13
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by 9point6@lemmy.world to c/casualconversation@lemm.ee

Honestly, I will never wrap my head around how people can happily bring infants on any flight where you can expect people to try and sleep, it's incredibly lucky if they don't spend some of it screaming their heads off—I would be mortified if my choices were preventing hundreds of people from sleeping. But I'm not going to rant too hard about that.

Why on earth hasn't any airline started marketing adult-only flights?

It seems like a complete no brainer to me, I would choose it every time and pay extra for it.

Disclaimer: I may or may not be on a 36h day with only an hour of sleep right now

(page 2) 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

The closest thing to that I’ve experienced is flying Virgin. When I boarded they were playing downtempo house music and no kids in sight

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] PillowTalk420@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

I thought that said fights at first and I started wondering where the adult vs children fights were happening.

[-] OhShitSon@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

I truly do not understand why people don't simply wait until the kid is old enough to handle frying before travelling with an airplane. My family travelled a lot by train, or sometimes car, then when I was around 7 or 8 years old we took a short flight.

Babies really won't remember anything of the trip anyway, I really feel that travelling by plane is one of the things that you sacrifice for the first years of having a child. Call me entitled or whatever, but your childs screaming or running around on the plane is absolutely annoying to others.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Corno@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

With trains, there's a designated "quiet car/coach" where things like phone calls or people being loud isn't allowed. Maybe airlines could have something similar but maybe it'd be more expensive to implement?

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Is this you?

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2024
13 points (56.6% liked)

Casual Conversation

3060 readers
224 users here now

Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.


RULES (updated 01/22/25)

  1. Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
  2. Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
  3. Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
  4. Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
  5. No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
  6. Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.

Casual conversation communities:

Related discussion-focused communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS