I'm super-sensitive to noise, but I would rather put up with some screaming than deny parents the right to fly with their children. Kids are members of our society too and require some tolerance sometimes. I can't believe how selfish people are here.

I have two boys and they can be a hand full.

Heaven forbid talking to your child or engaging them in a discussion to quite them down.

So first the lady does not dispute the kid was yelling during the safety stuff, but she clearly cannot guarantee the kid won't yell during the whole flight.

Southwest screwed up big by apologizing to this idiot woman.

Yeah. I'm not even touch the debate up top. It's not about how controllable a two year old is or how good the parent is. Southwest didn't kick them off to punish them. This isn't about emotions. Planes have a limited window of time to taxi down and take off. If they miss that window, they screw up a lot of other traffic at the airport. The flight crew HAS to give you the safety information. This was about liability, not passing judgment on this woman's parenting. Yes, sometimes the best of children has a meltdown and sometimes the best of parents can't quickly calm them down. It's inconvenient for that mom and her kid to have to take a later flight, but the other options the flight crew had were worse for probably hundreds of other people.

//I'm 25 and was spanked from a young age until i learned to not act like a brat.

@LadySiren:

+1 for you. If we couldn't behave in public as kids, we were not allowed to go until we did. It all went downhill when everyone started this "time-out" crap. We feared out parents, teachers, etc. We were taught what the consequences were for bad behaviors.

Kudos to the woman who kept her cool for an entire night of screaming and kicking.

Are we really a nation of spoiled self-involved pussies to the point where we cannot put up with a screaming two-year old for a flight? REALLY? Jesus folks, suck it up. You'll have far better stories to tell if you're not wrapped in cotton wool your entire lives.

I know how to control my child in a wild banshee situation. It's called a spanking. Unfortunately I'd be arrested for doing such in public even if every airline passenger agreed with me.

Not really the topic here, but when did the line become so blurred between disciplining a child and beating them? And if you don't believe in spanking but insist on bitching about undisciplined children, perhaps it is you who should not be flying.

Furthermore, I would like to add that allowing an unruly (I want to add, once again, that children are sometimes unruly by nature; this does not mean that s/he is the result of bad parenting, although I'm not saying that might not be the case, sometimes kids cry and nothing can be done about it) child to govern the lives of adults and other strangers is a horrifically bad example. If this type of behavior were to be allowed to continue, there will be an unmanageable 7 year old eventually, who knows that getting his way is only a matter of making enough of a ruckus.

The world is already full of such children because we live in an age of such permissive parenting.

And the illogic and narcissism of parents is astounding to me. One can't say, "Well, kids are expensive, but I make good money, let's have one!" There are more sacrifices involved than renting fewer videos. The government caters to parents, as pointed out by another poster below: I've been paying taxes since I turned 18 in 2005. That goes to paying for public schools. My taxes pay for public parks. WIC (which I would never, ever, say is a bad thing, as WIC is probably one of the most important social programs that exists in the states). Tax breaks for parents. And various other sundry things that benefit me not in the slightest. Your child is already a burden to me.

Burden or no, however, I love kids. My god-daughter is 8 months old is precious. She is also kept out of the public, mainly out of the RESPECT that her parents have for other people. And that's what most of this argument boils down to. Parents want everyone, everywhere, to mind their own business. And most people have no problem treating parents, especially of younger children, with deference, because they know that raising children is HARD. It requires a great deal of patience, and since children often cry without reason and are inconsolable (not having the faculties to do so), that patience can wear thin.

But parents who don't show even a modicum of respect for other adults are completely missing the point. This argument has gone beyond whether or not the woman needed to be removed from the plane. It's bled over into an argument of how children should behave in public, and has resulted in a heartbreaking outpour of "Suck it up, childless ones! Our children will do whatever the hell they want!" Not having respect for other people, and their own human needs (i.e., not to have screaming in their ears in public), is a terrible fucking example to set for your kids, especially if you expect them to respect you in their later years.

TL;DR: Children cry for no reason. People are generally willing to put up with it to a point. Parents who disagree with SW's actions are taking it personally, and make personal attacks against those who disagree.

@s73v3r: Applause!

