If the airlines expect people to pay for their childrens seat they should be forced to make provisions for those childrens seat.

Posted By Stephsnie on August 13, 2010, 5:58 PM

it isn't the FAA's business who dies in car accidents. that's a ridiculous excuse. babies should have their own seats anyway.

Posted By orchid on August 16, 2010, 10:14 AM

I think they should be in their own seat! How is it that they have to be in car seats until in some states they are 8 but it is fine for someone to hold them on a plane?
Added bonus less crying kids!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted By Paul on August 16, 2010, 11:12 AM

Hell yes!!!! it is about time. It is insane that I cant have my computer on my lap as it may injure someone in the event of a crash but people can hold a 15 pound screaming projectile because we call it an infant. Lets just ban infants all together. If an adult screamed, cryed and acted like an ass we would land the plane and have them removed but when it is someones rug bastard we are all supposed to put up with it. Enough already.

Posted By dave on August 16, 2010, 11:13 AM

These new recommendations are absolutely ridiculous. As a mom of 2 and a very frequent traveler with both kids, having one's child in his or her lap is perfectly safe and fine for traveling. Both of my kids are under 3 and have flown on over 30-40 flights each, and we have never ever had a single problem with them on either my husband's or my lap on any flight with any carrier. If I was forced to purchase a seat for my oldest when she was under two (and if I now had to purchase a ticket for my current lap child), I would have, but she would have sat in my lap anyways (as would my current infant). Plus, in the times that I was allowed to bring a carseat on board, the carseat didn't even fit through the aisle-way. The only way that it could be taken to a seat was by holding it over my head or at neck level while walking down the aisle (which is not safe for me or other passengers already seated). Then, when I did make it to the seat and buckled it in, 9 out of 10 times she gravitated towards my lap within about 20 minutes of being on the flight. So in my opinion, the airlines really need to keep the lap child allowance. My youngest is now 8-months and if lap children will not be allowed, I feel very sorry for the folks on the flight who have to hear her cry the entire flight because she is miserable in her carseat instead of happily comfortable in my lap.

As for ticketed children over 2, I do feel that the airlines should have a modified seatbelt or restraint system available on board. If major turbulence were to occur, I find it hard to believe that the skimpy lap belt will keep my 30 pound child in her seat since it can barely keep grown adults in their seats when bumps are hit. The current lap belt does nothing to prevent the occurrence of whiplash or minimize potential spinal injury in the case of an accident/turbulence while on board. Especially with the rows now so close together in order to cram more people on each flight, it's inevitable that there will be more injuries (regardless of age), especially those involving head trauma. The tray on the seat back in front of each passenger (and the seat itself) isn't my first choice of things to hit my head on when flying, but it unfortunately happens to be the most readily available.

On a side note, I do find it quite funny/idiotic that the examples released by the NTSB from their 'findings' were for passengers over the age of 2 (not lap children). I'm not the least bit surprised.

Posted By Amy on August 16, 2010, 11:34 AM

I think this is outrageous. What a waste of arents finance. To have a baby strappe din a seat would be a tru disruption. The baby is nt ging to stay pt in the seat - the mother is going to end up holding the babyin her lap... so wats the point of this additional charge. The airlines have chipped away aso many convenience as is.... what once used to be a treat t fly - that is no longer the case.. Soon they will be charging to use the overhead light or air.

Posted By Zada on August 16, 2010, 11:52 AM

Obviously none of you have kids. Trying to secure a child under two in their own seat for an entire flight would just add to the misery of all on the plane. Just try, for a second, to put yourself in those parents position. They (most of them, not all unfortunately) do the best they can to keep their child comfortable and quiet. Not having to pay for a seat helps ease the overall difficulty in flying a young child across the country.

Posted By joe on August 16, 2010, 12:08 PM

It's about time. I've had the misfortune to sit next to a squirmy, grabby toddler sitting on its mother's lap. It was the worst flight I've ever been on (and probably for the mother as well).

I suspect that the cost would be a burden for many parents, but even they would admit that it's easier for a child to have its own seat, especially if there's turbulance or they even just want to go to the bathroom while the kid is asleep.

