The Flight Attendant Is Not Your Kid's Mom
Or your kid's babysitter. People complain about how expensive airline travel is, and then expect airlines to shepherd unaccompanied kids free. But, even if you're a parent who does pay...is it really okay to gamble that somebody will look after your kid like you would? From CNN.com:
American Airlines, the nation's largest carrier, estimates that it carries more than 200,000 unaccompanied minors each year. While that's a tiny percentage of its 98 million boardings last year, the number is growing, according to spokesman Tim Smith."It's probably more a social phenomenon, with more single-parent families where the parents live in different cities, and more kids going to visit grandparents, and more kids going to summer activities," Smith said.
Julio Garcia, a real estate investor in San Diego, said his two sons were among eight kids from 11 to 16 nearly stranded 1,500 miles from home in August. They were flying home without their parents after spending three weeks at a French-immersion program in Paris.
The parents paid Continental Airlines Inc. extra to have the four youngest children watched, but not for the 15- and 16-year-olds.
Storms caused the plane to be diverted, and when it finally got to Houston, the children had missed their connecting flight to San Diego. Continental found seats on a later flight for the four youngest, but Garcia said an airline agent told him the other four -- three boys and one girl -- were going to a hotel.
"My eldest called and said, 'They just hauled the little kids away and left us standing here,"' Garcia said.
Garcia said he spoke to three different Continental employees, and told a supervisor, "Let me get this clear. It's Continental's policy to leave unattended minors stranded in an airport? How can you leave them in a hotel room? A hundred things can go wrong."
A Continental spokeswoman, Julie King, said because the parents didn't pay the unaccompanied-minor charge for the 15- and 16-year-olds, the airline had no idea they were traveling with the four younger children. The airline doesn't ask ages of other passengers, and it put the two groups of kids on different records, she said.
Who has their kids fly unaccompanied internationally? I believe it's spelled, not P-A-R-E-N-T, but C-H-E-A-P-S-K-A-T-E. Oh, boohoo...would it be expensive and inconvenient for you to fly across the Atlantic to accompany your kids home? Hmmm, what to do, what to do? Here's a suggestion: If your kids aren't old enough to deal with whatever travel surprises may arise...don't send them.
Here's another CNN link to quotes from indignant parents of kids flying alone. My favorite:
"How would they feel if it were their children? Is this the way they'd want Delta to treat their kids?" asked the kids' grandfather, Chris Miller, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, and Delta platinum flier. He readily acknowledges that mistakes were made, but he asks, "Does that mean Delta didn't have any responsibility?"Like a lot of kids from divorced families, Blake and Briana Sims were flying between parents, from Alabama where their dad lives to Alaska, where their stepfather, an Army air traffic controller, is now stationed after returning from Iraq.
The Alabama travel agent who booked their $2,000 flight assured their dad that he didn't need to pay the $75 fee for them to be unaccompanied minors because Blake was 15. That was mistake number one, according to Delta spokesman Anthony Black. Teens must be 18 to accompany a young sibling. Mistake number two: The kids were booked on the last flight of the day -- not permitted for kids flying solo, said Black, to prevent exactly what happened in this case -- youngsters getting stranded en route.
"How would they feel if it were their children? Uh, airlines don't have children. Parents do.
Good grief. Cheapskate isn't the right word for it, incompetent morons would be far more accurate. Seriously, I can't begin to imagine sending my kids on a flight alone - even with the additional payment for having them watched. And that's not just because ones five and the other's still gestating.
This is just another example of parents who can't be bothered to parent. Not much different than parents who whine and bitch about adverts or lewd tee vee. Can't be fucking bothered to parent and take responsibility for their kids, oh no. It's always someone else's fault.
Bloody morons.
DuWayne at November 23, 2007 9:43 AM
> not P-A-R-E-N-T, but
> C-H-E-A-P-S-K-A-T-E.
True enough, but I think also it's the d-i-vorced cheapskate parents. I spent a lot of time in airports a couple years ago for family business, and came to recognize the children of divorce pretty readily. They have shitty haircuts, bad posture and ill-fitting clothing, but none of it offered with enough attitude to qualify as goth. Goth would be a stylish, effortful, disciplined bearing when compared to how these kids dressed.
You can stare at them all you want, because their immortal souls are pretending to be enraptured by the Ipod, upon which some other child of divorce is offering appropriate atonal preciousness. The kid I'm thinking most of --there were dozens-- was a 16-year-old boy in Phoenix Sky Harbor. He was old enough by that point not to be worried about being assaulted by strangers while travelling alone... But who knows how old he was when the travel patterns began?
The story goes like this. Mom and Dad got divorced when he was five, because they were socially and emotionally incompetent.
Because he "had a right to be happy," Dad moved to a city 400 miles away to start a new family.
(A manuever which, by the way, is said to horrify young sons but will devastate young daughters, who rightly expect to be treated like princesses by this one man for this one part of their lives.)
So Mom gets primary custody, but Dad insisted on having a piece, so he could pretend to have tried to be a father to his first children. So he makes the kid come and visit. And rather than risking seeing each other at a terminal somewhere or giving any concession to each other in terms of making time, the parents just started shuttling the kid through the airport.
So even though the kid's too old to worry about traveling any more, he/she has adopted a lifelong posture of terrified defensiveness and blasé disinterest in the lives of passersby. Mostly, he sits in the airport and worries about the cruel stepbrother who's going to [A] steal his stuff or [B] feel him up in the middle of the night. Or [C], if Mom's going to date that creep from the office while he's away for the weekend.
The parents aren't just financial cheapskates, they're emotional cheapskates.
Unless I'm wrong about this.
Crid at November 23, 2007 9:43 AM
You're not. Well put, both of you.
Amy Alkon at November 23, 2007 9:57 AM
It freaks me out that anyone would send an unaccompanied minor alone on a plane. Even a 17 year old won't have take-charge/decision making options an adult would in an unexpected situation. And the smaller ones? Shudder. Adam Walsh disappeared when left alone in Sears because his asshat mother couldn't put up with his bored whining while she shopped for lamps. (Still pisses me off that people blamed Sears for this and act like daddy's some kind of hero for exploiting his death to gain fame and fortune. Disgusting.) And you think it's ok to shuttle a kid for thousands of miles across country by themself? As for trusting someone to keep an eye on your little darling just because they work for an airline, are you kidding me? Do you screen your care providers at all? I don't agree with the diaper to dorm mentally because there's too many things unpredictable in 18 years but, don't give me boo hoo divorce excuses for underprotecting your kid this much. I do think you want to be a part of their life, live in commuting distance at least. If you absolutely must move 100's of miles away (not buying it), don't expect to see them unless you cough up the extra dough to either stay at a hotel in their neck of the woods or to escort them safely to your state for the duration. I want to choke when I hear of this. You just know a good percentage of these same assholes are going on some exotic vacation the week after they send kiddie home alone on a plane.
Donna at November 23, 2007 10:17 AM
> I don't agree with the diaper
> to dorm mentally because there's
> too many things unpredictable
> in 18 years
The emotional, intellectual and financial neediness of children are entirely predictable. Kids will need stuff, and we can't pretend to be surprised. And since you mentioned the dorms...
