Putting kids in their place or plane stupid

[JohnK]

A story from the Daily Telegraph on Friday 15/9/2006. Could not find online link so I have posted the story here.

Should Virgin Blue be allowed to continue segregating parents with kids from other passengers?

Contain the pain

We've all had to endure the flight from hell. And I'm not referring to turbulence, the bad food or surly crew. No, it's the screaming four-year-old brat kicking the back of your seat from Melbourne to Cairns.

Virgin Blue should be commended for its progressive policy in which unaccompanied minors and parents with young children are seated together at the rear of the plane.

Just like teams on end-of-season footy trips should be seated away from the rest of us - preferably behind a lead, soundproof curtain that can be drawn on take-off to block the little critters (and drunks) from sight and sound.

Don't think of it as apartheid. Think of it as you local creche in the sky.

The benefits are endless. The children get to make new friends while mums and dads can exchange handy tips on breastfeeding and nappy rash.

Not every parent is a good parent just like not evey child is a good traveller. Indeed, dimwit parents (you know the ones, they're on Supernanny) should be grateful their tiny terrors aren't shoved in the luggage hold.

Why should those of us who pay expensive airfares have to endure the crying, fighting and smelly nappies of a stranger's child?

Children on planes fall into the same category as jet skis - legal to own but selfish to inflict on the quiet enjoyment of others. The State Government banned jet skis from Sydney Harbour.

Here's one more policy all airlines should consider. Slim people should be allowed more luggage than their chubbier fellow passengers.

Spread the pain

Surely they can't be serious. Not in the 21st century when we have come so far in so many ways.

But when it comes to domestic air travel and, in particular, Virgin Blue, we're still in the dark ages.

Virgin Blue says it is company policy to have unaccompanied minors and infants with parents contained to the back rows of the plane.

They say it is because they have two flight attendants assigned to the back and we're closer to the toilets. Plus the kids can play together.

All good in theory, but here's the kicker. One kid starts screaming, followed by another by another and another. Soon the dozen or so kids in the final four rows are all in a foul mood.

We try to placate our daughter but our task has increased tenfold because of all the activity around her.

I feel discriminated against. Just because I have a child, I'm shunted to the "poo pit" at the back, without being asked if I want to sit there.

And I am paying the same as everyone else.

Surely that means I should have the same courtesies afforded to me as those given to passengers without kids. Not all kids scream the whole way and not all kids kick the seat in front of them.

And not all parents relish the idea of sitting for three hours on a plane with someone else's ill-behaved child.

Who made Virgin Blue judge and jury as to where is the best place for my family to sit?

If you're going to persist with this policy, hand out a free Wiggles DVD and a Hi-5 colouring book.

And champagne for me.

 

[simongr]

What a ridiculous approach. yes some kids can be annoying on a plane but not all kids. I would dread to think that as a oneworld emerald (hopefully next year) if I travelled with kids (when I have them) that all my privelleges would be chucked out the window because someone else's kid makes trouble?

Yes I know this is Virgin and not oneworld but I would hope this wouldnt be taken up by QF!

Creating a family ghetto at the back of the plane wont help some kid who cant equalise the pressure in their ears - similarly it just takes more people to actually complain when being kicked in the back (not that I do) rather than taking it.

 

[dajop]

Defacto happens on QF on the busy flights, anyway how many families and children do you see up the front on the typical peak hour flight on the golden triangle? And on DJ happens by default, as they try to put purchasers of higher fares (which I suspect would not generally be a family of 5 or 6) up the front in the "suit zone").

As for unaccompanied minors - on the few occassions I've sat near them I usually find they behave OK, I guess they're not vying for the attention of their parent(s)!

 

[NM]

Don't think of it as apartheid.

No, the separation of small children not apartheid, its apart-height :shock: (with apologies to The Goodies )

 

[Dave Noble]

No, the separation of small children not apartheid, its apart-height :shock: (with apologies to The Goodies )

apart-height seemed to work well for the majority of goodies

Dave

 

[NM]

apart-height seemed to work well for the majority of goodies

Dave

all except Bill Oddie. Was not the best experience for him :evil: .

 

[Dave Noble]

all except Bill Oddie. Was not the best experience for him :evil: .

I did say "majority" and it was good for over 66% of Goodies

Dave

 

[DJ737]

Hi there

It's Virgin Blue's airplane, they can sit whoever anywhere they wish.

Cheers
DJ737

PS : Although i did get allocated 24ABC (737-700) on the SYD-DRW inaugural, the other 141 seats on the aircraft were occupied:mrgreen:

 

[pacblue]

"....It's Virgin Blue's airplane, they can sit whoever anywhere they wish".

God, talk about twisted english. I almost reached for a Swahili phrase book to work this out.

Translation : They can seat anyone, wherever they wish.

 

[serfty]

Hi there

It's Virgin Blue's airplane, they can sit whoever anywhere they wish.

Cheers
DJ737 ...

Of course they can ...

We as Customers (or is that Guests?) can choose to use DJ facilities or not ... as we wish ...

