Bringing milk for a toddler (26 mths) on a plane?

[disneyldwjr]

Actually, I think OP that most of the barbs were directed at me and a couple of other posters, not you. I think it was clear that you were just asking what was allowed these days.

I gave actual experience from having flown six times in the last 20 days: That not much would prevent a parent from bringing milk on board if they really wanted to. Some did it as easily as putting it in a sippy cup and having it waved through by TSA, since they were traveling with a "smal child" which seems to fit the TSA rules.

I did not break these precious rules myself, but that matters not to the hysterical faction on these boards who feel that "rules are rules."

Since when does having respect for rules put you into the "hysterical faction"?
It is my true belief that you would be the one screaming the loudest if, God forbid, something happened because someone chose NOT to follow the rules or let something slip by. It is my sincere hope that I never have to find this belief out.
These regs., like it or not, were put into place for a reason. We are not the only country to have done this. The simple fact is that were are living in a horrible time, it is better to do something, even if it is wrong, than to do nothing at all. You call it smoke and mirrors, I call it preventive measures.
You don't think it works, I think it is like a neighborhood watch, it looks hokey, but it is a deterrant. Again, I don't think the banned items and the allowable items make a lot of sense,but, then again, I am not privy to what the TSA and the government knows or does not know.
In the meantime, I plan to follow the rules and advocate following the rules to anyone that asks and take my complaints to the appropriate place.
What you do is your business, kindly stay out of mine and please, stop calling names to those who wish to follow the rules.

 

[disneyldwjr]

Once again, Horizon does require that you go through security with a TSA agent, just like everyone else. But it seems, like most things in life, it is open to interpretation.

Also, while I do think that 18mo olds should be learning to cope, I'm sure the other passengers would appreciate you teaching your child lessons somewhere other than on a plane.

Mine were taught long before their first plane ride. And with your post, ITA.

 

[disneyldwjr]

Eerily enough, I was going to post almost the exact same thing. Contrary to what it may seem, disneyldwjr and I are not the same person, although we may share similar experiences, posting styles, and a love of horses!

OP, your question did morph into a longer thread because there were differing responses and differing opinions regarding how to interpret the TSA list and how to manage the situation.

That can happen any time a phrase or rule is subject to interpretation, and we've certainly seen TSA agents interpret the rules in a variety of fashions, which only makes things more confusing.

I haven't read back over all 6 pages again tonight, although I did reread several of the posts during the day. I don't recall anyone judging your child or your parenting skills; I do recall a lot of people trying to find the 'right' answer for you, and debating what the 'right' answer is in this situation.

Many of the responses were not directed at you, but at other posters.

I've said it before and I will say it again - check your pixie dust at the door before discussing transportation issues. There is no pixie dust at the airport, with the TSA, or at the rental car counter. That's reality, and is not intended to be harsh....

Just goes to show you, GMTA. And,nope not the same person at all.

 

[TinkerbellMama]

I am so glad my son still breastfeeds, so I don't have to get involved in the insanity of which milk(s) my toddler is allowed to drink, and when, and where. It's horrible that it's even come to this on the airlines. The whole thing just sickens me.
Now, I'd love to see the dirty looks I'd get for nursing my thirsty, almost-2-year-old on the plane... The current security situation, although it is NOT good, gives me yet another snappy comeback to use in just such an instance: "Hey, they wouldn't let me bring anything for him in a sippy cup!"

 

[goofy4tink]

My word people...who would have thought this would still be going strong!! We have to understand that the rules are the rules...we may not like them, we may think they are ridiculous and serve no purpose, whatever. They are still rules and we really need to abide by them and try to change them by the appropriate methods.

Will someone's child freak out if they aren't allowed to have milk on the plane? Probably not. Give the child some milk before you board. Then ask for milk as you board, if it isn't available, settle for something else. Most kids will accept that. But, to make this into a bigger deal than it is is crazy. Let's try to be polite here. We can't have folks visiting the transportation boards for the first time thinking we're all loons!!! Let's try to be a bit more welcoming....and a bit less critical.

 

[disneyldwjr]

I am so glad my son still breastfeeds, so I don't have to get involved in the insanity of which milk(s) my toddler is allowed to drink, and when, and where. It's horrible that it's even come to this on the airlines. The whole thing just sickens me.
Now, I'd love to see the dirty looks I'd get for nursing my thirsty, almost-2-year-old on the plane... The current security situation, although it is NOT good, gives me yet another snappy comeback to use in just such an instance: "Hey, they wouldn't let me bring anything for him in a sippy cup!"