Much of the scenario outlined above was buttressed by a fresh reading of Wallerstein">http://www.amazon.com/Unexpected-Legacy-Divorce-Judith-Wallerstein/dp/1901250946/ref=sr_1_1/002-3239414-2246421?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194026251&sr=1-1">Wallerstein, who offered another compelling factoid: Children of divorce essentially never receive as much help with college expenses and children of intact homes receive. I've forgotten the numbers and have since donated the book to the public library. But I think that's ten kinds of heartbreaking, and twenty's worth of telling.
Nonetheless: We've always wondered what it would take to make us feel sympathy for airlines, and here it is.
Crid at November 23, 2007 10:29 AM
Sorry about that bad HTML. Blame it on the tryptophan. The Wallerstein book mentioned by a commenter named Amy a couple weeks ago is here:
http://urltea.com/26bq
Crid at November 23, 2007 10:34 AM
When my son was 7, and then when he was 8, we sent him to visit his grandma. He flew from San Diego to Portland and back. We paid the unaccompanied minor fee, of course, and never had a problem. I don't know if it's any different now, in the post-9/11 world, but then we both (mom and dad) accompanied him to the gate and watched him be taken aboard, and watched the plane take off.
His grandma is perhaps the most paranoid woman on the planet, so we knew there'd be no problem with her being on the other end. Which we confirmed by cell phone. As I understand, they simply lead the child to their seat, check on them occasionally during the flight, and lead them off to the waiting adult on the other end.
Admittedly we only sent him on non-stop flights, and San Diego to Portland isn't exactly a long flight. My son's also extremely bright - on his first flight at age 7 he read "A Brief History of Time" to pass the time, and we'd lectured him pretty extensively on what not to do on the flight. If the plane had had to be diverted en route, my husband was fully prepared to fly to that place and retrieve our son. Nevertheless I was beyond nervous during each of his flights.
I'm not an incompetent moron, I'm not an asshole, I'm not someone who expects others to parent my children. I paid a fee, and expected my child to be safe for 2.5 hours in an enclosed space with adult supervision, which he was.
Kimberly at November 23, 2007 10:56 AM
> I paid a fee
And I'm like, riiiiiiiiight. It's a consumer issue. You can take 'em to court. Super.
Crid at November 23, 2007 11:03 AM
I paid a fee, and expected my child to be safe for 2.5 hours
I paid for some paint-by-number art on eBay that I never got. I gave the guy a shitty rating, but I still don't have the paintings.
Amy Alkon at November 23, 2007 11:10 AM
Those are nicely snarky responses. I'm sure you really believe I thought he'd be safe because I paid the fee. I only mentioned that I had because those who don't bother are mentioned in the article you quote, Amy.
What, pray tell, do you think could have happened to him in 2.5 hours? We made sure he went to the bathroom right before he boarded, and told him if he had to go on the plane to let the flight attendant know, as I was paranoid some freak might accost him. I suppose the plane could have crashed, which is not something we could have prevented had we been there.
I take my parenting seriously. I've spent three years reading this blog, occasionally commenting, and I've agreed with nearly everything you say about under-parented children, Amy. I even agree with most of what Crid says on this one (except the no to gay parents stuff). This time, though, I think you're making broad generalizations.
This latest spate of problems with unaccompanied minor travel is very unusual. There are very, very few serious problems with it, especially given the number of kids who do travel alone. Painting everyone who sends their kids off with the same brush is lazier reasoning than I'd have expected here.
It's the weirdest thing - this is just an entertaining blog I read, but having read it for so long I feel as though I know some of the frequent commenters a little, and actually feel the need to justify my parenting to you. Foolish, because I am a damn good parent, and have spent the last 16 years, and will spend the next 17+ putting the needs of my children before my own. I have healthy, happy, well-adjusted kids, and that's really what's important.
Kimberly at November 23, 2007 11:34 AM
I remember flying unaccompanied as young teen, but, the flight was from Orange County to San Jose, my parents saw me off at the gate and my aunt was waiting when I got off the plane. I also recall that until I was twelve, I was required to sit in the front with a tag pinned to me. This was in the bad ol' seventies, BTW.
A short nonstop flight is one thing. A long flight with layovers and plane transfers quite another.
Janet C at November 23, 2007 11:46 AM
Hi Kim, (snark mode disabled)
I'm a parent too and I'm interested in your pov. I'll admit, my first blush response was that I would never, ever put my kids on a plane alone, followed by less than gracious notions about parents who would (sorry, it is what it is.)
It seems like it would be fine, as long as everything, absolutely everything, went according to plan. I've flown quite a bit and when something goes wrong, it takes all my energy, resourcefulness and shrewd skills of dastardly, coniving assholery to keep from sleeping on a molded plastic chair for three days. My kids are sharp but they'd be helpless, terrified lambs once those dreaded words, "Ladies and gentlemen I'm sorry to announce..." come over the P.A.
And then there are the people I have occasionally encountered while trapped in the flying aluminum tube with nowhere to hide. Roughly one seatmate in 12 is going to insist on being a part of your life for the duration of the flight. I've learned some ways of finding the "off" switch on these people but again, it is advanced stuff.
My life is pretty boring (and lucky.) When grandma gets to see the kids, she gets to see me too, end of story. Under less fortunate circumstances, I might have to open my mind to other arrangements but as long as I can afford a plane ticket, I can afford not to subject my kids to something they just aren't ready for.
Holla back.
(/snark systems back online)
martin at November 23, 2007 12:11 PM
I might have to open my mind to other arrangements but as long as I can afford a plane ticket, I can afford not to subject my kids to something they just aren't ready for.
Word, martin, this is exactly how I feel. I love my daughters too much to risk them.
Flynne at November 23, 2007 12:44 PM
I was worried about that, so I chose an airline that seated unaccompanied minors only with other kids flying same. If anything, that's what annoyed my son. By the time he was 4 he was going on 40 (part of the reason I let my husband convince me this was an okay idea). Other kids nearly always annoyed him. He'd have rather sat next to an adult who'd either leave him alone or engage in what he'd consider more intelligent conversation.
I would have loved to have flown with my son on those occasions, but it took scrimping to afford his ticket. It would have been money out of his college fund if one of us had had to fly to retrieve him. In later years finances improved, and I flew with him.
I would never send my kids to camp because of the fears about the counselors (training, supervisory ability, etc.) providing the only care in a possibly unsafe environment for an extended period of time. Two and a half hours on a plane scared me less, seemed to provide far fewer dangers than a week at camp. Yet no one seems to have a problem with parents shipping their kids off for a month in the woods with teenagers for supervision.
Kimberly at November 23, 2007 12:57 PM
I see your point but still I couldn't do it.
I've sent my kids to camp and to day care. I was one of those dads who climb a tree with a telescope to make sure my little rodents are safe and sound. Bad things can happen anytime and anywhere but there is a greater margin for error in places like camp and day care. A senior counselor or camp director can spot a junior counselor who is not ready for the challenge. A parent can be called if junior breaks his arm or something.
Air travel has been described as being herded into progressively smaller cylinders until you pop out into the daylight at your destination. You are utterly under the control of others and the slightest misstep can lead to severe inconvenience or horrific terrifying death (oops, sorry, hope nobody is flying this weekend.)
Anyway, I was hoping you'd say more about the necessity or benefit of having your kids fly alone. There is no place my kids need to be that is more important than me knowing, KNOWING, they are safe and sound and comfortable.
martin at November 23, 2007 1:25 PM
Martin,
For the first six years of my son's life, his grandma was two miles away. She was hugely important to him. During the year or so mentioned she was very ill. She has lupus and MS, and during that time they were kicking her ass, and we didn't think she'd make it much longer. My husband was in the Navy and was able to take a couple of military flights to visit her. She eventually got healthier, thank goodness, but we didn't think at the time our son would have many more opportunities to see her.
