts.

That being said, I think there might be a better, cheaper, more workable solution to the dilemma.

I happen to agree with the FAA's position that requiring child carriers and dedicated seats for infants and toddlers might (and probably would) have the unintended consequence of tipping the scales to highway travel for enough families that it increases the overall risk of harm, which I think we all agree would be counterproductive safety-wise.

It's not just the extra cost for the seat, but the extra cost plus the inconvenience of having to schlep a "child safety system" through the terminal, onto the plane, into the cab, to the hotel, etc. Some of these "systems" are incredibly bulky and heavy, presumably because most parents just strap them into the car and leave them there until the kids outgrow them. In addition, the ones I've seen in the past twenty years rely heavily on a tether that attaches to the attachment points built into most cars, but which are absent on airliners.

In addition, how many kids are going to be able to sit contentedly in a child restraint for an entire long flight? Maybe some would, but my guess is that most of them would get fussy and beg for release in that ever-charming manner of babies the world over -- blood-curdling screams -- shortly after takeoff.

Still, having some way to secure the infants and toddlers during takeoff, landing, and turbulence isn't a bad idea if it could be done in such a way as to avoid the expense, inconvenience, and hassle. So how about some sort of a padded nylon harness with a Velcro closure that could could be placed around both the parent and the tot, effectively binding them together during rough flight?

In other words, the baby would be either sat on the parent's lap facing forward, or held by the parent facing the parent, depending on the child's age and size; and then secured to the parent with the harness. The harness itself would be a little bit like those carriers that parents use to carry their babies around while they walk around, except that it would also secure the child against upward movement by having straps that go over the kid's shoulders as well as under his or her butt. The whole thing would then attach to the parent's body like a vest, secured with a Velcro closure.

I think this would be safer than a car seat-type restraint, and much safer than flying as an unsecured lap child. During ordinary turbulence, it would be every bit as safe as a "child safety system." But in the event of a crash, it would be much easier and faster to evacuate a child harnessed to the parent than it would be to undo the bazillion straps that secure infants and toddlers into conventional restraint systems. In fact, in the case of an infant, there wouldn't even be any reason to undo the harness. The parent could just stand up and evacuate, with both hands free, and the baby securely strapped to them.

Another advantage would be that a harness like this would be inexpensive and lightweight, so airlines could stash a bunch of them on board or at the gates and lend (or rent) them to parents. They also could be colored safety orange to help call attention to the parent and child in the event of an emergency so special assistance could be provided to them.

This is just a goofy idea that occurred to me a few minutes ago, but thinking about it, I really can't come up with a down side. Parents who want to can choose the extra seat and "child restraint system" for their own and their babies' comfort; but for those who don't, I think the harness idea would be a perfectly workable, inexpensive, and yet effective alternative.

-Rich
 
Last edited:
Blackhawk said:
Because it would actually lead to an increase in the child mortality rate.
Click to expand...

Lets keep it in context. The only way it increases the child mortality rate is if the parents are too cheap to buy another ticket, or can't afford to buy another ticket, and then choose to drive instead. The mortality rate on the highways is higher than in planes, which is what the articles are claiming.

All of that does not change the fact that every body on an airplane should be strapped in to their own seats. To use the mortality rates on the highways vs the airline travel is really a moot point.
 
bluee said:
So I was required to strap a second seat belt from my seatbelt, and put her on my lap with the seatbelt extension loop, for take off and landing.
Click to expand...

Let me understand this. Was the seatbelt wrapped around you AND the child, or was the main seatbelt strapped on you and the extension around the child, and looped through your seatbelt? If the child was sitting on your lap with a belt around the both of you, I would have gotten off the plane because that definitely was NOT better than nothing. In fact that was WORSE than nothing, because even a relatively light deceleration would crush the kid between you and the belt. Don't let them make you do that.

Anyone know why US airlines don't do this?
Click to expand...

Because it isn't safe.
 