I don't think a 2 yo behaving badly is a sign of bad parenting. However, not realizing that there is a very good chance that your kid is going to raise hell on a flight and planning accordingly is. And, sucky as it might be, that might include not traveling with others. You chose to have a child, and hopefully you realized that meant a lot of sacrifices were going along with it.

Not when ball gags are so much cheaper and reusable.

Pretend I'm talking about sending kids away to child-farms, if that lets you rationalize your choices.

But yes. I am the immature and uninitiated Consumerist commenter with the fainting couch and smelling salts that lacks the sense of humor and time issue witty comebacks.

Let the hazing continue.

And once again, I never said they shouldn't have been kicked off.

Regardless, since you obviously didn't read what I said, I'll reiterate. I have no problem with the woman and her kid being kicked off the plane. The flight crew decided that was necessary and that's their call.

It's not the call of the other passengers, however. Sometimes kids will cry or scream or otherwise make noise. That doesn't mean they have bad parents. Kids are not devices that can be controlled, especially since in this instance, we're talking about a two year old. Maybe you've discovered the magic words that make your child obey your every command when you snap your fingers, but most parents haven't. Kids are a part of society and kids will act like kids. If you can't stand being around kids that much, you should avoid places where kids are allowed.

And once again, I haven't seen any indication that all the other passengers on the plane were annoyed by the kid. The flight crew made the decision to kick them off, not a vote of the passengers.

Are you serious?

She *should* have to pay the consequences of not parenting her own brat. Period. Nobody else. Kick her off, and don't even give her a refund. I'm tired of everyone else thinking it's somehow other people's responsibility to deal with other people's brats. This is what's wrong with this world. (Well, one of a million things, anyway.)

If it were for a screaming child, I wonder if most flight crews wouldn't be slightly more motivated to act than has been both of your experience?

@subtlefrog:

That's the problem with slapping kids; it makes them scream louder. Dammit.

You know what I think-

I think people who spew child-hatred and demand to live in a child-free world are probably
1) So incredibly selfish they have never been able to form the necessary partnership with another human being it takes to raise a child

2)Are so far from having their shit together enough to raise a child they are jealous

3) Have so little tolerance/patience for others in the world that they shouldn't ever have kids or have children exposed to them

4)Will enjoy rotting away in a nursing home while other people's kids and grandkids bring them candy

++++++++++++++++++++++

Good, now keep the brat under control.

Serious why don't people realize that there are places and AGES where it is unreasonable and inappropriate to bring children. As parents they are responsible for recognizing what situations are simply to much for their child to deal with.

This particular child 2 years of age SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FLYING. Yes the parents will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars blah blah blah. None of that matters.

If that child can't be made to shut up what are the odds that parent will get them to follow directions in an emergency? At 2 years old pretty low. She is unapologetic and unreasonable. She was not in an emergency situation, there was no funeral. I applaud people for berating this decision because it was bad.

[www.mercurynews.com]

Kudos to Southwest for taking proper action. You didn't need to give away a free flight though.

@soloudinhere: We don't actually know that from the second article. Although it says that she felt he'd calm down after take-off it doesn't say that she didn't do anything while he was screaming.

The airline handled this one well. The offending flyer was removed giving everyone on the flight a much better experience. The removed flyers were given a reschedule.

Man no one seems to think of the term 'age appropriate.' Not all children can go everywhere. At some points it is simply in appropriate for a child to be in a particular situation. If you are a parent who brings a child to a situation where the child NEEDS to behave in a certain way and they may be unable you are being a BAD PARENT.

Yes it is totally inappropriate to be yelling on a plane. It's totally unreasonable to place a 2 year old in the situation of flying if they are unable to be calm. People here are defending a parents holy right to place children in unreasonable situations. Even worse this child has a HISTORY with adhd!

Now flash forward a few years it's much easier with a 5 or six year old and more reasonable to expect them to behave.

@thezone: For kids with Autism, Benadryl often acts as a stimulant.

The world would be a better place if everyone were a little more tolerant and a little less judgemental.

@RayonFog: "Hell, people like you make me want to make sure my kid is good and loud."

Really? I'm actually confused as to whether or not you feel this is an appropriate mindset for an adult to have. "You feel inconvenienced because my child is obnoxious? Better make them moreso!"

