quote:Originally posted by rivka: You lost me as soon as you said "long overseas flights", Rabbit.
Pray tell, what is one supposed to do with one's child while traveling? Put them up in a kennel? Or should the parents of small children have the decency to stay tied to home and hearth for a minimum of five years per child?
Yeah I've never really gotten this. The vast, vast majority of families I've been on planes with have been nice, really apologetic when their kids were loud, and generally fine to be with. Babies cry sometimes. Bring some earphones or something if it's that big of a deal.
If anything, the most painful thing I've had to sit through is when a baby is crying and the parent is more upset at the baby for bothering other people than they are concerned with actually seeing to the baby's needs and helping it calm down.
Don't worry about the comfort level of strangers, help your freakin' baby!
... Anyway, to be clear, that hasn't happened much, and I know that it'd be rather unfair to judge a parent too harshly for their behavior during what is undoubtedly a long, stressful trip. Still, I mind that sort of thing way more than I do a disgruntled baby and an exhausted parent trying their best.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I have a hard time believing that the worst part of the last Twilight movie was somehow the audience.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have only been to the movies a few times where there have been babies or rowdy teenagers. And while I wouldn't say I go to the theater often, neither would I say I go rarely. And the few times that people have been rowdy, one of my patented death stares has been enough to settle them down. That's mostly for teenagers though... I don't think I've ever death stared a baby. Yet.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In movies, I've been bothered by disruptive teens orders of magnitude more times than by disruptive babies.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In earnest, my previous recommendation still applies. If you have more than one really dicky experience at a theater, it is not worth your time. Get a refund, try to find what theaters in your area actually have ushers that keep people from being disruptive jerks, frequent that one instead.
'less you don't have one, in which case .. sorry.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp, does Century Boulder do that? I can't remember a bad experience there, but then I can't think of a movie I went to with a meaningful population of teenagers nor any babies. I'm curious if they actually police their theaters: I never did see any ushers in there outside of cleaning-up afterwards and announcing the Met broadcasts.
posted
I long for the days when I was in college and my roommate was a manager at AMC. I got in to movies for free and was able to see the employee screenings (which were always better because there were less people and no children), and if I absolutely had to watch a regular showing, my friend was only a text message away from kicking the talker/texter/baby/teenager out.
Such good times. I miss those days.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: How do you think it's possible to travel overseas with a toddler with minimal inconvenience to others?
The only ways I can think of are pretty drastic, like drugging the kid to keep them unconscious, or chartering your own flight.
I think Rabbit's talking about voluntary international travel, like for vacations. I tend to agree with her on this.
If the international travel is for a family emergency or something along those lines-- for example a friend of mine had to take his 2 y.o. daughter back to India for medical treatment-- then that's a different story.
I don't think giving a child benadryl to make flying an easier passage for all parties involved is "drastic."
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm always curious, those cases when parents don't seem to mind that their kid is disrupting others, is it that they just don't care or is it that they think you love their kids as much as they do? Because with both kids and dogs I've talked to a large number of people who seem to fall into category two. Like they honestly can't believe that you don't love their dog jumping on you, or find their kid screaming in the resteraunt adorable. It's quite possible they're lying to me, but I kind of doubt it. At least not conciously.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: How do you think it's possible to travel overseas with a toddler with minimal inconvenience to others?
The only ways I can think of are pretty drastic, like drugging the kid to keep them unconscious, or chartering your own flight.
You will note that there was an "or" in the sentence. Some times people have legitimate compelling reasons to travel overseas with young children and when that's the case I'm highly sympathetic and willing to go out of my way to accommodate them. I think its a different issue when people are traveling for pleasure.
It's not impossible to fly with a toddler without significantly inconveniencing others. I've seen parents who've managed a long overseas flight with a toddler without significantly inconveniencing other passengers.
But that is a whole lot easier to do if there is only one toddler on the plane and that toddler has their own seat than it is if there are 20 toddlers on the plane trying to sit on their parents laps.
I don't know how often others here travel. My work requires me to travel internationally several times a year. I've averaged around two overseas trips a year for about the last 20 years and over that time I've observed more and more people traveling for pleasure on very long flights with misbehaving babies and toddlers.
It's utterly rude to expect other people to accommodate your screaming misbehaving kids for hours on end so that you can vacation on the Med or go to Disney World. And when some parents behave that rudely, it makes it just that much harder for parents who actually need to travel with kids.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not impossible to fly with a toddler without significantly inconveniencing others. I've seen parents who've managed a long overseas flight with a toddler without significantly inconveniencing other passengers.
