Lap Babies Still Allowed?
Lots42 The Library Avenger
ride in their parent's laps.
Carl Fink
Library Avenger wrote:
> Are lap babies still allowed on planes? That is, very young
> children allowed to ride in their parent's laps.
Yes. But they aren't very common.
--
Carl Fink ca...@fink.to
Jabootu's Minister of Proofreading
http://www.jabootu.com
StarChaser Tyger
>Are lap babies still allowed on planes? That is, very young children allowed to
>ride in their parent's laps.
>
Yup...Been looking for plane tickets lately, and all the search sites
mention them...Doesn't matter much, as if the plane crashes they're
probably going to die anyway.
--
Visit the Furry Artist InFURmation Page! Contact information, which artists
do and don't want their work posted. http://web.tampabay.rr.com/starchsr/
Address no longer munged for the inconvenience of spammers.
(Yes, this really is me.)
Mary Shafer
<starc...@mindless.com> wrote:
> lot...@aol.comaol.com (Lots42 The Library Avenger ) wrote:
>
> >Are lap babies still allowed on planes? That is, very young children allowed to
> >ride in their parent's laps.
> >
>
> Yup...Been looking for plane tickets lately, and all the search sites
> mention them...Doesn't matter much, as if the plane crashes they're
> probably going to die anyway.
At least one lap (that's what the airlines call them) was saved in the
crash of UAL 232 only because the last guy out the door heard the baby
crying and rescued her from the luggage bin she'd ended up in. And
they had enough time (45 min or so) to strap all the laps into seats
with blankets to pad them but they still ended up all over the cabin
(well, the sections of cabin, to be accurate).
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
mil...@qnet.com
"Turn to kill, not to engage." LCDR Willie Driscoll, USN
Erich
Mary Shafer <mil...@qnet.nospam.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 01:15:44 GMT, StarChaser Tyger
> <starc...@mindless.com> wrote:
>
> > lot...@aol.comaol.com (Lots42 The Library Avenger ) wrote:
> >
> > >Are lap babies still allowed on planes? That is, very young
> > >children allowed to ride in their parent's laps.
> >
> > Yup...Been looking for plane tickets lately, and all the search
> > sites mention them...Doesn't matter much, as if the plane crashes
> > they're probably going to die anyway.
>
> At least one lap (that's what the airlines call them) was saved in
> the crash of UAL 232 only because the last guy out the door heard the
> baby crying and rescued her from the luggage bin she'd ended up in.
> And they had enough time (45 min or so) to strap all the laps into
> seats with blankets to pad them but they still ended up all over the
> cabin (well, the sections of cabin, to be accurate).
Didn't the lap kids have a higher survival rate than other passengers on
UAL 232?
... Erich
Elle
Yep. I've flown four times since Katie's been born, and each time she has
ridden on my lap.
Now that she is a little older, I have this cool device...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q1D421205
Elle
Mary Shafer
Mostly because they weren't in First or Business Class, not for any
other reason. I think the survival rate for laps was about the same
as the survival rate for all of Cabin Class, given the small number of
laps.
One of the laps was thirty months old, a little above the two-year
limit, by the way. I don't remember whether that one survived or not.
There was one airliner accident in which only one person, a little
girl, survived. Maybe the O'Hare DC-10? I'm pretty sure it was a US
airliner and in the US. Lots of pathos (and bathos) on the news shows
because all of her immediate family had been on the airplane.
I tried to chase this down but found the FAA database to be too
obscure to use. For some reason, it doesn't recognize a query like
"airliner accident with one survivor only". I'll see if NTSB can be
more helpful.
Boron Elgar
<mil...@qnet.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>There was one airliner accident in which only one person, a little
>girl, survived. Maybe the O'Hare DC-10? I'm pretty sure it was a US
>airliner and in the US. Lots of pathos (and bathos) on the news shows
>because all of her immediate family had been on the airplane.
A Northwest flight. The accident was at Detroit Metro.
>
Boron
Boron Elgar
wrote:
I used to use a Kangaroo Carrier when I flew with an infant. No one
seems to make a carrier quite like like that anymore. I had one that
faced outward, yet was pretty easy to put on & take off. This one
(and its cousin, that faced inward) were much less bulky than the old
fashioned Snuglis.
Boron
Elle
>I used to use a Kangaroo Carrier when I flew with an infant. No one
>seems to make a carrier quite like like that anymore. I had one that
>faced outward, yet was pretty easy to put on & take off. This one
>(and its cousin, that faced inward) were much less bulky than the old
>fashioned Snuglis.
Oh yes! Katie spent at least 8-10 hours a day for the first four colicky months
of her life in a Baby Bjorn. It sounds like what you describe, but the baby can
face either in or out. I like it a lot better than the Snugli. The snugli is,
as you said, really bulky, and it does not support a new baby's head. She
outgrew the Baby Bjorn a while ago, and now we use -- this is a funny name --
what is called an "Over the Shoulder Baby Holder". (Sling like carrier)
Elle
Boron Elgar
wrote:
I just found a picture of the Baby Bjorn on the site you linked to
earlier & yes, the Kangaroo carrier was almost identical. The head
support, though was a padded half moon & attached by velcro, so as
the baby got older it could be removed and kidlet could look around
easier.
Boron
Lots42 The Library Avenger
>
>Now that she is a little older, I have this cool device...
>
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q1D421205
>
>Elle
>
>
>
Utterly useless if you have to brace yourself. I recommend buying an extra seat
and bringing a carrier.
Mary Shafer
That's a star in your crown. I was about to print out the accident
lists for the last two decades and go through them by hand, because
this was bugging me. I was pretty sure it wasn't the O'Hare DC-10
(mostly because that one was famous for the rental car company
employees) but that didn't get me much forwarder.
Mary
Elle
>Utterly useless if you have to brace yourself. I recommend buying an extra
>seat
>and bringing a carrier.
Certainly a very good idea!
Elle
Mary Shafer
<mil...@qnet.nospam.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 22:58:56 -0400, Boron Elgar
> <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > A Northwest flight. The accident was at Detroit Metro.
> That's a star in your crown. I was about to print out the accident
> lists for the last two decades and go through them by hand, because
> this was bugging me. I was pretty sure it wasn't the O'Hare DC-10
> (mostly because that one was famous for the rental car company
> employees) but that didn't get me much forwarder.
August, 1987, meaning that little girl is almost 20 now. She suffered
major injuries, too. The crew didn't deploy flaps and slats for
takeoff.
Blinky the Shark
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 22:58:56 -0400, Boron Elgar
><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 19:55:28 -0700, Mary Shafer
>> <mil...@qnet.nospam.com> wrote:
>> >There was one airliner accident in which only one person, a little
>> >girl, survived. Maybe the O'Hare DC-10? I'm pretty sure it was a US
>> >airliner and in the US. Lots of pathos (and bathos) on the news shows
>> >because all of her immediate family had been on the airplane.
>> A Northwest flight. The accident was at Detroit Metro.
> That's a star in your crown. I was about to print out the accident
> lists for the last two decades and go through them by hand, because
> this was bugging me. I was pretty sure it wasn't the O'Hare DC-10
> (mostly because that one was famous for the rental car company
> employees) but that didn't get me much forwarder.
Aug 87 Northwest 255 (If that helps with a better search with your
heavy-duty database.)
"The crash's only survivor was 4-year-old Cecelia Cichan, now 14. Her
parents and 6-year-old brother died in the crash. Investigators
concluded that the jet?s pilot forgot to set the wing flaps, causing the
crash."
http://www.statenews.com/editionssummer97/081497/p1_crash.html
--
Blinky Linux RU 297263
Geekly Topic: Domain Names - Structure and History
http://snurl.com/dn_history
Spam: The Boulder Pledge http://snurl.com/bpledge
Blinky the Shark
> I just found a picture of the Baby Bjorn on the site you linked to
> earlier & yes, the Kangaroo carrier was almost identical. The head
> support, though was a padded half moon & attached by velcro, so as
> the baby got older it could be removed and kidlet could look around
> easier.
<cue Steppenwolf>
Bjorn to be wild!
(I couldn't help myself. Sorry.)
SoCalMike
"Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnbfaab0....@adam.blinkynet.net...
> Mary Shafer wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 22:58:56 -0400, Boron Elgar
> ><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 19:55:28 -0700, Mary Shafer
> >> <mil...@qnet.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> >There was one airliner accident in which only one person, a little
> >> >girl, survived. Maybe the O'Hare DC-10? I'm pretty sure it was a US
> >> >airliner and in the US. Lots of pathos (and bathos) on the news shows
> >> >because all of her immediate family had been on the airplane.
>
> >> A Northwest flight. The accident was at Detroit Metro.
>
> > That's a star in your crown. I was about to print out the accident
> > lists for the last two decades and go through them by hand, because
> > this was bugging me. I was pretty sure it wasn't the O'Hare DC-10
> > (mostly because that one was famous for the rental car company
> > employees) but that didn't get me much forwarder.
>
> Aug 87 Northwest 255 (If that helps with a better search with your
> heavy-duty database.)
>
> "The crash's only survivor was 4-year-old Cecelia Cichan, now 14. Her
> parents and 6-year-old brother died in the crash. Investigators
> concluded that the jet?s pilot forgot to set the wing flaps, causing the
> crash."
>
> http://www.statenews.com/editionssummer97/081497/p1_crash.html
i wonder if shes rich, now. not to be morbid, or anything. just curious what
(if anything) she got, since it was gross pilot error.
Mary Shafer
wrote:
> Mary Shafer wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 22:58:56 -0400, Boron Elgar
> ><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 19:55:28 -0700, Mary Shafer
> >> <mil...@qnet.nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >> >There was one airliner accident in which only one person, a little
> >> >girl, survived. Maybe the O'Hare DC-10? I'm pretty sure it was a US
> >> >airliner and in the US. Lots of pathos (and bathos) on the news shows
> >> >because all of her immediate family had been on the airplane.
>
> >> A Northwest flight. The accident was at Detroit Metro.
