Question about flying with baby on lap

[NotUrsula]

I would check with the airline to see if they have the seat belts that loop into yours, it will give you an extra feeling of security

You won't find those on US (or Canadian) carriers; they are illegal. They are belly belts, and they are specifically banned by name.

 

[bgirl29]

When we flew with a baby I took the carseat along and on the flights that did not have an empty seat we simply gate checked it. I also dressed my baby in a jumper that was loose enough that I could put my arm through the straps on her back. I felt that if I held onto her this way it would give me at least a little extra security during any bumpiness.

 

[salmoneous]

If you want to take the baby .... you might also want to check about the storage capacity of the plane and whether it will fit in the overhead lockers.

Note - the quote above is NOT what the poster wrote, but how I read it. Amazing how much of a difference one word can make.

 

[Not so Dumbo]

Here's the latest. We checked with the airline and the special they were running when we bought our tickets is now over. So it would cost $110 each way for a ticket for her. They don't offer an infant seat price. In order for us to check the seating assignment online, we would have to risk giving up our current seats. I looked at the baby b'air and if those aren't allowed for take off, landing or run way I'm thinking I'd be almost as well off just using the infantino front carrier that we already plan on using in the parks. I could put her in facing me and then her neck would be protected. I think I'm just about out of options. DH thinks I'm overeacting anyhow, but seeing as I've never flown before I don't know what to expect.

 

[bdklein]

And BTW, in case anyone didn't know, the CARES harness for children ages 1-4 is now available for air travel. I may get it for the convenience factor, but $75 seems pretty steep to me...........then again, it is FAA approved for ALL parts of the flight, including taxi, takeoff, and landing. Here's the site:

http://www.kidsflysafe.com/

$75 is kind of steep? A trip to WDW costs thousands of dollars. If someone is not going to buy a ticket for a baby, seems to me like $75 is a drop in the bucket. Is hitting some turbulence and having baby fly around loose in airplane worth $75? Seems to me a fair price.

 

[mdhkitten]

$75 is kind of steep? A trip to WDW costs thousands of dollars. If someone is not going to buy a ticket for a baby, seems to me like $75 is a drop in the bucket. Is hitting some turbulence and having baby fly around loose in airplane worth $75? Seems to me a fair price.

I don't think it's bad if you'll be flying often enough by the time your child is 4, or just have the money to blow, but if I'm going to potentially only be flying one more time before my dd is 4, I think that I'd rather use her car seat and use that $75 elsewhere. BTW, these are for children who have a seat purchased on the plane ONLY.

 

[TAKitty]

Here's the latest. We checked with the airline and the special they were running when we bought our tickets is now over. So it would cost $110 each way for a ticket for her. They don't offer an infant seat price. In order for us to check the seating assignment online, we would have to risk giving up our current seats. I looked at the baby b'air and if those aren't allowed for take off, landing or run way I'm thinking I'd be almost as well off just using the infantino front carrier that we already plan on using in the parks. I could put her in facing me and then her neck would be protected. I think I'm just about out of options. DH thinks I'm overeacting anyhow, but seeing as I've never flown before I don't know what to expect.

What airline are you flying? With Spirit and NW you can check your seat assignment without changing anything. You do click on the change seats or assign seats button but it doesn't change them until you actually click on another seat.

 

[daisax]

I'd challenge anybody thinking of flying with a baby on their lap to watch the movie Fearless.

There are dozens of serious injuries (broken limbs, concussions, etc.) every year from turbulence. If it has the capability to toss a 150-200 lb person around like a ragdoll, an infant is that much more vulnerable.

 

[Beca]

As a former flight attendant, I can tell you that children REALLY should be in restraint devices on the plane. A mother cannot hold on to her child in extreme turbulence or a crash landing. And, while people in restraint systems have a "chance" of surviving...unrestrained babies do not.

Here's some things to keep in mind:

1) 95% of all accidents and extreme turbulence occur during takeoff, landing, and descent. So, the devices that can be used only in flight will protect your baby for statistically only 5% of the danger time. I don't think they are worth it.

2) Car seats that face forward, and do not extend past the seat cushion can go in the middle or window seats. Car seats that go backwards must go in the window. No car seat can go in the aisle, as a child could be seriously injured if a bin opened and luggage landed on the child.

3) I began working as a f/a in 1994. It was never part of my company's emergency plan to have babies sitting on the floor.

