Can I hold my 1 year old on my lap on a plane?

[jodifla]

I reread my posts and could not find any name calling that you refer to.

That was not directed personally at your posts.

 

[jodifla]

Ok, if it's all about flying being safer than driving...why can't I hold my 5 year old in my lap? Trust me, that would be much more comfortable than holding my toddler. She would sit realitively still and read books. My toddler would wiggle all over the place. Also, if my husband and I fly together can I sit on his lap? He wouldn't mind...

Ahh, because airlines want the money.

Most babies like to be held, nursed, tended to....that is why many of us hold them on the planes in the first place.

 

[michvin]

As a person who has held a baby on the plane...it is a matter of choice AND how much risk you take for yourself and your family. There are always instances to prove points, one way or the other in any instance.

However, considering all the points for the safety, and as a parent you should, etc. etc., I am wondering how many parents who live/work in the city bring their carseat with them for the one year old out of the infant carrier: on the bus, on a train, on a subway (have you been on the DC metro when it stops?), or on a taxi. How many of the naysayers on the board who fly have put a small child on one of those mechanized machines w/o a seat? I would love to see all the NYC moms and dads walking around town with those seats.....just a thought.

And yes, whenever an accident happens wherever it happens, it is always tragic when someone is serverely injured. And, my husband travels on and airplane on a weekly basis 70% of the year for the past 7 years and twice has been bumped out of his seat. Must have been really bad for the person in the potty....

 

[NotUrsula]

Most babies like to be held, nursed, tended to....that is why many of us hold them on the planes in the first place.

They like to be held when riding in cars, too, but we don't do that, do we? And why not? In reality, for most parents, not because it is unsafe, but because it is illegal, and you can get a traffic ticket for doing it.

That's what this whole darn argument boils down to for most people, along with just about every safety recommendation regarding vehicles of any kind. "Will someone in authority prevent me from ignoring the safety recommendation or punish me if I ignore it?" If the answer is no, then we (speaking in the collective sense) are likely to ignore it, regardless of what experts tell us about safety.

Using carseats in cars, wearing seatbelts in cars, wearing life jackets on boats, not driving under the influence of alcohol ... All recommendations that almost no one followed until they were backed by the force of law.

The "fly-vs.-drive" straw argument (which really is a straw argument for all those children who are over 2 but under 40 lbs.) was first suggested back when the FAA still had a mandate to promote the interests of the aviation industry, and they are sticking with it because it has become entrenched.
The REAL reason why child restraints are not required on aircraft is that (as long as the only useable type of restraint is a hard-shell seat) the requirement would be too difficult and costly to enforce. What would the airline do if passengers showed up without one? Would the airline have to supply the restraint, and if so, where would the airline stow them, and how would they make sure that each plane had enough? Would they have to refund the fare if they couldn't let the family fly without one? If the airline did supply the carseat, would the airline be held liable if it failed in an accident? (BTW, This is the same set of reasons why almost all cities exempt taxicabs from the carseat laws.) Transcripts of all the FAA hearings on this topic going back as far as the 1980's are a matter of public record (not all of them are online), and testimony before the committees always emphasizes these quandaries, and tends to emphasize them far more than the driving argument.

As the link I posted a few pages back shows, this whole question may soon be moot, at least for children who weigh over 22 lbs. The FAA has finally approved a child restraint harness that would be supplied to parents by the airline. The harness is made by a company called AMSAFE, it is called the CAReS harness, and it appears that JetBlue plans to be the first US carrier to make it available, (on their Airbus A320's, though they are not saying when). This is what it will look like: http://www.amsafeaviation.com/cares.htm AMSAFE is also working on a hardshell restraint for infants, but it has not yet been submitted for FAA approval.

 

[jodifla]

They like to be held when riding in cars, too, but we don't do that, do we? And why not? In reality, for most parents, not because it is unsafe, but because it is illegal, and you can get a traffic ticket for doing it.




Of course, you can pull over in a car to tend to your baby. Can't hardly do that in an airplane.

But I think that's good news about the harness, actually. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[TammyJ]

Great news about the harness. It still leaves those under 22 pounds unprotected but definitely a step in the right direction...and it would make my life so much easier!!!!

 

[The Disney Bunch]

We have always bought a seat for our kids- it is easier - the flight is 2 hours - why sit and be uncomfortable for that entire time. Generally the airlines offer a cheaper seat for kids & if you are getting a car when you are there- you are going to need a carseat so why not bring your own? Just IMHO

Let us know what you decided!

 

[jodifla]

what are these airlines that offer half-price seats for infants? None of the ones we flew offered them.

 

[Alicnwondrln]

i couldnt find any either
not jetblue, southwest, airtran
none of them
we ended up going with jetblue and at 1st we didnt buy a ticket but in the end we got one but it was the same price as ours

 

[kidshop]

what are these airlines that offer half-price seats for infants? None of the ones we flew offered them.

It's been a long time since I've flown, but Delta and Northwest offered 1/2 price fares for children under 2. There was a box to check for buying a ticket (online) for child and the age. Over 2 was regular price. That was like four years ago, I'm not sure what they do now. Maybe it's something you have to ask outright for, they aren't going to offer it up.

 

[TammyJ]

In 6 years of flying with kids I've never gotten a half price ticket. When we flew transatlantic (four years ago) we did get a reduced rate sometimes but certaily not half price. I have never gotten it within the States. I too heard of the reduced fare but no one I know has actually gotten it either...and I typically fly Northwest...Delta and United sometimes. I think this may have either gone away or the number they allow per flight really restricted.

