# Flying, carseats, lap children -- What's the big deal?



## HarperRose (Feb 22, 2007)

Ok, I need to see another viewpoint on the carseat vs lap child scenario in an airplane.

My take: Why worry about a carseat on the plane? If we crash, we're dead, carseat or not. Turbulence hasn't ever been a huge issue in any of the flights I've taken (with and w/o kids and babies). (I know there are exceptions, but I've had pretty easy flights.)

I'm not really worried about having a lap child, but tell me why you guys believe otherwise.


----------



## roxyrox (Sep 11, 2006)

I agree with you, you're right. The only reason for taking a carseat on a plane is if it makes the child more comfortable. Carseats don't make it any "safer". Even in turbulence...it's not hard to keep a hold of a baby.


----------



## thyme (Jul 17, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Justthatgirl* 
If we crash, we're dead, carseat or not.

...
I'm not really worried about having a lap child, but tell me why you guys believe otherwise.

Well, in the past six weeks there have been two commercial passenger crashes that had many survivors. I would not have wanted to be grasping a lap child on either one of them.


----------



## FullMetalMom (Aug 27, 2008)

My dd will not sit in my lap for very long, but she is very comfortable in her seat.


----------



## LuckyMommaToo (Aug 14, 2003)

Well, both of my kids are big and squirmy, so logistically it seemed a nightmare to have them on my lap (the flight we take most often tends to be full, so I've never wanted to risk not having a seat for the little one before she was two). So if I"m buying a seat for her, I'm bringing the carseat. She's secure, she can sleep, whatever.

And then, we were on a smallish regional jet last summer. I went to the bathroom. There was sudden turbulence so bad that I hit the ceiling. DD was strapped into her carseat. I wasn't seriously injured, and when I made it back to my seat, the woman next to me said, "thank god your baby was in that seat. She didn't even notice!" (DH was in the next aisle, btw).

Anyway, I know it doesn't happen often, but that turbulence was so sudden and fierce that I'm a firm believer in seatbelts on all the time for everyone (unless you're going to the bathroom or whatever).

But of course, YMMV.
-e


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thyme* 
Well, in the past six weeks there have been two commercial passenger crashes that had many survivors. I would not have wanted to be grasping a lap child on either one of them.


There was a lap baby that survived the crash into the hudson without injury, FYI.


----------



## Ironica (Sep 11, 2005)

Well, true, the chances are VERY remote of a carseat making the difference between life and death, or even being fine and being injured on an airplane.

Same is true of adult lapbelts... even moreso. Yet, _I'm_ required to wear my seatbelt. The plane won't take off until they've walked down the aisle and made sure that everyone has their belt buckled.

Why would I go with a *lower* standard for my child's safety?

As a family, we don't fly unless we can afford a seat for everyone. We bring carseats. It's much more comfortable; even if you're holding your baby most of the time, having somewhere secure to put them down for a minute while you stretch your legs or drink your tea is really, really nice. Kids who are in a familiar seat will often cope better with an unfamiliar situation, and if they're the type to sleep in the car, they'll do it on the plane, too.

The only reason it's allowed to have under-2's on a plane without a seat is because the FTA crunched the numbers, and decided that the price difference would push enough families into driving instead of flying that the injuries from car accidents would be greater than the harm that could come to lap children. It's not "safe," it's just safer than driving... but then again, a LOT is safer than driving! ;-)

Ultimately, if we were the one in a [number with lots of zeroes after] flight where it *would* make a difference, could I ever live with myself for having decided my child's life wasn't worth $XXX? Me, no, I'd never recover from that. There may be others who can make peace with that decision in the same situation, and I don't fault them for it, but it's a level of serenity and trust in the universe that I simply don't have.


----------



## simplehome (Jul 13, 2004)

This argument is a bit of an aside, but safety-related nonetheless.

I HATE the idea of checking my carseat. It once came back with the straps soaked in de-icing fluid. YIKES!! We couldn't be in the car with it, it reeked so badly. Not to mention the question of what it would do to the nylon.

Even with gate-checking, they really bang those seats around, and I worry about the safety of them. I'd rather buckle them in where I don't have to worry about how they're being handled.


----------



## HarperRose (Feb 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *simplehome* 

I HATE the idea of checking my carseat. It once came back with the straps soaked in de-icing fluid.

That is DISGUSTING!









I'm really enjoying the feedback here. Thank you!! It helps to have another perspective.


----------



## jrabbit (May 10, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *simplehome* 
Even with gate-checking, they really bang those seats around, and I worry about the safety of them. I'd rather buckle them in where I don't have to worry about how they're being handled.


what hasn't been asked is what do you do when you get where you're going if you don't have a seat? or is it implied that you're checking the seat (maybe that's the part i missed)?

we bring our seat regardless, if under 2, we don't buy a seat but gate check if there isn't one available. my babies have never been really comfortable in their seats, so expecting them to be content in one was a big risk and waste of money, tbh.

i wouldn't put a seat through 'regular' baggage check ever.

--janis


----------



## paquerette (Oct 16, 2004)

I thought you weren't allowed to hold your baby during turbulence. Don't you have to wrap a lap baby in a blanket and stuff them under the seat?


----------



## HarperRose (Feb 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paquerette* 
I thought you weren't allowed to hold your baby during turbulence. Don't you have to wrap a lap baby in a blanket and stuff them under the seat?

What? What?? You're kidding, right? I hope so because I'm sitting here laughing hysterically at the idea of stuffing my 15 mo old anywhere.







:


----------



## bubbamummy (Feb 25, 2009)

Ive flown many times (my family is in the UK and we live here in Az!!) and for me the car seat is for comfort rather than anything, I couldnt/wouldnt have my 1 year old on my lap for 15hrs, we'd both be insane by the end!! However he did go on our laps for short flights to OH


----------



## MissE (May 12, 2007)

I was on a flight with DS when he was 11 month old (28lbs) with NO seat for himself. I booked him a bassinett 'seat' (it was an international flight) and that worked well, aside from him wanting to walk and talk and entertain. I will be flying with two kids soon. DS (then 2) will get his own seat with a carseat and DD will be in a bassinett/lap seat.


----------



## paquerette (Oct 16, 2004)

It's buried in this article, but according to it it is the procedure to place lap children on the floor (doesn't say under the seat, but I've heard that elsewhere).

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/colum...children_N.htm


----------



## DogwoodFairy (Jan 11, 2008)

The FAA does not claim that a lap child is safe.

http://www.jetwithkids.com/book_freeChapter.html

It is 100% true that airline procedure is to place the baby on the floor in the event of severe turbulence. I was incredulous when the flight attendant told me that the 1st time I flew with (then 3 mo. old) ds. Its also why they freak out and wont allow you to keep the baby in a carrrier (I had a Beco they wouldnt let me use) during take-off and landing. Apparently they're safer on the floor than strapped to a parent. Who knew?

I suppose in the event of SEVERE turbulence,or one of those unexpected drops, yeah, you could lose grip on the dc, or get tossed into the ceiling with dc.


----------



## MacKinnon (Jun 15, 2004)

It's not easy to keep a hold of a child in severe turbulence. It's the basic physics-- force equals mass times acceleration. In a car, that means your kleenex box can injure you in a crash, not to mention your steel water bottle... It also means that keeping a hold of a 10lb. baby in a 30 mile an hour collision takes 300 lbs. of effort. It's just not that easy. I agree that you are much greater risk driving to and from the airport. It's not likely you'll be in severe turbulence or in a plane crash. However, you have to have a car seat on the other end. It's not a great idea to check them, they are often lost damaged or misplaced. Car seat rental is not a great idea, period. For any number of reasons. It's just simply safest to use the car seat on the plane.


----------



## expatmommy (Nov 7, 2006)

We've flown a lot with our kids, usually in their carseats but occasionally not.

Once we hit unanticipated turbulance so bad that our lying down sleeping older children flew up to the top of the backs of the seat & dh hit his knee on the top of the bathroom door. The baby travelling in front of us, unstrapped in a bassinette, fractured his collarbone.

It was pretty scary & a good lesson in why carseats are a good idea.


----------



## OkiMom (Nov 21, 2007)

From being in servere turbulence myself I wouldn't want to try to hold my baby through it. Ive flown a lot and was one test away from having my private pilots license before I went to college so Ive seen good fligts and bad flights. The last one I took from Japan to the states we had a really bad landing and I was so relieved DD (16 months at the time) was in her seat because the baby next to us went flying from her mom's lap and got hurt.


----------



## SiobhanAoife (Jun 10, 2008)

What do people think about the baby b'air as a turbulence protection device for lap-seated babies?

http://www.babybair.com/

We're on the fence about whether using such a device makes flying with our baby in our laps OK or not. Thoughts?


----------



## ChristyMarie (May 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SiobhanAoife* 
What do people think about the baby b'air as a turbulence protection device for lap-seated babies?

http://www.babybair.com/

We're on the fence about whether using such a device makes flying with our baby in our laps OK or not. Thoughts?


You cannot use that during take off, taxing or landing.


----------



## Keria (Sep 27, 2008)

the floor thing is not true, It was a procedure practiced by some airlines a long time ago, now you are just asked to hold your baby in arms.

Btw that case in 1989 was the only one I have seen referenced where a lap child died, so one child in 20 years doesn't seem like enough to guarantee, 800$ more for an extra seat.


----------



## SiobhanAoife (Jun 10, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristyMarie* 
You cannot use that during take off, taxing or landing.

Yes, I know, which is why I asked what people think of it as a device for protection against turbulence, since that's what many people think is the primary risk for lap babies on airplanes - violent turbulence during the flight.


----------



## snoopy5386 (May 6, 2005)

we've done it every way possible and I still have not come to any conclusions. We've based buying DD a ticket on the length of the flight. 1st flight, she was 3 months old, we didn't buy her a ticket, but we lucked out and got a free seat and we were able to use our bucket. 2nd flight was 6 hours long and we bought her a seat. She was a carseat screamer as an infant and barely spent any time in her seat anyways. 3rd and 4th flights we took her as a lap baby, she got a free seat on all but one segment. Bought her a seat when it was just me and her flying since I couldn't pass her off to anyone. She sat with the lapbelt (she was 1 and 2 years old respectively) and did just fine. Now she is over 2 so we have to buy her a seat. We only took the convertible seat on one flight. It was such a PITA, I'll never do it again. Trying not to smack everyone already sitting on the plane in the head with it, installing it, DD didn't want to sit in it and sure as hell didn't want to be buckled in it, we couldn't use the tray table with it, it was impossible for her not to kick the seat in front of her, it didn't work for us at all. DD does fine in a lap belt, but I bought the CARES harness for peace of mind and extra protection. We have a seat we use just for travelling and we check it in a padded carseat bag. We started out gate checking it, but DH (the one who carries it) put his foot down and refuses to haul yet another through the airport. I am ok with the small risk of it being damaged. It is a cheap seat, so it is easily replaceable.
I'm not sure what we'll do with the lap baby when we have another one. At this point I'm more inclined to buy a seat for a tiny, tiny baby (8 months or younger) who would be at the most risk of being injured. My kids don't really stay strapped in their seats during the flight, so sudden turbuelence may still injure them. I am more worried about a crash landing. I figure I can cram two kids into one seatbelt if I was faced with that situation. Yes I know that is against regulations and the FA's wouldn't allow it, but at some point they strap themselves in as well and can't see what everyone is doing.
Sorry for the long ramble!


----------



## HarperRose (Feb 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by **Louise** 
the floor thing is not true, It was a procedure practiced by some airlines a long time ago, now you are just asked to hold your baby in arms.

That was our experience the last time I flew w/ lap kids. (It's been a few years.) I also couldn't hold dd (who was 8 mos at the time) in a sling. Any idea why that would be the case?

We'll be going to see my parents (out of state) in the next couple of months. I will have ds2's RF Graco Safeseat (good to 30 lbs and some inches - will have to check that) but we're leaving it w/ my sil so I won't have it on our return flight. I expect I'll gate check it because I'm not really keen on regular baggage for that.


----------



## roxyrox (Sep 11, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by **Louise** 
the floor thing is not true, It was a procedure practiced by some airlines a long time ago, now you are just asked to hold your baby in arms.

