Airline Launches Its New “Quiet Zone,” Banishing Kids To The Back Of The Plane

[Frequentflier]

Wasn't there a story late last year about parents of a newborn who brought a small gift for every person on the plane (small bag of candy & earplugs) which came with a note explaining they had a newborn would do everything they could to keep it quiet and begged forgiveness in advance? I recall it was well received by the passengers. At least they made an effort.

[BaronArtz]

What do you say if they're not white?

 

I always ask the parents to discipline their kids. It's not my job -- or right -- to do it for them. They usually get huffy.

 

Then I say something like 'you're not in your ghetto here'. I know it's nasty, but I only say it AFTER they say something mean after I politely, tactfully ask them to change their child's behavior. But honestly, I find that non-white parents are more heavy handed disciplining their kids - which is something I totally encourage.

[BaronArtz]

You can send almost anything FEDEX but I think they draw the line at kids. However, I am sure at least one adult has tried to send himself as cargo on FEDEX, without success.

 

There is no reasonable fix for children and babies on airlines. Families wish to be together and travel together. Often, the parents are suffering more than the other passengers but sometimes it isn't obvious. However, spreading the misery is not a good alternative, especially for us adult gay folks. The only reasonable course of action is to try to arrange one's schedule to avoid "family times on the airlines" whateve that might mean.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

 

That, or travel first class. That's the lesson I learned from watching 'Titanic'. Always travel first class. Always.

[Steven_Draker]

That, or travel first class. That's the lesson I learned from watching 'Titanic'. Always travel first class. Always.

 

Aren't we trying to compare apples and oranges, my friend? ;-) Plus Titanic was 101 years ago.

 

A tip from Steven: if you want to survive a plane crash (very unlikely to happen) always sit in the back of the aircraft.

 

Here is why ... http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/cattle-class-passengers-more-likely-to-survive-a-plane-crash/story-e6frfq80-1226475536148

[BaronArtz]

Aren't we trying to compare apples and oranges, my friend? ;-) Plus Titanic was 101 years ago.

 

A tip from Steven: if you want to survive a plane crash (very unlikely to happen) always sit in the back of the aircraft.

 

Here is why ... http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/cattle-class-passengers-more-likely-to-survive-a-plane-crash/story-e6frfq80-1226475536148[/color]

 

True perhaps. But at least you do down in style. And not surrounded by screaming kids.

[Steven_Draker]

I'd pay the extra price for quiet and comfort as well, BaronArtz but you lost me (in third class) with Titanic :-)

[Guest verymarried]

I seriously believe that kids and kids' parents are the new blacks, gays and women who are left without equal rights. They are the only people currently who are banned publically from places of lodging and now coming it seems, premium plane seats. I hope some Texas red-neck lawyer files a class action law suit to prevent discrimination against kids. I had done business with some B&B's for years until I had kids, and presto, we were banned. I'm hopeful you will see law suits to prevent the kind of prejudice which this forum clearly shows is out there.

[BSR]

I've had the kick the back of your seat thing happen many times. Once, after glares didn't work, I turned and said to the clueless mother ... "would you please stop your child from kicking my seat." She looked and me and said to the kid ... "you have to stop that Johnny, the mean man doesn't like it." And we wonder why this generation is the biggest bunch of narcissists of all-time.

Because of horrid people like this trailer-park queen and her soon-to-be-if-not-already narcissist spawn, it makes me wish more than anything that I had the ability to fart on command. OK, that would be wretchedly unfair to the innocent bystanders in this situation, but I would take tremendous delight in the olfactory torture to the offending party.

[KMEM]

Filming one or two "test" crashes complete with dummies does not statistically prove their case. Many years and many crashes studied have led to the conclusion that it is basically luck that provides survivability from a crash. Too much depends upon the details of the crash. Some F pax came out of the UA flight departing from HI. Many of the fatalities at SUX were in the back and at least one pilot survived. Actually, the cockpit is probably the most likely place to have fatalities. They are the first to arrive at the accident scene and most likely to not leave it, at least alive.

 

The best ride in the case of turbulence is over the wings.

 

Unfortunately, I have seen unruly kids in F also but statistically there should/would be more in Y, simply because there are more total folks in Y, if no other reason.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[AdamSmith]

Exactly. Automobile crash analysis (one of the things I consult about) is an exact science but not aircraft. Too many unknown (unknowable) variables.

 

Filming one or two "test" crashes complete with dummies does not statistically prove their case. Many years and many crashes studied have led to the conclusion that it is basically luck that provides survivability from a crash. Too much depends upon the details of the crash. Some F pax came out of the UA flight departing from HI. Many of the fatalities at SUX were in the back and at least one pilot survived. Actually, the cockpit is probably the most likely place to have fatalities. They are the first to arrive at the accident scene and most likely to not leave it, at least alive.

