From: cmorris@Ingres.COM (Colin Morris)
Subject: Re: Cryin' baby express ... what to do?
Reply-To: cmorris@Ingres.COM (Colin Morris)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:47:08 GMT

In article <17145@autodesk.COM> booter@Autodesk.COM (Elaine Richards) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.200950.10447@alw.nih.gov> pruss@helix.nih.gov (dmitry pruss) writes:
>>Well, thus far this thread didn't bring as much flames as expected. So some
>>people think it's a time to say something more harsh.
>>
>>E.g., in article <1992Jul20.235321.27814@ads.com> henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch) writes:
>>>
>>>children who aren't old enough to behave in public places shouldn't
>>>travel.  
>>>
>>Would you be so kind to define it? What does it really mean - to behave
>>properly?
>
>
>No crying, screaming, shouting, running up and down the aisles or
>"visiting" people who don't want to be visited. Playing peek-a-boo
>with a perky toddler in the seat in front of me is fun. Listening
>to a kid scream its lungs out because the waitre....er..stewardess
>does not have Hershey kisses or some other special treat is enough
>to make me look for Valium or a parachute.
>
There are many reasons why children cry on planes. Very often they cry
because they're in pain due to pressure changes in the cabin. Is that
kind of crying not allowed? Does that kind of crying make you want to
look for the parachute? 

Yes, parents most certainly do have a responsibility to do everthing
they can to ensure that their kids behave in public places, but even
the most responsible parent can't _guarantee_ that their youngster(s) 
aren`t going to cry or be in some other way affected by being cooped
up in a `plane for hours on end. To suggest that kids shouldn't travel
until they're "old enough to behave" when behave means "no crying" as
suggested above, shows a lack of tolerance for others:- I
doubt _any_ parent appreciates their kids crying on planes (certainly
not this one), and most parents will do their utmost to prevent
it happening. So complain to parents who make no attempt to keep their
children under control, but please don't tar all parents with the same
brush just because their kid happens to be crying.

If one uses public transport, although one has a
reasonable expectation not to be "disturbed" by fellow travellers,
it's unreasonable to expect to be totally cocooned from the world.
Personally, I think the Mensch's of this world should vote with
their feet and travel by private jet :-)

In a perfect world, perhaps we could all take Mensch's advice and not
fly with our kids until they meet his standards. But we don't
live in a perfect world:- for example, if I don't fly with my kids, my
parents-in-law would never see our children as their health precludes
them from travelling from England to visit us. I'll do my best to make
sure they "behave in public" when we fly to England this summer, but I
can't _guarantee_ they will. Even so, I don't think it's unreasonable
to be flying with them.

>
>>Meanwhile, I vote for "+kids" compartment. Some toys and some cartoons for
>>the same price... well, I'm ready to sacrifice my beer and my movies to
>>make this dream real :) :)
>
>Me, too. I wish they could designate a special area for families. The kids
>can all talk to each other and make new friends, there would be kiddie
>books and toys around and people who get stressed out from travel (like me)
>could get peace and quiet). They give out decks of cards on some flights.
>I don't see why they cannot give out crayolas and paper to kids.
>
I've no problem with this as long as families aren't forced to use
said special areas. I'd much rather my kids weren't being stimulated from
being surrounded by every single kid on the 'plane, especially on
overnight flights when they're supposed to be getting to sleep...

--
Colin Morris       Ingres, an ASK company       cmorris@ws2s.ingres.com

"And there'll be more football in a moment, but first we've got
 highlights of the Scottish League Cup Final" -- Gary Newbon