Air travel's pretty damn safe, and we took the tiny risk so our son could see his only grandma for possibly the final time.
Kimberly at November 23, 2007 2:00 PM
None of my business obviously but, in context, that makes more sense.
As is almost always the case, what was meant to be an accomodation to extenuating circumstances has become first a routine practice and then an entitlement--cue the lawyers when something goes wrong.
Hell in a handbasket I tells ya.
martin at November 23, 2007 2:20 PM
I think kids flying alone is something that could work okay...if it happened in low numbers and were seen as a Big Deal, with parents being willing to pay extra for flights to be as direct as possible and for their kids to be escorted from points A to B. And, of course, if parents only sent kids who were able to handle the flights. The problem comes when you have a large number of children flying, many of them on multi-leg flights, on post-9/11 airlines.
I am, admittedly, biased, because my sibling and I did fly alone a handful of times when we were relatively young. But we were flying direct flights of less than two hours, and we were both well-disciplined, experienced travelers who probably had logged more flight time than half of the adults on the planes. We read and played with toys throughout our flights; I remember the flight attendants telling our grandparents what good kids we were, or something along those lines. My parents definitely were paying extra fees for us to be escorted, though. And we were flying to a fun destination, not as part of a dreary custody swap. And air travel was very different then. I doubt my parents would send us alone today, especially as they couldn't escort us through security, go with us to the gate, etc.
Again, though - I think there are a lot of things that can be tolerated in low numbers that break down when they reach critical mass, and kids traveling alone via air is one. I'd say that single motherhood is another one of these things. However, since you can't really say that X thing is okay for certain people and not for others, there's no way to prevent it from reaching that critical mass. And, as I said, I'm biased.
Note: Kids flying alone internationally? No no no no no no no. No.
marion at November 23, 2007 3:32 PM
> What, pray tell, do you
> think could have happened
> to him in 2.5 hours?
There could be a diverted flight, or mechanical problems, there could be a drunk sitting next to him, or a Scientologist, or a kid with polio, or porn on the seatback video, or like, whatever.
It's not my problem to imagine. You put your kid on an airplane.
Listen, airline flights are all about managed risk. They're all about alert, cooperative, disciplined responses to things. If airlines wanted to insist that every passenger demonstrate a certain level of competence, independant movement and clarity, I wouldn't argue too much. Shit, I don't care what happens to your kid. But don't pretend airlines are responsible for making sure things go well when he's out of your care.
> I have healthy, happy,
> well-adjusted kids, and
> that's really what's
> important.
This is just a point for chatter and not really germaine to this thread, but I've never thought that was a meaningful argument. Kids think that whatever is going on in their lives is normative. They don't know if they're happy or well-adjusted or not. It's only twenty-five or or thirty years that people figure out what should and shouldn't have happened in their childhoods... And some people never sort it out. There's almost no circumstance in life where it makes sense to ask at eleven-year-old if he's happy.
> when something goes wrong,
> it takes all my energy,
> resourcefulness and shrewd
> skills of dastardly,
> coniving assholery
Ask about the time I missed a flight in Papua New Guinea.
> Under less fortunate
> circumstances
This is an airline thread and not a divorce thread. But that's the thing about divorce, "less fortunate circumstances" is the excuse by which people saddle children with hideous burdens.
> with parents being willing
> to pay extra for flights to
> be as direct as possible
What if there's a sudden mass of Canadian high pressure that appears over O'Hare? What's "possible"?
> and for their kids to be
> escorted from points A to B.
Why not pay a college student to ride shotgun?
> things that can be
> tolerated in low
> numbers
Things aren't being tolerated: They're being risked.
Crid at November 23, 2007 4:06 PM
Man, I hate children. I hate their neediness. I hate their delicacy. I hate their concrete thinking and naiveté.
And I really hate their parents.
Crid at November 23, 2007 4:08 PM
I was reminded about what one of my brothers dealt with, when he and his wife divorced years ago, after mentioning this to my dad today.
About six months after the divorce, he got a temporary job offer from the owner of a landscaping business he had once worked for. It was a huge design project for a monster business park, in Cali (he lived in MI) away. The job would last about three month, the pay was around three quarters what he had made the previous year.
He got the girls every third week, for a full week. He would take the eleven hour (including layovers) flight the day before, stay in his house for the night, then fly back direct the next day with the girls. They were nine and thirteen respectively and it never even occurred to him to let them fly alone. If the job didn't pay enough to make that worthwhile (I believe some of the flights were covered as part of the deal), he wouldn't have taken it.
I can see Kimberly's reasoning and don't see it as agregious enough to pass judgment on someone elses parenting. That said, and as the parent of a five year old that is right there with hers in brains, I wouldn't dream of it. Not happening, not ever. I don't put my kid with anyone that momma and I haven't thoroughly vetted.
DuWayne at November 23, 2007 4:53 PM
I don't think anybody's a hateful parent, just that the nature of airline travel is such that it's ridiculous to think that children should be able to do it alone.
Crid at November 23, 2007 5:59 PM
It may be necessary occassionally to send minor children on airline trips alone, but this should be done only in cases of true emergency. There is just too much risk out there. Granted - despite all the high-profile cases of child abduction and murder out there, the odds are very, very small that something will happen to your child. Nonetheless, although the risk is small in terms of the number of occurances out of the total population, the possible consequences if something does go wrong (death, molestation, torture, or just a bad accident) are so serious that the small risk ought to be avoided if possible. I'm reminded of an incident that happened to my sister-in-law when she was a college freshman enroute from Ann Arbor to North Muskegon via Greyhound Bus. One of the intermediate stops is Jackson, at which point a man climbed aboard the bus, plopped down next to my then very attractive relative, and said to her: "I just got out of prison [refering to Jackson State Penitentiary], and the first thing I am gonna do is git me a woman." My sister-in-law was a young adult and able to cope with the situation, but even so found it uncomfortable enough that she avoided the bus in the future. An adolescent or young child might not be able to handle it with the same aplomp as my sister-in-law.
People talk about the good old days when kids could safely travel on their own. My in-laws talk about their ancestor coming from Sweden or Norway to New York with a paper pinned to his shirt with the address of his sponsor in the US; people describe using the same procedure when putting kids on trains to send them across the country. Usually when doing so, the are reminescing about a safer, more innocent time. However, I for one believe that's all bunk. I don't believe for a minute that the horrors we know today are a new phenomenon at all. I believe they've always been with us. What HASN'T always been with us is a mass media establishment that can instantly publicize tragic stories worldwide or an FBI that maintains national statistics of all types of crimes so that we have an idea of what goes on beneath our noses that we previously didn't have.
I believe that the real difference between today and our grandparent's time in terms of risk to children is that unlike our grandparents, we are well informed - perhaps too well informed - about these risks. Knowledge confers responsibity. We have an obligation to act on the information we have - which means that in most cases we should not be packing children off on airline flights alone.
Having said all this, I do not believe for a minute that we need the state to intervene and tell parents that they can or cannot put children on airplanes alone. If they choose to properly notify the airline and pay the appropriate fees, that is their choice to make. I'm just not sure that it is usually the best choice.
Dennis
Dennis at November 24, 2007 5:20 AM
"Even a 17 year old won't have take-charge/decision making options an adult would...""