LOL good one. I hope you would not get dirty looks for nursing your child.

 

[bavaria]

Read up on Godwin's Law. You've just invoked it.

Totally missed that one, bicker... (not only the sins of the grandfathers but the sins of the TSA )

 

[DJNOWICK]

Actually what you construe is irrelevant. The intent is, indeed, relevant.

In a forum where the written word is the only means of communication, what reasonable people can construe from your words is most certainly relevant.

To merge my lines with those of others and to put it together as commentary is a totally absurd conclusion.

In absolutely no place in this thread or any other have I merged your words with those of another poster. I have, however, used your words as a case-in-point example of general points others were making.

I believe only an unreasonable person could construe it as you did. Believe as you will, I know what I meant, I offered a response to you, you apparently did not like it, I do not need to explain any further. It would be pointless as you have made up your mind what you will believe.

I have seen several replies you have made to me and others in several threads on this board now - your posting style, imho, is similar throughout...at best, harshly blunt (which is not a problem) and at worst, completely rude. I'm sure you are a lovely person IRL - as I am - but our posting styles clearly do not mesh, so let's agree to disagree.

Jackie

 

[disneyldwjr]

In a forum where the written word is the only means of communication, what reasonable people can construe from your words is most certainly relevant.



In absolutely no place in this thread or any other have I merged your words with those of another poster. I have, however, used your words as a case-in-point example of general points others were making.



I have seen several replies you have made to me and others in several threads on this board now - your posting style, imho, is similar throughout...at best, harshly blunt (which is not a problem) and at worst, completely rude. I'm sure you are a lovely person IRL - as I am - but our posting styles clearly do not mesh, so let's agree to disagree.

Jackie

Not sure I necessarily agree with rude, but, I am definitely blunt. As to a lovely person IRL, I am sure you are, but, the jury is still out on me. I am definitely blunt in RL, however, I have NEVER ever hurt anyone with words intentionally or for the fun of it. Not my style.
As to agree to disagree, I can do that.

 

[bavaria]

This thread has made it to page 6, which may seem odd for a seemingly simple question about milk. I do think, however, that it has been an interesting discussion, and with a few exceptions, has remained civil. Unfortunately, most of us don't know each other in person, so it is difficult to interpret every post as the writer intended it.

I enjoy debate, so long as it doesn't include name calling or intentional obtuseness. Frankly, I think that this has been an interesting debate, demonstrating a variety of interpretations and listing of 'the rules'.

I do think that some are being overly sensitive to the words, or trying to read too much into posts. The focus was never on child rearing, and back on page 2 (I believe) that was made clear. If I post my experience as a child, or someone else posts their experience as a parent, it does not automatically mean that they are criticising another.

For those that missed it, Gopherit posted an excellence analogy on an earlier post - I'll dig up the link...

 

[bavaria]

Some words of wisdom from Momma Gopher - take it as you will, but it puts another perspective on bulletin board misunderstandings.

Which is worse - a post that could be "inferred" as rude, or one that states it boldly?

Friction goes both ways. If my ds says to dd, "Your shirt is on backwards", will dd say, "Oh - thanks, I'll check on that" and fix it, or will she instead scream, "MOM! He says I'm STUPID cuz I don't know how to dress!" He never said she was stupid - she just chose to infer it.

If he had prefaced his words with, "I'm not trying to be rude..." or asked, "Where did you get that shirt?" would it have changed her decision on how she responded? Maybe. But only she can decide how she's gonna respond...and she might instead go so far as to add: "He is so rude and sarcastic!" (Now of course my dd wouldn't REALLY say that, because dd currently has no clue what "sarcastic" means. However, "poopy-headed" might very well come into play, based on her vocab at present, so just insert that and continue.)

And this would all be very unfortunate news for ds, whose only intentions were to tell his sister that her shirt is on backwards, because he happens to own a lot of shirts, and has a lot of experience with shirts, and happens to really hate shirt tags, and knows from experience that when a shirt is on backwards, that taggie thing is now in the front, and frankly, that would bug the beegeebies outta him, and he wouldn't want to see anyone else have to deal with that whole taggie-in-the-front irritation, but thinks maybe his sister and her pals aren't aware that tags can be so irksome, or perhaps they have been misinformed that it's ok to wear shirts backwards, and hence, he made his comment to her.... which he nows really regrets ever making, because for the life of him, he can't figure out how it was "hurtful", while she, for the life of her, can't figure out how he could be so "insensitive".