Btw that case in 1989 was the only one I have seen referenced were a lap child died, so one child in 20 years doesn't seem like enough to guarantee, 800$ more for an extra seat.


Yeah, you don't have to put your baby under the seat








Alll flights I have been on tell you to do like on this card
http://safety.mania.ru/img/easyjet_b737-300a_1.jpg
That's a UK airline but US ones are exactly the same just minus the baby belt.


----------



## DogwoodFairy (Jan 11, 2008)

I was fairly dubious about the advice regarding putting my child on the floor, and it was relayed to me about a year ago, so some airlines either still recommend it, or the flight attendant I was subject to was seriously uninformed.

FTR - I dont think anything would compel me to place my child on the floor in any event. Not that there would be time for that sort of action when you do hit severe turbulence. Instinctually, my first thought would NOT be "OH! Quick! Lets stuff you under the seat!"









Its ridiculous. But unfortunately, obviously still being recommended on some flights/by some attendants.


----------



## Twinklefae (Dec 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Justthatgirl* 
That was our experience the last time I flew w/ lap kids. (It's been a few years.) I also couldn't hold dd (who was 8 mos at the time) in a sling. Any idea why that would be the case?

We'll be going to see my parents (out of state) in the next couple of months. I will have ds2's RF Graco Safeseat (good to 30 lbs and some inches - will have to check that) but we're leaving it w/ my sil so I won't have it on our return flight. I expect I'll gate check it because I'm not really keen on regular baggage for that.


According to a friend who was a flight attendant, you are not allowed to wear a sling or anything because if the plane crashed, and you were dead/injured/trapped under metal they wouldn't be able to get your baby out. She did not AGREE with this logic, but that's what she was taught.


----------



## HarperRose (Feb 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Twinklefae* 
According to a friend who was a flight attendant, you are not allowed to wear a sling or anything because if the plane crashed, and you were dead/injured/trapped under metal they wouldn't be able to get your baby out. She did not AGREE with this logic, but that's what she was taught.

Hm. Interesting. Thanks for that info. I've wondered for, well, July will be 7 years.


----------



## lifeguard (May 12, 2008)

Interesting thread. When I flew a few weeks ago I kept ds in the Moby style wrap during all 4 take offs & 2 of the landings. I had him in basically the position they want you to hold him in & he slept right through. The fa's even gave me the whole baby dpeal but never said anything about taking him out of the wrap. That was with Air Canada - so maybe different airlines have different rules regarding it.


----------



## Marylizah (Jun 17, 2005)

I use the CARES harness on the plane and gate-check the carseat. It's worked great.

The one time we tried using the carseat in the plane, DS kicked the seat in front of him the whole time, screamed when we tried to hold his legs down and was super frustrated by not being able to use the tray table. It was awful. Plus installation is so stressful when you're trying to get into the plane with everyone behind you etc etc. The CARES is so easy to use, I really like it.

That said, when he was a baby we flew with him as a lap-baby. Most of the flights were in Europe, where they give you a little belt that hooks on to the adult belt. It was great, because he could still nurse during take-off and landing. Don't think you could do that with your child strapped into the carseat....


----------



## Adventuredad (Apr 23, 2008)

Using a car sat on a plane purely for safety reasons is not rational and doesn't make sense. There are other reasons why it might be a good idea through,. Like squirmy kids, kids who sleep better in a car seat, kids who feel calmer and more relaxed, and also the fact that you know the car seat will never get lost or damaged with other luggage.

Looking at data, statistics, and real life situations show that a child on a plane is safer than anywhere else. It's almost unheard of that a child is injured on a plane and even more rare that a child survive an accident purely due to being in a car seat. To compare with something completely different to put into perspective. Each year 25 kids die from a falling television set in the home, over 500 kids drown each year and thousands are killed in vehicle accidents.

There are 25 000+ flight each day in US alone, the amount globally per day is just incredible. Despite of this, people killed by turbulence each year is close to zeo. In addition, most of the people who are injured during turbulence follishly did not use a seat belt even though fasten seat belt sign was on. Lap belts provide good protection but they must be used..... Quick data below is from a 15 year period and show just how safe flying is.

Quote:

From 1981 to November, 1996, there were 252 reports of turbulence affecting major air carriers. As a result, two passengers died, 63 suffered serious injuries, and 863 received minor injuries. Both of the fatalities in these incidents involved passengers who were not wearing their seat belts while the seat belt sign was illuminated. Of the 63 passengers who were seriously injured, 59 were not wearing their seat belts while the seat belt sign was illuminated.


----------



## skolbut (Feb 18, 2008)

I flew from Michigan to Seattle by myself with DS1 when he was 5 months old. I didn't buy him a seat. He was so little it went without a hitch. I wore him in the carrier the entire way home (red-eye so he was sleeping) and nobody said anything, except to give us bulkhead (more legroom) seating on one flight. I gate checked his seat so I would have it in the airport during layover.

Thinking it would be the same easy deal, pregnant me and hubby took him as a lap child at 15 months to California. Hindsight? I wish I had the carseat. We checked it so we couldn't even retrieve it when our second leg wasn't full and we had an empty seat between us (mistake, should have gate checked... we had it in a carry bag anyway).

I think it comes down to what you feel is most comfortable for you, your child, and their temperment (as in, a familiar seat may be more comforting, or new surroundings might be more exciting).


----------



## maddymama (Jan 5, 2008)

Hi Mama,
I'm going to offer a slightly different reason why we take our carseat with us on the airplane (we've flown when DD was 6 months old, 18 months old, and will fly when she is almost 3 in a few months).
We take the carseat on the plane with us for one main reason- if your plane is diverted/ has an issue (as has happened to us before) anything that was checked or even gate checked will probably not make it onto your new flight. That could mean HOURS at the airport without your carseat waiting for it to arrive on a different flight.
Once our plane had am emergency landing (scary! Very turbulent! Very happy we had DD strapped in to her carseat!!) and we were re-booked on different flights to our destination. A family that we were talking to in the airport had gatechecked their carseat on the original flight and had gotten a new flight out 2 hours before us. Thankfully our new flight was uneventful. When we got to our destination we ran into that family. They were waiting for their carseat to be flown over in a new flight- and had already been waiting for it for 2 hours. Their carseat was on the flight behind us, which was 2 hours after our flight landed. They had to wait for 4 hours in the airport for their carseat, while we had ours with us and had no waiting time.
The scary turbulence and the idea that gate checked items don't always make it with you if your plans change has made the "trouble" of hauling around the carseat with us a necessary evil. BTW, we have a clippy thingy that hooks the carseat onto the back of rolling luggage which makes it easy easy easy to transport.
JM2C,
~maddymama


----------



## Ironica (Sep 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Adventuredad* 
Using a car sat on a plane purely for safety reasons is not rational and doesn't make sense. There are other reasons why it might be a good idea through,. Like squirmy kids, kids who sleep better in a car seat, kids who feel calmer and more relaxed, and also the fact that you know the car seat will never get lost or damaged with other luggage.

A squirmy child who can be easily contained is safer than one who cannot be. A child who gets sufficient sleep is less prone to screaming, banging-head-on-the-floor fits or accidents. A calmer child won't set other people on edge, increasing everyone's stress level. A seat that you know is available and undamaged is a clear safety advantage.

So *all* the advantages you mention can be framed as safety issues. To say that it's irrational to use a safety seat for your child purely for safety reasons doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Actually, if the airline looses your checked car seat they will lend you one until they find your luggage. Not that it necessarily will be a good one, but there is that option. I've never had a gate-checked car seat not make it. It's always there when I get off.


----------



## maddymama (Jan 5, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DahliaRW* 
Actually, if the airline looses your checked car seat they will lend you one until they find your luggage. Not that it necessarily will be a good one, but there is that option. I've never had a gate-checked car seat not make it. It's always there when I get off.

The (major) airline we flew on would only lend one if the gatechecked item would be arrive more than 12 hours after you did.... and I wasn't happy with the idea of borrowing one that I didn't know the safety record of (how old, if it had been in an accident, etc.).
I'm not sure of their guidelines for checked luggage versus gate-checked luggage.
~maddymama


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ironica* 
A squirmy child who can be easily contained is safer than one who cannot be. A child who gets sufficient sleep is less prone to screaming, banging-head-on-the-floor fits or accidents. A calmer child won't set other people on edge, increasing everyone's stress level. A seat that you know is available and undamaged is a clear safety advantage.

So *all* the advantages you mention can be framed as safety issues. To say that it's irrational to use a safety seat for your child purely for safety reasons doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I wish I had kids who liked the carseat







Bringing a carseat on a plane would result in screaming, etc. I have never had a baby/toddler who was happy or even just quiet in their carseat







Best thing for my baby's is nursing, which can't be done in a carseat


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maddymama* 
The (major) airline we flew on would only lend one if the gatechecked item would be arrive more than 12 hours after you did.... and I wasn't happy with the idea of borrowing one that I didn't know the safety record of (how old, if it had been in an accident, etc.).
I'm not sure of their guidelines for checked luggage versus gate-checked luggage.
~maddymama

That was for checked, no idea on gate checked. Never had that issue.

We checked a car seat once (before I knew better) and it didn't make it. So we asked what to do and they sent us down to a place to lend us a car seat free of charge. Fortunately for us, it was a brand new looking scenera and we only needed it for a 30 minute ride home.


----------



## Ks Mama (Aug 22, 2006)

.


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Socks for Supper* 
I was fairly dubious about the advice regarding putting my child on the floor, and it was relayed to me about a year ago, so some airlines either still recommend it, or the flight attendant I was subject to was seriously uninformed.

FTR - I dont think anything would compel me to place my child on the floor in any event. Not that there would be time for that sort of action when you do hit severe turbulence. Instinctually, my first thought would NOT be "OH! Quick! Lets stuff you under the seat!"









Its ridiculous. But unfortunately, obviously still being recommended on some flights/by some attendants.

Here's the thing. I've never heard of anyone actually told TO put a baby on the floor. In the crash in the Hudson, they were specifically NOT told to do that, and the parents didn't put the baby on the floor, with the lap infant on board. I think it's something a few airlines had on their cards once upon a time, but it makes for a harrowing "reason" why people should use seats so it gets repeated even though it's untrue. I've NEVER seen it on the security cards for 5 different airlines I've flown on in the last 5 years, and I've looked. What are they going to do exactly if you refuse to put your child on the floor in a crash situation? Not crash? Wrestle the child from your arms?


----------



## Ks Mama (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristyMarie* 
You cannot use that during take off, taxing or landing.

We were never told to take it off for Taxi, Takeoff, or landing.

I used it, and it worked well, and gave me a small sense of security, in that I could remove a hand from my baby, in the case of turbulence, he was still attached to me.

A snugli or ergo would serve a similar purpose, but I HAVE been told to remove my baby from the carrier for Taxi, Takeoff, Landing - not so the Baby B'air.


----------



## cherimoya (Mar 23, 2008)

With ds I flew Canada to Australia (3 flights - 21 hours in the air not including time at airports) at 9mo & 19mo. Both times were lap (no seat for him). He was great. It was easy! I bf him most of the time. The main reason I did it this way was COST - an extra $1800 - $2400 just for his seat would have made going home to see my Mum & family impossible at the time.

Now with dd, when we travel to Australia soon we will be getting her a seat and putting her carseat in it...why? Not because I feel rich, lol, but because she's big, squirmy and not a *calm* baby like my ds was.


----------



## Ks Mama (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ironica* 
Ultimately, if we were the one in a [number with lots of zeroes after] flight where it *would* make a difference, could I ever live with myself for having decided my child's life wasn't worth $XXX? Me, no, I'd never recover from that. There may be others who can make peace with that decision in the same situation, and I don't fault them for it, but it's a level of serenity and trust in the universe that I simply don't have.


We've always bought a separate seat for our children, even as babies, and we've never brought a carseat for either on the flight.
My children are carseat screamers. That's not right for them, us, or anyone else on the flight to strap them into a contraption which they hate, while I get to move around freely. If strapping our children into carseats for the duration of the flight were part of the decision making, I'm not sure we'd choose to fly. Becuase really, it's not about dollars for us, its about getting safely from point a to point b without major meltdowns, discomfort, and hassle. We've even flown when flying would take nearly as long as driving.