Posted By LHB on August 16, 2010, 12:34 PM

I have 2 kids - one is 3 and we buy him his own seat. The other is 7 months and she sits on my lap. I agree with the other posts - there is no way she is going to sit in a car seat quietly. People who do not have kids (obviously) have posted that they think it will prevent crying! ha! it will create way more crying. My daughter has been on 6 flights and has only cried 1 time - landing once when her ears wouldnt pop - and yes we tried everything - bottle, tylenol, etc. Now if I would have made her sit in a car seat the whole time - it would have been blood curdling screaming instead of just a wimpering cry. you choose . . .

Posted By ek on August 16, 2010, 12:34 PM

I am someone who has taken my son and daughter on flights as a lap child before they were 2, but I have to say I kind of agree with the dissenting argument in the release. It is certain that a restrained child is more safe than an unrestrained one. Who can argue that? And the FAA is arbitrary in chosing the age of 2.

But that noted, the release uses example after example of small planes crashing with fatalities of children mostly over 2, and some were classified as unsurvivable for everyone. Where are the stats on the commercial planes, the A320's, 757's, etc. Isn't that what people most fly?

It is undisputed that air travel is safer than driving. And until I see stats to the contrary, I think the FAA is correct that more people would drive if forced to pay for an extra seat, and as a result, more infants would die. As such, I am for the lap child.

Posted By Jason on August 16, 2010, 12:40 PM

I know this will make travel more expensive for families, but I do think it is long overdue, and safer for everyone.

Posted By Honora on August 16, 2010, 12:42 PM

Using the argument that parents will opt to drive rather than fly as a reason to allow lap babies...well, if you follow that argument, everyone should fly for free, shouldn't they?

Posted By Toni on August 16, 2010, 1:01 PM

HALLELUJAH. I am a mother, stepmother, and a flight attendant who loves kids.

Anyone who says that their child will be unhappy or crying (crying isn't illegal or unsafe, BTW) while strapped into a safety seat....Are they crying or unhappy when strapped into a safety seat in your CAR?
And, oh, yeah, it's clumsy and difficult to carry on a safety seat. Having kids and taking care of them properly is sometimes difficult. Get used to it.
ALL kids -- from birth to around 40 pounds -- should be strapped into an FAA-approved car safety seat WHENEVER they are on board a commercial aircraft, PERIOD, whether they LIKE it or whether they DON'T. And they should remain there whenever the "Fasten Seat Belt" sign is ON. ALWAYS.
If it costs more (and why should a child's seat be any cheaper than any other seat on the plane?) then it costs more. Flying isn't some right or government entitlement, is it?

Posted By Toni on August 16, 2010, 1:08 PM

And the comments by Amy, the mother of two...she argues against herself.
I wish some of you could remember the comments from one mom, traveling with a toddler (in a seat, but NOT in a car seat) and a lap infant on that Christmastime Continental flight that veered off the runway in Denver a couple of years ago. In her own words, the baby "flew out of" her arms. Amy, no one is suggesting that a 2yo or 3yo be just belted into a seat like an adult anymore than they are suggesting that your toddler be belted in to a car just the same way you are. No. When you were "forced" to purchase a seat for your toddler, it was with the understanding that, as a sensible parent, you would bring a safety seat for your toddler.

Posted By Toni on August 16, 2010, 1:12 PM

Dave's post is hilarious! "Let[s]s just ban infants all together. If an adult screamed, cr[i]ed and acted like an ass we would land the plane and have them removed but when it is someone[']s rug bastard we are all supposed to put up with it. Enough already."
I'm not sure what a "rug bastard" is, but I think I agree! :) I like this move -- Hopefully it will cut down on the number of babies flying.

Posted By Vanessa on August 16, 2010, 1:14 PM

I, also, am a frequent traveler, and have done the whole lap child thing. The babies are definitely more comfortable with a parent for long flights, but I always purchased a seat for the baby and his infant seat for MY comfort when he was sleeping. Sure, it's an extra expense, but who said that having kids was cheap?!

Since my son is now 4, we use a special restraint that is easily packed in our carry-on luggage. You can find it at www.kidsflysafe.com. I highly recommend it to those who don't want to schlep a car seat on board for 2+ year old children. I have received MANY compliments about this device AND my son's behavior while wearing this from flight attendants and other passengers.

And for those who feel infants should be banned from all flights, suck it. You were a baby once, too, and probably drove everyone around you batty.