>
> > That's a star in your crown. I was about to print out the accident
> > lists for the last two decades and go through them by hand, because
> > this was bugging me. I was pretty sure it wasn't the O'Hare DC-10
> > (mostly because that one was famous for the rental car company
> > employees) but that didn't get me much forwarder.
>
> Aug 87 Northwest 255 (If that helps with a better search with your
> heavy-duty database.)
I managed to winnow the NTSB database down to three entries with just
the airline, Part 121, scheduled flight, and Detroit Metro. Maybe
fatal as well. Of the three, one was in 2001, another was an
emergency evacuation caused by an APU fire, and the '87 one was the
right one.
> "The crash's only survivor was 4-year-old Cecelia Cichan, now 14. Her
> parents and 6-year-old brother died in the crash. Investigators
> concluded that the jet?s pilot forgot to set the wing flaps, causing the
> crash."
Not just the pilot, but the first officer. It was on takeoff, by the
way.
> http://www.statenews.com/editionssummer97/081497/p1_crash.html
She was 14 in '97, so my guess of 3 or so was pretty good. NTSB
didn't have that much detail about her family.
Kajikit
seashore and told us all about it on 21 Jun 2003 20:22:17 GMT:
>Are lap babies still allowed on planes? That is, very young children allowed to
>ride in their parent's laps.
>
Having made 6 plane flights in the last 10 weeks, I can say from
experience that yes they are... on the first plane there were several
toddlers sitting on their parents laps - they had their own seat for
the flight but during takeoff and landing they were fastened to their
parents with a special seatbelt attachment that went around their
parents waist, presumably because they were too small for a seatbelt
of their own to hold them. Babies alternate between sitting on a
parents lap and lying in the pulldown cribs on the bulkheads on
long-distance flights... and slightly older kids get a seat of their
own. One lady near us on our last flight was travelling with two small
girls, a toddler and an infant with her, and she had fun managing
them!
--
To err is human... to really foul things up add kitten and stir.
Karen AKA Kajikit
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/
Anny Middon
news:8ghafvskcqkthr9jk...@4ax.com...
>
> I managed to winnow the NTSB database down to three entries with just
> the airline, Part 121, scheduled flight, and Detroit Metro. Maybe
> fatal as well. Of the three, one was in 2001, another was an
> emergency evacuation caused by an APU fire, and the '87 one was the
> right one.
>
> > "The crash's only survivor was 4-year-old Cecelia Cichan, now 14. Her
> > parents and 6-year-old brother died in the crash. Investigators
> > concluded that the jet?s pilot forgot to set the wing flaps, causing the
> > crash."
>
> Not just the pilot, but the first officer. It was on takeoff, by the
> way.
>
> > http://www.statenews.com/editionssummer97/081497/p1_crash.html
>
> She was 14 in '97, so my guess of 3 or so was pretty good. NTSB
> didn't have that much detail about her family.
Just to be clear, she wasn't a lap baby then, right? I find it incredible
that a four year-old would be allowed to ride unrestrained on an adult's
lap.
Also, is there some reason why airplanes don't supply infant seats and
require parents to buy a seat for an infant? Infants are required to have
such in automobiles and I sort of have the impression that an on-ground
accident in an airplane is not that dissimilar from a car accident.
Otherwise, what's the big deal about FAA regulations making you remain in
your seat with your seatbelt fastened until the plane is at the gate and the
pilot has turned off the Fasten Seatbelts sign?
Anny
N Jill Marsh
<AnnyM...@hotNOSPAMmail.com>wrote:
>Also, is there some reason why airplanes don't supply infant seats and
>require parents to buy a seat for an infant? Infants are required to have
>such in automobiles and I sort of have the impression that an on-ground
>accident in an airplane is not that dissimilar from a car accident.
Unfortunately I can't tell you what airline this was on*, but I have
flown on at least one in the last year that no longer allows lap
babies. Everyone had to have their own seat (although I'm quite sure
kids under two were given a discount), and if the child was small
enough to require a car seat in a car they were required to use a
special seat belted into the airplane seat. I think that regular car
seats were used, but I'm not positive of this, it's possible that the
airline provided seats. Kid had to be in a window seat and not near
an emergency exit, so they wouldn't obstruct traffic.
nj"encountering turbulence"m
*I've flown with several different airlines in the last year, I /think/
this might have been SouthWest, but that's a very vague guess. I
remember this because the parent passenger initially made sort of a
fuss about having to strap in the little person passenger for the "all
passengers must wear seat belts" part of the flight.
"It can do that because compassion is bottomless."
Joe Shimkus
N Jill Marsh <njm...@storm.ca> wrote:
> Everyone had to have their own seat (although I'm quite sure
> kids under two were given a discount)
> I /think/
> this might have been SouthWest, but that's a very vague guess.
So why do the little folk get a discount when they are taking up an
entire seat and a fatty has to pay for two seats?
--
PGP Key (DH/DSS): http://www.shimkus.com/public_key.asc
PGP Fingerprint: 89B4 52DA CF10 EE03 02AD 9134 21C6 2A68 CE52 EE1A
Elle
>So why do the little folk get a discount when they are taking up an
>entire seat and a fatty has to pay for two seats?
They don't eat as many peanuts?
Elle
Blinky the Shark
> In article <k3ecfv0uog7anr7ci...@4ax.com>,
> N Jill Marsh <njm...@storm.ca> wrote:
>> Everyone had to have their own seat (although I'm quite sure
>> kids under two were given a discount)
>> I /think/
>> this might have been SouthWest, but that's a very vague guess.
> So why do the little folk get a discount when they are taking up an
> entire seat and a fatty has to pay for two seats?
They should just have a Fatty-Baby Interleave Row.
--
Blinky Linux RU 297263
MS BUYS LINUX! http://snurl.com/microsux
Binyamin Dissen
wrote:
[ snipped ]
:>Also, is there some reason why airplanes don't supply infant seats and
:>require parents to buy a seat for an infant? Infants are required to have
:>such in automobiles and I sort of have the impression that an on-ground
:>accident in an airplane is not that dissimilar from a car accident.
Well, perhaps every family does not have the disposable income that your
family has?
That the choice would then become driving, an inherently more risky task for
the children?
The choice of "let them eat cake" is not available to all.
:>Otherwise, what's the big deal about FAA regulations making you remain in
:>your seat with your seatbelt fastened until the plane is at the gate and the
:>pilot has turned off the Fasten Seatbelts sign?
Partially silliness.
And partially to prevent people from removing their bags from the overhead
bins, such bags certainly able to injure some other passenger should the plane
make an unexpected move.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Lots42 The Library Avenger
>>So why do the little folk get a discount when they are taking up an
>>entire seat and a fatty has to pay for two seats?
It's to make up for insensitive assholes like you
StarChaser Tyger
>On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 19:55:50 GMT "Anny Middon" <AnnyM...@hotNOSPAMmail.com>
>wrote:
>
> [ snipped ]
>:>Otherwise, what's the big deal about FAA regulations making you remain in
>:>your seat with your seatbelt fastened until the plane is at the gate and the
>:>pilot has turned off the Fasten Seatbelts sign?
>Partially silliness.
>And partially to prevent people from removing their bags from the overhead
>bins, such bags certainly able to injure some other passenger should the plane
>make an unexpected move.
Most likely because a lot of turbulence is run into near the ground, due
to other planes, as well. Not to mention the plane's own things as the
flaps and landing gear come out...
Lots42 The Library Avenger
>From: Binyamin Dissen post...@dissensoftware.com
>Well, perhaps every family does not have the disposable income that your
>family has?
>
>That the choice would then become driving, an inherently more risky task for
>the children?
>
I find it hard to believe a properly strapped in baby in a car seat is in more
danger then a loose baby in a 747.
Anywho, if you can't afford to transport your baby in a safe manner, why in the
would should you allowed to transport it in an unsafe manner?
"Oh, I'm poor so it's okay if junior becomes a flying missile if the plane hits
turbulence!"
>And partially to prevent people from removing their bags from the overhead
>bins, such bags certainly able to injure some other passenger should the
>plane
>make an unexpected move.
Such babies are certainly able to injure some other passenger should the plane
make an unexpected move.
Binyamin Dissen
wrote:
:>Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>>On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 19:55:50 GMT "Anny Middon" <AnnyM...@hotNOSPAMmail.com>
:>>wrote:
:>>:>Otherwise, what's the big deal about FAA regulations making you remain in
:>>:>your seat with your seatbelt fastened until the plane is at the gate and the
:>>:>pilot has turned off the Fasten Seatbelts sign?
:>>Partially silliness.
:>>And partially to prevent people from removing their bags from the overhead
:>>bins, such bags certainly able to injure some other passenger should the plane
:>>make an unexpected move.
:>Most likely because a lot of turbulence is run into near the ground, due
:>to other planes, as well. Not to mention the plane's own things as the
:>flaps and landing gear come out...
In all my years of flying I have never run into turbulence after landing and
on the way to the gate.
Or landing gear coming out that late.
Yes, flaps seem to be used in breaking while landing, but that typically is
quite early in the landing stages before people consider getting up.
Mary Shafer
<post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
> In all my years of flying I have never run into turbulence after landing and
> on the way to the gate.
I have. Another airplane started to turn onto the taxiway in front of
the airplane I was in and the pilot put on the binders, hard. Four
business-suited men fell down in the aisle and another, with the
carry-on bag he was retrieving from an overhead compartment, fell on a
woman in an aisle seat. We then had to wait around for the paramedics
to take two of the guys and the woman away.
Mary Shafer
Avenger ) wrote:
> >
> >From: Binyamin Dissen post...@dissensoftware.com
>
> >Well, perhaps every family does not have the disposable income that your
> >family has?
> >
> >That the choice would then become driving, an inherently more risky task for
> >the children?
> >
>
> I find it hard to believe a properly strapped in baby in a car seat is in more
> danger then a loose baby in a 747.
It goes like this. Flying is safer than driving so fewer babies die,
either in car seats or on laps, in airplane accidents. Making the
parents buy the baby a seat may increase the transportation price
enough that driving becomes more economical.
Since driving is more dangerous than sitting on a lap, this is a bad
deal and making the rule would kill or maim more babies.