We do have the CARES harness for my 4 yo and the Baby B'air flight vest for when we've flown with DS as an infant/baby. We'll get another CARES for our next trip with DS.

As for carseats: we securely strap our carseats to a dolly, then wrap the whole contraption in thick plastic, and check it. Never had a problem with damage, and easy to get in/out of the airport & into the rental car.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

From the sticky in this forum
Child restraint information for airplanes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA: http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_children/crs/

AAP policy on airplane restraint use: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...ics;108/5/1218

NTSB position on child safety seat use on an airplane: http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/1990/a90_78_79.pdf

Association of Flight Attendants: http://www.afanet.org/Legislative/default.asp?id=5

SafeRide News: http://www.saferidenews.com/html/Airplane_Eng.htm


----------



## mercury (Jul 2, 2008)

We took a trip last September with 3 kids-oldest having just turned 3 in July. He got his own seat, paid for, with his car seat. The middle girl, was a lap seat, but ther ewere empty seats, so we brought her seat on the plane with us and she used it, a little bit. The baby, then 8 weeks old, sat on my lap, and nursed and slept basically the entire 2 hour flight. They never asked me to take him out of the ring sling, but I may have done it before they could, as I don't find it comfortable to sit in, and never mastered nursing in it. However, we forgot our sit and stand stroller at home (ugh) so My husband had to push the luggage AND 2 big ole Britax car seats on one cart all through the airport. My daughter was TERRIFIED of the transportation golf carts they use, so we couldn't use them, and had to walk it. He was not happy, the seats kept falling off and he wished we had checked them. But once we got on the plane, and he saw how BIG the seats/belts were compare to our tiny kiddos he was happy he had the seats for them. Even when we landed, and had to WALK ACROSS THE TARMACK to the terminal, as there was no adjoining ramp thing. Up and down the plane stairs for each kid, each carseat and each bag of luggage. And I had the baby in the sling, and the stairs are STEEP so I was no help. Poor guy. Then we had to put up with his mother for a week







Anyway, I would prefer to have the seat.....physics are hard to argue with. And kids like to have their own space. At least mine do to a degree. But I was pleased when we got off the plane and had several people say "man, i was scared when I saw you come on with those 3 kids, but theye didn't make a peep! they are so well behaved!"


----------



## Eclipsepearl (May 20, 2007)

Please everyone, your babies must be LOOSE IN YOUR LAPS and not attached to you in any way, shape or form. Do NOT use a Baby B'Air or baby carrier for take-off and landing. In forward impact, you could crush your child. This is logic and it's for your babies' safety.

Double seat belts like what was shown in the Easy Jet link are banned in the U.S. Canada and Germany because they are dangerous. They offer NO protection for the child. I've been forced to use them and then simply detached them when the F/A's weren't looking.

I flew for two airlines. One instructed parents to just leave babies in laps in emergencies. The others instructed parents to hold them to the floor. There really isn't any good solution to an unrestrained child.

_I've NEVER seen it on the security cards for 5 different airlines I've flown on in the last 5 years, and I've looked._

For the record, these instructions are only for prepared emergency landings. They were in our handbooks but NOT on the safety cards.

_What are they going to do exactly if you refuse to put your child on the floor in a crash situation? Not crash? Wrestle the child from your arms?_

First of all, why would you refuse if this is the safest option for your child? Leaving him or her in your lap wont work. There's no way you can hold on to the baby on impact (althoug still difficult when holding him to the floor). You opted to save money by flying with a lap baby and then refuse safety advice?!? C'mon!

Second, this is technically "non cooperation with the crew" which is a federal offense. If you survive, you're in big trouble!

_I dont think anything would compel me to place my child on the floor in any event. Not that there would be time for that sort of action when you do hit severe turbulence. Instinctually, my first thought would NOT be "OH! Quick! Lets stuff you under the seat!"_

Again, placing lap babies on the floor was only in an _emergency landing_ situation, not for turbulence. No F/A will tell you to do this in rough air.

Many people will claim their car seat was "fine" after checking it as luggage. The truth is that the damage can be unseen, as if in an accident. They could have been roughly handled and/or crushed under heavy things. It's too big a risk. If you opt to fly with a lap baby, _gate-check_ your car seat and send it down with the strollers and wheelchairs. It's too important a safety item to be treated as ordinary luggage.

All three babies were breastfed (two never had bottles and none had paci's) and stayed in their seats for take-off and landing. No ear problems. Sure, sometimes they cried but it was more important that they were safe.

Hope that clarifies some issues!
F/A, 13 years, 2 companies
3 children ages 5, 7 & 9 flying since each was 4 months old transatlantically and elsewhere.
http://flyingwithchildren.blogspot.com


----------



## Adventuredad (Apr 23, 2008)

Didn't see the link you referred to but was your comment about "dangerous" referring to a regular lap belt that's used in many countries around the world? Anyway you look at it, having a bay on board a plane is safer than anything you will ever do. Doesn't matter how your baby is sitting in the plane, it's still ultra safe. All the data and stats I've looked at show zero kids die each year due to turbulence. And the children saved purely because of being in a car seat in a plane crash are just incredibly few.


----------



## Ironica (Sep 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Adventuredad* 
Didn't see the link you referred to but was your comment about "dangerous" referring to a regular lap belt that's used in many countries around the world? Anyway you look at it, having a bay on board a plane is safer than anything you will ever do. Doesn't matter how your baby is sitting in the plane, it's still ultra safe. All the data and stats I've looked at show zero kids die each year due to turbulence. And the children saved purely because of being in a car seat in a plane crash are just incredibly few.

Her point was, the belly belts put the child at greater danger than being in-arms alone. They're merely a convenience for parents with lap-children, because the parent can then let go now and then without the child slipping off their lap... but in the event of an accident, they can cause severe injuries to the child that they would be spared if they were in-arms alone. That's why they're illegal in the US (and apparently in some other countries, too).


----------



## ChetMC (Aug 27, 2005)

We fly with carseats mainly for comfort. The kids are more comfortable in them, and because they stay in their seats in the car the precedent has been set and so they stay in their seats on the plane. Because most of our flights are fairly long, and we usually have at least one connection, we even get a seat for the baby. I love my baby, but he sleeps better in his seat than in my lap for 9 hours, especially when I need to be helping out with two other small children.

We have done a couple very short haul flights with young lap babies. I understand not wanting to buy a seat for a 2.5 month old on a 1 hour flight when odds are high that you're going to have no choice but to be holding and nursing the baby the whole time anyway. I really feel horrible for everybody involved though when somebody takes a 23 month old lap child on a long haul flight, and it doesn't go well. I realize that some kids this age will sit quietly on their mother's lap for 10 hours with a stranger trying to sleep or read on either side, but I think that this is more than exception than the rule.

That said, after having watched every episode of Air Crash Investigation I feel better with our kids in their carseats. Plane crashes are a total crap shoot. People often ask about the right place to sit, and there is no right place. Sometimes the back is the best, sometimes it's the worst. A million factors play into what ultimately happens in any air disaster. This is what I know though :

the pilots are wearing 5 point harnesses.
I would not trust a child to be able to brace for impact.
I would be better able to brace for impact if I was not holding a child in my lap.
I could not safely hold a child during really bad turbulence, or if the pilots temporarily lost control of the aircraft and the plane went into something like a dive or spin.
I find it very difficult to fly with carseats and baby carriers at times. We get a different story every time we fly. Same airline, different flight crew... we can still get a different story! We've gotten different stories from the counter staff, the gate staff, and the cabin crew. But, planes do not take off until you comply with the cabin crew. We were on a British Airways flight three years ago and the plane was not taking off until I put on the double seatbelt.

I realize the odds of air disasters are very low, but as near as I can tell, the carseats will either help or do nothing. I can name several dozen episodes of Air Crash Investigation where carseats would definitely have helped, lots where they would have done nothing, and none where they would have hurt the situation.

The Hudson River landing was a landing, not a crash. I'm certain that lap children would be fine, but that whole flight was incredibly lucky. The Turkish Airways incident was a crash. The plane broke into three pieces. Based on reports from friends of a friend who were on that flight, carseats would have probably helped to reduce injury and I'm sure that they wouldn't have hurt anything. I suspect that the injury count in the media for that Turkish Airlines flight is too low. The people I know on the flight were initially classified as having minor injuries only to be diagnosed with more serious injuries (requiring surgery) later.

Unfortunately, safety guidelines don't change until after the fact. Typically, something horrible happens, the NTSB investigates (along with the local authorities, the aircraft manufacturer, etc), and then new requirements are generated based on what would have made a difference in that air disaster. Most flights don't have many babies or small kids though, and they're not looking at how one or two extra people could have survived or been less severely injured, they're looking at how the survival rate could have been improved significantly on this and future flights (or how the disaster could have been avoided entirely)... and even then, the airline industry will often resist the introduction of new safety requirements due to the cost. Because air disasters are rare, airlines are keenly aware that it can be cheaper to pay off injured passengers and the families of the dead on the off chance that something unlikely, but horrible, goes wrong.

With this setup, it's very unlikely that the industry will research and implement what truly is safest for babies and small children. And again, as near as I can tell :

our carseats may help during an air incident.
are unlikely to hurt anything.
the carseats are safer in the cabin with children sitting in them (as opposed to on the tarmac getting sprayed with de-icing fluid, holy crap!).
and the kids are more comfortable anyway.
So all around, the seats seem like a good idea.


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Eclipsepearl* 
I flew for two airlines. One instructed parents to just leave babies in laps in emergencies. The others instructed parents to hold them to the floor. There really isn't any good solution to an unrestrained child.

Okay, good to know. My point is that it has always sounded to me like an apocryphal tale or a "friend of a friend of a friend" story. I wrote training videos for FA for one airline a decade ago, and I know they said in the lap and some brace positions, not on the floor. This is the first I've ever heard from a FA that an airline actually DOES tell FA to tell parents to put babies on the floor. Usually it comes from someone who hasn't flown in years and has heard through the grapevine that FAs tell parents to put babies on the floor.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Eclipsepearl* 
First of all, why would you refuse if this is the safest option for your child? Leaving him or her in your lap wont work. There's no way you can hold on to the baby on impact (althoug still difficult when holding him to the floor). You opted to save money by flying with a lap baby and then refuse safety advice?!? C'mon!

As a matter of fact, what you said above makes it pretty clear that it ISN'T determinedly, decidedly safer to put the baby on the floor. One company says to do it, maybe for the baby's safety, but probably really for the safety of the other passengers in large part, and one says keep them in the lap. I doubt in an actual crash situation, there is any known safest place for a lap infant. It's all guessing.


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

The horrible customer service of most airlines is probably one of the major reasons parents aren't happy to fork over extra cash so we can argue with a FA or gate agent or check in person about all kinds of silly things.

I will pay more for airlines that do well with children, babies, car seats, and families. Jet Blue comes to mind.







(But keep in mind that some routes are better than others, and who the FAs are is luck of the draw.)


----------



## Bellabaz (Feb 27, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *roxyrox* 
I agree with you, you're right. The only reason for taking a carseat on a plane is if it makes the child more comfortable. Carseats don't make it any "safer". Even in turbulence...it's not hard to keep a hold of a baby.

I agree with this and feel the same way. If your kid is more comfortable with their carseat then by all means take it with you. For us, the flights we take are usually 8 or more hours and dd does not like the carseat that much. It would have been just one more thing to lug around the airport.


----------



## Bellabaz (Feb 27, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *roxyrox* 
I agree with you, you're right. The only reason for taking a carseat on a plane is if it makes the child more comfortable. Carseats don't make it any "safer". Even in turbulence...it's not hard to keep a hold of a baby.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissE* 
I was on a flight with DS when he was 11 month old (28lbs) with NO seat for himself. I booked him a bassinett 'seat' (it was an international flight) and that worked well, aside from him wanting to walk and talk and entertain. I will be flying with two kids soon. DS (then 2) will get his own seat with a carseat and DD will be in a bassinett/lap seat.

Just wanted to add that we did the basinet thing too on the way to Europe and it worked out well. DD was 9 months so once she fell asleep I put her in that and I was free to move around.