What? Why not? No credit card? Has this person been controlled all his/her life, and therefore a stranger to decisions about proper conduct?
And haven't you noticed in Amy's columns that you don't have much evidence that adults make superior decisions?
Consider, for a moment, Kristen Chenoweth. At 4'11" and under 100 pounds, can you really state that delightful pixie Kristen is less vulnerable than your 17yo attitude package? No.
Radwaste at November 24, 2007 7:01 AM
Know what else?
(Don't you hate rhetorical questions?)
((Did you know that in his victory speech this morning [tomorrow morning?], incoming Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd used the expression "You know what?" three times?))
I hate that people want to pretend that flying is not an adult experience. Rather than make the world child-proof, people should make their kids world-proof... or keep them indoors. Flying through the sky in aluminum cans is inherently risky, and I don't want to pretend it's not for the convenience of people who are too cheap or lazy to fly with their kids. And I don't want the fucking stewardesses distracted with the little fuckwits while they ought to be attending to my safety.
Or my Cabernet.
I hate children.
Crid at November 24, 2007 7:33 AM
Things aren't being tolerated: They're being risked.
Exactly.
And flying is an adult experience even for adults.
"More Cabernet, Pumpkin?"
Amy Alkon at November 24, 2007 7:42 AM
Wow, across the blogosphere there are posts about "The Dangerous Book For Boys" and "The Daring Book For Girls" and need for children to learn skills that will foster independence and help them in the world. One way for a child to learn coping skills and to develop common sense is to have the opportunity to travel alone.
I flew many times as an unaccompanied minor in my preteen and teenage years. In fact I requested (and received) a set of luggage for my 12th birthday. OK... so I was a little precocious and it was a pre 9/11 world. Somehow I was treated very well by the flight attendants and never had a problem.
My children (now adults) also flew as unaccompanied minors and survived the experience without becoming traumatized for life...even after flying abroad alone.
My son flew by himself from LA to Seattle and back one summer so that he could go to a fantastic camp. He didn't have any problems.
My daughter used to fly from Los Angeles to Montreal in order to attend camp in Vermont. One summer the camp was seriously late picking her up and she managed just fine at the airport. (Thank you Delta!)
Another time at age 13 she got stuck at the Genevea airport not knowing where to go between the French and the Swiss side. Even without being fleunt in French she managed to find the Air France people get herself on the right plane.
At 14 she traveled alone to Marbella for a summer language program. Once again there wasn't any problem.
Maybe I should have kept the kids at home playing video games but I felt that it was worth it for them to experience life outside of LA.
And, I always paid the UM fees and my children were always treated extremely well by the airlines.
westside at November 24, 2007 10:53 AM
One way for a child to learn coping skills and to develop common sense is to have the opportunity to travel alone.
But, it's not the 9/11 world, and there are less risky ways for children to "learn coping skills and develop common sense."
I suspect a lot of cheap, lazy, and cheap, lazy, divorced parents are foisting parenting on people who have another job already, and frankly, aren't that prepared to deal with anything more than seeing the kid gets his or her peanuts.
It's called "Delta Airlines," not "Delta Mommy."
Amy Alkon at November 24, 2007 11:02 AM
Meant that it's not the PRE-9/11 world, and flying is hellish and upsetting -- and sometimes confusing -- for adults.
Amy Alkon at November 24, 2007 11:03 AM
> so I was a little precocious
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...
> Somehow I was treated very
> well by the flight attendants
> and never had a problem.
1.) "Somehow"
What does that mean?
2.) What if you aren't treated well by the flight attendants? What if they have their own kids to get home to and leave you at the airport?
3.) What if you or your kid is left standing in the center of a Dallas concourse when the destination was Orlando? What exactly is supposed to happen then?
Why should the airlines, the other passangers, and everyone else in the world worry that a person in that situation won't have the wherewithal to book a hotel room overnight and buy their own breakfast (etc) until the 8:15am to Jacksonville and rent a car from that point? (Or wherever?)
> Once again there wasn't
> any problem.
Are you pretending this is about statistical analysis...?
> I always paid the UM fees
> and my children were always
> treated extremely well
> by the airlines.
...Or are you pretending that this is a consumer issue? Why are Americans always so eager to see their most intimate fulfillments defended in courts of law?
My favorite two-word expression is a from a brilliant book about wall street by Michael Lewis in the 1980's.
"No tears."
What no tears means is, don't come cryin' to me. If you're seven-year-old gets his dick sucked by a United States Senator in the Minneapolis/St Paul airport because you thought he could make it all the way on his own without a connecting flight, don't expect me to get upset about your failed risk.
> there are less risky ways
> for children to "learn coping
> skills
Listen to the redhead.
Crid at November 24, 2007 12:14 PM
But, it's not the pre-9/11 world
Maybe I'm just 9/11 obsessed, but I do think that that plays a huge role. It's not just the security - planes seem to dump travelers in strange cities overnight with no support much, much, much more now. I wouldn't put my own 8-year-old and 5-year-old on a flight alone today, even one lasting less than two hours that was a straight shot from point A to point B. Flying is just too...tense and chaotic. When I was a kid flying, there weren't many kids flying. I was very sensitive to adults not wanting me around, and that wasn't the case with the flight attendants - they didn't have many kids traveling alone, and they were happy to turn it into an adventure for us. Now? No.
I suspect a lot of cheap, lazy, and cheap, lazy, divorced parents are foisting parenting on people who have another job already, and frankly, aren't that prepared to deal with anything more than seeing the kid gets his or her peanuts.
Sigh. You're reminding me of a flight I was on from Texas to Pennsylvania on which I sat next to a six-year-old girl, flying home to her mother and stepfather. Her father and stepmother had put the kid on a 5:45 pm flight with no dinner and a carry-on full of Easter candy. Fortunately, the kid was sick of chocolate, and thus didn't turn into a bouncing sugar maniac, but she was hungry. What did she want? Peanuts. What did the allergy-conscious airline not have? Peanuts. What did the shortly-post-9/11 airline also not have? Dinner. She was a good enough kid given the circumstances, but UGH.
One way for a child to learn coping skills and to develop common sense is to have the opportunity to travel alone.
Here's the thing. There are 15-year-olds who can handle all of the challenges that a trip can throw at them in stride, just as there are five-year-olds who can sit perfectly still and eat neatly during a dinner at a chic French restaurant. Almost all 15-year-olds and five-year-olds are not capable of this, and generally the parents who believe that theirs are are incorrect. I feel perfectly comfortable saying that five-year-olds should not be eating at fancy French restaurants at 10 pm on a Saturday night. If your five-year-old can do so with ease, and solemnly tells the waiter "Merci boocoo, monsoor!" upon receiving his dessert, then I (and even Amy, I suspect) will smile and be charmed...without changing my/our essential opposition to the idea as a general concept. There will always, always, always be exceptions to rules (unless we're talking about the rules of physics), but that doesn't mean that the rules offer no value.
I traveled alone, rather extensively, in foreign countries...in my early 20s, right after college. I encountered many unexpected challenges and handled them, if I might say, with aplomb in a pre-cell-phone world. But that was after many years of watching my parents deal with travel obstacles and after gaining a bit of maturity. I don't think it's hurt me as a traveler.
marion at November 24, 2007 8:42 PM
I got a niece in New Zealand who's doing that this year. At night, as America sleeps and she's out and about and I listen closely, I can hear her immortal soul expanding from across the water, and she was already a sensible and alert young woman. I never had the courage, money or horse sense to travel like that, and there's a lot to be said for getting some adventure out of the way before you begin the working life.