I'm completely aware that children will be loud and make noises. As I said above, my 8 month old god-daughter, in between doing really cute things like clicking her tongue and blowing raspberries, sometimes cries and shrieks. Maybe because we're not looking at her. Maybe because she's tired and cranky. Maybe because she's hungry. Maybe it's just because she's 8 months old.

But that doesn't mean it's appropriate to drag her into public when she's in a bad mood. When she gets fussy in public (which happens rarely, as she almost never leaves the house, mainly because at her age she cannot comprehend that screaming and banging her fist is not the way one behaves in public), but when she does, she gets taken home, or at least outside until she calms down. Her dad doesn't stand there and do nothing and blame other people for reacting uncomfortably.

To reiterate from my earlier comment:
"To expect others to put up with your child when
a.) you should know the child is going to be miserable
b.) you fail to plan for the eventuality of (a)
c.) the expense of flying is so high
d.) no one on the plane forced you to have a baby
...is so selfish, and, worse, so mind bendingly unaware of its own narcissism boggles my mind."

As to the question of whether or not one should be held accountable for for behaving inappropriately on a plane because he or she is drunk and "can't control their actions," this is a ludicrous slippery slope argument. That hypothetical person was in control when he or she decided to have a drink, and losing self-control thereafter is still the responsibility of the inebriated party. This is like saying that you got drunk at a party and can't be held accountable for colliding with a street lamp because you were no longer in control. Please.

Choice plays a large role in this matter. This woman chose to have a child and chose to travel with that child. She chose not to prepare for the (foregone)eventuality that the child would not be unhappy. And SW chose to evict her from the plane. Economically, it makes sense. After seeing the little bastard removed from the plane, I'm sure that the other passengers were so relieved they will continue to use SW in the future, because the company demonstrated concern for the comfort of the many (as opposed to the few). I, too, have been won over by this display of corporate kindness.

Despite the fact that I hate flying (because of the reasons posted in the earlier reply, namely that terminals are a kind of purgatory in which travelers languish in abject misery and discomfort, which I'm sure contributed to the youngster's unhappiness), SW has made at least one small stride in making the process more bearable. Kudos to them.

I know that this makes some people (including parents) unhappy, but you must bear a few things in mind.
a.) Strangers often do extend quite a bit of understanding and courtesy to parents with small children, even when they are crying.
b.) This is done in spite of the fact that they have no choice in whether or not you decided to breed.
c.) This common courtesy is often taken for granted, and we often only hear about situations where this courtesy is worn thin.
d.) When the public expresses irritation at crying children, this is shouldn't be taken as an indicator that "You are a bad man!" Perhaps it should clue you in that your child is behaving above and beyond that which people are willing to put up with. This doesn't mean that people are assholes and need to suck it up, nor does it mean that they are misanthropic losers who want children to be soulless drones. It just means that it is YOUR responsibility, as the parent, to keep YOUR child that YOU chose to conceive and bring to term, under YOUR supervision and YOUR discipline.

Turning your irritation outward ensures that people will come away from you thinking that you are a selfish bitch/dick. They will mock you and scorn you for your narcissism and selfishness, and will theorize what a terrible hellspawn your child will grow up to be without a role model to indicate how one should conduct one's self in public (again, I am not talking about keeping 2 year olds from crying, as they just CRY sometimes, but showing your child that when people are irritated with someone, the appropriate way to respond is to become more irritating or blame the person who is complaining). They will not take it is a lesson.

If you are parent trying to turn justified discomfort into someone else's problem, or, worse, blame that person, then you are selfish and a complete asshole.

And your child will likely grow up to be just like you.

There was always the bag of trucks and books about trucks for a backup.

You know what I think-

I think people who spew child-hatred and demand to live in a child-free world are probably
1) So incredibly selfish they have never been able to form the necessary partnership with another human being it takes to raise a child

2)Are so far from having their shit together enough to raise a child they are jealous

3) Have so little tolerance/patience for others in the world that they shouldn't ever have kids or have children exposed to them

4)Will enjoy rotting away in a nursing home while other people's kids and grandkids bring them candy

"Kids can't help it," [Loew, who helps design the Silicon Valley Moms Blog] said. "And it's so ridiculous that people can't understand that."

