The airlines allow this? They should be taken to task for it. It's against the law in a car; it should be in a plane and, frankly, it's more enforceable there. And you'd think they'd have a better design for the harness by now.

What a pain in the ass to use one of those things! I flew with my then almost 3-year-old when pregnant with #2. I brought her carseat with me, sat it on the plane seat, sat her little behind in it, and strapped her in! Took a lot less time than fumbling around with multiple straps and tray tables, not to mention taking less time standing in the aisle, blocking other passengers from reaching their seats. (Granted, the carseat was a pain in the ass to deal with too, but at least it saved me time and trouble on the plane, and the cost of renting one for the rental car when we got to our destination. YMMV) o_O

Once when my son was just over two (but still small and underdeveloped for his age) we'd schlepped his carseat through the airport and onto the plane with us, only to have the flight attendant tell us that it wasn't an "FAA approved" carseat, so we'd have to stow it and hold him on our laps anyway.

"Frankly, if you spawned, I really don't want it to be my problem."

What's interesting about this take on the immanent Sprogly problem is that it may, all by itself, demonstrate the biological limits of rationality. Brains with an aptitude for this attitude fall out of the gene pool.

To be consistent in your rejection of any impact of other people's spawn on your life, do you have to refuse to consume any goods and services produced by people younger than yourself? They are after all cheaper to employ, as a rule, so you are in that sense a beneficiary of their presence in society.

If segmented secession becomes popular, hell if it even becomes feasible, I'm going to declare myself entitled to live in a world without stupid people...

phunctor has a round about way of expressing it, but I think I see what (s)he is trying to say.

I have never really wanted kids and I hate listening to their tantrums and I always cringe when getting on a plane and see kids in line for the same flight...yet something in many of Amys remarks about kids sounds...well...harsher than necessary. I am not sure if it a flair for the dramatic to make her columns more engaging or what, but I am personally doubting the "extremeness" of her remarks.

To be consistent in your rejection of any impact of other people's spawn on your life, do you have to refuse to consume any goods and services produced by people younger than yourself? They are after all cheaper to employ, as a rule, so you are in that sense a beneficiary of their presence in society.

These two things aren't connected. Do you understand the difference between free-market capitalism and having to play tray-table servant to somebody's family choices?

You should do a commentary track the next time they publish a new Fearless DVD.

My husband started flying on his own internationally very young (boarding school brat) when airlines charged a bargain half price for all minors, unaccompanied or otherwise.

On the rare occasions when a flight was absolutely full, random "children" were strapped in one seat together. (I guess the thinking was "bargain price = bargain treatment").

He still remembers with dreamy fondness a solidly booked, bumpy flight from London to Vienna when he was a typical 14-year-old boys' boarding school pupil. He was firmly buckled in for the duration on the lap of a tall, gorgeous 16-year-old girl.

I am not sure if it a flair for the dramatic to make her columns more engaging or what, but I am personally doubting the "extremeness" of her remarks.

You think I secretly enjoy bratty children?

Well, it's not necessarily bratty children that cause the seat tray inconvenience. They could be entirely polite and quiet children, with parents who have paid full fare for the seats and its the design of the seat belt that is the problem. Not entirely fair to blame that inconvenience on the parent's procreation.

Insisting kids are in a child or booster seat that fastens into the normal belt system seems like a reasonable solution. And the whole pre-boarding with young kids thing should prevent too much hassle for other passengers.

Now....what can we do about fat people on planes? I can only shrink so small in my seat!

I really enjoy Amy's blog, her advice column is great and I'm usually in total agreement with her advice. Here it comes... BUT,

Amy, your rants against children are short sighted and anti-societal (did I make that phrase up?). Kids are a fact of life, they don't have to be directly present in your life, but they can't be kept locked away from the world until they are 20 - 25 years old. The small inconveniences (like having to switch seats with someone who doesn't mind not having a tray) are the price everyone can afford to pay for the propagation of the species.

I readily agree with you that too many parents don't actually raise their kids, they just watch them grow. However, you go over the top, part of living in a society is going along to get along. Next time you encounter a mild inconvenience try just rolling your eyes and laughing to yourself about the situation, it'll do wonders for your blood pressure.

