I once saw something similar, but much more stupid. The plane was over-sold and there was a woman who was supposed to fly with a companion and that companion wasn't going to be able to go. She insisted that nobody got to sit on that seat because the airline wouldn't refund the price of the ticket. The cops dragged her off the plane after threatening to arrest anybody who was yelling at them to drag her off the plane.
Hm. While uncooperative of her, it does seem that if they seat someone else there, she should get a refund for the seat.
Discounted fairs are never refundable.
It is a safety issue for the infant. A rough flight or rough landing and the kid goes flying.
I would be pissed too.
I'm struggling to muster any sympathy for the people in the OP. They're just flaunting their wealth while thousands of people are suffering. If this had been routine overbooking then sure it's the airline's fault and maybe I'd feel slightly differently. But that's not the situation here.
4: true, but you're also not allowed to withhold the product that someone paid for, without undoing the transaction.
They're just flaunting their wealth while thousands of people are suffering.
They'd only alleviate one person's suffering. Not thousands.
7: The person on the ticket wasn't present and it wasn't like she was expecting them to show-up. The airline didn't withhold, the customer refused delivery.
8: Maybe the airline was going to put a huge asshole on the seat, much to the relief of the entire population of trapped fliers?
What if the rest of the passenger is quite nice?
Doesn't matter how nice her or she is. Same part goes on the seat.
5: What makes it a hard problem is that the FAA rules don't recognize that a lap baby is unsafe -- officially, it's permitted. From that perspective, the family was holding a seat that someone else could have used in an difficult situation because they were being over-particular about safety.
Assuming that having a baby without its own seat is really unsafe, the FAA rules should be changed, which would keep the problem from coming up.
I wonder how long of a flight it was. It's one thing to hold the kid for a 90 minute hop somewhere, but if they were trying to get them to hold the kid for a 10 hour transatlantic gauntlet then stabbing the captain seems like a reasonable response.
14: You think? Baby under a year old, two parents to hand off to each other... doesn't sound too bad to me.
I'm trying to come up with some non-insane reason that the baby really needs its own seat - like maybe it doesn't tolerate being held for long stretches?
The age makes it less sympathetic. By the time HP was 15 months old, though, I was through putting her on our laps.
13: Given the number of commercial plane crashes in which any action short of not being on the flight would have protected you, I don't think I'd like to give the airlines another thing to badger passengers about. However, I think saying, "I'd like the option of being able to set down 15 pounds of thrashing baby at some point during a six hour flight" is reasonable enough that the choice of '2 seats or none' should have been given to them plainly to accept or refuse.
I would fire the pilot, tooty-sweety. They'd paid for their seats and, as will points out, there's a safety issue that the captain seems to have been pro-active in overlooking. I would consider firing the cabin crew who didn't understand this without prompting as well, but I'd probably just ground them pending extra training.
I don't care who was nice and who was nasty here. The passengers with the kid were right, and the airline CEO needs to walk barefoot to their house and climb their front steps on his knees before being scourged by some local monks. And pay a shitload of compensation.
17: It's not about crashes. It's about turbulence.
I wonder how long of a flight it was.
I believe the person relating the story lives in California, so I was assuming a trans-Atlantic flight.
That being said, I'd keep a baby stowed under the seat in a pet carrier for round-trip first class tickets to Australia.
Not my own, though.
19: Yes, but again, lap-babies are permitted, so.
I wonder if perhaps they'd brought a car seat and were planning to put the baby in that?
19: O.K. I should have said "incidents" not "crashes." But, how many people get hurt on an airplane by turbulence. Maybe, more specifically, we'd need to look at turbulence strong enough to lift a baby held in the arms or sudden enough to lift a baby sitting on a lap.
Given that the first offer was a refund via £400 voucher, it can't have been very long. You can scarcely fly first class to Paris for that.
They'd only alleviate one person's suffering. Not thousands.
Sure, but apply the principle across similar situations, as I'm sure the airline was doing (the other passengers involved presumably weren't such selfish dicks and so didn't get in the news).
I'd have thought that a baby in its own seat, unless with a safety seat, is considerably less safe than on a lap.
Maybe the baby is extremely light - perhaps a giant asshole.
I would consider firing the cabin crew who didn't understand this without prompting as well, but I'd probably just ground them pending extra training.
If airline policy allows you to bring a baby on in your lap, you really can't say the pilot and cabin crew should be fired for not abiding by tighter safety standards.
Yeah, I'm sure these folks were deeply concerned about the nonexistent safety issues. It's about their sense of entitlement and refusal to make basic, minor (they still had two first class seats) accomodations in the face of a genuine emergency that was in no ways the airline's fault. I say that captain is the greatest hero of comercial aviation since Sully.
Given that the first offer was a refund via £400 voucher, it can't have been very long.
What? Not that I've been in this situation specifically or flown first class, but in my experience the first offer is always painfully low. As in, "Our flight to Midway is overbooked, if you'd like to spend another day in Dayton, we'll give you a coupon for $1 off an Extra Value Meal and a voucher good for ten minutes of grudging gratitude."
18,27: I think I"m detecting a slight disagreement.
1. refund via £400 voucher
Not the first offer. Voucher was in addition. So it could be a trans-Atlantic flight.
2. Sure, but apply the principle across similar situations, as I'm sure the airline was doing
Really, you think displaced babies are a significant portion of getting folks home?
3. so didn't get in the news
This wasn't in the news. Anecdote on someone's personal blog.
4. I'd have thought that a baby in its own seat, unless with a safety seat, is considerably less safe than on a lap.
Here, if you don't have a safety seat for your kid (under 2), you have to hold them on take-off and landing anyway.
27: But if it were throwing ketchup, you'd want it to stay, right?
I don't get this. Kid was a human with a ticket. The idea that they could travel some other way is no more relevant for it than for anyone else on the plane, or waiting in the airport, who could fly later.
I think the pilot did exactly the right thing. Heathrow was jammed full of stranded passengers. The couple should absolutely have accepted a little temporary discomfort - plus an amazingly generous compensation offer - in order to help one of the stranded passengers get home for Christmas, ffs. If they'd been half-decent human beings, they wouldn't even have asked for the compensation. Horrible, horrible people.
While uncooperative of her, it does seem that if they seat someone else there, she should get a refund for the seat.
I don't think that follows at all. You don't buy rights to a seat on a flight. You buy the right for one specific person to sit on that seat. If they can't make it, the airline's perfectly at liberty to put someone else there instead.
I bet the captain thinks of kids as less than human same as he does with minorities and the disabled.
Really, you think displaced babies are a significant portion of getting folks home?
It's probably not unreasonable to assume one baby with its own seat per plane (maybe not in first class), or at least within that order of magnitude. Given how many flights there are out of Heathrow, that's a lot of seats in aggregate.
I am trying to work out how big a baby would have to be for me to be unwilling to hold it on my lap, if the reward for doing so was two first-class return tickets anywhere I wanted to go in the world. I think any baby under about 140 lb would be fine.
help one of the stranded passengers get home for Christmas, ffs.
Or to hasten the departure of one of a pair of lovers who only get to see each other once a year and suffer excruciating torment upon separation. Or someone Jewish. Who knows.
I bet the captain thinks of kids as less than human same as he does with minorities and the disabled.
He's a pilot. He thinks everyone who isn't a pilot is less than human. "Self-loading freight" is the term.
I don't think that follows at all. You don't buy rights to a seat on a flight. You buy the right for one specific person to sit on that seat. If they can't make it, the airline's perfectly at liberty to put someone else there instead.
Yeah, maybe. I'm not attached to my argument on this point.
36: Not even Jewish people deserve to spend five days stuck in London Heathrow, heebie.
31: I agree. I've been in non-baby situations with a similar thing. There was a case where somebody was too big to fit in the seat to which he was assigned and I let him take half of mine. It was presented as me doing him a favor, not him having a right to my ass-space. Any other way and I probably would have been upset.
It probably wasn't half my seat, but I was thinner back then.
What are they complaining about? All that happened to them was that they had to spend another day or to in Heathrow. Not so bad, right? I mean it was fine with them if some other ticket-holder had to do that.
43: Agreeing with both of them at the same time seems hard.
How so?
The parents had purchased a ticket for another seat for another human being who was present. Hard to agree (for me) that they be compelled to give that seat up.
OTOH, I would, in their place gladly hold a huge, disgusting, baby for a gratis pair of round-trip 1st class tickets.
They're just flaunting their wealth while thousands of people are suffering.
I may be letting my tortured angles and hinges do my thinking, but perhaps they took a rare opportunity to requite the airlines' default "fuck you, passengers" treatment.
42 gets the key point. If there's a massive weather caused emergency, you're going to be delayed and the airline can more or less decide what to do with you. Sometimes, if you make some reasonable compromises to your original travel plans, you can fly home earlier than you might be able to otherwise. f you're not willing to make reasonable accomodations (actually, the airline bent over backwards for these fools), tough shit. They still could fly home, just not ahead of everyone else.
Having heard terrifying things about turbulence and people who ignored the seatbelt light flying straight up in the air and hitting their heads, I would buy a safety argument. I imagine that a 1 yr old would...ricochet.
Except that when the parents were told they wouldn't be getting on the plane at all, they were very happy to give up their child's seat in order to keep their own. If they were making a safety claim, they just placed the value of their child's safety somewhere between the lower bound of "someone else getting home after being stuck in the Heathrow hellhole for 5 days" and the upper bound of "us getting home after being stuck in the Heathrow hellhole for 5 days."
