From: Roland Perry on 7 Aug 2010 03:41 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 7 Aug 2010 04:12 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 7 Aug 2010 04:16 "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 7 Aug 2010 04:25 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 7 Aug 2010 06:22
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 |