On Southwest, size does matter
Christopher Elliott
Airlines. The no-frills carrier last week began enforcing a rule that
compels overweight customers to buy a second ticket if they can't fit in the
standard 18 3/4-inch-wide seats. But it turns out the airline is obsessed
with size - and has been for a long time.
Details at http://www.elliott.org/vault/oped/2002/fat.htm
j...@obilivan.net
won't be compromised by some fatass, smelly, obese obsessive overeather.
wc
I am a very large man. I am 6'5" and weigh 245. I always buy two
seats
on any airline. At times, I have to fight for them, and have even had
to
have the Captain back to settle the matter, after buying and paying for
two seats *side by side* one idiot of a FA wanted to give me my second
seat near the tail, and me keep the one I was sitting in (over the
wing).
In short, I agree with the airline. Why shouldn't I be comfortable?
Why
should a passenger who weighs 175 or less be uncomfortable because of
me?
They should not. They should not be squeezed by me, or me by them.
wc
"joe" wrote:
>>Now, my
rights to my space
won't be compromised by some fatass, smelly, obese obsessive
overeather.<<
joe, I'm none of the above . . . I am a big man, and I buy two seats,
always. I would not have the likes of you sitting beside me if I
purchased the entire row . . . you asshole.
r_a_rippy
"Christopher Elliott" <chris...@pleasenospamelliott.org> wrote in message
news:aevdb0$oe1$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...
Do you even bother to read this newsgroup? We've discussed this topic
several times already, and you have contributed nothing. You're looking
more and more like a spammer.
Miguel Cruz
> "Christopher Elliott" <chris...@pleasenospamelliott.org> wrote:
>> Oversize airline passengers, meet your dietician. Its name is Southwest
>> Airlines. The no-frills carrier last week began enforcing a rule that
>> compels overweight customers to buy a second ticket if they can't fit in
>> the standard 18 3/4-inch-wide seats. But it turns out the airline is
>> obsessed with size - and has been for a long time.
>>
>> Details at http://www.elliott.org/vault/oped/2002/fat.htm
>
> Do you even bother to read this newsgroup? We've discussed this topic
> several times already, and you have contributed nothing. You're looking
> more and more like a spammer.
If I didn't know better, I'd say his M.O. was to read the newsgroup to get a
sense of the zeitgeist, go back and write a column about it, and then post a
link to the column as if he uncovered the issue in the first place.
Don't get me wrong - forums like this are a great place for story ideas, but
it's a little silly to keep alerting people to things they already know.
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
New mini photo-feature: Life in DC: http://travel.u.nu/dc/
Christopher Elliott
to the analysis and commentary in order to get feedback from group members.
It's not spam or rehashed news. In fact, most of my posts are eventually
published as op-eds in newspapers.
"Miguel Cruz" <m...@admin.u.nu> wrote in message
news:RJJQ8.5267$5k6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Wendy Chatley Green
<chris...@pleasenospamelliott.org> wrote:
:True, I cover many of the issues discussed in this group. But I post links
:to the analysis and commentary in order to get feedback from group members.
:It's not spam or rehashed news. In fact, most of my posts are eventually
:published as op-eds in newspapers.
Which newspaper?
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@cris.com
Miguel Cruz
> True, I cover many of the issues discussed in this group. But I post links
> to the analysis and commentary in order to get feedback from group
> members. It's not spam or rehashed news. In fact, most of my posts are
> eventually published as op-eds in newspapers.
Get this one published and I'll be impressed!
BobJackson
"wc" <w...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3D13547D...@worldnet.att.net...
Joe (Blow) isn't the most poetic, but I too can't stand be rubbed
("compromised) by an over-flowing passenger. You "wc" are uncommonly
considerate (and wealthy).
Joe (Blow) in his excitment included a second loosely-related issue. And
that is the issue of passenger smelliness. I hate it when a passenger next
to me imposes on me with shit-breath. This hasn't a thing to do with their
largeness. And when they blow their shit-breath on me and I need to fart, I
let my chewy bowel gas out without hesitation or shame.
Christopher Elliott
they even get published. You can find a list of this year's commentaries at
http://www.elliott.org/vault/oped/index.html
I have a confession to make: I get more thrills out of being on this
newsgroup than having my op-eds published in a high-circulation paper.
Something about the "anything-goes" nature of these forums that's so cool.
You know, the immediate feedback.
Yeah, there are a couple of whackos that love to flame me every time I post
something, but that comes with the territory.
"Wendy Chatley Green" <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3r07huo5lbhjmnd68...@4ax.com...
wc
>>Joe (Blow) in his excitment included a second
loosely related issue. And
that is the issue of passenger smelliness.<<
Even I have to agree with asshole Joe . . . but I'll go a different
direction. How about some Las Vegas Whore reeking of Tabu? How about
some drugstore cowboy who has bathed in Polo (instead of showering?)?
I don't appreciate second hand perfume. Nobody should wear a perfume,
cologne, or after shave that is patently obviously to someone else,
unless you are going to be intimate with them. I don't screw on
airliners, the myth of the mile high club notwithstanding. So, don't
come near me with your Walgreen smell good. You smell damned bad, to
this big MFer. Not
git outta here, and go eat your damned peanuts.
j...@obilivan.net
I am happy you will buy two seats. You, sir, are a very rare exception.
Most fatassholes expect the airline to kiss their giant asses.
And, if you bought two seats and I were in the third seat, how would you
know to reject me?
necigrad
"Christopher Elliott" <chris...@pleasenospamelliott.org> wrote in message
news:aevdb0$oe1$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...
Lou Minatti®
>
> Oversize airline passengers, meet your dietician. Its name is Southwest
> Airlines. The no-frills carrier last week began enforcing a rule that
> compels overweight customers to buy a second ticket if they can't fit in the
> standard 18 3/4-inch-wide seats. But it turns out the airline is obsessed
> with size - and has been for a long time.
I saw a workable solution mentioned in a local paper today - perhaps the
airlines should maintain one row or half of a row of seats just for
fatties*. For instance, on a 737 with 3x3 rows, have one row as 2x3 or
2x2. If no fatties take those seats, primo for standby flyers. If
fatties do take those seats, everyone on the plane will be much more
comfortable.
*Unlike some, I refuse to blame obesity on "disease" or "big bones" or
"glands". For the vast majority of fatties, obesity is the result of a
bad diet and lack of exercise. It can be controlled. Smokers adjusted,
so can fatties.
--
Freeze, gopher!
http://www.watchingyou.com
mrtravel
"Lou MinattiŽ" wrote:
> I saw a workable solution mentioned in a local paper today - perhaps the
> airlines should maintain one row or half of a row of seats just for
> fatties*. For instance, on a 737 with 3x3 rows, have one row as 2x3 or
> 2x2. If no fatties take those seats, primo for standby flyers. If
> fatties do take those seats, everyone on the plane will be much more
> comfortable.
Sure, and Ford can give free large cars to people that can sit in small ones
Adam Weiss
The thing is that coach seats are so small that you don't really have to
be huge to overflow one of them.
I remember being on a flight thinking, for four hours, "God, this guy
beside me is FAT!" When we stood up to deplane, I was shocked to find
that while he was a big guy, stocky, he certainly was not the morbidly
obese person I'd thought he was throughout the flight.
As a member of the building community, I work for an architect, I often
question the people who design the seating layouts in those planes. Are
they all idiots who don't know what Graphics Standards is and have never
seen a properly designed chair? Are they all sick with eating disorders
and do they all have such a twisted notion of beauty that they think 5'6
and 75 pounds is goregous?
I ask these questions when I'm stuck in a crowded plane for 2 or more
hours with my legs cramped and someone whose legs are also cramped
kicking my seat. When I'm grounded I can usually convince myself that
the airlines have such tiny seats because the more seats they can cram
like sardines onto a plane the more passengers they can fit on that
plane, and the more passengers they can fit on the plane the more money
they make with the flight.
--
Adam Weiss
--
"What a trip. Is this really happening?"
"No my friend. It's a crazy cocktail of Franz Kafka and Mark Twain"
Miguel Cruz
> I saw a workable solution mentioned in a local paper today - perhaps the
> airlines should maintain one row or half of a row of seats just for
> fatties*. For instance, on a 737 with 3x3 rows, have one row as 2x3 or
> 2x2. If no fatties take those seats, primo for standby flyers. If
> fatties do take those seats, everyone on the plane will be much more
> comfortable.
Isn't that much the same as domestic business class seating? I'd stuff a
pillow in my shirt for one of those.
necigrad
"Miguel Cruz" <m...@admin.u.nu> wrote in message
news:O7UQ8.6137$5k6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Ken Tough
>Christopher Elliott wrote:
>> Oversize airline passengers, meet your dietician. Its name is Southwest
>> Airlines. The no-frills carrier last week began enforcing a rule that
>> compels overweight customers to buy a second ticket if they can't fit in the
>> standard 18 3/4-inch-wide seats. But it turns out the airline is obsessed
>> with size - and has been for a long time.
>
>I saw a workable solution mentioned in a local paper today - perhaps the
>airlines should maintain one row or half of a row of seats just for
>fatties*. For instance, on a 737 with 3x3 rows, have one row as 2x3 or
>2x2. If no fatties take those seats, primo for standby flyers. If
>fatties do take those seats, everyone on the plane will be much more
>comfortable.
But do you charge more for them, and if not, why wouldn't other
passengers be pissed off that they get more room?
Another option would be to use business class seats with economy
class service and ticketing flexibility. (Yet another kind of
"premium economy"). Makes it simpler by not having to change the
seating configuration, just curtains.
Problem is, what rate do you charge? Biz is usually 4x a restricted
APEX economy (or so). You could charge 2x eco, since they would get
the advantage of more leg room, over buying 2 economy seats. Or,
more likely yet, charge 175% the restricted economy rate and you'll
get many more takers.
And yes, for safety reasons, there should be size restrictions.
--
Ken Tough
Carol
"necigrad" <neci...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uh8gatl...@corp.supernews.com...
> Airlines do offer that. It's called First Class.
>
It's just usually cheaper to book two discount coach seats than it is to get
one first class seat. Given that I never fly alone - always with my
partner, buying an extra seat on Southwest would give us both 'first class
butt space', at just a 50% premium. If we were given that option, we'd use
it every time. Heck, it could make a great marketing tool. Buy two, get
the third seat free! (Instead of the friends fly free deal)
Before this discussion, I figured that even if I booked two seats on
Southwest, they'd make me give up the second seat, because they allowed
stand bys to get on based on a head count, or when you make a stop, they
fill the plane the same way
I wonder if anyone can book two seats, and get the same 'deal'? Why should
someone else be denied the same deal, just because they're not super-sized?
Foo
Christopher Elliott written on it:
> Oversize airline passengers, meet your dietician. Its name is Southwest
> Airlines. The no-frills carrier last week began enforcing a rule that
> compels overweight customers to buy a second ticket if they can't fit in the
> standard 18 3/4-inch-wide seats.
Makes sense. If your fat ass requires coach two seats, then you pay for
two coach seats.
Now if we can only get them to charge extra for screaming babies...
Adam Sowalsky
"Foo" <f...@oo.ar> wrote in message
news:MPG.177e2d18a...@news.alt.net...
Frank Matthews
now have a count of boarding receipts. I assume someone purchasing two
seats will get two receipts.
Frank Matthews
john
On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 01:20:38 GMT, j...@obilivan.net wrote:
>You must have coins and a spirit of consideration (more or less ;-)
>
>I am happy you will buy two seats. You, sir, are a very rare exception.
>Most fatassholes expect the airline to kiss their giant asses.
>
>And, if you bought two seats and I were in the third seat, how would you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>know to reject me?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Probably by your odor, Joe.
John
Ken Tough
>"Miguel Cruz" <m...@admin.u.nu> wrote
>> Lou MinattiŽ <loumi...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> > I saw a workable solution mentioned in a local paper today - perhaps the
>> > airlines should maintain one row or half of a row of seats just for
>> > fatties*. For instance, on a 737 with 3x3 rows, have one row as 2x3 or
>> > 2x2. If no fatties take those seats, primo for standby flyers. If
>> > fatties do take those seats, everyone on the plane will be much more
>> > comfortable.
>>
>> Isn't that much the same as domestic business class seating? I'd stuff a
>> pillow in my shirt for one of those.
>Airlines do offer that. It's called First Class.
Not the same at all. First class is usually hugely improved seating
over business class, which is already infinitely better than economy.
But anyway, there's a whole slew of other junk they pin on top to
make it worth the 8x more you'll pay for first class. Champagne,
feather duvets, sleeping suits, limousine to your door, eat when and
what you want, completely flexible ticket, etc.
What's needed is "bog standard" fixed ticket advance-purchase
economy, just with a much bigger seat. All the other accoutrements
chucked in the bin.
There are "premium economy" style tickets now, but they do offer
additional service things, and not that much better a seat.
Having had this great idea, airlines will probably pick it up
within the next year or so.
--
Ken Tough
Not the Karl Orff
Ken Tough <k...@objectech.co.uk> wrote:
> necigrad <neci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >"Miguel Cruz" <m...@admin.u.nu> wrote
> >> Lou MinattiŽ <loumi...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> > I saw a workable solution mentioned in a local paper today - perhaps the
> >> > airlines should maintain one row or half of a row of seats just for
> >> > fatties*. For instance, on a 737 with 3x3 rows, have one row as 2x3 or
> >> > 2x2. If no fatties take those seats, primo for standby flyers. If
> >> > fatties do take those seats, everyone on the plane will be much more
> >> > comfortable.
> >>
> >> Isn't that much the same as domestic business class seating? I'd stuff a
> >> pillow in my shirt for one of those.
>
> >Airlines do offer that. It's called First Class.
>
> Not the same at all. First class is usually hugely improved seating
> over business class, which is already infinitely better than economy.
> But anyway, there's a whole slew of other junk they pin on top to
> make it worth the 8x more you'll pay for first class. Champagne,
> feather duvets, sleeping suits, limousine to your door, eat when and
> what you want, completely flexible ticket, etc.
We're proverbially comparing apples and oranges. There's economy class
which is mostly standard the worldover. There's First Class in the
U.S. which, in seating terms, is comparable to the standard First Class
worldwide of 20-30 years ago, and there's international first and
business class cabins, which have evolved from the notion of a premium
economy and the old first class products.
> What's needed is "bog standard" fixed ticket advance-purchase
> economy, just with a much bigger seat. All the other accoutrements
> chucked in the bin.
>
> There are "premium economy" style tickets now, but they do offer
> additional service things, and not that much better a seat.
>
> Having had this great idea, airlines will probably pick it up
> within the next year or so.
Maybe on international routes, I doubt you'll see this on short haul
routes. Anyway, only 3 airlines offer such a service right now.
Lou Minatti®
>
> Lou MinattiŽ <loumi...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >Christopher Elliott wrote:
> >> Oversize airline passengers, meet your dietician. Its name is Southwest
> >> Airlines. The no-frills carrier last week began enforcing a rule that
> >> compels overweight customers to buy a second ticket if they can't fit in the
> >> standard 18 3/4-inch-wide seats. But it turns out the airline is obsessed
> >> with size - and has been for a long time.
