Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perhaps you should consider having your spouse or another child sit in the seat in front of your toddler. That way when s/he inevitably kicks the seat, it will be his family dealing with it as opposed to a stranger.
1. That's our plan if we ever fly a flight that's two across in each row. In a three-across row, the person on the aisle would be inconvenienced whenever the toddler has to be taken out of the seat, either for a diaper change, to be walked around the plane or trying to rock the child to sleep. Tasks like feeding or entertaining are also usually easier if everyone is in the same row.
2. It's a rear-facing car seat (per FAA regulations) so there's no kicking of the front seat. If it were a forward-facing car seat, then the seat in front would be able to recline.
1. That's our plan if we ever fly a flight that's two across in each row. In a three-across row, the person on the aisle would be inconvenienced whenever the toddler has to be taken out of the seat, either for a diaper change, to be walked around the plane or trying to rock the child to sleep. Tasks like feeding or entertaining are also usually easier if everyone is in the same row.
2. It's a rear-facing car seat (per FAA regulations) so there's no kicking of the front seat. If it were a forward-facing car seat, then the seat in front would be able to recline.
1. I'd rather have to get up a few times to let you out than have your kid kicking the back of my seat (even if accidentally) the entire trip. I can't imagine anyone would disagree. If it's a redeye your child will sleep like everyone else, so there should be minimal disruption.
2. Then you don't have a toddler. Child seats for kids over 20 pounds should face forward. From the FAA web site: Child Safety
You could also consider buying the third seat in the row to give you more space for the tasks related to child care without inconveniencing others.
1. I'd rather have to get up a few times to let you out than have your kid kicking the back of my seat (even if accidentally) the entire trip. I can't imagine anyone would disagree. If it's a redeye your child will sleep like everyone else, so there should be minimal disruption.
2. Then you don't have a toddler. Child seats for kids over 20 pounds should face forward. From the FAA web site: Child Safety
You could also consider buying the third seat in the row to give you more space for the tasks related to child care without inconveniencing others.
1. There's no kicking because it's rear facing.
2. The definition of "toddler" is a child between the age of 1 and 3. There are children under 3 (like ours) who are under 20 lbs (like ours).
We try to be considerate: We offer to buy the person drinks and food, we check as much as we can and never use overhead bin space, we try to keep the little one as quiet as possible, we never bring anything loud or smelly, we never wait to change a diaper, etc. Buying an empty seat is a bit much.
I predict that international governments will be forced to step in and regulate this one before too many more of these incidents follow. Passengers are increasingly frustrated at the declining conditions on flights, and they're taking it out on each other. Probably sometime in the next 12-24 months we'll see more space on flights, which will mean fewer seats, which will also mean higher airfare.
I personally don't like it when people recline, but it would never cross my mind to throw water on someone or threaten to beat their asses over it. I would like to think that most people can work it out like mature adults, but I guess the OP doesn't fit into that category.
LOL.I think it's pretty messed up when people try and prevent the poor sap in front of him/her from reclining. Those devices they're selling now are just reflective of how rude as a society we've become
It's the airlines' fault. They're maximizing ever inch of space and taking the fun out of flying. They've made flying cheaper, but that's the trade off.
I suspect that governments will step in fairly soon to rectify this. If there's a bright side to the recent mile-high brawls is that it's going to become a safety issue, and that will necessarily prompt quick action. Since the airlines won't do the right thing, I guess people and the governments will have to do it for them.
It's the airlines' fault. They're maximizing ever inch of space and taking the fun out of flying. They've made flying cheaper, but that's the trade off.
I suspect that governments will step in fairly soon to rectify this. If there's a bright side to the recent mile-high brawls is that it's going to become a safety issue, and that will necessarily prompt quick action. Since the airlines won't do the right thing, I guess people and the governments will have to do it for them.
and according to my daughter, ( I spoke to her this morning) the airlines are planning on adding a few more seats. How, or where I have no idea.
It's the airlines' fault. They're maximizing ever inch of space and taking the fun out of flying. They've made flying cheaper, but that's the trade off.
I suspect that governments will step in fairly soon to rectify this. If there's a bright side to the recent mile-high brawls is that it's going to become a safety issue, and that will necessarily prompt quick action. Since the airlines won't do the right thing, I guess people and the governments will have to do it for them.
It's not the airlines that are demanding more revenue from the airlines. It's Wall Street. It's the stockholders. Do you invest in mutual funds? Yes? You are one of those stockholders. Don't blame the airlines because you want high returns on your investments.
No, the government isn't going to step in. One "mile high brawl" is nothing. Truly, I hope the government has more important things to worry about than this crap.
1. There's no kicking because it's rear facing.
2. The definition of "toddler" is a child between the age of 1 and 3. There are children under 3 (like ours) who are under 20 lbs (like ours).
We try to be considerate: We offer to buy the person drinks and food, we check as much as we can and never use overhead bin space, we try to keep the little one as quiet as possible, we never bring anything loud or smelly, we never wait to change a diaper, etc. Buying an empty seat is a bit much.
I disagree. If you know in advance that you will be making someone else uncomfortable, you should either buy the seat or opt for one of you to sit in it.
This is an avoidable situation. A cheap beer isn't an alternative to reclining on a long flight.
It's not the airlines that are demanding more revenue from the airlines. It's Wall Street. It's the stockholders. Do you invest in mutual funds? Yes? You are one of those stockholders. Don't blame the airlines because you want high returns on your investments.
No, the government isn't going to step in. One "mile high brawl" is nothing. Truly, I hope the government has more important things to worry about than this crap.
Actually it's not even that, it's the people who want ridiculously low fares and would scream bloody murder if airlines raised them in order to offer more space.
Just for giggles, let's do the math.
I randomly chose a US Airways A320, as it has the same number of seats on both sides in every row in economy.
22 rows x 31" pitch in each row = 682" length in economy.
Let's say we want to give each seat an extra 3" of leg room. We would have to come up with an extra 66" of leg room.
So 682 - 66 = 616".
616" divided by 34" pitch is 18 rows. (It's actually 18.11, but we're going to round down to 18.)
So we've removed four rows, 24 seats.
Originally there were 132 seats in economy, now there are 108.
Let's say that the seats were $200 each.
Original configuration of 132 seats x $200 = 26,400.
In order to maintain the same amount of revenue, they will need to raise the ticket price by $44.44
$244.44 x 108 = $26,399.99
How many people will be willing to pay an extra $44.44 for three inches of space?
The answer is minimal, they will instead go running to the competitor with less space to save that $44.44. Proven fact, it's been tried over and over. The flying public has no one to blame but themselves.
It's the airlines' fault. They're maximizing ever inch of space and taking the fun out of flying. They've made flying cheaper, but that's the trade off.
I suspect that governments will step in fairly soon to rectify this. If there's a bright side to the recent mile-high brawls is that it's going to become a safety issue, and that will necessarily prompt quick action. Since the airlines won't do the right thing, I guess people and the governments will have to do it for them.
It's not the airlines fault, it's the fault of the flying public who have demanded rock bottom prices. Over and over carriers have tried to add more space for a small up-charge in price, over and over they have lost market share to competitors who have cheaper fares and less pitch. Proven fact.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