Posted By Kelly on August 16, 2010, 1:15 PM

As a parent of 2 boys now school aged, we resided overseas when they were younger. I think a good compromise would be to lower the age to 1. After the boys became mobile about 9 months or so I always bought a seat, they knew what they needed to do in a carseat and worked well for me. However, the FAA is going to have to do some major education to the crews and make sure all aircraft can accept a carseat properly. Northwest was the only airline that always checked to make sure the childseat was FAA certified. Airline staff are of little help with carseats (my husband helped MANY other parents but theirs in the seat). A lot of work to do to make this happen.

Posted By Lisa Ceddia on August 16, 2010, 1:22 PM

Please remember, folks, safety seats must be strapped into seats next to windows, never on the aisle or in middle seats. They can obviously never be in exit rows and never in rows forward nor aft of exit rows. The kids should be strapped into the strapped-in seat during taxi, takeoff, turbulence and landing and whenever the FSB is on.

Posted By Toni on August 16, 2010, 1:31 PM

And, please, let's not let this thread turn into a debate as to whether babies and kids should be flying at all. This is about whether they should be secured. As if that should even be a question....

Posted By Toni on August 16, 2010, 1:32 PM

When we had small children (2 girls), we never used the lap child provision. It is clearly unsafe to have your child unrestrained. Just as it is unsafe in your car. We paid for seats and brought the car seats aboard. We selected car seats that were sized for both planes and cars (and we had a carseat when we got there). The girls are now too big so it is no longer an issue, but we are happy to have taken the extra steps to keep them safe in turbulence. We encountered significant turbulence more than once while travelling. Maybe we could afford to travel only a coupl of times a year this way, but their safety was our highest priority. A volume or family group discount would be nice. Ha!

Posted By kathleen j kolberg on August 16, 2010, 1:41 PM

This should have been mandated years ago. For take off, landing, and emergency situations every passenger should have an assigned seat to be secured in - including infants and toddlers.

Posted By K. Bright on August 16, 2010, 1:41 PM

How about lowering the lap child age to 1 for a period of five years, say, with the clear legal understanding that at the end of that five years, ALL children will have to have their own seats, AND, that those under 40-50 pounds will be required to have a safety seat before being boarded?

Posted By Toni on August 16, 2010, 1:46 PM

I have never understood the concept of a lap baby. Babies should have their own seat for take off/landing and then the parent can have them on their lap during flight. That way there is a place that the baby can be put down for a moment if need be. If anything, at least it will provide a buffer seat between the child and another passenger. Some of the worst flights I have been on have involved being seated next to a parent with a lap child, with the child grabbing at the meal items, throwing its toys at me, all the while the mom is sitting there helpless because she can't put the baby down anywhere and I am left trying to clean up all of the items the baby has thrown everywhere.

Posted By Jessica on August 16, 2010, 1:56 PM

Dave and Vanessa should just get together and charter a private plane instead of using a "common" carrier. They are so smug in their superiority over us common people. Either that or they should grow up so their maturity level is higher than the children they complain about. Their comments are off point, selfish, and self serving.
I have flown with a lap child and with a car seat when my child was under 1 year. In most crash situations almost everybody's toast anyway so we're really talking about turbulence situations - how many so called adults who scream, cry and act like asses in comment areas (like Dave and Vanessa) wander around when the FSB light is on?
Re: Toni's comment - Shipping of most items is based on size and weight. Kids are smaller and weigh less so their ticket should cost less. The overly large should pay more....

Posted By George on August 16, 2010, 2:07 PM

The NTSB is concerned with all forms of travel. The FAA is concerned with aviation. When the NTSB recommends an end to the "lap baby" practice, given that they are concerned with all forms of travel, that should be more than enough to prompt the FAA to adopt the recommendation. It seems to me that the FAA should have done away with the practice long, long ago; after all, that agency's purview is AVIATION.

Posted By Toni on August 16, 2010, 2:13 PM

Charging parents to fly their infants will only increase the amount of car travel (saving money and increasing risk) which will result in higher infant fatality rates. Unintended consequences...

Posted By Jay on August 16, 2010, 2:14 PM

Having a toddler who just turned 2, I can say first of all there are some people who obviously don't have kids, and secondly don't realize that they themselves were one of those obnoxious rug rats at one point (I had a similar attitude BEFORE having a kid of my own). Now I am tolerant of ALL parents who choose to control their kids to the best of their abilities.