Keep up the great work Amy.

Kids are a fact of life, they don't have to be directly present in your life, but they can't be kept locked away from the world until they are 20 - 25 years old.

And they don't need to be if they're taught to have manners.

The "bratty kids" remark was directed to some speculation that I'm engaging in some form of "extremeness" vis a vis my remarks on children.

My remarks about the device are about how a solution that involves the person behind the child being involved repeatedly throughout a flight isn't a solution.

"The small inconveniences (like having to switch seats with someone who doesn't mind not having a tray) are the price everyone can afford to pay for the propagation of the species."

Great! I'm perfectly fine with you being disturbed throughout a flight by somebody with a kid in a harness.

> On taxiing, takeoff, landing, and every time the person behind the kid wants to use their tray table, right? Or am I somehow missing something?

You are missing something. The strap is to be placed over the tray table at times when FAA regulations mandate that the table be stowed anyway, so that's no inconvenience. At other times, it can be behind the tray table, so the passenger behind won't be able to stow it, or at least not completely. Yes, it's an inconvenience but not quite the inconvenience you imagined. If I was the 'victim' of this device I would certainly invent a way of almost-completely stowing my tray table, and I'd say Hi to the kid, too.

While I agree that Amy's language is unnecessarily harsh ("spawn"?) and frequently lacks appropriate qualifiers, I think we can all agree that there are way too many parents who seem to be completely unaware that their precious progeny are, in fact, brats. The consequences of bratty kids are magnified in the claustrophobic confines of an airliner, so it's not unexpected that people would react more vehemently.

I'm the proud father of two daughters (we're still hoping for more), and one of my most important tasks is to train them to be likable (i.e., good manners -- a seemingly unfashionable concept these days). To get out of other peoples' way when we're walking through the grocery store. To not blather on for five minutes straight, but to ask questions of the other person. To offer a snack to a guest before grabbing for oneself. Etc.

I enthusiastically agree with Aardvark's point about society paying a price for its own propagation; I'm guessing that Aardvark would agree that the price does not include putting up with actual brats on an airplane.

When did flying with children become part of the birth process?

Is this why I havent been getting sex, you can only have it in an airplane while a child sits in a seat you paid for?

When did it get THAT complicated?

What brings an 18-year-old story out of the history archives. Anyway, there is something wrong with this story.

When our first child was born, we had to take several trips while he was an infant. Not ideal, but life happens. The airlines provided a special kind of "seat belt" for him that attached to the front of my strap. Not ideal, but definitely better than nothing. That was in the mid 1990's in Europe, but I can't really imagine it was any different in the USA.

On a more general note: Amy, your writing is generally great, but you have a thing about kids. Yes, there are ill-behaved kids. However, "spawn" is a deliberately offensive term that you toss around at every opportunity. It's like finding an ad hominem attack in the middle of an otherwise well-written essay - really rather a let down.

Sorry not that easy, got to back it up

Why did both you and your wife have to take several trips by areoplane?

"You think I secretly enjoy bratty children?"

Nobody likes a bratty anybody. I am simply trying to point out that we read your blog without any insight into you as a "real person"...and there are times that your blogs can come across as "child hating" (and I do know someone who actively hates kids - she's extreme). I am doubting that you are actually a child hater... we may read more into your blogs because you are aiming at poking a little fun at a real situation...and that may not always come across properly in writing.

My favorite commercial is of young man of about 25 in a grocery store who watches an annoying child throw a temper tantrum over getting candies. The ad was for condoms. hahaha!

Why not put the families with the babies who need the harnesses in the back row of the plane (or in the back rows of sections), so that there is no one behind them? You should have to note when booking that you have a baby and will need to use one of the harnesses.

Very good idea, Gail.

And I LOVE that condom ad.

I also love about six kids in the world, all of them smart, well-behaved, and adorable. Best of all, none of them came out of my body.

Here's one of them.

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2005/11/where_the_wild_1.html

“As to reckless aspects of air travel, I put the situation of the lap babies at the top.”

Wow. Betsy Wade needs to take a vacation. Preferably somewhere far away. Preferably somewhere she would have to take an airplane flight to get to. Let her suffer in the midst of Lap-Baby Hell, I say. That’s what she deserves for using hysterical language and the ever popular Oh-My-God-it’s-a-BABY!! hype as a crux for her article.

