Hire those nannies to entertain the rest of us, too!

Gee, just what you need: another body on a plane, keeping some toddler excited at play...

I agree it's a terrible idea, but I can understand why airlines might feel forced into this. Remember the time a woman sued and got a settlement because her recalcitrant brat wouldn't stop screaming? She tried to assure the flight attendants, "He'll be all right once we're in the air." Did she truly believe that or did she realize that it would no longer be a reasonable option to kick her off the plane along with her screaming child, thus not missing her flight, even if it did mean subjecting the other passengers to her noisy child.

Clearly this airline believes enough of it's customers consist of families that they are willing to go to this length to keep their customers happy. Should McDonalds and (here) Waterloo eliminate their playgrounds? After all-if the kids can't behave at a restaurant, they should stay home, right?

Or maybe-just maybe-business that choose to cater to kids by providing services for them have...I don't know...made a sound business decision, and it's not about crappy parenting? Flights can be VERY long. A little entertainment (in-flight movies, anyone?) can go a long way. No matter what your age.

It may or may not be a good idea, but looking at Etihad's web site, they're pretty obviously a premium airline. My guess is they think of the nannies as an extension of the other things, like videos and toys, they provide to entertain children on the planes. But if you fly with them, you're going to pay for it.

And as M4 points out, on long flights, luxuries like these might be a nice touch. As the flag carrier for the UAE, Etihad has lots of long, long flights.

It's a nice service if you can afford it. Sadly, I can't, but I can see how it would be nice to just be able to sleep the flight and have someone babysit.

As Old RPM and momof4 mentioned, this seems to be more of a "premium" service than a "We need to quiet the insufferable brats" thing.

Considering how many cruise lines (and even Vegas hotels) now include nanny/child care and entertainment services, it could be a good business decision. My parents were awesome (and my sister and I were well behaved), but they took advantage of any and all nanny services/child care perks on all vacations (because they wanted a vacation, too).

I think it's a great idea, and it doesn't have anything to do with bad parenting. It's a premium service, and people will use it. You know, Four Seasons hotels usually offer a babysitting service, and it's one of the reasons affluent families choose that hotel. If you're a kid-hater, you can certainly choose a different airline, just like families can avoid airlines that no longer allow pre-boarding. I don't know why the idea that an airline might actually cater to families would be offensive to anyone.

It's a nice service if you can afford it.

And if you cant afford it dont worry, the price is spread out over eveyones tickets

Entertain your own kids. There must be thousands of portable gadgets in existence designed to keep children amused. If you're going on cruise, yes, I expect the cruise ship to provide diversions for children. A cruise is a floating vacation and they should provide entertainment for all ages.

But when you're employing a travel service, whose only obligation is to get you from point a to point b in a reasonably safe manner, keeping your kids amused for the duration is not the airline's responsibility.

In flight movies are nice, but if they're not available, guess what? I can read a book. I can bring a laptop and watch my own movies. Yet, somehow, you seem to think that because you want to go to Europe and bring a kid with you, the airline has to hire a legion of British nannies for your kids?

I'm a single person with no kids. If I choose to fly somewhere, occupying my mind for the duration is my responsibility. You decide to become a parent, then you've decided to take on the responsibility of keeping both yourself and your kids entertained.

Get it through your head. The kids are your responsibility. Not the airline's. Not Amtrak's. Not the cab driver's. Yours.

Get it?

Yours.

Airlines are a business like any other and some provide a premium service for a premium charge. We all bitch about ill-behaved kids on flights all the time here. Clearly, this airline is recognizing a market for this service. So, this airline offers a nanny service. There are also international flights that no longer allow children at all because they too recognized that there was a market for it. Some parents apparently also take issue with that but as we tell them, there are plenty of airlines that do allow children. They are entitled to cater to whatever clientele they choose. There are plenty of airlines to choose from. if you don't like one's requirements or services, choose another airline. You aren't required to take the nanny-flight any more than you're required to take the no-kids allowed flight.

Honestly though, I'd much rather have this option because frankly, as much as I agree that it's the PARENT'S responsibility to take care of their kid on a flight, we all know that doesn't always happen. If this nanny-flight can help prevent princess from pissing me off to the point of wanting to throttle her and toss her body into the Atlantic, I'll take it.

Either way, you gotta deal with the TSA... :p I take issue with that over this any day.

I was about to mention the no-kid flights, but you beat me to it.

Anyway, here's a link:

https://www.google.com/#q=no-kid+flights

There's been talk of no-kid sea cruises as well.

@Lujlp: "And if you cant afford it dont worry, the price is spread out over eveyones tickets"

So's the movie. And the food, such as it is.

@Patrick: "Yet, somehow, you seem to think that because you want to go to Europe and bring a kid with you, the airline has to hire a legion of British nannies for your kids?"