That being said, as much as I hate to say it, I agree with the NTSBs assessment. During times of take off, landing, and severe turbulence there are times where I would have felt much safer with my daughter in her own seat. 9 timesa out of 10, the milk trick worked for her ears. I also am not crazy about spending the extra $$$, and it would probably affect my ability to go all the destinations I do. If the adult becomes incapacitated somehow during the flight the child has NO restraint. We don't think we're ever going to get hit and knocked out or even worse.

Posted By Andrew on August 16, 2010, 2:17 PM

About time. To those of you who say it is perfectly safe - you are stupid. One big turbulence bump and your child is brain damaged for life. It happens - I have 2 Dr. brothers who have both seen severe brain damaged children due to being held in their mother's "safe" arms on a plane. Not something that gets talked about very often - but it does happen. Isn't it worth several hundred dollars to ensure your child's safety?

Posted By Julia on August 16, 2010, 2:29 PM

One of the stated purposes of the FAA is to promote air travel. If parents decide to drive, the FAA would not be doing its "job" - safety often being rationalized away.

Posted By Mike on August 16, 2010, 2:43 PM

That means fewer screaming babies with filthy diapers being changed in the seat next to me!!

VIVA FAA!!

I want to see adult only flights... some of us who travel for a living would love to have some quiet.

Posted By C Ward on August 16, 2010, 2:46 PM

I posted earlier but forgot to mention something. The thing that I never could understand is why my human child who could possibly require something of the flight crew isn't charged to sit on my lap but my 8lb yorkie who gets stuffed under the seat in a carrier is charged $100 each way .... seems kinda rediculous to me.

Posted By Andrew on August 16, 2010, 2:49 PM

No! And often babies under 2 need to be held.

Posted By rose on August 16, 2010, 2:53 PM

If it flies on a plane and talks, walks, crawls, swims, or slithers, it ought to pay something.

Posted By Rich on August 16, 2010, 3:00 PM

I have a child under two and have taken over 25 flights with her. In Europe it is required to have a seatbelt for the child. It attaches to the adult seatbelt and then around the child. It was the best option to use before she was walking (and wiggling) because I could hold her when she was only a few months old. Now I wish I could buy a seat for her. On certain airlines we are forced to have her as an infant (meaning lap child). We don't have a say in the matter.

I have also used my carseat on planes which I have found to be the best and most safe way to travel. It is a lot of work though. Most airlines are unprepared for someone to use a car seat and offer little or no help. I've had to beg airline attendant (when I was traveling alone) to help me carry the car seat because I had a baby, stroller, car seat, and carry-on. They looked dumbfounded.

So if the airlines are going to require a seat for infants then they better beef up their customer service for mothers because it is a lot of work already and a car seat adds a whole other element. Without a car seat, most children under 12 months won't fit sitting upright in a seat with a seatbelt.

Posted By Sarah on August 16, 2010, 3:06 PM

It's about time. We always purchased a seat for our son since infancy. Bringing a car seat made him feel comfortable and gave him a familiar feel and place to sleep. I would never have forgiven myself if something happened because he wasn't restrained because I didn't spend the money for his seat. We traveled frequently and never had a problem with him in his own seat. I've sat near lap passengers and there are very few at the toddler age that I've been near that are comfortable being held for hours.

Posted By Karen on August 16, 2010, 3:43 PM

For those who complained that infants are obnoxious and their occasional crying make for an intolerable flight. What really makes me cringe is an adult sitting closing to me and listening how great they are in their jobs, how their MBA is the best (and their are of course among the best in his/her MBA school), all their overstated dating prowess. How I wish I had a crying infant by my side to muffle their mumblings!

Posted By Dan on August 16, 2010, 3:46 PM

I believe children should be in their own seat. When my daugther traveled at 5 months, she had her own seat. I don't want to take chances with her safety. She's 6 1/2 and still sits in a booster seat in the car. I know other parents that have there child sit in the car without an support. I'm not playing fire with someone's life, namely my child's.

Posted By Lee on August 16, 2010, 3:51 PM

Yes I do feel they should have to have their own seats and that the airline must provide infant or a booster seat on those seats. I don't think driving, walking or anything else has to do with this, including crying babies, I feel it is a safety issue. A child on their parents lap puts the child at a very high risk in the event of an accident. You don't have to crash, their is turbulence and a child not belted in is the most likely one to hit the ceiling. I have seen this. This is one time I feel the airlines would be justified in charging. Almost everything else I think they are ridiculous. I have six grandchildren and my children have flown many times with them and always got them a seat. Would not have them on anyone's lap in any other vehicle.

