[craigwatson]

bucksnet – your dummy booking for the infant, you are aware that for that price the infant does not get a seat. so with taxes your looking at around £300 in your example. its easy money for the airline, pure profit. The child fares are 75% of an adult ticket.

[RichHI1]

Deja Vu….

[Bucksnet]

I thought this was the case – the infant sits on the parent’s lap. However, BA could charge and give them their own seat. It must reduce demand, especially in premium cabins.

It might be ‘easy money for the airline’ but how many full fare premium passengers are they losing as a result?

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

Rich

Seems so.

[alexlondon]

“It might be ‘easy money for the airline’ but how many full fare premium passengers are they losing as a result?”

None. To my knowledge there is no airline which bans children from a premium cabin. Anyone who wants to be certain they will not fly near a child will just stay at home.

In premium cabins, pricing is generally the same for adults or children (unless not having a seat and under two).

[Bucksnet]

Well on BA at least there are substantial discounts for kids. A ban is not needed, but allowing babies to travel in business class for only £264 surely encourages parents to take them/book the class.

If all tickets were the same price, and babies had to have their own seat, then I do not see how there would not be less children.

BA, or any other airline with this policy, would then attract more adult only bookings as people who want to avoid children would have a better chance of doing so.

[ThomasCox]

As an infant on long journeys my parents used to slip a nip of brandy in my milk. Apparently I used to sleep (literally) like a baby. That said the holidays were usually car journeys to Cornwall where I couldn’t disturb anyone other than my parents.

There’s not a lot you can do other than investing in decent earplugs. Babies cry. Now, kids that run around and treat Club like a creche, that’s another matter…

[SimonRowberry]

Folks,

Is the age of reason and compromise finally dawning on the BT Forum now? As some of you will know, I have particularly strong views on this subject (informed by pure self interest due to familial circumstances, of course).

However, I cannot disagree with anything posted thus far (well, slightly with my old mate Nigel, but we’ll let that go).

Well done. The age of reason at last?

Simon

[SimonRowberry]

PS Becky – have you got a view? (sorry forgot to add the xxx ;_000)))???) etc

[IanFromHKG]

NTarrant : “My feeling is that babies should not be taken on flights, it is just not fair to the baby, let alone any other passenger”. Not very realistic, I am afraid. 2 years is a fairly common age gap between chldren, are you saying a family with three children should be banned from flying for 6 years? I might point out that we are Brits but have lived in HK for many years. It simply wasn’t going to be acceptable for us or our relatives if we locked ourselves up in HK for a couple of years after each of ours was born and didn’t go to the UK so our elderly parents/grandparents could see them. Yes, flying can be tough on babies, but there are things parents can do if they bother to educate themselves – we did a lot of research and with the exception of just one flight (sometimes there really is nothing you can do!) there is no occasion on which either of our children cried for more than a total of 20 minutes on any flight, including the 13-hour flight.s to London

SimonS1/Bucksnet/alexlondon – on the fares issue – babies not occupying a seat get charged at 10% of the adult fare which can happen up to the age of 2 (after which they are required to have a seat), while babies/children occupying a seat pay (as craigwatson said without going into the detail) 75% up to the age of 12 – this is true (sorry to contradict you alexlondon) even in premium cabins. So far as I can tell this is pretty much an industry standard. I don’t think it is anything to do with the estimated number of children – it seems to apply across the board regardless of whether it is primarily a business route (few babies) or leisure route (lots of babies). As to whether a GBP264 fare encourages parents to book children into premium cabins – haven’t you rather overlooked the fact that the parent has to pay the adult fare, Bucksnet? It isn’t possible to book a baby at the 10% fare into any cabin without having an adult booked in the same cabin. If parents have the money to pay premium for themselves, then I am not convinced that a hike in the baby fare will necessarily deter them (possible, but would probably make a marginal difference at best). Furthermore, I don’t think any slight uptick in adult-only bookings would offset the loss of family bookings. You only have to look at the lengths that carriers go to in order to cater to children (provision of bassinets, child meals, games packs, UM services, kid’s channels on the IFE etc) to realise how important the family market is to airlines. That applies in premium cabins just as much as the back of the plane.