As Ol' Momma Gopher always told me, no one can MAKE you feel anything. It's a personal choice. Same with answering back (and the tone in which you do it.) Also a personal choice. Trouble is, too many times on this board, it all gets too personal, too fast. (Momma also taught me two wrongs don't make a right, eat your spinach, and don't post on threads where people are starting to get snippy even if you have the best of intentions. I didn't listen to the last two... and I hope I don't regret it.) I hope no one thinks I am being snippy here - I don't intend to be, only trying to illustrate what I see as a pervasive problem on the board - how one post leads to another, and each successive post is actually worse than the first, and the irony is that the post that "started" it was, by the writer's own admission, never intended as a slam on anyone's character or intelligence.

 

[bdcp]

Uh, do you have a 2 year old? Most can't understand why they can't have something to drink when they are thirsty. This isn't like not touching something hot or not getting a toy. Not every kid drinks water, and some kids don't drink juice.

Your best bet is to try and buy milk past security. In reality, they don't recheck the bags before you get on the plane.

Uh, I just had to answer this. I do not currently have a two year old but I have raised two boys that are 20 and 22 now and a 2 year old can wait for something to drink. At 2 they can wait longer than most people give them credit for. A child will not dehydrate in a couple of hours. What you're advocating is breaking/defying a current federal regulation. I've yet to meet a child that won't drink water or juice. In my experience, more will turn down milk before water or juice. But, that isn't the point is it? The point is liquids have been banned because of terrorist threats, not to inconvenience anyone.

 

[jodifla]

Uh, I just had to answer this. I do not currently have a two year old but I have raised two boys that are 20 and 22 now and a 2 year old can wait for something to drink. At 2 they can wait longer than most people give them credit for. A child will not dehydrate in a couple of hours. What you're advocating is breaking/defying a current federal regulation. I've yet to meet a child that won't drink water or juice. In my experience, more will turn down milk before water or juice. But, that isn't the point is it? The point is liquids have been banned because of terrorist threats, not to inconvenience anyone.

Sorry, you are wrong. Many 2 year olds will wait patiently, many 2 year olds will scream bloody murder. Mine was one of them. He has a language delay, and at 2, simply did not understand language. Simply because yours did 18 years ago (and I might question your memory.....ever deny your kid something to drink for hours for no reason when they were thirsty? I didn't think so.)

I state the truth. I did not "advocate" anything. I said, you could buy milk past security. You could have it to drink there. And if a parent really wanted to, they could get the milk on a plane in a sippy cup. Lots of people are breezing by TSA officials with milk in sippy cups. None of our bags were rechecked when we got on the plane in the last six flights I took in 23 days.

A few months ago, it was a federal regulation not to bring nail clippers on board. Today, it's perfectly fine. Hard to take any of these things all that seriously. Particularly when the "crime" is just trying to make sure your child has something to drink.

 

[bavaria]

ever deny your kid something to drink for hours for no reason when they were thirsty

if you give your child a drink before security, toss it, buy them a drink after security, toss it, and get them a drink on board, it would probably not be hours without a drink. Yes, it may not be milk, but getting a drink should be possible with the biggest delay being the time between reaching the boarding gate and getting a drink from the FA. And with less carryon luggage, flights are boarding more quickly so that shouldn't be too long.

 

[jodifla]

if you give your child a drink before security, toss it, buy them a drink after security, toss it, and get them a drink on board, it would probably not be hours without a drink. Yes, it may not be milk, but getting a drink should be possible with the biggest delay being the time between reaching the boarding gate and getting a drink from the FA. And with less carryon luggage, flights are boarding more quickly so that shouldn't be too long.

You are right in most cases. This is what we did just this past week.

But I can think of a few exceptions....one of which is that in some smaller airports, everything is closed after about 7 p.m., leaving you with no beverage options past security other than water, which my son just won't drink. (Fort Lauderdale's older terminals have this problem, as does Detroit's older terminals.)

On another thread on the family board, a Southwest rep just told a mom to put the milk in baby bottles for her toddler. When the mom protested that the toddler didn't use bottles, the airline rep told to use it for transport only.

Now I want to hear all the wails from people bent out of shape that airlines like Southwest (which don't offer milk) are encouraging people to break federal law....c'mon folks, let's hear it.

 

[goofy4tink]

Okay, you know what? We are not going to get everyone on the same page here. I think we have addressed the 'question' as to what to do about milk for a toddler. It is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. I don't think anything productive is going to be happening at this point. Way too much 'she said, I said' going on. So, we're done with it. Thanks for your understanding.