Tokyo with a Very Young Child

[calliaz]

We're in the very early stages of planning a trip to Tokyo
next May for my husband to attend a conference. I would
like to go; and, I would prefer to take our son. The
problem is, he will only be 15 months old. I don't expect
people to bend over backwards because we have a child, but
how easy is it to travel within Tokyo with a very young
child? Would he be welcome at restaurants? How do we
handle hotels (most only show pricing for 2 people)? We
need to make some decisions about who is going to go on this
trip before I delve into serious trip planning.

Thanks for any advice you can give!
Jennifer in AZ

[Peter L]

"calliaz" > wrote in message
...
> We're in the very early stages of planning a trip to Tokyo
> next May for my husband to attend a conference. I would
> like to go; and, I would prefer to take our son. The
> problem is, he will only be 15 months old. I don't expect
> people to bend over backwards because we have a child, but
> how easy is it to travel within Tokyo with a very young
> child? Would he be welcome at restaurants? How do we
> handle hotels (most only show pricing for 2 people)? We
> need to make some decisions about who is going to go on this
> trip before I delve into serious trip planning.
>

At 15 months they are not going to charge you extra for hotel room or air
tickets. Your child will be welcome at restaurants, except maybe some
really high end ones.

> Thanks for any advice you can give!
> Jennifer in AZ

[John W.]

calliaz wrote:
> We're in the very early stages of planning a trip to Tokyo
> next May for my husband to attend a conference. I would
> like to go; and, I would prefer to take our son. The
> problem is, he will only be 15 months old. I don't expect
> people to bend over backwards because we have a child, but
> how easy is it to travel within Tokyo with a very young
> child? Would he be welcome at restaurants? How do we
> handle hotels (most only show pricing for 2 people)? We
> need to make some decisions about who is going to go on this
> trip before I delve into serious trip planning.
>
> Thanks for any advice you can give!
> Jennifer in AZ

Here are some issues you should be ready for. One, you should invest in
an 'umbrella' stroller if you don't already have one; I've even seen
some that have a carrying strap so you can put it across your shoulder,
so see if you can get that. The reason is that on a crowded train you
might have difficulty being allowed on the train. Also, Japan is
notorious for escalators that only go up (or in just one direction).
While most major stations have escalators that go both ways, that's not
always true for all exits. If you consider a backpack for your child,
I'd suggest rethinking if the purpose of getting it is for use in Japan.
In the airports their great; around the city we didn't like ours (found
it was just too much trouble, too bulky, etc.). Don't expect baby seats
in restaurants; I know a couple of families that carried around a
portable baby seat because the restaurants often simply aren't as geared
towards families as you might be used to in the US. Finally, on the plan
MAKE SURE you DO NOT buy a seat for your child (unless money isn't an
issue). You and your husband need to reserve an aisle and window seat;
unless the plane is just packed the middle seat probably won't be
booked, especially if you get to the airport early. We've never had an
issue, and while our child was under the required 'seat reservation' age
we flew a dozen or more times.

Good luck!

John W.

[PTRAVEL]

"John W." > wrote in message
...
>Finally, on the plan
> MAKE SURE you DO NOT buy a seat for your child (unless money isn't an
> issue). You and your husband need to reserve an aisle and window seat;
> unless the plane is just packed the middle seat probably won't be
> booked, especially if you get to the airport early. We've never had an
> issue, and while our child was under the required 'seat reservation' age
> we flew a dozen or more times.

What horrible (and selfish) advice. Most flights run full these days. What
you propose will, almost certainly, result in some poor ******* being stuck
between you and your wife, while you shuttle your child back-and-forth to
hold on your laps. Subjecting someone to that on a short flight would be
simply rude. On a long-haul, it's entirely unacceptable.

If you insist on taking infants on airplanes, buy a seat for them and bring
an approved car seat. Your child (and everyone else) will be more
comfortable and safer. Don't assume, for a minute, that the airline will
simply make room for you because you have brought a baby along.


> Good luck!

Good grief!


>
> John W.
>

[John W.]

PTRAVEL wrote:
> "John W." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Finally, on the plan
>>MAKE SURE you DO NOT buy a seat for your child (unless money isn't an
>>issue). You and your husband need to reserve an aisle and window seat;
>>unless the plane is just packed the middle seat probably won't be
>>booked, especially if you get to the airport early. We've never had an
>>issue, and while our child was under the required 'seat reservation' age
>>we flew a dozen or more times.
>
>
> What horrible (and selfish) advice. Most flights run full these days. What
> you propose will, almost certainly, result in some poor ******* being stuck
> between you and your wife, while you shuttle your child back-and-forth to
> hold on your laps. Subjecting someone to that on a short flight would be
> simply rude. On a long-haul, it's entirely unacceptable.
>
Why? I know LOT'S of people (with or without kids) that follow this very
common, very acceptable practice. Do you want to sit between two people
on a plane if you have a choice? Of course not. And if you object, then
the couple will always give you the seat of your choice so they can sit
next to each other. And while I've found flights to be "more" full than
in the past, it's not across the board and not 'packed' any more than in
the past.

