Beware travelers with bratty kids

"BDS" wrote in message
et...
"Peter R." wrote

I was thinking from the angle of basic human compassion, not government
level
intervention. You only need to consider a typical US highway to see a
world
of people who just don't give a **** about each other.

I have to agree, and it didn't used to be that way.

For instance, in the past people wouldn't bring their young children into
restaurants and allow them to exhibit extreme behavior out of
consideration
for the other patrons. Now these people believe that their "right" to
bring
their screaming kids into any public place outweighs the rights of the
rest
of the people who are paying the same price and would like to enjoy a
nice,
quiet evening. Ditto for theatres, airplanes, and stores. When I was a
kid
my parents would apply an immediate "correction" if I got out of line,
especially if it was in a public place.

My wife still does that. The other night she made me wait out in the car...

Gig 601XL Builder schrieb:

Kingfish wrote:
Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always Trailways...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773655/?GT1=8921

From the story...

"The father said his family would never fly AirTran again."

Makes me want to fly AirTran.

ACK!

#m
--
I am not a terrorist http://www.casualdisobedience.com/

On 1/25/2007 10:54:46 AM, "Matt Barrow" wrote:

That is ALWAYS the way it starts (see: "BUT IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN").

Hey, I am just as critical of that attitude as the next guy and I am a tough
disciplinarian to my three little boys, but since having children I have
moved from "the high and the mighty know-it-all" to one who has just a bit
more compassion, even for the obvious bratty kids. After all, it is not their
fault they are that way.

But, the reality is that even the best of children might attempt to cross the
line on occasion, be it due to exhaustion, low blood sugar or just human
nature. Disciplining a child in front of an airplane-full of passengers is
not always the easiest choice (especially in lieu of these new, silly
anti-spanking laws), and walking off the aircraft to handle the child is
understandably tough, too. Without knowing the parents or actually witnessing
the situation, my first, apparently contrarian position is one of compassion
rather than condemnation.



--
Peter

Jim, I haven't looked up the part 121 rules since I left the airlines, but
as I recall, the "duty time" is defined as flight time. No limit on how
long a crewmember can sit idling on the ground. Last I looked it was 8
hours a 24 hour day, 40 hours in a 7 day week, 100 hours in any 30 day
period ("month") and 1000 hours in a calendar year. Perhaps that has
changed.

We had three or four crews during the last week of December on almost any
flight. Fly one leg, run out of yearly time. Swap with another crew. Fly
one leg, run out of time ...

Jim



Every minute is costly, whether the plane is at cruise or
parked with the crew waiting.

Jake Brodsky schrieb:


Yet everyone has an off day. I don't know what the situation was with
these parents or why their kid was such a problem. When I've traveled
with my three children, I took their car seats with them on board the
airliner. It wasn't easy. However, they felt right at home and they
all behaved very well. Expecting a child to sit still in a seat they're
not familiar with is no simple affair, especially when it has so many
buttons and stuff to play with.

the kid was not seatbelted. strap the kid to the seat and let it scream
.... and the plane can depart. But the parents failed to buckle up the kid.

I'd have given the parents a few minutes to calm the kid down. It makes
for better press...

f*ck the press. and screw those parents. 2 buss loads of people had to
be delayed because of their misbehaviour.

Jake Brodsky


#m
--
I am not a terrorist http://www.casualdisobedience.com/

Mortimer Schnerd, RN schrieb:


According to the story, they delayed the flight a good 15 minutes before they
got the boot. I'd say the airline was more than patient.


and one may assume that they were one of the first to board the plane.
Don't they board families w/kids first (with 1st class)? this gives some
extra time, too.

#m
--
I am not a terrorist http://www.casualdisobedience.com/

"The father said his family would never fly AirTran again."

Makes me want to fly AirTran.




Same here!

My wife (a 2nd grade teacher) and I were wondering how many read that
article and said the same. I don't feel sorry for parents who can't
control a kid and seem to feel that everyone else should have to put up
with it.

Imagine how that kid might have acted for the entire flight? G

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Peter R." wrote in message
...
On 1/25/2007 9:13:06 AM, "Matt Barrow" wrote:

Probably half the problems in the nanny state world we now live in
derived
from people that really "give a ****".
I was thinking from the angle of basic human compassion, not government
level
intervention.

That is ALWAYS the way it starts (see: "BUT IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN").


Right-on! The good ol' "Kid Card" gets played. G

The Kid Card can justify anything the player wants, if played correctly.

RST Engineering wrote:
Jim, I haven't looked up the part 121 rules since I left the airlines, but
as I recall, the "duty time" is defined as flight time. No limit on how
long a crewmember can sit idling on the ground. Last I looked it was 8
hours a 24 hour day, 40 hours in a 7 day week, 100 hours in any 30 day
period ("month") and 1000 hours in a calendar year. Perhaps that has
changed.

Is AirTran unionized?

B A R R Y wrote:

"The father said his family would never fly AirTran again."

Makes me want to fly AirTran.



Same here!

My wife (a 2nd grade teacher) and I were wondering how many read that
article and said the same. I don't feel sorry for parents who can't
control a kid and seem to feel that everyone else should have to put up
with it.

Imagine how that kid might have acted for the entire flight? G
The msnbc site that I read the story on had a poll and 68% of the
respondents agreed with AirTran