Posted By Lynn on August 16, 2010, 3:54 PM

9 times out of 10 when a plane crashes (ie. landing, takeoff or in-flight) it is going to be bad, whether a child under two or even an adult is going to survive in either case is doubtful. In a car it is an entirely different situation and two circumstances should be looked upon differently when it comes to safety. I am sorry about everyone's precious laptops, but if you want to clutch it on your lap while your journey to the afterlife too I guess that is fine by me too. Idiots!

Posted By Ryan Rhoades on August 16, 2010, 3:56 PM

To rose, who says that sometimes an infant just needs to be held. Do you hold the baby in a car? Ever?
Booster seats are NEVER allowed on commercial aircraft.
To Ryan Rhoades...the "idiots" are people who think their child is safe on their laps.
To Sarah, what airline is it that won't allow you to purchase a seat so that you can install a safety seat for your child?

Posted By Toni on August 16, 2010, 4:16 PM

Since when has the government had children's safety on any kind of priority list? Ever notice that where you live, if you drive a car, by law you have to wear a seat belt. Not so much in a school bus! Stupid is as stupid does!

Posted By Johnny on August 16, 2010, 4:22 PM

Great as long as obese folks have to pay for the space they occupy.

Posted By mike on August 16, 2010, 4:26 PM

Kids can be restrained just fine with a special attachment to the parent's seatbelt. The parent's seatbelt loops through it and it has its own buckle. We were given that several times when we flew on SAS when our daughter was small.

Posted By Seth Chandler on August 16, 2010, 4:29 PM

I agree with this--- perhaps instead of paying full adult ticket price, kids can have a seat at a discount. And AIRLINES should limit the number of these child friendly seats in these flights, say like no more than 4-5% of those seats, depending on the type of aircraft and the length of the flight--- even on the flights to Orlando. (Disney World).-- on a different note, (b/c pets are one thing, and kids are definitely human- so I am NOT comparing both!) what they should really do is considering the ban/or the limit-- limiting the number of small pets on flights. I have cat allergies, and having cats in closed cabins, especially in business class, is very annoying.

Posted By worldtraveler19 on August 16, 2010, 4:40 PM

hey, I agree with this post...
It's about time. We always purchased a seat for our son since infancy. Bringing a car seat made him feel comfortable and gave him a familiar feel and place to sleep. I would never have forgiven myself if something happened because he wasn't restrained because I didn't spend the money for his seat. We traveled frequently and never had a problem with him in his own seat. I've sat near lap passengers and there are very few at the toddler age that I've been near that are comfortable being held for hours.

Have to add ... if you are one .... fly. If you are many...drive.

Posted By Joanne on August 16, 2010, 4:44 PM

To worldtraveler19, there IS a limit on in-cabin pets; look on your airline's website or call the customer service number and ask. It can vary from airline to airline and aircraft to aircraft. When booking, tell them of your problem and ask how many, if any, pets are already booked on the flight. If you see them being taken out of carriers, ring your flight attendant call button and explain your problem. And thank you for not comparing pets and kids.

But I ask...why should a child's seat cost less than an adult's? A seat's a seat. As long as you're not discounting the seats, there's no reason to limit their number.

Posted By Toni on August 16, 2010, 4:54 PM

I am looking forward to the end of the lapchild, especially if it means fewer children flying. I really don't think it's fair that they can fly for free while everyone else has to pay. For safety reasons, I do think they should be strapped in their own seat at least while the seatbelt sign is on.

Posted By Kim on August 16, 2010, 4:54 PM

Hmmmm. Let me see if I understood it. So there are people flying commercial on economy who don't want to have any inconveniences like an occasional baby crying. And who's the crying baby again?

Posted By Dan on August 16, 2010, 5:43 PM

What a stupid notion...I think children should go into cages and put into the cargo hold, just like pets....

Posted By Ric on August 16, 2010, 5:46 PM

Free seats for all children 10 and under!
Let's stop highway deaths and keep children safe.
Children 10 and under fly free!