> >
> >I saw a workable solution mentioned in a local paper today - perhaps the
> >airlines should maintain one row or half of a row of seats just for
> >fatties*. For instance, on a 737 with 3x3 rows, have one row as 2x3 or
> >2x2. If no fatties take those seats, primo for standby flyers. If
> >fatties do take those seats, everyone on the plane will be much more
> >comfortable.
>
> But do you charge more for them, and if not, why wouldn't other
> passengers be pissed off that they get more room?
I wouldn't. Keep those few seats open for fatties only. The other
passengers will be grateful. If the "wide zone only" seats remain open,
they're nice perks for frequent flyers. Sure, fatties would get more
room, but it's not like they'd be riding in first class comfort. They'd
still be squished in there, they just wouldn't spill out on everyone
else. It would be good for just plain big (not fat) guys, too. The
arrangement would improve the comfort for everyone.
Just an idea.
Me
> two coach seats.
>
> Now if we can only get them to charge extra for screaming babies...
Why? I cheap portable CD player and headphones keeps out
noises from crying babies quite nicely.
necigrad
> Now if we can only get them to charge extra for screaming babies...
I agree, but have to ask. Can anyone explain why we all hate crying babies,
even though we may very well have been one on a plane ourselves, or think
our children are behaving, even though they're just as bad as the ones we
bitch about?
alohacyberian
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
Not the Karl Orff <can...@nome.com> wrote in article
<canwine-E7B05E...@news.vf.shawcable.net>...
> In article <ZSSV4XEg...@artslink.co.za>,
> Ken Tough <k...@objectech.co.uk> wrote:
> > necigrad <neci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >"Miguel Cruz" <m...@admin.u.nu> wrote
hook
>
> "Foo" <f...@oo.ar> wrote in message
> news:MPG.177e2d18a...@news.alt.net...
>
> > Now if we can only get them to charge extra for screaming babies...
>
> I agree, but have to ask. Can anyone explain why we all hate crying babies
Are you fucking kidding? Perhaps you enjoy sitting right next to some
brat who cries, yells, and generally causes a huge ruckus for half the
flight.
Amy L. Ashbridge
hook wrote:
And this would be different from some adults, how?
--
"Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable
And lightness has a call that's hard to hear.
I wrap my fear around me like a blanket..."
--Indigo Girls, "Closer to Fine"
Cindy
>
> hook wrote:
>
>
>>Scientists have determined that the Shroud of Turin has these words from
>>necigrad written on it:
>>
>>>"Foo" <f...@oo.ar> wrote in message
>>>news:MPG.177e2d18a...@news.alt.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Now if we can only get them to charge extra for screaming babies...
>>>
>>>I agree, but have to ask. Can anyone explain why we all hate crying babies
>>
>>Are you fucking kidding? Perhaps you enjoy sitting right next to some
>>brat who cries, yells, and generally causes a huge ruckus for half the
>>flight.
>
>
> And this would be different from some adults, how?
>
LOL! Some adults, indeed.
Adam Weiss
Same reason that we all hate people who play their car stereos too loud
(or, those of us who live in apartments, neighbors who play their
stereos loud). We all listen to music, be it classical or speed metal
or anything inbetween. But we don't want to be subjected to other
peoples' music.
That's been the big argument I've come accross when I've suggested "kid
sections" on airplanes. It would seem like a good way to make flights
better for everyone. Families with small children get their own section
in the plane, where the movie is rated 'G' and there are maybe other
special 'kid friendly' perks (coloring books in the seatback pockets
maybe). Individuals, couples, or families with no small children travel
in the main cabin, and they can watch an 'R' movie and not be kept awake
by screaming babies.
But people with kids have flamed me over this. "We don't want -our-
well behaved kids to be near all the riff-raff of unbehaved ones" was
the main jist of their flames.
hook
>
> That's been the big argument I've come accross when I've suggested "kid
> sections" on airplanes. It would seem like a good way to make flights
> better for everyone. Families with small children get their own section
> in the plane, where the movie is rated 'G' and there are maybe other
> special 'kid friendly' perks (coloring books in the seatback pockets
> maybe). Individuals, couples, or families with no small children travel
> in the main cabin, and they can watch an 'R' movie and not be kept awake
> by screaming babies.
Merely moving the screamers to another part of the cabin wouldn't help,
unless it was walled off. Maybe they could put the "kid section" in the
cargo bay.
Paul Tauger
You've asked two questions. Here are two answers:
1. I was never brought on a plane as an infant -- my parents had too much
consideration for other passengers to do something like that. It is a non
sequitur to say, "you were a baby once, too."
The objection is not to the baby -- it's not the baby who has decided to
impose on other passengers by coming on board and crying. It is to the
parent, who has said, "My interest in traveling with my infant supercedes
the interests of all other passengers in flying unmolested." No one in
their right mind would bring a boom box on board and play it at full volume
because they "couldn't be without their music" It's no different when
someone brings a baby on board, particularly when it's a long-haul or, even
worse, a red-eye, flight.
2. Many parents, evidently, seem to think that, while other people's kids
are nuisances, their little angels are so adorable that no one could ever
object to their presence. It is fascinating to me that, whenever this
thread comes up (as it does with dependable regularity), it is always
parents who accuse those of us who object to shrieking babies on planes of
being "child haters," claiming that THEIR child never disturbs anyone.
Just wait for their, "Oh yeah, well waddabout [fill in the blank: loud
businessman on cellphones/obnoxious drunks/window-shade
openers/seat-recliners/non-bathers/overweight people/tall people/people with
carryons]?"
Children have the potential for being tremendous nusiances on board
aircraft. For older children, i.e. those that are capable of understanding
and controlling their behavior, parents who do not keep them under control
should be banned from flying (fortunately, I've heard that airlines are now
refusing to board parents with tantrum-throwing-todllers). Parents who
bring infants on board should recognize that their babies are ticking sonic
timebombs, if they "go off," they are going to be disturbing other
passengers, and give serious thought to whether their desire to travel with
their infant justifies the imposition they are creating for other
passengers.
>
>
hamilton
<D35466B20886D996.DE81A037...@lp.airnews.net>, Adam
Weiss <aw...@blockspam.org> wrote:
> necigrad wrote:
>
> > "Foo" <f...@oo.ar> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.177e2d18a...@news.alt.net...
> >
> >
> >>Now if we can only get them to charge extra for screaming babies...
> >>
> >
> > I agree, but have to ask. Can anyone explain why we all hate crying babies,
> > even though we may very well have been one on a plane ourselves, or think
> > our children are behaving, even though they're just as bad as the ones we
> > bitch about?
> >
> >
> >
>
> Same reason that we all hate people who play their car stereos too loud
> (or, those of us who live in apartments, neighbors who play their
> stereos loud). We all listen to music, be it classical or speed metal
> or anything inbetween. But we don't want to be subjected to other
> peoples' music.
>
>
> That's been the big argument I've come accross when I've suggested "kid
> sections" on airplanes. It would seem like a good way to make flights
> better for everyone. Families with small children get their own section
> in the plane, where the movie is rated 'G' and there are maybe other
> special 'kid friendly' perks (coloring books in the seatback pockets
> maybe). Individuals, couples, or families with no small children travel
> in the main cabin, and they can watch an 'R' movie and not be kept awake
> by screaming babies.
southwest by its seating policy makes it possible for delicate flowers to
avoid babies -- they board babies first -- generally their families sit
towards the front -- when you get on, you simply choose a seat towards the
back far from kids -- it is rare to have a baby inflicted unknowingly on
one, on Southwest
hamilton
<ptauger...@earthlink.net> wrote:
oh its you again Paul with your one note obsession
and again Planes are public transport -- giant buses in the sky -- you
just have to put up with people who smell bad, babies, loud vulgar
businessment and little old ladies who natter on [and the occasional
earnest young man who wants to win your soul for Jeesusss]
Rumpelstiltskin
Or they could attach a trailer with a cable to the airplane, like
the raft of the Medusa, that could be cut loose in flight if it began
to be a problem :-)
mslinda
> hook wrote:
>
> > Scientists have determined that the Shroud of Turin has these words from
> > necigrad written on it:
> > >
> > > "Foo" <f...@oo.ar> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.177e2d18a...@news.alt.net...
> > >
> > > > Now if we can only get them to charge extra for screaming babies...
> > >
> > > I agree, but have to ask. Can anyone explain why we all hate crying babies
> >
> > Are you fucking kidding? Perhaps you enjoy sitting right next to some
> > brat who cries, yells, and generally causes a huge ruckus for half the
> > flight.
>
> And this would be different from some adults, how?
>
Because it's not PC to tell a baby to shut the fuck up.
Linda C.
mslinda
> southwest by its seating policy makes it possible for delicate flowers to
> avoid babies -- they board babies first -- generally their families sit
> towards the front -- when you get on, you simply choose a seat towards the
> back far from kids -- it is rare to have a baby inflicted unknowingly on
> one, on Southwest
>
Except now that the first passengers trying to board are being dragged aside for 20
minutes of "random" searching, the babies and their moms could be going on later.
Linda C.
John Mazor
--
-- John Mazor
"The search for wisdom is asymptotic."
"Except for Internet newsgroups, where it is divergent..."
-- R J Carpenter
hook <ho@oo.k> wrote in message
news:MPG.177f937ad...@news.alt.net...
Being a little more responsive: It's genetically programmed into
us -- a crying baby indicates a possible situation where our genetic
material may not live long enough to reproduce itself. Thus the need
to respond -- Mother Nature made the sound of a crying baby painful so
that we would respond to stop the painful stimulus. Think about
it -- there are many, many noises of similar tone and volume that,
while annoying, don't provoke the same reaction.
A somewhat tongue-in-cheek expansion on that: the sound of someone
else's genetic material squalling seems to provoke the desire to
throttle same, thus eliminating the competition.
-- John Mazor
"The search for wisdom is asymptotic."
"Except for Internet newsgroups, where it is divergent..."
-- R J Carpenter
John Mazor
news:3D160AC9...@earthlink.net...
Hmmm... anyone know of an instance where an infant was asked for a
photo ID, wanded, patted down, and had to remove his/her booties?
If not, that's gross reverse discrimination! ;-)
Miguel Cruz
> I agree, but have to ask. Can anyone explain why we all hate crying
> babies, even though we may very well have been one on a plane ourselves,
> or think our children are behaving, even though they're just as bad as the
> ones we bitch about?
We are evolutionarily wired to respond with anxiety to the sound of a child
crying. This is presumably quite helpful in a community or family setting
when children need to be attended to.
It's not so pleasant in a jetliner - apparently unanticipated by the
mechanism - where children share space with complete strangers and western
culture doesn't really encourage people to take care of each other's
children.
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
New mini photo-feature: Life in DC: http://travel.u.nu/dc/
boxer
wrote:
Or better yet, the first class cabin.
Alan Mackenzie
We've all been crying babies, at one time or another, even if few enough
of us have ever been crying babies on an aeroplane. My guess is that all
these crying baby haters never managed to work through the feelings of
impotentent rage and helplessness they felt as crying babies, and now
that they've grown up, they're reliving that rage and impotence
vicariously.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: aa...@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").
necigrad
> photo ID, wanded, patted down, and had to remove his/her booties?
Yes, I do. Random is random is random.
hamilton
<maz...@erols.com> wrote:
> mslinda <msl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3D160AC9...@earthlink.net...
> > hamilton wrote:
> >
> > > southwest by its seating policy makes it possible for delicate
> flowers to
> > > avoid babies -- they board babies first -- generally their
> families sit
> > > towards the front -- when you get on, you simply choose a seat
> towards the
> > > back far from kids -- it is rare to have a baby inflicted
> unknowingly on
> > > one, on Southwest
> >
> > Except now that the first passengers trying to board are being
> dragged aside for 20
> > minutes of "random" searching, the babies and their moms could be
> going on later.
>
> Hmmm... anyone know of an instance where an infant was asked for a
> photo ID, wanded, patted down, and had to remove his/her booties?
I have observed an infant being carefully searched and wanded
mslinda
I hope it threw up on the security thugs. <g>
Linda C.
John Mazor
> > Hmmm... anyone know of an instance where an infant was asked for a
> > photo ID, wanded, patted down, and had to remove his/her booties?
>
> Yes, I do. Random is random is random.
And a mule is a mule. I understand the logic of it; but not all
searches appear to be random. Making a connection out of Denver last
week, I was the last passenger to be boarded. Not late, mind you,
just had a low-numbered row. They pulled me out for the full deal
before I had even handed over my boarding pass, so they had no idea
who I was, which means that there were no computer-generated cues.
Eeny, meeny, miney, mo... either that, or they hadn't met their quota
of randoms yet.
At least it was quick and courteous -- they were almost apologetic.
Ditto for the search at the x-ray/magnetometer screening post for my
original departure leg. Training does seem to be making a difference.
It took me a lot longer to clear Canadian customs and immigration,
with many, many more questions. They were far more afraid that I was
going there to steal a job from some local. As if.
hook
> > > > Now if we can only get them to charge extra for screaming
> babies...
> > >
> > > I agree, but have to ask. Can anyone explain why we all hate
> crying babies
> >
> > Are you fucking kidding? Perhaps you enjoy sitting right next to
> some
> > brat who cries, yells, and generally causes a huge ruckus for half
> the
> > flight.
>
> Being a little more responsive: It's genetically programmed into
> us -- a crying baby indicates a possible situation where our genetic
> material may not live long enough to reproduce itself. Thus the need
> to respond -- Mother Nature made the sound of a crying baby painful so
> that we would respond to stop the painful stimulus.
Hollering children are simply annoying. Occam's Razor.
John Mazor
news:MPG.178018a7c...@news.alt.net...
> John Mazor wrote:
> > Being a little more responsive: It's genetically programmed into
> > us -- a crying baby indicates a possible situation where our
genetic
> > material may not live long enough to reproduce itself. Thus the
need
> > to respond -- Mother Nature made the sound of a crying baby
painful so
> > that we would respond to stop the painful stimulus.
>
> Hollering children are simply annoying. Occam's Razor.
A necessary but not sufficient condition. You deleted the part about
other, similar noises not evoking the same intensive level of
response.
hook
> hook <h...@o.kk> wrote in message
> news:MPG.178018a7c...@news.alt.net...
> > John Mazor wrote:
>
> > > Being a little more responsive: It's genetically programmed into
> > > us -- a crying baby indicates a possible situation where our
> genetic
> > > material may not live long enough to reproduce itself. Thus the
> need
> > > to respond -- Mother Nature made the sound of a crying baby
> painful so
> > > that we would respond to stop the painful stimulus.
> >
> > Hollering children are simply annoying. Occam's Razor.
>
> A necessary but not sufficient condition. You deleted the part about
> other, similar noises not evoking the same intensive level of
> response.
There are no similar noises in an aircraft cabin.
necigrad
"John Mazor" <maz...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:af5da8$p82$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
possible that they didn't, in which case it was random.
Regardless, I tell everyone thaat if they REALLY think it's not random to
write to the TSA. They really are trying to keep this uniform.
alohacyberian
a child crying in my neighborhood. It's a natural sound, no different than
the flowing of water, the playing of children or the whistling of the wind.