So...not that sympathetic for these particular parents. (Unless there were safety issues with staying at Heathrow another day, which...actually wouldn't surprise me too much. I do not like Heathrow.)
45 was clearly written by a propertarian.
45 sums me up too. And yeah, as 49.2 points out, if they had any safety argument, they rather undermined it.
Talking of crazy rich people - my friend's daughter is at a very fancy prep school (Liz Hurley's son went there. My friend did not recognise her), and one of her 6 year old classmates got 3 llamas for Christmas.
How would you even be sure that the person who got to fly instead of the baby would be somebody stranded at Healthrow? We are speaking of the first class cabin on a trans-Atlantic flight. The person who got the seat probably had enough money to buy a nearby hotel room at whatever the rate was.
52: I sympathize, but I think my 46 survives: I'd be willing to comply with most instructions for which a captain could cite safety grounds, but I don't think the airlines have such a shining history of reverence for the social contract as to be able to demand any much sacrifice of me.
51: My parents were strict. I only got one llama and an alpaca.
I agree with 53. No one is putting people in order according to misery suffered.
I also agree with 46. Fucking airlines.
Wow. This seems like the most polarizing thread here since, I don't know, Mao?
31 gets it exactly right.
If only the Cultural Revolution did put people in order according to misery suffered.
Uh, the airline has to deal with getting a large number of people who have been stuck there forever on a small number of flights that are leaving. Before Christmas. If you refuse to make an extraordinarily small compromise -- and having two adults and one infant under a year old in two first class seats is a very, very small compromise -- you are an asshole. The airlines are free to arrange the order of who gets to leave based on assholishness, which in this case was a good thing. So Mr. and Ms. asshole and wee asshole can still fly home in their three seats, just not at the time at which they'd hoped. Boo hoo.
57: I think we can top it. Let us add to the OP: the baby's seat would need to be reclined.
If only the Cultural Revolution did put people in order according to misery suffered.
One could argue that it did, but not in the way of liberal fantasies.
The airlines are free to arrange the order of who gets to leave based on assholishness....
I cannot imagine another context in which a comment on unfogged would posit corporations as appropriate arbiters of the great chain of being.
60: And the airline would need to "hone in on" a solution to the problem.
54: I'd be willing to comply with most instructions for which a captain could cite safety grounds, but I don't think the airlines have such a shining history of reverence for the social contract as to be able to demand any much sacrifice of me.
I understand the argument, but I'm afraid that in a case in which hordes of people are stranded, the airlines are presumably doing their level best to reroute and reseat passengers. Any "fuck you airlines" sentiment that may be latent in the minds of passengers is a generalization from some particular past difficulty, and doesn't necessarily apply in this case.
Certainly adverting to some sort of contractual perspective on the matter is, shall we say, misanthropic. Try to be human beings, people.
Or what mcmc said in 42.
[T]he airlines are presumably doing their level best to reroute and reseat passengers.
My experience with airlines suggests that their level best includes telling displaced passengers to call their travel agents and walking away.
It's worth distinguishing between airline and pilot. The people being assholes on behalf of the airlines are the executives who set policies, not the flight crew, cabin crew, or gate agents. I'm in favor of giving the pilot very wide latitude in deciding what is or is not OK. I'm also in favor of beating the executives with a very big stick.
The couple in the OP sound like typical Americans abroad. Completely unwilling to share the misery in order to help out other people, selfish, entitled, and utterly lacking in empathy. 32.1 is exactly right. I've run into the type many times, and watched them bitch and moan about trivial inconveniences while completely ignoring people right next to them in vastly worse circumstances. The pilot was right.
Do people even have travel agents?
What do you want a bet they were so desperate for that extra first-class seat because, like, Katie Price was waiting for it.
I think most of the polarization comes down to what you think of the safety issue -- whether the baby's unsafe in a lap rather than its own seat.
I'm on the 'eh, not really all that unsafe' side of it, so this looks like assholes refusing to give up a little comfort or convenience in order to let someone stranded get home faster.
But if I thought it were seriously unsafe, I'd flip sides.
I admit I don't really get the 'the baby's a human being who bought a seat' argument if it's not about safety. Sure, the baby's human, but it's the kind of human who fits on another human's lap, and probably doesn't mind at all.
64: I am sorry for your horrible experiences. Obviously all airlines everywhere, at all times, are horrible, and we're justified in adopting a combative, adversarial stance toward them. All.
You don't think this is a tad whiny?
68: I was pretty sure the polarization had to do with the perennial Unfogged question of "Who do you hate more?" in this case, entitled rich people or airline companies.
I would throw an epic shit-fit if this happened to me
I realize this has already been said, but I would hope to god this wouldn't ever happen to you because you'd never be such a heartless sack of shit. And if you ever were such a heartless sack of shit, I'd hope that instead of becoming livid over the situation, you'd realize that you'd just been thrown off a goddamn airplane for being a heartless sack of shit, and think that maybe you should change your ways. But no, I'm sure that, like these people, if you were the sort of person who'd be such a heartless sack of shit in the first place, you reaction to being thrown off the plane wouldn't be to self-reflect, but would just be to "throw an epic shit-fit", as you say.
Do people even have travel agents?
No.
Obviously all airlines everywhere, at all times, are horrible, and we're justified in adopting a combative, adversarial stance toward them. All.
As togolosh points out, yes, all airlines are horrible. Airline employees, not necessarily.
I would not have given up a seat for Hawaiian Punch at fifteen months, even though she still could have flown in our laps. I am also not convinced that we're all picturing a nice bright line that would have excused my behavior but condemned these other people.
72: Also not necessarily horrible? Airline passengers waiting for a seat.
I remember reading somewhere that there's exactly one infant death, total, that's attributable to not riding in a car seat on the airplane -- obviously, infants die in plane crashes but so does everyone else, so we're talking about an accident due to turbulence that a car seat could have prevented. Not a nonexistent risk but an very small additional safety benefit in practical terms (and, n.b., we don't know if this particular couple were in fact using a car seat or just purchasing the extra seat for extra space, in which case there is no safety benefit from the extra seat). But google didn't lead quickly enough to that information, so someone else can check.
"Who do you hate more?" in this case, entitled rich people or airline companies.
Exactly. What is this, some kind of bizarro Sophie's choice?
So let's see...
Airlines suck.
Rich people, both passengers and pilots, suck.
Babies suck (reflexively).
Heathrow sucks.
Yeah, I think I don't like any of the people in this story. The baby can't help himself so he gets a pass for now.
I would not have given up a seat for Hawaiian Punch
You'd make her wait on standby?
I wonder how much of this isn't the result of the different viewpoints of different types of fliers. I fly three or four times a year, usually with a small child* and always for recreation. Someone whose professional life requires them to frequently fly probably views the whole thing differently.
*On Southwest, he invariably insists on sitting next to the glummest guy in a suit.
if you were the sort of person who'd be such a heartless sack of shit in the first place,
I'm sure you're the type of person who carefully considered the phrase "If none of the bribes dealt with the factors I was juggling" in the original post.
75: The Katie Price thing was a joke, but I do wonder why, since it was all the same to the airline, they were so keen to get the baby out of the seat. One imagines, it being first class, that a very "important" person was throwing their own "epic shit fit" in the waiting area.
I would not have given up a seat for Hawaiian Punch at fifteen months, even though she still could have flown in our laps. I am also not convinced that we're all picturing a nice bright line that would have excused my behavior but condemned these other people.
No, I think everyone condemning these other people are condemning you too.
Yeah, 67 has a point. The pilot's concern for a single passenger would be touching if I could ever believe it was for some anonymous single mother trying to get back to her kids, or something, but some bigwig or a distant relative he wanted to impress are probably the safest bet.
Also, note that there was no bribe that allows all three of them off the plane, together.
Perhaps no one thought to negotiate for that, but if it was off the table as an option, and HP was 15 months old, you're goddamn right she gets her own seat.
Moderately on-topic: I have such a low expectations for airlines these days that I was genuinely stunned recently when an airline interaction produced a not-entirely-shitty outcome. I had to stay in FL a few extra days because my mother was more sick than I'd expected, and I needed to work on care arrangements. I called the airline and they uncomplainingly changed my return flight, for free (waiving all the cancellation and rebooking fees), even though I'd purchased one of the nonrefundable discount tickets. (Unfortunately, they burned off most of the goodwill when they completely fucked up the new reservation, causing me to miss my scheduled flight, but still, at least they didn't charge me for the privilege.)
80.1: My thought at first was that people who view holding a baby on one's lap for the duration of a transatlantic flight as not a big deal probably don't appreciate how utterly miserable air travel already is even without having to do that. But Halford travels a shitload more than I do, so who knows.
81: Perhaps you could give some examples of factors that would make their behavior seem more reasonable.
82: If instead of the baby they displace someone else, they will still have to fly that person home later. Moving the baby saves a seat.
85: She could have her own seat, just not her own seat that day -- if they were dead set on a seat for her, they could have passed on that flight and waited until there was more room.
82: Under the circumstances, I think it was probably more trying to get every possible body out of the airport than it was servicing a particular VIP.
Obviously all airlines everywhere, at all times, are horrible, and we're justified in adopting a combative, adversarial stance toward them.
Yes, that sounds right. My friends who fly only first class might differ, though.
You don't think this is a tad whiny?