Posted By Jon Boy on August 16, 2010, 6:37 PM

I definitely think infants should have their own seat. Last October our entire family flew to California for a family wedding...our youngest daughter and her husband have a then 2 year old and 7 month old twins...they bought seats for all three, the kids slept in the familiar car seats and the parents were able to relax. and the kids as safe as they could be. The crew was wonderful to help out getting everyone in their place. On the other hand, overweight passengers taking up too much space should be forced to buy TWO seats!

Posted By Judy on August 16, 2010, 8:57 PM

Yes Yes Yes!!!
As a frequent traveler, I could never figure out why car seats were mandated in a car but not on an airplane.
And no, in my 40,000 miles per year of travel have I ever been thrown from my airline seat, but that hasn't happened in a car either..I count my blessings.
Kudos to Dave below, who nails it right on the head of annoying passengers, not matter what the age..

Posted By Carla Rosen on August 16, 2010, 9:30 PM

To Toni - your argument about children in the car is flawed. Because you are both a mother and a flight attendent, you should realize that if your child starts crying in the car you have the option of pulling over. I can honestly say that I would never take my 2 year old on a 6 hour car ride without stopping to stretch our legs at some point. And when my daughter was nursing, if she started crying in the car I would pull over and feed her. Now what would your suggestion be to someone who is forced to take a cross country flight for a family emergency? Ignore the crying baby in the carseat for 6 hours while people (including flight attendants) loudly comment on why you aren't doing anything to stop it? And don't suggest a bottle - my daughter would only take one if she couldn't see me. If I was in eyesight it was the boob or nothing.

Posted By Kelly on August 16, 2010, 9:38 PM

I am a grandparent who flies monthly to take a grandchild to visit his non-custodial parent. This involves a cross country trip which would be impossible to make via car. I have found most children on the flights to be less bothersome than the adults who stand in the isles, those who remove their shoes and "share" there stinky feet with all, the 20something young woman who demanded she be given the isle seat rather than the middle because she was uncomfortable, the drunk who snores his way across the country, and the person who reclines his seat in my face or combs her hair in my food. I would suggest that the first several rows in coach be reserved for families with children, which would make it easier to carry in child seats and other equipment and would allow those who hate children on flights to separate themselves by moving to the back of the plane. Most airlines seem to have the front restrooms equipped with the diaper changing stations anyhow. This would also allow families to exit the plane first and get out of the way of those who prefer to keep their distance from children.

Posted By Iris on August 17, 2010, 12:24 AM

To Kelly...my argument is hardly flawed. Your thinking is flawed if you believe that I am advocating leaving the child strapped into a car seat for six hours on a long flight. What I have said, repeatedly, is that the child should remain strapped into the seat for taxi, takeoff, turbulence, landing and anytime the fasten seat belt sign is on, THE SAME AS THE ADULTS HAVE TO DO. That means that when the FSB sign is off, the child can come out and sit on your lap, be nursed, whatever. When my baby cried in the car, SOMETIMES I had the option of pulling over, often (say, in bumper-to-bumper travel in the middle lane of the freeway) I did not. When I did not, guess what? He got to cry. It didn't kill him nor did it kill me. Parenting is hard. But keeping the child safe is the first rule.

Posted By Toni on August 17, 2010, 8:44 AM

I do not have children of my own, but do travel with my 4 nephews every year or so. My one sister always used a car seat and NEVER had an issue with her child crying to get out of the car seat. My other sister chooses not to get a seat and her kids will squirm around and make the flight uncomfortable for her and the rest of the family. But they manage to sit in there car seats in the car just fine.

Granted, when you're flying you're typically on a plane for a longer period of time, but the rule wouldn't necessarily mean that you can't take your child out of the car seat. More likely they would have to be strapped in when the fasten seat belt light is on.

Most airlines charge more for children since they're eligible for the discounted fares (but a discount on the regular fare). Children should either be able to to book a fully discounted fare like Mom and Dad or the airline should be providing the car seat/straps.

In the end it's safer to have your child in a car seat. You can fly 100 flights and have nothing happen, that doesn't mean the next flight isn't going to be the one that makes the news for turbulence and the one where your child is the flying projectile and gets seriously injured. If you think you can live with that, then keep your child on your lap.

Posted By Crissy on August 17, 2010, 9:33 AM

children should always have their own seats!
do you drive around with car seats? there is a reason for that. Airlines will have to accommodate the proper seat belts for children, but it is the safest thing to do.