RJM62 said:
It's not just the extra cost for the seat, but the extra cost plus the inconvenience of having to schlep a "child safety system" through the terminal, onto the plane, into the cab, to the hotel, etc. Some of these "systems" are incredibly bulky and heavy, presumably because most parents just strap them into the car and leave them there until the kids outgrow them. In addition, the ones I've seen in the past twenty years rely heavily on a tether that attaches to the attachment points built into most cars, but which are absent on airliners.
Click to expand...

First, get one that works with airline seats. Next, like it or not, that is one of the obligations of the parents to provide for the safety of the child. I kind of don't have much tolerance for people who would sacrifice that type of care just because they are cheap.

In addition, how many kids are going to be able to sit contentedly in a child restraint for an entire long flight?
Click to expand...

They only have to be there for takeoffs, landings, taxi and turbulence.

So how about some sort of a padded nylon harness with a Velcro closure that could could be placed around both the parent and the tot, effectively binding them together during rough flight?
Click to expand...

You can't have the child between the belt and the parent for reasons I have already discussed.

In other words, the baby would be either sat on the parent's lap facing forward, or held by the parent facing the parent, depending on the child's age and size; and then secured to the parent with the harness. The harness itself would be a little bit like those carriers that parents use to carry their babies around while they walk around, except that it would also secure the child against upward movement by having straps that go over the kid's shoulders as well as under his or her butt. The whole thing would then attach to the parent's body like a vest, secured with a Velcro closure.
Click to expand...

Ok, I see what you are saying. That is better than being strapped between the parent and the seatbelt, but really, not by a whole lot.

This is just a goofy idea that occurred to me a few minutes ago, but thinking about it, I really can't come up with a down side.
Click to expand...

Well, I can, and have explained them. Sometimes one just has to suck it up and deal with an unhappy kid. But the safety of the child, and the passengers around the child should count for something.
 
Non Compos Mentis said:
What makes a baby's life more important than the adults who's job it is to raise and nurture that baby?
Click to expand...

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and mine is that an innocent baby who has her whole life ahead of her has a life more valuable than mine. I only have 1/3 of my life remaining, and if I choose to do something to risk it, that's no big deal. But if I make a stupid decision that risks the life of a helpless baby who has a whole life of possibilities and a whole life of loving ahead of her, then I have done something awful. And it is my opinion that parents who save a buck by flying with a lap child are doing exactly that.
 
bluee said:
The car seat with infant goes on inside seats not the aisle seats. The middle rows have two aisles. Mine was in the middle of three seats, with us on either end. Clearly you don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
If every child is required a child might they not run out of Middle seats? Then what bump families? Change the rules perhaps. Everything has a cost even happy feelings.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
David, you are certainly welcome to your opinion. I can see you have a strong one here. But it isn't really a non existent problem. Every time a so called lap child is allowed on a flight, the potential exists for a bad outcome for that child.
Click to expand...

Any time anyone gets on a flight, the potential exists for a bad outcome for them. I don't have a strong feeling on this particular case, except for the fact I absolutely hate the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. This is one of those places. The only reason that anyone survived UA 232 was because of amazing airmanship demonstrated by the pilot.

The fact that perhaps many years ago 1 or 2 children could have been saved in an accident where everyone should have died is not the cause for more regulation.
 
You want to save children from dying in plane crashes? Ban children from flying in ga airplanes. That would save far more children's lives then car seats in airliners.
 
DavidWhite said:
The only reason that anyone survived UA 232 was because of amazing airmanship demonstrated by the pilot.
Click to expand...


Multiple pilots including a very knowledgeable check airman on the throttles from the jump seat.

Just keeping ya honest. That was a significant team effort.

Wasn't any one particular superman in that cockpit and Denny himself said so, may he RIP... Many gave him credit but he never took it.

Al Haynes still has the funniest line in aviation for his opener when he talks about that day. "When I realized the FO was having trouble controlling the aircraft, I said the stupidest three words of my career. 'I have it.'"
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
Multiple pilots including a very knowledgeable check airman on the throttles from the jump seat.

Just keeping ya honest. That was a significant team effort.

