For many travelers, too many babies on a plane can be one. If that one is crying and sitting anywhere near you.
But in reality, in the U.S., while carriers limit each adult to one lap child, there isn’t an official limit to the number of infants on each flight. In fact a single parent of twins can fly with both babies, simply by buying a seat for one of them.
Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority, however, limits infants under the age of two to fly on each flight to the number of infant oxygen masks On a 737, the limit is eight. And for some flights next month, Qantas unfortunately accidentally reached and exceeded that limit.
In this case, an Australian organization called Save HomeBirth is fighting the potential outlawing of giving birth at home. And they are having a national rally on September 7, in the country’s capital of Canberra. More than 1,000 women and children planned to attend by going to fly in and out the same day.
Qantas’ computers somehow allowed over 20 babies per flight, then caught the error. So the airline, in a bit of a public relations nightmare, has been contacting passengers and offering refunds and alternative flights.
In Australia there are only two major airlines, Qantas and Virgin Blue, that fly domestically In the U.S. the sheer volume of airlines and flights would make this specific Qantas situation unlikely, even if the FAA were to limit babies.
In the meantime, Jet Blue, however does states that there can be only one lap child per three rows “because of the number of oxygen masks per row.” And the airline also states that they may have to limit the number of lap children on “extended overwater flights” due to limited life vests. Although I have never heard of a baby being denied boarding.
But the Qantas incident does bring up an interesting question: Should there be a baby limit on planes? Not only for safety but for the comfort and sanity of other passengers. Particularly when reduced airline schedules and yield-management systems mean that more and more flights are packed solid with regular passengers.
Unfortunately while it is easy to do a count of masks there is no way to do an advance count on babies who will cry, or for that matter on mothers who won’t change diapers. (On a recent United Express flight a harried mother of three spent most of the thankfully short flight yelling at her older preschool children, while the aroma of her baby’s diaper filled the cabin around her.)
And yes, it’s not just too many babies that can make a flight difficult. Posts about pets on planes routinely generate a great deal of comment on this site, as do the carry-on wars and overweight passengers, just for examples.
But limiting babies would decrease the number of vests and infant masks an airline needs to carry. Also, limiting “lap children” and requiring some parents to purchase seats for their infants would mean more ticket revenue. (And while baby limits would anger families, it might please the all-important business traveler.)
In any case, considering that airlines are looking at every possible way to minimize costs and increase revenue, it seems reasonably likely that someday in the U.S. passengers will also hear, “Yes, we have no more room for babies.”
(Photo: YoYoH_/Flickr Creative Commons)
Janice Hough is a California-based travel agent a travel blogger and a part-time comedy writer. A frequent flier herself, she’s been doing battle with airlines, hotels, and other travel companies for over three decades. Besides writing for Travelers United, Janice has a humor blog at Leftcoastsportsbabe.com (Warning, the political and sports humor therein does not represent the views of anyone but herself.)
As a parent who always bought a seat for my babies, I would be in favor of limiting the number of babies in laps (not in paid seats) — not because of noise but because of the oxygen mask situation. When I was in a row with my child in a paid seat, and a lady sat next to me holding her 1 year old on her lap, I couldn’t help but wonder what would happen if there were an emergency and we needed the oxygen. Would she share with her child? Would she take my mask or my child’s mask so that she and her child could each have one? It thankfully never happened, but can you imagine the kind of fight that could break out if some parent who won’t buy a seat for the kid takes the oxygen mask of the person sitting next to her who bought a seat?
And for the people who carry their children on their laps, I really have to ask why? If your kid is in your lap rather than in the carseat, then the kid is either a missile in turbulence or becomes your crash cushion in an emergency landing–and can die either way. My kids are a bit older now, but the price for an infant through 2 years old child was 50% off domestically, and internationally there was a 20-25% discount. If there was a domestic leg and then the international one, the airlines always broke the fare for us so that we got 50% off on the domestic part and then the 20-25% off on the international leg. The seats we bought for our babies were quite inexpensive on the whole and saved much aggravation. The kids were safe–often asleep, since they were comfortable, and they earned frequent flyer miles which later turned into free tickets.
Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority, however, limits infants under the age of two to fly on each flight to the number of infant oxygen masks On a 737, the limit is eight
===================================================
Interesting, I’ve never heard of an infant oxygen mask. Just an “additional” mask in the passenger service unit overhead. I’m qualified on the 737’s in this country and our “additional” mask is at EVERY PSU. That would mean, there’s ONE additional mask on the A/B/C side and one additional mask on the D/E/F side. That’s TWO per row.
To the above poster, Patricia. Thank you! My Union has lobbied Congress for many years trying to require ALL PASSENGERS onboard to be in a restraint device. The only thing that’s not secured in the cabin, is an INFANT. Even coffee pots are secured. The belief that if the industry started charging for infants (secured in seats with carseats) is that the flying public would consider driving by car to their destinations, thus increasing the number of deaths on the road, anyway.