> If you insist on taking infants on airplanes, buy a seat for them and bring
> an approved car seat. Your child (and everyone else) will be more
> comfortable and safer. Don't assume, for a minute, that the airline will
> simply make room for you because you have brought a baby along.
>
You obviously don't have children, and perhaps your advice would be best
posted when you DO. My son rarely stayed in his seat; on a trans-pacific
flight in particular he would sleep an hour or so around take off and
did likewise around landing (that was planned, something a non-parent
wouldn't understand), but otherwise stayed awake. Do you expect a 1 or 2
year old child to seat peacefully in their seat for eight or ten hours?
Grown adults can't do this, and a child certainly can't. Thankfully I've
been surrounded by folks a bit more understanding than yourself on these
issues, which is good because I'm not rich either.

John W.

[Gerry Scott-Moore]

In article >, PTRAVEL
> wrote:

> "John W." > wrote in message
> ... >Finally, on the plan > MAKE SURE
> you DO NOT buy a seat for your child (unless money isn't an > issue).
> You and your husband need to reserve an aisle and window seat; >
> unless the plane is just packed the middle seat probably won't be >
> booked, especially if you get to the airport early. We've never had
> an > issue, and while our child was under the required 'seat
> reservation' age > we flew a dozen or more times.
>
> What horrible (and selfish) advice. Most flights run full these days.

To Japan from the US? That's surprising, and doesn't mirror my
experiences.

> What you propose will, almost certainly, result in some poor *******
> being stuck between you and your wife, while you shuttle your child
> back-and-forth to hold on your laps.

Don't be sillly. It's assumed it would go unbooked. If someone actually
got the seat booked, they'd simply slide over. I know, I know--that
would be against the rules...

> Subjecting someone to that on a short flight would be simply rude.
> On a long-haul, it's entirely unacceptable.

But in the imagination it's very colorful!

> If you insist on taking infants on airplanes, buy a seat for them and
> bring an approved car seat. Your child (and everyone else) will be
> more comfortable and safer. Don't assume, for a minute, that the
> airline will simply make room for you because you have brought a baby
> along.

And certainly don't use your repeated personal experience as any kind
of guide. Just do what you project would be good for others, even if
inapplicable. It's the worriers way!

--
///---

[PTRAVEL]

"Gerry Scott-Moore" > wrote in message
d...
> In article >, PTRAVEL
> > wrote:
>
> > "John W." > wrote in message
> > ... >Finally, on the plan > MAKE SURE
> > you DO NOT buy a seat for your child (unless money isn't an > issue).
> > You and your husband need to reserve an aisle and window seat; >
> > unless the plane is just packed the middle seat probably won't be >
> > booked, especially if you get to the airport early. We've never had
> > an > issue, and while our child was under the required 'seat
> > reservation' age > we flew a dozen or more times.
> >
> > What horrible (and selfish) advice. Most flights run full these days.
>
> To Japan from the US? That's surprising, and doesn't mirror my
> experiences.

Well, it corresponds to mine. I fly Northwest to/through Tokyo, and the
flights I've been on ran full, or darn close to it.

>
> > What you propose will, almost certainly, result in some poor *******
> > being stuck between you and your wife, while you shuttle your child
> > back-and-forth to hold on your laps.
>
> Don't be sillly. It's assumed it would go unbooked.

You assume it would go unbooked. The airlines don't assume that, nor do
most passengers.

> If someone actually
> got the seat booked, they'd simply slide over.

And what if that middle seat passenger chose a middle seat because there
were no window seats available? I prefer windows, particularly on long-haul
flights, and if one wasn't available, I'd want to be as closed to a windows
as possible.

And, yes, it is unacceptable to propose that this hypothetical person take
the window seat, while the couple in the aisle and middle share a
lap-infant.

> I know, I know--that
> would be against the rules...

No, it would be discourteous.

>
> > Subjecting someone to that on a short flight would be simply rude.
> > On a long-haul, it's entirely unacceptable.
>
> But in the imagination it's very colorful!

Imagination? Are you really not familiar with the reality of long-hauls
with lap infants?

>
> > If you insist on taking infants on airplanes, buy a seat for them and
> > bring an approved car seat. Your child (and everyone else) will be
> > more comfortable and safer. Don't assume, for a minute, that the
> > airline will simply make room for you because you have brought a baby
> > along.
>
> And certainly don't use your repeated personal experience as any kind
> of guide.