----------



## ChetMC (Aug 27, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bellabaz* 
IEven in turbulence...it's not hard to keep a hold of a baby.

Fortunately, most people have never experienced really bad turbulence. But while bad turbulence is rare, it does happen. A plane can drop 1500 feet in 1 second, or be pushed up 1500 feet in one second. They put the drink cart away when they're expecting turbulence... and they do it because turbulence can be so bad the drink cart hits the ceiling. It's rare, but it happens.


----------



## Adventuredad (Apr 23, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ironica* 
Her point was, the belly belts put the child at greater danger than being in-arms alone. They're merely a convenience for parents with lap-children, because the parent can then let go now and then without the child slipping off their lap... but in the event of an accident, they can cause severe injuries to the child that they would be spared if they were in-arms alone. That's why they're illegal in the US (and apparently in some other countries, too).

Got it. Just because they are illegal in US doesn't make them dangerous. It's also more or less a recommendation to ff at 12 months a nd it doesn't make it a good idea.

Lots of countries use lap belts. All over Europe lap belts are used. We are talking about risks are so small they can't even be calculated. No statistics I know of say lap belts are dangerous. In case they were they wouldn't be used.

Babies CAN be hurt by many many different things. REgardless if a baby goes in a car seat, lap belt, or no belt at all, the risk of something happening is as close to zero as humanly possible. All data shows this is the case.

Crash landings are very rare to start with. To compare lap belt and no belt in such extremely rare cases just isn't meaningful. US says lap belts are more dangerous, many other countries say the opposite. There is no data data I know of which shows either is better since it's so rare to have a baby injured on a plane. A baby is fine either way.


----------



## Ironica (Sep 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Adventuredad* 
Got it. Just because they are illegal in US doesn't make them dangerous.

No, it doesn't. But they're illegal in the US because the FAA has done crash-tests with them, and found that they can cause injuries that don't happen without them. That's what makes them more dangerous.

Quote:

It's also more or less a recommendation to ff at 12 months a nd it doesn't make it a good idea.
It is not "more or less" a recommendation. It's a minimum requirement to stay rear-facing until at least 12 months (and 20 pounds). There is NO organization, public or private, that actually recommends FFing at 12 months.

Quote:

Lots of countries use lap belts. All over Europe lap belts are used. We are talking about risks are so small they can't even be calculated. No statistics I know of say lap belts are dangerous. In case they were they wouldn't be used.
Ok... red dye #40 isn't dangerous, because they use it in the US? But it's banned in Europe (since studies show it has undesirable affects on many children's behavior). OTOH, studies show that red dye #2 causes cancer in rats, so it's banned in the US, but it's used in Europe. Are *either* of them "safe"?

You look at the data, you make a decision. I don't know what data the companies in Europe that use the belly-belts are using to make that decision; I can only find the FAA's info on the subject. So I'm using that data.

Quote:

Babies CAN be hurt by many many different things. REgardless if a baby goes in a car seat, lap belt, or no belt at all, the risk of something happening is as close to zero as humanly possible. All data shows this is the case.
That's true of everyone on the plane. Are seat belts on planes a bad idea, then? They don't increase comfort, and there's almost zero chance you'll need it. There's more data about how people fare in actual emergencies... but that's just because there's more adults on planes than children; children are not inherently *safer* on planes than adults are. So why would we accept a lower standard of safety on planes for them? If I can't ride on my husband's lap for "safety reasons," then why can my baby ride on my lap?


----------



## Adventuredad (Apr 23, 2008)

You're missing the point. If dead children on planes were a big problem then we can certainly discuss what's more dangerous. But it isn't. As far as I know, not one single baby has been killed by turbulence in the past 40 years. I'm sure it's possible to dig up a case though. In a typical 15 year period, there are a few hundred adults injured and a couple of deaths despite many billions of people flying.

And finding a baby which is saved purely by sitting in a car seat is beyond extremely rare.

Since lap belts are so "dangerous" there must be lots of dead children. Where are they? If no lap belt is so much safer there must be many kids dyring in Europe fore example and not in US. This should be easy to see in the stats. Only problem is babies aren't dying on planes.

Quote:

It is not "more or less" a recommendation. It's a minimum requirement to stay rear-facing until at least 12 months (and 20 pounds). There is NO organization, public or private, that actually recommends FFing at 12 months.
Many doctors, peds, child accessory stores, etc. say it's perfectly fine to ff at 12 month despite it being 500% less safe. That's what I mean by "more or less" I know organizations say it's "better to rf longer" but it's a very soft sell. If any serious effort was done there wouldn't be an extremely high percentage riding ff at 12 months. It's that simple. Most parents don't know about rf past 12 months because it's discussed very little (in real life, not among car seat fanatics like us).

You can't just assume that all recommendations coming from the US are right and others are wrong. No bashing FAA, from what I've seen I thin they are doing a good job with limited resources.

Quote:

That's true of everyone on the plane. Are seat belts on planes a bad idea, then? They don't increase comfort, and there's almost zero chance you'll need it. There's more data about how people fare in actual emergencies... but that's just because there's more adults on planes than children; children are not inherently *safer* on planes than adults are. So why would we accept a lower standard of safety on planes for them? If I can't ride on my husband's lap for "safety reasons," then why can my baby ride on my lap?

Both adults and kids are of course safe on planes. Although there are far more adults flying there are still lots of children on the planes. Since it's so dangerous, especially with lap belts, there must be hundreds of dead children each year and it would be easy to see a clear trend in stats.

Please show me some serious study which has been peer reviewed which shows your point. Since kids are held to poor safety standards there must be something showing this. Lots of injuries and deaths for example.

I have not said kids are safer than adults on planes. Both are extremely safe regardless how you look at it. There is no safety issue with seat belts, almost all adults who are injured are not wearing their seat belt when supposed to.

Quote:

From 1981 to November, 1996, there were 252 reports of turbulence affecting major air carriers. As a result, two passengers died, 63 suffered serious injuries, and 863 received minor injuries. Both of the fatalities in these incidents involved passengers who were not wearing their seat belts while the seat belt sign was illuminated. Of the 63 passengers who were seriously injured, 59 were not wearing their seat belts while the seat belt sign was illuminated.
I don't think there is anything we do in our lives which is that safe.

Quote:

If I can't ride on my husband's lap for "safety reasons," then why can my baby ride on my lap?
I'm guessing you're a little better at making decisions than a 12 month old







And coordination for a 12 month old isn't exactly perfect so it's not a good idea for them to sit in a seat. Bottom line is your baby is safe on the plane regardless if using a car seat, lap belt, or no belt at all.

If there is evidence that fatalities in children are high on planes then we should take action. But I doubt that will change after 40 years.


----------



## Eclipsepearl (May 20, 2007)

Here's a good video for the double seatbelt debate. It's all in German from Switzerland (if I understood correctly). Just watch the video by clicking on the picture. Great if you understand but not necessary for what it shows. No, promise, nothing really scary. They tested the double seatbelts with dummies.

http://www.sf.tv/sendungen/kassenstu...0080520-gurten

Also, there have been children saved by using car seats on planes. This little girl survived but it was a small private plane, which we all know are less safe than commercial aircraft;

http://blog.lorla.com/love-and-life/...n-plane-crash/

http://www.goodnewsblog.com/2007/10/...in-plane-crash

The actually told us in training that they simply don't have enough data on car seats in airplanes to push for a change. Like Adventuredad (who obviously doesn't like beating around the bush) said, there aren't "lots" of dead children. They told us, and this was awhile ago, there might have been 30 children saved in the last 30 odd years if they had been in a car seat, while 10 million a year arrive at their destinations safely _per year._

You can argue this point ad nauseum. One of the children who died in the Sioux City Crash (United 232, 1989) was being held down to the floor per United's instructions. On impact, his mother couldn't hold on. He died of smoke inhalation in the back of the plane. He would have been saved if he had been in a car seat, not strictly because the seat would have saved him, but the fact that he ended up in a part of the aircraft where there was a lot of smoke and a lot of people died. Where his mom was, there was less smoke and she survived (and had to be kept from trying to go get him-very sad!)

One lap held baby was saved when she landed in the overhead bin.

I think what's important is that parents _know_ that lap held children are not protected. Playing the statistical game is another matter. Making an informed decision is what matters.

Taking a car seat on board is your _right_ on U.S. aircraft (if the child has a purchased seat and the car seat is FAA approved). Foreign airlines are different. The CAA, the British version of the FAA, has decided that infants under 6 months shouldn't be in car seats. Also, all car seats have to be forward facing (too bad about your infant bucket!) Where is the logic in that?!? Ryan Air bans car seats in their cabin completely. I've also had Iberia, Air France and (mistakenly) Lufthansa remove our seats because they were American. Grrrrr!

Here's your document if you're flying a U.S. company;
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...7?OpenDocument
(or search with "FAA Advisory Circular 120-87A")

Now having your car seat broken and/or lost in the hold-much greater chance of that! Go in any airport anywhere and you'll find car seats in lost luggage. Not having a car seat on the road is a lot more of a risk. I wish someone had the stats on children leaving airports in cars without car seats because that _does_ happen all the time...


----------



## Adventuredad (Apr 23, 2008)

Good points, tahnks. Sorry about being a little blunt about child fatalities..... I know some kids have been saved but it's beyond extremely rare. Usually, articles referring to this mention a crash that took place in 1989 which should say a lot.

this can as you say be argued forever. A large poroblem is taht parents don't understand risk. They make poor decisions due to so many emtional things being attached to protecting children. Most parents don't think twice about turning their child forward at 12 months. This is 500% less safe than rear facing. At the same time they refuse to fly without a car sat since it's "too dangerous" despite everything showing the opposite. PArents freak out about lead painted toys standing onthe shelf and drive in record speed down to the toy store to return them. THat their child is not in a child seat is een as no issue but the lead filled toys are very dangerous.

Parents simply are poorly informed about what's dangerous for kids. It's also not often easy to know without making an effort. Protecting kids means playing statistical games. We can't protect our kids against everything so we focus on what's more dangerous. That's not flying.

Quote:

Now having your car seat broken and/or lost in the hold-much greater chance of that! Go in any airport anywhere and you'll find car seats in lost luggage. Not having a car seat on the road is a lot more of a risk. I wish someone had the stats on children leaving airports in cars without car seats because that does happen all the time...

Excellent point. Isn't it funny that many parents are very afraid to fly without a car seat but got no problem riding around town without any car seat at all?


----------



## Ironica (Sep 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Adventuredad* 
Most parents don't think twice about turning their child forward at 12 months. This is 500% less safe than rear facing. At the same time they refuse to fly without a car sat since it's "too dangerous" despite everything showing the opposite.

I'd be really surprised to find someone who insisted on using a carseat on a plane, but FF'd their kid at 12 months. I think the first statement you made is correct, but that there's not very much overlap between these two groups.

All I'm saying is, I *wouldn't* use a safety device that actually puts my child at greater risk, such as the belly belts... and there's no data showing that they're safe in real-world situations, for the same reason there's no real-world data showing they're dangerous; without a large sample of children involved in airplane emergencies, we need to use proxy measures to determine what the safety issues are. I also won't go with a lower standard of safety for my children than what is required for myself, and I'm required to be belted into a seat. These are totally reasonable propositions, even in spite of the dearth of evidence specifically about children in airline emergencies.


----------



## Eclipsepearl (May 20, 2007)

_there's no real-world data showing they're dangerous_

Actually there is. Parents have crushed their children in accidents but I can't prove it. We were simply told this in training. There is a lot of information that is closely guarded after accidents for a number of reasons (lawsuits, grieving families who don't need this information spashed all over the media, etc.) There are stories which are harrowing. All I can say is if you're ever unlucky enough to be involved with something like this, look for the closest emergency exit, not necessarily the one you boarded through. Also, take instructions only from crew members, not from freaked out passengers. Sounds obvious but there are those who are not here today...

Children have been killed in crashes but luckily, the circumstances are so varied, and it happens rarely enough that no real conclusions can be made. By contrast, there is _lots_ of data about car crashes and the dynamics of taking off and landing are similar. So that's what they use. They told us that most of their information is drawn from road accidents.