Though it may be a sign of the times, people who claim to be bothered by
the ordinary sounds of nature are bothered by something far more serious
than crying babies. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
Miguel Cruz <m...@admin.u.nu> wrote in article
<C1pR8.9882$5k6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
> necigrad <neci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I agree, but have to ask. Can anyone explain why we all hate crying
> > babies, even though we may very well have been one on a plane
ourselves,
> > or think our children are behaving, even though they're just as bad as
the
> > ones we bitch about?
>
> We are evolutionarily wired to respond with anxiety to the sound of a
child
> crying.
>
Banty
And what about them? The pre-emptive approach in bringing up objections in
advance isn't effective when you have provided no response.
When you list these, and haven't been particularly an advocate of keeping these
groups of people off airplanes, it only reinforces the idea that you have a
particular personal irritation with children and babies. And want worldwide
practice to put travel constraints on a whole segment of population just to
please your desires.
>Children have the potential for being tremendous nusiances on board
>aircraft. For older children, i.e. those that are capable of understanding
>and controlling their behavior, parents who do not keep them under control
>should be banned from flying (fortunately, I've heard that airlines are now
>refusing to board parents with tantrum-throwing-todllers). Parents who
>bring infants on board should recognize that their babies are ticking sonic
>timebombs, if they "go off," they are going to be disturbing other
>passengers, and give serious thought to whether their desire to travel with
>their infant justifies the imposition they are creating for other
>passengers.
I've never had a baby or child "go off" and threaten me, act in such an
uncontrollable manner that the airplane has to take over an unscheduled landing,
or even try to take over the airplane. Unruly adults do that. (And I hear no
complaints about the airline's policy of serving a well-known
judgement-suppressing drug on board to any adult that so desires and has a few
extra bucks.) Worrying about possible sonic inputs from babies, when much more
dangerous and disruptive possibilities may come from other passengers, is just
plain silly.
Banty
amp_spamfree
> "necigrad" <neci...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:uhb5se3...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Foo" <f...@oo.ar> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.177e2d18a...@news.alt.net...
> >
> > > Now if we can only get them to charge extra for screaming babies...
> >
> > I agree, but have to ask. Can anyone explain why we all hate crying
> babies,
> > even though we may very well have been one on a plane ourselves, or think
> > our children are behaving, even though they're just as bad as the ones we
> > bitch about?
>
> You've asked two questions. Here are two answers:
>
> 1. I was never brought on a plane as an infant -- my parents had too much
> consideration for other passengers to do something like that. It is a non
> sequitur to say, "you were a baby once, too."
Yeh, sure. I flew for the first time when I was 4 years olde. My
brother when he was 6 months old, and my child at 3 months. So? I
haqd 15 transatlantics by the time I was 14. My parents knew what
proper behaviour was. Until I was an adult, I wore a TIE when I flew.
> The objection is not to the baby -- it's not the baby who has decided to
> impose on other passengers by coming on board and crying. It is to the
> parent, who has said, "My interest in traveling with my infant supercedes
> the interests of all other passengers in flying unmolested."
Your assumptions are ludicrous as always, Paul. My interests in
traveling with my child are none of your concern. Those interests
are, in my opinion, tremendously more relevant and important than your
court case or your scampering through the south of France sipping
bourdeaux. I don't molest my fellow passengers and neither does my
child.
>No one in
> their right mind would bring a boom box on board and play it at full volume
> because they "couldn't be without their music" It's no different when
> someone brings a baby on board, particularly when it's a long-haul or, even
> worse, a red-eye, flight.
Too funny. No one in their right mind would expect graveyard silence
at a family restaurant, either. What do you think an airplane is,
Paul, a church?
> 2. Many parents, evidently, seem to think that, while other people's kids
> are nuisances, their little angels are so adorable that no one could ever
> object to their presence.
You aren't a parent, you have no intention of being one, but you are
an expert on what parent's think? Yeh, right.
>It is fascinating to me that, whenever this
> thread comes up (as it does with dependable regularity), it is always
> parents who accuse those of us who object to shrieking babies on planes of
> being "child haters," claiming that THEIR child never disturbs anyone.
Yep - it must fascinate you to think that. Fortunately, most parents
really don't care what you think, Paul. We do our best and that's all
anyone can expect - from anyone irrespective of their parental status.
> Just wait for their, "Oh yeah, well waddabout [fill in the blank: loud
> businessman on cellphones/obnoxious drunks/window-shade
> openers/seat-recliners/non-bathers/overweight people/tall people/people with
> carryons]?"
Well, waddabout?? Nothing makes you happy Paul, so why should we, as
parents, be overly concerned about you? If you insist on living under
a dark cloud all your life, so be it.
> Children have the potential for being tremendous nusiances on board
> aircraft. For older children, i.e. those that are capable of understanding
> and controlling their behavior, parents who do not keep them under control
> should be banned from flying (fortunately, I've heard that airlines are now
> refusing to board parents with tantrum-throwing-todllers). Parents who
> bring infants on board should recognize that their babies are ticking sonic
> timebombs, if they "go off," they are going to be disturbing other
> passengers, and give serious thought to whether their desire to travel with
> their infant justifies the imposition they are creating for other
> passengers.
blah bla bal bla blaaaah. Heard it all. The only thing airlines keep
off airplanes is drunks - those that need a glass of wine on Sunday
morning or they whine.
What you expected? Good. Now that this thread has moved from fat to
kids on planes....and be forwarned - it's summer and kids be
traveling...and not just in coach, Paul. I'm booked, with family, in
first, every leg of every flight - all as a courtesy by my airline.
thanks and have fun.
amp
Paul Tauger
"Banty" <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:af6ui...@drn.newsguy.com...
The point is, though there can be other annoyances on an airplane, the
poster asked about one specific annoyance. It does not excuse that
annoyance to say, "but there can be other annoyances, too."
>
> When you list these, and haven't been particularly an advocate of keeping
these
> groups of people off airplanes, it only reinforces the idea that you have
a
> particular personal irritation with children and babies.
As I've told you before, of the potential nuisances in my list, the only one
I meet with any regularity is crying infants.
>And want worldwide
> practice to put travel constraints on a whole segment of population just
to
> please your desires.
Nope. I just want people to be considerate of others when they fly.
>
> >Children have the potential for being tremendous nusiances on board
> >aircraft. For older children, i.e. those that are capable of
understanding
> >and controlling their behavior, parents who do not keep them under
control
> >should be banned from flying (fortunately, I've heard that airlines are
now
> >refusing to board parents with tantrum-throwing-todllers). Parents who
> >bring infants on board should recognize that their babies are ticking
sonic
> >timebombs, if they "go off," they are going to be disturbing other
> >passengers, and give serious thought to whether their desire to travel
with
> >their infant justifies the imposition they are creating for other
> >passengers.
>
> I've never had a baby or child "go off" and threaten me,
Get a dictionary and look up the word "simile." The time bomb analogy was
not meant to be taken literally. Also look up the word "molest," while
you're at it.
> act in such an
> uncontrollable manner that the airplane has to take over an unscheduled
landing,
> or even try to take over the airplane. Unruly adults do that.
Yep. Only problem is, of the hundreds and hundreds of flights that I've
taken, I've been on only one with an unruly adult passenger (he was taken
off in handcuffs, which delayed our departure about 10 minutes). Pre-9/11,
I was encountering seriously disruptive children and/or infants on roughly
25-30% of the flights that I took (if there is such a thing as anything
positive having come from the horror last September, it is that there seem
to be far fewer people engaging in discretionary with young children).
> (And I hear no
> complaints about the airline's policy of serving a well-known
> judgement-suppressing drug on board to any adult that so desires and has a
few
> extra bucks.)
That's because 99.9999% of the time, there are no alcohol-related problems
on planes.
>Worrying about possible sonic inputs from babies, when much more
> dangerous and disruptive possibilities may come from other passengers, is
just
> plain silly.
I don't "worry" about either (particularly since the latter are so rare an
occurance as to make newspaper headlines).
>
> Banty
>
Paul Tauger
"amp_spamfree" <amp_sp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1192abe3.02062...@posting.google.com...
> "Paul Tauger" <ptauger...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<af4tgr$bct5h$1...@ID-101118.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "necigrad" <neci...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:uhb5se3...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "Foo" <f...@oo.ar> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.177e2d18a...@news.alt.net...
> > >
> > > > Now if we can only get them to charge extra for screaming babies...
> > >
> > > I agree, but have to ask. Can anyone explain why we all hate crying
> > babies,
> > > even though we may very well have been one on a plane ourselves, or
think
> > > our children are behaving, even though they're just as bad as the ones
we
> > > bitch about?
> >
> > You've asked two questions. Here are two answers:
> >
> > 1. I was never brought on a plane as an infant -- my parents had too
much
> > consideration for other passengers to do something like that. It is a
non
> > sequitur to say, "you were a baby once, too."
>
> Yeh, sure. I flew for the first time when I was 4 years olde. My
> brother when he was 6 months old, and my child at 3 months. So? I
> haqd 15 transatlantics by the time I was 14. My parents knew what
> proper behaviour was. Until I was an adult, I wore a TIE when I flew.
Well, I am impressed! Did your 6-month-old brother know what "proper
behavior" was as well? I'm curious, how did your parents persuade him never
to cry?
>
> > The objection is not to the baby -- it's not the baby who has decided to
> > impose on other passengers by coming on board and crying. It is to the
> > parent, who has said, "My interest in traveling with my infant
supercedes
> > the interests of all other passengers in flying unmolested."
>
> Your assumptions are ludicrous as always, Paul. My interests in
> traveling with my child are none of your concern.
They are if you expect me to endure a wailing child for hours at a time. If
you're children don't impose on anyone, however, you're absolutely right --
it's none of my business, and I don't care whether or not they fly.
>Those interests
> are, in my opinion, tremendously more relevant and important than your
> court case or your scampering through the south of France sipping
> bourdeaux. I don't molest my fellow passengers and neither does my
> child.
Well, fine then. I only object to shrieking infants and out-of-control
children. If your child never did/does any of that, I have no argument with
you.
I wonder, though, why you are always so defensive?
>
> >No one in
> > their right mind would bring a boom box on board and play it at full
volume
> > because they "couldn't be without their music" It's no different when
> > someone brings a baby on board, particularly when it's a long-haul or,
even
> > worse, a red-eye, flight.
>
> Too funny. No one in their right mind would expect graveyard silence
> at a family restaurant, either. What do you think an airplane is,
> Paul, a church?
What makes you think I expect a plane to be "graveyard" silent? I think an
airplane is an uncomfortable, tight and confined space where certain kinds
of conduct that might be perfectly acceptable on the street are not
acceptable in-flight.
>
> > 2. Many parents, evidently, seem to think that, while other people's
kids
> > are nuisances, their little angels are so adorable that no one could
ever
> > object to their presence.
>
> You aren't a parent, you have no intention of being one, but you are
> an expert on what parent's think? Yeh, right.
Note use of the word, "evidently," as in, "the evidence would appear to
indicate." I'd certainly be interested in alternative explanations that
would explain what I routinely witness. Care to provide any?
>
> >It is fascinating to me that, whenever this
> > thread comes up (as it does with dependable regularity), it is always
> > parents who accuse those of us who object to shrieking babies on planes
of
> > being "child haters," claiming that THEIR child never disturbs anyone.
>
> Yep - it must fascinate you to think that. Fortunately, most parents
> really don't care what you think, Paul.
Well, you seem to, as you never fail to respond when I post on this subject
(and, btw, I didn't initiate this thread). If you don't care what I think,
then just ignore my posts.
> We do our best and that's all
> anyone can expect - from anyone irrespective of their parental status.
Which is where we disagree. If "doing one's best," means subjecting other
passengers to continual shrieking on long-haul or red-eye flights then, no,
I think everyone can expect considerably more.
>
> > Just wait for their, "Oh yeah, well waddabout [fill in the blank: loud
> > businessman on cellphones/obnoxious drunks/window-shade
> > openers/seat-recliners/non-bathers/overweight people/tall people/people
with
> > carryons]?"
>
> Well, waddabout??
Why do you think other potential nusiances justify the one which happens to
be the subject of this discussion? Do you think that it's okay that a thief
robbed your home because it's also possible that your home could have been
destroyed by an earthquake or fire?
> Nothing makes you happy Paul, so why should we, as
> parents, be overly concerned about you?
"Nothing makes you happy." How very presumptious of you, considering you
know absolutely nothing about me.
But that's really the core of it, isn't it? Make up any excuse to get to
your conclusion: why should you, as parents, be overly concerned about
anyone else? That is exactly the entitlement mindset which results in the
rapidly increasing militancy which you find so unacceptable (and, perhaps,
threatening?)
> If you insist on living under
> a dark cloud all your life, so be it.
Oh, that's funny! Because I object to screaming babies when I fly, I live
my life under a dark cloud.
>
> > Children have the potential for being tremendous nusiances on board
> > aircraft. For older children, i.e. those that are capable of
understanding
> > and controlling their behavior, parents who do not keep them under
control
> > should be banned from flying (fortunately, I've heard that airlines are
now
> > refusing to board parents with tantrum-throwing-todllers). Parents who
> > bring infants on board should recognize that their babies are ticking
sonic
> > timebombs, if they "go off," they are going to be disturbing other
> > passengers, and give serious thought to whether their desire to travel
with
> > their infant justifies the imposition they are creating for other
> > passengers.
>
> blah bla bal bla blaaaah. Heard it all. The only thing airlines keep
> off airplanes is drunks - those that need a glass of wine on Sunday
> morning or they whine.
Actually, you're incorrect. Some airlines are refusing to allow parents to
board with out-of-control children.
Interesting, though, that you find an objection to blue laws (actually not
even an objection, just an inquiry as to where they were still enforced) as
a "whine." Do you support blue laws? Do you think that laws that were
enacted to legislate Christian theological practices are a good thing?
>
> What you expected? Good. Now that this thread has moved from fat to
> kids on planes....and be forwarned - it's summer and kids be
> traveling...and not just in coach, Paul. I'm booked, with family, in
> first, every leg of every flight - all as a courtesy by my airline.
I thought you said your child doesn't disturb anyone? Which is it?
me
> necigrad <neci...@yahoo.com> wrote on Sun, 23 Jun 2002 02:40:28 -0700:
>
> > "Foo" <f...@oo.ar> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.177e2d18a...@news.alt.net...
>
> >> Now if we can only get them to charge extra for screaming babies...
>
> > I agree, but have to ask. Can anyone explain why we all hate crying
> > babies, even though we may very well have been one on a plane
> > ourselves, or think our children are behaving, even though they're just
> > as bad as the ones we bitch about?
>
> We've all been crying babies, at one time or another, even if few enough
> of us have ever been crying babies on an aeroplane.
That is not a subtle point over which to gloss. Not only have many
of us not been crying babies on airplanes, but on trains, buses,
churches, grocery stores, weddings either. Parents made arrangements because
babies don't belong in many of these situations, especially crying ones.
An airplane is a terrible environment for a baby. The general
infection hazards, the pressure changes, the cramped conditions, the
humidity variations all conspire against babies. Forget the imposition
on other peoples ears and sleep needs.
> My guess is that all
> these crying baby haters never managed to work through the feelings of
> impotentent rage and helplessness they felt as crying babies, and now
> that they've grown up, they're reliving that rage and impotence
> vicariously.