 

The best ride in the case of turbulence is over the wings.

 

Unfortunately, I have seen unruly kids in F also but statistically there should/would be more in Y, simply because there are more total folks in Y, if no other reason.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[operalover21]

I seriously believe that kids and kids' parents are the new blacks, gays and women who are left without equal rights. They are the only people currently who are banned publically from places of lodging and now coming it seems, premium plane seats. I hope some Texas red-neck lawyer files a class action law suit to prevent discrimination against kids. I had done business with some B&B's for years until I had kids, and presto, we were banned. I'm hopeful you will see law suits to prevent the kind of prejudice which this forum clearly shows is out there.

 

I can only hope this is satire because if it isn't it's the most seriously fucked up thing I've read in a long time. Prejudice against bad behavior? Seirously?

[operalover21]

Because of horrid people like this trailer-park queen and her soon-to-be-if-not-already narcissist spawn, it makes me wish more than anything that I had the ability to fart on command. OK, that would be wretchedly unfair to the innocent bystanders in this situation, but I would take tremendous delight in the olfactory torture to the offending party.

 

Unfortunately, she wasn't a "trailer park" queen but a professional woman with her head buried in her Blackberry in First Class while her little miscreant sat there doing whatever he wanted. I'm guessing that if she were a "trailer park queen" rather than someone from the Upper West Side, her kid probably would have gotten a well deserved smack.

[operalover21]

You can send almost anything FEDEX but I think they draw the line at kids. However, I am sure at least one adult has tried to send himself as cargo on FEDEX, without success.

 

There is no reasonable fix for children and babies on airlines. Families wish to be together and travel together. Often, the parents are suffering more than the other passengers but sometimes it isn't obvious. However, spreading the misery is not a good alternative, especially for us adult gay folks. The only reasonable course of action is to try to arrange one's schedule to avoid "family times on the airlines" whateve that might mean.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

 

I still remember smoking and non-smoking sections. They were a joke. There was smoke everywhere. So, you're right. Separate sections won't work. Ban the little buggers just like they banned smoking.

 

My experience is that parents of what we used to call the "lower classes" are much better about this sort of thing. They discipline their kids. It's the parents who both work professional jobs, drive SUVs, live on the UWS or in the suburbs, etc. who seem to think that their kids should be allowed to do anything they want. As a generalization, of course.

[Steven_Draker]

Filming one or two "test" crashes complete with dummies does not statistically prove their case.

 

KMEM, my observation was not based on "one or two test crashes". Multiple sources online show that the back of the plane is safer.

 

That being said I'm looking forward to read your study ... when it gets published, that is. :-)

[BaronArtz]

I can only hope this is satire because if it isn't it's the most seriously fucked up thing I've read in a long time. Prejudice against bad behavior? Seirously?

 

I am with OperaLover on this. This is not discrimination at all. By being gay, black or whatever, you are not a nuisance to your fellow passengers. But screaming kids and their incompetent parents ARE. Just like smokers. They need to be banned.

[KMEM]

My observation was not based on "one or two test crashes". Multiple sources online show that the back of the plane is safer.

 

That being said I'm looking forward to read your study ... when it gets published, that is. :-)

 

Have you seen the ad that says, I saw that on the internet and everything on the internet is correct? I am relying upon industry sources for my information, not the internet. You are completely able to believe whatever you wish but there is no real evidence suggesting that the rear of the airplane is safer than any other portion. However, pay for your ticket and take your choice for seating.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[Steven_Draker]

In addition to the crash-test in Mexico's Sonoran Desert where a Boeing 727 was crashed intentionally (see above), "Popular Mechanics" publishes another rather interesting study based on 36 years' worth of NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) reports and seating charts

 

Safest Seat on a Plane: PM Investigates How to Survive a Crash

BY DAVID NOLAND

 

MYTH: It Doesn't Matter Where You Sit

 

"One seat is as safe as the other."

-Boeing Web site

 

 

"It's an age-old question. There's just no way to say."

-Federal Aviation Administration spokesman

 

 

"There is no safest seat."

-airsafe.com

 

 

REALITY: It's Safer In the Back.

 

The funny thing about all those expert opinions: They're not really based on hard data about actual airline accidents. A look at real-world crash stats, however, suggests that the farther back you sit, the better your odds of survival. Passengers near the tail of a plane are about 40 percent more likely to survive a crash than those in the first few rows up front.