If you get lucky, and they happen to behave during the trip, sure. No matter how terrible they are, all kids will sometimes act like angels, and visa-versa.
But I can think of no practical ways to guarantee you won't seriously inconvenience others. Can you?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Samp, does Century Boulder do that? I can't remember a bad experience there, but then I can't think of a movie I went to with a meaningful population of teenagers nor any babies. I'm curious if they actually police their theaters: I never did see any ushers in there outside of cleaning-up afterwards and announcing the Met broadcasts.
Hobbes
The two times I have been at a movie there where there was a disruption (including an honest to god I Will Just "Discreetly" Use My Ipad situation — really?) an usher was in prodding in like five minutes.
So they've kept a good track record. Good, because I'm not enthused with the drive to AMC 24 unless bowling and drinking is involved.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glad to here it. I liked that theater quite a bit, and I think they did a good job making sure Indies and such were shown in Boulder even after they drove all the theaters that used to do that out of buisness.
posted
I couldn't say that Century had any hand in that. Every other theater in boulder, to a one, was essentially terminal well before the 29th street mall cinema started getting built. Most of them started doing indie movie circut just sort of as an end-of-life deal for our old cineplexes and their terrible boxy seats.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not impossible to fly with a toddler without significantly inconveniencing others. I've seen parents who've managed a long overseas flight with a toddler without significantly inconveniencing other passengers.
If you get lucky, and they happen to behave during the trip, sure. No matter how terrible they are, all kids will sometimes act like angels, and visa-versa.
But I can think of no practical ways to guarantee you won't seriously inconvenience others. Can you?
Which is why I think it's rude of parents to take their very young children on a long flight unless they have a compelling reason. It's hard on the child, it's hard on the other passengers and it's hard on the cabin crew. Unless you've got a darn good reason, that's a rude and selfish thing to do.
If someone is a flying to see their mother who is lying on her deathbed and their toddler is screaming for the full flight, then they have my full sympathy. I'm willing to do anything I can to assist and accommodate. But if they chose to go on a vacation that required a really long flight with a very young child, its an entirely different story.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: But if you've got an active two year old who you know is going to scream if they have to sit still for more than 5 minutes, choosing to take a vacation to the Greek Isles, that will require the child to sit in a packed air plane for over 12 hours, shows poor judgement.
It might not be the best choice. But maybe they have family there. And maybe they just want a vacation. If they can afford it, more power to them. As for "selfish", no more than anyone else spending money on a vacation.
Most Americans are hidebound and/or don't have the extra cash to go jetting off to exotic destinations. I don't actually think either of those is a good thing.
My kids are all teenagers, so my days of toddlers on airplanes are thankfully behind me. But I remember them well. And am grateful still to those fellow passengers who tried to help when a little one was distressed, rather than shooting me dirty looks for daring to travel with a baby in tow.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: As for "selfish", no more than anyone else spending money on a vacation.
Really, No more selfish? You are really saying that doing something for your personal pleasure that causes discomfort and inconvenience to strangers and places stress on your child is "no more selfish" than doing something for your own pleasure that doesn't inconvenience or hurt any one else? I think we have a different definition of selfish.
And for your information, I'm one of the people who tries to help people traveling with children not one shooting dirty looks. It's because I've helped a lot of people traveling with kids that I know that a lot of them are traveling strictly for pleasure and a fair number of them are doing it before the child turns two so they don't have to pay for seat for the kid.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any change in routine will cause most children distress. Sometimes a parent decides that is worthwhile, whether the change is a vacation or a visit to the doctor.
I'm so glad you reserve your dirty looks for online.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This amuses me, as far as things to disagree with on a fundamental moral level. Does your right to enjoy a peaceful flight trump other's right to travel with their family for pleasure? Or vice versa?
I don't think it's much more selfish to decide to bring a kid on vacation than to demand that parents give up long distance vacations for 5 years after the birth of each child.
posted
I think the whole phenomenon of people getting really upset with crying babies because the noise is annoying really baffles me.
Imagine an adult crying on a plane. Sobbing loudly, even. How many people do you think would shoot the adult a dirty look, and wish they'd just shut up? That sounds like a reprehensible response to me.
A crying baby is a little human being who is deeply unhappy. Show some freaking compassion and sympathy.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see them as entirely different. First of all, we're biologically predisposed to not be able to block out the sound of a crying infant. It demands our attention as few things can.
Secondly, babies cry for all sorts of reasons, and are just as likely as not to be hysterically laughing within a few minutes.
