No babies in F

[gumpy]

Do you have a surefire way of telling which adults are going to ruin your flight? As some unlikely JQ pax discovered, it's not necessarily going to be the person sitting next to you...

lol no you don't, that's my point, see the post above yours. There's nothing you can do about it so you have to hope.

But with crying babies MH has effectively solved that in F. That's all i'm saying and that some F flyers will appreciate that. Do i fly F? no so do I put up with crying babies? yes. Would i prefer they weren't there? yes.

 

[medhead]

You have the worst logic of anyone I have ever crossed paths with.

Of course not all babies cry in flight, but babies in general cry (did i say they all cry during the flight).

Yes you did actually say that. You are happy with no crying babies therefore you want no babies at all. You should look at you're own logic before pointing fingers.

I agree the toddlers can be worse behaved in some instances but good parents control them because you're able to talk to a toddler unlike a crying 1 year old.

Did you read that bit where I said toddlers lack reason. You can talk until you're blue in the face, and it makes no difference to a toddler because they lack the ability to reason. Babies are easier to control than toddlers. Yet your logic says ban the babies but keep the bigger problem of toddlers.

As for "good parents", a massive logically fallacy on your part. If toddlers are ok because good parents control them then why can't you accept that good parents also have babies.

I think you've believed to many US sitcoms. Babies are very easy to stop from crying if you know your baby. They have 3 basic needs - food, sleep and cleaning. That's what that cry about, the fault finding routine is quick and easy. What is hard about babies is that they have no idea of time so if they are hungry, they are hungry now. Parents of babies are tired because of lack of sleep due to attending to the baby, not lack of sleep from the baby crying.

 

[medhead]

They can't really do much if a baby goes off during the flight.

Absolute rubbish. (your) Good parents can do heaps about a baby crying. If you ever have children one day, you'll realise how wrong you are about this.

 

[jamesatfish]

My experience travelling with my young daughter in First was that when she was the right age for the bassinet (up to about 12 months) she flew very peacefully, happy to sleep in the bassinet or on my chest for the majority of the long-haul flights.

Since turning 1 her increased mobility, attentiveness and activity has meant that she is only happy to sit quietly for about as long as it takes for the seatbelt sign to be turned off, at which point she prefers to run around, be entertained and generally do noisy kid stuff. As a result we've decided not to take her on long-haul flights again until she's a bit older and can better handle the situation.

At that point, however, she's no longer an infant. She isn't eligible for a bassinet - in fact she needs her own seat to herself. Now that MH are joining the OneWorld alliance the AONE4 ticket we purchase for her will entitle her to fly in the First cabin on Malaysian airlines. In her own seat. Where she can't see mum or dad or anyone else for at least 30 minutes at takeoff and 30 minutes on landing.

Should we choose to do that, I guarantee that fellow passengers will notice her presence far more than as an infant in a bassinet seat.

Now, I like to think that I'm not one of *those* people, so I won't put my daughter, my family or other passengers in that situation, but no doubt there are those people who have the depth of pocket and shallowness of character to book that ticket. And if they do, MH's bassinet ban won't have made any difference.

 

[gumpy]

Yes you dis actually say that. You are happy with no crying babies therefore you want no babies at all. You should look at you're own logic before pointing fingers.



Did you read that bit where I said toddlers lack reason. You can talk until you're blue in the face, and it makes no difference to a toddler because they lack the ability to reason. Babies are easier to control than toddlers. Yet your logic says ban the babies but keep the bigger problem of toddlers.

As for "good parents", a massive logically fallacy on your part. If toddlers are ok because good parent control them then why can't you accept that good parents also have babies.

I think you've believed to many US sitcoms. Babies are very easy to stop from crying if you know your baby. They have 3 basic needs - food, sleep and cleaning. That's what that cry about, the fault finding routine is quick and easy. What is hard about babies is that they have no idea of time so if they are hungry, they are hungry now. Parents of babies are tired because of lack of sleep due to attending to the baby, not lack of sleep from the baby crying.

1. No babies will be no crying babies. Babies mean potentially crying babies. I'm stating which situation i prefer as you cannot screen babies preboarding to determine which one will cry and which one wont.

2. They do lack reason. But good parents can pull a sulking toddler aside and set them straight.
You're right, they cry for those key reasons and you can't predict when it's going to happen, so they cry? They try and address it as soon as possible but the initial indication comes from the crying.
Finally I didn't say keep the toddlers, hey if there was a policy MH that said no more babies, toddlers, rude pax and moody FA's fantastic =). Is that possible? no. But they controlled the crying baby for F pax (which is what the thread is about) great for their F pax.

 

[gumpy]

Absolute rubbish. (your) Good parents can do heaps about a baby crying. If you ever have children one day, you'll realise how wrong you are about this.

