Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 33658 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 23626 times:
Malaysia Airlines does not allow children under 12 to be seated in the upper deck Economy section of the A380-800 unless the main deck is full and they can only be accommodated in the upper deck. Malaysia Airlines also does not allow infants to be seated in the First Class cabin of their 747-400 aircraft.
AirAsia X has also banned children under 12 from the first seven rows on flights to China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Australia and Nepal. This forward section is separated from the rest of the plane with curtains and lavatories, so not sure how effective it will be unless the kids are parked in the aft of the plane.
reffado From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 23310 times:
While it makes sense, it may cause trouble. I agree that screaming infants are far from being a delight, but banning paying passengers from traveling with their kids in forward cabins seems a bit too much. What if I have a kid and want to fly F? I can't? That's just stupid. I say that because my first flight was when I was 2 - in the F cabin on the upper deck of an RG 747. My parents received no complaints. Because in Y there was not enough space and the whole family would be cramped, the wider seats were a need. I mean, if passengers want to upgrade, sure, it's a reason to deny them, but if they're paying, I can't see the logic.
reffado From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 23121 times:
On the various flights I've been in, I've seen both, very calm (most of the times) and very annoying kids. The problem as I see it is the parents not controlling their children. That said, toddlers I may see the point, but for general young kids (9-12 or so), I would rather seat beside them than beside some fat person, or a lousy smelly adult, which I have seen several times.
However, I do understand what you said, and seeing it that way, it does make sense. But, at least here, I can't see someone showing up with say, $5000 for an F ticket for their kid and the airline saying they won't take it.
doug_Or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3535 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (3 years 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 22677 times:
Quoting reffado (Reply 10): However, I do understand what you said, and seeing it that way, it does make sense. But, at least here, I can't see someone showing up with say, $5000 for an F ticket for their kid and the airline saying they won't take it.
Schweigend From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 723 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (3 years 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 22380 times:
Quoting doulasc (Thread starter): I heard some airlines have a no kid policy in their upper decks on A380 and 747s.which airlines are doing this?
Where do they draw the line on age? Whats the reasoning behind this?
I've just checked the SQ and LH websites for information about traveling in premium classes with children -- no posted prohibition that I could find. Yet there is a sense among fliers, expressed in the posts above, that children below a certain age -- say, six or eight -- should not be in J or F, for the comfort of the adults in those cabins.
It really comes down to good parenting -- if your whelp is poorly behaved, fly coach, or drive. Societal or peer pressure can enforce this.
But you specified the "upper decks", not upper classes. During an evacuation situation, would children be more at risk for injury by using the upper deck slides than the lower deck ones? I tend to think not, as kids, with their flexible bodies and "this is fun!" attitude, would probably do better on the higher slides than grown-ups. Infants, however, could pop out of their parents' arms or otherwise encumber the evacuation...
These issues surely were investigated during aircraft certification, and I'm not aware of any official regulatory prohibition of children upstairs.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 24312 posts, RR: 21
Reply 15, posted (3 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 22123 times:
Quoting Schweigend (Reply 15): It really comes down to good parenting -- if your whelp is poorly behaved, fly coach, or drive. Societal or peer pressure can enforce this.
Anybody who thinks that a child's behavior is 100 percent correlated to parenting quality needs to spend more time with children. Good parents can get their children to behave more often than bad parents can, but even the best-raised children have occasional bad days (and, conversely, even children with the worst parents sometimes behave).
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
qantasguy From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 20779 times:
This has come up several times before. I agree with the "Kid Free" section. So many times, especially on flights in and out of Orlando, Orange County and even SLC -there have been so many disruptive children that it is impossible to relax, concentrate or sleep. Perhaps, instead of positioning children all throughout the cabin, the last few rows could be reserved for "Families". Often other families are "Immune" to the squeals, screams and other VERY annoying sounds and behaviors of other children and are not bothered in the least......as for me - there are few things I hate more than being disturbed by a high pitched, blood curdling screech in the middle of a flight while hurtling 600mph in a tube you can't escape from. You have to sit there and bare it and, while your ears bleed, and head splits wide open you wonder why someone else who has executive authority over an airline hasn't figured out that "Adult Flights" would really be quite profitable. I'd pay a higher price for guaranteed peace. In my line of work, it is often the only time I get to actually sleep and I get super annoyed when it's all through the cabin. There is often a chain reaction from one child to another, to another. You can see it coming. Southwest has the right idea, board the children early, or better still in the first 15....then we can avoid them. Better still, they should board them and advise them the back, or front 3 rows are reserved for them and to all sit there. That puts maximum distance between them and the majority of us who wish to be far, far away. It is not unreasonable to want this. When you are at a fine restaurant, and want to enjoy a quiet evening - this is to be expected, a commercial flight should be no different - especially if it is marketed this way. I say bring on the noise ordinance.....
shankly From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 1609 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (3 years 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 19800 times:
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 5): Can I have a "no obnoxious drunks allowed" section on my flights
Agree. My last two flights with BA (LHR-CPT-LHR) were delayed whilst adults were removed for being drunk and aggressive to staff...on my LHR-CPT flight it was a pax from 1st who was ejected by a couple of chaps in yellow jackets and on the return a couple of lads from the rear who had apparently turned out have had a too few many Castles
The Captain advised us on the LHR-CPT flight "that one of our passengers has decided not to travel with us tonight....."!
The crew were very amused and chatted about how this chap had literally thrown his toys out of the pram (or probably his BA pyjamas) from the moment he had stepped on. My 7 year old son sat quietly and contently for 12 hours both ways
I can appreciate the market for a quiet cabin, but how far down the line does one go within such a cabin....no groups of lads or lasses, separate business passengers so we don't get to hear how great they are, no alcohol served, certainly no irritating lap top activity, no "chatty" people?
If some muppets are prepared to pay an extra few quid to sit in front of a curtain in a cabin environment which is generally 80dB, then good luck to the airlines
Jalap From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 374 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 18814 times:
Quoting bond007 (Reply 8): I'm sure many F fare paying pax would be very upset (as I would be), having paid a very high premium, only to end up next to a screaming 2 year old for the whole flight.
When you say "if they're paying...", you must remember the other pax without children who are also paying. Often those who complain about their 'rights', forget about the 'rights' of all the others
I'm sure economy pax would also be upset to end up close to a screaming 2 year old for the whole flight. And 1 kid can annoy far more people in economy than in first. But they didn't pay the premium, does that mean they don't have those 'rights'?
Dufo From Slovenia, joined May 1999, 836 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (3 years 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 18369 times:
What is the point of travelling with infants anyway?
I understand if you're moving to live somewhere but to take them on a visit or vacation when they're that young? Couldn't you give them to relatives for those few days?
I have seen to many 'do not give a crap' attitude of parents who did nothing to comfort the disturbed child.
I seriously think I just creamed my pants without any influence from any outside variables.
: What's all this talk of "rights"? The only right that you have is the reasonable expectation to be carried from point A to point B as ticketed. Nowher
: The same place where it says children have a right to sit in anywhere on the aircraft. Nobody here disagrees with that, but there is nothing to 'get
: You said it pal! Everyone had rights, no matter what cabin they´re travelling in. Of course those in F & J have more entitlements, but that´s s