Crid at November 24, 2007 8:58 PM
Those of you parents on here are going to be sending kids to school, no? Something tells me that's a more dangerous proposition these days than Kimberly putting her kid on a plane under the circumstances she described. The complicated flights mentioned in the article are a different, of course, but the media seems to like to drive people crazy about parenting, don't you think?
I was a camp counselor for a summer in grad school, at a prestigious, expensive camp that you would expect you could trust, and mostly rightfully so. My team of kids needed to go across the camp grounds for their swimsuits, so I loaded them into a military truck that we used for hauling kids. It was something like a giant, amphibious humvee- I belive it was called an Army G.O.A.T. Unbenownst to me, the brakes were out and the gearshift was broken. I parked, put it in gear, set the brake and climbed out- from the cab to the ground was a three-foot drop. I waved to let the kids know they could put the gate/ladder down and climb out, and they started to. That's when the thing popped out of gear and started rolling- one girl was on the gate, and two still on the truck bed pulled her back in by her hands. The gate was folded under the truck and dragging as it headed for a row of cars including- no kidding- three Benzes, a Beemer and a Ferrari. I had to chase it down, pull myself up the three feet by the door-handle and climb in through the door, which was more like a window and stand on the brakes- it took every bit of my body weight to stop the damn thing two feet from that Ferrari. It's a great story and gets better with the telling, but seriously, any of the kids or I could have easily been run over and killed.
My point is, no, places you send your kids aren't as safe as you think. You'd never sleep again if you knew how many things they could get into on the bus-ride to school and back. No, your kids don't need to be taking multi-leg, international flights alone with the supervision of some harried flight attendant. I'd shoot myself before I'd do that. But I'm thinking some commentors are being a little harsh on Kimberly on this one.
Allison at November 24, 2007 10:09 PM
> some commentors are being
> a little harsh
Guilty!
It's always great to sit next to a kid who does know how to travel sensibly, it just doesn't happen often enough.
Crid at November 25, 2007 2:24 AM
You'd never sleep again if you knew how many things they could get into on the bus-ride to school and back."
And that's my point: air travel is being singled out, not because of greater risks, but because some people think they cannot get to where their kids are and be the problem-solver for them. It's a control issue, which is obscuring a clear view of risk.
Do remember that putting your (again, typical) 16-year-old in a car is far more likely to kill them than any flight, to anywhere. Do realize that in both cases, your parenting makes the difference - and for years before the risky activity, to boot. And there is no minimizing some risks, because risk is an inherent part of reward. Young Nicky Hayden became MotoGP World Champ last year with broken bones; young Rusty Bradley died in the Daytona 200.
Radwaste at November 25, 2007 6:37 AM
Allison -
Those of you parents on here are going to be sending kids to school, no?
Actually, no. With his severe ADHD and our desire to avoid medicating so young, we are actually pulling him out of kindergarten after the holidays and homeschooling him. But we did send him to a charter school for the beginning. We also sent him to pre-school.
Before he went to preschool, we got a list of people he would have contact with at school. We did the same for the charter school. We then ran background checks on everyone on the lists. We also insisted on meeting everyone on those lists. Mostly this entailed both of us volunteering to spend time in the classroom, so we could get the chance to meet and observe the people our son was going to be spending time with.
Now I realize that this is not a perfect system by any means. There are plenty of sick fucks who appear perfectly normal and could pass a background check. But we do our best with the resources available to us. Spending a few hundred dollars, seemed a small price to pay, to help ensure our son's safety. Taking the time to actually meet, observe and interact with the people in his life - a no brainer.
My son also wants to become a cubscout. Guess who's getting involved in that? I am signing up to lead kids in the agegroup above his, meeting in the same place, same night. That way he will be with leaders other than myself, but I will be on hand. Again with the damned background checks - thankfully the BSOA already did the checks, I just have to read the results.
Is it a perfect world? No. Are the steps that I am taking a guarantee for my son's total safety? No. Short of smothering him with my protection, it never will be. Even then shit could happen. But I can and do, everything that I deem necessary to keep him safe. Sending him with strangers on a flying can would just not work. No way to vet the people taking care of him. No way to make sure he would be segregated from predators. No way that I could even dream of doing that.
Oy, and there is some talk of summer camp, going 'round the living room. Just so happens that the camp he would go to needs someone to teach the woodcraft activities. And I already know most of the people who would be there.
DuWayne at November 25, 2007 9:20 AM
DuWayne,
I'm glad you posted that follow up comment giving more specific context.
It makes a great deal more sense.
Jody Tresidder at November 25, 2007 9:35 AM
(mental note to self: skip parenting-related posts on this blog. Cannot stand snarkiness of self-centered singles lecturing real-life parents about how to do it...)
So:
1. It's probably irresponsible to send pre-teen or early-teen kids alone on complicated, multiple-leg, transatlantic flights. Unless you really know your kids, and/or they've already accompanied you onboard a few times.
2. It's especially stupid not to pay the fee for extra supervision - and probably really dumb not to pay for one adult to accompany a party of - what was it? - 6 kids.
3. BUT there are many other situations where a short, direct airplane trip can be easily handled by most kids. With the extra-supervision fees and engaged adults at either terminus.
And despite the drama-queen descriptions of airline flight, it's likely the clientele is much more controlled than what your kid would meet in a mall or downtown area of most cities.
Ben-David at November 25, 2007 9:58 AM
(mental note to self: skip parenting-related posts on this blog. Cannot stand snarkiness of self-centered singles lecturing real-life parents about how to do it...)
Well, how silly. It's precisely because I recognize the demands of parenting vis a vis who I am that I don't get into it. If only more parents had as good an idea of what good parenting is as I do -- loving your kids enough to maintain boundaries, to be unpopular, to their parent instead of their friend...and not throwing them on a plane alone because it's cheaper and easier.
Amy Alkon at November 25, 2007 10:12 AM
"(mental note to self: skip parenting-related posts on this blog. Cannot stand snarkiness of self-centered singles lecturing real-life parents about how to do it...)"
Nah, you'll just miss the entertainment with that approach, Ben-David!
This thread has been a classic curmudgeon's charter.
It's also brought out my spiritual side (i.e. praying hard that my own perfectly behaved and perfectly trained solo traveling teenagers never, ever bump into some of the commenters here in an airport or during a flight!)
Jody Tresidder at November 25, 2007 10:15 AM
> Cannot stand snarkiness of
> self-centered singles
> lecturing real-life parents
The sting of your irony would wound if we weren't already aching from the consequences of parental incompetence.
> complicated, multiple-leg,
> transatlantic flights.
(sniff) That odor? It's the unmistakable stink of a lowballer's argument.
> Unless you really know
> your kids
So you think it's all about bonding, and not about typical travel difficulties? The problem is not the kids, the problem is the context. Travel is complicated, dangerous, expensive and communal, and that's on a good journey. People who who can't do it with adult competence are a burden (and sometimes a risk) to the others in the carriage.
> to accompany a party
> of - what was it? - 6
> kids.
Indeed, what was it? Whence this funny little number? Are you implying (as others have above) that it's not worth springing for a chaperone until you have half-a-dozens bags of blood in the clouds?
> there are many other
> situations where a short,
> direct airplane trip can
> be easily handled by most
> kids.