Wasn't any one particular superman in that cockpit and Denny himself said so, may he RIP... Many have him credit but he never took it.

Al Haynes still has the funniest line in aviation for his opener when he talks about that day. "When I realized the FO was having trouble controlling the aircraft, I said the stupidest three words of my career. 'I have it.'"
Click to expand...

Should have said crew, but regardless, the outcome would have been very different with a different crew, I believe.
 
DavidWhite said:
Should have said crew, but regardless, the outcome would have been very different with a different crew, I believe.
Click to expand...


I was going to say "perhaps", but you're right. They were lucky not to have had morons like the Asiana crew at SFO who flew a perfectly good airliner into a sea wall.

The recent claims of their bosses that it was all Boeing's fault, tells me all I need to know about leadership in that company, and the culture that allowed the whole thing to happen.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Lets keep it in context. The only way it increases the child mortality rate is if the parents are too cheap to buy another ticket, or can't afford to buy another ticket, and then choose to drive instead. The mortality rate on the highways is higher than in planes, which is what the articles are claiming.

All of that does not change the fact that every body on an airplane should be strapped in to their own seats. To use the mortality rates on the highways vs the airline travel is really a moot point.
Click to expand...

It is not a moot point at all. Government regulations have consequences, sometimes unintended. As these studies (not articles), point out forcing people to purchase airline tickets for infants will result in some people choosing another means of transportation, normally driving. The attempt to save children by requiring infant seats on airplanes will therefore result in more children being killed in highway accidents than are saved on airliners. The last example given of a child possibly being saved by an approved seat in an airliner crash was Sioux City- 25 years ago.
If you are going to claim a government action will save people please use actual studies and facts to back up your point, not feelings.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Let me understand this. Was the seatbelt wrapped around you AND the child, or was the main seatbelt strapped on you and the extension around the child, and looped through your seatbelt? If the child was sitting on your lap with a belt around the both of you, I would have gotten off the plane because that definitely was NOT better than nothing. In fact that was WORSE than nothing, because even a relatively light deceleration would crush the kid between you and the belt. Don't let them make you do that.



Because it isn't safe.
Click to expand...

No. We were each wearing our own seatbelts, but hers was attached to mine. I thought it was better to leave her sit in her own seat, but they would not let us do that.
 
RJM62 said:
In addition, how many kids are going to be able to sit contentedly in a child restraint for an entire long flight? Maybe some would, but my guess is that most of them would get fussy and beg for release in that ever-charming manner of babies the world over -- blood-curdling screams -- shortly after takeoff.
Click to expand...

Car seats must be comfortable because my kid falls asleep in it right away. She slept through most of several 8+hour flights in her car seat.

The airlines don't let you use any type of harness. I don't know why. European airlines use a second loop attaching a child seatbelt to an adult seatbelt. I don't think it's as good as a car seat, but it seems better than nothing. At least the kid wont go flying through the air in an accident or turbulence.
 
John221us said:
How about something as simple as seat belts on buses. We just had a tragic bus vs truck accident yesterday near Sacramento where 8 kids died. It seems weird to me they want to put child seats on planes that very very rarely have accidents and they still don't require seat belts on buses.
Click to expand...

The problem is that money is a finite asset and each safety device must (or at least should), go through a cost/benefit analysis. How many lives will be saved per dollar spent? The cost of seat belts on buses is actually quite expensive when balanced against the number of lives each seat belt would save. Not just the cost of installing, but ensuring they are used correctly by young people. Often in large vehicles such as buses an incorrectly used seat belt is worse than no seat belt.
Money used for such items can not be used for other things- such as driver training- that may be more effective at reducing fatalities.
Looking at the example you gave in California I would be interested to see how many (if any), students would have been saved by the use of seat belts.
 
I think we could solve two problems at once by passing a law preventing travel by infants in cars or airplanes. No more screaming kids in the seat next to you and no more helpless infants killed in airplane or car crashes due to their parent's greed or bad luck.

Of course there's one small flaw in this concept.
 