Most folks who complain about crying babies aren't mad at the baby.
If anything, they feel sorry for the poor thing. It's the dad gum parents
that are the problem. Babies cry because they are in pain or afraid. I'm not
about to apologize for hating the sound of a child in pain.
Paul Tauger
"hamilton" <hami...@dnvln.com> wrote in message
news:hamilton-230...@host-209-214-117-172.bna.bellsouth.net...
<snip>
> oh its you again Paul with your one note obsession
>
> and again Planes are public transport -- giant buses in the sky -- you
> just have to put up with people who smell bad, babies, loud vulgar
> businessment and little old ladies who natter on [and the occasional
> earnest young man who wants to win your soul for Jeesusss]
Talk about one note!
Just because planes might be "big busses" doesn't mean that anyone has to
put up with rude and inconsiderate behavior.
>
hamilton
<ptauger...@earthlink.net> wrote:
a crying baby is not rude -- parents who make no effort to deal with said
baby's problem or control misbehaving kids are inconsiderate -- but a
certain amount of life happens on public buses including crying babies --
can't stand life in the world, get your own jet
I fly a lot -- dozens of times a year -- it is rare that a baby cries for
an extended period -- unless you send out some sort of vibe that pains
babies, I imagine that you exagerate
Paul Tauger
"Ken Tough" <k...@objectech.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ZSSV4XEg...@artslink.co.za...
> necigrad <neci...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >"Miguel Cruz" <m...@admin.u.nu> wrote
> >> Lou MinattiŽ <loumi...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> > I saw a workable solution mentioned in a local paper today - perhaps
the
> >> > airlines should maintain one row or half of a row of seats just for
> >> > fatties*. For instance, on a 737 with 3x3 rows, have one row as 2x3
or
> >> > 2x2. If no fatties take those seats, primo for standby flyers. If
> >> > fatties do take those seats, everyone on the plane will be much more
> >> > comfortable.
> >>
> >> Isn't that much the same as domestic business class seating? I'd stuff
a
> >> pillow in my shirt for one of those.
>
> >Airlines do offer that. It's called First Class.
>
> Not the same at all. First class is usually hugely improved seating
> over business class, which is already infinitely better than economy.
> But anyway, there's a whole slew of other junk they pin on top to
> make it worth the 8x more you'll pay for first class. Champagne,
> feather duvets, sleeping suits, limousine to your door, eat when and
> what you want, completely flexible ticket, etc.
It sounds like your talking about international first class (and then, only
on some airlines). I'm not aware of any domestic US airline that has
three-class service anymore. I fly F in the US 99% of the time -- all I get
is a wider seat, more seat pitch and free drinks. No feather duvets,
sleeping suits, limousines, etc., and it's by no means guaranteed that there
will be _anything_ to eat (other than the ubiquitous peanuts).
>
> What's needed is "bog standard" fixed ticket advance-purchase
> economy, just with a much bigger seat. All the other accoutrements
> chucked in the bin.
>
> There are "premium economy" style tickets now, but they do offer
> additional service things, and not that much better a seat.
>
> Having had this great idea, airlines will probably pick it up
> within the next year or so.
>
> --
> Ken Tough
John Mazor
news:MPG.17804a93b...@news.alt.net...
Nature didn't revolve the response contingent on whether or not you're
in an a/c cabin.
John Mazor
Dunno. As soon as they finished one, they pulled another, so it was
hard to tell whether they were using cues from CAPPS at any point.
Maybe we all had good profiles and they all were random.
Not the Karl Orff
"Paul Tauger" <ptauger...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> It sounds like your talking about international first class (and then, only
> on some airlines). I'm not aware of any domestic US airline that has
> three-class service anymore. I fly F in the US 99% of the time -- all I get
UA and AA have 3-class service in certain flights. Generally the
domestic leg of flights continuing to, or from, overseas.
Paul Tauger
> In article <af7h7i$c6s7a$1...@ID-101118.news.dfncis.de>, "Paul Tauger"
> <ptauger...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "hamilton" <hami...@dnvln.com> wrote in message
> > news:hamilton-230...@host-209-214-117-172.bna.bellsouth.net...
> > <snip>
> >
> > > oh its you again Paul with your one note obsession
> > >
> > > and again Planes are public transport -- giant buses in the sky -- you
> > > just have to put up with people who smell bad, babies, loud vulgar
> > > businessment and little old ladies who natter on [and the occasional
> > > earnest young man who wants to win your soul for Jeesusss]
> >
> > Talk about one note!
> >
> > Just because planes might be "big busses" doesn't mean that anyone has
to
> > put up with rude and inconsiderate behavior.
>
> a crying baby is not rude --
Of course not. However, the parents who brought the crying baby onto a long
haul or red-eye ARE rude.
> parents who make no effort to deal with said
> baby's problem or control misbehaving kids are inconsiderate -- but a
> certain amount of life happens on public buses including crying babies --
> can't stand life in the world, get your own jet
Talk about extremes! If someone objects to rudeness and lack of
consideration, your answer is "get your own jet."
>
> I fly a lot -- dozens of times a year -- it is rare that a baby cries for
> an extended period -- unless you send out some sort of vibe that pains
> babies, I imagine that you exagerate
As I recall, you live in Europe. Are most of your flights within Europe?
I'm on about a hundred flights a year, most in the U.S. As I've remarked on
a number of occassions, entitlement-demanding-parents tends to be a uniquely
American problem. The only times I've been disturbed by children on
international flights is when the parents were American (judging by their
accents), and a single flight filled with people from Cairo who had been in
transit for 48 hours due to mechanical problems with their plane in Paris.
Other than that one flight from Paris, I can recall only one intra-European
flight in which I was disturbed because of inconsiderate parents -- an Easy
Jet flight from Luton to AMS in which an American woman (judging by her
accent) got into an argument with the FA because the FA would not allow the
woman to usurp someone else's seat on this completely full flight for her
baby's car seat -- the woman had brought said baby on as a lap-child, and
berated the FA about the safety hazard to her child if it was not allowed to
use the car seat. The FA, without ever dropping her smile, politely
explained that there was no room and the woman had two choices -- sit down
or be escorted from the plane. The woman's temper tantrum resulted in a
5-minute delay, which the polite was able to make up en route.
However, pre-9/11 in the U.S. (and on international flights originating
from, or terminating in the U.S.), I routinely encountered child-created
nuisances great enough to warrant comment on about 25-30% of my flights.
Post-9/11, I've encountered far fewer such nuisances, suggesting two things:
(1) the parents of the shrieklings and brats were engaging in
far-from-essential discretionary travel, and (2) they are idiots, as
confirmed by their belief that flying, even in this post-9/11 world, is too
"dangerous" to risk the lives of their precious children.
>
Ken Tough
>"necigrad" <neci...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> I agree, but have to ask. Can anyone explain why we all hate crying
>babies,
>> even though we may very well have been one on a plane ourselves, or think
>> our children are behaving, even though they're just as bad as the ones we
>> bitch about?
>1. I was never brought on a plane as an infant -- my parents had too much
>consideration for other passengers to do something like that. It is a non
>sequitur to say, "you were a baby once, too."
>
>The objection is not to the baby -- it's not the baby who has decided to
>impose on other passengers by coming on board and crying. It is to the
>parent, who has said, "My interest in traveling with my infant supercedes
>the interests of all other passengers in flying unmolested."
Some people have to travel, have to do it with an infant,
and have no choice. Would you have them take a ship, maybe?
Not everyone simply travels for fun.
>Children have the potential for being tremendous nusiances on board
>aircraft. For older children, i.e. those that are capable of understanding
>and controlling their behavior, parents who do not keep them under control
>should be banned from flying (fortunately, I've heard that airlines are now
>refusing to board parents with tantrum-throwing-todllers). Parents who
>bring infants on board should recognize that their babies are ticking sonic
>timebombs, if they "go off," they are going to be disturbing other
>passengers, and give serious thought to whether their desire to travel with
>their infant justifies the imposition they are creating for other
>passengers.
People who are moving home between continents, for example,
have no choice.
--
Ken Tough
hamilton
<ptauger...@earthlink.net> wrote:
you recall wrong -- I live in the US and fly dozens of domestic flights a
year -- as well as several international flights
> I'm on about a hundred flights a year, most in the U.S. As I've remarked on
> a number of occassions, entitlement-demanding-parents tends to be a uniquely
> American problem. The only times I've been disturbed by children on
> international flights is when the parents were American (judging by their
> accents), and a single flight filled with people from Cairo who had been in
> transit for 48 hours due to mechanical problems with their plane in Paris.
the only time I have been extensively disturbed by unruly children on a
flight were a group of eastern Europeans on an Alitalia flight from Rome
to the US
And the worst behaved children I have ever seen in public were French.
there are certainly inadequate American parents -- but I don't run into
all that many on planes. there are the occasionally chirpy pre schoolers
-- but then there are the many loud obnoxious businessmen whose
conversation is no less inane -- and there is the occasional upset baby --
a hazard of life -- most of them are settled by their parents -- sometimes
they can't be --
you might want to invest in white noise earphones and get a grip
Paul Tauger
Then I recall wrong. I live in the US, and fly 50 to 100 domestic flights a
year. Our experiences seem to differ.
>
> > I'm on about a hundred flights a year, most in the U.S. As I've
remarked on
> > a number of occassions, entitlement-demanding-parents tends to be a
uniquely
> > American problem. The only times I've been disturbed by children on
> > international flights is when the parents were American (judging by
their
> > accents), and a single flight filled with people from Cairo who had been
in
> > transit for 48 hours due to mechanical problems with their plane in
Paris.
>
> the only time I have been extensively disturbed by unruly children on a
> flight were a group of eastern Europeans on an Alitalia flight from Rome
> to the US
> And the worst behaved children I have ever seen in public were French.
I'd agree with one qualification: French school children on field trips are
a nightmare. When they're not in herds, and accompanied by their parents, I
find them to be quite well-behaved.
>
> there are certainly inadequate American parents -- but I don't run into
> all that many on planes. there are the occasionally chirpy pre schoolers
> -- but then there are the many loud obnoxious businessmen whose
> conversation is no less inane --
I've never had been disturbed by loud obnoxious businessman or, for that
matter, by preschoolers because they were chirping. Their screaming,
throwing things, running up and down aisles, on the other hand, I found very
disturbing.
> and there is the occasional upset baby --
> a hazard of life -- most of them are settled by their parents -- sometimes
> they can't be --
>
> you might want to invest in white noise earphones and get a grip
I have both headphones and a grip (the latter is manufactured by Tumi -- I
recommend them).
>
Banty
>
>
>"hamilton" <hami...@dnvln.com> wrote in message
>news:hamilton-240...@host-209-214-119-208.bna.bellsouth.net...
>> In article <af7h7i$c6s7a$1...@ID-101118.news.dfncis.de>, "Paul Tauger"
>> <ptauger...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > "hamilton" <hami...@dnvln.com> wrote in message
>> > news:hamilton-230...@host-209-214-117-172.bna.bellsouth.net...
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > > oh its you again Paul with your one note obsession
>> > >
>> > > and again Planes are public transport -- giant buses in the sky -- you
>> > > just have to put up with people who smell bad, babies, loud vulgar
>> > > businessment and little old ladies who natter on [and the occasional
>> > > earnest young man who wants to win your soul for Jeesusss]
>> >
>> > Talk about one note!
>> >
>> > Just because planes might be "big busses" doesn't mean that anyone has
>to
>> > put up with rude and inconsiderate behavior.
The baby is not being inconsiderate. It's just being a baby. The parents
should do the best they can, and they nearly always IME do. But there's no
reasonable definition of "considerate" that mandates that only behavior possible
for adults can be considered considerate.
This is *travel*, not a show or lounge.
>>
>> a crying baby is not rude --
>
>Of course not. However, the parents who brought the crying baby onto a long
>haul or red-eye ARE rude.
>
>> parents who make no effort to deal with said
>> baby's problem or control misbehaving kids are inconsiderate -- but a
>> certain amount of life happens on public buses including crying babies --
>> can't stand life in the world, get your own jet
>
>Talk about extremes! If someone objects to rudeness and lack of
>consideration, your answer is "get your own jet."
But you're not talking about rudeness, however you try to stretch the
definintion to cover all you personal dislikes. You're talking about normal, at
times unavoidable human behavior. If you truly require never to hear a baby
cry, or a person embark on an uncontrollable coughing fit, etc., you *do* have
to find a way to separate yourself from large groups of humanity. Hamilton
suggests a private jet. Actually, I think a better option for you would be to
redirect your career to one which requires less travel.
>
>>
>> I fly a lot -- dozens of times a year -- it is rare that a baby cries for
>> an extended period -- unless you send out some sort of vibe that pains
>> babies, I imagine that you exagerate
>
>As I recall, you live in Europe. Are most of your flights within Europe?
>I'm on about a hundred flights a year, most in the U.S. As I've remarked on
>a number of occassions, entitlement-demanding-parents tends to be a uniquely
>American problem. The only times I've been disturbed by children on
>international flights is when the parents were American (judging by their
>accents), and a single flight filled with people from Cairo who had been in
>transit for 48 hours due to mechanical problems with their plane in Paris.
I've been to Europe (including the old USSR), to Latin America, and to the
Carribean. I haven't noticed this effect. However, some parts of Europe do
retain venues of class distinction. Perhaps you've been keeping yourself to
certain venues?
>
>Other than that one flight from Paris, I can recall only one intra-European
>flight in which I was disturbed because of inconsiderate parents -- an Easy
>Jet flight from Luton to AMS in which an American woman (judging by her
>accent) got into an argument with the FA because the FA would not allow the
>woman to usurp someone else's seat on this completely full flight for her
>baby's car seat -- the woman had brought said baby on as a lap-child, and
>berated the FA about the safety hazard to her child if it was not allowed to
>use the car seat. The FA, without ever dropping her smile, politely
>explained that there was no room and the woman had two choices -- sit down
>or be escorted from the plane. The woman's temper tantrum resulted in a
>5-minute delay, which the polite was able to make up en route.
>
And I've seen drunken behavior on the part of adults resulting in at least as
much disruption.
What you've given here is an example of an ill-mannered person which can occur
in any walk of life. I shall now again point you to the incident which I
suffered, and personally, in which a passenger demanded my infant son's seat on
a fully loaded flight in order to sit next to her husband, even though I was
waving my boarding pass and *his* boarding pass for all to see? This delayed
seating on that flight, I would wager, about five minutes. (The FA's did move
her away, but yet another FA came by to check later.)
>However, pre-9/11 in the U.S. (and on international flights originating
>from, or terminating in the U.S.), I routinely encountered child-created
>nuisances great enough to warrant comment on about 25-30% of my flights.
>Post-9/11, I've encountered far fewer such nuisances, suggesting two things:
>(1) the parents of the shrieklings and brats were engaging in
>far-from-essential discretionary travel, and (2) they are idiots, as
>confirmed by their belief that flying, even in this post-9/11 world, is too
>"dangerous" to risk the lives of their precious children.
