View Poll Results: Should kids fly in business or first class?
Yes - If parents have the money or miles, more power to them. 33 55.00%
No - People pay extra for a reason, and it's not so they can sit next to someone's little angel. 14 23.33%
Maybe - Only if they are well behaved -- and if they act up, to the back they go. 7 11.67%
Who cares? I won't be flying up front any time soon, so it's not my problem. Creepy elitists suck. 6 10.00%
Voters: 60. You may not vote on this poll

Children in business class

That video was funny

I understand that technically what you pay for is a certain amount of space and service upgrades, not a different quality/type of company.

However, I 100% agree with fig jam in that there is no excuse for bad parenting. When I fly (economy) I tolerate the crying because it can be scary for them. Yes it annoys me and gives me a headache, but it cannot be helped and is nobodys fault.

So regardless of the seating class you are in, it should not be happening. Many times have I spent a flight being stared at from over a seat in front, kicked at from behind, and had to listen to plain brattiness. Children are not immune from good manners. They understand right from wrong. This means they can be taught what is socialy acceptable. I travelled often as a child from as early as four and never, ever acted up like that. I was too scared of how my parents would react if I even tried it. And not scared in the way of "They're going to hit me" but scared of the dissapointment and harsh words that I would get.

And I suppose that since it's called business class means that they could place a restriction on it. It does imply it is an adult place.
But I think the whole idea of business class is elitist and silly so I voted the last option.
Originally Posted by Amneris
Why is that? You pay more for service and amenities and you get more. That doesn't seem elitist or silly to me. No more than buying a nicer car would give you a nicer drive (and all the bells and whistles), even though any car could get you from point A to B.
Originally Posted by mad scientist
Yes, the "elitist and silly" comment seemed odd and didn't make sense to me.

The airlines' bread and butter is not vacationing families, with or without children, it's business travel. Providing business class is a way to offer a more comfortable option to people who are in the air several days a week (like my ex), and it's also a way (through "frequent flyer" type free upgrades) to reward those valuable customers who, because of their work schedule demands, usually can't use discounts, make advance reservations, take advantage of special deals, etc.

And I feel sorry for the frequent business traveler for whom a trip is work, not pleasure, who has to constantly deal with badly behaved children in tight places. Day after day after day. So maybe business class shouldn't allow small children after all. I guess there's no fair way to do it.
Originally Posted by fig jam
It makes sense to me. Everyone else gets crammed in like sardines, doesn't get a snack or decent service even after paying an arm or a leg... and the wealthy few get way better space and services... and now some of them don't even want to hear or see kids?

If your job is expecting you to fly somewhere and then work right away, maybe their scheduling is the issue and they should spring a few extra of their ample bucks to fly you out the night before and put you up in a hotel.

I think drunk/rude adults have caused more problems on planes than kids.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











Well the reason the wealthy get more is because they can pay more....I don't understand how it's elitist to get what you pay for? Or to be able to pay for it and therefore want it? Still not sure what you were trying to say there, sorry :s.

I do agree about the adults though. But the drunk ones usually get thrown off or arrested when you land.

It makes sense to me. Everyone else gets crammed in like sardines, doesn't get a snack or decent service even after paying an arm or a leg... and the wealthy few get way better space and services... and now some of them don't even want to hear or see kids?

If your job is expecting you to fly somewhere and then work right away, maybe their scheduling is the issue and they should spring a few extra of their ample bucks to fly you out the night before and put you up in a hotel.

I think drunk/rude adults have caused more problems on planes than kids.
Originally Posted by Amneris
It's not always the wealthy - I think that's kind of a misconception. Pretty much every flight I've been on has offered coach passengers an upgrade to first class for under $100 dollars. I know some people who just fly so often that they usually have the flyer miles to go first class. Do I think it's worth it? No. But is first class generally more accessible than people would think? Yeah, I'd say definitely.

Not wanting to hear or see kids is not exclusive to the "elitist and silly." I know that children are "part of life" and blah blah blah. I don't think they should be banned from business or first class. But shouldn't one be allowed to find children grating without being considered snobby? Is it such a bad thing that some adults want child-free areas (especially if they're willing to pay for them)? I don't think so.

For as much as children are a "part of life," having them constitutes a particular lifestyle choice to which not everyone else subscribes. I don't think it's wrong to place restrictions on that lifestyle in the same way one would on smokers, for example. Kids section and a non-kids section? Sounds fair to me.

