Charge for a lap child

[PatsMom]

I hope the fee does discourage lap children. I truly believe that the safety of the child should outweigh the cost of the ticket and there is no doubt in my mind that the child is safer in a safety seat. This February we were across the aisle from a couple with two lap children and another young child (maybe four or five). They argued with the Southwest flight attendant for about ten minutes when told that one of the parents had to move to another row with the lap child. They didn't seem to care that in an in flight emergency, one of the children would be without an oxygen mask - there are four per row in case one fails. That means only one lap child per row. Or at least that is what the flight attendant was telling them.

 

[bicker]

Our newspaper ran a story on this...and basically, it was that it would cost $800 million to outfit school buses with seatbelts, and would save something like 2 lives a year on average.

So a life is worth less than $400 million. Good to know.

 

[Brian Noble]

To quote Shaw quite out of context:

Now, we're just haggling over price.

More seriously: it's not that a life is worth less than $400M. It's that $400M, spent in some other way, might well save many more lives than two. Because resources are finite, one must always try to obtain the best utility in putting those resources into play.

 

[Brian Noble]

I truly believe that the safety of the child should outweigh the cost of the ticket

And, for you (and for me) it does. Other people are free to make their own decisions about the relative worth of their children.

Think of it as Darwinism in action.

 

[bicker]

More seriously: it's not that a life is worth less than $400M. It's that $400M, spent in some other way, might well save many more lives than two. Because resources are finite, one must always try to obtain the best utility in putting those resources into play.

Great explanation.

 

[jodifla]

I hope the fee does discourage lap children. I truly believe that the safety of the child should outweigh the cost of the ticket and there is no doubt in my mind that the child is safer in a safety seat. This February we were across the aisle from a couple with two lap children and another young child (maybe four or five). They argued with the Southwest flight attendant for about ten minutes when told that one of the parents had to move to another row with the lap child. They didn't seem to care that in an in flight emergency, one of the children would be without an oxygen mask - there are four per row in case one fails. That means only one lap child per row. Or at least that is what the flight attendant was telling them.

With the cost of airline tickets rising, you'll likely see even MORE lap babies.

The family above likely saved $300 to $500. That's a lot of money saved over a threat of airline calamity that almost NEVER happens.

 

[Zeebs]

Well i must be the worst mother in the world as I fly my son as a lap child, Cullen was 10 months when we did the UK to New Zealand so 4 x 12 hour flights, when the turbulence sign is on he was on my lap with a belt looped through mine. I do not see how this is any different than a adult being seated with their seat belt on. I get up to go to the toilet there is a risk turbulence will hit while I am on my way there. I made my decision and am happy with it also. I intend to take Seth to Florida the same way. I read a lot of information on the internet, papers on injuries while flying, statistics on on injuries of small children and am happy with my decision to fly with him on my lap.

I also think it is unfair to charge when you are not expecting it. Seths flight cost £179.00 so not cheap....

Kirsten

 

[bavaria]

On my flights, the message is pretty standard now to always keep your seat belt buckled while in your seat. Almost weekly there are reports of injuries to passengers due to turbulence, many quite serious.

A friend once had concussion and neck injuries as she was standing in the aisle when the aircraft hit turbulence, and she quite literally bounced off the ceiling and knocked herself out.

I won't vote either way on the issue, but I can see airlines charging for lap babies in future. For most passengers, the choice to take a lap baby is a choice not to buy a ticket. Airlines recognize this, and they may start charging a nominal amount, just like they currently do with pets in the cabin.

and NO, I am not comparing babies to pets, before anyone gets themselves upset!

 

[bicker]

To be fair, a pet in a pet carrier is safer than a lap child in a lap. That's really troubling to me.

 

[Brian Noble]

Think of it as Darwinism in action.

I was thinking about this, and I think I want to withdraw it. Just as the $800M that could put seat belts in every school bus might be better spent elsewhere, it could be the case that, statistically, the chances of injury to a lap baby are so low that the money spent on a seat might be better spent, say, on additional preventative care in some other way.

It would be interesting to see real data on infant injury rate per mile flown.