 

That's the conclusion of an exclusive Popular Mechanics study that examined every commercial jet crash in the United States, since 1971, that had both fatalities and survivors. The raw data from these 20 accidents has been languishing for decades in National Transportation Safety Board files, waiting to be analyzed by anyone curious enough to look and willing to do the statistical drudgework.

 

And drudgework it was. For several weeks, we pored over reports filed by NTSB crash investigators, and studied seating charts that showed where each passenger sat and whether they lived or died. We then calculated the average fore-and-aft seating position of both survivors and fatalities for each crash.

 

We also compared survival rates in four sections of the aircraft. Both analytical approaches clearly pointed to the same conclusion: It's safer in the back.

 

In 11 of the 20 crashes, rear passengers clearly fared better. Only five accidents favored those sitting forward. Three were tossups, with no particular pattern of survival. In one case, seat positions could not be determined.

 

In seven of the 11 crashes favoring back-seaters, their advantage was striking. For example, in both the 1982 Air Florida accident in Washington, D.C., and the 1972 crash of an Eastern 727 at New York's Kennedy Airport, the handful of survivors were all sitting in the last few rows. And when a United DC-8 ran out of fuel near Portland, Ore., in 1978, all seven passengers who died were sitting in the first four rows.

 

Oddly, the five accidents that favored front-cabin passengers all occurred between 1988 and 1992. In the 1989 United DC-10 accident in Sioux City, Iowa, for example, the majority of the 175 survivors sat ahead of the wing.

 

There was just one crash in which passengers in the front had a pronounced survival advantage. The only two fatalities in a 1989 USAir runway accident at LaGuardia were both sitting in Row 21 in the 25-row Boeing 737-400.

 

Where detailed seating charts were available, we also calculated survival rates for various parts of the passenger cabin. Again, the trend was clear: The rear cabin (seats located behind the trailing edge of the wing) had the highest average survival rate at 69 percent. The overwing section had a 56 percent survival rate, as did the coach section ahead of the wing. First/business-class sections (or in all-coach planes, the front 15 percent) had an average survival rate of just 49 percent.

 

So when the "experts" tell you it doesn't matter where you sit, have a chuckle and head for the back of the plane. And once your seatbelt is firmly fastened, relax: There's been only one fatal jet crash in the U.S. in the last five-plus years.

 

source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/safety/4219452

[KMEM]

Popular Mechanics is a wonderful magazine but hardly has any expertise on airline survivability. 20 crashes does not a trend make. If you believe that it is safer to be in the back, then, by all means, buy your cattle ticket and sit there. Otherwise, just buy your ticket where your budget and wishes desire and rest assured that all US airlines are relatively safe, regardless of where you sit.

 

The above post sounds like an ad for one class carriers or those who have some agendum or another to proclaim. Folks, it really doesn't matter where you sit. If you are "lucky" you will be in the "correct" seats.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[biguy]

I don't have kids - I actually like kids, as long as I don't get stuck with them - and sometimes, things happen.

 

Newborns (up to the age of about 9 months) are the easiest to travel with...the eat, sleep, burp, pee, and crap. Actually, most parents are good about getting them changed, etc. because THEY don't want the stink. The also cuddle them because they don't want that precious cargo to be uncomfortable.

 

Once they get over 9-12 months up to 1 1/2 years, they cry because they are uncomfortable, sometimes in pain, and it's really not a discipline problem. YES, INDEED, that is the hardest because, even tho it is the parents to blame for having the little buggers on the plane, there is nothing that can control the crying.

 

Last, all those miscreants, as they were called, (including the parents, too) over the age of 1 1/2 years CAN and should be disciplined by parents and, if they aren't, the parents should be fined right on board the aircraft and forced to stay and ride the wings forever if they don't pay - but stuck in the last row in front of the tail.

 

No way, no how should a child be allowed in First CLass (or even Business Class.) On my last rip from L.A. to London a 4 year old in row 1 refused to put on a seat belt, his mother kept saying, "But James (!!), you must wear it or the plane can't leave." After a 20 minute delay, mother and child were ejected from the plane so it could take off. Imagine Daddy, waiting in London for his precious cargo!!

 

Last, in defense of some, airlines are now beginning to charge extra if you want several seats together for a family.

Unfortunately, that practice separates some parents and children so there is NO ONE or simply an older evil-doer to discipline, and flight attendants, too, are tearing their hair out about complaints.

 

I, myself, would like to see an all-out food fight (if there were only food to be had) starting with it being dumped on both parent and child, with retaliation spreading front and rear!

[EZEtoGRU]

That, or travel first class. That's the lesson I learned from watching 'Titanic'. Always travel first class. Always.