John221us said:
There were two of them last night on a six hour flight from Dulles to Sac. Not even my Bose ANR headphones could keep it all out. I walked off with a splitting headache.
Click to expand...


You poor man. It's giving me one just thinking about it. :crazy:
 
AuntPeggy said:
to protect babies and toddlers on aircraft. The same seats should be mandatory in aircraft as is required in autos.
http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/ayar2.html
Click to expand...

What utter claptrap.

Of course, ONLY the government knows how to raise your child.

Only problem ipwith this stupidity is if you look deep enough you can find the profit motive behind this utopian, stupidity, that will burden families with yet another, helicopter regulation, to enrich the Chinese who will supply these and the Muslim oilproducers who will provide the petrochemicals for the process and the silly people who will beat this drum thinking they are doing something significant with their lives.
 
Is it just me or when you read the thread title does "Beds are Burning" by Midnight Oil pop in your head?
 
txflyer said:
If I die and wake up on an airliner seated next to an infant, I'll know I went to hell.

Add putting a ball-gag in their mouth to the car seat proposal.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I don't know what's worse, the kid or the parent. I was on a red eye down to Florida and while boarding I smelled feces. I looked across the aisle and a woman was changing the ****ty diaper of a toddler (who could walk), not an infant, right there on the seat next to her. Couldn't trouble herself to take the kid to the lavatory. UFB
 
gismo said:
I think we could solve two problems at once by passing a law preventing travel by infants in cars or airplanes. No more screaming kids in the seat next to you and no more helpless infants killed in airplane or car crashes due to their parent's greed or bad luck.

Of course there's one small flaw in this concept.
Click to expand...

If there is one, I don't see it. :D
 
SCCutler said:
I favor requiring a seat for each soul on board. Safety is a factor, but so is the condition lap children create for other pax in the immediate area. It is ludicrous to suggest that a baby or toddler genuinely consumes less space (in net) than an older child, especially after factoring in the attendant stuff and space required for proper pea-picker maintenance.
Click to expand...

Do you feel federal regulation to address this problem is appropriate or should this be a decision airlines make themselves?
 
We fly with lap children all the time. It's the difference between moving a family and not moving a family.
 
jesse said:
Do you feel federal regulation to address this problem is appropriate or should this be a decision airlines make themselves?
Click to expand...

Or the parents. Darwin awards and all that. Every now and then we read about unsecured pax being thrown into the overhead in rough turb. I doubt a mother could hold onto a child in that situation. We always bought the third seat and brought the red sticker child seat.

I recently flew to Sandy Eggo on Delta, I sat next to a very attractive and (book) smart young mother flying with her 18 month old daughter. Mother is a lawyer for a large investment bank, dad (not on flight) is a surgeon. I have no idea why this child didn't have her own seat as I doubt money was an issue for this couple. And yes, during cruise, momma wasn't belted in either, so they'd both go into the overhead.

Darwin never sleeps.
 
Bill Jennings said:
Or the parents. Darwin awards and all that. Every now and then we read about unsecured pax being thrown into the overhead in rough turb. I doubt a mother could hold onto a child in that situation. We always bought the third seat and brought the red sticker child seat.

I recently flew to Sandy Eggo on Delta, I sat next to a very attractive and (book) smart young mother flying with her 18 month old daughter. Mother is a lawyer for a large investment bank, dad (not on flight) is a surgeon. I have no idea why this child didn't have her own seat as I doubt money was an issue for this couple. And yes, during cruise, momma wasn't belted in either, so they'd both go into the overhead.

Darwin never sleeps.
Click to expand...
Darwin awards are fine when it's the person making the decision that is Darwinized. Maybe not so much when the victim is someone who has no say.

But I know what you mean when you say that many times it's not a money issue. People will show up with car seats to go in our airplane. I will ask if they want the car seats in the cabin or in baggage. I think at least half the time, if not more, they will want the seats in baggage. Not only do they have enough money to charter the airplane, they are chartering the whole thing, not paying by the seat they occupy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top