To be fair, a pet in a pet carrier is safer than a lap child in a lap.

My wife recently flew to Idaho to pick up a new puppy (!), and I was thinking exactly the same thing.

 

[cbrfan]

With the cost of airline tickets rising, you'll likely see even MORE lap babies.

The family above likely saved $300 to $500. That's a lot of money saved over a threat of airline calamity that almost NEVER happens.

I think carseats (and lap belts) provide the most protection in the event of turbulence. Turbulence happens more frequently than "almost never". While I've never understood how parents justify spending that $300-$500 for one of their children, but not the other, we see alot of parents asserting that it's their right to decide whether they buy their child a seat or have them fly as a lap baby. That may be true, but at the risk of sounding callous, I don't want to be hit and injured by your flying lap baby when it becomes a missile. I don't know if it's actually true or not, but I read somewhere that in the event of a crash landing, passengers with lap babies are instructed to place their babies on the floor in front of them and let go. Personally, I don't think I could do that.
Getting back to the original post, I understand the complaint about being charged the extra money for the lap baby after the tickets were already purchased. We're seeing the same complaints about being charged for the second checked bags. I guess luggage is luggage.

 

[Brian Noble]

Turbulence that spills my drink happens more often than "almost never". Turbulence sufficient to cause me to drop my laptop? Not so much.

Of course, we can speculate and refer back to anecdotal evidence all we like, but it sure would be nice to see hard data.

 

[bicker]

It only takes "once".

 

[Brian Noble]

Certainly.

Just as it only takes one drunk driver plowing into the side of your car, killing your kid despite the car seat. Or one bolt of lightning. Or one meteor falling out of the sky.

The drunk driver is, statistically speaking, pretty likely. Yet, we still drive with our children on non-essential trips.

The bolt of lightning is vanishingly improbable, much less likely than the drunk driver strike, but in a thunderstorm we tell our kids to come in out of the rain.

The meteor even less probable---we rightly don't worry about those one bit.

So, is turbulence sufficient to cause a significant injury in a lap child the drunk driver, the lightning bolt, or the meteor?

-brian, who bought tickets for his kids, regardless. Those seats are small enough as it is. I don't need a squirming kid taking up what little room I have.

 

[goofy4tink]

To be fair, a pet in a pet carrier is safer than a lap child in a lap. That's really troubling to me.

And they charge you $50 to do so!!!
You know, I guess it's up to each parent to decide how they want to handle this. Me? There's no way I would travel on a plane, with my child in my lap. I know...it's selfish. But I want to do what I want to do, and that isn't going to happen with a child in my lap. Of course, I never flew with my kids when they were young enough to be considered lap babies.
But, I just wouldn't have taken that chance. If others choose to make a different choice, so be it. But, I don't think it's fair of an airline to decide to add an addtl. charge without previous notification.

 

[Brian Noble]

Only $50? Northwest charges $80 for an in-cabin pet each way.

But, I don't think it's fair of an airline to decide to add an addtl. charge without previous notification.

Agreed.

 

[goofy4tink]

Only $50? Northwest charges $80 for an in-cabin pet each way.


Agreed.

I 'think' that's what Delta charged me two years or so ago. But it may have been $75....a mind is a terrible thing to waste!

 

[maxiesmom]

I can see why the airlines would charge for lap babies. After all, the more weight on the plane, the more it costs to fly. So I would guess that a few lap babies on the plane would add up. I do think they should let whoever bought their tickets prior to this announcement fly their lap babies for free, but it is their company, their decision.

 

[ruadisneyfan2]

I've never understood why seatbelts aren't required on school busses. Seems like a far greater risk than lap children on planes to me.

In New Jersey it's a state law that all public school buses have seat belts. This is not even new. My ds is in 5th grade and they've had them since before he started kindergarten.

Our buses are also equipped with a big arm that opens up from the front bumper automatically when the bus door opens which also probably cost millions. They were installed after a little girl in Maple Shade got off the bus and crossed in front of the bus so closely that the driver couldn't see her and ran her over. This was probably around 18 yrs ago.

 

[Brian Noble]

Well, sure, but in Jersey you can't even pump your own gas...