I don't think the people who do understand that babies and very young children are sometimes inconsolable still want to hear a child screaming for two hours.

They weren't thrown off because they thought she could have calmed the child down or because they thought the kid was being malicious, they were thrown off because it looked like he wasn't going to calm down and people couldn't hear the pre-flight announcements.

I am not necessarily pro-children, just anti-idiot. Complaining or setting a standard based on a 2yr old's behavior is just stupid. Sometimes they behave, sometimes they don't. It's like arguing about the weather.

Your sense of "entitlement" as to what you should or should not put up with is meaningless. You don't like the conditions the airline allows? Change airlines. Drive your car. Don't travel. How's that for logic?

It's just easier to scream about what we "deserve" and beat up on the lady who couldn't keep her kid quiet.

@fredfreedom: Flying on a plane is not a right.

...if the poor precious stewardesses couldn't tell people how to fasten their seat belts, maybe they're the ones in need of some emotional development

Being able to hear over someone screaming has nothing to do with emotional development. The flight attendants shouldn't have to engage in a shouting match with a toddler just to do their job.

In her defense she says that waiting to feed him was her routine and he was never out of control before.

Still, she should have asked the flight attendant for food and said that he'll calm down after eating something instead of just insisting that he'll just stop after take-off for no apparent reason.

Life is inconvenient sometimes. People who aren't able to face the fact that living in an organized society forces them to occasionally patiently and maturely accept the foibles of others (particularly of young children), should become hermits. Or, alternately, should grow up. And if that's not possible, the rest of us are thankful those folks have decided not to pass on their genes.

Assuming that there's a problem with parenting just because a kid has a fit is simply not true. I know many very good parents with kids who just sometimes have a meltdown. That's just how kids are. They do not have mature control over their emotions and reactions.

@Cameraman: And I thank you. I don't have kids but I have friends with kids. Most of them are very good and their kids are well-behaved. Some aren't, but those are the people who aren't consistent with their kids or just ignore what they are doing. I don't know at what age I went to restaurants but I didn't fly until I was in my twenties. We always drove on trips. I had coloring books and other things to occupy me. I'm sure I wasn't always happy, but if I acted up, my parents removed me from wherever I was.

I went to the grocery store the other day and saw a woman letting her two kids push the kid-size carts around, running into people, leaving the carts in the middle of the aisle, etc. while she wandered 20 feet ahead of them. That kind of parenting is annoying. Pay attention to what your kids are doing.

@subtlefrog: Unfortunately, that hasn't been my experience - though I haven't tried in a while. They seem pretty harried and most of the time seem to forget my request - or something more urgent pops up and it gets very delayed. I've gotten used to bringing my own & if a cart comes around when I'm thirsty, it's a bonus!

@Charity Froggenhall: That's often a bad one to use unless you know how your child already reacts to it.

With a large portion of children it will actually make them MORE rambunctous.

@Moosenogger: This.

I have great patience and will help out parents who actually deal with the situation of a bad kid.

But, if you just let your child scream until they fall asleep because you don't think you can control it?

You will be forever cursed with an obnoxious child.

You claim that when you have kids of your own they will never be a burden on someone else. My daughter is generally well behaved, but she had a little problem on the flight because her ears weren't equalizing so she cried for about an hour. I felt bad that she disturbed the flight but should I have just stayed home and not gone to my grandmother's funeral on the opposite coast?

Are you planning to keep your kid locked in the house and never go out? Kids will always have an impact on everyone around them. To claim otherwise is short sighted and ignorant.

@RayonFog: The kid was yelling and drowning out the safety instructions.

I'd say that is a safety concern.

@Esquire99:Morons should be sterilized.

@ReaveT: The "poor lady" had a choice not to be a slut and get knocked up in the first place. What else can she do? Use birth control.

@ben: Try thorazine.

@BluePlastic: Roger that! If you old losers wanna throw your life away, rather than aspire to be something, so be it, but don't infringe on my space with your noisy brats.

@Snaptastic: NOW YOU'RE TALKIN"!!

@mrsultana: Amen brother. "Badger" seems like a nice, politically correct term. I just call 'em brats.

@voogru: Amen brother! I can't stand noisy brats. They should definitely be seen and not heard.

