Do most - or any - airlines have a minimum age limit to fly first or business class? I can imagine that anyone who is paying significantly more money would expect peace and quiet, enough so that babies and young children would not be allowed to fly in those sections. Am I right?
No age limit that I know of. In May 2010 on a Qantas flight to Los Angeles there was couple with a small baby in the first class cabin. My daughter flew in business when she was three. People may not be thrilled but it is fine according to the rules.
One issue is that the “babes in arms” rule where kids less than two fly for free in the U.S. is not true on international flights. Generally you have to pay 10 percent of the ticket price.
Kids are allowed in first-class. There was even a lawsuit because of this issue against United (the parents with small kids won).
However, many first-class upgrades are discretionary by the airlines and they take things like that into account when they give them to people.
So let me get this straight. People who have decent seats and food should not have to have children around them, but the hoi polloi in steerage should?
[quote=“Shagnasty, post:3, topic:566518”]
Kids are allowed in first-class. There was even a lawsuit because of this issue against United (the parents with small kids won). /QUOTE]
[nitpick on] The parents lost the lawsuit. [nitpick off]
Several years ago, a United Airlines flight attendant just came out and said it: no children in first class. A passenger disagreed, sued the airline — and lost.
If a flight attendant made the decision, it was probably some sort of upgrade.
For fun, I just tried to book a first class trip from ORD to LHR for 2 adults and 2 children on United.com. They were perfectly willing to book children’s seats in first class, although they cost the same $10,000 as the adult’s seats.
For fun? You have expensive hobbies! 
Yes. That’s why first class seats cost more.
Those damn rich people. Paying more for a more pleasant experience. How dare they!
And if you have kids, you shouldn’t have access to the more pleasant experience of first class, even if you’re willing to pay for it?
A few yers back, I flew with my then 6 month old daughter in first class. No one raised a stink. Interestingly, one of the flight attendants came over right after take-off, started cooing over her, and asked if she could hold her. She then held her and took care of her for much of the flight, often way up in front (it was only a 2 or 3 hour flight). I wondered if she was really that stricken with my daughter, or if that was her way to make sure all the other first class passangers were not bothered by a young child.
No, they cost more because they’re bigger seats and other amenities. Maybe they should include complimentary oral sex by the flight attendants as well?
From the perspective of the airline, trying to make sure that their first class passengers receive the most for their money, I’d say either interpretation would be entirely appropriate.
Who else are we going to ban?
When my eldest was small I had a lot of miles on United, and she didn’t even know there was anything but First Class flying cross country to the the grandparents until she was five. She was always well behaved. On the other hand, coming back from Hawaii once I got bumped out of First Class. My wife stayed, but she couldn’t sleep on the trip because of a bunch of first class passengers partying. I say, let kids fly but ban Honda salesmen.
Yah, I have to say I can’t see a problem with first-class pasengers wanting to be isolated from weeping, puking, half-toilet-trained Bundles of Joy. It’s not as if there’s some sort of invidious discrimination at work here - children aren’t a historically oppressed class, after all.
You need to fly the right airlines.
Are you serious, or am I being whooshed here?
Sounds okay to me. It’s perfectly reasonable for an airline to ban children under a certain age from first class -or reserve the right to swap your seats with a family in coach if your baby starts disturbing other passengers who paid top dollar for a first-class ticket.
Maybe you should spring for a private jet if you really need to transport your toddler in comfort.
Among the other amenities are: earlier boarding, earlier de-planing, better service, better food, free drinks, and other preferential treatment. What’s wrong with including “no disturbances from ill-behaved children” on that list?
I’m quite serious. Sure, children are restricted from all sorts of activities - but as a society, we more or less recognize it’s for their own benefit, and the restrictions are rooting in the genuine incapacities of children. And children all, well, outgrow childhood.
Compare childhood with, say, membership in an ethnic minority - that’s a traditional focus of discrimination rooted solely in animus towards your class, which you’ll belong to for your entire life. There’s a reason that the courts apply a strict-scrutiny standard to discimination based upon race, but not upon one’s status as a child.
-
If I think that black people talk too loudly, can I ban them from first class on my airline? Also, Arabs make me nervous when I’m flying.
-
I’m trying to follow your “top-dollar” argument. A toddler in a $400 seat is allowed to disturb another passenger in a $400 dollar seat, but a toddler in $5000 seat is not allowed to disturb another passenger in a $5000 dollar seat?
-
The biggest disturbance caused by babies is that they cry. Honestly, if you’re 30 feet away in first class, you’re still going to hear it.
Maybe you should spring for a private jet if you really need to transport yourself in a child-free environment.
Why are you singling out children? Why not “no disturbances from any ill-behaved fellow passengers?” In any case, the fact remains that airlines will sell first-class tickets to children.
I was kind of focusing on the “historically” part of “historically oppressed”.