 

[GatorGal]

what are these airlines that offer half-price seats for infants? None of the ones we flew offered them.

I flew short notice across country and got a half fare for my then 5 month old daughter on Northwest. I also got the half fare on US Airways to Buffalo.

 

[amarberry]

what are these airlines that offer half-price seats for infants? None of the ones we flew offered them.

I just booked a flight earlier this week and bought a half price seat for my 18 month old daughter on TED/United. This will be the third flight that we have purchased a seat for her. The flights have been on United/TED and American. I did price flights on ATA for our upcoming trip and they did not offer half price seats for infants.

 

[TinkerbellMama]

I'm sure some people think this thread is a dead horse that' been severly beaten, but IMHO, the longer it stays active, more people will read it and, hopefully, reconsider not buying a seat for their infant or small child.

I believe it was Tblwriter/Tracy that pointed out that some people equate can with safe; you can fly with your child on your lap, therefore, it's safe. Why would they ask if lap children were allowed on planes if they already thought it was unsafe and were unwilling to take such a risk?

I'm gonna have to completely agree with this. Same way some car seats are safer than others, and rear-facing is much, much safer than forward facing for 1 yr. olds...but it's legal to buy a "less safe" car seat that barely meets minimum standards and to forward face your toddler (which almost everyone does). Doesn't make it the safest choice. Eating crap junk food and smoking and drinking alcohol aren't good for us, either, but the law lets us do it if we so choose. The government won't protect us from ourselves...that's for sure!

 

[salmoneous]

Oh good grief people. Look, every one of you takes risks with your children every single day. You choose to do one thing, when there is a safer choice.

You know what is dangerous? Making a left turn against oncoming traffic. And I bet every single parent on here who is preaching to people about how others *must* put their kid in a airplane seat has make a left turn against traffic with their kid in the car. Most probably make such turns every single day. The fact is, you *could* avoid those left turns. You *could* find a different route, or turn at a light and backtrack. But you choose not to do so because it costs you time and effort to make such a choice, and the extra safety just isn't that great.

You can't protect your kids from every possible danger. This (among other things) make parents a bit nutty. You'll take huge steps to avoid a certain 1-in-100,000,000 risk, but accept other risks - some of which are a lot more dangerous. Is it perfectly rational? No. But they are your kids and your choices.

They key words there being "your". Unless other parents are being irresponsible - letting their kids play in traffic or run with scissors - accept the fact that other parents make choices *just as you make choices*. And while holding a kid on your lap in a plane isn't the absolute safest option, it isn't irresponsible.

 

[chobie]

Oh good grief people. Look, every one of you takes risks with your children every single day. You choose to do one thing, when there is a safer choice.

You know what is dangerous? Making a left turn against oncoming traffic. And I bet every single parent on here who is preaching to people about how others *must* put their kid in a airplane seat has make a left turn against traffic with their kid in the car. Most probably make such turns every single day. The fact is, you *could* avoid those left turns. You *could* find a different route, or turn at a light and backtrack. But you choose not to do so because it costs you time and effort to make such a choice, and the extra safety just isn't that great.

You can't protect your kids from every possible danger. This (among other things) make parents a bit nutty. You'll take huge steps to avoid a certain 1-in-100,000,000 risk, but accept other risks - some of which are a lot more dangerous. Is it perfectly rational? No. But they are your kids and your choices.

They key words there being "your". Unless other parents are being irresponsible - letting their kids play in traffic or run with scissors - accept the fact that other parents make choices *just as you make choices*. And while holding a kid on your lap in a plane isn't the absolute safest option, it isn't irresponsible.

Amen.

 

[stacy6552]

So the working theory I keep hearing is that because you cannot protect your child from every danger, you have no need to protect them from any danger. Rediculous.

 

[chobie]

So the working theory I keep hearing is that because you cannot protect your child from every danger, you have no need to protect them from any danger. Rediculous.

NO the working theory is that we make parenting choices everyday that have some risks. Protect your children to from the risks you deem important and don't be so quick to judge other parents chocies in regards to risks. Unless you have your kid ensconced in a plastic bubble that never leaves your house, you are taking risks. Worry about what choices are best for your kids, and that should probably eliminate any time you have left to worry other peoples' choice.

 

[jodifla]

Oh good grief people. Look, every one of you takes risks with your children every single day. You choose to do one thing, when there is a safer choice.

You know what is dangerous? Making a left turn against oncoming traffic. And I bet every single parent on here who is preaching to people about how others *must* put their kid in a airplane seat has make a left turn against traffic with their kid in the car. Most probably make such turns every single day. The fact is, you *could* avoid those left turns. You *could* find a different route, or turn at a light and backtrack. But you choose not to do so because it costs you time and effort to make such a choice, and the extra safety just isn't that great.

You can't protect your kids from every possible danger. This (among other things) make parents a bit nutty. You'll take huge steps to avoid a certain 1-in-100,000,000 risk, but accept other risks - some of which are a lot more dangerous. Is it perfectly rational? No. But they are your kids and your choices.

They key words there being "your". Unless other parents are being irresponsible - letting their kids play in traffic or run with scissors - accept the fact that other parents make choices *just as you make choices*. And while holding a kid on your lap in a plane isn't the absolute safest option, it isn't irresponsible.

Brilliantly stated. Thank you!