A good reason to buy your child a ticket

[Brian Noble]

The whole "planes are safer than cars" argument against requiring carseats is pure hooey

Just so I understand your position, I'm going to ask you to explain it. For the argument to be false, one or both of the following two assumptions must be false:

1: Increased costs to fly won't lead a large-enough number of families with small children to drive who would have otherwise flown.

2: More families on the road will not lead to more injuries or fatalities among children than would have occurred if they flew instead.

Which is it that you don't believe? Do you have any data to justify the claim? If I were trying to show one of those as false, I would guess that #1 is easier to dispute than #2. It may also be the case that the FAA is weak-kneed in the presence of the airline lobbyists (in fact, it's fairly clear) but that fact doesn't by itself mean that either assumption #1 or #2 are false.

Just to be clear: I'm not saying that (once you've decided to fly) not buying your under-two child is a defensible thing to do. Both the data and the intuition are clear: proper restraint is better, and I'd bet that a dispassionate analysis of the risks would say it's even economically justifiable to buy the ticket. It seems to me that any rational parent would do exactly this, once s/he understands the risks. What I *am* saying is that there may be a valid public safety reason for not *requiring* that all parents do so. The studies I've pointed to suggest this to be the case---I'm happy to be shown others that suggest otherwise.

There is an important difference between requiring/not-requiring adult seat belts and requiring/not-requiring infant tickets. Requiring seat belts can't add more than a few pennies to each airfare purchase (amortizing the additional cost of the safety equipment over all flyers in that seat for the lifetime of the airplane)---this very low marginal cost is unlikely to convince a measurable fraction of adult flyers to drive instead of fly. As long as that's true, (and as long as flying 1 mile is safer than driving it,) safety increases in the aggregate. Likewise for laptops being stowed---requiring it adds no economic disincentive to flying, but does marginally increase safety, so there is no reason not to require it. There is an economic disincentive to fly if you require all infants to be in seats. Is that incentive large enough to decrease safety in the aggregate? That's the question.

I think the reason the "don't require infant tickets" argument sounds so completely bogus (despite the fact that it is quite possibly correct) is that, once you have thought through the risks and costs, the marginal cost seems modest for the risk reduction. The key, though, is that you have to have thought through the issues. Human beings are notoriously bad at valuing low-probability events, and so tend to either vastly over-value or under-value the risk based on other factors.

For example, insurance agents tend to carry significantly more coverage than the population at large, after you normalize for all other factors (cost of insurance to the purchaser, risk, liability, etc.) One explanation for this is that insurance agents actually understand the actuarial tables, while others tend to under-estimate the economic risk involved in carrying insufficient insurance relative to the economic cost of said insurance. It is just as possible that insurance agents over-estimate the risk, becuase they see a disproportionate number of people who have experienced highly unlikely but very negative events.

An economist could tell you precisely how much insurance was "optimal" given correct probabilities for the various catastrophic events, but they don't call it the dismal science for nothing!

 

[NotUrsula]

I understand the economics quite well. I simply don't believe that sufficient evidence actually exists to show that meaningful numbers of US families do indeed regularly choose to drive rather than fly based specifically and solely on the added cost of purchasing seats for children under age 2. (Numbers I have seen claim that the danger increases statistically once at least 5% of parents choose to drive instead of fly.) Once a child reaches age 2 a seat must be purchased. Where are the surveys that show how many families fly regularly only up until a first child's 2nd birthday, but then choose road transit over air transit over at least the next 16 years? If at least 5% of families are not really making that choice based on the cost of that one infant fare, then the whole argument loses validity. (And yes, I'll grant that for some families, there are multiple under-2's to consider.) So far, I've seen an awful lot of studies that say that *if* 5-15% of parents choose, but I haven't seen a single one that says that 5-15% of parents *do* choose, based solely on cost. Also, I'd like to see those numbers for injuries, not just deaths.

The truth is that when there is a child under 2 in the house, the majority of American families tend not to travel long distances at all. People with babies tend to stay closer to home than people with older children, as they often feel that travel is more trouble than it is worth when "baby equipment" has to be taken along. The number of Americans who would EVER choose to fly with a baby, free baby or not, is a very small proportion of the percentage of people who do fly.