When everything goes perfectly, that's probably true. But otherwise, those kids have to be handled by other people, who when not paid to chaperone, have their own things to worry about.
Hey everybody... It's time for a sentence fragment!
> With the extra-supervision
> fees and engaged adults at
> either terminus.
Again with the "fees." Two things about this. First, it's got the clank of brass knuckles under kid gloves... Our rhetor is always ready to sue, because he/she is a tough guy, he's paid his money and goddamit nobody's gonna cheat him outta nuthin'!!! ('Course, if your child has already been lost in a regional airport layover or molested by a United States Senator, then your Consumer Reports fantasies of savvy don't seem to have brought you much thrift. But that's just a judgment call on my part.)
Secondly, we wonder if you prefer talking about money to talking about kids. At the very least, you've acknowledged that there's a market where the value of their security gets measured againt the value of your money. I feel authorized to critique your investment.
> it's likely the clientele
> is much more controlled
Likely, likely, likely. Again, no tears when it hits the fan, OK?
> that my own perfectly behaved
> and perfectly trained solo
> traveling teenagers never,
> ever bump into some of the
> commenters here
In silent harmony, we kneel beside you in your petition... We don't want to deal with them, either.
Crid at November 25, 2007 11:01 AM
"In silent harmony, we kneel beside you in your petition... We don't want to deal with them, either."
Crid, you probably already have.
You just never noticed.
Lord, how it must gnaw at you!
Jody Tresidder at November 25, 2007 11:10 AM
Well, if we didn't notice, then we didn't need to deal, did we? Time to summarize for those who can't be bothered to distill the themes:
1. Keep your kids out of the way.
2. If you don't, don't come cryin' when thing go wrong, because you'll get no sympathy.
Crid at November 25, 2007 11:20 AM
And despite the drama-queen descriptions of airline flight, it's likely the clientele is much more controlled than what your kid would meet in a mall or downtown area of most cities
Your kids run around downtown Detroit much?
I don't think anybody's screening everybody who comes into the city for weapons or criminality. Far from it.
And then this statement by Ben-David: "But otherwise, those kids have to be handled by other people, who when not paid to chaperone, have their own things to worry about."
As Crid's pointed out, just because you pay for something doesn't mean you'll get it. And if you don't, what are you gonna do, sue?
Fly lately? Notice that flight attendants aren't exactly standing around filing their nails? These people are busy.
Ben-David also says: "BUT there are many other situations where a short, direct airplane trip can be easily handled by most kids. With the extra-supervision fees and engaged adults at either terminus."
Perhaps the single, childless, snarky people commenting here have some wisdom to offer you. Seems you're the one living the parental fantasy life where everything about travel these days is rosy, and there's never any prospect of an airport say, being evacuated for a bomb threat. Whoops!
Amy Alkon at November 25, 2007 11:26 AM
"As Crid's pointed out, just because you pay for something doesn't mean you'll get it. And if you don't, what are you gonna do, sue?"
Amy,
The same odd argument - as if consumer rights are, by definition, a lazy parent's cop-out - applies to tons of crucial stuff relating to child safety - from cribs to bike helmets.
Jody Tresidder at November 25, 2007 11:54 AM
What's "odd"?
We, the contentedly childless, will proudly stand beside you in matters of consumer justice. We just don't think it's "crucial" that flying be made superconvenient for unattended children. Doing so would make it even more burdensome for the rest of us, including those of us who have the time (or affection) to fly with the kids where they need to go.
Crid at November 25, 2007 12:31 PM
Doing so would make it even more burdensome for the rest of us, including those of us who have the time (or affection) to fly with the kids where they need to go.
Damn straight Crid. This is a huge crux for me. I have kids (well, one with one due any time now). I, on rare occasions fly with my family (not to worry, won't happen with the soon to come, until he's past squalling infant stage). Should the worse happen and there is a problem, I want to focus on my own child, not yours. Unfortunately, I tend to believe that fucked up parents should not mean total detriment to the child. I.e., I will do what I can for your kid too. I just shouldn't fucking have to. Especially with my own concerns to deal with.
Don't take this as a comfort. Don't assume that people like me will be on your kids flight. Don't assume that the massive payout from a fucking lawsuit is going to assuage your guilt or bring your kid back if something horrible happens. Don't assume that the aforementioned lawsuit will be any comparable comfort to your kid if they, say, get raped at thirty thousand feet. And don't assume that even if I'm on their flight, that I will be able to help them. Because my kids are my absolute priority. Even if I am and I can help them, fuck you for putting me into that situation.
DuWayne at November 25, 2007 12:53 PM
"We just don't think it's "crucial" that flying be made superconvenient for unattended children."
Sorry, Crid - you'll have to define "superconvenient" for me.
Because you've already indicated (somewhere above) that you find it theoretically superinconvenient if a stewardess is late with your second packet of peanuts because she's helping a solo poppet reach the overhead locker.
Oh yeah, here's the quote: "And I don't want the fucking stewardesses distracted with the little fuckwits while they ought to be attending to my safety. Or my Cabernet.I hate children."
So we may have vastly different definitions here.
And I suspect a private jet might be the only answer to your real issues.
Jody Tresidder at November 25, 2007 1:00 PM
"I suspect a lot of cheap, lazy, and cheap, lazy, divorced parents are foisting parenting on people who have another job already, and frankly, aren't that prepared to deal with anything more than seeing the kid gets his or her peanuts."
"It's called "Delta Airlines," not "Delta Mommy."
For the record, I am neither cheap nor lazy and I wasn't a cheap, lazy parent. As a widow I could have used some help with getting the kids where they needed to go. But with one kid going one place and the other going somewhere else I just couldn't always fly with both of them.
And I didn't expect the flight attendants to parent them...just give them their pretzels and coke and leave them alone with their books and gameboys.
Did I take a calculated risk, well of course. But I didn't think that it was probable that they would come be seated next to child molesters or worse.
In addition to flying unaccompanied they took trains, subways, and streetcars (in a foreign city no less) without my supervison. They also rode bikes, skied, snow boarded and skateboarded without helmets, probably even more risky on a statistical basis than flying alone.
Of course all of this was in a pre 9/11 world.
Granted air travel isn't pleasant now, but I don't remember it being so great before 9/11.
I think today if my daughter were still a teenager and if I had the choice between sending her to a summer language program in Spain or having her stay home and take spanish lessons in summer school (the cheap and lazy choice) I'd still probably opt for her to go abroad even if it meant travelling alone.
westside at November 25, 2007 3:11 PM
((...I'd still probably opt for her to go abroad even if it meant travelling alone.)))
That's all the point I was trying to make. Right now the media and certain others who like to talk want you to be so preoccupied with tiny risks that no matter what your motivation or how you manage the details, it's all about what you DIDN"T do to assuage that tiny risk. Most of the folks making the harshest argument on that are the childless folks. I get why that is- nobody would ever have kids if they couldn't ignore this crap to an extent.
I'm not sending my kid on a plane unsupervised, I'd buy a ticket and go with her. I'd see it as an excuse to go to Paris. But I just don't see the big deal here. You walk the kid to the gate, watch him board, watch the plane take off, and you have a trusted adult doing the same at the other side. The hullaballoo here is about the liklihood of a bomb threat clearing the destination terminal? Yeah, there's a small liklihood there, but if I worried about every liklihood that small, I wouldn't have time to do anything else.
