Comments on: Around the Web…

By: Rachel-Jane

Rachel-Jane — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:19:05 +0000

Okay, Lillie, I’d just like to point out that I didn’t say I necessarily agreed with what Alice said (although I do a bit), all I was saying was I thought stormdan had misinterpreted Alice’s comment. No need to jump down my throat about that.

By: Gigohead

Gigohead — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:50:40 +0000

I agree with everyone here, Janine does have some issues, mostly of her not making the best decisions when it comes to her baby. Marrying a man you met in prison and bringing him to your home, not knowing if he has a history of violence, spooks me. There has been too many stories of bad men hurting their partner’s kids. Janine also going to jail for tax evasion was tells me, she lacks good judgment. Tough decisions here, but I don’t see Janine providing a safe environment right now.

By: Michele

Michele — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:54:41 +0000

Well, I did read the whole article and I agree with the author. I do think that our general society thinks of children as a nuisance. I was not on that plane but I cannot imagine that child was so bad he deserved to be kicked off. There is always so much commotion before takeoff, I hardly ever hear the safety precautions anyway, and truthfully does anyone really pay attention to them?

I guess the responses here affected me, because I just flew to Maui with my one year old and am planning to fly to LA this month too, and both are for family vacations, not necessary travel. My daughter happened to do great on the plane rides, but I am sure that will not always be the case!

But you are right Alice, that would probably be a great way for the airlines to make some extra money by offering child-free flights, so people don’t have to be inconvenienced by a child crying. It is not ideal to travel with a child but I am not going to let our family miss out on fun vacations because someone does not want to be on a plane with her if she happens to get upset while traveling.

By: Alice

Alice — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:17:34 +0000

Well if you read everything in the article, he was just complaining of getting glares from other people. And in the story he was referring to where a child did get kicked out of a plane, it was because he was screaming and preventing passengers from hearing the safety announcement, which is pretty important. If you’re potentially putting other passengers in danger, child or not you shouldn’t be allowed on the plane. I’m pretty sure that if some random person started screaming/putting music very loudly or something similar on a plane, they would get glares, remarks and possibly sanctions from the airline. The compassion should go both ways… for one child in the plane there’s a hundred other people that would love a bit of compassion too.

But anyway, no one said children should be forbidden on planes. Just that parents should not travel unnecessarily with very young children unless they are able to discipline them if needed and keep them behaved and/or busy. It’s just terrible for everyone, parent and child included.

I do think the airlines will end up offering child-free flights, maybe at an extra cost. That would make everyone happy.

By: Michele

Michele — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:54:13 +0000

I think this is what the author of that article was trying to say, why should a child not be allowed to travel because it might bother other people on the plane? They are people too and their parents paid just as much as the next person for that plane ticket. There are plenty of people on airplanes that do annoying things that bother other passengers, but we cannot kick them off. It would be nice if everyone tried to show compassion for others, it is always a hassle to travel, but everyone just wants to make it as easy as possible and get to their destination!

By: Lillie

Lillie — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:02:56 +0000

Well Alice, Stella, and Rachel-Jane, next time a child is annoying you on a plane, since you have no way of knowing what’s happening in a stranger’s life, assume that they are traveling for “special circumstances”, and cut the parents some slack.

By: Alice

Alice — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:47:45 +0000

Yes Rachel-Jane, that’s what I meant! No need to be furious stormdan, although maybe your mother could travel to her grandchild instead of the other way around for the first years of the baby’s life, or you could drive etc. Don’t act like putting a baby on a plane is the only way to go either. But ayway if people only flew their little kids for family weddings, the skies would be a better place indeed.

By: Rachel-Jane

Rachel-Jane — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:17:10 +0000

Stormdan, Alice did actually say “special circumstances aside”. I think your mother getting to meet her grandchild and going to your sister-in-law’s wedding count as special circumstances. I took Alice’s comment to mean people should avoid unecessary long distance travel with babies (holidays, business trips etc.).

By: stormdan

stormdan — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:44:34 +0000

@ Alice – EXCUSE ME????? We should wait until our child is old enough to travel long distances????? So my mother shouldn’t get to see her grandchild just because I don’t live near her???? So my husband and I should have missed my sister-in-law’s wedding because we have a child???? That statement is just ridiculous. I am not a person who thinks that everything should be child-friendly – not by a long shot. But a plane is one place that people have to share – with everyone. Sorry, but that’s just the way it. People who say things like what you just said, make me FURIOUS!!!!!

By: Stella Bella

Stella Bella — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:08:58 +0000

I agree with you Alice.