Beware travelers with bratty kids

Peter R. wrote:
On 1/24/2007 6:13:49 PM, "Mike Schumann" wrote:

15 minutes???? I think is would be reasonable to give the parents a couple
of minutes to get their act together, but anything beyond 5 minutes is
really an imposition on the other passengers.

Who is stating that 15 minutes is reasonable? Not I.

ok, some misunderstandings. You have to be onboard and seated 10
minutes before the scheduled departure time. Most likely they had
closer to 25 minutes. Second, since the delay was not weather related,
the airline would have been responsible for putting passengers up in
hotels due to missed connections (and then rebooking them and
potentially having to give involuntary denied boardings to other pax).
I dont' know if this plane was turning around or not, but not only for
these 100 or so pax but all the pax on the future flights as well. What
about having to potentially keep ground staff longer? What about the 35
minute minimum legal transfer times. The 15 minutes quickly makes all
those other pax have to run across the terminals. Further it makes it
more likely that the pax luggage won't make the connecting flight.

Gerald Sylvester
PPL-ASEL-IA and UA 1K

Richard Riley wrote in
:

That 15 minute delay cost them $2294.

Not if they made the next scheduled flight segment for that aircraft.

That 15 minute delay cost them nothing in lost revenue opportunity if the
plane would have otherwise spent the same 15 minutes sitting idle at the gate
at the arrival airport.

The baggage handlers, the cleaning crews, the food supply crews and the
fueling crews were all done and gone. So their hourly rates were not lost.

I don't know for sure how pilot's time is tracked, but I believe it's
possible that the 15 minute delay could have caused a crew change
requirement. But that could have easily happened if there was an ATC delay,
or a headwind as well - we're talking about 15 minutes.

The only real, definitive cost that I can figure on is the cost to run the
APU for the extra 15 minutes, and the cost of 15 minutes the relatively small
airline staff necessary to support the departure of the plane from the gate:
- the gate agent and the tow crew.

I still agree that it's hardly likely that 15 minutes of delay costs more
than the average person makes in a year. But perhaps Paul was talking
specifically to MX.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
oups.com:

Here's a potential solution, from the folks at Airbus:

http://gridskipper.com/travel/flight...ats-169456.php

This could help GA more than anything I've ever seen!

If you click back to the NYT article, it said that the idea was abandoned by
Airbus in 1993...

My wife used to be a flight attendant. Her favorite saying in dealing
with brats is, "Shut up, kid, or I'll stuff a dirty diaper in your
mouth."

The ruckas wasn't the problem. The failure to get her spoiled butt into
a seat with a seat belt around her so the plane could depart was.

Peter R. wrote:
On 1/24/2007 3:35:08 PM, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

As if I gave a ****.

Yes, the world needs more people who just don't give a ****.

Probably half the problems in the nanny state world we now live in derived
from people that really "give a ****".

Jay Honeck wrote:
Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always Trailways...or the luggage hold.

Careful how you "cut & paste" -- I didn't write that.

Ok enough talk about passenger'ing. I did have a beautiful San
fRancisco Bay Tour last night. 1 hour of piloting a 1981 Archer over
what looks like a model city of San Francisco complete with twinkling
lights is so much more enjoyable than sitting in first on a UA jet. My
pax enjoyed it too although they complained about no peanuts. ;-)

Now *that* is flying!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 1/25/2007 9:13:06 AM, "Matt Barrow" wrote:

Probably half the problems in the nanny state world we now live in derived
from people that really "give a ****".

I was thinking from the angle of basic human compassion, not government level
intervention. You only need to consider a typical US highway to see a world
of people who just don't give a **** about each other.


--
Peter

"Peter R." wrote

I was thinking from the angle of basic human compassion, not government
level
intervention. You only need to consider a typical US highway to see a
world
of people who just don't give a **** about each other.

I have to agree, and it didn't used to be that way.

For instance, in the past people wouldn't bring their young children into
restaurants and allow them to exhibit extreme behavior out of consideration
for the other patrons. Now these people believe that their "right" to bring
their screaming kids into any public place outweighs the rights of the rest
of the people who are paying the same price and would like to enjoy a nice,
quiet evening. Ditto for theatres, airplanes, and stores. When I was a kid
my parents would apply an immediate "correction" if I got out of line,
especially if it was in a public place.

Same goes for people with pets. They believe it is their right to buy a
dog, tie it up outside, and let it bark all night. No consideration for the
neighbors - after all, it's natural for a dog to bark and their "right" to
own a pet outweighs everyone elses right to peace and quiet.

Same goes for driving - people will pull out into traffic with no
consideration for what the next vehicle might have to do to avoid the
obstacle they have just created. After all, their time is more important
than everyone else's and you have brakes, don't you?

Tolerating poor behavior from your children in public sends them a message -
the message is that it is fine to do whatever you want, wherever you want to
do it, and there are no consequences for doing so - there might even be a
reward. If that doesn't teach them not to give a **** about other people, I
don't know what would.

BDS

"BT" wrote:
I think AirTran did the correct thing..
they got a noisy kid off a plane.. refunded tickets and got the family home
the next day..
1 ****ed off family..
112 happy travelers..
families do not travel much..
business people travel a lot..
who would you rather keep happy..

Agree 100%. Kudos to AirTran.

Apparently the brat AND her parents do not understand cause and effect.
Behave like a out-of-control monster that makes life miserable and/or
unsafe for everyone else and there are consequences--in this case, not
traveling until a later, when she was under control. I love kids as much
as the next person, but IMO, restaurants should do the same when an
out-of-control, screaming brat is running around making the meal
miserable for other paying customers, too.

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
On 1/25/2007 9:13:06 AM, "Matt Barrow" wrote:

Probably half the problems in the nanny state world we now live in
derived
from people that really "give a ****".

I was thinking from the angle of basic human compassion, not government
level
intervention.

That is ALWAYS the way it starts (see: "BUT IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN").

You only need to consider a typical US highway to see a world
of people who just don't give a **** about each other.

And when your car breaks down out west, you see beaucoup people who lend a
hand who really don't give a **** what other people think.