Word came out last week that Air Asia has introduced a
"Quiet Zone" in the first seven rows of economy class that children under 12 are not allowed to sit in. This didn't offend me as a parent. I mean, I remember when I wasn't a parent, and there were for sure a few flights that I would have paid extra to not sit by a screaming kid. Or even if I'm travelling without my child, I probably wouldn't mind some peace and quiet. What did leave a bad taste in my mouth were the people who left comments in regards to
The Globe and Mail's article about Air Asia's Quiet Zone. I was surprised at how many people posted anti-kid sentiments, and how a mother was essentially lambasted for saying she'd rather get sympathetic smiles instead of snotty comments, and essentially has no right to bring her child aboard an airplane. I 100% get that people don't want to sit next to a crying kid. Heck, I hardly want to sit next to my crying kid, let alone someone else's. But, what I don't get is why anyone might think: a) a kid automatically means crying and noise and, b) if a kid is crying, that it's a situation their parents are happy about. Honestly, there's nothing worse than having your kid cry on a plane. I've taken my toddler on several flights, and did so when she was a baby, too. Of all those flights, she only cried once. And that includes two long-haul flights with connections. On the flight where she cried, I felt terrible. Terrible for her because she was uncomfortable; terrible for my husband and I because we couldn't console her; and terrible for the people around us because she was being disruptive. A man a couple rows up saved the day by making funny faces at her and playing peek-a-boo. All she needed was a distraction, and she stopped crying. Thank goodness. But had there not been a sympathetic soul aboard that day, she may have cried for a lot longer. Even so, it didn't discourage us from continuing to travel with her. Kids have as much of a right to travel by plane as anyone else. And often, they are better behaved than some adults. So, ultimately, I agree with a "quiet zone." To me, it seems like a good idea. For those folks who simply have no tolerance for young children, whether they make a peep or not, it's better for all involved if they are not seated near any.
Word came out last week that Air Asia has introduced a
"Quiet Zone" in the first seven rows of economy class that children under 12 are not allowed to sit in. This didn't offend me as a parent. I mean, I remember when I wasn't a parent, and there were for sure a few flights that I would have paid extra to not sit by a screaming kid. Or even if I'm travelling without my child, I probably wouldn't mind some peace and quiet. What did leave a bad taste in my mouth were the people who left comments in regards to
The Globe and Mail's article about Air Asia's Quiet Zone. I was surprised at how many people posted anti-kid sentiments, and how a mother was essentially lambasted for saying she'd rather get sympathetic smiles instead of snotty comments, and essentially has no right to bring her child aboard an airplane. I 100% get that people don't want to sit next to a crying kid. Heck, I hardly want to sit next to my crying kid, let alone someone else's. But, what I don't get is why anyone might think: a) a kid automatically means crying and noise and, b) if a kid is crying, that it's a situation their parents are happy about. Honestly, there's nothing worse than having your kid cry on a plane. I've taken my toddler on several flights, and did so when she was a baby, too. Of all those flights, she only cried once. And that includes two long-haul flights with connections. On the flight where she cried, I felt terrible. Terrible for her because she was uncomfortable; terrible for my husband and I because we couldn't console her; and terrible for the people around us because she was being disruptive. A man a couple rows up saved the day by making funny faces at her and playing peek-a-boo. All she needed was a distraction, and she stopped crying. Thank goodness. But had there not been a sympathetic soul aboard that day, she may have cried for a lot longer. Even so, it didn't discourage us from continuing to travel with her. Kids have as much of a right to travel by plane as anyone else. And often, they are better behaved than some adults. So, ultimately, I agree with a "quiet zone." To me, it seems like a good idea. For those folks who simply have no tolerance for young children, whether they make a peep or not, it's better for all involved if they are not seated near any.
Comments