"Shrieklings and brats" Y'know, folks in alt.support.childfree (in which group
you're a denizen) like to tell us that their argot and extreme ways of referring
to chidlren and parents are just "venting" limited to their own little special
refuge. But time and time again, and here even from yourself, you who likes to
present yourself as a cultured professional, we see this extreme argot elsewhere
than that little sandbox. Now that's it's spilling out of the carefully tended
little place known as alt.support.childfree, how about if we finally and firmly
dismiss this excuse that it's all about "venting", and call it what it is - hate
speech.
Banty
Banty
amp_sp...@yahoo.com says...
Very simply, your interest and your child's interest in being able to transport
yourselves by air greatly overweighs Paul's interest in not hearing babies.
I'll say again - it's a classic matter of competing interests. The possible
imposition of your children on Paul is very much less serious and impacting to
him, than his imposition would be on you and your children that they can't fly
for his sake. The scales of competing interests in this case slam right down in
your favor. His sonically pleasant enviornment vs. your chidlren being
completely grounded. You have the more compelling interest by far.
Banty
Paul Tauger
> In article <af7jms$c5lf3$1...@ID-101118.news.dfncis.de>, "Paul says...
> >
> >
> >"hamilton" <hami...@dnvln.com> wrote in message
> >news:hamilton-240...@host-209-214-119-208.bna.bellsouth.net...
> >> In article <af7h7i$c6s7a$1...@ID-101118.news.dfncis.de>, "Paul Tauger"
> >> <ptauger...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "hamilton" <hami...@dnvln.com> wrote in message
> >> >
news:hamilton-230...@host-209-214-117-172.bna.bellsouth.net...
> >> > <snip>
> >> >
> >> > > oh its you again Paul with your one note obsession
> >> > >
> >> > > and again Planes are public transport -- giant buses in the sky --
you
> >> > > just have to put up with people who smell bad, babies, loud vulgar
> >> > > businessment and little old ladies who natter on [and the
occasional
> >> > > earnest young man who wants to win your soul for Jeesusss]
> >> >
> >> > Talk about one note!
> >> >
> >> > Just because planes might be "big busses" doesn't mean that anyone
has
> >to
> >> > put up with rude and inconsiderate behavior.
>
> The baby is not being inconsiderate. It's just being a baby.
I was referring to the parents, not the baby. Obviously, a baby can't be
rude or inconsiderate.
> The parents
> should do the best they can, and they nearly always IME do.
And not in mine.
> But there's no
> reasonable definition of "considerate" that mandates that only behavior
possible
> for adults can be considered considerate.
There is a very simple definition of "considerate": don't impose on others
without permission. Think of it as the converse of the Golden Rule -- don't
do to others what you don't want done to you.
>
> This is *travel*, not a show or lounge.
So what? It's acceptable to impose on others because it's travel?
>
>
> >>
> >> a crying baby is not rude --
> >
> >Of course not. However, the parents who brought the crying baby onto a
long
> >haul or red-eye ARE rude.
> >
> >> parents who make no effort to deal with said
> >> baby's problem or control misbehaving kids are inconsiderate -- but a
> >> certain amount of life happens on public buses including crying
babies --
> >> can't stand life in the world, get your own jet
> >
> >Talk about extremes! If someone objects to rudeness and lack of
> >consideration, your answer is "get your own jet."
>
> But you're not talking about rudeness, however you try to stretch the
> definintion to cover all you personal dislikes. You're talking about
normal, at
> times unavoidable human behavior. If you truly require never to hear a
baby
> cry, or a person embark on an uncontrollable coughing fit, etc., you *do*
have
> to find a way to separate yourself from large groups of humanity.
Why is it that you "you must hate kids because you don't like me to bring my
crying baby on the plane" crowd can only speak in extremes? I did _not_ say
that I require that I "never to hear a baby cry, or a person embark on an
uncontrollable coughing fit." You've made up a position that I don't hold
and then argued against it -- that's called a "straw man" argument and is a
cheap and dishonest rhetorical trick.
It is rude to bring a crying infant on an airplane, specifically on
long-haul flights and red-eyes. If you don't understand why, after all of
threads about this, then there's probably nothing I can say that will
convince you otherwise. I'll try once more, using your example:
Someone who has a prolonged coughing fit didn't board the plane KNOWING that
this would happen, yet chose to do so anyway. Someone who brings a crying
baby on an airplane boards the plane KNOWING that their infant will make it
impossible for other passengers to sleep, read, work, relax, or whatever,
yet does so anyway because he/she has made the decision that their interest
in bringing their child along is greater than everyone else's interest in a
peaceful flight. The parent of a shrieking infant thinks that he/she has
greater rights than everyone else, and is more important than anyone else
because he/she has an infant.
> Hamilton
> suggests a private jet. Actually, I think a better option for you would
be to
> redirect your career to one which requires less travel.
Gee, thanks for the advice. I'll give it the consideration that it
deserves.
>
> >
> >>
> >> I fly a lot -- dozens of times a year -- it is rare that a baby cries
for
> >> an extended period -- unless you send out some sort of vibe that pains
> >> babies, I imagine that you exagerate
> >
> >As I recall, you live in Europe. Are most of your flights within Europe?
> >I'm on about a hundred flights a year, most in the U.S. As I've remarked
on
> >a number of occassions, entitlement-demanding-parents tends to be a
uniquely
> >American problem. The only times I've been disturbed by children on
> >international flights is when the parents were American (judging by their
> >accents), and a single flight filled with people from Cairo who had been
in
> >transit for 48 hours due to mechanical problems with their plane in
Paris.
>
> I've been to Europe (including the old USSR), to Latin America, and to the
> Carribean. I haven't noticed this effect. However, some parts of Europe
do
> retain venues of class distinction. Perhaps you've been keeping yourself
to
> certain venues?
I've flown throughout Europe, the Caribbean and Asia (though never to or
within Latin America).
>
> >
> >Other than that one flight from Paris, I can recall only one
intra-European
> >flight in which I was disturbed because of inconsiderate parents -- an
Easy
> >Jet flight from Luton to AMS in which an American woman (judging by her
> >accent) got into an argument with the FA because the FA would not allow
the
> >woman to usurp someone else's seat on this completely full flight for her
> >baby's car seat -- the woman had brought said baby on as a lap-child, and
> >berated the FA about the safety hazard to her child if it was not allowed
to
> >use the car seat. The FA, without ever dropping her smile, politely
> >explained that there was no room and the woman had two choices -- sit
down
> >or be escorted from the plane. The woman's temper tantrum resulted in a
> >5-minute delay, which the polite was able to make up en route.
> >
>
> And I've seen drunken behavior on the part of adults resulting in at least
as
> much disruption.
I've seen only one overtly-drunk passenger in the 10 years or so that I've
been a very frequent flyer. He was a little loud (and I mean only a
little), but fell asleep within the first 20 minutes of the flight.
>
> What you've given here is an example of an ill-mannered person which can
occur
> in any walk of life. I shall now again point you to the incident which I
> suffered, and personally, in which a passenger demanded my infant son's
seat on
> a fully loaded flight in order to sit next to her husband, even though I
was
> waving my boarding pass and *his* boarding pass for all to see? This
delayed
> seating on that flight, I would wager, about five minutes. (The FA's did
move
> her away, but yet another FA came by to check later.)
And this was wrong -- you paid for your son's seat (and good for you for
doing so -- I think "lap children" are a terrible idea for all concerned),
and the man had no right to it. You were absolutely right to stand up to
him, and the FAs were wrong if they suggested that you should relinquish
your son's paid-for seat.
So what's your point?
>
> >However, pre-9/11 in the U.S. (and on international flights originating
> >from, or terminating in the U.S.), I routinely encountered child-created
> >nuisances great enough to warrant comment on about 25-30% of my flights.
> >Post-9/11, I've encountered far fewer such nuisances, suggesting two
things:
> >(1) the parents of the shrieklings and brats were engaging in
> >far-from-essential discretionary travel, and (2) they are idiots, as
> >confirmed by their belief that flying, even in this post-9/11 world, is
too
> >"dangerous" to risk the lives of their precious children.
>
> "Shrieklings and brats" Y'know, folks in alt.support.childfree (in which
group
> you're a denizen) like to tell us that their argot and extreme ways of
referring
> to chidlren and parents are just "venting" limited to their own little
special
> refuge.
I coined the term "shriekling," as far as I know. "Brat" is in the
dictionary. Let me be clear: all babies aren't shrieklings and all children
aren't brats. The only babies and children whose presence on airplanes I
find objectionable are shrieklings (babies who cry constantly) and brats
(I'm sure you know what a brat is).
As for being a denizen on alt.support.childfree, my newsreader contains
nearly 30 different newsgroups that I visit. The bulk of them are either
legal ngs, travel ngs or video ngs. 1 is a.s.cf.
Again, what's your point?
> But time and time again, and here even from yourself, you who likes to
> present yourself as a cultured professional, we see this extreme argot
elsewhere
> than that little sandbox.
The term "brat" is "extreme argot"? Look in the dictionary -- see what it
says. As for "shriekling," as I said, I coined that term, and I thought it
was rather clever, in that it's perfectly descriptive of what it labels. If
you prefer, instead of using my personal short hand, I'll refer to
"constantly shrieking infants." Okay?
> Now that's it's spilling out of the carefully tended
> little place known as alt.support.childfree, how about if we finally and
firmly
> dismiss this excuse that it's all about "venting", and call it what it
is - hate
> speech.
Because it's not hate speech (nor is it venting). It is what it always is:
an objection to the disturbance caused by crying infants and
poorly-supervised children on airplanes. I don't hate children (or, for
that matter, parents), and you're free to spend your time looking through
the hundreds and hundreds of posts that I've made to Usenet over the past 7
or 8 years (including those to ascf) to verify this.
However, I'll simply reiterate what I have consistently observed: it is
always (and only) parents (and not all parents) who will simply dismiss
anyone who objects to certain inapproriate behavior by their children as a
"child hater."
>
> Banty
>
Paul Tauger
Hey -- on this, I think we agree. Amp (and you) THINK your interest to
transport your children outweighs my interest in not being subject to
screaming infants.
The question is: WHY do you think that?
>
> I'll say again - it's a classic matter of competing interests. The
possible
> imposition of your children on Paul is very much less serious and
impacting to
> him, than his imposition would be on you and your children that they can't
fly
> for his sake. The scales of competing interests in this case slam right
down in
> your favor.
Only when you do the weighing. Not exactly unbiased, are you?
> His sonically pleasant enviornment vs. your chidlren being
> completely grounded. You have the more compelling interest by far.
See, there's a good example of your bias. "Sonically pleasant"? Wrong.
When I used to teach Speech Communication in university, one of the
exercises we used to do was to attempt to paraphrase the other person's
point of view to see if we really understood their position.
Care to try to paraphrase mine? Hint: "sonically pleasant" doesn't even
come close.
>
> Banty
>
mrtravel
necigrad wrote:
>
> > Hmmm... anyone know of an instance where an infant was asked for a
> > photo ID, wanded, patted down, and had to remove his/her booties?
>
> Yes, I do. Random is random is random.
Well, it is possible to hide a weapon on a baby..
(Or, use the baby as a weapon)
Banty
I said *if* that's what you require. To misrepresent an opponent's position,
whether or not it is to set up a strawman, is a cheap rhetorical trick.
>
>It is rude to bring a crying infant on an airplane, specifically on
>long-haul flights and red-eyes. If you don't understand why, after all of
>threads about this, then there's probably nothing I can say that will
>convince you otherwise. I'll try once more, using your example:
>
>Someone who has a prolonged coughing fit didn't board the plane KNOWING that
>this would happen, yet chose to do so anyway. Someone who brings a crying
>baby on an airplane boards the plane KNOWING that their infant will make it
>impossible for other passengers to sleep, read, work, relax, or whatever,
>yet does so anyway because he/she has made the decision that their interest
>in bringing their child along is greater than everyone else's interest in a
>peaceful flight. The parent of a shrieking infant thinks that he/she has
>greater rights than everyone else, and is more important than anyone else
>because he/she has an infant.
No - the infant and parents have a greater right to use air travel than you do
to have your personal optimal sonic surroundings. Simple as that. The impact
to them of perfectly accomodating your desires is much greater, and much more
deleterious, than the impact to you of accomodating them. You obtain
transportation from point A to point B whether or not a baby cries.
It's simple competing interests. Your desires dont' trump the world's.
>
>> Hamilton
>> suggests a private jet. Actually, I think a better option for you would
>be to
>> redirect your career to one which requires less travel.
>
>Gee, thanks for the advice. I'll give it the consideration that it
>deserves.
It deserves more than you think. You need to take responsibility for your
decisions and the situations you put yourself in.
>>
>> "Shrieklings and brats" Y'know, folks in alt.support.childfree (in which
>group
>> you're a denizen) like to tell us that their argot and extreme ways of
>referring
>> to chidlren and parents are just "venting" limited to their own little
>special
>> refuge.
>
>I coined the term "shriekling," as far as I know. "Brat" is in the
>dictionary. Let me be clear: all babies aren't shrieklings and all children
>aren't brats. The only babies and children whose presence on airplanes I
>find objectionable are shrieklings (babies who cry constantly) and brats
>(I'm sure you know what a brat is).
Sez you.
>
>As for being a denizen on alt.support.childfree, my newsreader contains
>nearly 30 different newsgroups that I visit. The bulk of them are either
>legal ngs, travel ngs or video ngs. 1 is a.s.cf.
>
>Again, what's your point?
>
>> But time and time again, and here even from yourself, you who likes to
>> present yourself as a cultured professional, we see this extreme argot
>elsewhere
>> than that little sandbox.
>
>The term "brat" is "extreme argot"? Look in the dictionary -- see what it
>says. As for "shriekling," as I said, I coined that term, and I thought it
>was rather clever, in that it's perfectly descriptive of what it labels. If
>you prefer, instead of using my personal short hand, I'll refer to
>"constantly shrieking infants." Okay?
Nope, if you made it up, you made it up on asc-f and they picked it up there.
Keep it there.
Banty
Banty
Because the impact of an infant not being able to travel by air is much greater
and much more deleterious to the infant, than the impact of an infant's crying
is to you. Also, you have resources (earphones plus some ability to concentrate
on something *else*, or at least the first of these), while the infant hasn't.
Sorry, in this case of competing interests, the baby wins hands down.
>
>>
>> I'll say again - it's a classic matter of competing interests. The
>possible
>> imposition of your children on Paul is very much less serious and
>impacting to
>> him, than his imposition would be on you and your children that they can't
>fly
>> for his sake. The scales of competing interests in this case slam right
>down in
>> your favor.
>
>Only when you do the weighing. Not exactly unbiased, are you?
And you're not? BTW, I dind't see any argument putting forward why your
interest in quiet trumps others' interests in being able to travel by air.
Accusations of bias don't count.
Banty
mslinda
> "Banty" <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:af7sd...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> > Hamilton
> > suggests a private jet. Actually, I think a better option for you would
> be to
> > redirect your career to one which requires less travel.
>
> Gee, thanks for the advice. I'll give it the consideration that it
> deserves.
Maybe a a better option for her would be to redirect her brood into a Winnebago
next vacation. She has a choice - business flyers don't, unless they want to
give up their jobs and rack up $16 grand in debt like she claims to have done.