I don't think it's even possible for babies to be "deeply unhappy".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Secondly, babies cry for all sorts of reasons, and are just as likely as not to be hysterically laughing within a few minutes.
I have also laughed hysterically a few minutes after crying. I don't think that invalidated the fact that I had been unhappy previously.
Is it my use of the word "deeply" that you object to? In hindsight that looks like it could mean, say "depressed," which isn't what I intended.
I mean, you agree babies can be unhappy, right? What about, I don't know, "really" unhappy? Same objection?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think babies can be unhappy, but I don't think it was a fair claim to make that Rabbit "doesn't care". Her point was that parents shouldn't be bringing a baby to an environment where it is likely (at some point during the flight) to become unhappy, and then cause other people annoyance.
I don't think those other people are *entitled* to not have to deal with the baby, but I don't think it's fair to paint them as unsympathetic to the baby itself.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Any change in routine will cause most children distress. Sometimes a parent decides that is worthwhile, whether the change is a vacation or a visit to the doctor.
There is a big difference between cause your distressing your child distress for the child's benefit (i.e. visit to the doctor) and distressing your child for your own pleasure. Any parent who thinks a luxury vacation in an exotic local is going to benefit a baby or toddler, is lying to themselves.
quote:I'm so glad you reserve your dirty looks for online. [/qb]
Unlike you rivka, I haven't shot a dirty look directly at any one on this forum. I've made some very general statements that I consider it rude for parents to subject a plane load of strangers to hours on end of their child misbehaving so that they can enjoy a luxury holiday. Unless you took your screaming toddler on a holiday trip to the Greek Isles, what reason do you have to think I was shooting dirty looks at you?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Any parent who thinks a luxury vacation in an exotic local is going to benefit a baby or toddler, is lying to themselves.
Directly or indirectly? The first, probably not. The second? Absolutely. Family bonding time that helps a parent relax is unquestionably a benefit for a child of any age.
As for dirty looks, I have no idea why you think wide-beam is better than aiming at a specific individual. And I have been restraining myself quite a bit when it comes to you, so give me a break.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking as somebody who doesn't have kids, seems to me parents can often be sensitive to what they perceive as an attack on their parenting ability, even if no attack was intended. It can be a minefield of a topic.
But for what it's worth (which is, in fairness, very little), I don't think either of you are actually trying to shoot dirty looks at each other, you're just voicing your opinions on the subject at hand. Disagreement doesn't have to consist of "dirty looks," does it?
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Any parent who thinks a luxury vacation in an exotic local is going to benefit a baby or toddler, is lying to themselves.
Directly or indirectly? The first, probably not. The second? Absolutely. Family bonding time that helps a parent relax is unquestionably a benefit for a child of any age.
I'm sure there are parents who think that a night at the movies or an evening at a fancy restaurant that helps them relax is a benefit to their children. What do you see as a the difference?
I know people who've left their young children with a baby sitter (usual a friend of family member) while they traveled and people who can't find anyone to baby sit for even a few hours. What's different about taking an overseas vacation, purely for pleasure, that makes it different in your eyes than going to a movie or nice restaurant?
quote:As for dirty looks, I have no idea why you think wide-beam is better than aiming at a specific individual. And I have been restraining myself quite a bit when it comes to you, so give me a break.
Oh, it's so nice of you to let me know that the insults you've thrown and not nearly as bad as the ones you would like to throw.
I'll give you a break when you give me one and stop taking things personally that were never intended as such.
I've said I thought there were reasons that would justify taking a long overseas flight with a baby and ones that did not. I have not given a detailed list of the cases I think are justified. You have chosen to presume without cause that I put you in the latter category. You can choose to be insulted by whatever you want but you have no right to get self-righteous about it.
[ May 14, 2012, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nods sagely* Yes, children are the primary reason long overseas flights are unpleasant. If only families would stay home (unless, of course, absolutely necessary as dictated by those who find children irritating) and leave the world for adults! Plane rides would be the next thing to Nirvana!
More seriously, meh. Rabbit thinks it would be selfish for me to take my kid on a vacation if it involves my kid potentially irritating strangers.
I think it's selfish of her to want her travel on public transport unencumbered by select groups of other travelers.
I'd say we're even.
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Oh, it's so nice of you to let me know that the insults you've thrown and not nearly as bad as the ones you would like to throw.
I don't believe I have insulted you a single time during this conversation. I have, in fact, refrained from saying things that I suspect you would find insulting.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I see them as entirely different. First of all, we're biologically predisposed to not be able to block out the sound of a crying infant. It demands our attention as few things can.