4) The FAA knows it is in babies' best interests to be in restraining devices, but the FAA is charged with a dual mandate...promoting air travel and ensuring air safety. Studies show that families would begin driving if they had to pay for their babies. That would damage the already struggling airline industry, so they decided to continue to allow babies to go unrestrained. They feel babies are statitically safer in a plane than they are in a car.

Every parent has to decide this issue for themselves. However, I never met a single pilot or flight attendant who would allow their children to fly as lap children. For us, it was too risky. Granted, we flew for free...but, we flew behind standby, and often would have to wait for another flight or make our child a lap child....everyone I knew always waited for another flight.

Statistically, you are VERY safe on an airplane. You just have to decide about your comfort level with the "what if". But, whatever you choose...don't fret about it. Just make the best choice for you and your family, and try to relax. Flying can be stressful enough.

 

[adrock1976]

As a former flight attendant, I can tell you that children REALLY should be in restraint devices on the plane. A mother cannot hold on to her child in extreme turbulence or a crash landing. And, while people in restraint systems have a "chance" of surviving...unrestrained babies do not.

Here's some things to keep in mind:

1) 95% of all accidents and extreme turbulence occur during takeoff, landing, and descent. So, the devices that can be used only in flight will protect your baby for statistically only 5% of the danger time. I don't think they are worth it.

2) Car seats that face forward, and do not extend past the seat cushion can go in the middle or window seats. Car seats that go backwards must go in the window. No car seat can go in the aisle, as a child could be seriously injured if a bin opened and luggage landed on the child.

3) I began working as a f/a in 1994. It was never part of my company's emergency plan to have babies sitting on the floor.

4) The FAA knows it is in babies' best interests to be in restraining devices, but the FAA is charged with a dual mandate...promoting air travel and ensuring air safety. Studies show that families would begin driving if they had to pay for their babies. That would damage the already struggling airline industry, so they decided to continue to allow babies to go unrestrained. They feel babies are statitically safer in a plane than they are in a car.

Every parent has to decide this issue for themselves. However, I never met a single pilot or flight attendant who would allow their children to fly as lap children. For us, it was too risky. Granted, we flew for free...but, we flew behind standby, and often would have to wait for another flight or make our child a lap child....everyone I knew always waited for another flight.

Statistically, you are VERY safe on an airplane. You just have to decide about your comfort level with the "what if". But, whatever you choose...don't fret about it. Just make the best choice for you and your family, and try to relax. Flying can be stressful enough.

Thank You, Thank You!!! You are so right.

The bottom line, if you think $75 for a restraint is steep, or don't want to pay for a seat...what price would you pay to take it all back if something unfortunate were to happen in flight. It's not worth the risk...the child is worth more than that.

Planes aren't supposed to crash either, but it happens.

 

[Pinnie]

As a former flight attendant, I can tell you that children REALLY should be in restraint devices on the plane. A mother cannot hold on to her child in extreme turbulence or a crash landing. And, while people in restraint systems have a "chance" of surviving...unrestrained babies do not.

Here's some things to keep in mind:

1) 95% of all accidents and extreme turbulence occur during takeoff, landing, and descent. So, the devices that can be used only in flight will protect your baby for statistically only 5% of the danger time. I don't think they are worth it.

2) Car seats that face forward, and do not extend past the seat cushion can go in the middle or window seats. Car seats that go backwards must go in the window. No car seat can go in the aisle, as a child could be seriously injured if a bin opened and luggage landed on the child.

3) I began working as a f/a in 1994. It was never part of my company's emergency plan to have babies sitting on the floor.

4) The FAA knows it is in babies' best interests to be in restraining devices, but the FAA is charged with a dual mandate...promoting air travel and ensuring air safety. Studies show that families would begin driving if they had to pay for their babies. That would damage the already struggling airline industry, so they decided to continue to allow babies to go unrestrained. They feel babies are statitically safer in a plane than they are in a car.

Every parent has to decide this issue for themselves. However, I never met a single pilot or flight attendant who would allow their children to fly as lap children. For us, it was too risky. Granted, we flew for free...but, we flew behind standby, and often would have to wait for another flight or make our child a lap child....everyone I knew always waited for another flight.

Statistically, you are VERY safe on an airplane. You just have to decide about your comfort level with the "what if". But, whatever you choose...don't fret about it. Just make the best choice for you and your family, and try to relax. Flying can be stressful enough.

Thanks, Beca, for taking the time to post this. I agree with you 100%

pinnie

 

[katerkat]

However, I never met a single pilot or flight attendant who would allow their children to fly as lap children. For us, it was too risky.