If anything it is more generous than necessary. I like to think that I shrug off with a smile most of the annoyances that our degraded society hands out as costs of doing anything or going anywhere, but the airlines are unhelpful, unresponsive and insulting and in more than one case escaped post-9/11 litigation into liquidation because our elected representatives bailed them out with tax dollars.
The nightmare scenario for parents with a baby on a flight is that the baby gets grumpy and cries for the entire flight, pissing off everyone in the cabin and making everyone assume you are bad parents. This is especially a concern on a trans-Atlantic flight. Presumably the parents know their baby, and would be in a good position to judge if having an extra seat would be an effective means of mitigating that risk.
If thats what they were doing, I can't fault them at all.
Perhaps you could give some examples of factors that would make their behavior seem more reasonable.
All I can come up with is
1) a baby which will later be diagnosed with Aspergers or something, and so doesn't tolerate being held for long stretches very well.
2) parents with some sort of non-visible physical problem - one has some digestive problem, the other has some arm problem, etc.
I can't think of any problem that couldn't have been explained to the flight attendants, definitely. No one in this story seems to be good at diffusing tension.
87 -- I've flown a lot in my day (not so much anymore) and a fair amount -- 15 trips, I think -- with my infant/toddler. Infants are way easier than toddlers; in the former case, an extra seat is a nice convenience for putting away your stuff; in the latter case, with, say, a squirmy 18 month year old, it's more of an issue (though one you can solve easily enough with some sleeping medication, as many parents do). In any event, in this case we're talking about two FIRST CLASS TRANSATLANTIC seats, which are an entirely different beast than being on Southwest or whatever. The seats fold out into beds and are huge -- plenty of space for an active toddler to amuse himself, and the two adults probably could have fit into one seat folded out unless they're obese. Not to mention that you're getting plied with free champagne and caviar the entire flight. The additional discomfort factor here is vanishingly minor.
No one in this story seems to be good at diffusing tension.
Even without a baby, you can't do that until the cabin lights have been turned down.
She could have her own seat, just not her own seat that day -- if they were dead set on a seat for her, they could have passed on that flight and waited until there was more room.
Why isn't a 15-month old entitled to her own seat on that day?
93 might make sense, except it seems to suggest that being unwilling to drug an infant somehow makes you an uptight parent.
Wow. There are few times when I realize that my opinions are apparently way out of whack with the norm and I am genuinely surprised by it. Count me in with urple and Halford.
It's true we can imagine hypotheticals in which behavior superficially similar to that of the parents in this story would be acceptable. Maybe both parents had that rare condition where touching other people is actually phyically painful? Maybe the baby has it? But without any reason to think any of those hypotheticals might be true, I'm going with assholes, and 27 gets it right.
I wonder how long it's going to be before the liberals start trying to blame this on Sarah Palin?
Also, I am assuming these people have in fact already been seated on the airplane. So the "who gets on/who gets bumped" lottery has already played out -- but I realize that the post isn't entirely explicit.
entitled
A telling word. She is probably legally entitled to one, but that's not what makes me (and apparently urple and Halford) so made about the situation. There are mnay things I'm legally entitled to that if I were to insist on getting them in difficult situations would make me a royal asshole.
95: Because the baby could get home without one, while an adult couldn't -- the choice was four people who paid for tickets getting home on the day they paid to get home, or only three people getting home. The fact that the baby and its parents would be slightly less comfortable without a dedicated seat for the baby doesn't seem to me to override the fact that there's another paying passenger who won't get home that day if the parents insist on getting all the comfort they paid for.
The nightmare scenario for parents with a baby on a flight is that the baby gets grumpy and cries for the entire flight, pissing off everyone in the cabin and making everyone assume you are bad parents.
I've never though that. Expecting babies not to cry for two to ten hours is asinine. I sympathize with them, anyway: I'd cry on airplanes, too, if American adult male public behavior weren't so rigidly circumscribed.
It's true we can imagine hypotheticals in which behavior superficially similar to that of the parents in this story would be acceptable.
My hypothetical is that I'd pull this very move with a baby a few months over 1 year.
100: I wouldn't read it that way -- I'd think that the baby got targeted in the 'who gets bumped' negotiation precisely because the baby could get 'bumped' without actually getting left in London.
the parents insist on getting all the comfortseats they paid for.
90: I like to think that I shrug off with a smile most of the annoyances that our degraded society hands out as costs of doing anything or going anywhere
I don't even know what to do with this. Do you seriously feel burdened a great deal of the time by bureaucratic hurdles in daily life? Is this a libertarian cant? Are you just annoyed by what you perceive to be poor customer service? You want better customer service, and you're cranky that you don't, to your mind, get it?
Moby has point in 80.1.
My hypothetical is that I'd pull this very move with a baby a few months over 1 year.
My hypothetical is that makes you a royal asshole.
The fact that the baby and its parents would be slightly less comfortable
This is not how I'd describe the trip from Florida to Texas at 15 months. Holy hell is more like it.
107.2.last Yes, and he's the only one.
110: Was it holy hell with a seat for HP, or without -- like, I can see traveling with a kid that age being difficult, but that doesn't mean that the seat/no seat distinction is going to turn a bad trip into a good one.
In any event, in this case we're talking about two FIRST CLASS TRANSATLANTIC seats, which are an entirely different beast than being on Southwest or whatever.
And this is no doubt coloring my perception because I've never flown anything but Southwest style and my idea of a posh seat is Jetblue where I get my very own video screen.
109: It must have been very traumatic that you would still remember it, heebie! Were your parents' laps that uncomfortable?
(I'm recalling a transatlantic trip with Sally at thirteen months, and I literally don't remember if we bought her a seat. Wouldn't have mattered if we had, she spent the whole trip on my lap or Buck's. She was awake the whole trip, and happy just as long as we kept bouncing her. Not a nightmare, but tiring.)
109: It didn't happen on a plane (luckily), but there were times where not being able to set down the baby (still definately not a toddler) would have been nearly impossible for any period of time over 15 minutes.
110: I'm the only one with a point? Go me.
111: Without. And when we travelled two months later, with a seat, it made a huge difference. (Caveat: I was 6-7 months pregnant on these flights. But she was still able to get in both of our laps.)
She just did NOT want to be held for very long. She was too old to nap well in noisy situations, so she was inevitably overtired on a whole day of travelling. But having her own seat made a giant difference in screaminess.
115.2: note it was "107.2.last"
117: Not counting the quote. Got it.
110: Sorry. I just picked a comment representative of the thought I meant to gesture toward.
my idea of a posh seat is Jetblue where I get my very own video screen
Yeah, if you haven't sat in first-class, you really don't know. Per Halford in 93, if comfort was the issue for this couple, they're complete asshats. Even first-class seats on domestic flights are freaking wide. If they didn't have the bulkhead seats, they probably could have gotten someone to switch with them for the extra room.
But. I'd be loath to hold a baby on my lap, safety-wise. I've spent enough time talking to flight attendants to be seriously alarmed about turbulence. Severe turbulence injuries aren't common:
From 1980 through 2008, three people died and 298 were seriously hurt in turbulence, the FAA reported. All but four of them had not been belted in, the agency said.
but they can be brutal:
Turbulence can create violent bucking, making passengers and heavy beverage carts weightless, then slamming them onto walls, ceilings or the floor.
* * *
Some passengers were tossed around the plane like dolls . . . . One woman's head struck the side of the cabin, leaving a crack above the window, and a girl was flung against the ceiling.
116: Human suffering-wise, though, how does that level of bad flight stack up against another human being who also paid for a ticket, who's trying to get home for Christmas? I can see that it's lousy traveling with an unhappy kid; I just can't see that it's lousy enough to keep another person stranded for an extra day over it.
Do you seriously feel burdened a great deal of the time by bureaucratic hurdles in daily life? Is this a libertarian cant? Are you just annoyed by what you perceive to be poor customer service? You want better customer service, and you're cranky that you don't, to your mind, get it?
Probably the first one. I don't think I'm at all libertarian.
121: Not to speak for anybody else, but my suffering would seem to be worth enough that I'd expect the airline to let me weight the options myself instead of having a secret door number 3 of being booted from the flight entirely.
120, 122: All true -- I've been pooh-poohing the safety issue because I'm doubting that they were likely to actually have the baby strapped in for the whole flight. If that was the plan -- they had a car seat that the baby was going to be strapped into -- then that's more of a safety difference than i was thinking of.
121: Well, I probably would have caved, personally. But it would have been exhausting, both parents using all creativity and attention they can possibly muster, the entire time. Not getting to eat very easily without the meal getting upended at some point. Etc.
Difficult enough that my sympathy lies with someone who argues that they bought a ticket for this exact reason.
Also, per 85, it does not sound like there was a bribe that allowed them all three to sit on the next available flight.
I have never flown first class, though. Perhaps it's spacious enough that this is a clear argument in their case. I'm arguing on behalf of hypothetical people in coach with a 15 month old.
in this case we're talking about two FIRST CLASS TRANSATLANTIC seats, which are an entirely different beast than being on Southwest or whatever. The seats fold out into beds and are huge
It could be that "first class" is being used colloquially and is actually "business class", which doesn't necessarily imply seats that fold out into beds....
At least, I always fly Southwest whenever I can.
a bribe that allowed them all three to sit on the next available flight.
This wouldn't have solved the problem (of bodies stacked up in Heathrow) though -- while there's still people who can't get on any flight at all, having the baby take a seat rather than a lap is still leaving another paying customer sleeping in an airport.
Right, 124 is also part of why this is outrageous: the abrupt switch from bribes to fuck you. If someone bribes me, I am allowed to turn it down. The next escalation should be a choice: take the bribe or you'll get booted off the plane.
123: Okay. You can say more about this or you can not. I surely understand that the Dept. of Motor Vehicles is a drag, and the procedure for paying one's taxes is a drag, and, frankly, using money as a means to get things done is a very serious drag.
(I had a reverie the other day in which I envisioned the crumbling bridges and such around this country, and everyone was poutily looking at all the crumbling and going, "Man. We're looking at this, knowing it needs to be done, and refusing to do it, even though 10% of us is unemployed and at loose ends. Huh. But, well, if we can't pay one another in money to do it, I guess we're just going to watch the bridges falling down." Talk about a dissolute society.)
120: 10 people per year, then. On about ~5M flights.
If someone bribes me, I am allowed to turn it down.
They did turn down the bribe. If you offer someone a deal, and they turn it down, you're not obliged to offer them a different deal they're more likely to take the next time.
I'm really not even sure I believe 104; I suspect we're being trolled. Really, the flight attendents are begging you to please just hold the baby in your lap so that someone else doesn't have to sleep another night in the airport, and they're willing to compensate you for the trouble (no doubt in addition to the sincere "thank you", which I'd think would be compensation enough), and you'd just sit there and say "no, I'd prefer she have her own seat"?
130: True. I would have agreed more readily to it, if I thought the timing might get HP into overnight sleep. And if not, I could have offered, "Can you get us two seats on an overnight flight?" (If I had the presence of mind to think of that when confronted, which I probably wouldn't.)
Is there any discomfort sufficient in your mind to justify blocking the next passenger from taking this particular flight?
The parents had purchased a ticket for another seat for another human being who was present. Hard to agree (for me) that they be compelled to give that seat up.
Thousands of other people who had purchased tickets for their only seat and were present were compelled to give them up and so couldn't travel at all. The airline offered a solution, involving several fairly substantial bribes, in which the parents and the baby got to travel on time, still in far, far greater comfort than the vast majority of people travelling at the time. The parents refused. If that isn't dickish behaviour (apparently unexpressed concerns about safety aside) I don't know what is.
132: I've always had very pleasant experiences with the DMV, including the time when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts decided that I was 18 inches tall; TurboTax is a pretty good application, really; and no one complains about America's stupid and ignorant neglect of its infrastructure more than I do.
Halford and parents of young 'uns, normal-sized toddlers don't need special restraining seats or anything, do they? We've got permission to fly to Laguna Beach with Mara next month so Lee can go to some crappy/creepy "conference" sponsored by a textbook publisher.
I am suddenly panicking a little about flying with a little one, though I think Mara will be great and will certainly be thrilled since she adores airplanes. Do I need to start googling this?
132.1 Or, if he's a frequent flier, basically every single interaction on that front. You know the airlines routinely, as a matter of policy, overbook flights, right? This despite the fact that they are in possession of WAY more information about the # of passengers and cancellations than you or I will ever be? They are, consistently, screwing over a number of people evey minute of every day, and because we don't notice, or because we don't care so much unless it hits us personally, they're not worthy of opprobrium?
the abrupt switch from bribes to fuck you. If someone bribes me, I am allowed to turn it down. The next escalation should be a choice: take the bribe or you'll get booted off the plane.
Sorry, but "Unexpected Bad Thing Happens to Local Couple Who Were Being Assholes" isn't a headline that generates much sympathy in me.
Is there any discomfort sufficient in your mind to justify blocking the next passenger from taking this particular flight?
Nothing plausible -- I can come up with 'both parents have broken bones or neurological issues, and the baby lashes out painfully at frequent intervals' kinds of stories, but nothing realistic.
It could be that "first class" is being used colloquially and is actually "business class", which doesn't necessarily imply seats that fold out into beds....
On a transatlantic flight, on anything other than a budget airline (are there any budget transatlantics left?), it does.
And, FWIW, I've been bumped up to 1st a couple of times in my life and believe me the seats are huge and there's all the room in the world between them for even a toddler to crawl about in without getting in people's way. 1st class is insane.
139: Three years old, right? Probably nothing to worry about as far as the restraints. Ours fit just fine. I'd worry more about loading an iPod with distracting video.
Man, I miss flying first class. When I was little and Mom was a flight attendant, coach was free and first class was fifty bucks. It was great -- 747s had an upstairs lounge where you could wander around, they had tiny baby lamb chops and caviar, the seats were enormous and there were little end tables between them -- I loved first class, and I will probably never again fly that way.
144: Three years old, and over 40 lbs, which means I also probably need to be looking into getting her into a booster seat rather than a car seat, though I'm not rushing it. Luckily that damned Dora insists on "seatbelts: so we can be safe!" and so that's a mantra we hear on each car trip and I'm sure she'll be delighted to have her own lap belt at last.
147: And something to chew on couldn't hurt, for the ear-popping and cry-stopping.
On a transatlantic flight, on anything other than a budget airline (are there any budget transatlantics left?), it does.
I don't think this was true when I was bumped to business class on a 767. The seats reclined more and there was more leg room than in coach, but I'm pretty sure they didn't fold flat. (I'm not remembering offhand which airlines this was.)
Thanks, Moby. Definitely, definitely that because she deals with stress by chewing and I don't want to leave the plane with drooly holes in her shirt (or mine).
Mine talked the whole of his first flight. Literally constant verbage.
Honestly, there is nothing short of a dying parent that would make me ever book a trans-Atlantic flight with HP at 15 months. So I would never have found myself in that situation without some serious extenuating circumstances. Against a backdrop of those circumstances, I guess I'm an asshole.
152: Agreed. The main reason I think the airline was in the wrong is because it is easy to say, "It will probably go well" when you aren't going to be the person bearing the brunt if it doesn't go well and you have no idea what other stresses they are operating under.
Thorn, for ear pressure, the kind of sippy cups that require sucking can be really effective. I'm sure she'll be fine with 2 of you to deal with her, videos, Goldfish, looking out the window, kicking the seat in front of her, and a few other distractions. (And if it turns out that she's not, just think of it as fodder for a post. We'll give you lots of sympathy.)
the kind of sippy cups that require sucking can be really effective
I didn't know they made Pittsburgh Pirates sippy cups.
139 -- Thorn, no need whatsoever for a special car seat or restraint; the kids fit just fine (this may not be in accordance with the extreme paranoia school of parenting, but whaetevs). As Moby says, something to chew or suck on is ideal. Load up on small toys, stickers, a few books, etc. -- I keep some new toys in reserve for flights to up the fascination level. If you don't have a video IPod, many parents get one of those cheap portable DVD players ($50 or so) and if you're on Jet Blue or Virgin Atlantic there are kids channels.
It's important to keep kids engaged in their activities so they don't get bored on the flight. Bring along something fun that they haven't played with before, like fireworks.
Would that we had some idea what other stresses the first class passengers who were booted were operating under. They might have disclosed these stresses to the airline, who might have understood, and desisted from their outrageous position that the passengers might give up the baby seat.
There's free booze in first class, right? No baby travels better than a drunk baby.
Also, Thorn, if you can, try to get bulkhead seats; the wall in front creates a kind of enclosed play area and you don't have to worry about the folks in front of you.
Nothing plausible -- I can come up with 'both parents have broken bones or neurological issues, and the baby lashes out painfully at frequent intervals' kinds of stories, but nothing realistic.
What I mean is, where would you draw the line: a couple with 8 month old twins who bought one extra seat? Single parent with infant? Single parent who's 6 months pregnant, with infant? Etc. At some point it's definitely reasonable to demand use of the seat you paid for.
At some point it's definitely reasonable to demand use of the seat you paid for.
Particularly when that point occurs after you've borded and are seated with your child.
Kids dramamine sharply cuts the odds of puking during bumpy landing. Yes to a new toy for the flight as well.
Is arguing over the worst of several villains in a second-hand story better or worse than arguing over how the Trivial Pursuit answer is wrong?
For 161, the parents' clothing and stance are essential information, as is the pilot's accent and aftershave. How many millitwitches are this lady's clothes worth?
http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com/2010/11/on-streetglove-hat-paris.html
Person who bought two seats because they have a diagnosed aversion to physical contact? Somebody who's so fat that they can't comfortably fit in one first class seat? Somebody with a monkey in a diaper?
Somebody who's so fat that they can't comfortably fit in one first class seat?
I'm less sympathetic if this is a "food baby".
Somebody who's so fat that they can't comfortably fit in one first class seat?
But really - suppose they bought two tickets. Should they be bumped?
to demand use of the seat you paid for.
Just to keep it clear, they weren't ever going to have to pay for a seat they didn't get, the question was whether they would get the seat or a refund.
On your other questions, given the backdrop of people stuck in an airport for days, I'd say any 1/1 ratio of parents to kids. So, a single parent with two under two really needs at least one seat, and I suppose a woman pregnant enough that she really hasn't got a lap really needs a seat even for one baby. Other than that, give up the seat.
Or, of course, the other reasonable option would be to say that it would be too unpleasant to fly without enough seats, and offer to wait until you could get all the seats you wanted -- probably wouldn't have been more than another couple of days.
166: two first-class tickets, even!
Sure they should, yes.
I hope you all get snowed in on a flight full of pregnant monkeys with twins.
Monkeys can cling to the overhead compartments, so they don't need seats at all.
I'm less sympathetic if this is a "food baby".
So, surplus Irish children don't even get a nice ride.
169: That sounds awesome!
I'm reminded of my old workplace where we often would speculate that we would all gradually be replaced by monkeys.