> Anywho, if you can't afford to transport your baby in a safe manner, why in the
> would should you allowed to transport it in an unsafe manner?
Because in the cosmic scheme of things it's not that much more
dangerous. Check the newspaper stories about pax injured in
turbulence. It's adults, not babies.
> "Oh, I'm poor so it's okay if junior becomes a flying missile if the plane hits
> turbulence!"
Babies bounce rather than break.
Turbulence is largely predictable, particularly with pireps. It's not
as if there's only one airliner on a flyway.
> >And partially to prevent people from removing their bags from the overhead
> >bins, such bags certainly able to injure some other passenger should the
> >plane
> >make an unexpected move.
>
> Such babies are certainly able to injure some other passenger should the plane
> make an unexpected move.
Babies are too light to do much damage. KE=1/2 mV**2, after all.
Assume a perfectly elastic collision, although both adults and babies
deform on impact.
The average briefcase in the overhead bin weighs twice what a baby
does and has much sharper corners.
StarChaser Tyger
>On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 04:46:39 GMT StarChaser Tyger <starc...@mindless.com>
>wrote:
>
>:>Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>
>:>>On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 19:55:50 GMT "Anny Middon" <AnnyM...@hotNOSPAMmail.com>
>:>>wrote:
>
>:>>:>Otherwise, what's the big deal about FAA regulations making you remain in
>:>>:>your seat with your seatbelt fastened until the plane is at the gate and the
>:>>:>pilot has turned off the Fasten Seatbelts sign?
>
>:>>Partially silliness.
>
>:>>And partially to prevent people from removing their bags from the overhead
>:>>bins, such bags certainly able to injure some other passenger should the plane
>:>>make an unexpected move.
>
>:>Most likely because a lot of turbulence is run into near the ground, due
>:>to other planes, as well. Not to mention the plane's own things as the
>:>flaps and landing gear come out...
>
>In all my years of flying I have never run into turbulence after landing and
>on the way to the gate.
The seatbelts go on before that.
>Or landing gear coming out that late.
They come out before that, too.
>Yes, flaps seem to be used in breaking while landing, but that typically is
>quite early in the landing stages before people consider getting up.
The flaps come out before that too. They don't tell you to put the belts
on once you're on the ground, they tell you to put them on while you're
half an hour out or so.
StarChaser Tyger
>The average briefcase in the overhead bin weighs twice what a baby
>does and has much sharper corners.
Heh. Yeah, but if it's loaded, it would count as chemical or biological
warfare...
Blinky the Shark
> The average briefcase in the overhead bin weighs twice what a baby
> does and has much sharper corners.
It's quieter, too, and unless you leave your brie in it, it smells better
as well.
Blinky the Shark
> Mary Shafer <mil...@qnet.nospam.com> wrote:
>>The average briefcase in the overhead bin weighs twice what a baby
>>does and has much sharper corners.
> Heh. Yeah, but if it's loaded, it would count as chemical or biological
> warfare...
In any configuration, it's a WMI. Weapon with Mass and Inertia.
RM Mentock
> The flaps come out before that too. They don't tell you to put the belts
> on once you're on the ground, they tell you to put them on while you're
> half an hour out or so.
They tell you to keep them on long after you're on the ground. I think
the OP (Anny's?) is questioning that.
--
RM Mentock
mais cette question nous entraînerait trop loin
RM Mentock
> Babies are too light to do much damage. KE=1/2 mV**2, after all.
> Assume a perfectly elastic collision, although both adults and babies
> deform on impact.
What's the ick factor here?
Blinky the Shark
> StarChaser Tyger wrote:
>> The flaps come out before that too. They don't tell you to put the belts
>> on once you're on the ground, they tell you to put them on while you're
>> half an hour out or so.
> They tell you to keep them on long after you're on the ground. I think
> the OP (Anny's?) is questioning that.
Until the plane comes to a halt at the jetway. There's nothing to
question.
--
Blinky Linux RU 297263
RM Mentock
> Until the plane comes to a halt at the jetway. There's nothing to
> question.
that explains the lack of an answer then
Lots42 The Library Avenger
>
>> "Oh, I'm poor so it's okay if junior becomes a flying missile if the plane
>hits
>> turbulence!"
>
>Babies bounce rather than break.
And that's relevant how?
>
>Turbulence is largely predictable, particularly with pireps. It's not
>as if there's only one airliner on a flyway.
Pireps? Flyway?
And predictable turbulence? Even so, it's insane to expect mommy's arms to keep
Junior from flying out if there's a bad bump.
>Babies are too light to do much damage.
Bullfloppy.
>The average briefcase in the overhead bin weighs twice what a baby
>does and has much sharper corners.
The average baby is -not- in the overhead bin now, is it?
>It goes like this. Flying is safer than driving so fewer babies die,
>either in car seats or on laps, in airplane accidents. Making the
>parents buy the baby a seat may increase the transportation price
>enough that driving becomes more economical.
And lightning might strike my butt. Again, irrelevant.
--
"When Buffy was a vampire, you weren't still, like, attracted to her, were
you?" "Willow, how can you...? I mean, that's really *bent*. She was...
grotesque." "Still dug her, huh?" "I'm sick. I need help."
"Don't I know it." -- Willow and Xander
Carl Fink
In article <20030623060958...@mb-m15.aol.com>, Lots42 The
Library Avenger wrote:
> And predictable turbulence? Even so, it's insane to expect mommy's arms to keep
> Junior from flying out if there's a bad bump.
And yet, they do.
>>Babies are too light to do much damage.
>
> Bullfloppy.
And yet, they are.
>>The average briefcase in the overhead bin weighs twice what a baby
>>does and has much sharper corners.
>
> The average baby is -not- in the overhead bin now, is it?
And yet, during flight briefcases tend to be removed from bins.
>>It goes like this. Flying is safer than driving so fewer babies die,
>>either in car seats or on laps, in airplane accidents. Making the
>>parents buy the baby a seat may increase the transportation price
>>enough that driving becomes more economical.
>
> And lightning might strike my butt. Again, irrelevant.
And yet, it's completely relevant.
--
Carl Fink ca...@fink.to
Jabootu's Minister of Proofreading
http://www.jabootu.com
Crashj
<>
> I'll see if NTSB can be
> more helpful.
I thought you were more of a realist than that?
Crashj
Anny Middon
news:slrnbfde6k....@adam.blinkynet.net...
> RM Mentock wrote:
>
> > StarChaser Tyger wrote:
>
> >> The flaps come out before that too. They don't tell you to put the
belts
> >> on once you're on the ground, they tell you to put them on while you're
> >> half an hour out or so.
>
> > They tell you to keep them on long after you're on the ground. I think
> > the OP (Anny's?) is questioning that.
>
> Until the plane comes to a halt at the jetway. There's nothing to
> question.
It was my question, and sure there is something to question: If the plane
taxi-ing to the jetway is dangerous enough to require adult and child
passengers to remain seated with seatbelts fastened, why isn't is dangerous
enough to require toddlers (well, those under the age of 2, anyway) to be
seated in a safe seat and securely belted?
Anny
Anny Middon
news:p31dfv0m2r1ulokf8...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 19:55:50 GMT "Anny Middon"
<AnnyM...@hotNOSPAMmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [ snipped ]
>
> :>Also, is there some reason why airplanes don't supply infant seats and
> :>require parents to buy a seat for an infant? Infants are required to
have
> :>such in automobiles and I sort of have the impression that an on-ground
> :>accident in an airplane is not that dissimilar from a car accident.
>
> Well, perhaps every family does not have the disposable income that your
> family has?
I'm sure not, but why is that relevent? There are many families that find
it difficult to come up with the money for a good carseat for their baby,
but the law (here in Illinois anyway) requires them to do so if they want to
drive with the baby in the car. "I can't afford to keep my baby safe"
doesn't strike me as a reasonable excuse.
> That the choice would then become driving, an inherently more risky task
for
> the children?
Or they could choose not to travel at all. Or to take the train.
Take my husband's stepbrother, up past his ears in debt. Suppose he wants
to take his 14-year-old son to Chicago to visit relatives. He can scrape up
enough money for one round-trip airfare, but not two. Should the airline
allow the son to ride free so long as he sits on his dad's lap
(uncomfortable, but doable, especially since the son would not have to be
belted)?
If the son was 14 months old instead of 14 years, this would be allowed. Is
a 14-month-old more deserving of safe transport than a 14-year-old?
> The choice of "let them eat cake" is not available to all.
Free bread for all is not available either.
Anny
Anny Middon
>
> It goes like this. Flying is safer than driving so fewer babies die,
> either in car seats or on laps, in airplane accidents. Making the
> parents buy the baby a seat may increase the transportation price
> enough that driving becomes more economical.
>
> Since driving is more dangerous than sitting on a lap, this is a bad
> deal and making the rule would kill or maim more babies.
>
But isn't the rule already there? I mean, by the rules a child of 2 years
and one day needs her own seat, while one of 1 year and 364 days does not.
I have seen a parent struggle mightily to keep a toddler in her lap during
landing. I'm sure in some cases Mom or Dad loses the struggle and Junior
runs down the aisle. This can't be safe.
I guess I have a problem with the logic that says travel needs to be priced
at a certain level to keep certain children safer.
Suppose the airlines became government-subsidized (I mean, more than they
arguably are now). Should airfares always be set so that it's cheaper for a
family to fly than to drive, thus helping keep kids of all ages more safe?
Amtrak is heavily subsidized (or is it owned by the Feds?). Rail travel is
more safe than driving. Are Amtrak fares less for a family of four than
driving?
I also have a problem with logic that says that price is the most important
factor in determining which mode of transportation to take.
Suppose the Smith family consists of Mom, Dad, 18-month old Buddy and
6-month-old Sally. They elect to go from LA to Chicago to visit family. It
would cost them $500 to fly, with both Buddy and Sally as lap babies. It
would cost them $800 to drive, taking into account meals and lodging and
gas.
The Smiths however decide to drive. They want the flexibility of having
their own car in Chicago, the convenience to decide easily to extend our
contract their time in the Windy City, and the ability to bring lots more
stuff than will fit into the amount of luggage the airline will allow. Are
the Smiths poor parents for opting for the less-safe alternative, even if it
is to them more convenient?