Reckless aspects of air travel, indeed. Airline travel is about the safest travel there is. (I’ll caveat that statement by saying—at least in the US and presumably other industrialized nations). I’ve read that in several places over the course of the years. No, I don’t have any links, but according to this site:http://www.airline-safety-records.com/a_five_year_table.htm (sorry, I’m too weary at the moment to figure out coding) which gets it data from Federal Aviation Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the U.S. Department of Transportation, accidents at takeoff are nominal. For example, over the course of five years, Continental Airlines has had 3.17 accidents per MILLION takeoffs. The site also supplies other statistics as well, such as overall accidents and fatalities per flight hours.

To go on and on about babies hurtling through the air and landing in overhead bins, based on one source from 1989 – (that’s 18 years ago, for crissakes!!) in order to create hysteria over accidents that just don’t happen with any kind of note is just … irresponsible for someone writing for a major publication. Or maybe she was bored, or just out of ideas … whatever. I don’t know Betsy Wade. Maybe she’s an absolutely wonderful person. But based on this tidbit here, I’ll have to shelve her into my “hysterical person blathering on about nothing” file.

Really, who cares if someone holds their child during a flight? Especially a small infant who may need to be fed and Mom/Dad’s arms calm them down, making them less susceptible to crying? As long as the baby isn’t crawling all over you, why should you care? The real fact is, just the sight of a possibly annoying baby, possibly grabbing, possibly urping-up on me, possibly pooping, possibly slobbering, possibly wailing baby is just … well, annoying.

So if you want to talk about crying babies and things which can make a person nutso, ready to do something REALLY reckless like say, drinking extra-dry martini’s (just wave the vermouth bottle in the general direction of the glass and plop the olives in, please) whilst pulling one’s hair out and trying to stop the temptation to sneak one to the baby while Mommy isn’t looking -- well then, that might be something I’d be interested in reading. Not that I’ve ever done that.

Of the many evils in the universe, killer babies are obviously the one we must stop first! ;)

http://www.howtoadvice.com/FlightSafety/

* Carry-on items could become flying projectiles during turbulence. Heavy items and baggage with sharp corners can be hazardous.

So can some cheapwad's baby.

I'm still waiting for an explination from bradley13 on why both he and his wife had to take mulitpuple flights while their child was an infant

"I'm still waiting for an explination from bradley13 on why both he and his wife had to take mulitpuple flights while their child was an infant"

Maybe if you sounded less like a schoolmaster about to give a detention, bradley13 might reply lujlp?

"..are the price everyone can afford to pay for the propagation of the species."

Regardless of whether I can afford it, I was not consulted about the purchase and I did not agree to pay the price.

I am not aware of a rational reason for propagating the species. There may come a time that I will need someone else to wipe my ass/ change my diapers, and that someone will presumably be younger than I. That concession aside - nobody's doing me a personal favor by reproducing.

If you choose to indulge your whims by reproducing, do not shift my way the costs or burdens associated with training your children.I will protest if you insist on parenting at my expense. I include, under "expense," being exposed to behaviors or risks that are inappropriate to the public venue we may find ourselves occupying at the same time.

I do believe that publicly funded education is a matter of national defense, as necessary to maintain a democratic republic. In keeping with my belief that efficiency, capitalism and humanity as a whole are best served when the class one is born into does not dictate one's future, I also support public funding of health care for children whose parents are poor. With foreknowledge and representation, tax my pay check for these items as needed. Do *not* tax my patience by depriving me of the value of the plane ticket I paid for, or by using a coffee house, restaurant or store as an off-leash area for your kid.

The fact that the odds of an accident on take off or landing are low, will not console me if I suffer a spinal cord injury in one of those accidents as a result of having a child slam into my head. I would be plagued by the knowledge that the injuries suffered by a small child and by myself were both predictable and reasonably preventable. In terms of risk management, it is obscene to take this unnecessary risk with the life of a child, and others, given the potential for such dire consequences.