I also object to the "false security" of the double seat belt. Parents are often convinced that a double seat belt and a bassinet are safe and they don't "have" to use a car seat. I had passengers constantly ask me why we didn't have them. I kept finding parents strapping their kids in with them in the same seat belt...

It's more important that parents are informed. Too often I try to encourge people to use car seats, only to have other parents ramble on about how "fine" it is to check a car seat as luggage or to have a lap baby. My point is not to scare anyone from flying but to get the word out that one is much safer than the other. Things can and do happen and just because it didn't happen to _them_, doesn't mean it's impossible. It soooo harks from the days that people said "We just to just drive around without any sort of seatbelts and we're all fine..."

The logic behind the floor position was that the parent could direct their energy to the floor rather than try to keep the child in their arms. Forward impact would pull the adult forward and a child could easily be pulled out of the parent's arms. But if the parent is already in the "brace" position, they can then use the floor to help hold the child in place. Plus, there's not as much area to go if they can't hold on.

That was how it was explained to us.


----------



## bremen (Feb 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Eclipsepearl* 
Here's a good video for the double seatbelt debate. It's all in German from Switzerland (if I understood correctly). Just watch the video by clicking on the picture. Great if you understand but not necessary for what it shows. No, promise, nothing really scary. They tested the double seatbelts with dummies.

http://www.sf.tv/sendungen/kassenstu...0080520-gurten


wow! that swiss german is so thick. the narrator spoke high german, but the official, daniel something, spoke such a strong dialect, i could barely understand a word.

those crashes were done at 250 km/hr. they were simulating an airplane overshooting a runway.

and to the pp who said the loop belts are used "all over europe", this video says that they were banned from german airlines over 10 years ago.


----------



## SiobhanAoife (Jun 10, 2008)

OK, so, I was thinking to take my baby on a long flight soon and do this:

- buy the baby a seat
- have the baby in a rear-facing carseat in that seat for takeoff, landing, times the seatbelt sign is on for turbulence, etc.
- at times have the baby in my arms because she'll need to breastfeed and cuddle some since it's a long flight -- we would never drive for six hours straight without stopping somewhere to feed her; we can't pull the plane over to feed her so we'll need to take her out of her seat in transit
- *during the time that she's in my lap, I was going to use a Baby B'Air harness specifically so that if there was hard turbulence that could make the drinks cart fling itself to the ceiling of the plane, my baby would not go flying. People who are saying that these devices are unsafe, would you recommend against THIS SCENARIO?*

I'm hearing what you're saying about it being unsafe for takeoff, taxi, landing, crashing. What about for the scenario that I'm considering above - where there will be some lap time during the flight for breastfeeding or soothing cuddles, and the harness would be *specifically to protect against turbulence?* My (incomplete) understanding of turbulence is that it's NOT likely to be a head-on crash type of impact, but rather a things-go-flinging-upward kind of scenario -- harness a good idea or a bad idea for _just this portion of the flight?_ Please advise. The baby will be strapped into an approved carseat for take off, landing, and when the seatbelt sign is on.


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SiobhanAoife* 
OK, so, I was thinking to take my baby on a long flight soon and do this:

- buy the baby a seat
- have the baby in a rear-facing carseat in that seat for takeoff, landing, times the seatbelt sign is on for turbulence, etc.
- at times have the baby in my arms because she'll need to breastfeed and cuddle some since it's a long flight -- we would never drive for six hours straight without stopping somewhere to feed her; we can't pull the plane over to feed her so we'll need to take her out of her seat in transit
- *during the time that she's in my lap, I was going to use a Baby B'Air harness specifically so that if there was hard turbulence that could make the drinks cart fling itself to the ceiling of the plane, my baby would not go flying. People who are saying that these devices are unsafe, would you recommend against THIS SCENARIO?*

I'm hearing what you're saying about it being unsafe for takeoff, taxi, landing, crashing. What about for the scenario that I'm considering above - where there will be some lap time during the flight for breastfeeding or soothing cuddles, and the harness would be *specifically to protect against turbulence?* My (incomplete) understanding of turbulence is that it's NOT likely to be a head-on crash type of impact, but rather a things-go-flinging-upward kind of scenario -- harness a good idea or a bad idea for _just this portion of the flight?_ Please advise. The baby will be strapped into an approved carseat for take off, landing, and when the seatbelt sign is on.

I think that's fine, but you don't have to buy another separate piece of equipment for this scenario. There's no reason that would be safer than a baby carrier in that situation, and you're probably more familiar with a carrier and nursing in a carrier already. I'm sure that carseat for taxi, takeoff, landing, and any sustained turbulence plus a carrier or vest thing for nursing time in flight is the very safest option anyone could take.


----------



## anewmama (Feb 25, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Adventuredad* 
Excellent point. Isn't it funny that many parents are very afraid to fly without a car seat but got no problem riding around town without any car seat at all?


Where is this generalization coming from? I don't ever recall ever seeing a car seat in a plane seat. If I did, it was certainly not the norm as I am just approaching this subject for my daughter and I have been flying for a very long time.

But I do agree with your other points about how we are concerned about some things but fail to transfer that same concern to other parts of our lives. I think though, this is human nature... for us to be vigilant all the time about all risks "equally" would drive anyone crazy. I think our "vision" can only bring so many to the front at once. Not that the inconsistencies shouldn't be pointed out, however.


----------



## anewmama (Feb 25, 2007)

Eclipsepearl, what do you think about the CARES harness? If my mom has a suitable car seat at her end, I am leaning towards not bringing mine. My daugher is 23 months and will be 24 when we fly and probably not more than 25 pounds.


----------



## Heidi74 (Jan 21, 2009)

This is a truly interesting debate.

I've flown a lot with DS (now 19 months), both in Europe and within the US. On this last transatlantic flight, we got him a seat and a CARES harness. I am pregnant, and fly alone with him--so forking over the cost of that ticket was something we felt we had to do. Until that point, however, he has always flown as a lap child. In Europe, we've used the double belts for turbulence, and on transatlantic flights, the Baby B'Air. In Europe, we were told we couldn't use a carseat anyway. Many airlines won't allow a separate seat for a child under two.

I also take public transportation with DS several times a week. Buses, trains, streetcars, subways... I don't drive. On those modes of transportation, he either sits in my lap or in his stroller. Yes, it would be awful if the train derailed, and both DS and I would certainly be safer with seatbelts. But there are no seatbelts on these types of public transportation. It's not completely safe.

I guess I don't understand why all the fuss is being made about car seats on planes--which is an incredibly safe form of transportation, when it's never even mentioned while considering other types of public transportation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't flying safer than riding a bus or a train? I'm not arguing that IF a plane were to crash, the child would be safer in a carseat...but only provided that passengers survived. What are the odds of that happening, compared to the odds of a train derailing, a bus tipping over or two subways crashing?

Ideally DS would be in a car seat any time we take public transportation. Buses, trains...and planes. Of course, he'd be in a car seat in a car...so maybe we should drive instead. But wait, public transportation is safer than riding in a car, right?

I guess my question is this: why is there such a focus on using car seats on planes, when passengers (not just children) are unsecured on other forms of less safe public transportation?


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

I'm not fabulous with math, but from my understanding the numbers fall something like this:

It is profoundly safer to ride as a lap infant on an airplane than as a car seated child in a car. (By a difference of 0.4 to 425.0 per year.) It is safer to ride as a car seated child on an airplane than as a lap infant on an airplane. (By maybe 0.4 to 0.8, perhaps. Technically, that's twice as safe, but the risk is incredibly small either way. I think it's about the same as their risk of death by falling out of a bed or crib: http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...act/121/6/1213.)

No one should ever decide to drive instead of fly, whether the baby will be a lap infant or a car seated one on the plane, because cars have so many more accidents than airplanes.

The proposal to require car seats on planes in the US is estimated that it might save 4 lives every 10 years. http://news.ucsf.edu/releases/airlin...t-prevents-pe/ OTOH, more than 1300 children actually die every year in car accidents (and that is *with* car seat regulations), 425 of them are under 5. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/childpas.htm

Which is why lap infants are allowed in the US. Even if only 5-10% of families decided to drive instead of fly, and if they drove safely, there would be more automobile child deaths than child lives saved by car seats on planes. The real question is *how much* safer, not *if* it's safer, and how that interacts with the costs incurred and the willingness for risk.

(Some people make the judgement from those numbers then that they should not ever, in any case, fly without a car seat for their child of any age. Some don't feel the benefits outweigh the costs. No, I really don't see that either decision is wrong.)


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Trains are considered very safe as well, although I don't know of any statistics on likelihood of train accidents. They're few and far between, and since no one uses car seats or seat belts on them, there's no way to compare them. Buses are a weird spot IMO. It's supposed to be safer than cars bc of the extra training for drivers (but man, I've seen some horrible bus drivers here in NYC); and the size of the vehicle; and the speeds at which they travel. I don't like them for highway speeds though. I live in NYC, and when we go to NJ or CT, I take the train instead of the bus whenever possible. It certainly *feels* safer to me.


----------



## pixiekisses (Oct 14, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paquerette* 
I thought you weren't allowed to hold your baby during turbulence. Don't you have to wrap a lap baby in a blanket and stuff them under the seat?











Sorry, this really cracked me up, picturing that.

Anyway, where I live you're not allowed to bring a car seat into the plane, and you have to use the waist belt (that straps onto your own waist belt) for kids under the age of 2 when the seatbelt sign is on. Kids over 2 years have to be in they're own seats with belts on.


----------



## anewmama (Feb 25, 2007)

where do you live?


----------



## Delicateflower (Feb 1, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bremen* 
those crashes were done at 250 km/hr. they were simulating an airplane overshooting a runway.

Thinking of those videos showing baby capsules failing horribly at only 35 mph (they're normally tested at 30mph). How do most car seats perform at 155mph?


----------



## guestmama9906 (Feb 12, 2003)

I'm a flight attendant for the world's (current) largest carrier, and nowhere in our manual does it say to ever put a child on the floor. In both instances of a child without a seatbelt and an infant in arms, you are to hold the child close and provide support to an infant's head and neck.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anewmama* 
where do you live?

most, if not all, of european airlines do not allow carseats...


----------



## pixiekisses (Oct 14, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anewmama* 
where do you live?

If this was for me, Europe, Scandinavian country.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
most, if not all, of european airlines do not allow carseats...

Indeed.


----------



## etoilech (Mar 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
most, if not all, of european airlines do not allow carseats...

Not in my experience. We have flown Swiss, Lufthansa, BA, SAS, etc all with car seats and no problem... with three kids.


----------



## Heidi74 (Jan 21, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *etoilech* 
Not in my experience. We have flown Swiss, Lufthansa, BA, SAS, etc all with car seats and no problem... with three kids.

Most European carseats need a three point harness to fasten them securely, therefore they would not work with the lap belts on a plane.

Did you bring a US seat that could be secured with a lap belt? On flights to and from the US I believe you can use FAA approved car seats, even with European carriers.


----------



## Adventuredad (Apr 23, 2008)

Quote:

It is profoundly safer to ride as a lap infant on an airplane than as a car seated child in a car. (By a difference of 0.4 to 425.0 per year.) It is safer to ride as a car seated child on an airplane than as a lap infant on an airplane. (By maybe 0.4 to 0.8, perhaps. Technically, that's twice as safe, but the risk is incredibly small either way. I think it's about the same as their risk of death by falling out of a bed or crib: http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...act/121/6/1213.)

No one should ever decide to drive instead of fly, whether the baby will be a lap infant or a car seated one on the plane, because cars have so many more accidents than airplanes.

The proposal to require car seats on planes in the US is estimated that it might save 4 lives every 10 years. http://news.ucsf.edu/releases/airlin...t-prevents-pe/ OTOH, more than 1300 children actually die every year in car accidents (and that is *with* car seat regulations), 425 of them are under 5. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/childpas.htm
*Thank you. Best post on the board for this year.* Those numbers but they summarize very well that the risks. It is safer to ride in a car sat on a plane, some say otherwise but I believe so, but since flying is so safe benefits are insignificant. A child's death is always tragic so it's better the more lives we save but one must compare this with other things. During 10 years 6000 young kids drown, 4250 kids under 5 die in traffic, 400 000 people die in traffic, 250 kids die in the home from a falling television set, and 50 000 kids die globally from drinking Kerosene.