But it doesn't work that way, and it won't. So, no, airlines shouldn't ban kiddies from first and business classes.
CG since 07/26/09

Last edited by mandatoryfun; 09-27-2009 at 12:57 AM.
So, by your logic, Amneris, it would also be elitist and silly to have different quality/pricing for seats at the opera or theater? Why should only the wealthy few have the best seats, just because they are able to pay for them? Heck, what about those danged season-ticket holders with the skyboxes at the stadiums?

I say make them sit in the nosebleed section with the rest of us noble-minded folks!!
"Tell me, are you incapable of restraining yourself, or do you take pride in being an insufferable know-it-all?"

"Honey Badger don't care!"
Should misbehaving children be allowed to fly in business or first class? I just stumbled off of a flight with frazzled nerves, and I'm grumpy. I paid cash to upgrade my work-provided cattle class seat to business. It was an international flight, I was expected to work upon arrival, and I needed to sleep. Also, I'm generally a panicky flyer, and having that extra few inches of space on all sides helps with the whole trapped-in-a-flying-coffin-just-moments-from-death feeling.

On this particular flight, there were six (6) kids in business class. Three were older and well behaved, no problem. The one is front of me was a toddler who occasionally wandered into my space and touched my stuff while his mother gave me her "isn't he ADORABLE" laugh. The other two toddlers were on the other side and several rows back, and they took turns screaming, crying, and chattering loudly the entire flight.

For some reason, the happy pills to help Anthro relax and sleep while strapped on top of several thousand pounds of explosive jet fuel didn't work so well. Needless to say, it's time to work and I feel like I pulled a stressful all-nighter. And I'm out of pocket $$$$. I am very tempted to write the airline and ask for a free upgrade for a future flight.

Kids up front?

My vote is for yes, if they have home training. Long-haul flights across the Pacific suck hosewater no matter what the circumstance, and parents should have the option of adding a little comfort for the family. My coworkers do this frequently, but their kids don't scream for 13 hours in the air.
Originally Posted by Anthro Incarnate
I voted Yes.

I sympathize with your plight, but business class or first class is open to anybody who can pay for the seat. I think the problem you have described is more a matter of bad parenting.

Many years ago I was a flight attendant for a major carrier and I've had to deal with more than my share of parents who throw all their good sense out the window when flying with their children. Did you try speaking to the flight attendant? Have them handle it - it's their job.

But I think the whole idea of business class is elitist and silly so I voted the last option.
Originally Posted by Amneris
Silly Amneris. Communism is for kids!

"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
How on earth would airlines implement a policy that would allow only "well-behaved" children in special seating?

I think when you buy a first class/business class whatever seat, you can expect a bigger seat, more leg room, a little better service (you get to get on the plane first and leave first etc). You don't really get to expect consideration from other passengers or a quiet flight. Any number of things can disrupt a flight, like turbulence and delays.
Originally Posted by Snarls

Agreed. Airlines cannot implement a caveat when an adult buys a ticket for first or business class that you can only purchase if you will be well behaved. The same applies if the parent pays a ticket for their child to fly in an upgraded seat. The child's behavior is really the parent's responsibility to monitor. I have flown business class for work and encountered annoying adult passengers including one guy whose every stroke on his laptop was making a loud "ping" sound. But everything has to be taken in stride. A ticket on a plane no matter which seat you fly in does not mean you will have an annoyance-free flight.
If your job is expecting you to fly somewhere and then work right away, maybe their scheduling is the issue and they should spring a few extra of their ample bucks to fly you out the night before and put you up in a hotel.
Originally Posted by Amneris
Uhh, right- I'm sure business travelers who want to keep their job (esp. in this economy) will be sure to bring this up with their employer.

Even better- everyone's boss should just give them a raise, then so we could all afford to fly biz/ 1st class!

ETA: Ok, so that was snarky. I think a lot of things about traveling can, and should be changed. But the fact that biz class exists doesn't bother me.
Brooklyn, NY

Hair: 3A/B, Underlayer of 2B
HG products:
Winter- Giovanni Tea Tree (co-wash) & 50/50 (condish); Curl Junkie Curl Assurance Leave-In; Curls Milkshake & Quenched Curls; Re:coil; BRHG
Summer: DevaCurl No Poo & OneC; CK; Re:coil; BRHG; Honey!!!

fotki pw= crrrls

Last edited by Gemini13; 09-27-2009 at 10:15 AM.
omfg that video. the mother sitting there doing absolutely nothing. as if everyone wants to hear that child scream like that??? omg, i HATE parents like that. i hate you, really.

