family kicked off flight because of a 2 year olds tantrum

Raisin

Tue, Mar 13 2012, 3:08 am

http://travel.usatoday.com/fli.....341/1

I am pretty horrified at the comments. I fly a lot, with and without kids. Never have I been bothered tremendously by kids bad behaviour. Honestly the kid crying 2 seats over is the least of my problems when flying. Betwen security, obnoxious airline behaviour, petty luggage restrictions and so on, I'd do almost anything to avoid flying.

One comment made in that link I was pretty shocked by: kids do not need to fly, except in a medical emergency. The same could be said about adults.

This is not about an obnoxious 6 year old banging someones seat - this is a 2 year old!

The lack of knowledge about kids NORMAL behaviour the comments exhibit is shocking.

Fox

Tue, Mar 13 2012, 8:04 am

Seriously? I found the vast majority of comments to be pretty moderate. The most strident posters seem to be making the points that (a) parents must make a good-faith effort to control their kids; and (b) if they can't do that because of the child's age or temperament, they need to stay home.

There were also plenty of "back in the day" comments, in which people swore that ill-behaved children are a phenomenon only among some younger, ill-defined generation. Well, how many times have I read a similar argument here on imamother? Twice so far today! Whether we're talking about kids or MILs, someone always steps forward to claim that such things wouldn't have happened when she was younger.

While I obviously don't know the details of this case, my shock is reserved for people who seem to believe that they can blithely continue traveling like adults -- just with children in tow. Travel is stressful enough for most adults. While "medical emergency" is perhaps a bit restrictive, I am completely flummoxed by the poor judgment of people who insist on dragging toddlers around as if they were backpacking college students.

I don't think you have to be a heartless curmudgeon to question what on earth these parents were thinking. Forget the other passengers! How on earth did this experience benefit these kids? Unless there is an aged granny in the Turks and Caicos who can't travel and wishes only to see her beloved eineklach, surely this family could have stayed home until their kids were a year or two older.

LoveMy2Kids

Tue, Mar 13 2012, 8:23 am

I did not have a chance to read the article.

I do know though that it's the parent's responsibilty to make sure they have the adequate resources to keep their children somewhat under control. My husband recently travelled for business. He was seated next to a woman and her almost 2 year old whom she had as a lap child. The child was shrieking in my husband's ears the whole time, elbowing him, touching and knocking over his stuff etc........... My husband could not work or sleep. He dealt with it. He even helped her, and offered to hold the kid. The only thing I can think of was she had never travelled with the kid before, and did not know he would react like this. Had she known I think she should have at the least bought him his own seat, so he had his own personal space.

I have travelled with kids before, and while it was no picnic I've always managed to keep my kids under control.

Marion

Tue, Mar 13 2012, 8:25 am

I assume this was a vacation trip? I'm taking my (BE"H) 4 kids to Toronto this summer for my sister's wedding. Only one will be in a carseat in-flight, for several reasons (juggle-ability is definitely one of them!). But seriously, if airlines WANT families to travel, they have to make the whole process easier. Come on, I'm an adult and waiting 3 hours in the airport to board a flight, just to sit for 45 minutes until the aircraft actually MOVES anywhere, I can't move around too much in my own (very limited) space... If I was a kid it would be more than I can handle. As a parent I do online check in and pre-print my boarding passes so I can get to the airport only 2.5 hours ahead of time, I let the kids run in the airport as long as I can still see them (one of us goes ahead and the rule is they can run back and forth between us), and last time I preboarded with all the stuff and DH stayed in the lounge with the kids and they were pretty much the last ones on (I arranged with the flight crew that someone would escort me back off the plane so I could help them board). But if the airlines (and security?) could be a little creative it would go a LONG way to improving things for everyone!

Raisin

Tue, Mar 13 2012, 8:53 am

Fox wrote:

Look, it's not my thing at all to take kids on exotic vacations, but these are clearly upper middle class people who are used to going to nice vacations. Why should the fact that they have kids stop them? They had travelled many times before with no problems - the issue here is that the 2 year old expected to be able to sit on mommys lap because thats what she remembered doing.

Do you think taking kids on a long car journey to prevent flying is any easier on kids? Not really. It's just that the tantrums are in private.

And, do you really think it would make a difference to the airline what the families reason of travel was? If mom would have told the stwerdess they were rushing to see her dying mother, do you think they would have changed their mind? I can't think of anything more heartless then throwing a family with 2 toddlers off the last flight of the day as it is.

Fox

Tue, Mar 13 2012, 9:31 am

Raisin wrote:

Like I said, I can't speak to the details of this particular story, and I'm not sure anyone can. It obviously sounds like the airline overreacted, but there are a million details we don't know -- any of which could tip the balance in favor of the airline or the parents.

However, people cannot play both ends against the middle: one can't argue that "toddlers have tantrums," and in the next breath, claim that such problems were completely unanticipated because they've traveled before without any difficulties.