Not to be argumentative - but my husband is a pilot and he didn't mind taking our son as a lap baby. Granted, he often takes nap in a hammock in the back of his plane, so our air safety rules might be a little lax.

 

[NotUrsula]

Originally posted by Beca:
2) Car seats that face forward, and do not extend past the seat cushion can go in the middle or window seats. Car seats that go backwards must go in the window. No car seat can go in the aisle, as a child could be seriously injured if a bin opened and luggage landed on the child.

This part depends on the airline's interpretation of the FAA's statement on placement, which is that the carseat "may not impede egress" in the event of an emergency.

I don't know which airline Beca worked for, but IME, the only major US carrier that does not insist on window position placement for carseats on a single-aisle aircraft is Delta. On widebody aircraft, I have been allowed to place the seat in the center seat of a center-section row (the seats that are located between the aircraft's aisles.) Except for Delta, the other airlines seem to interpret the rule as "where no one would have to move past it to reach the nearest aisle."

If you have two carseats to put in the same row, you will normally be told to put them in the window and middle, with the one that protrudes farthest in the window position. Of course, the adult is positioned in the aisle seat. This can be awkward in practice when you have an infant and a toddler, because this puts the toddler between the adult and the infant.

 

[disneyldwjr]

Beca,
A BIG Thank you for those extreamly wonderful words of wisdom!!!! I truly hope they are taken to heart.

 

[Beca]

This part depends on the airline's interpretation of the FAA's statement on placement, which is that the carseat "may not impede egress" in the event of an emergency.

I don't know which airline Beca worked for, but IME, the only major US carrier that does not insist on window position placement for carseats on a single-aisle aircraft is Delta. On widebody aircraft, I have been allowed to place the seat in the center seat of a center-section row (the seats that are located between the aircraft's aisles.) Except for Delta, the other airlines seem to interpret the rule as "where no one would have to move past it to reach the nearest aisle."

If you have two carseats to put in the same row, you will normally be told to put them in the window and middle, with the one that protrudes farthest in the window position. Of course, the adult is positioned in the aisle seat. This can be awkward in practice when you have an infant and a toddler, because this puts the toddler between the adult and the infant.

I worked for Southwest Airlines. Even now, when I get on board, flight attendants will often tell me that I have to place my dd's car seat in the window. Once I explain that it does not protrude past the seat cushion, and that I used to be a flight attendant and know better, and they always say, "Oh, okay." With most domestic carriers, the flight attendants have not had children, and cannot, on sight spot carriers that will protrude past the seat cushion from those that cannot. And, even if your senior flight attendant CAN tell the difference, she often is not going to slow the boarding process to explain the differences. Therefore, they just tell you to "place the carseat next to the window" as a CYA for themselves. The senior flight attendant is the person who gets fined whenever anything is out of line, so most just interpret the rules conservatively. However, even though a flight attendant might tell you otherwise, SWA has NEVER had a rule that fwd facing car seats that to not protrude must go in the window.

I just pulled up my old flight attendant manual, and it says the following:

FAR 4.4.1
"A car seat may be placed in a window or MIDDLE seat. If placed in a middle seat, the carseat should not block any Customer's movement to the aisle."

So, unless things have recently changed (I stopped flying in 2002), and unless it is an airline policy and not an FAR....car seats may still be placed in a middle seat. Most airlines do NOT adopt policies additional to the FAR's...they do well to remember to enforce the FAR's....they don't go looking for more things to enforce.

katerkat...that's funny!!!!

 

[Beca]

Beca,
A BIG Thank you for those extreamly wonderful words of wisdom!!!! I truly hope they are taken to heart.

Thanks!!! People shouldn't be scared....they just need to decide what is an acceptable risk for their family. I just wish more information was available to "civilians" on this matter.



Beca

 

[disneyldwjr]

Thanks!!! People shouldn't be scared....they just need to decide what is an acceptable risk for their family. I just wish more information was available to "civilians" on this matter.



Beca

Beca, Not to be hard on anyone, I cannot imagine endangering a child is an acceptable risk at any time, and flying (while an incredible safe mode of transportation) does have risks to a child not properly restrained.
Also, common sense should dictate that if you will not take your child around the block in a car without proper restraint, you should not take a child on a mode of transportation with speeds in excess of 400 mph without proper restraint. Again, not being hard on anyone, what people do or not do with their children is their business, this is JMHO.