You sound like a gambler who has rolled 4 sevens in a row, and thinks thats
what craps is always like.

> Just do what you project would be good for others, even if
> inapplicable. It's the worriers way!

No, it's the considerate person's way. Sorry you don't understand that.

>
> --
> ///---

[mag3]

Quoting "PTRAVEL" > regarding Re: Tokyo with a Very
Young Child in a message dated Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:05:36 -0600:

>
>Well, it corresponds to mine. I fly Northwest to/through Tokyo, and the
>flights I've been on ran full, or darn close to it.

And to mine as well, having just done it about a month ago. Flight was 80%
full in Bus. First, about 60-70% full in Economy. Return flight was 95% full
in Bus. First, maybe 60% in Economy.




__________________________________

Regards,
Arnold.

(E-mail address altered, to prevent spamming. :-|
Remove all asterisks and the *hates*spam* to get true address.)

[John W.]

PTRAVEL wrote:
> "Gerry Scott-Moore" > wrote in message
> d...
>
>>Just do what you project would be good for others, even if
>>inapplicable. It's the worriers way!
>
>
> No, it's the considerate person's way. Sorry you don't understand that.
>
Just out of curiosity, how many children do you have? From what you've
written it sounds like the answer is 'none'. Either that or you have
plenty of money, because not paying for seat tickets for children is a
VERY well accepted practice.

John W.

[Gerry Scott-Moore]

In article >, PTRAVEL
> wrote:

> > To Japan from the US? That's surprising, and doesn't mirror my
> > experiences.
>
> Well, it corresponds to mine. I fly Northwest to/through Tokyo, and
> the flights I've been on ran full, or darn close to it.

Okay then, I'll continue to go with my personal experience and you can
continue to go with yours.

> > Don't be sillly. It's assumed it would go unbooked.
>
> You assume it would go unbooked. The airlines don't assume that, nor
> do most passengers.

You're assuming it would be completely booked. Again, not my experience.

> > If someone actually got the seat booked, they'd simply slide over.
>
> And what if that middle seat passenger chose a middle seat because
> there were no window seats available?

They could slide over to the window side while one wing of the couple
slide inside. Now everybody's happier than ever! This is not a Supreme
Court issue. Most people can handle this pretty well.

> And, yes, it is unacceptable to propose that this hypothetical person
> take the window seat, while the couple in the aisle and middle share
> a lap-infant.

Okay it's unacceptable to have that person move for any reason? If
they WANT to sit between a couple with a child it's a decision they
made, if neither the window nor the aisle seat is unaccepbable.

You really have to WORK to cobble this crime against humanity together,
you know that, don't you?

> > > Subjecting someone to that on a short flight would be simply
> > > rude. On a long-haul, it's entirely unacceptable.
> >
> > But in the imagination it's very colorful!
>
> Imagination? Are you really not familiar with the reality of
> long-hauls with lap infants?

It's in your imagination that any one would be relegated to a middle
seat between a couple with child. It's imaginative and wholly
ridiculous. It wouldn't happen. PERIOD. But hammer away as if it were
a common and egregious violation of all that is holy.

> You sound like a gambler who has rolled...

You sound like somebody who one rather talk about participants and
their folly of reliance on their personal experience rather than
yours.

--
///---

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:24:05 +0100, the renowned
wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:57:26 -0500, "John W." >
>wrote:
>
>>You obviously don't have children, and perhaps your advice would be best
>>posted when you DO. My son rarely stayed in his seat; on a trans-pacific
>>flight in particular he would sleep an hour or so around take off and
>>did likewise around landing (that was planned, something a non-parent
>>wouldn't understand), but otherwise stayed awake. Do you expect a 1 or 2
>>year old child to seat peacefully in their seat for eight or ten hours?
>
>
>Of course. You just fill it full of gin.

Or give him a Gameboy Advance(d?) and a couple of new games.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

[John W.]

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:24:05 +0100, the renowned
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:57:26 -0500, "John W." >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You obviously don't have children, and perhaps your advice would be best
>>>posted when you DO. My son rarely stayed in his seat; on a trans-pacific
>>>flight in particular he would sleep an hour or so around take off and
>>>did likewise around landing (that was planned, something a non-parent
>>>wouldn't understand), but otherwise stayed awake. Do you expect a 1 or 2
>>>year old child to seat peacefully in their seat for eight or ten hours?
>>
>>
>>Of course. You just fill it full of gin.
>
>
> Or give him a Gameboy Advance(d?) and a couple of new games.
>
To a two year old? ;)

Actually, most inflight child-related incidents (and I've never
personally witnessed anything) can be avoided with some good prep by the
parents.

John W.