Posted By susan on August 17, 2010, 10:20 AM

The research conducted by the FAA in their Oklahoma city test facility has shown that it is not possible for a parent to hold onto a baby during the turbulance resulting from even a minor event. It is beyond belief that this rule has been allowed to continue unchanged for so many years. The time has come to protect our kids.

Posted By John Goglia on August 17, 2010, 11:01 AM

If a child can stand, walk around, kick the seat in front of it, yank the hair of the person sitting in front of or next to it, then the child should have it's own seat. As for the infants, when it isn't fussing, eating or need to be on an adult's lap, it could easily rest comfortably in it's own seat, within parents' reach, in one of numerous carriers invented for infants to be carried around in. Yes the airline should provide the adjustable safety strap/belts for child carriers/boosters and car seats.

Posted By Gmax8 on August 18, 2010, 11:01 AM

A common sense rule requiring restraint seats for children two and under on planes is long overdue. If restraints seats are required by law for toddlers in cars which travel at 55 mph or under on well paved roads, they're should be the law for kids traveling at 400 plus mph in a metal tubes some 30,000 feet above Mother Earth. Remember that the risk relates more than emergency landings. It involves turbulence. High School physics tells us that only slightly above normal turbulence can turn a 15 pound baby into a 75 pounded cannonball. The FAA needs to step up and mandate restraint seats for kids under two. And no parent worthy of that title should object.

Posted By Bob Mackin on August 18, 2010, 5:19 PM

I am a retired Flight Attendant & crash survivor & have advocated child seats for those under two from personal experience. A 22 month old boy would be alive today had he been in a child seat as all around him survived. It is a horrific way for a parent to discover that having a child on your lap is DANGEROUS/RISKY! You can parse it any way you want but the simple fact is that all who have a lap child on a plane are playing russian roulette. Do you want to play 'luck' with a child? Flight attendants instruct passengers to stow laptops for take-off & landing...why not a lapchild?? The FAA knows from their own tests at their Oklahoma test facility that in turbulence (often) or a crash (occasional), that anything not buckled in will become a missile. They are completely delinquent in their lack of mission for safety!

Posted By Jan Brown on August 18, 2010, 8:13 PM

This is a human rights issue. Why are infants less deserving of life-saving safety rules than the rest of us?

Posted By Teresa Casey on August 19, 2010, 12:09 PM

I've been lucky in that if I had children/infants next to me on a plane they were well behaved. Occasionally, heard a baby crying on the plane during descent - probably his ears hurt. However, I've been seated next to rude men twice. Both of them persisted in watching soft porn on their laptops during the cross country flight. Finallyl, a light bulb went off in their heads and they turned off the laptops.

Posted By G-momto2 on August 19, 2010, 4:31 PM

As a flight Attendant and mother of two I have to agree with the FAA ruling. I realize this is an added expense but it is safer. In training we are told to have mothers hold the baby on landing but the chances of being able to hold an infant on impact are very slim. Seat restraints hold better.
You can always hold the baby during the flight to calm them. They would just have to remain in the seat for take off and landing.

Posted By Fltcrew2 on August 19, 2010, 9:49 PM

Wow - all you adults out there that have a problem with children flying--get a grip! Remember you were all infants and toddlers once upon a time too! Traveling today is not easy for anyone and it truly is especially difficult for small children. Have a litte compassion. That could be you bringing your small child to grandma's house so you can take a vacation! I do agree with using restraints upon takeoff and landing for their safety, but the reason the NTSB reasoning is bizarre. The airline should provide these restraints

Posted By kcmogirl on August 20, 2010, 3:23 PM

I hope the woman who is convinced that she can "hold on" to her infant in case of a plane crach will read the documented evidence of several plane crashes in which an infant died because it was simply impossible for the mother to hold on to her child upon impact due to forces created by the impact. In each case, the belted mother survived but the lap infant was thrown free and died. Let's protect our infants in planes as well as we protect them in autos.

Posted By BillT Chicago on August 21, 2010, 3:36 PM

In 1987 we had the flight from hell..LA-Houston. Two women in front of us had three kids....all five were in three seats....the two youngest kids were "toddlers" (about the size of 3- to 4-year-olds). The women immediately pushed their seats back, let their kids hang over the backs of the seats and bother us. We were holding our petite 17-month daughter in our laps. We couldn't get out our seats and could hardly eat lunch (had to take turns). Our daughter couldn't nap. We couldn't believe the airline attendents let five people occupy three seats.