And since when does what the mother thinks might happen once they're in the air trump mandated safety procedures. And why does an unruly child get to determine the quality of the flight experience for the entire plane?

Being a passenger on a commercial airline is not a guaranteed entitlement, just because you can afford a ticket. If a person or their children cannot conform to an appropriate level of conduct, there's always the train or a bus.

@mrsultana: Yep let's drive to London. Fucker.

When this kid enters his teens and is even more our of control, they'll wonder why this happens. In no case will they blame themselves. It's always the fault of the schools, Obama, or anything but their own incompetence.

Southwest was right to remove them from the flight. I'll bet some other passengers applauded. But they didn't go far enough. They should have banned them from ever flying Southwest again.

[brazilbrat.blogspot.com]

Flying is NOT a "privilege", it's a business and a simple exchange of money for service. If that kid's seat was paid for, he was just as much a customer as anyone else on the flight and he had every bit as much right to be on the flight as any adult. The only time anyone ever pulls out the "flying is a privilege" BS is when they want to discriminate against fat people or kids. Flying is just another business, nothing more.

I'm glad she was given a voucher and hope she and the 2 year old that OMG - VOCALIZED! are sitting next to YOU on their next happy flight.

At least the plan wasn't moving when they were booted...

There are places where parents feel they don't need to teach life lessons or control their children. Movie theaters and air planes are excellent examples. Since they have an excuse for both places ("It's a children's movie, it's okay for them to act up" and "They're on a plane and their ears are popping, of course they're going to be fussy!") they feel it's fine to let their child run amok. THOSE are the parents I can't stand. They don't even try to help the situation or give up after a few minutes.

You don't have to be a wonderful parent to understand that your child's constant talking/screaming may be an issue for everyone else in the room.

Supercereal, your ignorance and intolerance is astounding. Why does everyone assume that a noisy child is a result of bad parenting?

I travel the world with my two kids, and they are both under 7. We just got back from Germany last week. My oldest flew from LA to London with me when he was just 5 weeks old. My boys have each logged over 100k miles over their lifetimes.

95% of the time, they are silent on the flights.

I've learned two things over the years:

1) Provide entertainment. Video games, movies, books, coloring, whatever, just make sure they have enough activities to last them the entire flight. If you're lucky enough to be on Virgin America, all the better.

2) This is critical. Have chewing gum available at all times, including taxiing. This serves two purposes. First, it keeps the mouth occupied. Second, and most importantly, it clears the ears when pressure changes occur in the cabin. Kids can't clear their ears the way adults can, and I've discovered that ear pressure is the culprit 9 times out of 10 when a child is crying early on in a flight. They are in pain, but how the hell are they supposed to articulate that fact?? If your child is too young for gum, have a bottle or pacifier ready that they can suck on during takeoff. I can't tell you how many times this has worked, and it surprises me how few flight attendants know about it.

However, on occasion, a child just becomes difficult. Often times, it has nothing to do with bad parenting. They are little people whose bodies are going through massive changes 24/7. Freakouts happen. Airplanes and airports are stressful environments for everyone, and that includes little kids. The thing is, if people like you would realize this fact and not be so quick to pass judgment, maybe we could all get through it together instead of at each other's throats.

i vote with southwest. fuck that kid. while you did pay for you and your childs seat, so did i, and so did everyone else on the plane. Its worth it for southwest to kick them off and give them a free flight while keeping an entire plane full of customers happy.

this is coming from an eccentric 21 year old alcoholic with more brains than patience.

See, I also paid good money for my seat AND my kids' seat. As long as my child isn't directly creating an immediate safety problem (Southwest admits there was no immediate safety concern here), I could not care less what you're issues are with my kid. Hell, people like you make me want to make sure my kid is good and loud.

@sisepuede is the femmiest femme of them all:

"I know it when I see it." - Potter Stewart

'nuff said.

@ben:

Out of 93,000 people, some 70,000 of them agreed with Southwest's decision.

Here's the question: Should Southwest cater to the 23,000 and make $16mm+, or cater to the 70,000 and make $49mm+?

Sounds like the "people who think that the flight should be run according to their preferences" are the ones keeping the airline in business, earning them the right to think the flight should be run according to their preferences.