Not to mention, crying babies are the proverbial Pavlov's bell for Mormons!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, for a second I thought you were trying to say that Mormon's are nurturing caring folk who respond instantly to crying babies, and Pavlov's association with salivating dogs was just an unfortunate coincidence.
But then I remembered. Mormons. Eating babies. Right. Haha?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So, for a second I thought you were trying to say that Mormon's are nurturing caring folk who respond instantly to crying babies, and Pavlov's association with salivating dogs was just an unfortunate coincidence.
But then I remembered. Mormons. Eating babies. Right. Haha?
I leave it to you to ascertain my meaning.
Baby burgers, I could really go for one.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand crying babies are pretty much the price of continuing the human race. I dislike hearing it as much as the next person, but I'll deal. It's when parents bring toddlers or older children on planes and don't control them--let them run up and down the aisles unsupervised, say--that the death glare creeps onto my face.
My most frustrating flight experience was when a couple traveling with a four year old got assigned two seats at the back of the plane and one seat at the front--and promptly dumped their four year old in the single seat next to me and went to sit at the back by themselves. They did not visit her the entire five hour flight.
She was a perfectly nice four year old, but after five hours of giving her food (they hadn't packed any snacks for her), explaining airplane bathrooms to her, helping her get her coloring books out of overhead baggage, and playing endless rounds of Go Fish to keep her entertained, I was pretty much ready to march back to her parents and demand babysitting money.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My most frustrating flight experience was when a couple traveling with a four year old got assigned two seats at the back of the plane and one seat at the front--and promptly dumped their four year old in the single seat next to me and went to sit at the back by themselves. They did not visit her the entire five hour flight.
Erf. That's terrible.
quote:it would be selfish for me to take my kid on a vacation if it involves my kid potentially irritating strangers.
It depends entirely on how much foresight you give to the situation. Do you have a seat next to the child? Snacks or toys or something to entertain them? Supplies to keep them comfortable? Are you cognizant of the comfort of other passengers? If your child is verbal, have you prepared them for the long flight?
That said, no one should feel entitled to flights devoid of noise or (reasonable) interaction with other passengers. I don't think that privilege is built into the cost of the ticket. Some personal responsibility for one's comfort is in order, especially if one is a normal, capable adult. Bring earplugs.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
ambyr, I'm really shocked the airline allowed that. Most airlines will not allow a child under 5 to travel unless they are accompanied by an adult and they will force other passengers to move if its necessary to keep a parent and young child together. I strongly suspect the airline assigned the child a seat next to one of the parents and the flight crew simply wasn't aware that the child wasn't yours.
I think in that situation you should have complained to the cabin crew and not because you objected to sitting next to a child. Leaving your 4 year old child unattended for 5 hours is negligent. If that happened somewhere other than an airplane, say they' dropped the 4 year old off at a public library by herself for 5 hours, it would warrant a call to child protective services.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I couldn't say that Century had any hand in that. Every other theater in boulder, to a one, was essentially terminal well before the 29th street mall cinema started getting built. Most of them started doing indie movie circut just sort of as an end-of-life deal for our old cineplexes and their terrible boxy seats.
There were a couple of niche theaters still going when it opened. And mostly the niche was indies. I agree just about everything was on a decline but nonetheless, I'd say Century was the death knell for several of them.
quote:I think in that situation you should have complained to the cabin crew and not because you objected to sitting next to a child. Leaving your 4 year old child unattended for 5 hours is negligent. If that happened somewhere other than an airplane, say they' dropped the 4 year old off at a public library by herself for 5 hours, it would warrant a call to child protective services.
Good gosh yes. Especially since it was just luck you were you. If you were me, despite your best intentions, you would've been totaly unable to help them deal with the rigors of flight as a 4 year old.
posted
Almost every time I've seen a kid causing problems in a situation like this, the parents were doing everything they could to calm the kid down and mitigate the bother they were causing.
My emotional reaction is largely twofold -- sympathy for the struggling parents, and relief that I'm not the only one who has kids who sometimes act out in public. Annoyance at what the kid does is usually a distant third behind those two.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph, that has not been my experience. Not only on flights but in other situations. When I worked retail, parents would basically drop their kids off near the toys while they shopped. These were toys for sale that the parents didn't buy. Parents would assume that I would take their 3 and 4 year old to the bathroom in our stockroom. "Go with the nice lady". These were often children who needed help cleaning themselves. I would put my foot down at this for my own protection and just because I never stopped being appalled. Parents gave every impression of being quite put out that a perfect stranger wouldn't be delighted to wipe their kid's bottom and offended that I thought they were nuts for sending their kid off to a backroom with someone they didn't know.
