Adults Only: European Airline Introduces Child-Free Areas on Long-Haul Flights
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
- Flights where no one is a first-time traveller, in fact you must have flown at least 20 times.
- Flights with no overhead bins at all.
Can we expand that from flights to airports? And have 'training airports' for people to learn on?
Either way I'd still do carry-on even with a bag fee. Every time I've trusted an airline to handle bags they manage to violate that trust in new and exciting ways.
I don't know how to improve upon the existing signage. Maybe have a personalized interactive experience? When your ticket is scanned, lights in the floor guide you to your exact seat.
Well an old lady on her own comes right up to me, a little before the film starts, and she indicates that's her seat. So I thought, okay weird, she purchased a seat right next to an occupied one? Whatever. So I bail out all my stuff and I just lay it on the ground. She seems apologetic.
Then like 10 minutes later, her husband shows up, sits two seats away, and tells her she sat in the wrong seat. LOL! ... I did not return my belongings to the cursed seat. Also, it turned out to be a cursed and blasphemous film, one of the worst I've ever seen.
By any chance was it Hypnotic?
[1] https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2011/pub/fermilab-pub-11-402-ae...
I completely disagree about this one. I'm not checking all my essentials, because there's a good chance the luggage will get lost (esp. if it's an American airline).
The solution for your problem here is that passengers need to get a test and a license: they need to demonstrate that they can very quickly stick their luggage into the overhead compartment and sit down when boarding, and very quickly get up, grab their bag, and start walking down the aisle when disembarking ("deplaning"... ugh). Half the passengers would fail this test every time, so those people should be kept in a separate part of the plane and charged extra for wasting everyone's time.
I forget which airline it is, Emirates maybe?, you can hand your kid over to the flight attendant for 20 or 30 minutes so you can go to the toilet, have a quick meal, etc. which is very handy if you're travelling as a single parent.
anyone who thinks a curtain can contain the sounds and/or smells of a toddler has never had one.
and if you think children (or animals) are the only nuisance on planes, you’re likely the other kind.
happy?
I sit down on a flight, I roll with anything that goes wrong, and just focus on getting to where I’m going, like 80% of most adults on a plane. Babies on the other hand, I’m pretty sure that’s 0% of them with that sort of attitude.
I like to think I’m pretty realistic about things but I don’t ever think it’s been that bad for me! I might even go as far as to say that most of my flights have had no issues.
It depends on how many Americans are on board.
In the meantime, I’d recommend investing in a good pair of earbuds and/or headphones.
Mostly gays and older people in the plane and hotel.
Families should not take their ability to "get to places" for granted. If the people who don't want "annoying babies" on their planes accumulate enough disposable income that catering to their desires becomes more profitable than catering to families, the latter may find themselves out of luck when they "need to get to places", unless they themselves can afford to fly private.
Of course, that's an extreme extrapolation; but on the margin, the introduction of child-free zones will certainly make air travel for families less affordable. If it turns out profitable, potentially by a lot.
Just like e.g. most Indians never fly to the U.S. even if they have relatives living there. Or more fittingly, how most Hungarians used to be able to afford to go on a holiday near Lake Balaton until they were priced out by wealthier Germans, or middle-class families in Canberra used to be able to afford daycare but now only the top 3% by income do.
I would not hold my breath about the state subsidizing cross-Atlantic trips for families.
Sounds like a beautiful dream! Emergencies happen. Grandparents & relatives exist. Parents will still want to show their kids how vast & beautiful the world is.
Could it get more expensive to travel? Sure. But families will continue to travel, and annoyed passengers will continue to deal with it. C'est la vie.
If you claim to believe that "families are able to travel by air in a. case of emergency", "grandparents can afford to see their grandchildren" and "most children get to see how vast and beautiful the world is" somehow follow from Newton's laws, even though we just had a two-year period with major loss of access to air travel, well... I'll leave you to your beautiful dream.
I do wonder if such policies are a cause or a symptom of a dying/declining society that can’t figure out how to propagate under existing norms.
On the other hand when we have traveled in heavily Spanish areas I’ve noticed most everyone was completely cool with the sounds of children. It’s just life and life is good. People would offer to have them sit with them and feed them so you can get a break. Complete strangers.
I’d rather be the latter culture than the former. But we’ve no real unified cultural expectations in the US. A major problem. A great strength. I dunno anymore
Although a child-free area on a plane sounds about as effective as a non-peeing area in a public pool.
The last flight I was on I saw two infants in first class not having a good day. I can imagine those who paid for first class were not happy. I thought about asking the flight attendant if anyone wanted to trade for my economy seat but decided against it. I didn’t want to annoy the flight attendant mostly.
But sure, if that happens that could be annoying too.
One click of a button and your crying baby becomes solely _your_ problem. :P