 

[Yada Yada]

I think this is a quite sensible approach, especially for looking after unaccompanied minors.

As a parent, when I fly with the kids (which is not a lot) I actually ask to be seated at the back of the plane. The back row is great because there is no-one behind who can get annoyed if the kids peer over the seat.

 

[Mal]

I think this is a quite sensible approach, especially for looking after unaccompanied minors.

I believe both Qantas and Virgin Blue seat unaccompanied minors in the last row/s. Much easier for them to look after the children.

 

[simongr]

I think this is a quite sensible approach, especially for looking after unaccompanied minors.

As a parent, when I fly with the kids (which is not a lot) I actually ask to be seated at the back of the plane. The back row is great because there is no-one behind who can get annoyed if the kids peer over the seat.

On the surface it is but I for one dont like to have those decisions made for me. Also - why discriminate against people with kids, what about fat people, recliners (especially those who are less than 6' tall), frequent pee-ers.... By quaratining the problem is almost like syaing - what goes on in the kid zone is ok - irrespective of the fact that even up in 26A (dont I wish I got that seat) I can still hear a kid screaming in 55K.... People should just take responsibility for their kids (and FYI I am not saying you dont take responsibility - obviously choosing seats like that indicate that you are concious of other passengers - just like someone who is 6'2" who doesnt jab his knees into the back of someone in front of him).

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

The back row is great because there is no-one behind who can get annoyed if the kids peer over the seat.

So your avatar is really a movie from your last family flight? (What airline has seats like that?)

 

[garyjohn951]

At least there is one good thing being male in this 21st Century, you don't get any unaccompanied kids next to you anymore !!

 

[one9]

At least there is one good thing being male in this 21st Century, you don't get any unaccompanied kids next to you anymore !!

In my opinion, this is more discriminatory than the seating children at the back policy.

 

[Yada Yada]

On the surface it is but I for one dont like to have those decisions made for me. Also - why discriminate against people with kids, what about fat people, recliners (especially those who are less than 6' tall), frequent pee-ers.... By quaratining the problem is almost like syaing - what goes on in the kid zone is ok - irrespective of the fact that even up in 26A (dont I wish I got that seat) I can still hear a kid screaming in 55K.... People should just take responsibility for their kids (and FYI I am not saying you dont take responsibility - obviously choosing seats like that indicate that you are concious of other passengers - just like someone who is 6'2" who doesnt jab his knees into the back of someone in front of him).

I think the airlines are just trying to make it as comfortable as possible for the majority of pax. People parent their kids differently and kids are individuals so you just can't guarantee that anything a kid does on board won't upset someone.

As a parent, I do my best to be conscious of everyone else when on board with my kids, and probably am more strict than others may be. Unfortunately, some pax simply have no tolerance for any kid who makes a bit of noise or bumps their seat.

When I see someone struggling with their kid(s) on a plane I feel sorry for them and if I can, I offer some help or even just a reassuring word. You can bet that most parents would rather be sitting there with a drink in hand listening to soothing music rather than trying to contain a child in a confined space, and are generally feeling a lot more on edge than anyone else around them.

So your avatar is really a movie from your last family flight? (What airline has seats like that?)

Exactly! The airline that had seating like this was OzJet.

 

[jakeseven7]

On the surface it is but I for one dont like to have those decisions made for me. Also - why discriminate against people with kids, what about fat people.

This reminds me of a flight drama my sister had. She was on a window and a very large (obese) person was seated next to her, then another normal size person on the aisle. Now this person in the middle apparantly was 'spilling' over into both seats either side and made the flight very uncomfortable for the pax on either side. The girl on the aisle apparantly had a quiet word to the csm but the flight was full, so moving was out of the question. The girl met up with my sister after they got off and they were both pretty unhappy that the person had been allowed to travel in just one seat, they both went to the airline's service desk and lodged a complaint (and got some travel vouchers which was good I suppose).

Is there a policy about obese people?

 

[Mal]

At least there is one good thing being male in this 21st Century, you don't get any unaccompanied kids next to you anymore !!

As I've posted here before... not always!

A flight CNS-BNE with Qantas a couple of years ago (pre NB days!) saw me seated in the last row of the plane. Next to me were two brats.

Another JAL flight had me sitting next to another child.

Anyways, as I said previously:

"Try sitting next to two "brats" instead. :roll:

I posted about that QF experience (Jan 2004 I think) previously.

Jal put me next to an unaccompanied minor late last year (child was in A seat, I was in C).

I'm more than happy to be segregated from unaccompanied children. I think tho that the airlines have it wrong. The children should be seperated from all adults, not just males..."

 

[bravoecho1]

The biggest issue that I have is not kids travelling by themselves, but parents with infants who decide to use the tray table as a changing table :evil:.

This has happened to me on both QF and DJ flights. Both times they have been approached by the flight crew and both times they have ignored them and then proceeded to carry a dirty nappy to the toilets once they are finished.

Not very pleasant at all!!