> > Now that's it's spilling out of the carefully tended
> > little place known as alt.support.childfree, how about if we finally and
> firmly
> > dismiss this excuse that it's all about "venting", and call it what it
> is - hate
> > speech.
>
> Because it's not hate speech (nor is it venting). It is what it always is:
> an objection to the disturbance caused by crying infants and
> poorly-supervised children on airplanes.
And the parents who try to do guilt trips on you are touchy about their
ineptitude at controlling their spawn.
> I don't hate children (or, for
> that matter, parents), and you're free to spend your time looking through
> the hundreds and hundreds of posts that I've made to Usenet over the past 7
> or 8 years (including those to ascf) to verify this.
>
> However, I'll simply reiterate what I have consistently observed: it is
> always (and only) parents (and not all parents) who will simply dismiss
> anyone who objects to certain inapproriate behavior by their children as a
> "child hater."
>
Mostly lackluster parents looking for excuses.
Linda C.
mslinda
>
> I said *if* that's what you require. To misrepresent an opponent's position,
> whether or not it is to set up a strawman, is a cheap rhetorical trick.
>
>
LOL! Just this weekend you mutated my expression of sympathy for someone who lost
a loved one and had to pay an high fare to attend their funeral into "looking for
a free lunch." You really need to let more time go by between making a stupid
statement and then contradicting it.
Give up on arguing with Paul. He's way too smart and sophisticated for you.
Linda C.
Adam Weiss
> "necigrad" <neci...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:uhb5se3...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>"Foo" <f...@oo.ar> wrote in message
>>news:MPG.177e2d18a...@news.alt.net...
>>
>>
>>>Now if we can only get them to charge extra for screaming babies...
>>>
>>I agree, but have to ask. Can anyone explain why we all hate crying
>>
> babies,
>
>>even though we may very well have been one on a plane ourselves, or think
>>our children are behaving, even though they're just as bad as the ones we
>>bitch about?
>>
>
> You've asked two questions. Here are two answers:
>
> 1. I was never brought on a plane as an infant -- my parents had too much
> consideration for other passengers to do something like that. It is a non
> sequitur to say, "you were a baby once, too."
>
> The objection is not to the baby -- it's not the baby who has decided to
> impose on other passengers by coming on board and crying. It is to the
> parent, who has said, "My interest in traveling with my infant supercedes
> the interests of all other passengers in flying unmolested." No one in
> their right mind would bring a boom box on board and play it at full volume
> because they "couldn't be without their music" It's no different when
> someone brings a baby on board, particularly when it's a long-haul or, even
> worse, a red-eye, flight.
>
> 2. Many parents, evidently, seem to think that, while other people's kids
> are nuisances, their little angels are so adorable that no one could ever
> object to their presence. It is fascinating to me that, whenever this
> thread comes up (as it does with dependable regularity), it is always
> parents who accuse those of us who object to shrieking babies on planes of
> being "child haters," claiming that THEIR child never disturbs anyone.
>
> Just wait for their, "Oh yeah, well waddabout [fill in the blank: loud
> businessman on cellphones/obnoxious drunks/window-shade
> openers/seat-recliners/non-bathers/overweight people/tall people/people with
> carryons]?"
>
> Children have the potential for being tremendous nusiances on board
> aircraft. For older children, i.e. those that are capable of understanding
> and controlling their behavior, parents who do not keep them under control
> should be banned from flying (fortunately, I've heard that airlines are now
> refusing to board parents with tantrum-throwing-todllers). Parents who
> bring infants on board should recognize that their babies are ticking sonic
> timebombs, if they "go off," they are going to be disturbing other
> passengers, and give serious thought to whether their desire to travel with
> their infant justifies the imposition they are creating for other
> passengers.
>
>
>
>>
>
>
I agree that babies are a nuisance when you're flying. It's not about
hating babies, as those with babies will always say. It's more about
adding one more pain in the ass to all of the pains in the ass that come
with flying - crappy or no food, tiny seats, overweight people beside
you, sitting for 4 hours in the same place and getting leg cramps while
someone behind you who also has leg cramps is kicking your seat.... I
could go on but you get the picture. And then a mother with a baby
comes along and makes it impossible for you to sleep through the whole
ordeal.
ButI don't agree with kicking babies off planes, or the whole "if you're
a parent, then for the common good don't take a baby on the plane" deal.
Airlines make a point of designing planes to have ample "white noise"
in order to drown out most noises. It's not enough to drown out a
screaming baby two rows or less away, but you can avoid being kept awake
by asking to change seats. I did it once on an Air-France flight. Who
knows, it just might be the case that the family with the baby couldn't
get seats together and you'd make their day by moving.
The one thing I'd like to see is for the flight crew to come around just
prior to landing and give all the kids on the plane candy. Smart
parents already bring something for their kid to suck on during landing
so that their ears don't hurt.
--
Adam Weiss
--
"What a trip. Is this really happening?"
"No my friend. It's a crazy cocktail of Franz Kafka and Mark Twain"
mslinda
> I DON'T hate a child crying on an airplane anymore than I'd be bothered by
> a child crying in my neighborhood. It's a natural sound, no different than
> the flowing of water, the playing of children or the whistling of the wind.
> Though it may be a sign of the times, people who claim to be bothered by
> the ordinary sounds of nature are bothered by something far more serious
> than crying babies. KM
Doubt that. A child crying a block down the street is vastly different from
being strapped into a seat the size of a baby's high chair and forced to
listen to a child crying into your ear for four hours.
Linda C.
Dennis P. Harris
Tauger" <ptauger...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Nope. I just want people to be considerate of others when they fly.
>
of course, YOU don't want to be considerate of others, including
small children. you might try that, but no, YOU are too
important.
Dennis P. Harris
Tauger" <ptauger...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Well, fine then. I only object to shrieking infants and out-of-control
> children. If your child never did/does any of that, I have no argument with
> you.
>
i have no children, and unlike you, who are SOOOOO important, i
am not bothered by children on aircraft, just by self-important
assholes like you.
Dennis P. Harris
Tauger" <ptauger...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Just because planes might be "big busses" doesn't mean that anyone has to
> put up with rude and inconsiderate behavior.
>
like yours, for instance.
amp_spamfree
> "amp_spamfree" <amp_sp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1192abe3.02062...@posting.google.com...
> > "Paul Tauger" <ptauger...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<af4tgr$bct5h$1...@ID-101118.news.dfncis.de>...
> > > news:uhb5se3...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Foo" <f...@oo.ar> wrote in message
> > > > news:MPG.177e2d18a...@news.alt.net...
> > > >
> > > > > Now if we can only get them to charge extra for screaming babies...
> > > >
> > > > I agree, but have to ask. Can anyone explain why we all hate crying
> babies,
> > > > even though we may very well have been one on a plane ourselves, or
> think
> > > > our children are behaving, even though they're just as bad as the ones
> we
> > > > bitch about?
> > >
> > > You've asked two questions. Here are two answers:
> > >
> > > 1. I was never brought on a plane as an infant -- my parents had too
> much
> > > consideration for other passengers to do something like that. It is a
> non
> > > sequitur to say, "you were a baby once, too."
> >
> > brother when he was 6 months old, and my child at 3 months. So? I
> > haqd 15 transatlantics by the time I was 14. My parents knew what
> > proper behaviour was. Until I was an adult, I wore a TIE when I flew.
>
> behavior" was as well? I'm curious, how did your parents persuade him never
> to cry?
Duct tape - how else.
> >
> > > The objection is not to the baby -- it's not the baby who has decided to
> > > impose on other passengers by coming on board and crying. It is to the
> > > parent, who has said, "My interest in traveling with my infant
> supercedes
> > > the interests of all other passengers in flying unmolested."
> >
> > Your assumptions are ludicrous as always, Paul. My interests in
> > traveling with my child are none of your concern.
>
> They are if you expect me to endure a wailing child for hours at a time. If
> you're children don't impose on anyone, however, you're absolutely right --
> it's none of my business, and I don't care whether or not they fly.
It's none of your business.
> >Those interests
> > are, in my opinion, tremendously more relevant and important than your
> > court case or your scampering through the south of France sipping
> > bourdeaux. I don't molest my fellow passengers and neither does my
> > child.
>
> Well, fine then. I only object to shrieking infants and out-of-control
> children. If your child never did/does any of that, I have no argument with
> you.
Object all you want - Personally, I manage a bit more tolerance of
other's behaviour, as appropriate or inappropriate as it may be - and
independent of age.
> I wonder, though, why you are always so defensive?
Not defensive Paul - I just challenge your myopia and selfishness.
Why so intolerant of other people, Paul?
> >
> > >No one in
> > > their right mind would bring a boom box on board and play it at full
> volume
> > > because they "couldn't be without their music" It's no different when
> > > someone brings a baby on board, particularly when it's a long-haul or,
> even
> > > worse, a red-eye, flight.
> >
> > Too funny. No one in their right mind would expect graveyard silence
> > at a family restaurant, either. What do you think an airplane is,
> > Paul, a church?
>
> What makes you think I expect a plane to be "graveyard" silent? I think an
> airplane is an uncomfortable, tight and confined space where certain kinds
> of conduct that might be perfectly acceptable on the street are not
> acceptable in-flight.
Apparently I don't like subscribe to the same standard of etiquette,
Miss Manners. I don't think airplanes are restaurants or bars either,
I think them more as busses with wings.
> > > 2. Many parents, evidently, seem to think that, while other people's
> kids
> > > are nuisances, their little angels are so adorable that no one could
> ever
> > > object to their presence.
> >
> > You aren't a parent, you have no intention of being one, but you are
> > an expert on what parent's think? Yeh, right.
>
> Note use of the word, "evidently," as in, "the evidence would appear to
> indicate."
What freaking evidence, Paul? Your continual personal rant based on
your observations? Hardly reproducible.
>I'd certainly be interested in alternative explanations that
> would explain what I routinely witness. Care to provide any?
You look for excuses to complain.
> > >It is fascinating to me that, whenever this
> > > thread comes up (as it does with dependable regularity), it is always
> > > parents who accuse those of us who object to shrieking babies on planes
> of
> > > being "child haters," claiming that THEIR child never disturbs anyone.
> >
> > Yep - it must fascinate you to think that. Fortunately, most parents
> > really don't care what you think, Paul.
>
> Well, you seem to, as you never fail to respond when I post on this subject
> (and, btw, I didn't initiate this thread). If you don't care what I think,
> then just ignore my posts.
Nope - too much fun watching you get all blustery. What happened, I
thought I was in your killfile? Come on Paul - admit it. You have an
untenable position based on a personal choice which is now manifested
in an obsession. You apparently have no tolerance for those who think
differently than you.
> > We do our best and that's all
> > anyone can expect - from anyone irrespective of their parental status.
>
> Which is where we disagree. If "doing one's best," means subjecting other
> passengers to continual shrieking on long-haul or red-eye flights then, no,
> I think everyone can expect considerably more.
I've had guys drink too much and vomit on my shoes. I've had perfume
Annie stink up an entire FC cabin 2 hours out of Heathrow - this is
six in the morning, mind you. I've had one ignorant fart drop his
rollaboard on my toe. On a recent intra-Europe flight, I had an idiot
put three bottles of cheap champaign in an overhead bin AFTER the
Captain specifically told folks NOT to put dutyfree liquor in the
overheads - guess how many bottles made it to London?
Stupid, ignorant, inconsiderate people abound. And you are so focused
on an infant who cries. You call it continual shrieking - but in my 3
million plus miles I have never expereinced a continually shrieking
infant on board. Never.
And the first 2 million miles was a childfree (not childless, Paul,
childfree).
>
> >
> > > Just wait for their, "Oh yeah, well waddabout [fill in the blank: loud
> > > businessman on cellphones/obnoxious drunks/window-shade
> > > openers/seat-recliners/non-bathers/overweight people/tall people/people
> with
> > > carryons]?"
> >
> > Well, waddabout??
>
> Why do you think other potential nusiances justify the one which happens to
> be the subject of this discussion? Do you think that it's okay that a thief
> robbed your home because it's also possible that your home could have been
> destroyed by an earthquake or fire?
I guess being a abnoxious bore or a crying baby is not illegal? Paul,
get real for a minute - it's not a question of others behaviour - its
a question of your lack of tolerance and accomodation. Get over it.
An airplane cabin is not nirvana - irrespective of what Singapore
Airlines might want you to believe.
> > Nothing makes you happy Paul, so why should we, as
> > parents, be overly concerned about you?
>
> "Nothing makes you happy." How very presumptious of you, considering you
> know absolutely nothing about me.
Nothing makes you happy Paul - except complaining about kids.
> But that's really the core of it, isn't it? Make up any excuse to get to
> your conclusion: why should you, as parents, be overly concerned about
> anyone else?
Keyword - overly. I'm not overly concerned about you Paul because
regardless of what I do, I won't meet your expectations.
>That is exactly the entitlement mindset which results in the
> rapidly increasing militancy which you find so unacceptable (and, perhaps,
> threatening?)
Your entitlement? I have no entitlement mindset - I don't rant on and
on about how I can't STAND to have crying babies around me - I
tolerate you and your overweight, unshowered, drunken brethren. I
don't particularly care for it, but I certainly can manage tolerance -
even for a 12 hour flight. What makes you so special?
> > If you insist on living under
> > a dark cloud all your life, so be it.
>
> Oh, that's funny! Because I object to screaming babies when I fly, I live
> my life under a dark cloud.
You object to anything that has anything to do with children. You
complain you can't get a drink before noon on a Sunday. You gripe
about luggage being delayed and frequent flier points you can't use
and flights that are cancelled. You bitch and moan about not being
allowed to preboard, about having to be searched...is there anything
about flying you haven't complained about?
Thanks for playing.
> > > Children have the potential for being tremendous nusiances on board
> > > aircraft. For older children, i.e. those that are capable of
> understanding
> > > and controlling their behavior, parents who do not keep them under
> control
> > > should be banned from flying (fortunately, I've heard that airlines are
> now
> > > refusing to board parents with tantrum-throwing-todllers). Parents who
> > > bring infants on board should recognize that their babies are ticking
> sonic
> > > timebombs, if they "go off," they are going to be disturbing other
> > > passengers, and give serious thought to whether their desire to travel
> with
> > > their infant justifies the imposition they are creating for other
> > > passengers.
> >
> > blah bla bal bla blaaaah. Heard it all. The only thing airlines keep
> > off airplanes is drunks - those that need a glass of wine on Sunday
> > morning or they whine.
>
> Actually, you're incorrect. Some airlines are refusing to allow parents to
> board with out-of-control children.
Prove it. Other than the one misquoted newspaper article about 2
years ago (the reason for not boarding the parent was because of the
number of carryons and their attitude to the flight crew, not a
balling baby), there is NO evidence. None, nada.
> Interesting, though, that you find an objection to blue laws (actually not
> even an objection, just an inquiry as to where they were still enforced) as
> a "whine." Do you support blue laws? Do you think that laws that were
> enacted to legislate Christian theological practices are a good thing?
Personally, I support the rights of local citizens to manage their own
affairs - what, you against self determination and a proponent of big
brotherism?
> >
> > What you expected? Good. Now that this thread has moved from fat to
> > kids on planes....and be forwarned - it's summer and kids be
> > traveling...and not just in coach, Paul. I'm booked, with family, in
> > first, every leg of every flight - all as a courtesy by my airline.