Anyone who doesn’t want to sit near babies should simply do their research and avoid sitting near the bassinet seats, location of which on any airline/aircraft is very easily available. It isn’t a guarantee, I know, because it is not mandatory for people travelling with babies to be allocated bassinet seats, but it will minimise your chances of disturbance

[DontTurnRight]

As someone who has taken their kids (from birth) into first and business class cabins on a regular basis, I am hugely conscious of the fact that there are other passengers around. There is a simple trick, which usually works and that is “look after your kids” and “pay attention to them”. On the couple of occasions (when very young) that they did cry, we would take them into the galley away from other passengers to settle them down. Luckily we have on numerous flights been complimented on our children’s behavior. It gets easier as they get older too, as as long as there is a video screen in front of them, then they will stay still and silent for the whole flight. Additionally the threat of them traveling in economy while their parents are up front, works a treat. We have and do not intend to resort to the option of booking the kids in as unaccompanied minors whilst we are up front. Jest not, we know someone who has done this!

[AdrianHenryAsia]

I frequently travel with my children in Business and First and don’t believe any public airline should ban them.

Children by their nature are unpredictable however I do think parents (sometimes) could take more ownership for their childrens actions. When onboard, my children (who are young) are as well behaved as they can be and at both myself and my wife clamp down on any nonsense straight away – I do however witness on a fairly frequent basis the complete oposite when parents cimply give up and let their children run amock – which I do think is unaceptable.

Chldren making noise in either F or J will annoy some people however where do you draw the line? I find it annoying (and far more isruptive to my sleep and overall enjoyment) of people who continually fart, burp and snore their way through a 12 hour flight, plus those with bad hygene.

As many posters have pointed out, its public transport so you have to either pay for a private jet, or put up with it.

I can see there are a few comments about its being unfair to put a baby on a plane – remember, that for many people (such as myself), we sometimes don’t have option due to work circumstances and family situation.

There are a number of times on board when I would love to be either on my own or just with my wife so we can enjoy the experience – as opposed to having to worry about what the rest of the passengers in the cabin think about the level of noise!!

[Bucksnet]

Ian, I do think that if parents had to pay the full fare for their children there would be less of them, especially infants which would cost 10 times more than they do now. I haven’t overlooked the fact that parents pay the adult fare; that much is obvious.

Moreover, if one airline did not do child discounts then the parents would naturally book with other airlines that do. Passengers wishing to avoid children would book with this airline as the probability of children on board would be lower. The airline would get a higher yield on the flight as there would be no (child) discounted fares.

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

On a practical level, I usally carry 2 x sets of ANR headphones – 1 over the ear Senns that are high quality and very comfortable for long periods and also a set of Panasonic in-ear.

The latter are not as efficient nor provide as good quality sound, but are most useful since they can be worn when sleeping and do significantly cut down on the background noise, thus assistnig with sleeping.

I doubt anything would stop a fully developed scream from wakening one up, but at least they provide a buffer.

[IanFromHKG]

Bucksnet, I agree with some of what you say, but the suggestion that the airline will get a higher yield is not, I think, correct. As I pointed out in my original mail, I think the uptick in business travellers wanting baby-free flights would be more than outweighed by the loss of the family business and possible knock-on effects (if they don’t welcome me with my children, why should I patronise them when I am on my own, etc).

I try to sit away from bassinet positions in most aircraft, and am rarely bothered by baby noise. Having said that, I acknowledge that my tolerance for screaming babies has definitely increased since having my own, although this is subject to the proviso that the parents are at least *trying* to deal with it – when they don’t bother at all, I do get upset and aggrieved

[Author]

Posts