[John W.]

wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:57:26 -0500, "John W." >
> wrote:
>
>
>>You obviously don't have children, and perhaps your advice would be best
>>posted when you DO. My son rarely stayed in his seat; on a trans-pacific
>>flight in particular he would sleep an hour or so around take off and
>>did likewise around landing (that was planned, something a non-parent
>>wouldn't understand), but otherwise stayed awake. Do you expect a 1 or 2
>>year old child to seat peacefully in their seat for eight or ten hours?
>
>
>
> Of course. You just fill it full of gin.
>
I will not fill my seat full of gin. ;)

John W.

[Gerry Scott-Moore]

In article >, John W.
> wrote:

> Just out of curiosity, how many children do you have? From what
> you've written it sounds like the answer is 'none'.

Why, because I never addressed children? Right you are.

> Either that or you have plenty of money, because not paying for seat
> tickets for children is a VERY well accepted practice.

I never once spoke to the issue of NOT buying tickets for children. My
point was strictly about "bookending" seats. We do this when we can in
order to more comfortably sleep through long flights.

--
///---

[PTRAVEL]

"John W." > wrote in message
...
> PTRAVEL wrote:
> > "John W." > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Finally, on the plan
> >>MAKE SURE you DO NOT buy a seat for your child (unless money isn't an
> >>issue). You and your husband need to reserve an aisle and window seat;
> >>unless the plane is just packed the middle seat probably won't be
> >>booked, especially if you get to the airport early. We've never had an
> >>issue, and while our child was under the required 'seat reservation' age
> >>we flew a dozen or more times.
> >
> >
> > What horrible (and selfish) advice. Most flights run full these days.
What
> > you propose will, almost certainly, result in some poor ******* being
stuck
> > between you and your wife, while you shuttle your child back-and-forth
to
> > hold on your laps. Subjecting someone to that on a short flight would
be
> > simply rude. On a long-haul, it's entirely unacceptable.
> >
> Why? I know LOT'S of people (with or without kids) that follow this very
> common, very acceptable practice. Do you want to sit between two people
> on a plane if you have a choice? Of course not. And if you object, then
> the couple will always give you the seat of your choice so they can sit
> next to each other.

And that's the whole point -- if it's just a couple, then it's solely a
question of who sits where. When a couple plays this game with an infant,
there are four people jockeying for three seats.


>And while I've found flights to be "more" full than
> in the past, it's not across the board and not 'packed' any more than in
> the past.
>
> > If you insist on taking infants on airplanes, buy a seat for them and
bring
> > an approved car seat. Your child (and everyone else) will be more
> > comfortable and safer. Don't assume, for a minute, that the airline
will
> > simply make room for you because you have brought a baby along.
> >
> You obviously don't have children, and perhaps your advice would be best
> posted when you DO. My son rarely stayed in his seat; on a trans-pacific
> flight in particular he would sleep an hour or so around take off and
> did likewise around landing (that was planned, something a non-parent
> wouldn't understand), but otherwise stayed awake. Do you expect a 1 or 2
> year old child to seat peacefully in their seat for eight or ten hours?
> Grown adults can't do this, and a child certainly can't. Thankfully I've
> been surrounded by folks a bit more understanding than yourself on these
> issues, which is good because I'm not rich either.
>
> John W.
>

[PTRAVEL]

"John W." > wrote in message
...
> PTRAVEL wrote:
> > "Gerry Scott-Moore" > wrote in message
> > d...
> >
> >>Just do what you project would be good for others, even if
> >>inapplicable. It's the worriers way!
> >
> >
> > No, it's the considerate person's way. Sorry you don't understand that.
> >
> Just out of curiosity, how many children do you have? From what you've
> written it sounds like the answer is 'none'.

Right.

> Either that or you have
> plenty of money,

And that may be related to not having any children.

>because not paying for seat tickets for children is a
> VERY well accepted practice.

Accepted by whom? The airlines permit lap children under the age of 2.
Though it's not the safest thing in the world for the kids, it's not too
unbearable for short hops. For long hauls, being a stranger seated next to
a parent with a lap child is miserable.

>
> John W.
>

[Gerry Scott-Moore]

In article >, PTRAVEL
> wrote:

> > Just out of curiosity, how many children do you have? From what
> > you've written it sounds like the answer is 'none'.
>
> Right.
>
> > Either that or you have plenty of money,
>
> And that may be related to not having any children.

You guys want to open another topic to ruminate on my family?

--
///---

[Gerry Scott-Moore]

In article >, PTRAVEL
> wrote:

> Accepted by whom? The airlines permit lap children under the age of 2.
> Though it's not the safest thing in the world for the kids, it's not too
> unbearable for short hops. For long hauls, being a stranger seated next to
> a parent with a lap child is miserable.

If inflicted misery is the key then perhaps fat folks and large folk
and people with gas problems should be considerate and take a bus, no?