i took my daughter on a plane before she was 2 and at some point she cried, but i picked her up and gave her some milk so she would be quiet. wth??? what is the point of letting the child cry?? to annoy the rest of the plane. i swear i want to punch that mother straight in her neck. that's how feel. ugh!! die!! now!!

i voted, children should stay the hell out of business class and first class. you want to travel with kids, stay in coach.

and keep your loud ass kids out of the movie theater (unless it's g or pg) and out of the restaurants. just keep em home until you can train them to behave properly.

ugh...disgust.

eta,
my little brother was a crier. nothing you could do would shut him up. he stopped crying when he felt like it. you remember the little boy in the condom video who tore up the grocery store, that was my little brother. my mother was a good parent, but he was just...i don't know, stubborn. here is the thing, we didn't take him places where it would make others uncomfortable or us uncomfortable. it's called consideration.

Last edited by frau; 09-27-2009 at 02:26 PM.
So, by your logic, Amneris, it would also be elitist and silly to have different quality/pricing for seats at the opera or theater? Why should only the wealthy few have the best seats, just because they are able to pay for them? Heck, what about those danged season-ticket holders with the skyboxes at the stadiums?

I say make them sit in the nosebleed section with the rest of us noble-minded folks!!
Originally Posted by fig jam

Yes, exactly - I think there is an element of elitism to the arts that make them inaccessible to people who could really enjoy them and benefit from them if not for that. It's absolutely silly to design theatres with sightlines where some people can't even see what's going on.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











Silly Amneris. Communism is for kids!
Originally Posted by curlyarca
LOL... And Obama, as per your signature.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











So, by your logic, Amneris, it would also be elitist and silly to have different quality/pricing for seats at the opera or theater? Why should only the wealthy few have the best seats, just because they are able to pay for them? Heck, what about those danged season-ticket holders with the skyboxes at the stadiums?

I say make them sit in the nosebleed section with the rest of us noble-minded folks!!
Originally Posted by fig jam

Yes, exactly - I think there is an element of elitism to the arts that make them inaccessible to people who could really enjoy them and benefit from them if not for that. It's absolutely silly to design theatres with sightlines where some people can't even see what's going on.
Originally Posted by Amneris
Then you had better design those theaters pretty small, because no matter how you design a theater, if it holds very many people, someone is going to be sitting far away because they're in the back, on the top, whatever.

And the arts can't support themselves due to falling admissions, in part, anyway, so having tiny theaters should really help with that. Or theaters full of only bad seats, since it isn't possible to have theaters with only good seats, unless they're tiny, etc.

In fact, some people argue that all arts are elitist, whether on an intellectual or material basis, so let's do away with them. You'll then be out of one of your jobs.

However, I would also suggest that it is the existence and availability of the "cheap seats" that allows people who cannot afford more expensive seats (and fewer, better seats would mean ALL expensive seats) -- therefore making the arts MORE accessible, not less. In college, the cheap seats plus student discounts were the only way I could go to the ballet, symphony, plays, etc.

Amneris, this is one of those times when I think you're arguing just to "hear" yourself argue.
"Tell me, are you incapable of restraining yourself, or do you take pride in being an insufferable know-it-all?"

"Honey Badger don't care!"

Last edited by fig jam; 09-27-2009 at 08:05 PM.
So, by your logic, Amneris, it would also be elitist and silly to have different quality/pricing for seats at the opera or theater? Why should only the wealthy few have the best seats, just because they are able to pay for them? Heck, what about those danged season-ticket holders with the skyboxes at the stadiums?

I say make them sit in the nosebleed section with the rest of us noble-minded folks!!
Originally Posted by fig jam

Yes, exactly - I think there is an element of elitism to the arts that make them inaccessible to people who could really enjoy them and benefit from them if not for that. It's absolutely silly to design theatres with sightlines where some people can't even see what's going on.
Originally Posted by Amneris
Then you had better design those theaters pretty small, because no matter how you design a theater, if it holds very many people, someone is going to be sitting far away because they're in the back, on the top, whatever.

Sure... but it doesn't have to be based on price/class - it could be first come/first served or any other option.

And the arts can't support themselves due to falling admissions, in part, anyway, so having tiny theaters should really help with that. Or theaters full of only bad seats, since it isn't possible to have theaters with only good seats, unless they're tiny, etc.

And one of the reasons admission is falling is because people do not see the arts as relevant/necessary and see them as elitist.

In fact, some people argue that all arts are elitist, so let's do away with them. You'll then be out of one of your jobs.