Anny
broutez pas l'Edith Cresson@billdiamond.com Ne broutez pas le cresson, particulièrement Edith
on stage as Mary Shafer <mil...@qnet.nospam.com>, wrote in
alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:50:14 -0700 that ...
>On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 00:16:08 -0500, Binyamin Dissen
><post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>
>> In all my years of flying I have never run into turbulence after landing and
>> on the way to the gate.
>
>I have. Another airplane started to turn onto the taxiway in front of
>the airplane I was in and the pilot put on the binders, hard. Four
>business-suited men fell down in the aisle and another, with the
>carry-on bag he was retrieving from an overhead compartment, fell on a
>woman in an aisle seat. We then had to wait around for the paramedics
>to take two of the guys and the woman away.
I created plenty of turbulence yesterday. During our return flight
from Phoenix, I started experiencing that oh-so-familiar burning
sensation of a kidney stone finding its way to the magic portal at the
end of my urethra.
Since you cannot get up for any reason during the final 30 minutes of
a flight into Washington Reagan, it was 30 minutes of intense
unpleasantness. As soon as we hit the tarmac and the seatbelts sign
went off, I vaulted over about 40 people to get to the head. I did
have to push two women out of the way who were somehow personally
invested in keeping me from getting to the bathroom.
Bill
-----
"Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote." - George Jean Nathan
Blinky the Shark
>> RM Mentock wrote:
>> > StarChaser Tyger wrote:
Yes, that *is* a separate question.
Blinky the Shark
> Crashj
You have an unfortunate nick, for this discussion. :)
Blinky the Shark
>>From: Mary Shafer mil...@qnet.nospam.com
>>Turbulence is largely predictable, particularly with pireps. It's not
>>as if there's only one airliner on a flyway.
> Pireps? Flyway?
I'm not Mary, but I'm here...
1) Pilot reports on conditions along the flyway.
2) "Highway in the air" from point A to point B.
> And predictable turbulence? Even so, it's insane to expect mommy's
> arms to keep
*Most* turbulance is known and announced from the cockpit and the
buckle-up lights are lit. No, "most" does not mean "all".
Blinky the Shark
> I created plenty of turbulence yesterday. During our return flight
> from Phoenix, I started experiencing that oh-so-familiar burning
> sensation of a kidney stone finding its way to the magic portal at the
> end of my urethra.
> Since you cannot get up for any reason during the final 30 minutes of
> a flight into Washington Reagan, it was 30 minutes of intense
> unpleasantness. As soon as we hit the tarmac and the seatbelts sign
> went off, I vaulted over about 40 people to get to the head. I did
> have to push two women out of the way who were somehow personally
> invested in keeping me from getting to the bathroom.
I've blown one of those out at a terminal. Luckily that one wasn't
painful. Many (of my probably three dozen) have been, and I'm thankful
that wasn't one of them.
Lots42 The Library Avenger
>> arms to keep
>
>*Most* turbulance is known and announced from the cockpit and the
>buckle-up lights are lit. No, "most" does not mean "all".
>
>--
>Blinky
Exactly my point.
tooloud
<snip>
> It was my question, and sure there is something to question: If the
> plane taxi-ing to the jetway is dangerous enough to require adult and
> child passengers to remain seated with seatbelts fastened, why isn't
> is dangerous enough to require toddlers (well, those under the age of
> 2, anyway) to be seated in a safe seat and securely belted?
Probably the same reason little Johnny and Susie must be buckled up tight in
an automobile but can roam free on the school bus.
> Anny
--
tooloud
Remove nothing to reply...
Anny Middon
news:bdc6ie$r86s8$1...@ID-121148.news.dfncis.de...
You know, I've questioned the wisdom of that, too. What's the big deal
about putting in some seat belts? I'll bet driving the bus is a more
pleasant experience if the tykes are belted in, too.
I received a very minor injury (a cut on my knee which shows a scar to this
day) when my school bus hit a car. This was in high school. No one was
standing in the aisle, but I suspect anyone who had been might have been
injured.
Anny
Binyamin Dissen
:>On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 00:16:08 -0500, Binyamin Dissen
:><post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>> In all my years of flying I have never run into turbulence after landing and
:>> on the way to the gate.
:>I have. Another airplane started to turn onto the taxiway in front of
:>the airplane I was in and the pilot put on the binders, hard.
I wouldn't call that turbulence - simple unexpected hard braking. That
(without injuries) is not uncommon.
Now, on the other hand, if the wash from the other engines pushed the plane up
or sideways, I would call that turbulence.
[ snipped ]
Binyamin Dissen
wrote:
:>"Mary Shafer" <mil...@qnet.nospam.com> wrote in message
:>news:e85dfv4r8rslrd64i...@4ax.com...
:>> It goes like this. Flying is safer than driving so fewer babies die,
:>> either in car seats or on laps, in airplane accidents. Making the
:>> parents buy the baby a seat may increase the transportation price
:>> enough that driving becomes more economical.
:>> Since driving is more dangerous than sitting on a lap, this is a bad
:>> deal and making the rule would kill or maim more babies.
:>But isn't the rule already there? I mean, by the rules a child of 2 years
:>and one day needs her own seat, while one of 1 year and 364 days does not.
And a boy of 20 years and 364 days cannot legally drink while a boy of 21
years can.
Similar rules for driving.
Yes, many age based rules are arbitrary.
:>I have seen a parent struggle mightily to keep a toddler in her lap during
:>landing. I'm sure in some cases Mom or Dad loses the struggle and Junior
:>runs down the aisle. This can't be safe.
If the kid was merely running down the aisle, there isn't really that bad
plane movement.
If the kid was hurtling down the aisle .......
:>I guess I have a problem with the logic that says travel needs to be priced
:>at a certain level to keep certain children safer.
Living at home isn't 100% safe either.
:>Suppose the airlines became government-subsidized (I mean, more than they
:>arguably are now). Should airfares always be set so that it's cheaper for a
:>family to fly than to drive, thus helping keep kids of all ages more safe?
Not unless the government becomes much more democratic^W communist. And in
that case the planes manufactured would be less safe.
:>Amtrak is heavily subsidized (or is it owned by the Feds?). Rail travel is
:>more safe than driving. Are Amtrak fares less for a family of four than
:>driving?
Looking from the perspective of those who think that anything west of
Philadelphia is on the west coast Amtrak might be a good option. I understand
that it is competitive with airplanes on the eastern seaboard.
For most of the USA, however, Amtrak does not go to much.
:>I also have a problem with logic that says that price is the most important
:>factor in determining which mode of transportation to take.
I would agree as well.
It is A factor.
:>Suppose the Smith family consists of Mom, Dad, 18-month old Buddy and
:>6-month-old Sally. They elect to go from LA to Chicago to visit family. It
:>would cost them $500 to fly, with both Buddy and Sally as lap babies. It
:>would cost them $800 to drive, taking into account meals and lodging and
:>gas.
:>The Smiths however decide to drive. They want the flexibility of having
:>their own car in Chicago, the convenience to decide easily to extend our
:>contract their time in the Windy City, and the ability to bring lots more
:>stuff than will fit into the amount of luggage the airline will allow. Are
:>the Smiths poor parents for opting for the less-safe alternative, even if it
:>is to them more convenient?
Your question is invalid because the trip can be extended for a fee, more
luggage can be taken for a fee, a car can be rented for a fee, etc.
Binyamin Dissen
wrote:
:>"Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
:>news:p31dfv0m2r1ulokf8...@4ax.com...
:>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 19:55:50 GMT "Anny Middon"
:><AnnyM...@hotNOSPAMmail.com>
:>> wrote:
:>> :>Also, is there some reason why airplanes don't supply infant seats and
:>> :>require parents to buy a seat for an infant? Infants are required to
:>have
:>> :>such in automobiles and I sort of have the impression that an on-ground
:>> :>accident in an airplane is not that dissimilar from a car accident.
:>> Well, perhaps every family does not have the disposable income that your
:>> family has?
:>I'm sure not, but why is that relevent? There are many families that find
:>it difficult to come up with the money for a good carseat for their baby,
:>but the law (here in Illinois anyway) requires them to do so if they want to
:>drive with the baby in the car. "I can't afford to keep my baby safe"
:>doesn't strike me as a reasonable excuse.
There is a major price difference between a child carseat and the seat on a
plane, especially when one factors in the cost for use.
Do you hire a team of security guards to protect your children at all times?
"I can't afford to keep my baby safe" doesn't strike me as a reasonable
excuse.
:>> That the choice would then become driving, an inherently more risky task
:>for
:>> the children?
:>Or they could choose not to travel at all. Or to take the train.
I guess you could try to make a constitutional amendment to not allow poorer
people to travel, but I doubt you would even get one state legislature to
approve it.
The train is not always a cheaper or viable alternative.
:>Take my husband's stepbrother, up past his ears in debt. Suppose he wants
:>to take his 14-year-old son to Chicago to visit relatives. He can scrape up
:>enough money for one round-trip airfare, but not two. Should the airline
:>allow the son to ride free so long as he sits on his dad's lap
:>(uncomfortable, but doable, especially since the son would not have to be
:>belted)?
:>If the son was 14 months old instead of 14 years, this would be allowed. Is
:>a 14-month-old more deserving of safe transport than a 14-year-old?
A typical 14 month old can be successfully restrained by parents in most
turbulence and will fit on a seat. The typical 14 year old will not.
:>> The choice of "let them eat cake" is not available to all.
:>Free bread for all is not available either.
??
Pixel Dent
> I'm sure not, but why is that relevent? There are many families that find
> it difficult to come up with the money for a good carseat for their baby,
> but the law (here in Illinois anyway) requires them to do so if they want to
> drive with the baby in the car. "I can't afford to keep my baby safe"
> doesn't strike me as a reasonable excuse.
Not only is it relevent, in a very real sense it's all that is relevent in this
case. I think the problem with your argument is that you are confused about
what is allowed by the government, required by the government, allowed by the
airline, and required by the airline.