Furthermore, given new security requirements that mandate early arrival at airports, all US travelers are more likely to drive than to fly for trips that would take less than 3 hours by car. (That's being generous; numbers I've seen are more likely to say 500 miles.) If you choose to accept the validity of claims data published by Progressive Insurance, only 1 percent of auto accidents occur further than 50 miles away from home. (http://pressroom.progressive.com/releases/fivemiles.asp)
If they are correct, and I'm not claiming that the evidence is conclusive, only that I haven't seen any conclusive evidence disproving it, either, then the air-to-ground accident ratio may not nearly as favorable as it first appears; the number of Americans of any age who will fly rather than drive to get somewhere closer than 50 miles away is miniscule. [I will grant that to be really useful for this purpose, the surveys of driving accident injuries to children need to tell us not only how far from home the accident occurred, but also how far from home the terminus of the trip actually was.]

OK, now let's put aside the economic argument re: lap children for a minute and concentrate on the known safety hazards for children OVER 2 yrs of age but under 40 lbs. Requiring the use of FAA-approved carseats for them would not cost the avg. parent anything extra. It would not require extra equipment except in that airlines might have to actually provide them if parents failed to supply them. Of course, then you get into economic arguments about unfairness to people who don't own automobiles, and liability for the airline if their supplied seat fails in an accident (or an "incident", which is the more likely scenario.) The answer to the liability issue is simple; no carseat, no boarding, not unlike law enforcement's answer to drivers who claim that they cannot afford a carseat: you'll pay for the seat or you'll pay for the traffic ticket, and the seat is cheaper. So why doesn't the FAA require airlines to require parents to strap these kids into carseats on commercial flights? My money is on the dual mandate, and airline arguments about turnaround times.

 

[lclark0621]

Well we always buy a seat for our DS (18 months), but we never bring his car seat on the plane.

DS HATES his car seat here in a car, I could not imagine it on the plane.

I do have one of those flight vests for him. Basically it hooks him to my seatbelt, so he is not going anywhere. And I obviously hold onto him to.

But the question is moot since there are 4 masks per row. But you know, without even thinking about the 4 masks thing. If there were only enough masks for my DC, the answer is simple...I would save my DS. Without even thinking about it!

 

[Brian Noble]

The easiest way to get a handle on the rejection rate per marginal dollar increase would be to look at pricing data for leisure trips vs. leisure trips booked; the tipping point is unlikley to be different for families with small children than for families without, as long as one can normalize for number of people travelling together. However, unless one works in the pricing department of a commercial airline, I'm guessing one would not be able to obtain that data---it has very high competitive value, and so wouldn't be made public. However, given the price sensitivity of your average leisure traveler, it's not patently absurd to suggest that a family of four might make a different fly-vs-drive decision at $700 than at $600.

I'd be with you on the under 40/over two requirement provided only one thing: that *all* car seats sold into that demographic *must* also meet FAA standards. I don't know if that's true today, but it wasn't true when I was travelling with kids that age/size, and it complicated our purchase decision.

As an aside, the 50-mile stat is a red herring: true, the largest *number* of accidents happen w/in 50 miles, but that's because more miles are driven on short trips than on longer ones. My understanding is that the per-mile rate is also slightly lower for long trips (because highways are safer than surface streets) but not by a large margin.

lclark: You might want to look over that older FAA study I cited. Depending on its design, that vest probably does not provide any measureable additional protection beyond holding him in your lap. (In other words: none.) You almost always have some notice about upcoming turbulence: if the seat belt light is on, keep your son in his car seat. Otherwise, it's probably safe to bounce him on your lap.

 

[DemoBri1]

The airlines discount the seat for 50% of the adult fare, there is NO excuse for not buying one!

Just to clarify. Not all airlines do this.

 

[annabelle]

Independance doesn't offer discounts.
Southwest sometimes does... but a rep told me that if you buy an infant their own seat - and if there happens to be an empty seat when you board - then they'll either credit you (for a sale fare) of refund you for a full priced fare.

