Budget airlines in child fare price scam
in [UK Air Travel]
|
From: YRCMIU on 8 Aug 2010 16:28 On Aug 8, 2:36 pm, "Buddenbrooks" <knightstemp...(a)budweiser.com> wrote: > "Mister Niceguy" <mister.nice...(a)rocketmail.com> wrote in message > > news:Xns9DCE690C384ACniceguyonzetnet(a)94.75.214.90...> "Buddenbrooks" <knightstemp...(a)budweiser.com> wrote in > >news:ZXr7o.113363$Ds3.101693(a)hurricane: > > >> "Mister Niceguy" <mister.nice...(a)rocketmail.com> wrote in message > >>news:Xns9DCDF29208644niceguyonzetnet(a)94.75.214.90... > > > I do the best to bring my children up as wholesome > > > healthy adults. I'm sure people along the way have found them annoying > > but that's tough. > However if people do want to take their children to > > Florida then they > > can. You can always fly business class via JFK if you want peace. > > You are clearly a very selfish individual with a 'I'll do what I want and FU > attitude' :-)
From: alex on 8 Aug 2010 18:13 On 8 Aug, 10:28, Mister Niceguy <mister.nice...(a)rocketmail.com> wrote: > Roland Perry <rol...(a)perry.co.uk> wrote innews:5OAZ8UMtFlXMFA1c(a)perry.co.uk: > > > > > > > In message <Xns9DCD5DB96697Fniceguyonzet...(a)94.75.214.90>, at 08:12:38 > > on Sat, 7 Aug 2010, Mister Niceguy <mister.nice...(a)rocketmail.com> > > remarked: > >>>>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. > > > But it's not their sheer presence that's a problem - I'm happy for > them > > to board first, for example, and travel in a well-behaved fashion. I > > don't even min babes-in-arms being free. > > >> 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. > > > It's not extra seconds at stake, but the extra hand luggage and > > demanding to be seated together even if last on the plane. > > I've been in that situation. Child needing to do toilet stuff, wetting > themselves at the airport, baby needing a feed etc etc etc. It is very > hard to be at the call to board at exactly the right time when children > have bodily needs. Fortunately, people have always moved before being > asked, as indeed I would if travelling without childen, knowing what > that family has just suffered. > > > > >>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. > > > Precisely, get there first for these perfectly acceptable concessions. > > It was the late arrivers that started this discussion. > > But do you think they're arriving late deliberately? I doubt it. > > >>And all this grumpiness about buggies? Would you say the same for > >>wheelchairs, zimmer frames and medical apparatus? > > > As I'm not grumpy about buggies (but it helps if families don't leave > > them behind on the apron when they get off), it's a non-question. > > Again do you think it's deliberate? We nearly did that the first time we > took a buggy on the plane. I don't think we were told about where we'd > collect it and certainly didn't expect it to be on the apron. I've seen > parents come off the plane looking shell-shocked after comforting a > child who has reacted badly to re-pressurisation and is in no fit state > to remember everything an efficient traveller would remember. Show some > understanding, please. > > >>Jeez, I'm glad I've never had to board my family with you. > > > You'd be fine if you got there on time, and then stopped your child > > kicking me in the small of the back for three hours. > > I'd like to see you manage a family in the perfect way you expect from > others. I don't really understand your point here. You're going on about it all being accidental, but at the same time talking about it being a near-inevitable byproduct of having kids. If it's to be expected, then expect it. Don't inflict it on everyone else and take the attitude that they're in the wrong for feeling put out.
From: Buddenbrooks on 9 Aug 2010 01:48 "Mister Niceguy" <mister.niceguy(a)rocketmail.com> wrote in message > I call it tolerance. Something we need more of in our society rather than > pandering to grumpy upstarts like you. > > <plonk> > I tolerate most things, tolerance and participation are totally different things. You are the intolerant one, what else do you call insisting that provision must be made for your special needs but anyone else not wishing to be part of your extended family can go hang! You choose to have children, so the greater responsibility is yours. Society in its interest does its best to educate and look after the health of its children. It is not a requirement of individuals to compensate others who have children and cant control their children or organize their affairs to get to a departure gate in good time. The world is grossly over populated, the days of State Medals for 'Mother of the Nation' for having hoards of children are gone. You are no longer doing the world a favour having children, so don't expect special treatment.
From: pete on 9 Aug 2010 04:15 On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 20:16:28 +0000 (UTC), Mister Niceguy wrote: > Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote in news:I7VFh9s6+oXMFAA5 > @perry.co.uk: > >> If you'd travelled with me you would - we used to get praise from > other >> passengers, including remarks like "we didn't even realise the was a >> child in the next row". > > Well you're a natural, then. Or lucky. We think we did pretty well but > we never did figure out how to handle a child who hated sitting in their > seat for more than a few minutes. Under the circumstances we think we > did very well, but that didn't stop the scowls from those who didn't (or > couldn't). Well that appears to be your problem. You don't handle "a child who hated sitting still ...." you train them. Your overriding responsibillity as a parent is to imbue your children with a set of values, behaviours, expectations and the ability to interact with others in a considerate and non-selfish way. -- www.thisreallyismyhost.99k.org/page2.php
From: Roland Perry on 9 Aug 2010 04:40
In message <Xns9DCED86DC25DCniceguyonzetnet(a)94.75.214.90>, at 20:16:28 on Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Mister Niceguy <mister.niceguy(a)rocketmail.com> remarked: >> her child (who stayed behind) spent most of the trip jabbing me in the >> ribs with his elbow while he played shoot-up games on the in-flight >> entertainment. >> >> Another time, maybe she could reserve an aisle seat if it matters that >> much. Grumpy? Yes, a bit; but I've seen a lot worse. > >Well that's a bad experience I'll concede. But not one I've ever had. >I've had a fat bloke next to me, overlapping the armrest before. That >was testing. Especially in economy, it's not unusual to have "wider" people (sometimes it's just their frame rather than weight) taking 100% possession of the armrests. And many years ago (before I had children of my own) I was once sat next to a small child who didn't appear to be able to be stopped from picking food off my lunch tray, as well as her own. -- Roland Perry |