We do want to save as many kids we can with limited resources. IMHO it would be better and far cheaper to focus on something else than car seats on plane since very few lives would be saved. In a perfect world no kids would die at all regardless of circumstances but that's not possible. Mandatory car seats on planes would probably lead to more lives _lost_ since some parents would take the car instead of flying. Perhaps without a car seats since a high percentage of children dying in traffic are unrestrained.



Ironica said:


> I'd be really surprised to find someone who insisted on using a carseat on a plane, but FF'd their kid at 12 months. I think the first statement you made is correct, but that there's not very much overlap between these two groups.
> 
> You would be very surprised of what you see after visiting 30+ countries......  As you probably know, a very lage percentage turn kids ff at 12 months. On another board where actually talking about people who have seen someone erf in real life and it's very few.....
> 
> ...


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Adventuredad* 
There are zero, or very close to zero, kids lost each year due to not using a car seat on a plane.


Very nice post, AD.









There are more reasons than safety to use a child restraint on a plane. We use car seats every time because it's much more convenient for me to strap them in then to deal with two crazy toddlers trying to wriggle around and run about the plane.







And if it ends up preventing an injury at some point, all the better.


----------



## Eclipsepearl (May 20, 2007)

That's a good point. Every year there are families offloaded from flights because they couldn't control their lap-held toddler. We were under strict instructions that all passengers had to be seated during taxi. Having a car seat on board would greatly help this.

People can play with safety statistics all they want but the fact remains that there are very few families who would drive instead of fly because of having to buy ONE more ticket. I haven't ever thought about driving from Europe to California









Usually, a family can afford to fly or not. One ticket doesn't really matter in most cases. Time contraints are the reason a lot of families fly, and even if they to have the time to drive, by the time they count in gas, food, any hotels where they have to stay en route, etc. the cost ends up being a non-issue.

Most of the reason we opt to drive over flying is to have the car at our destination or we're going to a destination which is hard to reach by plane. I have actually flown with the children and met my dh at our destination (or en route).

_Just because you're told something in training doesn't make it true._

I think Adventuredad just said that for the sake of it. I'm not sure why the airlines would lie to their own employees but for the record, there is a lot they don't share with the _public_. Logically, double seatbelts are a bad idea. If they weren't, they would be allowed in cars, which they aren't.

For me, ONE child's death justifies getting the word out that your child is safer in a car seat than in a lap. Pure logic. Getting the car seat to the destination in good shape so that the child is not a in an adults lap _on the road_ is also enough of a justification for me.

I fly alone with three children and managing a car seat for us has never been an issue. Many European airlines DO allow car seats (though they can can have funky, illogical rules about it). Even when they've taken my seat away, they tried to keep it stowed in the cabin so that I didn't have to worry about it in the hold (look on the bright side-right!)


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Eclipsepearl* 
People can play with safety statistics all they want but the fact remains that there are very few families who would drive instead of fly because of having to buy ONE more ticket. I haven't ever thought about driving from Europe to California









There was a poster right before me who asked EXACTLY that question. I've heard it dozens and dozens of times... so should we just drive instead? If I didn't know those statistics, I would think it was better to drive if car seats were mandatory. And the main point of my post was:

No one should ever drive instead of fly. Lap infants on planes are 1000 times safer than car seated infants in cars.


----------



## HarperRose (Feb 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EviesMom* 
No one should ever drive instead of fly. Lap infants on planes are 1000 times safer than car seated infants in cars.

I think this is a ridiculous statement. While it may very well be true, I can't afford to fly. My mom is paying for this trip. Otherwise we'd never get to visit.


----------



## Adventuredad (Apr 23, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Eclipsepearl* 
That's a good point. Every year there are families offloaded from flights because they couldn't control their lap-held toddler. We were under strict instructions that all passengers had to be seated during taxi. Having a car seat on board would greatly help this.

People can play with safety statistics all they want but the fact remains that there are very few families who would drive instead of fly because of having to buy ONE more ticket. I haven't ever thought about driving from Europe to California









Usually, a family can afford to fly or not. One ticket doesn't really matter in most cases. Time contraints are the reason a lot of families fly, and even if they to have the time to drive, by the time they count in gas, food, any hotels where they have to stay en route, etc. the cost ends up being a non-issue.

Most of the reason we opt to drive over flying is to have the car at our destination or we're going to a destination which is hard to reach by plane. I have actually flown with the children and met my dh at our destination (or en route).

_Just because you're told something in training doesn't make it true._

I think Adventuredad just said that for the sake of it. I'm not sure why the airlines would lie to their own employees but for the record, there is a lot they don't share with the _public_. Logically, double seatbelts are a bad idea. If they weren't, they would be allowed in cars, which they aren't.

For me, ONE child's death justifies getting the word out that your child is safer in a car seat than in a lap. Pure logic. Getting the car seat to the destination in good shape so that the child is not a in an adults lap _on the road_ is also enough of a justification for me.

I fly alone with three children and managing a car seat for us has never been an issue. Many European airlines DO allow car seats (though they can can have funky, illogical rules about it). Even when they've taken my seat away, they tried to keep it stowed in the cabin so that I didn't have to worry about it in the hold (look on the bright side-right!)

I didn't want to be rude, although I somehow to manage to sound like that constantly (I'm wroking on it ok)







I'm just saying there are lots of things which are said about car seat safety which are not true. Two great examples are that harnessing is safer than high back boosters fro kids 4+ and especially that front seats of installs of rear facing seats are unsafe. Front seat installs are actually as safe or safer than the rear but most say the opposite. This has been proven years ago by research and is no longer even debated.

Lets say that no lap belt is a little safer. In the big picture it still means noting. How much fewer deaths or injuries are you looking for. We can't get much lower than zero and that's almost ehre we are right now. If we can save 4 lives in 10 years by having every child in a car seat then we might save 1 life every hundred years by not using a lap belt. I've never heard of lap belts being inferior but it could be small difference. I would like to see some objective peer reviewed studies to learn more.

Quote:

Logically, double seatbelts are a bad idea. If they weren't, they would be allowed in cars, which they aren't.
Lap belts would be very safe in cars if there were no accidents. That's how you should compare them. You can't seriously make this comparison. Driving is so much "dangerous" a comparison is not applicable. The G-forces are also much different. If I remember correctly, G-forces tested in planes is around 11-12 G but lets say it's 15. That's still half or less of G-forces in a car are tested for.

Quote:

For me, ONE child's death justifies getting the word out that your child is safer in a car seat than in a lap. Pure logic. Getting the car seat to the destination in good shape so that the child is not a in an adults lap _on the road_ is also enough of a justification for me.
I check my seats due to not being able to use them on the plane (I don't wan to to either). But you are of course right that using them on board is a much better way of "transporting" the seats. Totally agree with you. I've always said that using a car seat on plane PURELY for safety is not rational. I've also said there are many other good reasons for bringing a sat on board. Your point of getting them safely to the destination is just on of those reasons.

Using a car seat for every child we would save 4 lives in 10 years according to Evies post. That's after billions of flights. I say the risk/reward is terrible. We could save hundreds or thousands of kids by simply having parents rear face longer. Something that requires no new seats, just using the current ones longer.


----------



## Ironica (Sep 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Adventuredad* 
I always use a set belt on the bus, my kids as well, but have so far never used a car seat. On local buses there are no belt but they travel slowly and in my experience it's extremely rare to have accidents with fatalities. ANyone have more data on this?

I can't dig up the data right now, but we covered this in one of my classes. There are a lot of factors that lower injuries and deaths in local bus accidents:

* Professional drivers are less likely to get into accidents and get in less serious ones when they do (I think this statistic, counting truck drivers and taxi drivers also, was something like half the incidence)
* Buses accelerate and decelerate much more slowly (8 ft/s/s) than cars (16 ft/s/s)
* Buses reach lower top speeds and tend to stay in the right-hand lanes where traffic is slower
* The passenger compartment of the bus is higher up than most of the metal on the road
* The size/weight of the bus means it's less likely to stop very suddenly in the event of a crash

Quote:

People know traveling by plane is ultra safe for kids so there is no need for a car seat.
But, the risks are not different for kids than for adults. Your arguments all imply the conclusion that seat belts on planes (for adults and older children) are ALSO totally unnecessary and irrational. Do you actually feel that way, or do you see a distinction?

One of the reasons for the extremely tiny statistical sample of children in plane crashes is the small number of children on planes in the first place. A typical flight of 100+ people might have three or four kids of car-seat age on it. So, while I can't fault your math, much of the lower risk of children dying in plane emergencies is due to the lower chance of children being on planes at all. This skews the statistics. Better to look at the statistics for *all* passengers, not just children, and seat belt use.

Quote:

Just because you're told something in training doesn't make it true. I'll cut you some slack and say there are probably parents who have crushed their kids in accidents. But I'm sure there are also accidents where lap belts have saved lives as well.
This sounds a lot like the argument against using seat belts in cars: "If you're belted in, you can't get thrown clear of the wreck!"

Quote:

It's really irrelevant. Since there are so few accidents and kids injured on planes is almost unheard of, it's not a problem.
Unless it's YOUR child. Then, of course, you'd be kicking yourself for the rest of your life if you could have done some little thing (and, having flown several times with a carseat, it really isn't that big a deal) that would have made the difference.

You're arguing against making carseats mandatory on planes... ok, fine. I accept the statistical reason why that's not a good idea. But you also seem to be arguing against anyone using safety as a reason (or at least, the main reason) for taking a carseat on a plane. I don't get that. Clearly it's safer... it's just that it's statistically extremely unlikely for an incident to happen where that safety difference matters. (Though I already pointed out how many of the supposed "convenience" factors are also safety issues.)

Quote:

Researchers know this and are not concerned about flying with a child since it's been proven ultra safe.
Flying has been proven ultra-safe. It is not MORE safe for children than for adults. Adults are required to wear seat belts. Why?

Quote:

It's like we're trying to invent a problem. Traveling with a child without a car seat is ultra safe and it's almost unheard of to have a child saved by a car seat or injured by turbulence. Those are facts not opinions.
What's the statistical advantage to wearing your seat belt during a flight vs. not wearing one? Even during take-off and landing? Should we dispense with the expense of installing them at all?

Quote:

Having a child rear facing up to 2 years has been proven to be 500% safer than forward facing. And there are many kids each year who die and are seriously injured due to this (like Joel). It makes more sense to focus on this and keeping more kids (and adults) restrained in vehicles since lives are actually lost.
I'm not sure how taking one's carseat on a plane removes the focus from rear-facing. If anything, taking your 18-month-old's carseat on the plane and installing it rear-facing exposes a wider audience to ERF.

Quote:

There are zero, or very close to zero, kids lost each year due to not using a car seat on a plane.
There are zero adults lost due to not wearing a seat belt on a plane in many years. Why are there seat belts on the plane?

Quote:

Lets move on to something else
After you answer my question: why are adults required to wear seat belts on a plane?


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Justthatgirl* 
I think this is a ridiculous statement. While it may very well be true, I can't afford to fly. My mom is paying for this trip. Otherwise we'd never get to visit.

The point is--IF you can afford for the whole family to fly with 1 lap infant, you're safer flying than driving. If you can't afford for the whole family to fly with 1 lap infant, then that's just how it is. You weren't going to fly anyway.

People just keep saying "if I couldn't afford for EVERYONE to have a seat, I wouldn't fly." If that means "I wouldn't go" then it doesn't change safety much. If that means "I would drive instead of having a lap infant," that's 1000 less safe, or so. It's a bad trade off to make.

Like I've said the whole way, the safety difference between lap infants and car seated infants on planes is very very small. Some people look at those numbers and decide to always buy a seat for the baby. Some people look at those numbers and decide to have a lap infant. Both fine, IMO. Some look at those numbers and shrug, because they weren't going to/can't afford to fly anyway. Also fine. No one should look at the numbers and decide to drive instead of fly with a lap infant though.