The airline didn't have to hire them. They chose to, and if you fly Etihad, you get to pay for them. But they ain't the only act in town. From what I could see on their web site, their economy class seats run a little higher than other airlines', and their business- and first-class cabins are far more opulent than Delta's, with prices to match. But except for scale, having in-flight nannies isn't really that different from showing Pixar movies or passing out kiddie swag-bags (which some airlines do).

@Old RPM Daddy: "So's the movie. And the food, such as it is."

The food is for everybody, as is the movie. Therefore, everyone pays for it. The nannies are for people with kids, and no one else. You might argue that it is in everyone's interest to keep the kids quiet. However, that line of reasoning is basically robbing those who choose not to bring kids, or take seriously their responsibility to keep their own kids entertained.

The idea that everyone should have to pay for nannies is holding everyone responsible for the parents abdicating their responsibility. "You have to pay someone to keep my kids quiet or this long flight will become a hell of a lot longer."

I don't know why the idea that an airline might actually cater to families would be offensive to anyone.

Some people are all about free-market economics until the market stumbles upon something that annoys them. They're also supportive of people being able to earn disposable income but seem generally disgusted with what people do with that income. If parents want to pay extra to have someone help out with child care on flights, that's fine with me.

If the idea of nannies on flights annoys you, don't fly with that airline. There are plenty of others.

What Patrick said, plus the sound of children being entertained is just as disruptive as sound of children whining

The food is for everybody, as is the movie.

What if I hate the food and I don't want to see the movie? I don't get a refund.

Some people are all about free-market economics until the market stumbles upon something that annoys them. They're also supportive of people being able to earn disposable income but seem generally disgusted with what people do with that income. If parents want to pay extra to have someone help out with child care on flights, that's fine with me.

Here's the problem, not one cares if PARENTS want to pay THEMSELVES to keep their kids QUIET.

What we have here is EVERYONE paying for a small FEW to have their kids kept ENTERTAINED by magicians and taken up and down the aisles on guided tours

Some people are all about free-market economics until the market stumbles upon something that annoys them. They're also supportive of people being able to earn disposable income but seem generally disgusted with what people do with that income. If parents want to pay extra to have someone help out with child care on flights, that's fine with me.

Here's the problem, not one cares if PARENTS want to pay THEMSELVES to keep their kids QUIET.

What we have here is EVERYONE paying for a small FEW to have their kids kept ENTERTAINED by magicians and taken up and down the aisles on guided tours

Not everyone is paying for this. If the parents aren't paying out of pocket, then the PEOPLE WHO ARE BUYING THE TICKETS FROM THIS AIRLINE are subsidizing the entertainment. And maybe they find it worth it. (Sorry, I couldn't pass up the chance for some caps lock fun.)

The solution is easy: If you don't want to subsidize child entertainment, fly with another airline that meets your needs.

Wanted to add: Kids under 2 don't usually pay to fly. Kids who have their own seats are customers. It's not wrong for an airline to cater to its customers. A family of five that chooses to fly a particular airline is worth more than the solo non-business traveler, and it makes sense that airlines would want to appeal to them.

MonicaP: What if I hate the food and I don't want to see the movie? I don't get a refund.

That's right. You don't. However, these amenities are mentioned in your contract with the airline and you assumed the risk that you might not like the food or the movie, and agreed nonetheless to share in the cost.

Actually, you might complain to the airline if that's the case, and they just might give you something in the way of compensation. Perhaps a discount toward your next flight.

@Patrick: "That's right. You don't. However, these amenities are mentioned in your contract with the airline and you assumed the risk that you might not like the food or the movie, and agreed nonetheless to share in the cost."

But isn't that kind of what you're doing if you agree to fly on Etihad? Aren't the costs of other amenities, like flying nannies, something you agree to when you buy the ticket? Presumably, nobody made you choose this particular carrier. I'm still not seeing the difference here.

Oh no! A company is offering increased customer service! And it's child-centric! The world is going to hell! Cats and dogs living in sin!

I don't see the problem. The whole "but we're all paying for it!!!1!" is bullshit. Don't look now, but if you eat at McDonalds you're also paying for a playground even though you don't have kids! Oh no! At casual restaurants, you're paying for crayons and kids menus! You're paying for the bread that comes for free at most restaurants, even if you don't eat wheat!

If you don't want the cost of a certain amenity folded into your meal or your plane ticket, don't patronize the businesses that offer that amenity. It really is that simple.

Way back in the dark ages of 1989 I remember getting a tour of an airplane when traveling with my dad, incidentally. My brothers and I LOVED it. They gave us little wing pins, too. Seems great to me.

There's been talk of no-kid sea cruises as well. -- lenona at September 4, 2013 9:17 AM

I don't really care about no kid flights. I probably could handle even a 12 hour flight because the kid(s) will probably tire out at some point.

But I can see doing it with cruises. Go book with Disney cruises if you have kids. If you don't -- why should I have to put up with your kids (and the associated G and PG ratings) that exist for my week's vacation?

I have the same view whenever a politician uses the "It's for the children" bullshit. When is it better for adults?