Posted By Deborah on August 23, 2010, 2:25 PM

well, if the majority of examples aren't even those who would qualify to be a lapchild, this should be an easy one! i would rather hold my baby - especially the younger they are - than have them in a seat. if my baby is still breastfeeding, i will want to feed him/her on the way up and on the way down to prevent their ears from popping - something i wouldn't be allowed to do if they had to be sitting in their own seat.
i totally don't agree with this. they can go over how to hold/not hold a lap child and make it part of the safety demonstration. there's only so much you're going to be able to do to prevent a casualty. you can give an adult a driver's license, it doesn't mean they're not going to get into a car accident.

Posted By tmgh on August 23, 2010, 11:19 PM

For all you parents who are against having your child secured in a separate seat, (mainly because you are too cheap to buy another ticket) I suggest you read about the Sioux City United Airlines Flight 232 crash.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232
If you can't afford to fly your entire family, then don't fly or if you value the price of a ticket more than the life of your child, then feel free to put it on the floor during a crash, as the FAA mandates.

Posted By Patty K on August 24, 2010, 8:48 PM

To add to my previous comment, see Jan Brown's post above. She survived the Sioux City crash and knows better than anyone the consequences of unrestrained babies in a crash.

Posted By Patty K on August 25, 2010, 11:09 PM

I would hate to sit next to a screaming baby for a whole flight that the parent could not hold and comfort. Is this about the God Almighty Dollar?

Posted By Fan on August 28, 2010, 12:01 PM

This is ridiculous. First of all I live in Europe and when you fly European airlines they supply youa child seat belt that threads through the adult so the child sits or can even liedown in your lap and still be strapped in. When I told an Air France flight att that US airlines don't offer this she could not believe it. Putting a young child in a seat is just a way for airlines to get more money!

Posted By Crystal on August 30, 2010, 10:19 AM

If the people here are basing the size of the person as the determination for allowing them to fly free - I guess midgets & dwarfs who can fit on someone's lap should also fly free even if they're adults. It's not the responsibility of the airlines to provide you free seating for your children to save you money - no matter how often you 'have' to fly.

As for children vs. pets - pets have to be secured in carriers below seats or in cargo and pay passage, even though compared to babies and infants they probably recognize more verbal commands. If pets need to be secured, then a child with a more limited understanding should be too.

Securing your child makes them safer. At that age, they can't understand that reasoning and yes, they might not be 'happy' with being restrained. However, it's your responsibility as a parent to do what's best for them, even if it makes them unhappy. Otherwise, you might as well skip getting them immunizations, giving them 'yucky' medications, or going to doctors.

When flying, unless you're going to the restroom, you AND your children should be secured whenever seated. If needed, your child could be held on your lap for brief periods to comfort them or feed them, but should be returned to their secured seating as soon as possible. Turbulance isn't scheduled, and could happen at any time; their comfort should be secondary to their safety. Try headphones and a DVD player to keep them occupied.

Babies and children learn what is acceptable behavior and what isn't from their parents and other adults and kids around them. As a child I flew at least 2 or 3 trips a year from one side of the world to another. Neither I, nor many of the other kids I knew, would have even thought of acting out the way I see so many kids do in public now - the idea would have horrified and embarrassed me. Using the excuse that they'll cry if they're not given what they want, just highlights that many parents today aren't adequately teaching them manners and are allowing their kids to run wild, not wanting to 'stifle' them. [You aren't doing them any favors in the long run.]

Kids will do whatever they can get away with, it's your responsiblity to show them the boundaries and what will be accepted. If you cater to their crying and tantrums, you've basically told the kid that they're in charge and as long as they keep it up, they will eventually get what they want. Instead, try penalizing them. If they persist, they get a time out, lose dessert, have to go to bed earlier, have to leave the store, can't have that sleepover, etc. Immediate penalties and rewards for behavior at that age will do more than some nebulous 'future' punishment. If they KNOW you MEAN what you say, they'll be more inclined to listen to you in the future.

Posted By Neverwill on September 7, 2010, 1:41 PM

Genius Blog-Post, kann ich nur sagen!

Posted By odszkodowanie on March 6, 2012, 1:10 PM

Genius Blog-Post, kann ich nur sagen!

Posted By odszkodowania on March 6, 2012, 1:26 PM