The United Airlines crash in Sioux City, Iowa illustrates the need for ALL infants to be secured. Upon landing, that plane flipped several times. It was told, that the infants on that flight were ripped from their parents arms. They became flying objectiles and were found a dozen rows away.
In essense, you’re putting a price tag on your infants life. Of course, many people will argue the odds of plane crashes. But, an infant is not secured in turbulence either.
With regard to lifevests, we have additional vests located throughout all aircraft that are overwater equipped. Usually 10 percent of the total number of seats onboard.
Frank makes the basic point. In the case of severe turbulence or an emergency landing, children CANNOT be held in a lap. In recent weeks, we’ve heard of some extremely turbulent flights where passengers have been injured. If parents don’t care if their child goes flying, how about the passengers they hit! And let’s get real…a seat these days barely holds an adult average size passenger how can they possibly fit an adult with a child on the lap. The person next to you will be kicked and drooled on and so on for the entire flight.
Patricia-
Most major airlines in the US except Southwest eliminated their infant fare discount a couple years ago. And with Southwest, the infant discount is off the full fare ticket price, so it may not always be the cheapest.
I have two small children and I have always forked over the money to buy them a seat. In addition to the safety factor, my children are much more likely to sleep on a long flight if they are in their car seats than if they are in my lap. So I am less likely to have to spend the entire flight having to creatively find ways to keep them from being disruptive.
The goverment cannot in all integrity require infants to be restrained in car seats in airplanes since infants and children are not required to be restrained on/in any of the following – municipal buses, trains, lightrails, subways, motorcoaches, cruise ships, water taxis, ferries or even school buses. Many states even allow very young children to ride motorcycles without restraints. (No hateful comments, please, I’m just citing a fact, not endorsing it). Only a few states prohibit any motorcycle passengers by age.
I love my chilrdren and have traveled with them as a ‘lap child.’ In the grand scheme of things, statisically they are safer as such than they would be traveling on a NYC bus or a DC metro train. Also, admittedly this might happen less often with high load factors, but the entire time I flew with my son as a lapchild, we never got a flight without an extra seat (which allowed us to put him in the car seat in the seat next to us free of charge). As long as the possibility exists that this will occur, many parents will not pay for a seat.
I truly believe that those that oppose lap children do so primarily because they don’t want ANY small children on the plane, not for so-called safety reasons. Another article on this site shows that average Americans fly much less than we usually presume, so for the average American, the actual instance of flying with a child under 2 (the only ages allowed as lap children) might occur at most once or twice a year. If they score a seat even 50% of the time, this means their child, in all reality, will fly ‘in their arms’ maybe once their entire lives. An actuarian will tell you that if you then factor in the extremely low odds of an accident or turbulence that would result in injury, you’re probably talking odds in the same neighborhood of winning the lottery.
And, I know, the haters will point out that any risk to a child is too many, but as a former law enforcement official and mother I can tell you we put chidlren at risk in many ways every day – crossing streets (pedestrian accidents), eating hot dogs (choking), backing up cars, (accidental injury) walking in the woods with snakes (animal bite), curtains (accidental asphyxiation by hanging cord), screened windons (accidental falls) – you get the idea.
laura August 17, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I truly believe that those that oppose lap children do so primarily because they don’t want ANY small children on the plane, not for so-called safety reasons.
==================================================
I enjoyed your post, however I do disagree with you on this issue. Reason being, I’m a safety professional and advocate safety for everyone onboard. The aircraft is going down the runway at a rate of over 170 hours per hour. Imagine the consequences when and if something happened at that rate of speed. Twice in my career, I have been violently thrown to the ceiling of the aircraft. In one incident, I watched as my co-worker was taped to a board with broken disc’s in her back. No feeling in her legs for several days.
It’s interesting that you would not advocate seatbelts in aircraft, but you enforce that law with cars.
Anyway, currently, it’s up to the parents to decide if they buy a seat or not. Economics rule.
I, too understand the odds of being in an accident. It’s like 11 million to one. Accidents are survivable, but, in my opinion, that survivabilty rate goes wayyyy down when a NON-restrained infant is involved. On the other hand, accidents in turbulence injure (and even kill) many passengers every year. Why? They werent wearing their seatbelts!
Wouldn’t it be ironic to stuff your purse under the seat in front of you, then get hit in the head by an unrestrained kid? It would seem that if it isn’t safe, especially during take-off and landing, to have a sturdy backpack, purse, or laptop in your lap, it would be even less safe to have something fragile there.
Personally, I don’t mind kids on board, although it can get tiresome when they insist on kicking the back of my seat. But, of course, that’s actually a parenting problem and can’t really be blamed on the kid. And as far as noise goes, I can sleep through pretty much anything, so I’m not hiding that agenda behind safety-issue claims.