Yes, some people do argue that, but I don't think they are inherently elitist. The way some of them are presented sometimes is. In actual fact the arts are vital to healthy and inclusive communities - there have been tons of studies and experiences to show that.

Amneris, this is one of those times when I think you're arguing just to "hear" yourself argue.
Originally Posted by fig jam
That's kind of funny... since you "started" arguing with me about one sentence that I wrote in answer to a poll that had an option phrased almost exactly the same way that a few people selected - but I'M arguing just to hear myself argue? You're wrong about that. You don't know what I believe or what I think or what my social or political beliefs are, so you can think what you like and that's your prerogative.... but you are wrong.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali













Yes, exactly - I think there is an element of elitism to the arts that make them inaccessible to people who could really enjoy them and benefit from them if not for that. It's absolutely silly to design theatres with sightlines where some people can't even see what's going on.
Originally Posted by Amneris
Then you had better design those theaters pretty small, because no matter how you design a theater, if it holds very many people, someone is going to be sitting far away because they're in the back, on the top, whatever.

Sure... but it doesn't have to be based on price/class - it could be first come/first served or any other option.

And the arts can't support themselves due to falling admissions, in part, anyway, so having tiny theaters should really help with that. Or theaters full of only bad seats, since it isn't possible to have theaters with only good seats, unless they're tiny, etc.

And one of the reasons admission is falling is because people do not see the arts as relevant/necessary and see them as elitist.

In fact, some people argue that all arts are elitist, so let's do away with them. You'll then be out of one of your jobs.

Yes, some people do argue that, but I don't think they are inherently elitist. The way some of them are presented sometimes is. In actual fact the arts are vital to healthy and inclusive communities - there have been tons of studies and experiences to show that.

Amneris, this is one of those times when I think you're arguing just to "hear" yourself argue.
Originally Posted by fig jam
That's kind of funny... since you "started" arguing with me about one sentence that I wrote in answer to a poll that had an option phrased almost exactly the same way that a few people selected - but I'M arguing just to hear myself argue? You're wrong about that. You don't know what I believe or what I think or what my social or political beliefs are, so you can think what you like and that's your prerogative.... but you are wrong.
Originally Posted by Amneris
You have missed the point entirely. I am not taking issue with your arguing in general. Heck, we all do it all the time on here.

I said you were arguing IN THIS CASE to hear yourself argue because IN THIS CASE, your argument makes no logical sense whatsoever. Not because you don't have the right to argue. And I'm not the first person by a long shot to make this observation about SOME of your arguments.

This was just one of them, to me. And I'm not the only person missing the point of your comments about business class being elitist, either, if you read others' posts.

But I do have to laugh -- if this whole board (if they've been reading your numerous, ubiquitous and very lengthy posts for the last how many years) doesn't have some "idea of your political and social beliefs" by now -- then I don't know what to say! Better post some more l so we can get a better idea of what you're all about.
"Tell me, are you incapable of restraining yourself, or do you take pride in being an insufferable know-it-all?"

"Honey Badger don't care!"
I just want to know how you'd build a theater that had "nothing but *****ty seats?"

"Every section is the nose-bleed section!"

"One and all, bring your binoculars! You can't see ish in our house!"

My husband says, "Obviously there is value in a good seat vs. a bad seat. As long as people are willing to pay those higher prices, then why shouldn't they? If you can't afford it, you do what you can."

Amneris, just curious...in all of your travels to the UK, the US, Trinidad, Caribbean, etc. you always flew business/coach class, right?
One change in design I've noticed in some concert halls and amphitheaters is the introduction of large monitors that project the image onstage to the back so people in the nose bleed sections can see. This definitely helps.

Although you have gone on that tangent, I don't even think the point is really the design of the theater (although that is important)....it seems the point is that the costs of seats should all be of a low to mid-level cost so that they are accessible to people of all income levels.

And in my opinion, planes should have more leg room all around, not just for those who can pay for more leg room or who are able to sit in the emergency rows. Sitting scrunched up like you do in coach is not healthy on so many levels.

"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
I just want to know how you'd build a theater that had "nothing but *****ty seats?"

"Every section is the nose-bleed section!"

"One and all, bring your binoculars! You can't see ish in our house!"

My husband says, "Obviously there is value in a good seat vs. a bad seat. As long as people are willing to pay those higher prices, then why shouldn't they? If you can't afford it, you do what you can."

Amneris, just curious...in all of your travels to the UK, the US, Trinidad, Caribbean, etc. you always flew business/coach class, right?
Originally Posted by M2LR
Substitute health care or decent housing for "it" and does it still sound so logical????