Or, of course, the other reasonable option would be to say that it would be too unpleasant to fly without enough seats, and offer to wait until you could get all the seats you wanted -- probably wouldn't have been more than another couple of days.
So now you're going to displace 3 persons x (1-3) more days? For the convenience of 1 traveler and the ire of 1 captain?
You know who I feel bad for? People who are refused boarding for being drunk. I mean, what, they aren't hurting anybody. They paid for that seat!
173: It's a three for three trade -- they're not going to let the parents' seats go empty. As long as all the seats are full, it's even in terms of how many people are getting home.
For the convenience of 1 traveler
Saying it's for the convenience of one traveler is silly. The reason the airline wanted to work at maximum capacity was that they were trying to clear a backlog, because if you don't clear a backlog, you cause delays and cancellations throughout the system. Airlines operate close to capacity in the best of circumstances; KR can probably talk in an informed way about this, but I imagine that in the aftermath of an airport closing airlines have to operate at very, very close to maximum capacity for quite a while to get things back to normal.
So, I have a question: if the people had gone to a ticket counter and said "we want to buy three first class tickets as soon as possible -- two for us and one for our baby" and the ticket agent had said "we're sorry, but we're not going to sell you three tickets: you can hold the baby in your lap, and we need to get people home", would that have been okay?
177: Fine by me, but if the airline were selling tickets to people walking up to the counter just then, they could hardly be said to be focused on clearing the backlog.
178: "just then" and even "ticket counter" are not necessary to my thought experiment; merely that they disclosed the baby's age to the airline and that the airport closing was already underway or foreseen.
Airlines operate close to capacity in the best of circumstances; KR can probably talk in an informed way about this, but I imagine that in the aftermath of an airport closing airlines have to operate at very, very close to maximum capacity for quite a while to get things back to normal.
Passenger load factors have gone up substantially over the last 10 years, for a variety of reasons. Systemwide load factors used to be in the low 70's. Now they're in the low 80's -- or mid-80's for peak periods, and higher still for international flights.
At 70% passenger load factor, you would clear out the backlog from a cancelled flight after three normally operationg flights. At 85% load factor, you need twice as many flights to clear the backlog.
Airlines are operating with much less slack capacity, so disruptions are far more disruptive.
177: Your scenario is different in that the family can choose not to book the trip at all under those circumstances. In this story, they are on the return flight of an already booked trip.
That said, infant under 1? Does the first class cabin not have the setup with the bassinet thing they can attach to the extra bulkhead space? When we flew with Rory under age 1, Lufthansa hooked one of those up, we played a bit, ate dinner, strapped her into the bassinet, and had a lovely flight. In coach, even!
Airlines are operating with much less slack capacity, so disruptions are far more disruptive.
And they operate this way because, by golly, the convenience of their passengers is paramount.
182: certainly not. They operate that way because otherwise they'd presumably go out of business.
Children are supposed to play with the seat trays by banging them around.
||
Tom Delay was sentenced to three years in prison?
Of course, he'll probably successfully appeal, and probably won't ever spend a single night in jail. But still, I'm at least a little surprised.
|>
I was a little surprised that my inlaws had lived in Houston from 2000 to 2007 and didn't know who Tom Delay was. I mean, they probably voted for him.
And they operate this way because, by golly, the convenience of their passengers is paramount
Surely no one can accuse me of harbouring such delusions.
At 70% passenger load factor, you would clear out the backlog from a cancelled flight after three normally operationg flights. At 85% load factor, you need twice as many flights to clear the backlog.
Airlines are operating with much less slack capacity, so disruptions are far more disruptive.
Yeah, we keep having faculty candidates scheduled to fly in to do the presentation/interview thing, and my boss keeps saying things like "Atlanta is supposed to get three inches of snow on Monday, so there's no way he's going to be able to transfer there on Thursday," which turn out to be true. Ah well, the era of convenient air travel was a nice era.
187: No, certainly not. Snark not directed at you, but at the airlines -- about whom I have feelings quite similar to Flip's. But I suppose I'm going to have to get used to them for the near future...
So I'm seeing a few different axes along which those taking different sides in this case split. There's peep's "who do you hate more: airlines/corporations or (wealthy) selfish jerks?" There's Moby's "Who do you identify with more: parents traveling with children or stranded people flying alone?" There's also, how you frame the ethical question: "People who've paid for something are entitled to receive what they thought they were paying for (and are under no obligations to do otherwise)," or "people should be willing to make sacrifices to help out others in need (and are jerks if they don't)."
Personally, I'm on team These People Were Jerks. Perceived property rights don't trump obligations to other people. It's interesting, given the number of lawyers here, that we haven't gotten to the question of whether the airline had a right to do this. I assume, and maybe others do too, that hidden somewhere in the world of my labyrinthine ticket contract are clauses that say they get to not put me on this flight if they can make up some reason or another not to. But that just gets us back to the airline/employees using legal trickery for either good or ill.
Come on, these fuckers were flying first class. BA international first class is hilariously luxurious and just as expensive*. I'd be worried about losing the kid under one of the fucking cushions. If it meant that much to have a seat for the baby (after all, airline lap belts won't work for a tiny baby without the special shortener rig) I'm sure BA would have been deeelighted to upgrade the pax sitting in one of the economy seats to First and put the baby in it. Or put the child on a spare crew jumpseat for take-off and landing.
*having worked in a company that required regular long haul flying, where my boss had a contractual clause requiring that he travelled in Club World or above usually on the same flight, yes, I'm bitter. After Concorde died I believe BA essentially hiked some of the First fares to the same level - not like they'd notice...
183: That's just what they want you to believe!
179: But, purchasing after the airport closing is underway or foreseen is required in your scenario and fundamentally different.
Perceived property rights don't trump obligations to other people. It's interesting, given the number of lawyers here, that we haven't gotten to the question of whether the airline had a right to do this. I assume, and maybe others do too, that hidden somewhere in the world of my labyrinthine ticket contract are clauses that say they get to not put me on this flight if they can make up some reason or another not to.
For any flight departing or arriving in the EU, you have very specific and quite generous cancellation rights, which are placarded all over the airport. Worth remembering and quoting.
Beyond that, the Warsaw convention rules and it gives them a lot of discretion. Beyond that, the captain is the captain of the ship and has the legal authority of a ship's captain once the doors close. (See Ajay's point above.) The UK government started chartering its own deportation flights for illegal immigrants after too many BA captains told them to bugger off with the screaming guy with his head wrapped in tape.
OT: Anybody in NYC interested in having foie gras (and other stuf - cheeses plus I'm thinking of experimenting with a morel pot de creme) over at my place next week? The stuff is about a quarter of the US price here and I'm thinking of bringing some back. I could do it on Tue, Wed, Fri or Sat (18-19 or 21-22 Jan). If anybody wants to do it either respond here or e-mail me, I need to know by Thurs evening European time since I am leaving on Sat morning.
I had fun skiing other than a human pinball impersonation on a steep icy mogul field on Sat afternoon. One second I am doing well behaved careful turns, next one I am bouncing down the bumps head first on my stomach. Ouch plus a long, long climb up for a wayward ski. Nobody else was doing that run so I had to get it myself.
The following trade-off does not occur anywhere in the situation. It doesn't even make sense as a trade-off. I'm just ranking two different experiences: I'd find spending an extra night in an airport with a baby much less stressful than a trans-atlantic flight with a baby.
The extra night in the airport is unpleasant - at worst - is using up valuable vacation time with loved ones, and it's an unexpected expense. It's not hell, though.
The flight, while inevitable, is guaranteed to be stressful. Even without the 15 month old in your lap factor, at which point it is hell, plain and simple.
I'm going to have to get used to them for the near future...
Yay!
193: fundamentally different from what? From the situation that obtained? How do you know?
Huh. That's not how I'd rank the possibilities. No shower? No place for the baby to sleep except on me? Possibility of running out of diapers, favored baby food? No way to confine the baby if I fell asleep? Night in an airport with a baby sounds survivable, but really unpleasant to me, and I've done a fair amount of airport sleeping (St. Louis a bunch of times, Wellington once, I think there's more that I'm forgetting).
198: I think the fundamental difference is whether the airline is refusing to sell a seat, or is clawing back a previously sold seat. Which doesn't seem that fundamental to me, but I get why you'd call it that.
Possibility of running out of diapers, favored baby food?
There's no accounting for taste, I guess, but is it really a good idea to be feeding those to a baby?
195: That sounds great, but I can't reliably say I can make it any day in the next couple of weeks (combination of work and my father getting an exciting new hip). So, if there's interest from other people, I'm a definite maybe.
189 Di saves the thread!
Seriously, though, way to sneak in some good news. We don't know each other at all, really, but I'm gonna go ahead and imagine a sappy happy story, because, well, I want to.
Yay!
204: Oh, that good news? Man, I'm slow on the uptake -- I was thinking of flying for work.
...I'm gonna feel like an idiot if it's for work and it is not, in fact, good news, but more inconvenient and disruptive news.
Um.
RETRACTION!
No shower? No place for the baby to sleep except on me? Possibility of running out of diapers, favored baby food? No way to confine the baby if I fell asleep?
Shower definitely not a big deal, diapers don't seem like a big deal unless the airport stores are actually running low on supplies. Baby food seems easy to improvise. When I sleep next to the kids, I somehow sleep light enough to know where they're at, and it's not particularly taxing.