To start off, about half your argument seemed to be a complaint that lap babies
are some sort of government program foisted upon the airline by the government.
The fact is, the FAA does not *prohibit* lap babies. They don't require that
airlines allow them, they don't even encourage it. There simply isn't a law that
says people under the age of 2 must have their own seats and seatbelts. Some
airlines allow lap babies, some don't.
Therefore, the question really is should there be a law requiring children
under the age of 2 to have their own seats and seatbelts.
In considering this we have to consider why we would have such a law. That's
where my comment above about it being all that's relevant comes in. The only
rational purpose of such a law would be to prevent injury and death to
children.
If your intent is to have the fewest children in aggregate be injured or killed
the statistics are pretty clear, and you can research them at the NTSB website.
To have the fewest injuries or deaths you want as many children as possible to
fly instead of drive. Injuries to children under the age of two during
commercial air travel are incredibly rare. It doesn't matter how much naval
gazing we do here postulating on how common they should be, the empiricle
data says they just don't happen very often.
On the other hand, injuries and deaths of children under the age of two in
motor vehicals are quite common. In a trip of similar length, the child in
the car is more likely to be injured or killed by almost two orders of
magnitude. And this is without a prohibition on lap babies.
So, if you were to convince your congressman to introduce a bill prohibiting
lap babies in commercial airlines and were called to be an expert witness, I
hope the onus would be on you to explain how the common good is served by
causing more children to travel via a more dangerous mode of transportation
than did before. Why is it so important to ban lap babies that we are
actually willing to have more children die?
I suppose you could make the argument that the children whose parents can
afford to travel by air are somehow more valuable to society than those whose
parents can only afford to travel by car, but I don't think that would be an
effective political strategy in pushing the "Anny Middon" bill through
congress.
Crashj
> Crashj wrote:
>
> > Mary Shafer <mil...@qnet.nospam.com> wrote in message news:<9e5afvg51ks2dnnm1...@4ax.com>...
> ><>
> >> I'll see if NTSB can be
> >> more helpful.
>
> > I thought you were more of a realist than that?
>
> > Crashj
>
> You have an unfortunate nick, for this discussion. :)
Yup, hence no internym needed.
Crashj 'or smiley either' Johnson
Anny Middon
news:9823ab3.03062...@posting.google.com...
Actually, I'm aware there's no law (and I'm confused as to why you think I
think that). I'm also aware that airlines are in the business to make
money, and they are for the most part very willing to go along with what the
FAA says in terms of safety. If the FAA said that even children under the
age of 2 needed a seat, I doubt any airline would protest the ruling.
You seem to think that the role of the FAA is to improve safety of all
people regardless of mode of transportation. Of course, this is untrue.
The fact that pricing air transportation out of the range of some customers
causes more highway deaths is a moot point, since the role of the FAA is to
ensure safety on airplanes alone.
Forget the FAA for a moment, and think about the TSA -- those folks who set
and enforce the safety routine at airports post-9/11. Travel has since that
time become somewhat more cumbersome to the point that some people have
enlarged their travel-by-car radius. (For example, my husband used to fly
when he visited a customer that's located about 50 miles outside Cincinnati.
Now he drives -- the additional time requirement of getting to the airport
so far in advance of the boarding time has made this trip shorter and far
more convenient to drive.)
However, I can't say I've ever heard anyone say that a problem with the TSA
is that they're causing more deaths by encouraging people to drive sometimes
instead of fly. Do you say this?
>
> If your intent is to have the fewest children in aggregate be injured or
killed
> the statistics are pretty clear, and you can research them at the NTSB
website.
> To have the fewest injuries or deaths you want as many children as
possible to
> fly instead of drive. Injuries to children under the age of two during
> commercial air travel are incredibly rare. It doesn't matter how much
naval
> gazing we do here postulating on how common they should be, the empiricle
> data says they just don't happen very often.
No, my goal is to make flying as safe as possible for all concerned within
reasonable constraints. I'd like to see automobile transportation be as
safe as possible within reasonable constraints, too.
>
> On the other hand, injuries and deaths of children under the age of two in
> motor vehicals are quite common. In a trip of similar length, the child in
> the car is more likely to be injured or killed by almost two orders of
> magnitude. And this is without a prohibition on lap babies.
>
> So, if you were to convince your congressman to introduce a bill
prohibiting
> lap babies in commercial airlines and were called to be an expert witness,
I
> hope the onus would be on you to explain how the common good is served by
> causing more children to travel via a more dangerous mode of
transportation
> than did before. Why is it so important to ban lap babies that we are
> actually willing to have more children die?
It's my understanding that FAA regulations aren't generally voted on by
Congress. Am I wrong?
Don't forget that a lap baby may be a safety issue for more than just
herself. If a sudden spot of turbulence causes that baby to hurl across the
aisle at another passenger, that passenger could be injured. (And please
don't forget that the hurt passenger could be a sweet, innocent 3-year-old.)
> I suppose you could make the argument that the children whose parents can
> afford to travel by air are somehow more valuable to society than those
whose
> parents can only afford to travel by car, but I don't think that would be
an
> effective political strategy in pushing the "Anny Middon" bill through
> congress.
No, I'd never say that those who can afford to fly are more important to
society than those who can't.
But you seem to be saying that those who can afford one or two adult
airfares but not a separate ticket for an infant are more important than
those who can't afford even that one or two airfares. Those people travel,
too, and perforce never by air.
Or are you claiming that anyone with a small child should fly for free?
I guess my real problem with all this is that there seems to be a bias that
says keeping small children safe is more important than keeping older
children or adults safe.
It comes down to this:
1. It's safer for infants to fly in their own seat with an approved
carseat-type safety seat than it is for them to be lap babies.
2. It's safer for anyone to fly rather than to drive that distance.
You seem to be saying that because of #2 above, we should ignore #1. I'm
saying that realistically we can't make flying affordable to all, but we
should make it as safe as possible for everyone.
Anny
Anny Middon
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:24:08 GMT "Anny Middon"
<AnnyM...@hotNOSPAMmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> :>I have seen a parent struggle mightily to keep a toddler in her lap
during
> :>landing. I'm sure in some cases Mom or Dad loses the struggle and
Junior
> :>runs down the aisle. This can't be safe.
>
> If the kid was merely running down the aisle, there isn't really that bad
> plane movement.
>
> If the kid was hurtling down the aisle .......
>
If it's not a safety issue for someone, even a small child, to run down the
aisle during the approach for landing, why is everyone, including the flight
attendants, required to be seated and belted?
> :>I guess I have a problem with the logic that says travel needs to be
priced
> :>at a certain level to keep certain children safer.
>
> Living at home isn't 100% safe either.
Nothing is 100% safe. Shouldn't the goal of the FAA be to make every
passenger as safe as realistically possible?
> :>Suppose the airlines became government-subsidized (I mean, more than
they
> :>arguably are now). Should airfares always be set so that it's cheaper
for a
> :>family to fly than to drive, thus helping keep kids of all ages more
safe?
>
> Not unless the government becomes much more democratic^W communist. And in
> that case the planes manufactured would be less safe.
>
> :>Amtrak is heavily subsidized (or is it owned by the Feds?). Rail travel
is
> :>more safe than driving. Are Amtrak fares less for a family of four than
> :>driving?
>
> Looking from the perspective of those who think that anything west of
> Philadelphia is on the west coast Amtrak might be a good option. I
understand
> that it is competitive with airplanes on the eastern seaboard.
>
> For most of the USA, however, Amtrak does not go to much.
From Chicago it goes to both coasts and south ("on the train they call The
City of New Orleans") as well as most towns of any size in between. Yet
nearly everyone I know puts driving ahead of the train even when the train
goes to their destination.
>
> :>I also have a problem with logic that says that price is the most
important
> :>factor in determining which mode of transportation to take.
>
> I would agree as well.
>
> It is A factor.
>
> :>Suppose the Smith family consists of Mom, Dad, 18-month old Buddy and
> :>6-month-old Sally. They elect to go from LA to Chicago to visit family.
It
> :>would cost them $500 to fly, with both Buddy and Sally as lap babies.
It
> :>would cost them $800 to drive, taking into account meals and lodging and
> :>gas.
>
> :>The Smiths however decide to drive. They want the flexibility of having
> :>their own car in Chicago, the convenience to decide easily to extend our
> :>contract their time in the Windy City, and the ability to bring lots
more
> :>stuff than will fit into the amount of luggage the airline will allow.
Are
> :>the Smiths poor parents for opting for the less-safe alternative, even
if it
> :>is to them more convenient?
>
> Your question is invalid because the trip can be extended for a fee, more
> luggage can be taken for a fee, a car can be rented for a fee, etc.
But that's exactly what makes my question valid. Your hypothetically family
that flies instead of drives because they don't have to pay for the baby's
ticket can't afford those fees. Then it doesn't matter that they can take
Junior as a lap baby since they still can't afford the vacation because they
can't afford the extra luggage charges and the rental car fees, etc.
If making the airfare by itself cheaper than flying doesn't make the whole
trip cheaper, your argument that lap babies should be allowed because it
makes flying affordable to some families falls apart.
Anny
Binyamin Dissen
wrote:
:>"Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
:>news:d7hjfvkjjm55qt6i5...@4ax.com...
:>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:24:08 GMT "Anny Middon"
:><AnnyM...@hotNOSPAMmail.com>
:>> wrote:
:>> :>I have seen a parent struggle mightily to keep a toddler in her lap
:>during
:>> :>landing. I'm sure in some cases Mom or Dad loses the struggle and
:>Junior
:>> :>runs down the aisle. This can't be safe.
:>> If the kid was merely running down the aisle, there isn't really that bad
:>> plane movement.
:>> If the kid was hurtling down the aisle .......
:>If it's not a safety issue for someone, even a small child, to run down the
:>aisle during the approach for landing, why is everyone, including the flight
:>attendants, required to be seated and belted?
As you put it below, "Nothing is 100% safe".
:>> :>I guess I have a problem with the logic that says travel needs to be
:>priced
:>> :>at a certain level to keep certain children safer.
:>>
:>> Living at home isn't 100% safe either.