Obviously, I’m a fan of everyone having a seat. It’s safer for the parent and child, more comfortable for everyone, and more respectful of your fellow travelers. As far as the extra cost goes, oh well – you knew that having kids would involve a sacrifice in some other area. If you can’t afford it, do something you can afford. Like take a road trip. Of course, if you do that, you will be required to have your kid in their own seat, with a seatbelt…
I wonder if next time I fly, should I be able to tell the gate attendent that I don’t want to pay any extra money for the trip, so I’ll just keep this extra 20 pound bag in my lap? I promise to hold it real tight if we hit turbulence.
No, Laura, most of us who oppose putting a child in harm’s way do not hate children. For the record, I’m one of those freaky people who have NO problem with screaming/loud babies and children on planes. They’re kids being kids, and I can live with that.
While you deem a potential injury or death a statistical improbability, I’m sure you don’t allow your child to travel in the open back of a pick-up, to consume alcohol, to go swimming without adult supervision, or to simply wander the streets. Fact is, children die every day from these things, but statistically, the figures are negligible.
The airlines have a responsiblity to protect their passengers. Even as they will insist you remain in your seat and belted up during certain portions of the flight, they should insist that small children have their own seats. Not only, as has been pointed out, is there the real possibility of a child being injured or killed, but, in a case of extreme turbulence, for instance, that child flying through the air may end up breaking someone else’s neck before he breaks his own. I will hazard a guess that, were your child injured in such a fashion, your first stop after the hospital would be to the lawyer’s to being the suit against the airline for not having protected your child. In the end, a responsible parent does not take unnecessary chances with the health and lives of her children. Tell me, could you honestly live with yourself if your body was responsible for crushing the life from your child in an emergency landing? Would you be able to erase that image from your psyche and assert that such an accident was statistically improbable? Even as laws were enacted to protect children from their parents’ irresponsiblity in not securing them in automobiles (via car seats or set belts), such laws need to be enacted to protect these fragile being in planes as well. Unfortunately, there will always be parents who are willing to gamble their kids’ lives and rationalize why this is acceptable.
Isembad-
You completely miss my point- in the overall scheme of things, I’m risking my child’s ‘life’ (as you infer) much less taking him on a plane as a lap child than you would risk the lives of other children, if say, you backed out of your driveway without looking, or if you were driving through a residential neighborhood at 10 mph or more over the posted limit, or even if you whizzed through a mall parking lot trying to grab a space. HMMM, have you ever done any of those things?
Don’t make judgments about my choices or presume to measure how much I am ‘gambling’ with my child’s life. I also made the point that the entire time we traveled with my son as a ‘lap child’ we actually got to put him in the seat next to us in a car seat EVERY TIME. You also need a lesson in statistics – the odds of drowning and every one of the scenarios you suggested are MANY MILLION times more likely than the odds of a lap child being injured in flight. Yes, there is a chance a lap child get hurt, and that needs to be weighed, but the dialogue isn’t made better by folks like you insinuating that parents that choose not to buy a seat are bad parents or are irresponsible. It’s worth noting that in its explanation of why the FAA doesn’t require a car seat restraint, it stated that children flying (unrestrained) were still SAFER than children traveling in car restrained. (FAA 2004 study). The FAA’s rationale was that if it were more expensive for a family to fly, they would then choose the RISKIER option of driving.
I have saved children from drowning, getting hit by a car and once, falling off a 10 story building, I take safety very seriously. I usually ignore rants like yours knowing they come from folks that harbour a lot of self-doubt themselves. The airlines, in their infinite wisdom and as you mentioned, in their role of ‘protecting passengers’, have not deemed it necessary to require a separate seat and a car seat, so if you have a problem, direct it at them.
And while we’re citing statistically insignificant events, its worth noting that there are cases where car seats injure or kill children. I was personally responsible for the recall of all Graco seats with the T-shaped harness back in the mid 80s (one almost strangled my older son during a low speed event). I’ve also seen a small child decapitated by a car seat harness – playing the odds can go both ways. Since I’m sure general readers don’t want a catelogue of gory cop stories, I’ll stop there.
Frank – I appreciated your civil and well-put response. It’s worth noting though that I was born in 1966 and traveled all over the country in the back of my parent’s car (mostly a Karmann Ghia), I never came to any harm (back when it was not only legal to travel with kids not in car seats, but almost unheard of to suggest seat belts).
AWESOME posts, Isembard and Laura!
You both make GREAT points. One of the reasons why this issue remains unresolved.
Qantas have baby bassinets that lock them into a kinda cradle – a child under two years old (24 months) is charged 10% of an adult fare plus taxes to travel on another passenger’s lap..
This post is amusing. I can’t imagine being hit in the head by an unrestrained child… You’re more likely to be wounded by an stupid adult who has ignore the seatbelt signs in severe turbulence.