BTW, I'm also against taking toddlers on long car rides, too. Actually, I feel long car rides are cruel and unusual punishment for everyone!

Here's the thing: Toddlers, like potato salad and puff pastry, do not travel well. If your children are spaced close together, it's just a few years that you're out of the traveling business. By the time kids are 4 or so, they do much better. If your kids are spaced further apart, you theoretically have older kids to help manage and entertain the younger ones.

Why should the fact that people have kids stop them from traveling? Because now they are parents, and they have a responsibility to their children -- not just themselves. Obviously, some reasons for travel are more sympathetic than others. Being a parent doesn't mean that you can never go on a nice vacation again; it means that you have to occasionally defer your own desires if they conflict with your child's developmental stage.

Believe me, I missed plenty of family simchas and similar events/opportunities when my oldest kids were toddlers. But in becoming a parent, I made a choice to forego doing things that required behavior beyond the capabilities of my children. However, within a couple of years, travel became manageable, and boruch Hashem, there were other simchas.

Raisin

Tue, Mar 13 2012, 9:49 am

Fox, excellent point, delay travelling while you have young kids. Easy enough for most secular people, after all most people only have 2 or 3 kids. Wait 5 years, even 10, and travel will be easy enough. Guess what? Some frum people have more then 3 kids. Some frum people live far from family. For most people I know, this strategy would involve not flying for a good 20 years of ones life.

What about a SN kid? I assume you think the parents of an autistic kid who has frequent tantrums should keep him shut up permenently as well. Rolling Eyes

I think the parents explained pretty clearly what happened. It seems the airline staff followed some rather rigid rules with absolutely no flexibility, delaying the entire flight load of people in the process. I would be livid if my flight was delayed for such a petty reason.

Marion

Tue, Mar 13 2012, 10:09 am

The last time we flew we had a 3 y.o. & a 1 y.o. The guy in front of us put he seat ALL the way back (DS WAS in a carseat)...and I mean so far back that the headrest was literally in DS's lap. DH was holding DS#2, I had 4 meals (mine, DH's, and the 2 kids') on my tray, and DS did what any normal 3 y.o. who was trapped in a carseat and suddenly couldn't move his legs because they were being crushed by a seat were doing...he tried kicking and when he couldn't do that he reached over (don't forget, head in his lap) and tried to lift the guy's head out of his lap by his [limited] hair. Obviously we explained that this was not acceptable behaviour to DS, but what WAS the guy thinking? Does everyone just push back their seats without taking a look around? Am I the ONLY one who doesn't put it back at all because it's likely to bother the person behind me?

As a parent it was not something I would have ever expected to happen, but sometimes you get caught off guard. (It was not the first time I had travelled with the kids; the previous time I was by myself with the 2 boys, and I had figured if I could do it myself then with DH along it should be easier!)

Barbara

Tue, Mar 13 2012, 10:09 am

I dunno.

In one article, the parents say that they had calmed the child down and she was strapped in her seat. In another, they say that they were holding her down with all their strength to get her to stay put. Which, WADR, doesn't sound like the safest position for takeoff.

All the articles mention this taking "a prolonged time." The parents say "5 minutes." The airline says "prolonged time." I don't buy 5 minutes. It was long enough for the flight attendants to ask the parents to switch seats to see if that would help, and long enough for the plane to make it to the taxiway (IIRC).

Look, of course kids should be allowed to fly. And of course kids are going to act out. What do I expect? First, I expect parents who at least make an effort. These parents may have, but that doesn't mean that ALL parents do. Second, I expect that parents will understand the balance. How long should an airline be expected to wait for a parent to calm down a toddler? And at what point does the pilot say "OK, but what's going to happen when we land?" Should other passengers be delayed 5 minutes? 10? 45? And how do you feel if you also have a kid, and you don't know how much longer you can control HIM while you're stuck on the tarmac waiting for another kid to calm down. There's some point where the airlines really do have to say OK, you need to leave the plane so everyone else can get on their way.

Hashem_Yaazor

Tue, Mar 13 2012, 10:18 am

I find it disgusting how people have no tolerance for kids, but no one makes a fuss over the nasty smelling food adults bring on or the attire they feel is appropriate that I don't want to be subjected to or the PDAs I don't want to be exposed to or any other rude behavior I personally don't like. Society has become so liberal and allows adults to do basically whatever and we as outsiders have to let them.

But kids? NO tolerance whatsoever.
And I bet you if that 2 year old would have been calmed by nursing, there would have been an outrage over that.

Basically kids should never be out in public so people don't have to suffer....so then how are they ever supposed to learn from real experience how to behave as adults?

If anything, kids should be given slack. Not adults.

Barbara

Tue, Mar 13 2012, 10:20 am

shlomitsmum wrote:

sick!