:>Nothing is 100% safe. Shouldn't the goal of the FAA be to make every
:>passenger as safe as realistically possible?
Subject to the definition of realistic.
How much should that cost?
Shoulder straps would help, for one.
:>> :>Suppose the airlines became government-subsidized (I mean, more than
:>they
:>> :>arguably are now). Should airfares always be set so that it's cheaper
:>for a
:>> :>family to fly than to drive, thus helping keep kids of all ages more
:>safe?
:>> Not unless the government becomes much more democratic^W communist. And in
:>> that case the planes manufactured would be less safe.
>
:>> :>Amtrak is heavily subsidized (or is it owned by the Feds?). Rail travel
:>is
:>> :>more safe than driving. Are Amtrak fares less for a family of four than
:>> :>driving?
:>> Looking from the perspective of those who think that anything west of
:>> Philadelphia is on the west coast Amtrak might be a good option. I
:>understand
:>> that it is competitive with airplanes on the eastern seaboard.
:>> For most of the USA, however, Amtrak does not go to much.
:>From Chicago it goes to both coasts and south ("on the train they call The
:>City of New Orleans") as well as most towns of any size in between. Yet
:>nearly everyone I know puts driving ahead of the train even when the train
:>goes to their destination.
The train meanders in all directions?
I assume connections would be required, which considering the speed
disadvantage would make trips take much longer.
:>> :>I also have a problem with logic that says that price is the most
:>> It is A factor.
Huh?
If flying with all the other arrangements is more expensive they will not fly!
There are borderline cases where flying with a lap baby will be cheaper and
safer to the baby than driving.
there are other cases where even with buying a seat it would be cheaper and
other cases even without the seat it will cost more.
Mary Shafer
<AnnyM...@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> You seem to think that the role of the FAA is to improve safety of all
> people regardless of mode of transportation. Of course, this is untrue.
> The fact that pricing air transportation out of the range of some customers
> causes more highway deaths is a moot point, since the role of the FAA is to
> ensure safety on airplanes alone.
The FAA is not an independent agency. It's part of DOT, Department of
Transportation. As such, it's required to consider transportation in
general, not just in aircraft. Also, the FAA's role includes ensuring
safety not on airplanes, too. Otherwise TFOA wouldn't be such an
issue and terminal setbacks from runways wouldn't have the Burbank
Airport folks in such a tizzy.
By the way, this NPRM elicited an incredible amount of public comment
and response. FAA had to hold hearings all over the country to
satisfy the requirement for hearing comments from the general public,
in addition to the industry. And the airlines were all for requiring
seats for laps. So were many consumer groups. However, it was CSPB
that produced the numbers on driving versus flying when cost became an
issue.
Mary
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rule Making, published in the Federal
Register
TFOA--USN acronym for Things Falling Off Aircraft
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
mil...@qnet.com
"Turn to kill, not to engage." LCDR Willie Driscoll, USN
Anny Middon
>
> By the way, this NPRM elicited an incredible amount of public comment
> and response. FAA had to hold hearings all over the country to
> satisfy the requirement for hearing comments from the general public,
> in addition to the industry. And the airlines were all for requiring
> seats for laps. So were many consumer groups. However, it was CSPB
> that produced the numbers on driving versus flying when cost became an
> issue.
Question: How many people fly that would drive except for the fact that
they don't have to buy a ticket for their infant/toddler?
An estimate would be to look at the number of people who fly with lap babies
as a percent of the population with infants under the age of 2 versus those
who fly with older toddlers with paid seats as a percent of that population.
This of course is an inflated number since I'll bet there are some people
who don't buy a seat for the infant that would buy one if required to do so.
As always, it comes down to economics, and those who state that there is no
amount too high to pay if it saves the life of just one baby are liars. The
airlines pay an opportunity cost for those lap babies to the extent that
their revenues would increase for every lap baby whose parent would
otherwise buy it a seat. What is this cost per baby whose life is saved?
Anny
Mary Shafer
Airplane accidents themselves are too uncommon to use the usual
statistical methods. Children dying in aircraft accidents is even
more uncommon. There is no valid statistical model that will answer
your question.
You should be aware that economic decisions are frequently nonlinear,
too.
However, many people testified, during the hearings on the NPRM, that
they would, indeed, drive rather than fly if they had to buy seats for
under-twos.
Mary
SoCalMike
> You know, I've questioned the wisdom of that, too. What's the big deal
> about putting in some seat belts? I'll bet driving the bus is a more
> pleasant experience if the tykes are belted in, too.
40 kids with loose metal buckles and straps? perfect for swinging around and
clocking other kids in the face.
maybe some kind of pull down harness, like on a roller coaster would be
better, but it would cost way too much money, and might be a hindrance to
rescue efforts after an accident, especially if they jammed shut.
SoCalMike
> I received a very minor injury (a cut on my knee which shows a scar to
this
> day) when my school bus hit a car. This was in high school. No one was
> standing in the aisle, but I suspect anyone who had been might have been
> injured.
whch is why school buses use thickly padded, high backed seats. it
compartmentalizes the lil sprogs
Erich
"Anny Middon" <AnnyM...@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> "Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
> news:d7hjfvkjjm55qt6i5...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:24:08 GMT "Anny Middon"
> > <AnnyM...@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > :>I have seen a parent struggle mightily to keep a toddler in her
> > :>lap during landing. I'm sure in some cases Mom or Dad loses the
> > :>struggle and Junior runs down the aisle. This can't be safe.
> >
> > If the kid was merely running down the aisle, there isn't really
> > that bad plane movement.
> >
> > If the kid was hurtling down the aisle .......
>
> If it's not a safety issue for someone, even a small child, to run
> down the aisle during the approach for landing, why is everyone,
> including the flight attendants, required to be seated and belted?
One time when I was leaving Chicago, a kid panicked just as we started
down the runway for takeoff. He got out of his seat and started
running toward the back of the plane. His father got up and chased
him. The flight attendant grabbed the intercom and yelled "passengers
in the isle". The pilot aborted the takeoff. The kid was probably
four or five years old. A toddler would have been easier to catch.
We ended up at the back of the line to take off. About an hour later
we were ready to go again. The guy across the isle from me keeps
yacking on his cell phone. The flight attendant tells him to turn it
off, but he ignores her. After the forth reminder, just before we
will have to abort again, he finally puts it away. A few more seconds
and we would have had to abort again. I was rather disappointed that
they didn't have him arrested when we got off the plane.
It really points out the problem of big airliners. With a thousand
passengers, they will never get all the luggage stowed, everyone seated
and the cell phones turned off. The planes will never leave the ground.
... Erich
Joe Shimkus
Erich <oet...@qwest.net> wrote:
> It really points out the problem of big airliners. With a thousand
> passengers, they will never get all the luggage stowed, everyone seated
> and the cell phones turned off. The planes will never leave the ground.
And we will call them buses and it will be good.
--
PGP Key (DH/DSS): http://www.shimkus.com/public_key.asc
PGP Fingerprint: 89B4 52DA CF10 EE03 02AD 9134 21C6 2A68 CE52 EE1A
Carl Fink
wrote:
> Airplane accidents themselves are too uncommon to use the usual
> statistical methods. Children dying in aircraft accidents is even
> more uncommon. There is no valid statistical model that will answer
> your question.
I point out that Anny is making the unproven and doubtful assumption
that lap kids are killed or injured significantly more often than if
they were belted and in a separate seat.
--
Carl Fink ca...@fink.to
Jabootu's Minister of Proofreading
http://www.jabootu.com
ctc...@hotmail.com
> >
> >From: Binyamin Dissen post...@dissensoftware.com
>
> >Well, perhaps every family does not have the disposable income that your
> >family has?
> >
> >for the children?
> >
>
> more danger then a loose baby in a 747.
Perhaps you should start a separate thread to discuss your mental defects.
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service New Rate! $9.95/Month 50GB
ctc...@hotmail.com
>
> The FAA is not an independent agency. It's part of DOT, Department of
> Transportation. As such, it's required to consider transportation in
> general, not just in aircraft. Also, the FAA's role includes ensuring
> safety not on airplanes, too. Otherwise TFOA wouldn't be such an
> issue and terminal setbacks from runways wouldn't have the Burbank
> Airport folks in such a tizzy.
Unless you happen to be in the WTC or the pentagon, how big of an
issue is TFOA? I few years ago I read basically the entire FAA/NTSB
incidence database, and didn't see a single injury or death caused
by TFOA (while the planes were in the air.) Of course, that may
just reflect the preventative success of making it a big issue
Xho
> TFOA--USN acronym for Things Falling Off Aircraft
--
Blinky the Shark
> It really points out the problem of big airliners. With a thousand
> passengers, they will never get all the luggage stowed, everyone seated
> and the cell phones turned off. The planes will never leave the ground.
At least we won't have to argue whether babies or briefcases are more
dangerous projectiles.
ctc...@hotmail.com
> The airlines pay an opportunity cost for those lap babies to the
> extent that their revenues would increase for every lap baby whose parent
> would otherwise buy it a seat.
Unless they get an opportunity gain for those lap babies to the extent
that they get revenue from the parents tickets who otherwise might not
fly anyway.
> What is this cost per baby whose life is
> saved?
Why do you think it's a cost and not a gain to the airlines?
Xho
Mary Shafer
> mil...@qnet.com wrote:
> >
> > The FAA is not an independent agency. It's part of DOT, Department of
> > Transportation. As such, it's required to consider transportation in
> > general, not just in aircraft. Also, the FAA's role includes ensuring
> > safety not on airplanes, too. Otherwise TFOA wouldn't be such an
> > issue and terminal setbacks from runways wouldn't have the Burbank
> > Airport folks in such a tizzy.
>
> Unless you happen to be in the WTC or the pentagon, how big of an
> issue is TFOA? I few years ago I read basically the entire FAA/NTSB
> incidence database, and didn't see a single injury or death caused
> by TFOA (while the planes were in the air.) Of course, that may
> just reflect the preventative success of making it a big issue
I read, every now and then, about TFOA that went through someone's
roof on the approach path into LAX, but, as you say, there aren't many
injuries or deaths from civil TFOA. It's the low density of housing,
particularly SFDs, again.[1] Concorde sheds rudder panels, by the
way.