Obviously I am not equating seats on a plane or in a theatre with health care... but to me the mentality is similar... that anyone with money should automatically get the best of anything.... and those who can't afford it, sucks to be you, even if the distinction between cheap and expensive is arbitrary. I know that attitude isn't going anywhere anytime soon, but it doesn't mean I have to agree with it or think it is the only "logical" view.

Who said anything about building a theatre with nothing but bad seats? I said that seats of all types should be available to a variety of income levels.

A secondary point is that theatres and sets should be designed with reasonable sightlines from anywhere in the house.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali












Then you had better design those theaters pretty small, because no matter how you design a theater, if it holds very many people, someone is going to be sitting far away because they're in the back, on the top, whatever.

Sure... but it doesn't have to be based on price/class - it could be first come/first served or any other option.

And the arts can't support themselves due to falling admissions, in part, anyway, so having tiny theaters should really help with that. Or theaters full of only bad seats, since it isn't possible to have theaters with only good seats, unless they're tiny, etc.

And one of the reasons admission is falling is because people do not see the arts as relevant/necessary and see them as elitist.

In fact, some people argue that all arts are elitist, so let's do away with them. You'll then be out of one of your jobs.

Yes, some people do argue that, but I don't think they are inherently elitist. The way some of them are presented sometimes is. In actual fact the arts are vital to healthy and inclusive communities - there have been tons of studies and experiences to show that.

Amneris, this is one of those times when I think you're arguing just to "hear" yourself argue.
Originally Posted by fig jam
That's kind of funny... since you "started" arguing with me about one sentence that I wrote in answer to a poll that had an option phrased almost exactly the same way that a few people selected - but I'M arguing just to hear myself argue? You're wrong about that. You don't know what I believe or what I think or what my social or political beliefs are, so you can think what you like and that's your prerogative.... but you are wrong.
Originally Posted by Amneris
You have missed the point entirely. I am not taking issue with your arguing in general. Heck, we all do it all the time on here.

I said you were arguing IN THIS CASE to hear yourself argue because IN THIS CASE, your argument makes no logical sense whatsoever. Not because you don't have the right to argue. And I'm not the first person by a long shot to make this observation about SOME of your arguments.

This was just one of them, to me. And I'm not the only person missing the point of your comments about business class being elitist, either, if you read others' posts.

Again, you're wrong. I don't know what is so illogical about it. I see many valid reasons to my point. Apparently, so do several agencies and departments of my government who cut costs fairly recently by having all their employees and staff fly coach because they said it would not be right and would send the wrong impression when so many ordinary citizens were struggling. I know, we're a communist country and all.

But I do have to laugh -- if this whole board (if they've been reading your numerous, ubiquitous and very lengthy posts for the last how many years) doesn't have some "idea of your political and social beliefs" by now -- then I don't know what to say! Better post some more l so we can get a better idea of what you're all about.
Originally Posted by fig jam
I think you've made it clear what you're all about, too.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











omfg that video. the mother sitting there doing absolutely nothing. as if everyone wants to hear that child scream like that??? omg, i HATE parents like that. i hate you, really.

i took my daughter on a plane before she was 2 and at some point she cried, but i picked her up and gave her some milk so she would be quiet. wth??? what is the point of letting the child cry?? to annoy the rest of the plane. i swear i want to punch that mother straight in her neck. that's how feel. ugh!! die!! now!!

i voted, children should stay the hell out of business class and first class. you want to travel with kids, stay in coach.

and keep your loud ass kids out of the movie theater (unless it's g or pg) and out of the restaurants. just keep em home until you can train them to behave properly.

ugh...disgust.

eta,
my little brother was a crier. nothing you could do would shut him up. he stopped crying when he felt like it. you remember the little boy in the condom video who tore up the grocery store, that was my little brother. my mother was a good parent, but he was just...i don't know, stubborn. here is the thing, we didn't take him places where it would make others uncomfortable or us uncomfortable. it's called consideration.
Originally Posted by frau
that was how my parents felt about me when i was little...and how i'll feel too. seriously, i love kiddos...but i would see nothing wrong with keeping them out of certain parts of the plane...or even certain planes all together - regardless of behavior. we're too child-centric as it is...
2c hair. maybe a little porous? my hair likes suave, vo5 and the big tease. going to be trying more lush soon. not sure how i feel about dr bronners.

letting my hair be natural again after getting it straightened. yeah yeah, im a traitor

Trending Topics


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com