Honestly, sometimes it feels like a conspiracy in the media to drive you crazy with a million tiny worries, especially when it comes to parenting. You just can't do anything without some nanny in your face about the riiiiskkks. It has an unsubtle judgemental undertone to it, like I chose to do something that a certain group of folks thinks is unadvised (have a kid) and so my punishment is a lifetime of inconvenience and pain for the sake of inconvenience and pain. And if I'm not beaten down enough by the process, it's some kind of deficiency on my part. Anyone else get that feeling, or am I just nuts?
Allison at November 25, 2007 5:55 PM
Ladies, you're absolutely right. Teaching your teenager(!) how to deal with things is admirable! Everyone is glad when you raise your kids that way. Nobody complains when children travel well. As a bitter, sullen, vaguely-alcoholic and fully-distractable bachelor, I've actually complimented parents who've provided a well-behaved child as my trans-Pacific seat mate. Better a self-contained urchin than a fat, sweaty guy who wants to shout about a Kennedy assassination conspiracy over the roar of Pratt & Whitney. I think the complaint is with people who put their kids out there without giving them resources or instructions or courtesies to get along when something goes wrong, and then expect other people to clean up the mess. (And yes, that includes unscheduled stops and destinations.)
Especially when it gets to complaining about the airlines. The airlines are in a weird position. They don't want to acknowledge all the bad things that can happen, because it's bad for business. But they can't really drop everything to make sure that little Joshua and Madison have a steady buzz of Diet Coke and are enjoying the fluffy clouds and thinking warm thoughts about Grandma.
So corporations do what corporations do... The turn a trivial set of services (an extra cookie, a "free" TV headset, and extra stewardess visit every 700 nautical miles) into a neatly-packaged product to get the parents off their back, and maybe drop a few extra ducats into the bottom line. And they hope for the best.
But again, I sympathize with them, because there are parents (mostly divorced and harried singles) who will abuse any patience or privilege. And nothing brings arrogant self-righteousness to American hearts in these decades like saying that something something should be done "for the children." That's why Reno burned down the compound in Waco, fer Chrissake... She did it for the children.
Crid at November 25, 2007 6:33 PM
Finally looked it up on the Continental website. Children travelling alone pay the adult fare, and the fee for the extra service is $50. Service includes:
* Personally greet your child
* Introduce your child to the cockpit, time permitting
* Take your child to their seat and assist with carry on items
* Orient your child to the safety features of the aircraft
* Point out lavatory locations.
For the record, they do all that stuff for adults for free. The web page explicitly says they won't help your child take drugs. Just saying. They can't even buy the sulfate-laden, skin-itchy Cabernet in those plastic bottles for $4.
Also, this is fun: "Children traveling alone under the age of 15 years will not be accepted on any flights operated by Continental that connect to/from Air France, Alitalia, Emirates or Hawaiian Airlines operated flights." They don't want any white slavin' goin' on, and I think we all know what those rat bastard French are up to.
I took Continental Micronesia (aka Connie Mike) to Palau once. They were real nice. Good food.
Adulthood makes life worth living.
Crid at November 25, 2007 7:10 PM
"And nothing brings arrogant self-righteousness to American hearts in these decades like saying that something something should be done "for the children."
It's ironic then, Crid, that you use precisely this self-righteous whine yourself!
"So even though the kid's too old to worry about traveling any more, he/she has adopted a lifelong posture of terrified defensiveness and blasé disinterest in the lives of passersby."
Here you cloak your bachelor peevishness at being bothered by brats on board planes with concern about their damaged, tender inner lives!
And no wonder the kiddies are in a walking coma, you argue, since they're all just a a few seconds from a pedophile lurking in the airport gents!
In some respects I agree that: "Adulthood makes life worth living."
But childhood shouldn't be a plastic prison right up until the moment you transform into an adult either.
Jody Tresidder at November 26, 2007 5:27 AM
Dang!
Shoulda written "an infantilizing incarceration" instead of "a plastic prison".
(l'esprit d'escalier!)
Jody Tresidder at November 26, 2007 6:41 AM
But childhood shouldn't be a plastic prison right up until the moment you transform into an adult either.
And adulthood shouldn't be transformed into Chuck E. Cheese just because some parent couldn't get a babysitter.
Amy Alkon at November 26, 2007 6:46 AM
Amy,
I couldn't agree more about the Chuck E. Cheese thing.
Though, as an adult, single, male passenger Crid is in the least likely demographic to be plonked next to a lone brat during air travel. That's been a given for most airlines' unaccompanied minors seating policy for ages now.
(Also, the CNN link at the top of your post has an excellent reminder list for parents of the basic precautions they should take for all kids taking solo trips - no matter how short a hop it might be. So, thank you!)
Jody Tresidder at November 26, 2007 8:34 AM
That's been a given for most airlines' unaccompanied minors seating policy for ages now.
This is disgusting discrimination against men. I've written about that here:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2007/05/diddle_he_or_di.html
And it means some loud brat is more likely to be seated next to me!
Amy Alkon at November 26, 2007 9:48 AM
"And it means some loud brat is more likely to be seated next to me!"
Time for those hats, that smile and the upgrade, Amy!
(Yeah, it is pretty insulting. But I expect it's because of all those pedophile politicians in the airport restrooms Crid kept talking about. The airlines reckon the kiddies should at least get a break during the flight!)
Jody Tresidder at November 26, 2007 10:00 AM
With all due respect Kimberly as a very involved grandmother (I live with my daughter and my four-year-old grandson and have been a part of his daily life since he was half a year old and mom fled a domestic violence situation and, frankly, am not only his caretaker while mom works evenings but his main financial support), much as I'd want to see my grandson if I were deathly ill I would not want my daughter to send him to me alone on a plane (or by any other means). I would rather converse by phone than have the stress of worrying about him on his solo flight to and from my bedside. My daughter would catch holy hell from me if he traveled alone. Well, assuming I had the strength to give it to her. And if I didn't, I'm sure the visit would do nothing but show the poor kid how out of it Grammy was. That said, if she could scrape together the money to come with him, of course, it'd mean the world to me but, man, if we ever move that far apart, don't send the kid alone.
Donna at November 26, 2007 11:14 AM
Okay, Rad, point well taken. Obviously, a 17 year old could handle things a 7 year old couldn't. I guess, however, I displayed by financial naivete coming from a world where teens don't have credit cards and, in all honesty, I've only flown once myself. I figured there could be decisions that legally speaking you had to be at least 18 to make so I only claim ignorance due to being financially challenged (eww, sorry about the PC label, almost puked myself).
Donna at November 26, 2007 11:30 AM
Donna,
Most airlines would agree that your grandson is, in contrast to Kimberly's then seven-year-old son, too young to fly on his own at four. So no need to worry yet!
Googling shows..."Most airlines have a minimum age for unaccompanied children, typically five..."
Jody Tresidder at November 26, 2007 11:30 AM
Jody, all you do is fart. You're wearisome: You step into these threads, rip cheese (always with a single, pearly, continental catchword), and walk... And when the terms you present fom your wounded little responses are considered (perfectly trained solo traveling teenagers/odd/crucial), all of the sudden you're taking it from the top and asking for more information, as if you don't know who authored that Eurotrash-accented buttbelch a moment ago, or even what the topic was. This is about the twentieth time you've done this. Some of us make clear, affirmative cases for our beliefs and principles, and consider the thoughts of others in good faith. If you're as oblivious as you act, you should stay out of the way of people who are working to communicate. Your tiny, smirking shitballs won't be missed. If it's all so beneath you, go away.