 

[dudspizza]

Some of the arguements in this thread are amusing..... in the end it seems like everyone agrees it is better to buy a seat for your little one..... yet there are arguements about the particulars and safety, etc........



duds

 

[lclark0621]

lclark: You might want to look over that older FAA study I cited. Depending on its design, that vest probably does not provide any measureable additional protection beyond holding him in your lap. (In other words: none.) You almost always have some notice about upcoming turbulence: if the seat belt light is on, keep your son in his car seat. Otherwise, it's probably safe to bounce him on your lap.

Actually the vest I use is quite sufficient at keeping my son attached to me during turbulance. We have used it for all 20 flights we have taken my DS on in his 18 months of life & it has been great on all of them.

I dont bring the car seat on the plane. I have a high needs 18 month old who hates his car seat here on the ground. If I tried to put him in the car seat on the plane he would scream the ENTIRE flight. And with as often as we go to Europe, I just am not going to have my son scream the 8+ hour flight, or the 3+ hours to FL.

I am perfectly fine not having my son in a car seat on the plane. I have him firmly attached to me & he is not going anywhere.

 

[Chicago526]

Just to clarify. Not all airlines do this.

True, the majors all do, but some of the smaller do not.

Generally the one's that don't also offer lower fares than those that do, so the parents still aren't paying that much for a seat for the infant.

And (this isn't directed at anyone in particular, just making a point) at what point do you put a price on your child's saftey? $50 is worth keeping them safe but $150 isn't?

 

[DisneyPhD]

Just to clarify. Not all airlines do this.

We always fly Spirit. They don't offer 1/2 price ticket for under 2.

 

[Lewisc]

Just to be clear: I'm not saying that (once you've decided to fly) not buying your under-two child is a defensible thing to do. Both the data and the intuition are clear: proper restraint is better, and I'd bet that a dispassionate analysis of the risks would say it's even economically justifiable to buy the ticket. It seems to me that any rational parent would do exactly this, once s/he understands the risks. What I *am* saying is that there may be a valid public safety reason for not *requiring* that all parents do so. The studies I've pointed to suggest this to be the case---I'm happy to be shown others that suggest otherwise.

The fact that the government and airlines allow for "lap babies" give some (probably many) of the parents of lap babies false information. Since it is allowed they wrongly assume that it is safe.

Prehaps some of those parents would drive to save money but I suspect others would willingly pay for a seat if it was presented as a safety issue.

 

[annabelle]

Personally I think it should be mandated that all infants be required to be put in their own seats. I have a problem with the coffee pots being more secure on planes than the lap babies... not to mention the fact that a loose child could become a projectile in flight (think heavy bag of potatoes flying through the air)... which obviously is a hazard to the baby, but is also hazardous to other passengers. So it would be in the best interest of EVERYONE to keep those babies strapped in.

 

[NotUrsula]

Right now, almost all standard infant/toddler convertible seats sold in the US meet the NTSB standard for aircraft; the most popular exceptions are a couple of the Britax models. (According to BritaxUSA's website, those are the Husky & the Traveller Plus; both of these seats are built to accomodate children much larger than 40 lbs.) There is an issue with the weight standard, because carseats have a different weight/height standard for use of the shoulder harness; those two standards need to be brought into line, with the most protective being made the default.

The NTSB certainly *COULD* require all carseats sold in the US to meet the standard. If carseats were made mandatory, creating well-known standard markings and notification rules would be part of making them mandatory. However, even with the standard where it is today, a parent who is aware that a carseat should be useable on an aircraft should have no trouble selecting one that meets the standard; the sticker is going to be on it if it is a new seat. (I've looked, and most seats now have the info on the outside of the box, too.) I *will* go with the economic argument on this point; I feel that if carseats are made mandatory for kids flying in their own seats, verifying the carseat's suitability should remain the responsibility of the adult accompanying the child. I don't endorse the popular European viewpoint that the child restraints should be all be provided by the airline (though I certainly don't think we should prevent them from providing them if they wanted to, on a cost basis.) For one thing, that puts the child's own carseat into the hold of the aircraft, where it can end up under tons of luggage.

The NTSB has issued statements questioning the validity of the FAA's "diversion argument." Quite frankly, when it comes to questions of aircraft safety, I trust the NTSB much farther than I trust the FAA.