Newspaper suggests babies shouldn't be in first class and caused chaos

LIKE IT OR NOT: Kids kicking airplane seats

A recent article from New York Times is questioning whether babies and young children belong in first class - and people are not happy about it.

First class is a privilege that can come at a high price. For the people who spend thousands of dollars to fly in the sectioned-off section with big chairs, larger TV screens, more legroom, and quietness they’re likely not looking for a screaming baby.

Sign up for our free Indy100 weekly newsletter

So, The Times article is wondering if babies and young children even belong in first class, and the consensus from interviews seemed to be that they don’t.

One interviewee, Dr Jakob Miller said, “First class is a premium space where passengers pay extra for added comfort and relaxation. The presence of a baby, with their potential crying and fussing, would disrupt the peaceful atmosphere and ruin the experience for other passengers.”

Other interviewees echoed Dr Miller’s complaints, sharing anecdotes of annoying children in first class.

The article used polling research to make a point saying 74 per cent of business travelers in Britain believe “children were the biggest annoyance of flying.”

In another survey, 60 per cent of flyers wanted airlines to offer a kid-free section while flying, according to The Times

But readers did not seem to resonate with the article and took to the comment section to share their opinions.

"There is something seriously deranged about our society today that apparently it is up for debate whether babies have a right to exist in public spaces like airlines. What a selfish world we live in," Zach wrote.

"This is ridiculous. Babies and children are humans, citizens, and residents too. They do not have less rights to travel than other people. First class is not a quiet compartment or a work-only section like some trains have. Get real!" A commenter wrote.

Some people pointed out that adults can be just as, if not more, annoying than babies.

"You haven’t been tortured on a plane until you have flown amongst a tween/early teen competitive cheer squad for 15 hours MEL to LAX. Hair braiding anyone?" Mike said.

"I'd take a crying baby over the crazy person trying to open the door mid-air, the stupid drunk people saying nasty stuff and then vomiting," Ann wrote.

Of course, other commenters agreed with the overall feeling of The Times article, declaring that small children should not be in first class.

"Babies DO NOT belong in First Class. Period. It's the worst experience for every adult who paid full fare. The parents are in some daze that makes them believe their shrieking child is the next Da Vinci. Business OK, never first. First should be adults, only," Leslie wrote.

Babies and children on planes have always been debated but to suggest they are banned would be exclusionary and wrong.

Have your say in our news democracy. Click the upvote icon at the top of the page to help raise this article through the indy100 rankings.

Please log in or register to upvote this article
The Conversation (0)