>
> I thought you said your child doesn't disturb anyone? Which is it?
I bet even my child would disturb you since he does have this habit of
breathing.
Anxiously awaiting for the plonk.
amp
necigrad
> hard to tell whether they were using cues from CAPPS at any point.
> Maybe we all had good profiles and they all were random.
>
get a kick out of this. Got to see Al Gore be a selectee a few weeks ago.
:-)
Banty
You want airlines to step in and save your finances if the unexpected happens
*and* you want kids off airplanes for your personal comfort and preference.
Fits.
Banty
amp_spamfree
And you think your interest outweighs mine - except you insist that
any exposure to any infant is enough to support that no child or
infant travel on any airplane.
> The question is: WHY do you think that?
Are you looking for the entoitlement word? Look in the mirror and
smile.
> > I'll say again - it's a classic matter of competing interests. The
> possible
> > imposition of your children on Paul is very much less serious and
> impacting to
> > him, than his imposition would be on you and your children that they can't
> fly
> > for his sake. The scales of competing interests in this case slam right
> down in
> > your favor.
>
> Only when you do the weighing. Not exactly unbiased, are you?
The only weight that matters is economics - I don't see a lot of
movement on the part of airlines to restrict travel of children - in
fact, my child flies at 75% of the adult fare - in BC/FC. Now hows
that for economics.
> > His sonically pleasant enviornment vs. your chidlren being
> > completely grounded. You have the more compelling interest by far.
>
> See, there's a good example of your bias. "Sonically pleasant"? Wrong.
> When I used to teach Speech Communication in university, one of the
> exercises we used to do was to attempt to paraphrase the other person's
> point of view to see if we really understood their position.
>
> Care to try to paraphrase mine? Hint: "sonically pleasant" doesn't even
> come close.
Here's a aq not so paraphrase:
"I've seen this once in an airline club room. I couldn't believe it
-- this
jackass was pacing back and forth, talking very loud, using his
cellphone as
a speaker phone. Quite a few of us in there gave him the look of
death, but
it took a few minutes to penetrate."
You want church quiet and you get bus babble - too bad for you. There
is no seating for one on planet Earth - deal with it, Paul.
amp
Paul Tauger
> In article <af7vv7$c8ncr$1...@ID-101118.news.dfncis.de>, "Paul says...
<snip>
> >Someone who has a prolonged coughing fit didn't board the plane KNOWING
that
> >this would happen, yet chose to do so anyway. Someone who brings a
crying
> >baby on an airplane boards the plane KNOWING that their infant will make
it
> >impossible for other passengers to sleep, read, work, relax, or whatever,
> >yet does so anyway because he/she has made the decision that their
interest
> >in bringing their child along is greater than everyone else's interest in
a
> >peaceful flight. The parent of a shrieking infant thinks that he/she has
> >greater rights than everyone else, and is more important than anyone else
> >because he/she has an infant.
>
> No - the infant and parents have a greater right to use air travel than
you do
> to have your personal optimal sonic surroundings.
I never asked for "personal optimal sonic surroundings." Again, you make up
arguments that I've never made.
>Simple as that. The impact
> to them of perfectly accomodating your desires is much greater, and much
more
> deleterious, than the impact to you of accomodating them. You obtain
> transportation from point A to point B whether or not a baby cries.
>
> It's simple competing interests. Your desires dont' trump the world's.
Again, not my desires, but simple consideration. Where do you stand on the
original subject of this thread? Is it okay for overweight people to take
up your seat, or do you agree with Southwest and believe they should pay for
2 seats?
Because if you do, then your "personal desires" not to be imposed upon are
"trumpping" those of the overweight.
>
> >
> >> Hamilton
> >> suggests a private jet. Actually, I think a better option for you
would
> >be to
> >> redirect your career to one which requires less travel.
> >
> >Gee, thanks for the advice. I'll give it the consideration that it
> >deserves.
>
> It deserves more than you think. You need to take responsibility for your
> decisions and the situations you put yourself in.
Oh, what pure crap. Get a job!
>
> >>
> >> "Shrieklings and brats" Y'know, folks in alt.support.childfree (in
which
> >group
> >> you're a denizen) like to tell us that their argot and extreme ways of
> >referring
> >> to chidlren and parents are just "venting" limited to their own little
> >special
> >> refuge.
> >
> >I coined the term "shriekling," as far as I know. "Brat" is in the
> >dictionary. Let me be clear: all babies aren't shrieklings and all
children
> >aren't brats. The only babies and children whose presence on airplanes I
> >find objectionable are shrieklings (babies who cry constantly) and brats
> >(I'm sure you know what a brat is).
>
> Sez you.
That's right -- sez me. I know what I find objectionable.
>
> >
> >As for being a denizen on alt.support.childfree, my newsreader contains
> >nearly 30 different newsgroups that I visit. The bulk of them are either
> >legal ngs, travel ngs or video ngs. 1 is a.s.cf.
> >
> >Again, what's your point?
> >
> >> But time and time again, and here even from yourself, you who likes to
> >> present yourself as a cultured professional, we see this extreme argot
> >elsewhere
> >> than that little sandbox.
> >
> >The term "brat" is "extreme argot"? Look in the dictionary -- see what
it
> >says. As for "shriekling," as I said, I coined that term, and I thought
it
> >was rather clever, in that it's perfectly descriptive of what it labels.
If
> >you prefer, instead of using my personal short hand, I'll refer to
> >"constantly shrieking infants." Okay?
>
> Nope, if you made it up, you made it up on asc-f and they picked it up
there.
So what?
> Keep it there.
Too bad if you don't like the term. I'll use whatever language _I_ think
civil and appropriate in this forum.
>
> Banty
>
Paul Tauger
"mslinda" <msl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3D17E41E...@earthlink.net...
> Paul Tauger wrote:
>
> > "Banty" <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> > news:af7sd...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >
> > > Hamilton
> > > suggests a private jet. Actually, I think a better option for you
would
> > be to
> > > redirect your career to one which requires less travel.
> >
> > Gee, thanks for the advice. I'll give it the consideration that it
> > deserves.
>
> Maybe a a better option for her would be to redirect her brood into a
Winnebago
> next vacation. She has a choice - business flyers don't, unless they want
to
> give up their jobs and rack up $16 grand in debt like she claims to have
done.
Exactly. According to Banty, I should give up my career, rather than
suggest that screaming infants are inappropriate on long-haul and red-eye
flights. At least she has finally admitted that she thinks she and her
children have more right to fly than I do.
Paul Tauger
I'd agree with you if, for example, the infant was on its way for medical
treatment or something similar. However, there is NO impact on the infant
if it is left home. There may be an impact on the parent, but that's an
entirely separate issue.
> Also, you have resources (earphones plus some ability to concentrate
> on something *else*, or at least the first of these), while the infant
hasn't.
Nonsense. I use noise cancelling headphones, a headphone amplifier and a CD
player whenever I fly. All of that sound equipment is insufficient to mute
the shrieks of an unhappy infant.
However, the question isn't what resources are available to the infant, but
to the parent. The infant doesn't decide to fly, the parent does. The
infant doesn't decide to come along, the parent does. The infant doesn't
decide to take a red-eye flight, the parent does.
>
> Sorry, in this case of competing interests, the baby wins hands down.
In your opinion.
>
> >
> >>
> >> I'll say again - it's a classic matter of competing interests. The
> >possible
> >> imposition of your children on Paul is very much less serious and
> >impacting to
> >> him, than his imposition would be on you and your children that they
can't
> >fly
> >> for his sake. The scales of competing interests in this case slam
right
> >down in
> >> your favor.
> >
> >Only when you do the weighing. Not exactly unbiased, are you?
>
> And you're not?
Of course I'm biased! Which is why I cast my argument in terms of
fundamental fairness, consideration, and not creating imposition on others.
Your only argument seems to be that keeping the baby off the plane imposes
on the baby. I'm waiting to hear you expand on that argument.
> BTW, I dind't see any argument putting forward why your
> interest in quiet trumps others' interests in being able to travel by air.
> Accusations of bias don't count.
It's not a question of "interest in quiet," but a question of who is
imposing on whom. My presence on an airline doesn't require that other
passengers tolerate anything that I'm doing.
>
> Banty
>
Paul Tauger
> > The question is: WHY do you think that?
>
> Are you looking for the entoitlement word? Look in the mirror and
> smile.
You've get a very flexible definition of entitlement. You insist that you
have the right to impose on me, you I'm the one who's demanding an
entitlement.
Interesting.
>
> > > I'll say again - it's a classic matter of competing interests. The
> > possible
> > > imposition of your children on Paul is very much less serious and
> > impacting to
> > > him, than his imposition would be on you and your children that they
can't
> > fly
> > > for his sake. The scales of competing interests in this case slam
right
> > down in
> > > your favor.
> >
> > Only when you do the weighing. Not exactly unbiased, are you?
>
> The only weight that matters is economics - I don't see a lot of
> movement on the part of airlines to restrict travel of children - in
> fact, my child flies at 75% of the adult fare - in BC/FC. Now hows
> that for economics.
Well, I don't disagree with you about this -- economics drive the airlines,
and I'm going to have to fly regardless of whether you buy your child a
ticket or not. However, the question isn't whether the airlines should or
should not ban infants (we both know each other's positions on this), but
whether, as a matter of social etiquette, it is appropriate for one class of
passengers to insist they have the right to impose on another class (which
is how this thread got started).
>
> > > His sonically pleasant enviornment vs. your chidlren being
> > > completely grounded. You have the more compelling interest by far.
> >
> > See, there's a good example of your bias. "Sonically pleasant"? Wrong.
> > When I used to teach Speech Communication in university, one of the
> > exercises we used to do was to attempt to paraphrase the other person's
> > point of view to see if we really understood their position.
> >
> > Care to try to paraphrase mine? Hint: "sonically pleasant" doesn't even
> > come close.
>
> Here's a aq not so paraphrase:
>
> "I've seen this once in an airline club room. I couldn't believe it
> -- this
> jackass was pacing back and forth, talking very loud, using his
> cellphone as
> a speaker phone. Quite a few of us in there gave him the look of
> death, but
> it took a few minutes to penetrate."
Right. The guy was rude. You don't think so?
>
> You want church quiet and you get bus babble - too bad for you.
Nope. Not even close. The shrieks of babies is _not_ "bus babble,"
whatever that means.
Paul Tauger
And what rude and inconsiderate behavior might that be?
Paul Tauger
<snip>
> I agree that babies are a nuisance when you're flying. It's not about
> hating babies, as those with babies will always say. It's more about
> adding one more pain in the ass to all of the pains in the ass that come
> with flying - crappy or no food, tiny seats, overweight people beside
> you, sitting for 4 hours in the same place and getting leg cramps while
> someone behind you who also has leg cramps is kicking your seat.... I
> could go on but you get the picture. And then a mother with a baby
> comes along and makes it impossible for you to sleep through the whole
> ordeal.
>
>
> ButI don't agree with kicking babies off planes, or the whole "if you're
> a parent, then for the common good don't take a baby on the plane" deal.
> Airlines make a point of designing planes to have ample "white noise"
> in order to drown out most noises.
Not so much white noise that it drowns out the screams of an unhappy
infant.
> It's not enough to drown out a
> screaming baby two rows or less away, but you can avoid being kept awake
> by asking to change seats.
Virtually every flight that I'm on leaves full. There are no other
seats.
> I did it once on an Air-France flight. Who
> knows, it just might be the case that the family with the baby couldn't
> get seats together and you'd make their day by moving.
In my experience, there are very few people who would volunteer to sit
next to a screaming child, unless they were the parent (and even then
they might not want to).
Paul Tauger
"Dennis P. Harris" <NO_SPAM_T...@gci.net> wrote in message
news:344ghukvmo4jf79sk...@4ax.com...
What an idiot you are! You don't make any sense at all. Let's see, here's
your syllogism:
I object to screaming infants, therefore I think I am SOOOO important.
Impeccable logic!
>
>
Banty
>
>
>"amp_spamfree" <amp_sp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1192abe3.02062...@posting.google.com...
><snip?
>
>> > The question is: WHY do you think that?
>>
>> Are you looking for the entoitlement word? Look in the mirror and
>> smile.
>
>You've get a very flexible definition of entitlement. You insist that you
>have the right to impose on me, you I'm the one who's demanding an
>entitlement.
Only the same entitlement you're demanding - the entitlement to fly.
>
>Interesting.
>
>>
>> > > I'll say again - it's a classic matter of competing interests. The
>> > possible
>> > > imposition of your children on Paul is very much less serious and
>> > impacting to
>> > > him, than his imposition would be on you and your children that they
>can't
>> > fly
>> > > for his sake. The scales of competing interests in this case slam
>right
>> > down in
>> > > your favor.
>> >
>> > Only when you do the weighing. Not exactly unbiased, are you?
>>
>> The only weight that matters is economics - I don't see a lot of
>> movement on the part of airlines to restrict travel of children - in
>> fact, my child flies at 75% of the adult fare - in BC/FC. Now hows
>> that for economics.
>
>Well, I don't disagree with you about this -- economics drive the airlines,
>and I'm going to have to fly regardless of whether you buy your child a
>ticket or not. However, the question isn't whether the airlines should or
>should not ban infants (we both know each other's positions on this), but
>whether, as a matter of social etiquette, it is appropriate for one class of
>passengers to insist they have the right to impose on another class (which
>is how this thread got started).
>
It's also a matter of social etiquette to be tolerant.
When you talk of "imposition", you're setting up your desires - quiet - as some
sort of default condition. And deviations from this default condition should
not happen (or require some Paul-satisfying justification). It's a circular
argument - you're assuming the premises in your argument.
But there is no objective reason why your desires trump that of others. It's a
matter of competing interests.
You had a better handle on this in the case of opening the window. Now, a
person can say "you're imposing on me with your light." But, in that case, you
understand that *to be constrained* from opening the window is an imposition on
yourself. Furthermore, you understood that his entertainment was being weighed
with your entertainment, without a real compelling interest in either direction.
But when it comes to babies, you try to define the argument such that you assume
your result in your premise - that your desire for quiet at the outset trumps
the interests of others.
Everyone "imposes" on surrounding people in some way. You impose on your
neighbors when you mow your lawn. They have an interest in quiet (haven't
heard anyone soothe themselves with recordings of lawn mowers). Your compelling
interest in maintaining your property means that they have to put up with the
noise. If your neighbors were to say "don't ever mow your lawn, the noise is an
imposition", you'd immediately understand that *being restrained from* doing
that is an *imposition on you*. If a baby is *restrained from* flying for your
sake, it is an imposition by you on the baby. And, on those who must fly with
him or her. And its a much greater and more limiting imposition than they would
place on you.
I don't accept your framing the argument in terms of "imposition" assuming your
desires are a default that trump other interests. Whether you realize it or
not, you're begging the question (and I don't mean the uninformed misuse of
"begging the question" as simply not addressing the question.)
Banty
Banty
tauge...@usa.net says...
>
>Adam Weiss <aw...@blockspam.org> wrote in message
>news:<D18D61817A7235E7.0514BBB3...@lp.airnews.net>...