Jody, you aren't wrong. I decided my initial reply wasn't going to be, well, appropriate. From the way lujlp worded the request, it's clear than any reason short of the end of the world will be read as inadequate. Suffice it to say that the reasons were sufficient.

Michelle, continuing the general harangue, writes "Do *not* tax my patience by depriving me of the value of the plane ticket I paid for, or by using a coffee house, restaurant or store as an off-leash area for your kid."

This is the sort of over-the-top attitude - right along with use of the term "spawn" - that comes across as completely unrealistic.

Yes, there are ill-behaved kides, and they drive me just as crazy as anyone (I met three yesterday at a Christmas market - running around getting in everyone else's face - parents no where in sight).

But there are examples on the other side as well. At the public swimming pool, a woman is doing her "water jogging" or whatever you call it. Across the pool, several kids are playing with a ball, which gets whacked to hard and splashes the woman.

She snarled "if you do that again I'll puncture your ball". If she can't deal with kids in places where they have every right to be, it's her problem, not mine and not my kids'.

By the same token, kids have every right to be on the plane, in a coffee house or in a store. As long as the kids are well-behaved, and the adults are well-behaved, we'll all get along just fine...

"As long as the kids are well-behaved, and the adults are well-behaved, we'll all get along just fine..."

I agree with that completely. What I disagree with is the characterization that it is "over the top" to assert that poor behavior and unnecessary, potentially fatal risks should should not be excused in public places. If you can't get your kid (or your self) to behave, get your kid/ self out.

"That concession aside - nobody's doing me a personal favor by reproducing."

Apart from your parents, you mean:)

I am not aware of a rational reason for propagating the species.

If you choose to indulge your whims by reproducing...

Gawd, Michelle. I'll bet you're a real joy to be around. "Kids, auntie Michelle is here! Put on your straightjackets and muzzles and lock yourselves into the attic! And do it quietly!"

Well, one consolation for the rest of us is that advocates for societal suicide (coughMichellecough) are self-limiting.

Also: Game, set and match to Jody. Zing!

Happy Christmas all - esp. you Splashman:)

> ...if I suffer a spinal cord injury in one of those accidents as a result of having a child slam into my head.

That's not gonna happen Michelle. Your head's gonna be FIRMLY DOWN into a pillow on your knees. Happy Christmas.

"Apart from your parents, you mean:)"

No, I don't mean that. Their reasons for reproducing were selfish. There isn't an inherent contradiction between a selfish act and an act of goodwill - still, I don't think I was banging on the door, begging to be born and in need of the favor.

"...advocates for societal suicide (coughMichellecough) are self-limiting."

Only genetically.

As for the "Auntie Michelle" bit, my friends bring their children to my home - where they behave well, often unsupervised, because they are being raised well. I can have a party of 80 people in my small home, and the kids who meet one another at the party play together in a way that doesn't disrupt the adults or harm the kids. Knowing that the adults who are in charge are also in control gives kids a sense of security that obviates a need to act out and allows them to relax.

SO to recap wanting an explination is proof that I'll refuse to accept it - Nice catch 22 brad, I guess you really showed us

And which ever moron suggested that putting up with loud, ill behaved, under parented childern of morons was a pric we had to pay for the continuation of the species. I would like to remind you tere are currently more than 6 billion people on the planet, anf the human race can easily survive with a few hunndered thousand or, if your as good at math as you are at thinking, 0.005%

Take everyone in the world and remove 999 out of 1000 of those left remove 19 0ut of twenty and you would have more than enough people to continue the species

Whenever I have flown with the small child, I have gotten him a seat of his own and made arrangements beforehand to ensure he's strapped in safely. We have, in fact, made this issue a deal-breaker on which airlines we will fly. We fly America West, which is both cheap and allows us to use our own seat. I don't do this out of consideration for others (never really thought about it in terms of my child becoming a projectile to injure others) but out of consideration for his safety. Kind of a no-brainer for me.

Bradley13 -

My favorite is the morons that decide to sit on a bench in the park, close to the playground, then bitch up a storm when the kids annoy them. I am the type of asshole parent that has no quams about calling them on it. Especially if they threaten to do something mean to kids toys.