----------



## Adventuredad (Apr 23, 2008)

Quote:

I can't dig up the data right now, but we covered this in one of my classes. There are a lot of factors that lower injuries and deaths in local bus accidents:

* Professional drivers are less likely to get into accidents and get in less serious ones when they do (I think this statistic, counting truck drivers and taxi drivers also, was something like half the incidence)
* Buses accelerate and decelerate much more slowly (8 ft/s/s) than cars (16 ft/s/s)
* Buses reach lower top speeds and tend to stay in the right-hand lanes where traffic is slower
* The passenger compartment of the bus is higher up than most of the metal on the road
* The size/weight of the bus means it's less likely to stop very suddenly in the event of a crash
Thanks. If you ever find the info it would be great if you could Pm me.

Quote:

But, the risks are not different for kids than for adults. Your arguments all imply the conclusion that seat belts on planes (for adults and older children) are ALSO totally unnecessary and irrational. Do you actually feel that way, or do you see a distinction?
I don't know the difference in safety, if any. Do you? I think that data is hard to find. Both are ultra safe, isn't that good enough? Seat belts and alp belts on planes provide plenty of protection which all dta show. but are of course a compromise of many things

Quote:

One of the reasons for the extremely tiny statistical sample of children in plane crashes is the small number of children on planes in the first place. A typical flight of 100+ people might have three or four kids of car-seat age on it. So, while I can't fault your math, much of the lower risk of children dying in plane emergencies is due to the lower chance of children being on planes at all. This skews the statistics. Better to look at the statistics for *all* passengers, not just children, and seat belt use.
I usually see many more kids than that but don't know the official average. Do you have a source for those numbers? I do agree that far fewer kids fly each year. Anyway, there are tens of millions of flights each year in US alone. That's many millions of kids flying in US alone. till, death and injury by turbulence is zero are close to zero for kids.

Lets look at the stats for adults instead as you asked for. During a typical 15 years period 2 adults die by turbulence:

Quote:

From 1981 to November, 1996, there were 252 reports of turbulence affecting major air carriers. As a result, two passengers died, 63 suffered serious injuries, and 863 received minor injuries. Both of the fatalities in these incidents involved passengers who were not wearing their seat belts while the seat belt sign was illuminated. Of the 63 passengers who were seriously injured, 59 were not wearing their seat belts while the seat belt sign was illuminated.
Do you think two death during 15 years is a lot? This is many hundreds of millions o flights. During the same period 600 000+ people die in traffic accidents in US alone.

Quote:

This sounds a lot like the argument against using seat belts in cars: "If you're belted in, you can't get thrown clear of the wreck!"
No it doesn't. People say all kids of incorrect things about safety and car seat safety. One of my favorites is everyone saying front seat installs (airbag disabled) of rf seats is dangerous., FAct is it's as safe or safer to have a rf seats installed in front which has been proven many years ago. Still, most parents say it's very dangerous. Doesn't make it true. It could be a little safer or it could be a little less safe,in the big picture it's still irrelevant. The difference in safety, if any, is too small to matter which all data show.

Quote:

Unless it's YOUR child. Then, of course, you'd be kicking yourself for the rest of your life if you could have done some little thing (and, having flown several times with a carseat, it really isn't that big a deal) that would have made the difference.
No I wouldn't. We can't protect our kids against everything. But we can take precautions were we know there are dangers. Like in traffic, kids near water, SIDS, etc. I keep my kids rf to at least 4, a kids dying in an accident that way is extremely unusual. But during a freak accident it could still happen. It would be tragic but I would also know it was a freak thing.

Quote:

What's the statistical advantage to wearing your seat belt during a flight vs. not wearing one? Even during take-off and landing? Should we dispense with the expense of installing them at all?

I don't know, do you? Seat belt provide plenty of protection for those wearing them. A harness might be safer, I don't know, but there are many other factors at play. Seat belt has been proven to provide plenty of protection and I'm sure the cost is small.

Quote:

I'm not sure how taking one's carseat on a plane removes the focus from rear-facing. If anything, taking your 18-month-old's carseat on the plane and installing it rear-facing exposes a wider audience to ERF.
You know something about risk, something most parents are notoriously poor at. Many parents actually believe flying is a dangerous without a car seat. Most parents freak out for months about the best car seat on a flight, a sfty benefit of 0.01% or whatever it might be. At the same time they turn ff at 12 months which is a500% less safe. It's all about being informed and parents get very confused when they hear one must fly with a car seat. It's not dangerous without one which all data show.

Quote:

There are zero adults lost due to not wearing a seat belt on a plane in many years. Why are there seat belts on the plane?
Set belt is a compromise which makes flying safer but I'm sure there are far better solutions available. It's hard to argue those should be implemented when 2 adults die during 15 years.

Quote:

You're arguing against making carseats mandatory on planes... ok, fine. I accept the statistical reason why that's not a good idea. But you also seem to be arguing against anyone using safety as a reason (or at least, the main reason) for taking a carseat on a plane. I don't get that. Clearly it's safer... it's just that it's statistically extremely unlikely for an incident to happen where that safety difference matters. (Though I already pointed out how many of the supposed "convenience" factors are also safety issues.)
I say the same as I have said many times before. There are good reasons to bring a car seat on board. Doing it PURELY for safety makes no sense since there is no safety problem despite tens or hundreds of millions of flights each year.

It's easy to make the case based on safety since there is data available showing zero, or very close to zero, kids are dying each year due to turbulence. The amount of injured kids in turbulence is also almost unheard of.

You're talking a lot about safety without backing it up. It's very easy, please show me some data that says flying with kids is dangerous. Not opinions, statistics which show injury rates are very high or there are many deaths due to no car seats on the plane. 99.9% or more of kids fly without car seats, there must be thousands of incidents we can choose from. A large percentage also fly with lap belts, there must be tons of info shoing just how many kids we could save doing things differently?

Quote:

After you answer my question: why are adults required to wear seat belts on a plane?

My kids used lap belts during the the beginning. Now they use their own sat and a seat belt. Both provide plenty of protection which all data show. There are also tens of millions of kids each year flying without a lap belt of car eat. Despite these massive amounts of flights, it's fatalities due to turbulence is almost unheard of. And so are injury rates.

Some say car eat doesn't offer a safety benefit but I would say it does. It's that it offer protection from a danger that isn't event there. Yes, it's a little safer but how low do you want to death rate. Is zero, or close to zero, not low enough.

Quote:

Like I've said the whole way, the safety difference between lap infants and car seated infants on planes is very very small. Some people look at those numbers and decide to always buy a seat for the baby. Some people look at those numbers and decide to have a lap infant. Both fine, IMO. Some look at those numbers and shrug, because they weren't going to/can't afford to fly anyway. Also fine. No one should look at the numbers and decide to drive instead of fly with a lap infant though.
Evies mom sums it up perfectly

I think we've bored everyone to death. If you want to continue perhaps we could do it via PM?


----------



## HarperRose (Feb 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EviesMom* 
The point is--IF you can afford for the whole family to fly with 1 lap infant, you're safer flying than driving. If you can't afford for the whole family to fly with 1 lap infant, then that's just how it is. You weren't going to fly anyway.


Ok, I see what you're saying. I had a feeling I was missing the point.


----------



## Ironica (Sep 11, 2005)

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Adventuredad*


I don't know the difference in safety, if any. Do you? I think that data is hard to find. Both are ultra safe, isn't that good enough? Seat belts and alp belts on planes provide plenty of protection which all dta show.


Yes. So, I wear a seat belt on the plane. So does my child. At their ages, "seat belt" consists of a car seat; they're not old enough to use a lap belt properly.

Quote:



I usually see many more kids than that but don't know the official average. Do you have a source for those numbers?


I never started paying attention to the number of kids on flights until I had my own. I know that I'd seen them before, but I never noticed more than 2 or 3. Since I have kids, I think I've counted as many as 3 other children on the same flight as us. There are probably flights (like, to Orlando Florida for example) that have more children, but I'd be shocked to find that there was a single flight in an entire year where kids made up even half the passengers.

And so, since the statistical samples of airplane emergencies are pretty small, and children are a smaller still subset of people on planes, it's hard to draw ANY conclusions about safety from the statistics about children... whether the conclusion is that things are dangerous, or that things are safe. I'm not maintaining that they're dangerous; I'm saying it's safER to do it this way, and with lots of other advantages, I wouldn't consider doing it any other way. You're saying it's so safe that it's... what... insulting? Ridiculous? I'm not sure what... to say that one is safer than the other.

Quote:



I do agree that far fewer kids fly each year. Anyway, there are tens of millions of flights each year in US alone. That's many millions of kids flying in US alone. till, death and injury by turbulence is zero are close to zero for kids.


And adults; by the statistics you cited, if the average flight carries 100 passengers, that's over a billion passenger flights a year in the US, so that's two fatalities and 63 injuries out of billions. So why make the distinction? In this case, I doubt there's a whole lot of differences between adult and child safety, _unless_ that difference is a result of different methods of securing their bodies in the cabin.

What I'm saying is, the argument you're making that there's no safety advantage to securing children in the cabin goes for adults, too, and yet we're all expected to wear our seatbelts. Just make up your mind, is all. ;-)

Quote:



I don't know, do you? Seat belt provide plenty of protection for those wearing them.


So why would you take issue with someone saying "I keep my babies strapped in on all airplane flights"?

Quote:



You know something about risk, something most parents are notoriously poor at. Many parents actually believe flying is a dangerous without a car seat.


They do? They don't seem to come to *this* board. Around here, it seems to be about 50% folks who would never fly without a carseat (for a combination of reasons, including safety in flight), 20% folks who will take the carseat on the plane if it's convenient, and the rest folks who think it's a waste of money/energy to ever do so. I've never seen anyone say that they thought flying without a carseat was "dangerous." A bad idea? Sure... but that has as much to do with convenience and comfort as with in-flight safety.

Quote:



Most parents freak out for months about the best car seat on a flight, a sfty benefit of 0.01% or whatever it might be.


Again, they do? Where? I see a lot of questions about what's the best seat for _traveling_, taking into account portability, ease of install into unknown vehicles at the other end, and how well it will work on the plane... and a lot of questions about whether to take the carseat on the plane at all, and if so, if they should get a lighter, cheaper seat for that, since it seems like overkill to lug the Britax down the aisle. But I don't see people agonizing about what seat will keep their child _safest_ on the plane itself.

Quote:



At the same time they turn ff at 12 months which is a500% less safe.


Again, I think you're having trouble with Venn diagrams here. There's some segment of the parental population that takes carseats on the plane (which seems pretty small overall; it's large on THIS board, due to the overall focus of MDC and the particular safety angle here), and some segment (a large one) that turns FF at 12 months, but I don't think there's much overlap between those groups.

Quote:



It's all about being informed and parents get very confused when they hear one must fly with a car seat. It's not dangerous without one which all data show.


No, it's not dangerous without one. It's also not dangerous *with* one, and for a lot of reasons, you're safer if you have the seat there. The chances of a serious issue happening that make the difference for ANYONE being strapped in are small. But the chances that your toddler will freak out and will be impossible to control without a five-point harness? The chances that you will *really* have to put the baby down for some reason (like avoiding spilling hot liquids, or to go to the bathroom, or just to keep your arms from cramping up)? The chance that something untoward will happen to your carseat in the time you are separated from it if you check it? All are types of safety issues.

So I don't get why you'd get on anyone's case for saying "I always take the carseat on the plane."

Quote:



Set belt is a compromise which makes flying safer but I'm sure there are far better solutions available. It's hard to argue those should be implemented when 2 adults die during 15 years.


Exactly my point. And yet, somehow, it was decided that people riding in planes should be strapped in. If you're going to make the argument for an exemption for babies, I'd say you might as well make the argument that no one should need to wear a seat belt.

OTOH, of the people who were injured or killed due to turbulence, 6.6% received serious injuries or died, and were not wearing their seat belt. 0.4% were seriously injured *and* were wearing their seat belt. We don't know how many of the minorly injured were or were not wearing seat belts, but it seems that serious injuries or death are much more likely for those not wearing seat belts than who are (15x more likely). So my child will be buckled, regardless of age, just as I am... and until a certain age, that means bringing the carseat, since the lap belt won't fit right. _What bugs you about that statement?_

Quote:



I say the same as I have said many times before. There are good reasons to bring a car seat on board. Doing it PURELY for safety makes no sense since there is no safety problem despite tens or hundreds of millions of flights each year.