To be honest, it was the first thing I thought of as a cause of injury
or death on the ground from an airplane, mostly because I was reading
an old, old article about a bomb falling off a USN strike plane and
injuring the occupant of a car. Only strike a/c aren't regulated by
the FAA (the FAA can only regulate private aviation and passenger
operations by public agencies, which doesn't include light attack a/c
like A-4s and A-7s), so this wasn't really a great example.
> > TFOA--USN acronym for Things Falling Off Aircraft
Mary "we lost the YF-12 ventral over the ocean--we think"
[1] Not that this is fool-proof. When Karl-Heinz shelled out of the
X-31 and it crashed in the Mojave just off base, one piece of the
wreckage ended up leaning against a house in the middle of nowhere
(North Edwards). The house happened to belong to the woman operating
the DFRC long-range optics, tracking the X-31 flight. Her nearest
neighbor was a mile or so away. The LRO has the usual telephoto-lens
foreshortening, so it looked as if the airplane was going to crash
into her house but it crashed about a quarter-mile short. She was
kind of shaken by this, but it happened so fast she really didn't have
a chance to get upset before it was over. I don't think any aircraft
from Edwards (military or NASA) have ever hit anyone or any
structures, although we've dropped at least one vehicle into an
alfalfa field and had to pay for that cutting of hay. Horses don't do
well on a diet of alfalfa hay mixed with fiberglass, aluminum, jet
engine, and instrumentation shreds.
StarChaser Tyger
>On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:42:31 GMT "Anny Middon" <AnnyM...@hotNOSPAMmail.com>
>wrote:
>:>From Chicago it goes to both coasts and south ("on the train they call The
>:>City of New Orleans") as well as most towns of any size in between. Yet
>:>nearly everyone I know puts driving ahead of the train even when the train
>:>goes to their destination.
>The train meanders in all directions?
No, but sometimes you can't get there from here. I was looking into a
train to move to CA a while back, as a more comfortable way for the
cats, and when I searched for a trip, there was no way to get from
Florida to California, at all.
--
Visit the Furry Artist InFURmation Page! Contact information, which artists
do and don't want their work posted. http://web.tampabay.rr.com/starchsr/
Address no longer munged for the inconvenience of spammers.
(Yes, this really is me.)
StarChaser Tyger
>In article <oetting-2E79E4...@news.uswest.net>,
> Erich <oet...@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>> It really points out the problem of big airliners. With a thousand
>> passengers, they will never get all the luggage stowed, everyone seated
>> and the cell phones turned off. The planes will never leave the ground.
>
>
>And we will call them buses and it will be good.
And each lane will be 200 feet wide...
Anny Middon
>
> Airplane accidents themselves are too uncommon to use the usual
> statistical methods. Children dying in aircraft accidents is even
> more uncommon. There is no valid statistical model that will answer
> your question.
Another question: What method do they use to assess the safety of any of
the regulations? If airplane accidents are very uncommon (which they are)
and most often everyone onboard the aircraft dies in an accident (which I
presume is the case), then why do seatbacks have to be in the upright and
locked position and tray tables stowed? I understand the
seated-with-seatbelts part, since a sudden movement of the aircraft, which
may happen during takeoff and landing, could easily cause someone standing
to be knocked down, or to be knock out of their seat. But why the
prohibition on seat reclining and tray table use?
> You should be aware that economic decisions are frequently nonlinear,
> too.
>
> However, many people testified, during the hearings on the NPRM, that
> they would, indeed, drive rather than fly if they had to buy seats for
> under-twos.
There is often a fairly large gap between what people say they will do in a
certain situation and what they actually do when that situation occurs.
Regardless of how likely deaths are, it should be possible to get an
estimate of how many would drive instead of fly if lap babies are
disallowed. The DOT either has or can get statistics on how many families
with children over the age of two travel long distances by car. Likewise
for children under two. Likewise for those who do air travel with both age
ranges. Likewise for those who have lap babies versus those who buy seats.
It ought to be possible then to do some statistical modelling to estimate
what the effect of a No Lap Baby rule would be.
The thing is, I keep thinking that for a variety of reasons the No Lap Baby
rule would have a trivial effect on the number of children travelling by car
for long distances versus by plane.
BTW, has anyone claimed that the recent decrease in allowable weight for
baggage has caused the death of kiddies since it has raised the cost of air
travel (through excess baggage charges) of some with lap babies?
Anny
Jerry Bauer
(in message <o4alfvgbn3dq07vqr...@4ax.com>):
> Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:42:31 GMT "Anny Middon"
>> <AnnyM...@hotNOSPAMmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>>> From Chicago it goes to both coasts and south ("on the train they call
>>>> The
>>>> City of New Orleans") as well as most towns of any size in between. Yet
>>>> nearly everyone I know puts driving ahead of the train even when the
>>>> train
>>>> goes to their destination.
>
>> The train meanders in all directions?
>
> No, but sometimes you can't get there from here. I was looking into a
> train to move to CA a while back, as a more comfortable way for the
> cats, and when I searched for a trip, there was no way to get from
> Florida to California, at all.
>
That's odd. My wife takes the Amtrak Sunset Limited between CA and
FL at least once a year, and has been doing so for two decades.
--
Jerry Randal Bauer
Lots42 The Library Avenger
>although we've dropped at least one vehicle into an
>alfalfa field and had to pay for that cutting of hay. Horses don't do
>well on a diet of alfalfa hay mixed with fiberglass, aluminum, jet
>engine, and instrumentation shreds.
Except for the Borg horses. They'll eat anything!
Tony
Subsistence is futile!
Tony
Pay less on your debts
Have better credit
Refer a few others and make serious money
http://www.kestlewealth.com
Mary Shafer
<AnnyM...@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> Another question: What method do they use to assess the safety of any of
> the regulations? If airplane accidents are very uncommon (which they are)
> and most often everyone onboard the aircraft dies in an accident (which I
> presume is the case), then why do seatbacks have to be in the upright and
> locked position and tray tables stowed? I understand the
> seated-with-seatbelts part, since a sudden movement of the aircraft, which
> may happen during takeoff and landing, could easily cause someone standing
> to be knocked down, or to be knock out of their seat. But why the
> prohibition on seat reclining and tray table use?
That's incredibly obvious. They block the exit of people in the
window and middle seats during an evacuation. Haven't you ever tried
to get out of a window seat to go to the restroom when everyone in the
row in front of you is reclining or the folks in your row are using
their tray tables?
There's probably a secondary benefit that having the seat upright
reduces submarining and having the tray table stowed prevents pivoting
around the lap belt and hitting it with your face. Same idea as not
riding in a car with the seat reclined, which the owner's manual
forbids.
Keeping the evacuation paths clear the same reason carry-ons go under
the seat in front of you. It keeps them out from underfoot so the
folks who didn't get an aisle seat don't end up as crispy critters.
Why at takeoff and landing? Because that's when survivable accidents,
for which rapid evacuation is effective, happen. Accidents that
happen at other times, like CFIT and mid-airs, are usually not
survivable and a clear escape path is irrelevant.
N Jill Marsh
<use...@bauerstar.com>wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 1:03:29 -0700, StarChaser Tyger wrote
>(in message <o4alfvgbn3dq07vqr...@4ax.com>):
>>
>> No, but sometimes you can't get there from here. I was looking into a
>> train to move to CA a while back, as a more comfortable way for the
>> cats, and when I searched for a trip, there was no way to get from
>> Florida to California, at all.
>>
>That's odd. My wife takes the Amtrak Sunset Limited between CA and
>FL at least once a year, and has been doing so for two decades.
Just out of interest, how long does a trip like that take, and about
how much would it run a person?
nj"choo-choo-ch-boogie"m
"It can do that because compassion is bottomless."
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 8:16:28 -0700, Jerry Bauer
><use...@bauerstar.com>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 1:03:29 -0700, StarChaser Tyger wrote
>>(in message <o4alfvgbn3dq07vqr...@4ax.com>):
>>>
>>> No, but sometimes you can't get there from here. I was looking into a
>>> train to move to CA a while back, as a more comfortable way for the
>>> cats, and when I searched for a trip, there was no way to get from
>>> Florida to California, at all.
>>>
>>That's odd. My wife takes the Amtrak Sunset Limited between CA and
>>FL at least once a year, and has been doing so for two decades.
>
>Just out of interest, how long does a trip like that take, and about
>how much would it run a person?
>
My sister & BIL went round trip from Ann Arbor to SF by train last
month, as my BIL will not fly. I cannot tell you the amount, though it
was not vastly cheaper than air, as I recall, but they did not have a
good time at all. The accomodations were most unpleasant, though they
said the service weas tolerable & decent on the way out & horrific on
the return.
3 days, 2 nights...the train was so late coming back that they almost
missed their connection in Chicago on the way back (their bags did).
There should have been several hours leeway.
Boron
A cult of no
>40 kids with loose metal buckles and straps? perfect for swinging around and
>clocking other kids in the face.
well, and only 13 kids apparently die each year in school bus accidents as a
result of something a seat belt would help, or so I read.
Plus, fitting out the nation's school buses sure wouldn't be free, and that's
money that wouldn't get spent on something else.
--
."Besides invading other people's countries, and forcing them to do whatever he
said, Alexander the Great was famous for something called the Gordian Knot."
Carl Fink
wrote:
> ... The accomodations were most unpleasant, though they said the
> service weas tolerable & decent on the way out & horrific on the
> return ...
Just a differing experience (on a different train) but I highly
recommend the train for NYC-Washington DC trips. The Acela is great,
and in effect faster than flying. Even the regular "coach" class
trains, which take longer, are preferable to the planes, at least if
you (like me) appreciate more elbow room.
broutez pas l'Edith Cresson@billdiamond.com Ne broutez pas le cresson, particulièrement Edith
stage as Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com>, wrote in alt.fan.cecil-adams
back on Fri, 27 Jun 2003 02:27:23 +0000 (UTC) that ...