Crid at November 26, 2007 11:42 AM
Wow,
My sister and I were traveling alone on airplane flights from the time we were 11. Of course we were the daughters of an airline pilot and had, by that point been on countless trips already. (Even visited the simulator a few times. I could land a 737 in good weather if I had to). We always traveled non-rev space available so we knew how to get on a different flight if we missed/ got bumped off a connection. It was the inconvenience you accepted to be able to travel for free.
Again though, this was pre 9-11 when the FAs had a little more time to keep an eye on kids, flights weren't overbooked to the degree they are today, when the gate agents were paid enough to be pleasant and helpful, and when mom and dad could walk you right up to the gate. Things have changed. I grew up in a unique set of circumstances. Unless my kid had flown a bajillion trips across the country like I had at that age (very doubtful), they aren't getting on a plane by themselves until they are well into their teens and more importantly, have a track record for horse-sense.
How conversant were Sister and I with airports?
Well . . . .
In a spectacular display of dubious parenting, mom and dad would let me and my sister pack a lunch, fly to DC in the morning, take the metro to the National Zoo, then fly home in the afternoon. It was cheaper than going to the movies or hanging out at the mall. Yes, we had made this trip hundreds of times with mom, and yes, it was a safer part of DC, but still . . . We would have been 16/17. Sometimes I wonder how I survived my childhood.
Elle at November 26, 2007 12:37 PM
> Sometimes I wonder how I
> survived my childhood.
Being born into it probably helped. Back in our high school, the girl with the prettiest smile was the daughter of a dentist. And airline pilots tend to lead pretty good families anyway, right? They're clear-headed and disciplined people.
Crid at November 26, 2007 12:44 PM
I don't walk away from my comments, Crid.
But, yes, you can always shut me out when you chuck your 'word salad' insults. I haven't the foggiest what goes on when you snap like this and you've written some remarkably daft things in this thread.
Simmer down and don't be such a bully.
Jody Tresidder at November 26, 2007 1:21 PM
> I don't walk away from my comments
You've never made any, Jody... You've never offered or defended a sentence's worth of an idea with anything but one of your little snot rockets. "Remarkably daft things" will never be described or defended with any specifics or discussion. I'm pretty sure you're not very bright, and certain you're not very courageous about your convictions. That's not a problem! A lot of people on the internet are like that. But you ought to stay out of the way. It would be courteous of you.
Crid at November 26, 2007 2:35 PM
"... You've never offered or defended a sentence's worth of an idea with anything but one of your little snot rockets."
Really, Crid?
You made ELEVEN gigantically generalizing comments about parents, airline travel and children on this thread before I ventured a SINGLE one.
Your (loosely) main points seemed to be that it is "hateful" to pretend flying is anything but an adult experience, that divorced parents subject their kids to solo trips because the former are emotional cheapskates, that parents risk getting their kids' dicks sucked by pervy politicians at airports, that you hate kids, that coping with flying traumatizes kids, that parents are fooling themselves if they think solo air travel is worth the risks, and also that the very fact of children traveling alone actually compromises your safety and comfort by distracting airline staff from the important job of looking after Crid.
Because I am a well traveled parent, with teenagers who successfully fly on their own because they are extremely experienced international travelers for their ages and I know something about this subject, I disagreed.
My experienced, perfectly-behaved-in-airplanes kids do not remotely fit any of your examples.
Your complaints added up to no more than a self-serving curmudgeon's charter for child-free travel disguised as concern "for the children".
This was rich, since you had already sneered at the blanket excuse of "for the children".
I poked fun at your hysterical, made-up, dick-sucking-senator-in-the-airport example - which you threw into the debate twice because you thought it so splendid.
I disagreed that parents should NOT use their consumer muscle to expect airlines to give passenger-children the special attention the airlines offer (for a fee).
I stated - as a fact - that you were the least likely person to be troubled by lone kids on a plane since you're a single, adult male passenger.
I stated - as a fact - the standard minimum unaccompanied minor flying age.
I stated - as a fact - that Amy's link contained sound precautions for parents to heed before their kids take off alone.
Then you started the childish fart 'n snot insults.
Now you're piling them on further - as distraction, I assume..
The only funny thing is that while taking the time to type this, I spoke to my eldest teenage son (who is away at college). He is flying to Poland tomorrow afternoon for a film festival.
You know what he was doing while we were "Skyping", Crid?
He was going through the downloaded print outs of the layout of the UK airport he leaves from (because it's one he doesn't know). And he was checking the layouts of the unfamiliar Polish airport he arrives at - because he needs to get a bus to the right trolley stop to get to the hotel. And you know what else he'd checked? Yeah, the embassy address in case of problems.
When was the last time you were that prepared?
And why does he do all this as second nature, Crid?
Because - like his brother - he is a perfectly trained teenage traveler.
So stuff that in your screw top Cabernet next time you're strapped into a seat with a food tray in front (like a big, lolling toddler) for the "adult only" experience of air travel.
Roget and out.
(Yup, that's a UK joke - read your Ken Tynan, you rude oik).
Jody Tresidder at November 26, 2007 4:13 PM
"But you ought to stay out of the way. It would be courteous of you."
Oh - and I forgot that bit.
Interesting how your this encapsulates your attitude to little kids in airports.
It comes across as cowardly and bullying.
Jody Tresidder at November 26, 2007 4:39 PM
> You made ELEVEN gigantically
> generalizing comments about
> parents, airline travel and
> children on this thread before
> I ventured a SINGLE one.
Amy LETS us say as MUCH as we WANT. This isn't TENNIS, where people TRADE volleys.
> Because - like his brother -
> he is a...
How did you come to believe I give a rat's ass about your children? Is this part of what Amy's post is about, that you expect us to pinch their cheeks and tell them how grown up they seem until they blush and look at their shoes? By the time they're teens, we'd expect them to be able to handle some travel independently. Amy's post was about how some parents, because they're self-righteous consumers, expect airlines to freely deliver parental care to their children. I think Amy's correct to call that ridiculous. Parenthood is a personal project. The rest of the world should not be compelled to take part. This ain't Hillary's village.
> It comes across as cowardly
> and bullying.
The bullying part was intentional. If my comments don't inform, impress, and delight you, don't read them. Otherwise you should take a point, make a point, or be quiet.
Crid at November 26, 2007 6:51 PM
"The bullying part was intentional. If my comments don't inform, impress, and delight you, don't read them. Otherwise you should take a point, make a point, or be quiet."
Um, likewise, Crid?
(Except I really try not to bully.)
Jody Tresidder at November 26, 2007 7:22 PM
Sumbuddy crack a window.
Crid at November 26, 2007 10:32 PM
Jody, I meant when he is 7 -- or 10. He's now 4 and I live with him and, frankly, hope we never live that far apart but I don't have a crystal ball and don't believe in their accuracy even if I did. Frankly, for the price of a plane ticket, that's a hell of a lot of phone calls and much more contact/quality time albeit bereft of hugs and kisses and looking into his eyes. Much as I'd miss the hugs and kisses, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. More mind to mind, less physical and if he could only come alone at a too young age, I'd prefer the conversations and having the peace of mind of his safety. Would I want to see him before I died? Of course. But not as much as I'd want to die knowing his mom was taking good care of him until he's old enough to fend for himself.
Donna at November 27, 2007 9:54 AM
Leave a comment