><snip>
>
>
>> I agree that babies are a nuisance when you're flying. It's not about
>> hating babies, as those with babies will always say. It's more about
>> adding one more pain in the ass to all of the pains in the ass that come
>> with flying - crappy or no food, tiny seats, overweight people beside
>> you, sitting for 4 hours in the same place and getting leg cramps while
>> someone behind you who also has leg cramps is kicking your seat.... I
>> could go on but you get the picture. And then a mother with a baby
>> comes along and makes it impossible for you to sleep through the whole
>> ordeal.
>>
>>
>> ButI don't agree with kicking babies off planes, or the whole "if you're
>> a parent, then for the common good don't take a baby on the plane" deal.
>> Airlines make a point of designing planes to have ample "white noise"
>> in order to drown out most noises.
>
>
>Not so much white noise that it drowns out the screams of an unhappy
>infant.
>
>> It's not enough to drown out a
>> screaming baby two rows or less away, but you can avoid being kept awake
>> by asking to change seats.
>
>Virtually every flight that I'm on leaves full. There are no other
>seats.
That doesn't preclude changing seats by switching with another passenger. Yes -
people *do* switch seats to help people out. I've done it.
>
>> I did it once on an Air-France flight. Who
>> knows, it just might be the case that the family with the baby couldn't
>> get seats together and you'd make their day by moving.
>
>In my experience, there are very few people who would volunteer to sit
>next to a screaming child, unless they were the parent (and even then
>they might not want to).
People do - I've done it. Partly because I know the child will not be screaming
forever. Haivng travelled with infants, I also know that there are grandma and
grandpa types and some teens that are fascinated with babies. You're
projecting your characteristics on the rest of the world.
(Really, for every person who gives the icy eye and even bowls a mom and infant
over on exit - I've had that happen - there's three or four who just can't do
too much for a family travelling with infants.)
Banty
Banty
>
>
>"mslinda" <msl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:3D17E41E...@earthlink.net...
>> Paul Tauger wrote:
>>
>> > "Banty" <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> > news:af7sd...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> >
>> > > Hamilton
>> > > suggests a private jet. Actually, I think a better option for you
>would
>> > be to
>> > > redirect your career to one which requires less travel.
>> >
>> > Gee, thanks for the advice. I'll give it the consideration that it
>> > deserves.
>>
>> Maybe a a better option for her would be to redirect her brood into a
>Winnebago
>> next vacation. She has a choice - business flyers don't, unless they want
>to
>> give up their jobs and rack up $16 grand in debt like she claims to have
>done.
>
>Exactly. According to Banty, I should give up my career, rather than
>suggest that screaming infants are inappropriate on long-haul and red-eye
>flights. At least she has finally admitted that she thinks she and her
>children have more right to fly than I do.
>
You misrepresent my position. We both have the same right to fly. I find
flying somewhat distasteful (like road trips), but comport myself with
expectations, attitudes, and behaviors which allow me to fly and others of all
descriptions to fly, too. I don't demand that others not fly.
You, on the other hand, do demand that some others don't fly, because you cannot
tolerate certain impositions. If you have set some condition such that you have
certain needs and expectations that have to be met for you to fly, and they're
frequently not met, you have two choices - change those expectations nad address
those needs otherwise (earplugs, turning your attention elsewhere), or choosing
to remove yourself from the situation.
You have the right to fly, as much as I do. But you've stated many times here
a conflict between flying, and your needs, that may only be rationally addressed
by you staying off airplanes. But if I see you on an airplane, whatever your
internal state of irritation, I'd fully believe that you have a right to be
there.
That's my position.
Banty
Paul Tauger
LOL!
> > >
> > > > The objection is not to the baby -- it's not the baby who has
decided to
> > > > impose on other passengers by coming on board and crying. It is to
the
> > > > parent, who has said, "My interest in traveling with my infant
> > supercedes
> > > > the interests of all other passengers in flying unmolested."
> > >
> > > Your assumptions are ludicrous as always, Paul. My interests in
> > > traveling with my child are none of your concern.
> >
> > They are if you expect me to endure a wailing child for hours at a time.
If
> > you're children don't impose on anyone, however, you're absolutely
right --
> > it's none of my business, and I don't care whether or not they fly.
>
> It's none of your business.
Right. As long as you don't impose on me, why or whether you fly is none of
my business. Have I ever said otherwise?
>
> > >Those interests
> > > are, in my opinion, tremendously more relevant and important than your
> > > court case or your scampering through the south of France sipping
> > > bourdeaux. I don't molest my fellow passengers and neither does my
> > > child.
> >
> > Well, fine then. I only object to shrieking infants and out-of-control
> > children. If your child never did/does any of that, I have no argument
with
> > you.
>
> Object all you want - Personally, I manage a bit more tolerance of
> other's behaviour, as appropriate or inappropriate as it may be - and
> independent of age.
This is where we keep missing each other. I'm not intolerant of babies.
I'm intolerant of the parents of babies who bring them into places where
their presence constitutes an imposition on others.
>
> > I wonder, though, why you are always so defensive?
>
> Not defensive Paul - I just challenge your myopia and selfishness.
> Why so intolerant of other people, Paul?
Not "other people," only parents of wailing infants and out-of-control
children who bring their charges onto airplanes. I think I've explained at
great length why I'm intolerant of that particular class of people.
>
> > >
> > > >No one in
> > > > their right mind would bring a boom box on board and play it at full
> > volume
> > > > because they "couldn't be without their music" It's no different
when
> > > > someone brings a baby on board, particularly when it's a long-haul
or,
> > even
> > > > worse, a red-eye, flight.
> > >
> > > Too funny. No one in their right mind would expect graveyard silence
> > > at a family restaurant, either. What do you think an airplane is,
> > > Paul, a church?
> >
> > What makes you think I expect a plane to be "graveyard" silent? I think
an
> > airplane is an uncomfortable, tight and confined space where certain
kinds
> > of conduct that might be perfectly acceptable on the street are not
> > acceptable in-flight.
>
> Apparently I don't like subscribe to the same standard of etiquette,
> Miss Manners. I don't think airplanes are restaurants or bars either,
> I think them more as busses with wings.
Why do you think shrieking infants are any more appropriate on busses with
wings?
>
> > > > 2. Many parents, evidently, seem to think that, while other
people's
> > kids
> > > > are nuisances, their little angels are so adorable that no one could
> > ever
> > > > object to their presence.
> > >
> > > You aren't a parent, you have no intention of being one, but you are
> > > an expert on what parent's think? Yeh, right.
> >
> > Note use of the word, "evidently," as in, "the evidence would appear to
> > indicate."
>
> What freaking evidence, Paul? Your continual personal rant based on
> your observations? Hardly reproducible.
Well, it's not just my experience. I'm not the only one on this side of the
thread.
>
> >I'd certainly be interested in alternative explanations that
> > would explain what I routinely witness. Care to provide any?
>
> You look for excuses to complain.
Facile nonsense.
>
> > > >It is fascinating to me that, whenever this
> > > > thread comes up (as it does with dependable regularity), it is
always
> > > > parents who accuse those of us who object to shrieking babies on
planes
> > of
> > > > being "child haters," claiming that THEIR child never disturbs
anyone.
> > >
> > > Yep - it must fascinate you to think that. Fortunately, most parents
> > > really don't care what you think, Paul.
> >
> > Well, you seem to, as you never fail to respond when I post on this
subject
> > (and, btw, I didn't initiate this thread). If you don't care what I
think,
> > then just ignore my posts.
>
> Nope - too much fun watching you get all blustery. What happened, I
> thought I was in your killfile?
I thought I told you in a thread earlier this year. I had to reinstall my
OS, lost my killfile and, since we've been enjoying a civil disagreement,
there's absolutely no reason to killfile. I think its perfectly fine that
you disagree with me -- my objection had been to insults directed at me and,
in particular, my wife.
> Come on Paul - admit it. You have an
> untenable position based on a personal choice which is now manifested
> in an obsession. You apparently have no tolerance for those who think
> differently than you.
I don't think there is anything untenable about my position, and, obviously,
it is based on a personal choice. If I had children, I'd be mighty tempted
to buy into the American entitlement-mind set (though I hope I'd resist).
And I have lots of tolerance for those who think differently than I -- we're
having this discussion, aren't we? However, I do not, and will not, ever
have tolerance for people who think they have a manifest right to impose
upon me without my consent. That, for me, is the bottom line.
>
> > > We do our best and that's all
> > > anyone can expect - from anyone irrespective of their parental status.
> >
> > Which is where we disagree. If "doing one's best," means subjecting
other
> > passengers to continual shrieking on long-haul or red-eye flights then,
no,
> > I think everyone can expect considerably more.
>
> I've had guys drink too much and vomit on my shoes.
> I've had perfume
> Annie stink up an entire FC cabin 2 hours out of Heathrow - this is
> six in the morning, mind you. I've had one ignorant fart drop his
> rollaboard on my toe. On a recent intra-Europe flight, I had an idiot
> put three bottles of cheap champaign in an overhead bin AFTER the
> Captain specifically told folks NOT to put dutyfree liquor in the
> overheads - guess how many bottles made it to London?
>
> Stupid, ignorant, inconsiderate people abound. And you are so focused
> on an infant who cries.
I've been lucky enough not to have experienced the misfortunes you've
detailed. No one has vomited on my shoes. I haven't encountered perfume
Annie (and something like that would be a HUGE problem for me, as it would
almost certainly trigger a migraine). Champagne storers? Nope, haven't
seem them either. I have had people accidently step on my feet, knock into
me with their carryon, etc., but accidents happen.
What I have encountered, though, and with enough regularity so that it
raised to the level of an issue, was crying infants and out-of-control
brats.
> You call it continual shrieking - but in my 3
> million plus miles I have never expereinced a continually shrieking
> infant on board. Never.
Well, you've got an extra 2 million miles or so on me, but in my 1 million I
have. Lots of times. Far too often.
>
> And the first 2 million miles was a childfree (not childless, Paul,
> childfree).
I appreciate that you appreciate the distinction. I have no explanation for
the differences in our experiences, except I'm not a lone voice in the
wilderness on this. If I were, I'd have to re-examine my position (and how
I reached it). However, there are plenty of people on this ng who agree
with me (and plenty of FAs who have confirmed my perception -- when the
subject comes up, I've never once met one who said, "oh, I don't think it's
too much of a problem.")
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Just wait for their, "Oh yeah, well waddabout [fill in the blank:
loud
> > > > businessman on cellphones/obnoxious drunks/window-shade
> > > > openers/seat-recliners/non-bathers/overweight people/tall
people/people
> > with
> > > > carryons]?"
> > >
> > > Well, waddabout??
> >
> > Why do you think other potential nusiances justify the one which happens
to
> > be the subject of this discussion? Do you think that it's okay that a
thief
> > robbed your home because it's also possible that your home could have
been
> > destroyed by an earthquake or fire?
>
> I guess being a abnoxious bore or a crying baby is not illegal?
All analogies fall apart if pushed too far. The point is, one discourtesy
is not excused by others.
> Paul,
> get real for a minute - it's not a question of others behaviour - its
> a question of your lack of tolerance and accomodation.
That's your characterization, not mine. And repeating it, over and over
again, doesn't make it any more accurate.
>Get over it.
> An airplane cabin is not nirvana - irrespective of what Singapore
> Airlines might want you to believe.
>
> > > Nothing makes you happy Paul, so why should we, as
> > > parents, be overly concerned about you?
> >
> > "Nothing makes you happy." How very presumptious of you, considering
you
> > know absolutely nothing about me.
>
> Nothing makes you happy Paul - except complaining about kids.
Again, you know absolutely nothing about me.
>
> > But that's really the core of it, isn't it? Make up any excuse to get
to
> > your conclusion: why should you, as parents, be overly concerned about
> > anyone else?
>
> Keyword - overly. I'm not overly concerned about you Paul because
> regardless of what I do, I won't meet your expectations.
How odd! I have no "expectations" about you, personally. I have a general
expectation about all people -- that they not impose upon me without my
consent (or without a darn good reason).
>
> >That is exactly the entitlement mindset which results in the
> > rapidly increasing militancy which you find so unacceptable (and,
perhaps,
> > threatening?)
>
> Your entitlement? I have no entitlement mindset - I don't rant on and
> on about how I can't STAND to have crying babies around me - I
> tolerate you and your overweight, unshowered, drunken brethren.
Hunh? I'm neither overweight, unshowered nor a drunk. I don't ask you, or
any other passenger, to "tolerate" anything about me -- I don't do anything
which imposes on them. I think stinky passengers and obnoxiously drunken
passengers impose on others, and are rude and inconsiderate. I think an
overweight person who expects me to share half my seat with him or her is
also rude and inconsiderate. As is the parent of a shrieking infant on a
long-haul or red-eye.
We all "tolerate" these nuisances -- what choice do we have? We have to
fly, and the airlines won't keep them off the planes. Do we have to like
it?
> I
> don't particularly care for it, but I certainly can manage tolerance -
> even for a 12 hour flight. What makes you so special?
See above.
>
> > > If you insist on living under
> > > a dark cloud all your life, so be it.
> >
> > Oh, that's funny! Because I object to screaming babies when I fly, I
live
> > my life under a dark cloud.
>
> You object to anything that has anything to do with children.
Completely false.
> You
> complain you can't get a drink before noon on a Sunday.
My post wasn't a complaint, but, yes, I think it's wrong that when
centuries-old blue laws that are intended to enforce theology interfere with
what otherwise are perfectly acceptable activities.
>You gripe
> about luggage being delayed and frequent flier points you can't use
> and flights that are cancelled.
Well, this is r.t.a, where we post about airlines -- that includes gripes.
> You bitch and moan about not being
> allowed to preboard, about having to be searched...is there anything
> about flying you haven't complained about?
I don't "bitch and moan." I discuss -- what do you want to do? Restrict
all conversation in this ng to, "How do I get the cheapest ticket from LAX
to O'Hare?"?
>
> Thanks for playing.
As I've often said, if you don't like what I have to say, there's always the
killfile.
Well, I saw it once, as well as the newspaper article. Why do you think it
was misquoted?
>
> > Interesting, though, that you find an objection to blue laws (actually
not
> > even an objection, just an inquiry as to where they were still enforced)
as
> > a "whine." Do you support blue laws? Do you think that laws that were
> > enacted to legislate Christian theological practices are a good thing?
>
> Personally, I support the rights of local citizens to manage their own
> affairs - what, you against self determination and a proponent of big
> brotherism?
No, I believe in the Constitution of the United States, the First Amendment
of which precludes the establishment of state religions.
>
> > >
> > > What you expected? Good. Now that this thread has moved from fat to
> > > kids on planes....and be forwarned - it's summer and kids be
> > > traveling...and not just in coach, Paul. I'm booked, with family, in
> > > first, every leg of every flight - all as a courtesy by my airline.
> >
> > I thought you said your child doesn't disturb anyone? Which is it?
>
> I bet even my child would disturb you since he does have this habit of
> breathing.
It's this kind of hyperbole that makes discussion with you so difficult.
>
> Anxiously awaiting for the plonk.
Why? As I said, as long as you don't insult me or my wife, I would never
think of killfiling you.
>
> amp