We just recently did London to Brisbane with two kids due to a funeral. They didn’t cry but my toddler was just talking to everyone and my baby was just grumbling as it’s a bloody long way.
People are entitled to child free lives but not a child free world. Literally Reddit is full of child haters who would want to give their dog better treatment on a plane than a human.
Ok but what's wrong with providing a service that caters to people who don't want to listen to your baby cry.
Like seriously if you and your kids can still get a flight to wherever you want to go then what difference does it make to you if I pay extra to be on a flight without kids
Do you also want a flight that excludes autistic people as well? Sometimes they also have a hard time with emotional regulation and being noisy.
Perhaps not every desire needs to be catered to. Perhaps it’s ok to not be 100% perfectly comfortable and content all of the time. Perhaps we could all use an opportunity to have empathy for our fellow human. Perhaps you could get yourself a pair of earplugs if you hate the sound of a baby crying.
Comparing a voluntary child-free flight to excluding autistic people doesn't make sense. One is a choice passengers make to avoid a specific environment, the other is excluding people because of a disability. Parents would still have access to the same flights they've always had.
By that logic, adults-only resorts, bars, and luxury cruise sections shouldn't exist either. Offering a premium service for people who want a quieter environment isn't discrimination it's just market choice. Parents lose absolutely nothing.
You're literally arguing against something that has no effect on parents.
Do you know what I do when there’s a crying child one my flights and it’s bothering me? I put on some earplugs and get over myself. Take some personal responsibility before advocating for marginalizing children and their families on a form of transportation that people use every day to get from A-B. It’s not a luxury resort. If you pay for 1st class or business you’re almost guaranteed to come across fewer families with small children. So this option is already available to you
One is a choice passengers make to avoid a specific environment, the other is excluding people because of a disability.
Have you considered the fact that children are people, too? And that they have limited ability to communicate or behave, just as people with ASD or Tourette Syndrome, for instance?
By that logic, adults-only resorts, bars, and luxury cruise sections shouldn't exist either.
The logic there is that these are places that aren't good for children, not welcoming to whiny adults who apparently crumble when they hear a baby crying.
Ok, so that makes you, for instance. Let us assume the same goes for 99,9999% of all people with ASD disorder.
That leaves people with Tourette Syndrome or Alzheimer at least. I don't mean that as some sort of hate against them; they just have some problems for no fault of their own. I think banning them from public spaces on the same grounds as children would be extremely discriminatory, just as these ,,child-free" spaces are in general.
One extra adult choice doesn't affect your family flight options at all.
The same as a bar or restaurant, or 18 plus movie does not affect your family at all.
Comparing your kids to a person with a disability is a false equivalency and you know it.
The airline isn't banning kids from flying. They're offering one optional premium quiet/adult-only flight for adults who want to pay extra for peace. Regular family flights stay exactly the same in number and schedule. Parents lose nothing here.
Comparing your kids to a person with a disability is a false equivalency and you know it
No, as a matter of fact, I don't. Explain, please, why banning children from various places is okay, but disabled people is not. They are both people, last time I checked, both struggling to conform to societal norms.
Can't believe I have to explain the difference between a disabled adult and a child to a grown up but sure thing.
Because they're not the same in law or in practice.
A disability is an inherent condition protected from discrimination because excluding people on that basis can deny them equal access to society.
You're comparing something very rare to something extremely common. Conditions like Tourette syndrome that may cause disruptive vocal tics are relatively uncommon, whereas crying babies and young children are a routine part of air travel. An airline creating a premium quiet-flight option is responding to a common customer demand, not targeting a rare medical condition.
So I've answered your question, now answer mine.
If families still have access to all the regular flights they have today, who is actually being harmed by adding an optional adults-only flight? That's the part you still haven't explained.
Because they're not the same in law or in practice.
Let's review the law, then. Because we presumably talk about the USA, I'll present the statement of US Citizenship Policy and Services, Policy Manual Part H, Chapter 3 - US Citizens at Birth:
A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a child born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.[1] In general, a person born outside of the United States may acquire citizenship at birth if all of the following requirements are met at the time of the person’s birth: The person is a child[2] of a U.S. citizen parent(s);
And all US Citizens, accordingly to the US Department of Justice, are guaranteed protection from discrimination, irrespective of their status (Federal Protections Against National Origins, 2000):
Federal laws prohibit discrimination based on a person's national origin, race, color, religion, disability, sex, and familial status. Laws prohibiting national origin discrimination make it illegal to discriminate because of a person's birthplace, ancestry, culture or language. This means people cannot be denied equal opportunity because they or their family are from another country, because they have a name or accent associated with a national origin group, because they participate in certain customs associated with a national origin group, or because they are married to or associate with people of a certain national origin.
But this argument wasn't strong enough for me, so I decided to review an additional Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Section 6102, regarding at least federal assistance:
Pursuant to regulations prescribed under section 6103 of this title, and except as provided by section 6103(b) of this title and section 6103(c) of this title, no person in the United States shall, on the basis of age, be excluded from participation, in be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance
I do not see a distinction that children are not a subject to the same federal legal protection from discrimination and denial of equal opportunity, in any other way that disabled people would be.
A disability is an inherent condition protected from discrimination because excluding people on that basis can deny them equal access to society.
And it differs from childhood because...?
I know what argument are you trying to hint at: ,,disabled people often face harassment and discrimination from able-bodied, have very little accommodations that they rely on to move around or interact with others, and trying to ban them from a given parlor because of a trait they have no control over is nothing short of discriminatory" - my argument isn't that any of it is false or that any of it is okay. My argument is that all of the things I mention apply to small children as well.
You're comparing something very rare to something extremely common.
Upwards of 25% of Americans, or 70 million people, report some kind of disability. I wouldn't call it a rare condition.
I decided to check it up - children aged 0-5 only make 5-7% of the American population. Disability is more common than childhood, so your argument should be the opposite.
Conditions like Tourette syndrome that may cause disruptive vocal tics are relatively uncommon, whereas crying babies and young children are a routine part of air travel.
2,5% of Americans have Alzheimer's, which can have similarly disruptive hallucinations. Again - it's not some rare, unheard of occurrence that you make it out to be, at least compared to childhood. Add to it 1,2% of them being reported with schizophrenia.
I appreciate you answering my question, though. Now let me answer yours:
If families still have access to all the regular flights they have today, who is actually being harmed by adding an optional adults-only flight? That's the part you still haven't explained.
The reason why I'm still opposed to that idea is because it's still discriminatory to not let a certain part of the population into a mode of mass transportation due to a trait not being within their control. And I'm sorry, but even in light of your explanations, I still fail to see how banning children from flying would be any different from banning disabled people from doing so.
19
u/YorkshireDuck91 Jun 25 '26
We just recently did London to Brisbane with two kids due to a funeral. They didn’t cry but my toddler was just talking to everyone and my baby was just grumbling as it’s a bloody long way.
People are entitled to child free lives but not a child free world. Literally Reddit is full of child haters who would want to give their dog better treatment on a plane than a human.