--
///---

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:45:32 -0700, the renowned Gerry Scott-Moore
> wrote:

>In article >, PTRAVEL
> wrote:
>
>> > Just out of curiosity, how many children do you have? From what
>> > you've written it sounds like the answer is 'none'.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>> > Either that or you have plenty of money,
>>
>> And that may be related to not having any children.
>
>You guys want to open another topic to ruminate on my family?

Child-hating travellers should eventually be eliminated from the gene
pool. Your DNA will hit a cul-de-sac. ;-)

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

[PTRAVEL]

"Gerry Scott-Moore" > wrote in message
d...
> In article >, PTRAVEL
> > wrote:
>
> > > Just out of curiosity, how many children do you have? From what
> > > you've written it sounds like the answer is 'none'.
> >
> > Right.
> >
> > > Either that or you have plenty of money,
> >
> > And that may be related to not having any children.
>
> You guys want to open another topic to ruminate on my family?

Neither. I'm not the one who inquired about my family status or income.


>
> --
> ///---

[PTRAVEL]

"Gerry Scott-Moore" > wrote in message
d...
> In article >, PTRAVEL
> > wrote:
>
> > Accepted by whom? The airlines permit lap children under the age of 2.
> > Though it's not the safest thing in the world for the kids, it's not too
> > unbearable for short hops. For long hauls, being a stranger seated next
to
> > a parent with a lap child is miserable.
>
> If inflicted misery is the key then perhaps fat folks and large folk
> and people with gas problems should be considerate and take a bus, no?

Perhaps, perhaps not. We weren't talking about fat people, large people,
people with bad breath, people who talk loudly on cellphones, people who
bring too many carryons, or a plethora of other passenger-induced miseries
that accompany flying. We were talking about one: forcing someone to sit
next to someone with a lapchild on a long-haul flight. Or are you simply of
the, "other people are rude and inconsiderate, so it's okay if I am, too"
school?

>
> --
> ///---

[John W.]

Gerry Scott-Moore wrote:
> In article >, John W.
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Just out of curiosity, how many children do you have? From what
>>you've written it sounds like the answer is 'none'.
>
>
> Why, because I never addressed children? Right you are.
>
>
>>Either that or you have plenty of money, because not paying for seat
>>tickets for children is a VERY well accepted practice.
>
>
> I never once spoke to the issue of NOT buying tickets for children. My
> point was strictly about "bookending" seats. We do this when we can in
> order to more comfortably sleep through long flights.
>
Wasn't replying to you, but point taken.

John W.

[John W.]

PTRAVEL wrote:
> "John W." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> because not paying for seat tickets for children is a VERY well
>> accepted practice.
>
>
> Accepted by whom? The airlines permit lap children under the age of
> 2. Though it's not the safest thing in the world for the kids, it's
> not too unbearable for short hops. For long hauls, being a stranger
> seated next to a parent with a lap child is miserable.
>
Budget travelers with families, something that you probably wouldn't
know about because you don't have a family. But if you search through
some books and Web sites, you'll most likely find that info.

John W.

[John W.]

mag3 wrote:
> Quoting "PTRAVEL" > regarding Re: Tokyo with a Very
> Young Child in a message dated Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:05:36 -0600:
>
>
>>Well, it corresponds to mine. I fly Northwest to/through Tokyo, and the
>>flights I've been on ran full, or darn close to it.
>
>
> And to mine as well, having just done it about a month ago. Flight was 80%
> full in Bus. First, about 60-70% full in Economy. Return flight was 95% full
> in Bus. First, maybe 60% in Economy.
>
Just a note on this. If you think just over half the seats occupied is
full, then I will have to agree with you....

John W.

[John W.]

PTRAVEL wrote:
> "John W." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>PTRAVEL wrote:
>>
>>>"John W." > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Finally, on the plan
>>>>MAKE SURE you DO NOT buy a seat for your child (unless money isn't an
>>>>issue). You and your husband need to reserve an aisle and window seat;
>>>>unless the plane is just packed the middle seat probably won't be
>>>>booked, especially if you get to the airport early. We've never had an
>>>>issue, and while our child was under the required 'seat reservation' age
>>>>we flew a dozen or more times.
>>>
>>>
>>>What horrible (and selfish) advice. Most flights run full these days.
>>
> What
>
>>>you propose will, almost certainly, result in some poor ******* being
>>
> stuck
>
>>>between you and your wife, while you shuttle your child back-and-forth
>>
> to
>
>>>hold on your laps. Subjecting someone to that on a short flight would
>>
> be
>
>>>simply rude. On a long-haul, it's entirely unacceptable.
>>>
>>
>>Why? I know LOT'S of people (with or without kids) that follow this very
>>common, very acceptable practice. Do you want to sit between two people
>>on a plane if you have a choice? Of course not. And if you object, then
>>the couple will always give you the seat of your choice so they can sit
>>next to each other.
>
>
> And that's the whole point -- if it's just a couple, then it's solely a
> question of who sits where. When a couple plays this game with an infant,
> there are four people jockeying for three seats.
>
I disagree, and should probably leave it at that; but of course I won't
;). At check in the agent typically does everything possible to keep
that seat empty; middle seats are without question the least desirable
for most individual travelers, and on a flight that is 75% "full" it
isn't an issue to leave one middle seat empty. Is this airline policy?
Don't know.