I was referring to the FA's in regards to the baby, of course the parents can do something

 

[medhead]

I was referring to the FA's in regards to the baby, of course the parents can do something

Why would FAs be doing anything about a crying baby! Do we have we have unaccompanied babies now? The parents are there to deal with the baby. Unlikely another passenger who doesn't have their mummy there, so the FAs become involved.

 

[gumpy]

Would FAs be doing anything about a crying baby! Do we have we have unaccompanied babies now? The parents are there to deal with the baby. Unlikely another passenger who doesn't have their mummy there, so the FAs become involved.

That's the point, FA's step and deal with rude pax etc, but they can't do much about a crying baby?

 

[medhead]

2. They do lack reason. But good parents can pull a sulking toddler aside and set them straight.

Yeah good luck with that.

Finally I didn't say keep the toddlers, hey if there was a policy MH that said no more babies, toddlers, rude pax and moody FA's fantastic =).

no but MH is keeping the toddlers and they have much greater potential to disturb other passengers.

Targeting babies is totally misdirected.

 

[gumpy]

2. They do lack reason. But good parents can pull a sulking toddler aside and set them straight. [\quote]

Yeah good luck with that.



no but MH is keeping the toddlers and they have much greater potential to disturb other passengers.

Targeting babies is totally misdirected.

Ok so you feel it's misdirected. Personally I feel that it's a step their F pax may appreciate.

 

[harvyk]

Would FAs be doing anything about a crying baby!

Actually quite a bit. I've taken my kids (babies and toddler) on flights in the past, and each time FA's have been more than willing to do what they can to keep the kids happy... From nursing them, to making sure they had water \ heated bottles to providing them with Activity packs etc...

 

[medhead]

That's the point, FA's step and deal with rude pax etc, but they can't do much about a crying baby?

They don't need to do anything that what the parents do so why would they. You're comparing apples and oranges. It is a logical fallacy to suggest a bad adult passenger is at all comparable to a baby.

 

[BadgerBoi]

I was referring to the FA's in regards to the baby, of course the parents can do something

Keep in mind with that one that if you said that the sun rises in the east he would argue that it doesn't.

 

[medhead]

Actually quite a bit. I've taken my kids (babies and toddler) on flights in the past, and each time FA's have been more than willing to do what they can to keep the kids happy... From nursing them, to making sure they had water \ heated bottles to providing them with Activity packs etc...

Yes of course, good FAs do all those things but that's a totally different matter. But there is no reason or need for them to step in when a crying baby is disturbing the cabin that's the parents job. An FA is not going to breast feed or change a nappy.

 

[gumpy]

Yes of course, good FAs do all those things but that's a totally different matter. But there is no reason or need for them to step in when a crying baby is disturbing the cabin that's the parents job. An FA is not going to breast feed or change a nappy.

I completely agree with this, as strange as that may seem.

 

[gumpy]

They don't need to do anything that what the parents do so why would they. You're comparing apples and oranges. It is a logical fallacy to suggest a bad adult passenger is at all comparable to a baby.

I don't think so because this thread was about the airline controlling babies in f cabin and how some of us think it would be nice.

Then others in the thread brought in the fact that they are a lot of other things that can ruin the flight.

Then I said well some of the factors can be controlled by the FA's or parents.

That's how the thread progressed.

 

[harvyk]

An FA is not going to breast feed or change a nappy.

Whilst I probably wouldn't complain too much about changing a nappy (I hate that job, it's even worse on a plane), I'd be just a little freaked out if an FA attempted to breast feed my baby...

 

[drron]

The thing is that crying babies are one of many things that can ruin your flight...

A rude \ inconsiderate pax is just as likely to make a flight a living hell as a crying baby... I've had to put up with more rude \ inconsiderate adult pax than crying babies over the years, and yet there is no call to ban drunken adults who act like coughholes...

Grumpy FA's \ CSM's can also ruin a flight...

But these things are all things you expect on public transport... If your not happy with dealing with it, charter your own plane...

I dare say you have flown in the presence of many more adult pax than infants.So if looking at percentages......
Drunken adults can indeed be banned-even on TT.
And a grumpy FA/CSM is often the subject of an email/phone call etc so that the airline can ignore it.

 

[medhead]

Keep in mind with that one that if you said that the sun rises in the east he would argue that it doesn't.

Actually, he is saying that the sun rises in the east on earth so therefore the same applies to all planets, moons and objects in the solar system. So yes of course I would argue that the sun rises in the west on a body that has opposite spin to the earth. His point is based on a false premise.

 

[medhead]

Then I said well some of the factors can be controlled by the FA's or parents.

no actually you said that bad adults are ok because the FAs control that but crying babies are not because the FAs (no "or parents" there) can't do anything.