From: Roland Perry on
In message <iXY6o.63315$pW4.31823(a)hurricane>, at 19:58:22 on Fri, 6 Aug
2010, Buddenbrooks <knightstemplar(a)budweiser.com> remarked:
>> If they don't like the rules of the low-cost airlines, they can
>>always fly with the full service airlines - as I did when my children
>>were that age.
>> --
>
>Actually the �40 return for a baby probably still represents a loss to
>the airline. The additional delays and fussing will add some additional
>costs but the problems when there is a delay with babies will add
>significantly to costs.

I've not seen airlines consuming resources on babies because there's a
delay, but they do have some extra work to do loading buggies into the
hold at the last minute, and reuniting them with the family after
landing. Last time I arrived in Paris a baggage handler spent several
minutes chasing a family through the terminal with the buggy they hadn't
waited for on at the airbridge.

>Two staff can herd a planeload of adults, a baby will probably take up
>the time of a staff member on its own as they have to fuss around
>getting food nappies and a cool place for it to sleep.

I have never witnesses that activity, either as a parent or as a
businessman travelling alone. Apart from priority boarding, the only
concession or help I ever got was jumping the immigration queue from
time to time, but that's not airline staff involved.

>Children are a pain on budget airlines in any case. When I travel with
>the wife I accept we may end up sitting apart. I can just about
>tolerate crying babies,

The worst is toddlers having a tantrum because they (eg) can't sit by
the window, and those who kick the seat in front all the trip. Some
parents seem completely unable to control the situation.

>I really hate screaming Mothers demanding that people are reseated to
>make a block free for their brood. Particularly as they seem to make a
>point of turning up last when all the seats have been taken.

Which is odd when every airline (even the low-costs) board families
first! I suspect these groups are late because of general
dis-organisation and an inability to get the all the kids to do what
they are told when it comes to negotiating their way through the
departure terminal.
--
Roland Perry
From: Mister Niceguy on
Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote in
news:0cf6IXTT4QXMFAFz(a)perry.co.uk:

> In message <iXY6o.63315$pW4.31823(a)hurricane>, at 19:58:22 on Fri, 6
Aug
> 2010, Buddenbrooks <knightstemplar(a)budweiser.com> remarked:
>>> If they don't like the rules of the low-cost airlines, they can
>>>always fly with the full service airlines - as I did when my
children
>>>were that age.
>>> --
>>
>>Actually the �40 return for a baby probably still represents a loss to
>>the airline. The additional delays and fussing will add some
additional
>>costs but the problems when there is a delay with babies will add
>>significantly to costs.
>
> I've not seen airlines consuming resources on babies because there's a
> delay, but they do have some extra work to do loading buggies into the
> hold at the last minute, and reuniting them with the family after
> landing. Last time I arrived in Paris a baggage handler spent several
> minutes chasing a family through the terminal with the buggy they
hadn't
> waited for on at the airbridge.
>
>>Two staff can herd a planeload of adults, a baby will probably take up
>>the time of a staff member on its own as they have to fuss around
>>getting food nappies and a cool place for it to sleep.
>
> I have never witnesses that activity, either as a parent or as a
> businessman travelling alone. Apart from priority boarding, the only
> concession or help I ever got was jumping the immigration queue from
> time to time, but that's not airline staff involved.
>
>>Children are a pain on budget airlines in any case. When I travel with
>>the wife I accept we may end up sitting apart. I can just about
>>tolerate crying babies,
>
> The worst is toddlers having a tantrum because they (eg) can't sit by
> the window, and those who kick the seat in front all the trip. Some
> parents seem completely unable to control the situation.

Yes, they are probably in tears themselves.

>>I really hate screaming Mothers demanding that people are reseated to
>>make a block free for their brood. Particularly as they seem to make a
>>point of turning up last when all the seats have been taken.
>
> Which is odd when every airline (even the low-costs) board families
> first! I suspect these groups are late because of general
> dis-organisation and an inability to get the all the kids to do what
> they are told when it comes to negotiating their way through the
> departure terminal.

You guys are unbelievable. What's happened to society when it doesn't
treasure its children? How will these kids grow up - knowing that their
sheer presence is resented as an inconvenience. A few extra seconds of
your time makes a world of difference to parents who are having real
difficulty getting youngsters through cumbersome airport logistics -
possibly for the first time.

Families are boarded first (or passengers thus re-arranged) so they can
sit together. Yes. Or would you rather have a 2 year old next to you
and their mum or dad 10 rows back? It's for your benefit as much as
theirs.

And all this grumpiness about buggies? Would you say the same for
wheelchairs, zimmer frames and medical apparatus?

Jeez, I'm glad I've never had to board my family with you.
From: Buddenbrooks on

"Roland Perry" <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0cf6IXTT4QXMFAFz(a)perry.co.uk...
> In message <iXY6o.63315$pW4.31823(a)hurricane>, at 19:58:22 on Fri, 6 Aug
>
> Which is odd when every airline (even the low-costs) board families first!
> I suspect these groups are late because of general dis-organisation and an
> inability to get the all the kids to do what they are told when it comes
> to negotiating their way through the departure terminal.

Perhaps you have been luckier than I then. I have been on more flights
where delays post-boarding have been due to passenger behavior than
technical faults.

As a always non-priority passenger I notice that those with priority often
turn up after the non-priority
passengers have started boarding. This enables them to avoid queuing. They
have paid extra so why not? Similarly with families with buggies etc, they
get pushed through without delay.

The problem with both of course is the seats have begun to be taken and 4 or
5 together can be difficult.

Perhaps the budget airlines ought to consider an allocated seating section
to cater for some passengers.

In the end an aircraft is a poor environment for children and ends up being
very tedious for other passengers. Fortunately it is mostly restricted to
holiday periods.




From: Cats on
On Aug 7, 9:12 am, Mister Niceguy <mister.nice...(a)rocketmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
>
> You guys are unbelievable.  What's happened to society when it doesn't
> treasure its children?
<snip>

It's bad behaviour I don't treasure. Well-behaved people of all ages
are a delight, badly behaved ones I sometimes want to push out without
a parachute...
From: pete on
On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 08:12:38 +0000 (UTC), Mister Niceguy wrote:
> You guys are unbelievable. What's happened to society when it doesn't
> treasure its children? How will these kids grow up - knowing that their
> sheer presence is resented as an inconvenience.

And what about the parents' responsibilities to bring up their children
as conforming and considerate members of society? Where they don't think
the entire planet is there simply for their amusement and convenience?

There was a piece on BBC1 breakfast this morning (Sat, 7 Aug) and one
lady suggested drugging children with antihistamines before long flights.
Another suggestion was to have "family only" sections of flights -
hopefully with a large, soundproof, barrier between it and the rest of
the plane.

--
www.thisreallyismyhost.99k.org/page2.php