John W.

[PTRAVEL]

"John W." > wrote in message
...
> PTRAVEL wrote:
> > "John W." > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> because not paying for seat tickets for children is a VERY well
> >> accepted practice.
> >
> >
> > Accepted by whom? The airlines permit lap children under the age of
> > 2. Though it's not the safest thing in the world for the kids, it's
> > not too unbearable for short hops. For long hauls, being a stranger
> > seated next to a parent with a lap child is miserable.
> >
> Budget travelers with families, something that you probably wouldn't
> know about because you don't have a family.

Of course I have a family. I just don't have children. What an incredibly
presumptious thing to say.


> But if you search through
> some books and Web sites, you'll most likely find that info.

Find what info? I don't need to search websites to know about the safety
hazard to the children -- that's been discussed numerous times on
rec.travel.air, including input from flight attendants. If you were
referring to the "miserable experience" part, I don't need to research it --
I've been an unwilling participant in the real thing on enough occassions.

>
> John W.
>

[PTRAVEL]

"John W." > wrote in message
...
> PTRAVEL wrote:
> > "John W." > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>PTRAVEL wrote:
> >>
> >>>"John W." > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Finally, on the plan
> >>>>MAKE SURE you DO NOT buy a seat for your child (unless money isn't an
> >>>>issue). You and your husband need to reserve an aisle and window seat;
> >>>>unless the plane is just packed the middle seat probably won't be
> >>>>booked, especially if you get to the airport early. We've never had an
> >>>>issue, and while our child was under the required 'seat reservation'
age
> >>>>we flew a dozen or more times.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>What horrible (and selfish) advice. Most flights run full these days.
> >>
> > What
> >
> >>>you propose will, almost certainly, result in some poor ******* being
> >>
> > stuck
> >
> >>>between you and your wife, while you shuttle your child back-and-forth
> >>
> > to
> >
> >>>hold on your laps. Subjecting someone to that on a short flight would
> >>
> > be
> >
> >>>simply rude. On a long-haul, it's entirely unacceptable.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Why? I know LOT'S of people (with or without kids) that follow this very
> >>common, very acceptable practice. Do you want to sit between two people
> >>on a plane if you have a choice? Of course not. And if you object, then
> >>the couple will always give you the seat of your choice so they can sit
> >>next to each other.
> >
> >
> > And that's the whole point -- if it's just a couple, then it's solely a
> > question of who sits where. When a couple plays this game with an
infant,
> > there are four people jockeying for three seats.
> >
> I disagree, and should probably leave it at that; but of course I won't
> ;). At check in the agent typically does everything possible to keep
> that seat empty; middle seats are without question the least desirable
> for most individual travelers, and on a flight that is 75% "full" it
> isn't an issue to leave one middle seat empty. Is this airline policy?
> Don't know.

I'm sure you're quite right, and don't disagree with anything you've written
(here, in this specific post). Airlines permit lapchildren. I never
suggested they didn't. My response to the original poster was directed, not
at a violation of airline policy (it's not), but at his/her willingness to
impose on other travelers.

>
> John W.
>

[Gerry Scott-Moore]

In article >, Spehro Pefhany
> wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:45:32 -0700, the renowned Gerry Scott-Moore
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >, PTRAVEL
> > wrote:
> >
> >> > Just out of curiosity, how many children do you have? From what
> >> > you've written it sounds like the answer is 'none'.
> >>
> >> Right.
> >>
> >> > Either that or you have plenty of money,
> >>
> >> And that may be related to not having any children.
> >
> >You guys want to open another topic to ruminate on my family?
>
> Child-hating travellers should eventually be eliminated from the gene
> pool. Your DNA will hit a cul-de-sac. ;-)

Child-hater. As yet I haven't spoken of children!?

--
///---

[Gerry Scott-Moore]

In article >, PTRAVEL
> wrote:

> We were talking about one: forcing someone to sit next to someone
> with a lapchild on a long-haul flight.

I never takied about that. I was talking about book-ending seats.

> Or are you simply of the, "other people are rude and inconsiderate,
> so it's okay if I am, too" school?

I think you need to find somebody to beat up on that is talking about
the same thing.

