Re: 17 Things Your Flight Attendant Won't Tell You
I think the main reason why #15 was added to the list was primarily because - and this is a US-centric second-hand observation based on anecdotes - most pax
expect FAs to take care of their little kids, whether they are 3 months, 3 years or 13 years.
Fact is, pax need to be able to take responsibility for their kids and to conduct themselves accordingly. Apart from those who clearly hate kids - forgetting of course that they once were a munchkin of some description (hopefully a good one) - most people I'd think on a plane couldn't care less about kids as long as they are not making a huge ruckus (as their parents, too). But, this is not the case as it seems from some anecdotes in the US:
- A tray table is not a change table
- Don't give a dirty nappy to the FA to throw away
- FAs do not change your kids' dirty nappies
- FAs are not babysitters on a first-come-first-served basis
- Running your child up and down the aisles during meal service is a bad idea
- Whilst crying babies are one thing, a loud child does not generally go down well with the cabin (if you were an adult, would you think personally making a loud ruckus was acceptable?)
If you were at a restaurant, would you expect the waiter(s) to take away dirty nappies, babysit your child and allow you to change your child's nappy on the table? Would you let your child run free through the restaurant, with waiters trying to rush orders to tables often with 3 plates at a time on their arms?
I can vouch that many members of this forum with young kids have managed them successfully through all of when they couldn't talk, could barely talk and when they could talk back and beyond, all travelling quite well without many issues. The reason why this is on the article list is because it is a general burden to the FAs.
If #15 was really intended to be read at the face value it was written, then I would suspect that the number of cases against FAs of cruelty to children should be much, much higher than the absence suggests. However, I'm more inclined to believe that it's a remark written in retaliation of the general poor and lax attitude adopted by irresponsible parents. That's a real shame as - as can be clearly evidenced from just this thread (and other children flying threads) - those who are responsible for their children when they fly are broad brushed in the same unfortunate fold; at best this means they are prejudiced and not believed when they can take care of their kids, and at worst we have the suggested persecution.