Jenny Had A Chance: "The whole 'but we're all paying for it!!!1!' is bullshit."

No, it isn't. The whole playground at McDonald's argument is bullshit. They built the playground when they built the restaurant. What does it cost in upkeep? Some fry cook has to spend half an hour picking up trash?

I don't think that compares to having to pay for half a dozen nannies on an eight-hour flight, even when spread out over the passengers.

And you still don't get it. McDonald's targets children and families with them. That's the kind of restaurant they are.

Airlines target people who want to get from point a to point b. Some of them have children in tow. Are airlines targeting children?

And I cannot believe how determined the parents are on this thread, to make everyone pay for their kids as often as possible.

"No, I'm not going to spend money on games and toys to occupy my children on this flight. I demand that all the passengers share the cost for entertaining my kids."

Do parents never stop looking to make everyone pay for their decision to have kids? Ever?

Oh no! A company is offering increased customer service! And it's child-centric! The world is going to hell! Cats and dogs living in sin!

You nailed it. There seems to be a surge in angst whenever companies offer something to make parents' lives easier. Apparently, parents should suffer all the time. That's what parenthood is about.

If you don't want the cost of a certain amenity folded into your meal or your plane ticket, don't patronize the businesses that offer that amenity. It really is that simple.

Some people seem to be having a real problem with this. I don't understand why.

Patrick. Dude. Think for a minute. This airline is marketing itself toward travelers with kids, just like McDonald's markets itself toward hamburger-eaters with kids. I don't know what is so complicated about this. One airline is marketing itself toward a customer who wants to buy three or four seats and suddenly that means that everyone has to pay for kids.

Jenny, they may be marketig themselves to kids, but they seem to be trying to go out of their way to not mention the fact that even thouse without kids have to pay.

And Maybe I'm wrong, maybe they dont have to pay that surcharge. Thats only half my argument. the other half is whether kids are making noise from being bored or being entertained they are still making noise

Jenny, you're wrong. McDonald's basically markets themselves toward kids. The parents are simply the child's means of paying. That's why they have playgrounds, Happy Meals, with a different toy every week, so you can collect them all, ridiculous characters such as the Hamburglar, Grimace, Ronald, etc.

The adults are treated as an incidental. McDonald's does not install pool tables, bars or anything else geared toward adults. Their target is the kids. If not for kids, McDonald's simply wouldn't exist. While the children play, the adults are responsible for their own amusement, because God knows, McDonald's doesn't go out of their way to find amusing things for them to do.

Airlines do not target children. The children are to airlines what adults are to McDonald's: the necessary attachments. Children aren't the ones that need to travel. In fact, most of them prefer not to. Without children, airlines would still continue.

If you wish to bring your child into an adult setting, you are responsible for their comfort and entertainment. It is not for the rest of the world to soak up the cost and endure special accommodations because of your decisions.

If you do not wish to pay for them, don't have them. You do not get to scream and whine, more childishly than your child, that everyone has to pay for your kids'.

Newsflash! Kids cost money. You feed them, house them, clean them, chauffeur them, and if you need to go somewhere and have to take them with you, then you're responsible for their entertainment and controlling them. Not for me to soak up the cost of keeping your kid quiet.

Get it through. You are responsible. You keep wanting to argue that there are certain circumstances when it's completely appropriate to expect everyone to soak up the cost of your children. There isn't one. Ever. Never will be.

Do adult restaurants put in playgrounds for your kids? I've never seen one at Appleby's, Chili's, TGI Fridays, or any other of my favorite restaurants. (You, undoubtedly, think they should, and everyone else should pay for them.)

Wow, Patrick, you are really invested in seeing yourself as a victim of those awful breeders. So much so that are willfully ignoring the fact that many McDonald's most certainly does sell most of its wares to people without children in tow---your rant about how they only see adults as walking wallets might've worked if we were talking Chuck E. Cheese, but we're not. Even if we were, what's it to ya? If McDs Chuck E.Cheese or Etihad want to cater exclusively to children, and you're not one...don't go. If Etihad becomes the Burger King of the sky, then you'll know just who to avoid if you don't want to be around kids and nannies or pay for the folded-in cost of the nannies

It bears repeating that this is not about parents demanding anything. This is about a business anticipating what will get butts in the seats, just like McDonald's playgrounds, Chili's kids menus and blaring TVs (catering to sports fans and parents alike) and free bread.

Crap. I really should use the preview function. I should have said "So much so that you are willfully ignoring the fact that many McDonald's locations don't have playgrounds at all and they certainly sell most of their wares to people without children in tow."

No, Jenny, I'm not "invested in seeing myself as a victim of the awful breeders." It's you that is invested in the idea that everyone should absolutely soak up the cost for your kids. It takes a nation to raise your child. Or more precisely, it takes the nation's wallets to raise your child.

Whether it's your kids, your car, your pets, your whatever...pay your own way.