--
///---

[PTRAVEL]

"Gerry Scott-Moore" > wrote in message
d...
> In article >, PTRAVEL
> > wrote:
>
> > We were talking about one: forcing someone to sit next to someone
> > with a lapchild on a long-haul flight.
>
> I never takied about that. I was talking about book-ending seats.
>
> > Or are you simply of the, "other people are rude and inconsiderate,
> > so it's okay if I am, too" school?
>
> I think you need to find somebody to beat up on that is talking about
> the same thing.

If I've confused you with the OP, my apologies.

>
> --
> ///---

[Gerry Scott-Moore]

In article >, PTRAVEL
> wrote:

> > I think you need to find somebody to beat up on that is talking
> > about the same thing.
>
> If I've confused you with the OP, my apologies.

Actually I think I have too with another post upstream.

And in any case the seminal few posts were at cross-purposes. My view
is that bookending seats with a spouse is just fine. If someone
actually gets plunked down in between, one or other can shift over as
the needs demand. This is unrelated to infants.

The idea of a ceaselessly shuffled infant between two seats, on either
side OR in the same 3-seat row both sounds like a nightmare
prescription. But then there are many such situations you could never
guess about.

While everybody finally managed to go to sleep on my last flight to
Japan, there was a Thai couple, very much country folk, that were were
screaming at each other, very shrill, every 15-20 minutes or so. Waking
me repeatedly. Apparently I was the only one that could hear it and
they were two rows back and across the aisle. I even asked a
stewardess to shut them up, and she gave them the one-size-fits-all
request and then evaporated.

There's one I couldn't have guessed. Noice cancelling head-sets are
beginning to look interesting.

--
///---

[PTRAVEL]

"Gerry Scott-Moore" > wrote in message
d...
> In article >, PTRAVEL
> > wrote:
>
> > > I think you need to find somebody to beat up on that is talking
> > > about the same thing.
> >
> > If I've confused you with the OP, my apologies.
>
> Actually I think I have too with another post upstream.
>
> And in any case the seminal few posts were at cross-purposes. My view
> is that bookending seats with a spouse is just fine. If someone
> actually gets plunked down in between, one or other can shift over as
> the needs demand. This is unrelated to infants.

I don't have any problem at all with bookending spouses -- I've done the
same thing on occassion, and it's always worked out. Worst that happened
was one of us would switch seats with the bookended stranger and all were
happy.


> The idea of a ceaselessly shuffled infant between two seats, on either
> side OR in the same 3-seat row both sounds like a nightmare
> prescription. But then there are many such situations you could never
> guess about.

It happened to me once on Cathay Pacific. I objected, long and loud, and
told them I would not sit in a row that had more people than seats.
Apparently, they found that argument convincing enough -- Cathay's solution
was an upgrade to business class once we took off.

>
> While everybody finally managed to go to sleep on my last flight to
> Japan, there was a Thai couple, very much country folk, that were were
> screaming at each other, very shrill, every 15-20 minutes or so. Waking
> me repeatedly. Apparently I was the only one that could hear it and
> they were two rows back and across the aisle. I even asked a
> stewardess to shut them up, and she gave them the one-size-fits-all
> request and then evaporated.
>
> There's one I couldn't have guessed. Noice cancelling head-sets are
> beginning to look interesting.

I'm on my third pair of noise cancellers. The problem with NC phones is
that, though they were very well on repetitive, low-frequency noise, e.g.
the roar of the jets and the rush of the air against the hull, they don't
attenuate sound in the frequencies of human speech (or baby crying). In
fact, they almost make it worse as they eliminate the white noise which
normally could cover it a bit. However, I use mine with a good headphone
amplifier and an MP3 player; listening to music at the
not-so-loud-that-it's-painful-but-still-fills-your-head level helps block
out almost everything.

>
> --
> ///---

[Dave Fossett]

"PTRAVEL" > wrote:

> I'm on my third pair of noise cancellers. The problem with NC phones is
> that, though they were very well on repetitive, low-frequency noise, e.g.
> the roar of the jets and the rush of the air against the hull, they don't
> attenuate sound in the frequencies of human speech (or baby crying). In
> fact, they almost make it worse as they eliminate the white noise which
> normally could cover it a bit. However, I use mine with a good headphone
> amplifier and an MP3 player; listening to music at the
> not-so-loud-that-it's-painful-but-still-fills-your-head level helps block
> out almost everything.

I would agree with this advice. I use a NoiseBuster set, which I do find
helps reduce the tiring background noise on long trips, but it doesn't
cancel out intermittent noise such as conversation or announcements.