 

[Olaf]

About the "placing the baby on the floor" thing. I saw a documentary several years ago on the Sioux City crash, where the plane cartwheeled down the runway. This is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

Jan Brown Lohr - United 232's Senior Flight Attendant. She was forced by regulation to ask parents with "lap babies" (children without seats) aboard flight 232 to place their children on the cabin floor during the flight's final moments before impact. Upon impact one of four children was killed. The deceased child's mother came to her at the crash site and stated "You told me to put my baby on the floor and now he's gone." Since then, Lohr has tirelessly lobbied in Washington D.C. to promote the safety of children on all civilian aircraft and airlines, asking that federal regulations require all children to have a seatbelt on every flight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_flight_232

BTW I was on a flight, which was overbooked, and watched a flght attendant try and tell a mother, who had bought a seat for her baby, that she had to give up her seat to another passenger. Boy, you should have seen the fireworks.

 

[Beca]

Beca, Not to be hard on anyone, I cannot imagine endangering a child is an acceptable risk at any time, and flying (while an incredible safe mode of transportation) does have risks to a child not properly restrained.
Also, common sense should dictate that if you will not take your child around the block in a car without proper restraint, you should not take a child on a mode of transportation with speeds in excess of 400 mph without proper restraint. Again, not being hard on anyone, what people do or not do with their children is their business, this is JMHO.

I completely agree...and, in MY world, it is NOT an acceptable risk. Additionally, I firmly agree that if the FAA would make available for public viewing the videos of plane crashes (VERY graphic), and the available analyses of those crashes, that NO ONE would ever dream about making their baby a lap child. I used to joke with my husband....I put nine months of physical labor and c-section to bring this baby into the world...I'm not taking any risks with her. But, then you can get into the whole realm of MY paranoia, which is....well, we almost didn't take our recent trip to Europe because of fears of terrorism (this was right around the time that Iran was going to "answer" on its nuke program). For me, there is very little acceptable risk where my dd is concerned. The FAA defends their choices (which, in my mind are not very defenseable) by saying that a child is statistically safer on a plane WITHOUT a restraint device than they are in a car WITH one. However, I am with you....it is just much safer to have them restrained. But, when push comes to shove....every parent makes the decision for themselves. I don't want anyone to make this choice in a mode of "panic", and yes....on some level it does just seem so much like common sense that I wonder what parents could be thinking when they ask how safe it is....but, once again, that is true of MANY things in life (another thing I have a problem with is no seatbelts on busses ). The only way I have come to terms with why people allow their children to do this, is that they have a different definition of "acceptable risk" for their children than I do for my child. It makes me sad for those children, but I guess every parent has to define that for themselves.

 

[Beca]

About the "placing the baby on the floor" thing. I saw a documentary several years ago on the Sioux City crash, where the plane cartwheeled down the runway. This is an excerpt from Wikipedia:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_flight_232

BTW I was on a flight, which was overbooked, and watched a flght attendant try and tell a mother, who had bought a seat for her baby, that she had to give up her seat to another passenger. Boy, you should have seen the fireworks.

Interesting....I did not start my career as a flight attendant until 1994, so I guess that is a rule that had gone by the wayside, probably as a result of the Sioux City crash. It does seem like a completely stupid request. That baby would roll all over the plane, hitting its head on every piece of metal holding chairs in place. The poor baby probably died of trauma to the head. And, then you would have to wonder...how would that mother FIND her baby once the plane had stopped moving?

It's important to remember that, on some levels the FAA is DEEPLY stupid!!! Around 1996, we had to attend our "recurrent training", and had to sit thru an explanation of the FAA's newest proposal....child restraint devices for babies. A mother would place the baby in this device, and place the baby in the overhead bin. She could get them out after take-off, but they must be returned to the OHB before landing. I am totally serious!! The FAA "gurus" decided that was the safest way for babies to travel, and that families would not mind too much putting your baby in the OHB for takeoff and landing. You should've heard the gasps and laughter in the room.

As a mom, I know that there is NOOOOOO way I am putting my baby on a plane that I cannot touch her constantly, and know that I could get to her in a smoke-filled fire evacuation!!! The FAA learns a lot just by the crashes that have taken place. For example, they didn't know that salt water could cause tiny cracks around screws in the fuselage, and that planes who frequently flew to "coastal" places were at higher risk for this. Well...they didn't even think about the ramifications until an Aloha Airlines plane became a convertible at 33,000 feet due to metal fatigue. There are now more stringent guidelines for the inspection of planes that fly to island destinations than there were before. Who knew that salt water could cause a plan to crash.

I think it is important to remember that, on some level, we are all guinea pigs when we fly....not comforting, but important.