No babies in F

[gumpy]

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.

Actually i'm not saying this, during the whole thread i'm not saying this.

I'm saying not having babies in F, which eliminates the possibility of crying babies is a good thing for F pax for MH.

I don't understand how you don't get this...

 

[samiam]

I'm not entirely au fait with airfares for babies, infants and children. So you can shoot me down for being ignorant

The QF website, as an example (and I know this story originated from another airline), talks about either paying the 'applicable fare' or a 'free fare' for children less than 2 years.

I'm not sure what the 'applicable fare' is - is this an equivalent adult fare or a discounted fare?

If the babies/toddlers/infants/children were charged the applicable full fare, would I be wrong in assuming the number of these travellers in premium cabins would decline somewhat?

 

[gumpy]

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.

No the start of that conversation was other's mentioning that rude pax are worse and then me responding with:

1. you can't screen out all bad pax and therefore control it from the beginning. (therefore unlike the babies situation you can't do anything about it)
2. FAs step in a deal with it.

 

[BadgerBoi]

I don't understand how you don't get this...

lol, of course he gets it - he just lacks the common sense to back down when he's clearly wrong.

 

[gumpy]

I'm not entirely au fait with airfares for babies, infants and children. So you can shoot me down for being ignorant

The QF website, as an example (and I know this story originated from another airline), talks about either paying the 'applicable fare' or a 'free fare' for children less than 2 years.

I'm not sure what the 'applicable fare' is - is this an equivalent adult fare or a discounted fare?

If the babies/toddlers/infants/children were charged the applicable full fare, would I be wrong in assuming the number of these travellers in premium cabins would decline somewhat?

No i think that is a fair assumption. Though it would not full prevent the situation i'm sure the numbers will come down.

 

[oz_mark]

The QF website, as an example (and I know this story originated from another airline), talks about either paying the 'applicable fare' or a 'free fare' for children less than 2 years.

I'm not sure what the 'applicable fare' is - is this an equivalent adult fare or a discounted fare?

If the babies/toddlers/infants/children were charged the applicable full fare, would I be wrong in assuming the number of these travellers in premium cabins would decline somewhat?

Typically it is either free (domestically), or discounted (international), but it also varies with fare types.

 

[medhead]

Actually i'm not saying this, during the whole thread i'm not saying this.

I'm saying not having babies in F, which eliminates the possibility of crying babies is a good thing for F pax for MH.

I don't understand how you don't get this...

Those are exactly the points that you've made in the thread to support your position. Let's recap your posts you support a baby ban because FA deal with crying babies, but then you completely agree that is the parents job. Contradicts your first point nicely.

I'm saying that you're good thing is like taking an elephant gun to shoot a mouse when the real problem is going to be a rabbit. Fairly easy to understand as well.

 

[harvyk]

I dare say you have flown in the presence of many more adult pax than infants.So if looking at percentages......

I won't disagree with that, I have yet to board a plane with no adults and only babies, therefore I've flown in the presence of many more adults than babies...

That said, I've been on quite a few flights with babies on them (and each time I do wonder if I'm embarking on the flight from hell) and for the most part I haven't heard a peep out of them. But that's the thing, if you where to look at the total number of flights I've been on, then work out the percentages of those flights which have been ruined by babies, and the percentages of those flights which have been ruined by a-hole pax, a larger percentage of my flights have been ruined by a-hole pax than have been ruined by babies... (Yes I can also play the stats game)

Therefore as far as I'm concerned I should be more worried about the guy sitting next to me than the baby three rows in front, as IME he will be the one who ruins the flight for me.

 

[mannej]

I am not going to read 7 pages worth of discussion, but i believe that
-MH are clever. No bassinets mean no passenger will be disappointed that someone else has their bassinet seat that they are entitled too.
and
-I was pleasantly surprised when the <18 mth Year old on a flight between KUL-PER on MH. So yes I am guilty of stereotyping, but I have had others annoy me much more on flights so its YMMV

 

[gumpy]

Let's recap your posts you support a baby ban because FA deal with crying babies, but then you completely agree that is the parents job. Contradicts your first point nicely.

OMFG I never said that, never said the FA's deal with the crying babies. You should re-read the posts (i can't believe you still don't get it). I support the ban on babies because it ensures that there are no crying babies in the cabin. I therefore feel the F pax in MH are lucky. Go quote me where I said your first point.

Not everyone here will agree with you toddler's are worse than babies.

The thread was about MH ensuring there were no babies in F. Some of us like this idea.

Then you create a fuss about how babies aren't the issue and there are other issues. Which I pointed out have no solution (you can't screen them) and FA's step and deal with anyway. Unlike the babies.

Rude pax, toddlers, moody FA's and babies are all potential issues when flying. MH has resolved one of the issues for their F pax.

 

[gumpy]

I won't disagree with that, I have yet to board a plane with no adults and only babies, therefore I've flown in the presence of many more adults than babies...

That said, I've been on quite a few flights with babies on them (and each time I do wonder if I'm embarking on the flight from hell) and for the most part I haven't heard a peep out of them. But that's the thing, if you where to look at the total number of flights I've been on, then work out the percentages of those flights which have been ruined by babies, and the percentages of those flights which have been ruined by a-hole pax, a larger percentage of my flights have been ruined by a-hole pax than have been ruined by babies... (Yes I can also play the stats game)

Therefore as far as I'm concerned I should be more worried about the guy sitting next to me than the baby three rows in front, as IME he will be the one who ruins the flight for me.

So both things annoy can annoy you.