--
Dave Fossett
Saitama, Japan

[Gerry Scott-Moore]

In article >, Dave Fossett
> wrote:

> "PTRAVEL" > wrote:
>
> > I'm on my third pair of noise cancellers. The problem with NC phones is
> > that, though they were very well on repetitive, low-frequency noise, e.g.
> > the roar of the jets and the rush of the air against the hull, they don't
> > attenuate sound in the frequencies of human speech (or baby crying). In
> > fact, they almost make it worse as they eliminate the white noise which
> > normally could cover it a bit. However, I use mine with a good headphone
> > amplifier and an MP3 player; listening to music at the
> > not-so-loud-that-it's-painful-but-still-fills-your-head level helps block
> > out almost everything.

And which does PTravle use?

> I would agree with this advice. I use a NoiseBuster set, which I do find
> helps reduce the tiring background noise on long trips, but it doesn't
> cancel out intermittent noise such as conversation or announcements.

Anybody used the too-overpriced-to-buy Bose set. A friend bought them
and tried to proselytize to validate his purchase. But after demo'ing
his at home could see my way clear.

--
///---

[PTRAVEL]

"Gerry Scott-Moore" > wrote in message
d...
> In article >, Dave Fossett
> > wrote:
>
> > "PTRAVEL" > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm on my third pair of noise cancellers. The problem with NC phones
is
> > > that, though they were very well on repetitive, low-frequency noise,
e.g.
> > > the roar of the jets and the rush of the air against the hull, they
don't
> > > attenuate sound in the frequencies of human speech (or baby crying).
In
> > > fact, they almost make it worse as they eliminate the white noise
which
> > > normally could cover it a bit. However, I use mine with a good
headphone
> > > amplifier and an MP3 player; listening to music at the
> > > not-so-loud-that-it's-painful-but-still-fills-your-head level helps
block
> > > out almost everything.
>
> And which does PTravle use?

My first pair were Sony MD-NC20s. Very nice phones, but they didn't work
with my MP3 player (they picked up control tones from the remote). I got a
pair of Bose QuietComforts, which I've used happily for several years. Last
month, I bought the new Bose QuietComfort II phones. They have better
definition and bass response than the original QuietComfort phones, and are
easier to carry around, too.


>
> > I would agree with this advice. I use a NoiseBuster set, which I do find
> > helps reduce the tiring background noise on long trips, but it doesn't
> > cancel out intermittent noise such as conversation or announcements.
>
> Anybody used the too-overpriced-to-buy Bose set.

Uh . . yes.

> A friend bought them
> and tried to proselytize to validate his purchase. But after demo'ing
> his at home could see my way clear.

Were they the IIs or the original? My Sonys out-performed the original Bose
QuietComfort phones. The new ones, though, are really quite nice.

>
> --
> ///---

[Gerry Scott-Moore]

In article >, PTRAVEL
> wrote:

> > A friend bought them and tried to proselytize to validate his
> > purchase. But after demo'ing his at home I couldn't see my way
> > clear.
>
> Were they the IIs or the original? My Sonys out-performed the
> original Bose QuietComfort phones. The new ones, though, are really
> quite nice.

After buzzing the website I'm pretty sure they are teh QC 2's. They
were part of a promo only a few months back and they cost, as indicated
at the website a discounted version of $300. Yikes. Damned
comfortable though. One of my problems with headsets is that after 2-3
hours they really begin to hurt the outer-ear unless they are the kind
that fit completely around the outside. That did not seem to be the
case with this set.

--
///---

[PTRAVEL]

"Gerry Scott-Moore" > wrote in message
d...
> In article >, PTRAVEL
> > wrote:
>
> > > A friend bought them and tried to proselytize to validate his
> > > purchase. But after demo'ing his at home I couldn't see my way
> > > clear.
> >
> > Were they the IIs or the original? My Sonys out-performed the
> > original Bose QuietComfort phones. The new ones, though, are really
> > quite nice.
>
> After buzzing the website I'm pretty sure they are teh QC 2's. They
> were part of a promo only a few months back and they cost, as indicated
> at the website a discounted version of $300. Yikes. Damned
> comfortable though. One of my problems with headsets is that after 2-3
> hours they really begin to hurt the outer-ear unless they are the kind
> that fit completely around the outside. That did not seem to be the
> case with this set.

I've worn the originals for as much as 12 hours at a time, and the IIs for
4-5 hours. The IIs, in particular, are quite comfortable.

>
> --
> ///---

[Gerry Scott-Moore]

In article >, PTRAVEL
> wrote:

> > Damned comfortable though. One of my problems with headsets is that
> > after 2-3 hours they really begin to hurt the outer-ear unless they
> > are the kind that fit completely around the outside. That did not
> > seem to be the case with this set.

Bad back reference. Discomfort did not seem to be the case with the
QC2's.

> I've worn the originals for as much as 12 hours at a time, and the
> IIs for 4-5 hours. The IIs, in particular, are quite comfortable.

--
///---