My DD has sensory issues....when she blows up is an hour of complete insanity this people comenting are assuming kids act out to be annoying at 2 they lack such sophistication Rolling Eyes

.
what ingnorance ,it shows how little children are valued in society. Crying

Glad I don't fly Wink

(nowhere to go & too expensive at this point)

Just to play devil's advocate:

Knowing your DD's sensitiveness, would you arrange for her to have her normal nap before a flight, or to enter the airplane already tired and cranky? (The parents in this case said the child had missed a nap, and I therefore assume she was tired and cranky.)

Would you talk to her in advance about what was going to happen, and what your expectations are?

Would you understand if, at some point in the hour-long tantrum that you posit, the airline said "this isn't working today, for the sake of the other passengers, you need to get off the plane, and try another time"? Or would you expect everyone to wait it out, however long it took?

My guess is that you would have done everything you could to make it work, and if it didn't, would understand that there comes a point where you have to give up.

Barbara

Tue, Mar 13 2012, 10:30 am

Raisin wrote:

barbara, other kids bad and other parents bad behaviour is completely irrelevant to this story. Why not bring in badly behaved adults? This kids behaviour is what we are talking about.

The other people on the flight were likely far more inconvenienced by the airline taking off this family.

maybe it was a 10 minute tantrum. Who cares?? the kid was quiet, let them stay on.

I don't care if the child was quiet or not. The child had to be in her seat with seat belt on. And her parents were unable to get her to do that for "PROLONGED TIME." If it was 5 or 10 minutes, the airline was wrong. But to me, "PROLONGED TIME" means 30 minutes or more.

And if you cannot get your 2 year-old to sit in her seat, with the seat belt on, after a "prolonged" period of time, delaying the flight, then you need to recognize that its not the right time for you to fly.

And as to the person who thought that the flight attendants should have just relaxed the rules, they would have lost their jobs.

Barbara

Tue, Mar 13 2012, 10:32 am

ora_43 wrote:

I don't understand why the plane couldn't take off even if the kid was screaming. Babies and little kids often cry when the plane is ascending or descending. So they cry, so what? I mean, it's not the most pleasant thing, but it hardly affects the functioning of the aircraft.

Also, I think airlines should capitalize on the anti-child sentiment with a child-free section, or maybe even child-free flights. Which they would charge extra for, of course.

They could have flown with a crying child. That wasn't the issue. The child refused to sit in her seat with a seat belt on. The parents eventually got her to comply by holding her down in the seat by force, but the decision had been made for them to be removed by that time.

ora_43

Tue, Mar 13 2012, 10:36 am

Barbara wrote:

ora_43 wrote:

OK now it makes more sense.

From a first reading I thought she was in the seat, being held down by her parents, but now I see that was only after a while.

So now I don't understand why the parents couldn't just hold her down from the get-go. I guess they were trying to do things nicely. But I think the airline did the right thing. It wouldn't be right to take off with a child not strapped into her seat, and it wouldn't be right to force the entire plane full of people to wait.

Fox

Tue, Mar 13 2012, 10:38 am

I honestly don't think it's as difficult as you claim unless you have, say, octuplets. Once a few of the kids are even a few years older, they can shlep carry-on luggage or lunches or whatever, leaving Mom and Dad a little more available to deal with any toddler meltdowns.

One of the comments on the news item, however, asked a very salient question: why wasn't this toddler in a car seat? That seems to be what most families do, and it works quite well. Not only are the toddlers prevented from popping out of their seats unpredictably, many are so accustomed to their car seats that they settle down much quicker.

As for special needs kids, it all depends. One acquaintance whose son has developmental issues makes a point to speak to the gate attendant and, if possible, the flight crew ahead of time, letting them know what to expect and how to react. Another acquaintance, whose son doesn't throw tantrums but is often socially inappropriate, has little cards that she hands to people who may be disturbed by his behavior. They explain his condition and thank the people for their patience with him. People are incredibly receptive to this, and often go far beyond mere politeness to interact with her son.

We've disagreed before about whether traveling to visit family is an inalienable right. I happen not to believe that it is, but I tend to see things in economic terms . . . as costs and benefits. I believe that when people make decision, even a series of decisions, about where to live, they should factor in the ramifications, including possible difficulties in traveling to see family members.

For example, my parents spend each winter in Florida, and I think that's great. But I make it clear that they cannot count on our presence in the same way they do in the summer, when they live nearby. It's not even about traveling with toddlers -- it's about the cost and difficulties of missing school or work. Now, the benefits of living in a warm climate outweigh the possible cost of not seeing us for a few months, and I think that's entirely appropriate. But it would be unfair of them to take off for Florida and expect us to undertake the difficulties of visiting regularly.

As I said originally, some situations are more sympathetic than others. However, I frequently see young couples moving to communities far, far away from either of their families, and I think that should be the exception rather than the rule. Travel is not an entitlement, however well-motivated.