Interesting argument: parents who want their children to remain safe should travel with them.
Let’s look into that.
Two divorced parents live on opposite ends of the country. The court order mandates school years with Dad and summers with Mom. The child can make the round trip alone for $500.
Having a parent accompany the child requires two round trip flights, not one, because the two legs of the child’s journey are three months apart. So the adult flies at a business rate, not the child’s discounted rate. That would run about 50% higher, or $750. The parent would also need an overnight hotel stay, $80, meals and parking, another $45. These are airport vicinity prices. This adds up to an additional $1750 a year.
What does that mean in the long run? At 7% simple interest over ten years, $25,871. Most families would rather see that in the child’s college fund.
Not feasible on a middle class budget.
Under law, airlines are already required to guard the safety of minor children entrusted to their care.
Would you allow your 6 year old child to use the subway in New York all by himself?
**
Boo hoo. As I said before I don’t care how much it would end up costing because I think it is inappropriate to send a child on an airplane all alone. Maybe older kids such as 13 or older would be acceptable.
Silly law. Although I suppose from a legal standpoint they’re responsible for the safety of all their passengers regardless of age.
I am a 26 year old man. I enjoy being around children,
making them laugh, teaching them things and a bunch of
other innocent, wholesome and legal activities. I am very cautious due to the fact that there is a prejudice against men who enjoy associating with kids.
When I moved in to my appartment, I had dreams of making my place a sort of club house. Kids could come here for tutoring, to borrow toys, or as a place to wait if they lose their keys and can't get in to their homes. I never have trouble winning the children's trust, but I knew the parent's were an obstacle. It turned out to be worse than I thought. Neighborhood rumor seems to depict me as a Satan worshipping child molester who lures children to his gingerbread house. Women my age, however, are routinely asked to watch a group of neighborhood kids.
A friend of mine worked at a Goddard School. According to her, men may work with the children but are not allowed to change diapers.
Among the other crap she regularly dispenses, Anne Landers has often warned that any man who likes being around kids, taking them places, and rearranges his schedule to be with them is probably a pedophile.
I wonder if Jim Henson or Mr Rogers faced these stereotypes before they became famous? Sadly, I can see Henson having to explain to cops that when children say they "went to Jim's house and played with his puppets." they are referring to actual puppets and not some sort of molestation. Before becoming Captain Kangaroo, Bob Keishan was Clarabell the clown. Keishan loved playing with children, but as Clarabell wore make up and never spoke(except "Good bye kids." on the last show) , parents would see their kids playing with some stranger.
BunnyBoy, replacing one prejudice with another is not only wrong, but stupid. Group A has power over group B, and fosters prejudice against them. Group B eventaully manages to gain power over group A. If they foster prejudice against group A, they are simply perpetuating the system they wanted to eliminate. The correct thing is to replace prejudice with truth.
You adult males are soooo lucky. Now if I can just convince the airlines that it is Very Dangerous to seat a minor (particularly the loudly-babbling, crying, seat-kicking kind) within twenty feet of long-haired heterosexual women in their mid-twenties who obviously have sour dispositions which are not improved by long confinement on airplanes.
Just kidding. I know how you feel. As a single fella myself, who also likes kids, I know what it feels like to be judged like this. So much for the days where you could strike up a conversation with a youngster while at a ball game or walking in the neighborhood or whatever.
When I see a kid looking at a neat bug or plant or something, I want to get involved. Tell them what I know about it. When I see a kid with a baseball glove, it brings out the kid in me. In fact, there were times when I would stop and watch Little Leaguers at a game, just because I think kids and baseball are part of what makes this country great.
If I tried that now, I would feel like one of those pedophile warning posters. Ever watch the TV re-enactments? Just about every one has some dude standing in front of a fence watching kids play at a park or school.
I was making faces at a toddler on the Metro a month or so ago. He was giggling and sticking his tongue out at me. Mom shot me a look that chilled me. It was very depressing to know that I had been labled a “danger.”
Better not seat any kids next to me. I just might try to molest them on the plane in front of, oh, 175 other passengers or so. :rolleyes:
True, it’s difficult to get worked up about an airline policy that will prevent unattended young children from being seated next to me (though I’d bet they are better behaved without Mommy fussing over them). The real problem in such a case would be the flight attendants hovering over the kid throughout the flight, not great if you as its neighbor want to get some work done or nap).
The hysteria over child molestation/abduction has truly gotten out of hand. Recently I was dining out and went to use the restroom. A nervous-appearing woman was hovering in front of the men’s room door and shot me a suspicious glance as I went in. I figured out what was going on when I spotted a lower grade school-aged male child at a urinal a few stations down. Vigilant Mom’s next move was to prop the men’s room door open and call out “Mommy’s right here, Bobby!” (as a warning to me, the Presumed Pervo). I was extraordinarily tempted to respond to her with “Nice-looking kid you’ve got there, Mom”.
I would much rather see that money put into my child’s college fund IF I felt they were safe traveling alone. If I were worried, I’d rather spend the money to ensure their safety from molestation. I’ve spent a lot of time and money ensuring his safety up till now------why would I skimp if I felt him unsafe?
Why not just whack all the kids together if there’s more than one of them? Or have a seat on the plane that isn’t attached to any other seat? I’m sure that space can be juggled to accomodate that. Or how about we give the kids a strong sedative and store them in the overhead luggage compartment?
Brian Bunnyhurt mentioned a past, widespread assumption that women would become “whores” if given the chance, then speculated about this men-are-child-molesters-by-default airline policy:
I’d bet you dollars to donut-holes that it was the mothers of the children who encouraged the airlines to put this policy into place to begin with.
My ex-roommate’s father is a pediatrician with more than 30 years in practice. Due to crap like the OP, he can no longer tell people why he became a pediatrician. The reason?
Because he loves kids.
I say, we kill this obnoxious stereotype, and focus our hysteria on the obvious target - Catholic priests.
“Tradition” of persecution is irrelevant. Any unjustified persecution should be stopped, regardless of past persecutions.
I’ve got to say it again: the airlines should not be concerned with who (male or female) is sitting next to the children; they should be concerned with where the children are being seated. Unescorted children should be seated close to the staff so they can be easily monitored. I think that would be close to where the flight attendants sit, but if they could be more easily monitored when seated somewhere else, that would be fine too.
Either way, I’d think the children would be at low risk if they were being watched by staff.