Sadly, flying first or business class these days doesn't guarantee you a cabin free of children. I see kids in premium cabins frequently. I did a transcon recently from MIA to LAX, and a couple had their infant and 3 year old with them in first class. The infant cried for 3 hours and the 3-year old was running wild. I put on my Bose headsets and forgot about it.

 

The bottom line is that most parents don't actually parent anymore....or don't know how to. I once watched a woman try to change her infants diaper at her business class seat until the flight attendant intervened and told her to use the bathroom. People simply don't know how to behave anymore.

[Guest verymarried]

Oh no Opera Lover I am very serious. I know that my kids have rarely had "bad behavior" yet our whole family is discriminated against by bed and breakfasts all over this "free" country and now airlines are taking up the cause. I feel it is just another form of prejudice which have one by one been eliminated by law. I think there should be and will be legislation to prevent discrimination against kids and their families in the travel industry.

[jgoo]

KMEM, my observation was not based on "one or two test crashes". Multiple sources online show that the back of the plane is safer.

 

That being said I'm looking forward to read your study ... when it gets published, that is. :-)

 

 

One way we can say that there isn't sufficient evidence that the back of the plane is safer is because otherwise the airlines would be charging a premium for those seats I am of course joking (well half joking knowing how airlines operate)

[Steven_Draker]

To sum things up we agree on one point: the probability of a plane crash is very low (20 crashes in 36 years' worth of NTSB reports),

 

and we disagree on the point that the probability of surviving is higher in the rear of the aircraft.

 

 

http://flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/yapb_cache/aircrash_seat_illo_0807.2ecvpvnfdx0kckc8cgkowc4.2xne1totli0w8s8k0o44cs0wc.th.png

 

 

However our valued poster KMEM is not telling us on what study or factual information he bases his argumentation. Then "people with agendum" are mentioned. OK, I get it. :-)

 

In the same light I'd totally understand that no commercial airline would want to admit that their most expensive seats are the least safe. But the data is out there.

[operalover21]

Oh no Opera Lover I am very serious. I know that my kids have rarely had "bad behavior" yet our whole family is discriminated against by bed and breakfasts all over this "free" country and now airlines are taking up the cause. I feel it is just another form of prejudice which have one by one been eliminated by law. I think there should be and will be legislation to prevent discrimination against kids and their families in the travel industry.

 

Take a chill pill, man, because you sound completely ridiculous. You are being "discriminated against" by bed and breakfasts? You really don't know what discrimination is. Or prejudice. There is nothing in any civil rights law or anything else that says anything about "children" in that manner. And there never will be. Because it's completely ridiculous and silly.

 

Most bed and breakfasts are where adults go for peace and quiet. I would support 100% the right of any proprietor not allowing kids. That's perfectly reasonable. Expecting a bed and breakfast -- which exists for quiet and romance -- to accept your kids is the most ludicrous position possible.

 

As for planes ... rather than direct your ire and an industry trying to accomodate it's passengers why not trying to convince your fellow parents to start disciplining their kids then these kinds of things won't be necessary. Try a little personal responsibility.

[KMEM]

Steven-

 

The internet mentions the Mechanics Illustrated "study" several times but the NTSB has not drawn such a conclusion and any serious study must rely upon data from the NTSB as they are the recognized national repository for such. They investiage all "serious" crashes whether by aircraft, train, boat or automobile and keep statistical data on all others.

 

There are many ways to perish in an aircraft accident. One of the most common is to not get out in a timely fashion after a crash of whatever sort and expire due to smoke inhalation or exposure to fire. So, pay attention to the safety briefings even if you have heard them hundreds of times. Knowing where the emergency exits are and how the emergency lighting works can save your life. Naturally, if a mask drops, don't just stare at it, grab it and pull it to the full extent of the tubing. The flow of O2 does not start until you do so.

 

I cannot overemphasize finding the nearest exit. As they say, it may be behind you. And different series of the same make and model aircraft may have different locations of emergency exits. Did I mention the lead out lights? They will be on or close to the floor and that is the best place to be because the noxious gases tend to go upward. Get down and follow them out if you have lost awareness of where the nearest exit is.

 

It shoud be obvious but if you see flames on one side of the aircraft, do not use any exits on that side. Opening one could let the smoke or flames into the cabin and, of course, why would you wish to leap into a fire?

 

The FAA requires each airline to demonstrate an emergency evacuation with "ordinary" folks. Of course, everyone knows what is going to happen but still there are folks involved that have trouble walking, etc. The co-ordination of the crew is timed and evaluated.

 

Yes, flying is very safe but in the remote chance your number comes up to deal with an emergency being mentally, if not physically, prepared is important.

 

Best regards,

KMEM