But! The freedom to get up and move about seems huge. If the baby isn't mobile, you can walk them around and look at new stuff. If the baby is, you can let them explore. I find being trapped in one spot on the plane with a baby to be really hard.
And WOOO Di! Be sure to invest in a month-long pass for airport WIFI so that you can update us on your shenanigans. Or I guess use your iPhone.
In shower I was mentally including clean clothes for me and the baby: vomit, diaper-blowout... not tragic, but you want to be able to get clean and changed, and have something to do with the soiled clothes other than carrying them around.
Yeah, it could come down to purchasing Tacky City Onesie while the other parent scrubs the poop off an outfit in the bathroom. Still, that wouldn't concern me before it happened, and then once it happens, it's something to help pass the time. There are a lot of things that could go wrong, but they're all solvable in a way that wouldn't make me stress out ahead of time.
189: Di's got a job as a sky marshal?
(They always get to fly in J-class. And they never have to carry babies).
After Concorde died I believe BA essentially hiked some of the First fares to the same level - not like they'd notice...
Famously, BA surveyed its Concorde passengers back in the 80s and asked them how much they thought their tickets had cost. The average reply was £12k. The average ticket cost was in fact £6k, but when you're flying Concorde either someone else is paying or you don't give a shit. So BA doubled the ticket price and Concorde became a cash cow.
Times I've been stuck in airports overnight, the retail options have been limited -- getting stuck in one of the ones that's basically a mall would be easier, so long as the stores were open and stocked with everything I needed.
And I suppose I'm fussier than most about wanting to sleep -- curling up on the floor, or in a hard chair, for the night was pretty bad when I was nineteen, and I think it would make me cry if I had to do it now with a baby. But if it wouldn't bother you, it wouldn't.
Airplanes bother me as soon as I get on them, and when I can't open a book to escape - because of the baby - I get antsy and stay antsy. They're so closed in. If I'm going somewhere, I'm going to grin and bear it, but it's unpleasant even when it's not compounded.
(The times I've been stuck in an airport overnight have all been at hubs, during layovers, so I was picturing plenty of stores, although it's true that they close early for the night.)
(Sleeping on the floor isn't a problem, except that when I do it too much my hips start to ache. But I nap on carpet by choice on a regular basis.)
I've never noticed diapers and wipes for sale in airport stores! That doesn't mean they aren't there, I realize, but they must be packaged in some tiny, exorbitantly priced fashion.
They're generally over by the tylenol and toothbrushes. You get two diapers and some wipes for $100.
I am on the side of people not being jerks and Di spilling details.
So, heebie, just taking a wild guess, but is some of your strong reaction to these events predicated on not liking flying in the first place?
200: Good news. Really good news. The "maybe-date" went really well, and I am planning my first excursion to see him. Also, unrelated, but Rory started tatting last night and naturally I thought of you, LB!
201: That is what I was trying to get at.
Ooh, tatting is hard core. After a couple of months of it, I gave it up and went back to crocheting -- not being able to rip out mistakes drove me nuts.
I love the idea of LB returning to yarn because she doesn't like the work she did on her shoulder with a prison-style Bic-pen-and-needle rig.
218, 220: So Rory isn't inking designs on her classmates' biceps?
I should link to the terrible scars from when I tried to rip out my mistakes.
220: Ahh. Since she moved from knitting to crocheting b/c it was easier, I suppose that means the tatting is likely to be short-lived...
Di, is this the same HS boyfriend who was in from out of town?
217: I definitely don't like flying much, but since it's not a fear of crashing phobia, I assumed it was about the same degree as everyone else dislikes flying.
226: One and the same. God I'm smitten.
I don't particularly mind flying. The only times it bothers me is when someone particularly annoying is sitting near me and, tbh, that doesn't happen very often. I'm usually able to tune people out so it only gets to me if they are _real_ arseholes, and all forms of public transport are vulnerable to the same thing. Some airlines have very small seats which is mildly irritating, but I never normally fly much further than 2 or 3 hours.
However, if I flew a lot for work I could see how you could get much stronger preferences/annoyances.
225: Of those three, crocheting is easiest by far.
It would depend to me if the scene played out before or after the family boarded. Before... Okay, fine, they get to wait. After... No, that is gratuitously cruel.
I don't mind flying much at all. I can't stand airport security, and if there's somebody my size or larger (more or less) sitting next to me, that can be pretty gross, but mostly it doesn't bother me, especially if it's a clear day and I can look at the window and/or it's JetBlue and I can watch TV. Flying international is generally quite nice, and the one time I flew international business class (we got bumped heading on our honeymoon) I was really sad that the flight ended as soon as it did, because it was freakin' awesome.
I think of myself as disliking flying a fair amount, but nowhere near enough to think of it as worse than getting stuck in an airport.
I think of myself as disliking flying a fair amount, but nowhere near enough to think of it as worse than getting stuck in an airport.
For one, there are very few situations in which these are alternatives. Getting stuck in an airport is usually just adding a second layer of unpleasantness on top of the flight itself, which is still eventually going to occur.
Why is "sleeping at the airport" the alternative being discussed? I wouldn't hesitate (and haven't, in the past, even when I was a poor[-ish?] grad student) to get a hotel in that situation, unless the only available rooms were absurdly expensive, and I would assume anyone flying first-class would be at least as likely to do so.
Heebie wasn't raising it as an alternative, just ranking the two experiences in terms of which is worse.
236, etc.: I dislike being in a confined space that I cannot exit. It has to be both before it really bothers me. I don't like a crowded bus, but a crowded bus that stops every couple of minutes is fine.
Me too. Moves and I are totes in sync in this thread.
Mobes, not moves. Autocorrect stupidness.
I managed to avoid flying for four years, and when we took our trip back east two summers ago, I was amazed that it sucked even more than it had previously. Like, how the hell did they manage that? I hate flying so much that I'm considering trying to go by train next time, even though it's more expensive and getting from PDX to VT on Amtrak is a classic can't-there-from-here kind of deal. As for this particular situation, I want to put surveyor's marks on the foreheads of everyone involved except the baby, who will probably grow up to be a jerk anyway.
I can understand the captain's thinking that the passengers were being dicks, and would have been on his side if he had given them an ultimatum - take this bribe or else all three of you get bumped. I'm less keen on his feeling entitled to respond to their less-than-optimal behaviour by `teaching them a lesson'.
Strained analogy: Someone gets unreasonably mouthy to a polite direction from a cop who's just doing his job - not good. Cop tases him - more not good.
I've been trying to figure out the trains, too. Definitely the next time we go to Dallas, and possibly to Chicago. Going east or west seems impossible though.
the tatting is likely to be short-lived
No way, tats are permanent. Did she get the classic tramp stamp?
I am something like shell-shocked from too much frequent flying (as I've said here before, I spent a few years atmore than 100,000 miles, all domestic, which is a fair amount).
Even though air travel isn't actually all that bad most of the time, the combined memory of all the previous experiences is enough to make it feel super unpleasant, and I find myself needing at least a day or two on both ends to recover from a flight of more than 4 hours or so (if that sounds pathetic, it is). I actively try to avoid flying for vacations these days.
Also, flying with small kids really is a pain, although it's certainly possible (even if you don't get the separate seat for your under 2 year old) and not the trauma to end all traumas.
I find myself needing at least a day or two on both ends to recover from a flight of more than 4 hours or so (if that sounds pathetic, it is).
I'm pretty close to this. I try really hard to make sure I'm spending at least a week somewhere if I fly there; otherwise even a generally pleasant trip isn't enough to make up for the unpleasantness of flying.
I've got on my commenting panties! They're the best.
245: I took the train here once before from New England, but now Amtrak's booking site can't piece together a trip despite their having trains traveling along the whole way. I love the train. Clickety clackety clickety clackety clickety clackety. So soothing.
241: Are you also eager to try Wendy's new natural cut fries (with sea salt)?
I hate Amtrak's booking site. In fact, I think I hate all train-booking sites. I had to use like three independent ones to piece together a route when I was trying to get away from Eyjafjallajökull.
251: they're pretty good fries, actually!
251: I wouldn't turn them down.
246: The parent's of Rory's first grade crush went into this whole speech about tramp stamps and never letting their son go out with a girl who had tattoos. I soooo wanted to take Rory for some ink that weekend.
I'm with Sifu in 233 on not minding flying much at all -- though I don't do it more than a few times a year. It certainly seems that if you're walking into the flying scenario dreading it, you'll be wary and combative from the get go, assuming that the staff are out to make things more miserable for you, and perhaps even assuming that they're making it miserable even without complications, intentionally.
I suppose I fly three or four times a year, usually, and have done for about the last 10 years. Prior to that I flew maybe once or twice in 20. I've had a couple of not great experiences, but they've largely been predictable stupidities. Travelling at heavily over-subscribed times on cheap tickets without sufficient preparation, that sort of thing. Generally, I don't get the hassle some people find it. Security, however, is a PITA, yeah.
I've probably had more truly terrible days travel on trains or driving in the past couple of months alone than in all the flights I've taken, ever. Although I agree with Sifu that sitting next to someone of comparable size to myself on a budget flight isn't nice, especially if they are a 'leg spreader'.
In totally unrelated news I've been upgrading my hifi over Christmas and feeling quite smug about it.
I suspect you all will not be surprised that I am on the passenger's side in this case.
Also I was under the impression that if you have a confirmed reservation on a flight that has not been cancelled you have absolute priority over anyone without a confirmed reservation on that flight even someone with a confirmed reservation on an earlier flight that was cancelled. Is that not the case? And that at least in the US there are specific legal requirements for how airlines have to handle bumping passengers on overbooked flights.
