Delter debacle

BigZ said:
Read a statement about that somewhere long time ago.
Went somewhere along the lines of "Because it is statistically safer than the said family driving to destination"
Click to expand...

I'd read the same thing a few years back and I take umbrage at that. It's certainly not safer for me . . . or any of the other paying passengers . . . to have fifteen to twenty pounds of infant sailing straight for my noggin just because the parents are too cheap to properly stow their "excess baggage".
 
BigZ said:
I nonrevved with kids few times. 4yo daughter and 1yo son. On a three hour late evening flight 3 economy plus seats and car seat are much, much better than holding kid on lap. I do have to admit the only other couple of times I saw people with a carseat on the plane they were nonrevs also
Click to expand...
I have 4....and the oldest is 4. We nonrevved (it was a red eye) WITH car seats. Only people I know that bring car seats are, like you said, non revs. Granted when we did it there were only 3 little ones. Plus if you non rev with car seats you don't have to pay the rental car company any extra money to use their seats ;)
 
Derg said:
I have no idea.

I still remember hearing them referred to as "lap rockets" at Skyway because in a high speed, high deceleration RTO you're probably going to hear a loud "POP" at the child hits the cockpit door.

I don't have kids but I seriously question why anyone would want to do that other than saving a few dollars.
Click to expand...

Thinking of this I'm surprised PETA hasn't commented on the safety of animals in the cabin......

Think of the poor pony in turbulence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Autothrust Blue said:
We really should stop doing the projectile-in-arms thing. I'm pretty sure that we're the last first-world country that does this.

I don't have kids, but I wouldn't let mine ride around infant-in-arms. They'll have a ticket and an FAA-approved restraint system.
Click to expand...

Nope. Lufthansa does that too, for example. I travelled with my 5 months old back in February. Not sure if it's the same with US carriers but couple things I noticed. First, I had to pay for a lap infant ticket, it was a reduced fare but not free, got a separate boarding pass etc. Second, it was not exactly "in arms", there was a seat belt attachment wrapped around the kid's waist. Also what's interesting, we booked a baby bassinet, which basically looked like a smallish crib with a solid waist belt, but they only allowed it during the cruise. Had to hold him in arms/lap belt attachment for takeoff and landing, so it must be considered safer than the crib.
5o1Xu7i.jpg



And BTW, on the return flight there was an empty seat next to us and the cabin crew was completely cool with us putting the carseat there. I imagine a Big3 carrier would call a SWAT team on me for doing something like that.
 
Last edited:
hammerhat said:
Nope. Lufthansa does that too, for example. I travelled with my 5 months old back in February. Not sure if it's the same with US carriers but couple things I noticed. First, I had to pay for a lap infant ticket, it was a reduced fare but not free, got a separate boarding pass etc. Second, it was not exactly "in arms", there was a seat belt attachment wrapped around the kid's waist. Also what's interesting, we booked a baby bassinet, which basically looked like a smallish crib with a solid waist belt, but they only allowed it during the cruise. Had to hold him in arms/lap belt attachment for takeoff and landing, so it must be considered safer than the crib.
5o1Xu7i.jpg



And BTW, on the return flight there was an empty seat next to us and the cabin crew was completely cool with us putting the carseat there. I imagine a Big3 carrier would call a SWAT team on me for doing something like that.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would definitely be an issue if the empty seat were assigned to someone else. If it were truly empty it likely wouldn't be an issue.

It sounds like Lufthansa's system isn't quite the same as the lap child system used here in the USA since they use the seatbelt attachment. I wonder how the safety of such a seatbelt attachment compares to that of an approved car seat. If it truly works it seems like it would be a good solution, and easier and cheaper for parents than having to purchase an additional ticket and bring the seat.
 
ClarkGriswold said:
Do you have kids? Holding a lap child sucks. We do the carseat thing it sucks too but we have a pretty efficient system down.
Click to expand...

22 months and younger, they generally fit pretty well under the seat in front of you, so you don't have to hold them all the time. Assuming of course that there isn't available overhead bin space that you can wrap them comfortably in their blankie in and place them in.













)
 
wheelsup said:
That being said, you can't have a laptop out but a baby is fine according to the FAA? Their rules have no logic.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked (which was about 20 hours ago), you were required to put your laptop away during takeoff and landing.

The issue isn't the baby's safety. If you want to kill your kid (even at low probabilities) go for it. It's about the nailing the passenger in the 6 rows ahead of you in the back of the head as your kid goes flying forward.
 
BobDDuck said:
Last time I checked (which was about 20 hours ago), you were required to put your laptop away during takeoff and landing.

The issue isn't the baby's safety. If you want to kill your kid (even at low probabilities) go for it. It's about the nailing the passenger in the 6 rows ahead of you in the back of the head as your kid goes flying forward.
Click to expand...

"I got brained by a toddler!"
 
Derg said:
I'm not sure how that would address having 127 tickets and 126 seats when one of those 127 is supposed to be a "babe in arms".
Click to expand...
I wasn't necessarily talking about that specific issue. However, it would still be much easier to show the logic behind what a customer pays for.

Example...

Gate agent: "Sir you can't use this seat for your child. Your child is a lap child.

Passenger: "But I paid for 4 seats and I want to put my child in this seat now because my other son is not on this flight."

Gate agent: "No sir, you didn't, you originally paid for 4 spots on this flight and one of those spots is now on another flight, therefore you gave up your other spot in THIS flight. Also, one spot That you reserved on THIS flight is considered a lap child and they won't be using a physical seat on the airplane. That being said, you don't have rights to this particular seat."

Passenger: " but I paid for 4 tickets, therefore I get 4 seats!!!!!"

Gate agent: " Sir, I am so sorry but you aren't understanding what you actually paid for. See, you only pay for a spot on the aircraft manifest, as well as a specific right to use our service to take you between two specific cities. We fulfilled our service to your son by getting him to the city you asked us to get him to. Once this happened, there is now no longer 4 spots available for you to use on THIS fight's manifest. Just 3. Because you only have 3 spots left to use on THIS flight and because your youngest child is considered a lap child, you are actually only entitled to use 2 seats on this airplane because there are truly only 2 spots on the manifest requiring a seat under your itenirary."

Passenger: " I'm never flying Delta again because they don't let me get what I want even though I have no ground to what I actually want!!!!!"

I think it's much easier to explain because now a days, people are so emotionally tied to a specific seat because it's "their" seat assignment. If the label of a seat assignment was taken off, then they would hopefully be able to see that that they literally didn't purchase a right to reserve "that" particualr seat on "that" airplane and use kt how they wish.



Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top