I have every sympathy for a parent who, when they have to be in public with their kids, are doing their best. I every sympathy for kids whose parents are teaching them that it is perfectly okay to inconvenience strangers.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the difference between a fussy child at a movie or restaurant and a fussy child on a plane is the purpose of the activity. A fussy child at a movie disrupts the purpose -- seeing the movie -- so the other patrons are actually deprived of something they are there for. The purpose of a fancy restaurant dinner might include a quiet/relaxing evening out. The purpose of an airline flight is not recreation or relaxation (although the purpose of the trip might be, the flight itself is not) and the other passengers aren't being deprived of what they are paying for (transportation) no matter how irritating they might find their fellow travelers.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I strongly suspect the airline assigned the child a seat next to one of the parents and the flight crew simply wasn't aware that the child wasn't yours.
The flight crew probably wasn't aware, but I have no trouble believing that the airline would assign seats with no regard to the age of the child. We've had our kids assigned seats alone, including when they were under age 2. When we brought it to the attention of the gate agents, they told us to wait until after boarding and the flight attendants would help us ask passengers to trade seats. So far no one has ever objected to trading so that a parent can be with each child. I've also traded seats when flying alone so that other parents are seated with their kids.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:That said, no one should feel entitled to flights devoid of noise or (reasonable) interaction with other passengers. I don't think that privilege is built into the cost of the ticket. Some personal responsibility for one's comfort is in order, especially if one is a normal, capable adult. Bring earplugs.
I agree but I also think that everyone on a plane or in any other public place has a an obligation to show reasonable consideration for others. That's what we call "good manners" . People are entitled to a certain level of curtesy from other passengers on a plane and other customers in a move theater or restaurant. Children aren't always capable of behaving appropriately which is why they don't belong in some places.
I agree that people should be willing to accommodate children to some degree but there are limits to what is acceptable for a parent to expect from strangers. It's simply rude of parents to force other people to listen to hours of their screaming child unless there is some mitigating circumstance.
If you think a crying baby is no big deal, you probably aren't thinking about the same kind of thing I'm thinking about. Before my most recent trip, I probably would have agreed. I had to fly from Trinidad to London on business right after Carnival which is peak tourist season here. It was an over night flight with a duration of 10 hours. There were several families with young children on the plane who were returning from vacations in the Caribbean. On the row behind me there was a family with a toddler who did not have his own seat. In the middle of the flight, this kid had a full blown temper tantrum. He screamed without stopping for well over an hour. This was not a little baby crying. The kid had some real lung power and he screamed loud enough to cause a domino effect as other kids on the plane woke up and started to cry. I had earplugs and noise reducing headphones, it was still torture. As Porter noted earlier, we are biological programmed to respond to a crying child. It's one of the most difficult things to ignore.
And I absolutely do not blame the child. It was the middle of the night and he was in a strange place, restrained on his mother's lap unable to either lie down or get up and move around. He had and sunburn and he'd very likely spent the last two weeks being hauled around like a hand bag. He had every reason to scream.
I do, however, blame the parents. They should have expected the kid would have a melt down under those circumstances. It was extremely inconsiderate of them to bring a toddler on a Caribbean vacation that required taking a 10 hour overnight flight. I can imagine circumstances that would justify it, but given the details of this particular situation the probability of any mitigating circumstances is extremely low.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My wife and I took our first baby to the theater exactly once. We learned our lesson and never did it again.
Locally the Regal theater has daytime showings of their popular movies for moms with babies. I think the ticket price is minimal if not free.
Encouraging moms with babies to attend these movies by making it free so that they won't be tempted to bring their baby during prime time makes perfect sense. It also garners good will to moms who will at some point no longer be tied to a baby, and will be able to rejoin the normal movie-goers baby free.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I think the difference between a fussy child at a movie or restaurant and a fussy child on a plane is the purpose of the activity. A fussy child at a movie disrupts the purpose -- seeing the movie -- so the other patrons are actually deprived of something they are there for. The purpose of a fancy restaurant dinner might include a quiet/relaxing evening out. The purpose of an airline flight is not recreation or relaxation (although the purpose of the trip might be, the flight itself is not) and the other passengers aren't being deprived of what they are paying for (transportation) no matter how irritating they might find their fellow travelers.
While this is true, it's also true that if I'm seated next to a crying child in a movie theater, I can get up and walk out. On a plane, I'm completely trapped.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