I find myself needing at least a day or two on both ends to recover from a flight of more than 4 hours or so
This is me. Me feet swell and my back hurts terribly for days afterward. In other news, I'm old. I'm also Moby (who's old, right?), in that I can't stand being in a small space without being able to get out when I want. Gah, I truly hate flying. Fortunately, Valium* makes it much more pleasant.
upgrading my hifi
Ooh, what did you get? Anything cool?
* Of what can't this be said?
Seriously, if I didn't have kids to raise and work to do, I'd cram fistfuls of Valium down my maw every day.
re: 259
New [old] speakers, a formerly very expensive [but now old and not expensive] Linn MC cartridge for my turntable, and a new [old] Quad power amp to replace the Naim amp I had before.
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_6_4/castle-inversion-50-speakers.html
Big improvements over what I had before, and selling some unused stuff I had already meant net spending was zero, so chuffed.
259: I'm not quite old enough for the feet swelling, but the general drain of exhaustion is there.
261: Nice. There was a time when I might have known something about some of that stuff, but that time seems to have passed. Have I mentioned that I'm old? And infirm? Keep your music down! That infernal racket hurts my head!
262: Have you tried Valium? It makes a huge difference for me. Which is to say, I don't dread flying anymore. And I never take the stuff except when I fly, so I don't think there's any harm in it.
This thread is making me feel much less thrilled about my red-eye coach-class flight home (into unknown quantities of snow) on Friday. Today's flight out was a lot more draining than cross-country flights usually are, but I suspect that getting up at 4:30am and had something to do with that.
Fortunately, Valium* makes it much more pleasant.
Golly is this true.
I've never even had an Valium, except when they took a picture of my stomach from the inside. And I've never had that done without Valium, so I can't compare.
Valium* makes it much more pleasant.
For many, many values of "it".
Never had Valium, but I've smoked up before flying before with favorable results despite the risk of extreme paranoia. Now I just rely on child-induced fatigue to take the edge off pretty much everything.
Big improvements over what I had before, and selling some unused stuff I had already meant net spending was zero, so chuffed.
Big win!
valium really only make me sleepy. amphetamine makes a bit less anxious, though.
Meanwhile back in coach: I was seated across the aisle from this guy, and in front of him were a couple with a really tiny baby--so tiny it couldn't even cry very loud. Guy leans forward, says, "Control your baby." Dad says, "Whaaaat?" Exchange of compliments ensues, leading to seat-kicking, newspaper-throwing, involvement of flight attendant, air marshal, and all surrounding passengers. Final word: Dad puts his seat back all the way, asks, "Who's the crybaby now?"
I figured Alex would have addressed this:
I remember reading somewhere that there's exactly one infant death, total, that's attributable to not riding in a car seat on the airplane
Unfortunately that isn't true. Here is a link to an NTSB recommendation from 21 years ago. It cites (with graphic detail) deaths of lap-kids where the holder was only injured. (Some of the cases are iffy to me.) The proximal cause for document recommendation was the crash of UAL 232 in Sioux City.
Oh, I think the parents were dickish, but once they had been seated I'm with heebie.
Xanax also improves flying, but word to the wise: if you're traveling to Europe and one xanax doesn't seem to be doing the trick, DO NOT TAKE MORE, lest you find yourself at your destination with zero memory of deplaning, going through customs, finding ground transport, disembarking from ground transport, or... well, or any of the rest. You get the picture.
You should have live blogged it. I bet it would rank up there with the Ambien commenting.
274 reads like a list of features. Unless the addled state persisted beyond waking up the next day, I can't see a problem.
274: My brother got yanked out of the customs line returning to the states once because he was plainly non compos (having forgotten he'd already taken one Ambien and taken a second). Apparently the cops shouted "what are you on?! what are you on?!" a few times, and my brother managed to communicate that it was Ambien. "Ohhhh. Ambien? Well, that's fine." And back to the customs line with him. He managed even to find it odd at the time.
Xanax also improves flying, but word to the wise: you still need a plane.
Angel Dust means you don't need a plane.
Yuck, flying tomorrow with four of us to Pittsburgh via Charlotte. What could possibly go wrong? Would not be so bad, but I have a buttload of work commitments starting tomorrow evening, and two of the others have immediate further travel plans. Overly ambitious mid-winter travel plans; do not want. The trip has already had its elements of "It's a Good Life", but I've only been sent to the cornfield once (although I suspect I'm in line for another one before we get out of here in the morning).
I don't mind flying. I mind being in airports. Any drugs recommended to help with that.
Of course the parents were dickish. But once you concede the principle that a vendor can renegue on a contract for its own convenience whenever it feels like it, where do you stop? You go to a supermarket and pay for your groceries, and while you're packing up the manager comes over and says, "I'm sorry, I'm going to have to take all your food back because there's a guy over there says he's really hungry. Here, have a years's supply of dishwasher soap in compensation." No, thank you.
281: analogy! chris y is banned.
276: absolutely. I don't really mind flying that much, except when the cabin fills up with thick white smoke, but I have always watched SF films like Alien, where the crew of the spaceship are frozen in pods for the long, tedious journey to other stars, and thought "that's my ideal way to travel". You go to a conveniently located office in your home town and are frozen, and the next thing you know you are waking up in your hotel room at your destination.
282: The downside of that is this story.
The wiki kind of spoilers it, though - you can maybe read it here (last story in the collection).
But once you concede the principle that a vendor can renegue on a contract for its own convenience whenever it feels like it, where do you stop?
That battle was lost decades ago when it comes to transport.
280: Well, canceled before we left for the airport at least.
Overly ambitious mid-winter travel plans; do not want.
TELL ME ABOUT IT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Worst_Journey_in_the_World
283: Haven't read that PKD story, oddly enough. It seems eerily reminiscent of Inception. If you mashed together that story and Psychonauts you'd basically have the plot of the film.
That battle was lost decades ago when it comes to transport.
Indeed. Read the fine print of the "contract of carriage" sometime if you don't believe it. The carrier's obligations basically extend no further than making an effort to get you to your destination, unless there's some kind of difficulty involved, or maybe they don't feel like it today. (Europeans have some additional statutory protections from the newish EU passenger's bill of rights, as someone else mentioned above.)
288: But what about man's obligation to his fellow man?! </naivete>
288
Indeed. Read the fine print of the "contract of carriage" sometime if you don't believe it. The carrier's obligations basically extend no further than making an effort to get you to your destination, unless there's some kind of difficulty involved, or maybe they don't feel like it today. (Europeans have some additional statutory protections from the newish EU passenger's bill of rights, as someone else mentioned above.)
This is not in fact true when it comes to bumping. See section 4 here . The airline does not appear to have followed these rules. Among other things:
DOT has not mandated the form or amount of compensation that airlines offer to volunteers. DOT does, however, require airlines to advise any volunteer whether he or she might be involuntarily bumped and, if that were to occur, the amount of compensation that would be due. ...
So it appears HG is correct in 131 and LB is wrong in 134.
Europeans have it so cush when it comes to air travel, what with their namby-pamby passenger bill of rights and their weaksauce kilometer-high club.
When they come, they come weaksauce.
290: The DOT rules don't apply here, because it was in London. Besides, that section relates to overbooking, which was not the issue here. I've no idea what US rules are for extreme situations like this. EU rules say this:
As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.
PS: I certainly think the dickish parents should have been compensated for being kicked off the flight. I just think they were dicks for not accepting the bribe(s) in the first place.
294: messy. Do they catch it in some weaksox?
296: Yeah, for all my defense of them being in the right, they were still douchey.
295
... Besides, that section relates to overbooking, which was not the issue here. ...
Assuming they had tickets for that particular flight it sounds like overbooking to me.
I assume no one necessarily had tickets for that particular flight, and everyone probably had tickets for cancelled flights from the past five days of blizzard.
298: Either what 299 said (ie it was a special backlog clearing flight) or it was an ordinary flight booked in an ordinary manner (which may or may not have involved overbooking). Either way, the person who was going to get the baby's seat wasn't an overbooked passenger, it was a passenger on standby because of the snow.
As always, Shearer demonstrably has no idea what he's talking about. Surprise, surprise.
I had a travel horror story of my own recently, although "horror story" is putting it way too strongly, compared to trying to get infants on a transatlantic flight. On Sunday, Dec. 26, I was scheduled to fly back from spending Christmas break with my parents. To save money I had got a flight with a layover, which happened to be in Newark. As my first flight took off, it was starting to snow a bit. The snow was really coming down in Newark. My second flight was first delayed by three hours, and then cancelled completely. I gave up on trying to find another flight and took a train. It took me about seven hours longer than it should have to get home, an extra $150, and my checked duffel bag didn't get shipped to me until Thursday after several phone calls. But I'd still prefer that to sleeping on the floor of an airport. (And, hindsight being 20/20, that's probably partially my fault. I probably could have saved some money and/or got my bag earlier if I had waited in line at the airline's service desk, but it was moving so slowly I didn't want to miss the next train or two.)
In general, the airport is the worst part of flying for me. Long lines, high prices, carrying stuff everywhere, invasive security... in the airplane I can get out a book or put on an iPod and zone out for more than half the trip, but the only way to do that in the airport is to drink heavily.
Yeah, the overbooking thing is a non-issue. All contract o carriage give the airlines more or less unfettered discretion to rearrange your travel plans during a weather emergency, usually with force majeure language like that quoted in 295. The overbooking rules only apply to a normal flight that's deliberately oversold.