>In article <rd7nfvoatjlbb8f5u...@4ax.com>, Boron Elgar
>wrote:
>
>> ... The accomodations were most unpleasant, though they said the
>> service weas tolerable & decent on the way out & horrific on the
>> return ...
>
>Just a differing experience (on a different train) but I highly
>recommend the train for NYC-Washington DC trips. The Acela is great,
>and in effect faster than flying. Even the regular "coach" class
>trains, which take longer, are preferable to the planes, at least if
>you (like me) appreciate more elbow room.
You were out here and you didn't let me know? Carl, I'm wounded.
The Acela is my favorite way to travel.
Bill
-----
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
incandescent blue
> In article <rd7nfvoatjlbb8f5u...@4ax.com>, Boron Elgar
> wrote:
>
>> ... The accomodations were most unpleasant, though they said the
>> service weas tolerable & decent on the way out & horrific on the
>> return ...
>
> Just a differing experience (on a different train) but I highly
> recommend the train for NYC-Washington DC trips. The Acela is great,
> and in effect faster than flying. Even the regular "coach" class
> trains, which take longer, are preferable to the planes, at least if
> you (like me) appreciate more elbow room.
I've not yet tried the Acela trains, or longer-haul sleeper car
travel, but I've taken plain ol' Amtrak from Philly to New York City,
D.C. to Philly, and Philly to Pittsburgh. Even the busy Philly-NYC
commuter line was, to my tastes, more pleasant than flying -- a bit
roomier, none of the hassles and delays of airport security, etc.;
the roominess was particularly appreciated the time I was hobbling
around in a full leg cast. I'm short and small enough to fit OK into
the cramped airline coach seats, but I don't particularly *enjoy*
that sardine-in-a-can feeling -- I shudder to think how much more
unpleasant it must be for very tall or large folks. Coach-class train
seating isn't luxuriously spacious or anything, but it's still
noticeably roomier than airline seating of the same grade.
The Philly-Pittsburgh run also had the added bonus of some very
interesting scenery along the way. I'd brought lots of books and
music, but actually spent a fair bit of the trip just staring out
the window at everything.
--
They told me to think and forget what I'd heard
They told me to lie and then questioned my word
They taught me to fail, better sink than sail
Just play the game... -- Richard Thompson, "Can't Win"
Jim Ellwanger
Bauer <use...@bauerstar.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 1:03:29 -0700, StarChaser Tyger wrote
> (in message <o4alfvgbn3dq07vqr...@4ax.com>):
>
> > No, but sometimes you can't get there from here. I was looking into a
> > train to move to CA a while back, as a more comfortable way for the
> > cats, and when I searched for a trip, there was no way to get from
> > Florida to California, at all.
>
> That's odd. My wife takes the Amtrak Sunset Limited between CA and
> FL at least once a year, and has been doing so for two decades.
I assume the problem is with Amtrak's web site...since the Sunset
Limited only runs three days a week, if you plug in a date on which it
does not run, the web site will sometimes show you a trip involving
three trains, connecting in Chicago and Washington, D.C., and sometimes
it will show you that no train exists.
Unfortunately, the other problem here, if we're talking about
transporting cats, is that the only animals allowed on Amtrak trains
are service animals.
Last year, I took the train from L.A. to San Francisco, spent a few
days there, then went from S.F. to Chicago via Portland, spent a few
days in Chicago, and then took the train back to L.A. Total time spent
on the train, if I'm adding and figuring the time zones correctly, was
128 hours (5 days plus 8 hours), although that's including the
Portland-Chicago train being about two hours late and the Chicago-L.A.
train being about five hours late.
It was a great trip, and I highly recommend it, although when I tell
people how much I paid to be in a sleeping car for the whole trip, they
tend to gasp.
--
Jim Ellwanger <trai...@mindspring.com>
<http://trainman1.home.mindspring.com> welcomes you daily.
"The days turn into nights; at night, you hear the trains."
Jerry Bauer
(in message <2o0nfvo54g65bqq96...@4ax.com>):
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 8:16:28 -0700, Jerry Bauer
> <use...@bauerstar.com>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 1:03:29 -0700, StarChaser Tyger wrote
>> (in message <o4alfvgbn3dq07vqr...@4ax.com>):
>>>
>>> No, but sometimes you can't get there from here. I was looking into a
>>> train to move to CA a while back, as a more comfortable way for the
>>> cats, and when I searched for a trip, there was no way to get from
>>> Florida to California, at all.
>>>
>> That's odd. My wife takes the Amtrak Sunset Limited between CA and
>> FL at least once a year, and has been doing so for two decades.
>
> Just out of interest, how long does a trip like that take, and about
> how much would it run a person?
Mi esposa travels first-class, which means a roomette and all meals
are included. It is three days, two nights, and costs $1200 or so.
She does this because she hates flying -- a combination of fear and
revulsion, really -- and because she loves trains. That, and she has
family in Florida and South Georgia, but she lives in California.
I've made several long-distance train trips, and it is a very
pleasant way to travel. However, to enjoy it, one must not be in a
hurry.
In fact, in about a week-and-a-half, we're embarking on a rail
odyssey -- to an air museum, among other places.
--
Jerry Randal Bauer
StarChaser Tyger
> But why the
>prohibition on seat reclining and tray table use?
Block the escape routes. If someone's seat is leaning back and something
happens, the person behind them might not be able to get out.
StarChaser Tyger
Hm. It was a while ago, but when I searched from here to there, an area
from Orange County to LAX, it said there were no possible routes, in
just those words.
StarChaser Tyger
>My sister & BIL went round trip from Ann Arbor to SF by train last
>month, as my BIL will not fly. I cannot tell you the amount, though it
>was not vastly cheaper than air, as I recall, but they did not have a
>good time at all.
When I did find a train going where I wanted once <a different search>,
it was three days and ten dollars MORE than the equivalent plane ticket.
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>In article <rd7nfvoatjlbb8f5u...@4ax.com>, Boron Elgar
>wrote:
>
>> ... The accomodations were most unpleasant, though they said the
>> service weas tolerable & decent on the way out & horrific on the
>> return ...
>
>Just a differing experience (on a different train) but I highly
>recommend the train for NYC-Washington DC trips. The Acela is great,
>and in effect faster than flying. Even the regular "coach" class
>trains, which take longer, are preferable to the planes, at least if
>you (like me) appreciate more elbow room.
That is not the same kind of train ride. Acela is peachy. And the
Bos-Wash corridor trips are cash cows & spruced up for the business
runs. The long haul, overnighters are in often in bad shape. SOme of
the travel cars are in good repair, but many are way past the time for
them to be re-furbished & there is no profit it there to do so.
I have traveled extensively in Europe on trains & certainly much less
so on comparable length trips in the US, but the little I have done
here & my sister's recent experiences don't make me too excited to do
it again.
There is a a good size group of train travel devotees who adore it,
though, and will travel no other way. We have train buffs here (Tank,
I believe, is one) who probably know more about it all than I.
Boron
N Jill Marsh
<boron...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:41:54 -0400, N Jill Marsh <njm...@storm.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>Just out of interest, how long does a trip like that take, and about
>>how much would it run a person?
>>
>My sister & BIL went round trip from Ann Arbor to SF by train last
>month, as my BIL will not fly. I cannot tell you the amount, though it
>was not vastly cheaper than air, as I recall, but they did not have a
>good time at all. The accomodations were most unpleasant, though they
>said the service weas tolerable & decent on the way out & horrific on
>the return.
I have cousins who take the Vancouver-Toronto route every summer.
They figure it's much more pleasant than driving with a toddler, it's
cheaper than flying (though not incredibly so, but considering), and
their reports of service & accomodations are very good.
Delays can be a problem, though, as an hour here and there can
snowball into something huge.
nj"Polar Bear Express!"m
N Jill Marsh
<use...@bauerstar.com>wrote:
>Mi esposa travels first-class, which means a roomette and all meals
>are included. It is three days, two nights, and costs $1200 or so.
That's not all that bad, if one considers the whole package.
>I've made several long-distance train trips, and it is a very
>pleasant way to travel. However, to enjoy it, one must not be in a
>hurry.
I like trains well enough that I happily use them as a travel option,
but I've never done a long distance trip. It sounds intriguing.
>In fact, in about a week-and-a-half, we're embarking on a rail
>odyssey -- to an air museum, among other places.
Bon voyage.
nj"then again, if my next door roomie looked like Ray Walston , I'd
scream"m
Lots42 The Library Avenger
>When I did find a train going where I wanted once ,
>it was three days and ten dollars MORE than the equivalent plane ticket.
Way I figure it, it's harder for a train to get over-booked or delayed or stuck
in another state due to bad weather...
Carl Fink
I've been flying for over 30 years. I have never been delayed THREE
DAYS by any of those problems.
Carl Fink
incandescent blue wrote:
> ... Coach-class train seating isn't luxuriously spacious or
> anything, but it's still noticeably roomier than airline seating of
> the same grade.
Something I didn't mention: the train *smells* better than a plane.
I've never been able to smell the train lavatory from my seat, which
unfortunately I can't say about aircraft.
Mind you, for a trip to California I'd pick a plane.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
>> ... The accomodations were most unpleasant, though they said the
>> service weas tolerable & decent on the way out & horrific on the
>> return ...
> Just a differing experience (on a different train) but I highly
> recommend the train for NYC-Washington DC trips. The Acela is great,
> and in effect faster than flying. Even the regular "coach" class
> trains, which take longer, are preferable to the planes, at least if
> you (like me) appreciate more elbow room.
And yet another experience. I really don't care for the trains on the
North East corridor, but trains going on the rest of the country are
wonderfull. They have varying degrees of cleanlieness and service and are
definely prone to tardyness (they usually do have several hours planed
between connections, but sometimes they use even that generous amount up.)
You can go coach, which is competitive with the bus, provides you with
more room and a snack lounge pluss more abailty to walk about.
Or, far prefered, you can go sleeper, which is somewhat cheaper than
airfare, provides you with a stateroom with a door you can close for
privacy, free drinks, free meals in the dining cars and so on.
If I had my druthers I'd only travel by Train in sleeper accomodations.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.