If it's a good idea, why do you care what reasons people have for doing it? I mean, I'm an atheist; that doesn't mean I scoff at people who do good works because they think it will get them into heaven... I just appreciate that they're doing good things, even though their motivation is different from mine.

Quote:



You're talking a lot about safety without backing it up. It's very easy, please show me some data that says flying with kids is dangerous.


No one has ever tried to say that. They've said it's safER to be buckled in during a plane flight (which statistics do show). The way you do that with babies and toddlers is with a carseat. With older kids, you can go either way, but if they need a carseat at the destination it's still safer to bring it in the cabin, just because of what can happen if you check it.


----------



## BunniMummi (Jan 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ironica* 
This sounds a lot like the argument against using seat belts in cars: "If you're belted in, you can't get thrown clear of the wreck!"

I believe that "just because you are told something in training doesn't make it true" wasn't an implication that the trainers were somehow misleading people on purpose. Browse around in these forums for example after example of doctors or other figures of authority passing on misleading or downright false and dangerous information. It's rarely if ever done on purpose but sometimes people just don't know any better and their words are then taken as gospel by others that figure "well, he should know".

All it takes sometimes is one person making what they think is an offhand comment at an industry convention somewhere and it can be passed on for years as "fact". Don't fall into the trap of holding your local mainstream doctor's advice as suspect but believing everything you are told by an on the job trainer.

_I'm not saying this is the case here_ but it can and does happen even in very serious and otherwise professional situations.


----------



## Golden (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HarperRose* 
Turbulence hasn't ever been a huge issue in any of the flights I've taken (with and w/o kids and babies). (I know there are exceptions, but I've had pretty easy flights.)


I haven't read past the first page, but I just wanted to respond to one thing you said.

Think of it this way. I have never been in a car accident. I'm lucky, according to the statistics. They happen every day, every where. They have have happened to many, many people here. They can be lethal. You say you've never experienced turbulence. You are lucky. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen frequently, nor that it doesn't significantly injure people, especially small, lightweight children.

I could never stand over my child in the PICU *knowing* that there was something I could have done to prevent this severe injury. Lugging the pain in the butt, back wrenching, sweat inducing carseat through the airport chasing toddlers and carrying infants is hard. I get that. It would be a heck of a lot harder to stand over your child's bed in the PICU or worse, over his grave, simply because it was too much of an ordeal.


----------



## octobermom (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:

I'd be really surprised to find someone who insisted on using a carseat on a plane, but FF'd their kid at 12 months. I think the first statement you made is correct, but that there's not very much overlap between these two groups.
I FF my DD at 12 months of course I did so becaue I thought I was sosposed to I had no idea about extended rear facing actually I thought it was dangerous to keep them rear facing after the 20lb thing







I used a carseat on an airplane till my DD was 5 I did make the mistake of not once thinking she'd be fine just sitting. She spent the entire flight screaming I'm NOT SAFE MAMA









Deanna


----------



## Adventuredad (Apr 23, 2008)

All data, statistics and real life experience clearly show that flying with a child is the safest thing a parent can do. It's almost unheard of to have any child injured by turbulence and almost impossible to find a child which was saved purely by a car seat on a plane. Priority should be on using a car seat on the ground at destination. Some more info about flying and car seats can be found over at CarSeat.se


----------



## Eclipsepearl (May 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Adventuredad* 
All data, statistics and real life experience clearly show that flying with a child is the safest thing a parent can do. It's almost unheard of to have any child injured by turbulence and almost impossible to find a child which was saved purely by a car seat on a plane. Priority should be on using a car seat on the ground at destination. Some more info about flying and car seats can be found over at CarSeat.se

Totally untrue. Children are hurt in turbulence all the time and there are many instances where children would have survived if they had been in a car seat. There was recently a small airplane that went down and the only survivor was a 3 year old in her car seat. Don't tell me she would have survived if she had been loose in someone's lap.

Your method of argument is simply to keep telling other poster that they are wrong, without any proof. Also, mixing this issue up with extended rear facing is just illogical.

If using a car seat on the ground is so important, why are you promoting checking them as luggage? What are the parents supposed to do when their seat is damaged or sent to the wrong city? Wait at the airport a day or two waiting for it to arrive? Also, how do you really know that your own children's car seats weren't crushed under a few hundred kilos of other people's bags in the hold? Or tossed around on the tarmac? The damage wouldn't necessarily be visable.

Just because your luggage was never lost doesn't mean it never happens. Using a car seat on the plane is safer than having a child on your lap or in an adult seat belt. End of story. Stop beating a dead horse!


----------



## Thisbirdwillfly (May 10, 2009)

Quote:

It's almost unheard of to have any child injured by turbulence and almost impossible to find a child which was saved purely by a car seat on a plane.
The first half of that sentence is just wrong and the second half does not make sense.

My husband is a pilot, so we've never flown without our baby/toddler being in their car seat. But it's not only his job that influences us. Many years ago, my husband's toddler cousin was flying on his Aunt's lap and was crushed by her body in a plane crash. Most people on the plane lived, including my husband's aunt and her son didn't die either, he lived for 33 more years with the intellectual capacity of a six month old. There is no question that he would have been saved "purely by a car seat."

It's unbelievable to me that otherwise rational people, people who would never put their baby on their lap and let someone drive them down the lenght of a runway at 60 mph, can be so passionate about the right to do it in a metal tube going three times as fast.


----------



## Astrogirl (Oct 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Eclipsepearl* 
Please everyone, your babies must be LOOSE IN YOUR LAPS and not attached to you in any way, shape or form. Do NOT use a Baby B'Air or baby carrier for take-off and landing. In forward impact, you could crush your child. This is logic and it's for your babies' safety.

I'm confused - if your baby is loose on your lap and you manage, miraculously, to hold on to them with your arms, then wouldn't they be crushed as well?

Adventuredad, I'm glad I'm not the only one with some of your sentiments about where to direct safety measures with our kids based on risk analysis. I often muse over some of the same kind of parallel situations - one example is the number of people that take Tylenol PM while pregnant, but then freak out over listeriosis in lunch meat. I do think its fine and natural, as a parent, to have incongruencies over what we are worried about. I'm more worried about my child's nutrition and hydration on a flight than i am about their being in a car seat, so I focus my mental energy on that. What is not okay though, is that people think its ok to judge others who don't do as they do - and assume that they are just uneducated or ignorant. Yes, a car seat may be safer on a plane. There are a lot of "X" is safer than "Y" but since you can't keep your kids huddled under the table all their lives, you need to strike a balance somewhere. As an extreme example (which should then be extrapolated backwards to a more common one), here in europe and flying out of one of the worlds biggest hubs on a monthly basis, I see tonnes of families coming in from dangerous, developing nations, and travelling onto the west to relocate there - these families may have scraped for the plane tickets and therefore have lap babies - in these cases, the safety factor is merely getting the kid ONTO the plane and out of that situation. I don't blame them for not putting worries into the car seat issue, and neither should anyone else.


----------



## Heidi74 (Jan 21, 2009)

OK--since this thread is active again, I have a question for those of you in the know. While in theory I understand that carseats on a plane would possibly be safer than double belts or holding the child in your arms in the event that some disaster were to strike, I do not understand how non US car seats could possibly be used.

Don't car seats have to be FAA approved in order to use them on planes? That's fine for American car seats, but how about people from other parts of the world? How would you possibly install a European infant bucket that requires a three point harness, on a plane? Even more difficult--how would you install a giant convertible seat like the ones used in Northern Europe? Different countries have different types of car seats, and to my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong here) only those that can be installed with a lap belt (for example, American seats--are there others out there?) can be used on a plane.

It's good and well to say that people should use car seats on planes, but for most people in the world, I'm not sure that's a realistic option. If this is such a big priority, why aren't airlines renting out or providing car seats at the airports? Sort of like you'd order a child's meal or special assistance...why don't they provide car seats for use in planes if it's so important? I would guess that most people in the world do not have a car seat they could use on a plane. (BTW--I've heard British Airways now does have car seats that lock into the bassinet area...why can't more airlines do this?)


----------



## pixiekisses (Oct 14, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Heidi74* 
Different countries have different types of car seats, and to my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong here) only those that can be installed with a lap belt (for example, American seats--are there others out there?) can be used on a plane.

Do you really think only American car seats can be installed with lap belts?
We have lots of seats that can be installed with lap belts here in Scandinavia, both infant seats (buckets) and the bigger RF-ing seats. (RF-ing up to 55 lbs.)


----------



## Heidi74 (Jan 21, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pixiekisses* 
Do you really think only American car seats can be installed with lap belts?
We have lots of seats that can be installed with lap belts here in Scandinavia, both infant seats (buckets) and the bigger RF-ing seats. (RF-ing up to 55 lbs.)

OK, in that case, pardon my ignorance...I just didn't realize that. In Norway we have a Maxi Cosi bucket and a BeSafe convertible, and I thought all buckets here had to have the shoulder belt routed around the back of the seat..into that groove-thing. Also, I just can't see a huge seat like the BeSafe fitting into an airplane seat, but maybe some others are smaller. Which ones can you fasten with a lap belt?

I'm just comparing the size and installation of the seats our family have in Norway to the size of the ones we have in the US (infant bucket and Boulevard), and my first thought is that the Norwegian ones are bigger (which is a good thing in cars...there is no doubt in my mind that they're incredibly safe there), but maybe I'm wrong. I have never actually looked at them side by side, because in Norway we use our Norwegian seats and in the US we use our US ones. Like I said--I'm just asking.

We've also been told at airports a couple of times that we weren't allowed to use the Maxi Cosi on a plane because it wouldn't install right...and at least flying to the US they're always asking about that FAA sticker, so I guess I'm just confused.


----------



## pixiekisses (Oct 14, 2008)

The seats are often bigger bc they RF until 4-5 and even 6 years old in Norway. And, out of Norway they will usually deny you using a car seat on the plane just bc they don't really allow it.
And a bucket is the only thing you would be allowed to bring in, one which can be installed with a lap belt. But, as I said, they wont allow you usually anyway out of Norway. They say it's safer without the car seat, and that the safest is to have the kids on the adults lap with the belt you get.


----------



## Heidi74 (Jan 21, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pixiekisses* 
The seats are often bigger bc they RF until 4-5 and even 6 years old in Norway. And, out of Norway they will usually deny you using a car seat on the plane just bc they don't really allow it.
And a bucket is the only thing you would be allowed to bring in, one which can be installed with a lap belt. But, as I said, they wont allow you usually anyway out of Norway. They say it's safer without the car seat, and that the safest is to have the kids on the adults lap with the belt you get.

Right, so I think we agree. I just cannot see bringing a Scandinavian type convertible seat on a plane...they are simply too big, and as far as I know they won't install with lap belts. Infant buckets they say are not safe--but if flying to the US they will allow an American one because it has the sticker. I didn't realize some of the European ones could be installed with lap belts--now I know.

The point is--airlines seem to disagree on what is safe and what isn't...US based airlines say car seats are safer, while most European airlines (aside from some...like German ones) seem to advocate for the belly belt.

So my question is--why can't they come up with some kind of airline provided seating for babies and toddlers...like the ones they now have on British Airways in the bulkhead? Internationally, there seems to be so much disagreement on car seats...and surely it would be better for the airlines to provide seating rather than rely on parents to bring a suitable seat. Though, I guess if most international airlines say belly belts are safer, it becomes a moot point...


----------



## pixiekisses (Oct 14, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Heidi74* 
Right, so I think we agree. I just cannot see bringing a Scandinavian type convertible seat on a plane...they are simply too big, and as far as I know they won't install with lap belts. Infant buckets they say are not safe--but if flying to the US they will allow an American one because it has the sticker. I didn't realize some of the European ones could be installed with lap belts--now I know.

But, not all of the big seats are convertible, there are purely RF-ing seats too. And, yes, there are seats of the big RF-ing kind that installs with lap belts only.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Heidi74* 
So my question is--why can't they come up with some kind of airline provided seating for babies and toddlers...like the ones they now have on British Airways in the bulkhead. Internationally, there seems to be so much disagreement on car seats...and surely it would be better for the airlines to provide seating rather than rely on parents to bring a suitable seat. Would that really be so difficult?

That, however, would be genious.


----------