Basically, in a weather emergency, the airline has a contractual and regulatory obligation to get you to your destination for no additional charge, but they have more or less infinite discretion over the scheduling of when and how that occurs, and wanting to work through backlog efficiently by freeing up a seat is certainly within their discretion. Ironically, the situation only looks like overbooking because the airline was trying to bend over backwards for the couple.
Yeah, the overbooking thing is a non-issue. All contract o carriage give the airlines more or less unfettered discretion to rearrange your travel plans during a weather emergency, usually with force majeure language like that quoted in 295. The overbooking rules only apply to a normal flight that's deliberately oversold.
Basically, in a weather emergency, the airline has a contractual and regulatory obligation to get you to your destination for no additional charge, but they have more or less infinite discretion over the scheduling of when and how that occurs, and wanting to work through backlog efficiently by freeing up a seat is certainly within their discretion. Ironically, the situation only looks like overbooking because the airline was trying to bend over backwards for the couple.
301: Although, having been in that situation at that airport, may Chthulu bless them and keep them for having that rail link.
the only way to do that in the airport is to drink heavily
And the drinks are overpriced and they won't let you bring your own booze!
My horror story from 86 was showing up at the airport for a flight on Wednesday (my original flight was on Monday, but I'd cancelled that ticket and rebooked for Wednesday), only to be told that, although they saw my reservation in the computer, according to their records I'd actually checked in and flown home on a different flight on Sunday, so there was nothing they could do for me. They honestly seemed not to believe that I hadn't been anywhere near an airport on Sunday. To explain how it was that I was standing there in front of them instead of being at home, they suggested that I'd probably flown back down on another airline in the interim. It took several hours of conversation with supervisors to get the whole thing worked out.
302, 303: Hey, one comment square per comment, you selfish monster.
apparently I am the only person here who has flown transatlantic first class, flown transatlantic with a baby, and flown transatlantic first class with a baby.
1. A first class seat on a transatlantic flight is a bed. Full stop. There are still some airlines which have non-bed seats in business (fucking Alitalia, plus older and shitter American planes), but not many. First is beds all the way.
2. I don't understand what the "safety" bollocks is. A baby under one has to be on your lap in its special baby extender-seatbelt for takeoff, landing and when the seatbelt sign is on. A baby that can't lift its head up can't use a seatbelt, can it.
3. It is not so bad. It is nicer in first than in economy, but even in economy it is not that much worse with the baba than without. You can forget about sleeping yourself, but you just play with it and feed it constantly and after a while it sleeps.
4. Heathrow over christmas was fucking carnage. Anyone trying to get away with a basically empty seat was being totally pointlessly callous.
5. The airlines do not have a "fuck you attitude" toward 1st class passengers. They treat them like royalty. In order to piss off the staff this badly, a 1st class passenger would have had to have BACAI with a vengeance.
6. This is all made up anyway.
311.6 -- Do you mean the story in the OP is fiction?
If so, how do you know?
I don't absolutely know, but it's got the same friend-of-a-friend narration, the surprise ending, the moral-of-the-story to it that marks out an urban myth. Also quite a few lacunae; how does the friend know? First class passengers aren't bumped in front of hoi polloi in the crowded terminal, they have a special queue and lounge. Also it has just struck me that Heathrow doesn't let people "sleep at the gates" if they're on standby, or for that matter get anywhere near the gates if they don't have a boarding pass. That happens in American airports but not in Heathrow (I suppose they might have changed the rules a bit during the overcrowding but I didn't hear anything about this).
311.2: You can carry a car seat with you, and buckle the baby into it in the airplane seat. This is safer than having it in your lap.
Now, very few people actually do this, I certainly never did when I flew with a baby, and there's no indication that these people were going to do it, so there probably isn't a real safety issue. But if they were going to, it would be safer for the baby to have its own seat.
(Even if the safety issue were real, I don't think it's bad enough to keep someone stuck in Heathrow over. But it's not total fantasy.)
You can carry a car seat with you, and buckle the baby into it in the airplane seat. This is safer than having it in your lap.
I did this. It is kind of a pain, but for a certain age kid it works well.
6. This is all made up anyway.
I had my suspicions, but I didn't bother to read the link, and I would never hazard a theory without thorough investigation.
I would never hazard a theory without thorough investigation
Sir Kraab is banned.
And of course the who's right and who's wrong conversation is just as much fun even if it's all fiction.
(Precisely how much fun was that, again?)
The other thing about first class is that there are generally 2 seats on each side of the aisle. This would reduce the desirability of first class to the baby focused couple in question.
it's got the same friend-of-a-friend narration, the surprise ending, the moral-of-the-story to it that marks out an urban myth
Absolutely right.
This is a tricky one. I have to say I've changed my mind on it over the last 24 hours. I now think that a principle of first come, first served - in combination with the principle of people not being deprived wholesale of something they've paid for - trumps resentment at those who are apparently able to command more than their fair share. I suppose it'd be politic for first class passengers not to offend flight crew, either. Captains get paid quite well, but not so much that they wouldn't bridle at a massive display of entitlement, I reckon.
Incidentally, have just flown an A380 for the first time, on the 3-4-3 deck (i.e. Economy). It's very nice! It's quiet; all aeroplanes should be at least as quiet, if not quieter. So, progress.
311.2: You can carry a car seat with you, and buckle the baby into it in the airplane seat. This is safer than having it in your lap.
Now, very few people actually do this, I certainly never did when I flew with a baby, and there's no indication that these people were going to do it
I think it's very likely that they were going to. Who would buy an extra seat and not bring the FAA required device for putting the baby into it? (Some people, I guess, but I don't think most.) The people in the vast majority who don't do this are not doing it because they're not paying for an extra seat, and so will have the baby on their laps.
I paid for the extra seat without carrying on a child seat when my kid was an infant and toddler. The child seat was a giant pain in the ass to lug around, and I convinced myself, perhaps opporunistically, that the safety issues were bs. The additional convenience (in coach) of having some more wriggle room was really nice.
The seat is, definitely, an enormous pain to lug around. Point taken.
You know what's the best? Frequent flyer miles! I'm going to Branson!
My kid, when she was tiny, also hated the rear-facing infant car seat with a passion, and would refuse to sleep in there and start crying after 15 mins in the car (which, let me tell you was super, super awesome in LA) so the thought of keeping her in that on a long plane flight was not exactly appealing. Once she got bigger (a) the car seats got bigger and even more difficult to carry through the airport and (b) there was no way she would stay in one for most of the flight anyway, making bringing one seem totally pointless, though having play space became a lot more important.
When my son was small, a carseat on the plane was uncomfortable, he wanted to wriggle around. Gas drops for little kids help with discomfort-- simethicone. Actually it seems like they might be useful for adult fliers too, though I've never tried them myself.
While I believe that dsquared is right about this being an urban legend, I should point out that United flies a 767 between Washington and London -- it's a flight I've often taken since it's the only daylight flight eastbound (BA used to do a daylight flight, but seems to have dropped it). A 767 is a small plane and the first class section has just 6 seats/beds: two rows of three. It is not inconceivable that a mildly rich couple with a small child might plunge for first class on such a plane precisely so that they can take up half the first class cabin. A refund just for the third seat is not adequate compensation for losing the sense of ownership and privacy that having the entire row would provide. They wouldn't have bought in first class for just two seats.
A 767 is a small plane
Relative to what? I'm sort of curious now about the statistics on what planes are used for transatlantic flights. I think every single transatlantic flight I've ever been on was a 767 or, in one case, an even smaller 757. So I think it's probably fair to say that the 767 is standard for flights from the east coast of the US to Europe, at least on American carriers. It could be that my sample size is too small to draw conclusions (I've been to Europe and back 6 times, I think).
I've been to Omaha like many dozen times. That is usually a 727, 737, a regional jet, or a DC-9. The latter being why I don't fly Northwestern anymore.
I now think that a principle of first come, first served I've got mine so fuck all y'all
FTFY
The last one I was on had a Jimmy Carter campaign sticker and was met on the ground by emergency crews. Not that anything bad actually happened.
Anyway, it looked really old from what I could see in of the cockpit.
295
The DOT rules don't apply here, because it was in London. ...
This is correct. The Eroupean rules can be found here . The airline didn't (pretending that this actually happened) follow them either.
333: I have a framed Jimmy Carter campaign poster hanging over my desk. Are you suggesting it's not safe to sit here?
299
I assume no one necessarily had tickets for that particular flight, and everyone probably had tickets for cancelled flights from the past five days of blizzard.
Why would you assume this? I believe the normal procedure when flights are cancelled is to try to put the affected passengers in spare seats on later regularly scheduled flights (but not to displace people with confirmed reservations are these later flights).
336: As long as the desk is newer than the poster or moving slower than 600 kph, you should be fine.
"Your in-flight movie today is not Encino Man."
:(
Can we talk about something else now? Maybe the new star of the Leipzig Zoo, Heidi, a cross-eyed opossum left at a North Carolina animal shelter and brought with her (not famous, not cross-eyed) sister to Germany? She has her own youtube fan-song and everything.
I preferred the octopus, myself.
Messed up the youtube link. How embarassing.
Speaking of non-sequiturs, the first essay of The Novel, Volume 1: History, Geography, and Culture was pretty neat. I learned stuff!
Man, Germans and their obsessions with zoo babies.
Nothing will top Knut, though. Even the Knut song was better.