I also had a rather interesting experience in a coffee shop a few months ago. I was there with a friend and our kids, both rather well behaved. We were talking while the kids were reading together. They were just a little on the exuberant side (not in a big way, just laughing a lot because the book was very silly), so we sat on the patio, away from other patrons.

Someone gave a stage whisper about kids in coffee shops and the rudeness of it. Less than five minutes later, in a fit of extreme irony, their dog knocked into their table, spilling two drinks. My son got up and went inside, coming out moments later with several towels to help clean up their mess. My buddy then decided to go over and mention how sorry he was for the presence of our "damn" kids. Dog-owner's face turned a particularly pleasant shade of red.

Airlines permit lap children under two because, among other reason, statistical analysis shows that the practice saves lives. How? A percentage of parents with kids under two will drive instead of fly if they have to buy an extra seat for the kid in order to board the plane. Driving is much, much more dangerous than flying, from an average statistical point of view. Now, that having been said, I think all of us, if we had to choose, would choose to be in a car crash over an airplane crash...but, on average, you're going to have more maimed or dead kids if lap kids are disallowed.

That having been said, I've been flying since I was under two months old, and I always had my own seat. I myself would prefer to give up DVDs for a year to avoid flying with a lap kid. But there's a reason that lap kids are still allowed in an era when children in every other type of vehicle are supposed to be in one sort of car seat or another until they're old enough to drive themselves.

As for Amy's choice of words: Amy often expresses herself extremely for effect. Given that she frequently refers to *herself* in terms such as "barren" and "godless harlot," I think we can safely conclude that she spares no one. Much like the original Bloom County, she's an equal-opportunity mocker. That's her style. That's why she can make her living writing an advice column while most of us have to work for The Man. I may not always agree with her (how boring life would be then!), but I enjoy reading prose that's vivid rather than beige. YMMV.

Love that story, DuWayne.

Much like the original Bloom County, she's an equal-opportunity mocker. That's her style. That's why she can make her living writing an advice column while most of us have to work for The Man. I may not always agree with her (how boring life would be then!), but I enjoy reading prose that's vivid rather than beige. YMMV

Thanks. Marion gets it.

You should have heard me making fun of myself for my ADHD to the lady at the Tourette's association. (After I ran my Tourette's joke by her.)

BTW, I often use the term "spawn" myself, occasionally to describe my own kids. I really don't see it any more derogatory than being described as a "breeder," which, given the very large number of queer friends I have, I get a lot.

I feel I have to come to Amy's and Michelle's defense here. Using words like "spawn" to refer to children is, at least in my case, a reaction to our society's treacle-coated, nauseatingly romanticized attitude towards the "bundles of joy." Those of us who don't melt at the sight of babies and don't particularly enjoy children (with the possible exception of a small handful of well-behaved ones we happen to know well) get annoyed with the constant barrage of cliches about kids being blessings, society's hope, etc., etc. etc.

Furthermore, I'm totally with Michelle. Reproduction these days is a lifestyle choice. People in previous generations weren't heroically propagating the species - they were having kids out of raw necessity, because they were needed to work the farm, run the store, whatever. These days, that's a non-issue in the United States for 99.99% of the population. And why is it so important that the species continue? I'll openly admit to not really caring whether we're around hundreds or thousands of years from now. The evidence points to the fact that we will go extinct someday, whether I choose to care or not. Why do people have such a hard time accepting that?

Thanks, MD. And that is exactly where it's coming from.

MD, thank you for the empathy in your first paragraph and especially for the reasoning in your second. Marion, thank you for the thought-provoking point about the safety benefits to children. DuWayne, thank you for sharing your self effacing sense of humor - I thought of you as I laughed at myself, going from one room to the next, getting things done but forgetting what I went there to grab or do in the first place. Amy - thanks for so often drawing such articulate and intelligent people into discussions. And now I am off into the abyss of holiday preparations.

MD -
...they were having kids out of raw necessity, because they were needed to work the farm, run the store, whatever. These days, that's a non-issue in the United States for 99.99% of the population.

I don't know, my goal in reproducing and attempting not to fuck up my kids, is to have retirement insurance. I hope that at the point I need adult diapers and can't remember my own name, one or both of them will take stellar care of momma and I. Or even better, will put us out of our misery when we get to that point.b