1. is there anything that can be done about or the screen the guy sitting next to you before you get on the plane?
2. is there anything that can be done after you get on the plane?

Babies:

1. is there anything that can be done to control babies near you in the cabin?
2. if a baby is crying in the cabin near you is there anything that can be done by you or the FA?

Look i agree that rude pax are bad but what you going to do as an airline? "all rude pax must not board this plane?"

Crying babies annoy other people. MH thought for our most valuable in F we'll ensure that they aren't disturbed by making it not possible to bring babies into F. Well what a good idea.

 

[medhead]

OMFG I never said that, never said the FA's deal with the crying babies. You should re-read the posts (i can't believe you still don't get it). I support the ban on babies because it ensures that there are no crying babies in the cabin. I therefore feel the F pax in MH are lucky. Go quote me where I said your first point.

certainly, here you go:

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

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

So again, Your reason to support the ban and ignore all the other potential disturbances is because the FA can't step in and deal with a crying baby. But then you completely agree that it is the parents job to deal with a crying baby. I'm saying outright that your reason is wrong. You don't need to insult me just because I point that out.

Sounds like you would be best flying on a private jet.


Mods: if WTF needs to be redacted, then what about OMFG?

 

[medhead]

I'm not entirely au fait with airfares for babies, infants and children. So you can shoot me down for being ignorant

The QF website, as an example (and I know this story originated from another airline), talks about either paying the 'applicable fare' or a 'free fare' for children less than 2 years.

I'm not sure what the 'applicable fare' is - is this an equivalent adult fare or a discounted fare?

If the babies/toddlers/infants/children were charged the applicable full fare, would I be wrong in assuming the number of these travellers in premium cabins would decline somewhat?

Well this isn't for MH but the QF fares SYD-LHR rtn are

• Adult $19381
• Child $14740 - ~75%
• Infant $2466 - ~25%

If someone can afford $14740 they can afford $19381. I don't think full fare is going to be much of a disincentive for someone buying outright point to point fares. Similar with infants, if you can flash out $19k for yourself then you have some backing.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

OT- Due to my WP status, l can select front rows on Int flights (in Y), which l did several months ago for my Oz-Europe trip. I always had a lurking question in the back of my mind right up until departure, should l move a few (or 10+) rows back just incase l get stuck with screaming kids on 2, ~10 hour sectors? I stuck with my seat selection and once boarding commenced, l found 3 babies within my vicinity. 2 were well behaved, 1 was crying 'often'.

If QF had a flight for say $50 or $100 extra to guarantee no babies or kids under 5, l would purchase it. Until l have kids of my own, why should l put up with others...

Now for my return sector this coming Wednesday....

 

[gumpy]

certainly, here you go:



So again, Your reason to support the ban and ignore all the other potential disturbances is because the FA can't step in and deal with a crying baby. But then you completely agree that it is the parents job to deal with a crying baby. I'm saying outright that your reason is wrong. You don't need to insult me just because I point that out.

Sounds like you would be best flying on a private jet.


Mods: if WTF needs to be redacted, then what about OMFG?

That question mark makes it read wrong but as the section of the sentence before the comma is correct the question mark does not suggest sarcasm. The argument all along was that FA's can't do much about the crying baby.

The thread was about the ban on babies. You brought up the issue of other disturbances, I pointed out that you can't do much about them etc moody FA's and rude pax. As for toddlers I know of many parents who are able to put down a stern word and pull them back into line.

Never-the-less yes it would be good if they were not in the cabin, but they are and no airline bans them so the point is moot. The discussion was on the baby ban which I and others feel is good for the F pax in MH.

You have a tendency to try pull out issue from left field and try and make it the bigger issue than what was being discussed. I don't know if it's because you feel you need to constantly display the fact that you know things. You did this on the hypothetical thread I started as well. Do you do this in all your conversations with others? How do they feel about the fact that you constant make things more complex than they are and you keep trying to demonstrate how much you know? I bet you do this everywhere all the time. I bet people love it. I love it when i'm at dinner and there are people like that at the table.

Finally answer the following then we can all have closure:

1. Would you prefer a cabin to be absent of babies as it would prevent you from being disturbed by crying babies? yes or no?

Yes we all understand you feel toddlers etc are a bigger issue but answer the above instead of making this a bigger issue than it is.

2. If you had a choice of a cabin with babies and another cabin without babies where would you prefer to be sitting?

Finally, yes certain things annoy me. You know what I deal with it. No I don't need a private jet. Would I prefer an airline without babies on it? yes of course, but no I don't need a private jet. If there is a crying baby, i say to myself "dammit" put the volume up and get on with it.

 

[gumpy]

Well this isn't for MH but the QF fares SYD-LHR rtn are

• Adult $19381
• Child $14740 - ~75%
• Infant $2466 - ~25%

If someone can afford $14740 they can afford $19381. I don't think full fare is going to be much of a disincentive for someone buying outright point to point fares. Similar with infants, if you can flash out $19k for yourself then you have some backing.

So are you saying the numbers won't decline at all? You don't think some F travellers might travel in J if the whole family is flying? Just like some J flyers flying in the lower cabin if the whole family is flying.

If you're theory was correct they wouldn't even bother discounting the tickets at all because per your logic they have heaps and heaps of money anyway and they don't care if they have to spend another full fare.

 

[drron]

Back to basics.This change happened 7 years agbviously not a major problem
All those who want to fly F with their infants have a choice I believe of every other airline who have F.
Those who wish to be guaranteed no infants in an F cabin have MH.
Quite fair I believe.