@MitchEvious:

"truthseeker-
Having lived on a reservation, the American Indians used to stop a child from crying by holding the child's nose; he couldn't breathe and cry at the same time so he quit crying- safe, effective, and humane. "

QFT

Besides, wasn't there a study that was done a while back that showed that people who listen to the instructions/read the rather comical instruction cards in the seat pockets have a more logical, more effective response in an emergency situation than people who don't? Don't worry; I'll know how to use my seat cushion as a flotation device. I'll show you how, if you can find the exits.

Screaming kids on a plane = pain for everyone else. It's amazing how irritating it can get to be locked in what amounts to a sealed tube with screaming children.

If anything, everyone *else* on the southwest flight should be given travel vouchers.

@kaceetheconsumer: "Get a grip, folks. Airlines are PUBLIC TRANSIT. Regulated heavily, yes, but PUBLIC."

No, actually. They aren't. Airlines are primarily private corporations who choose to sell to the public because that's where the profit is. And as a private corporation, they have every right to decide who does or does not get to remain on their property, provided they do not show a trend of discrimination against specific types of people.

To remove this parent nd her child was their right, and I guarantee you they would not have exercised it unless they firmly believed it was the more profitable decision. They may have believed that because they felt the comfort (and thus continued business) of the majority of the plane's occupants outweighed the comfort and continued business of those two individuals. They may have believed that the ability of everyone to hear federally regulated safety announcements, thus avoiding hefty federal fines, was worth more than the fares paid by these two passengers. They may have believed that the comfort and mental health of their employees (who may or may not have just been having a bad day) and thus reduction of staff turnover, recruitment and training expenses was worth more than the fares paid by two passengers. They may have believed some combination of the above or something completely different. Regardless, it was their plane and their right and their business decision.

"You don't get to dictate if someone in the next seat is an age you don't like or any other factor you don't like."

Not a single passenger dictated anything. It was a decision made by the company. Obviously, it was one that a large portion of the population agrees with, which only makes it make more business sense.

Anyway, there are ways to deal with misbehaving children ... and neither of these methods is one of them.

Rationalizing not controlling kids, is — generally — creating an entire generation of ill-behaved people who have no idea how to conduct themselves in public. And some those are, yes, monsters.

I'm saying that giving parents a "pass" on the matter, has created monsters, and will create more. I'm saying those parents will live to regret their decision not to discpline their children. (And the word "discipline" does not mean "hitting" ... instead, it means instilling a sense of self-control.)

If I could be raised with a certain amount of control, then other kids' parents can do the same. If they can't, or won't, they should simply not take their children out in public. It really is that simple. If it was good enough for me it's good enough for them.

Parents with unruly kids do NOT have the right to ruin my flight or anyone else's just because they have kids they won't manage.

But if you are very young or have a documented condition, then yes.

Long before I had kids, every time I saw a family loading kids on a plane I tried to give them a pleasant smile. And if the kid cried, I was always understanding, because I'd see how damned hard they'd be working to make it stop. It wasn't always nice to be sitting close to a screaming baby but I understood that the baby doesn't get why its ears suddenly hurt and it sure as hell doesn't know that swallowing a few times might relieve it, and I made the decision to be sympathetic instead of an asshole.

You can't assign blame where there is no intent. That's why the law generally holds the very young and mentally challenged to not be responsible for criminal actions, because you have to be able to comprehend why what you're doing is a problem before you can be reasonably expected to curtail your behaviour.

Again, if a 10 year old without mental challenges has a screaming meltdown, go ahead and be righteously outraged back at 'em, if that suits you. Fair enough. But a two year old? Come on back to the realm of the reasonable when you get a chance...

That intro made my heart skip a beat.

Everything else I said still stands though. They're mighty cute and I appreciate your sharing the pictures.

I'm not a lazy or rude parent. I bust my ass daily working to make my kid a decent citizen of the world. But she's gone through some bad phases, and still sometimes has to work things out in a better way.

I don't take her to romantic restaurants. I don't take her to bead or yarn stores - which is a pain for me in terms of my craft habits - because those aren't appropriate places for her. I don't take her to non-kid-friendly museums or art galleries.

But damn it, she has just as much right to travel to Australia to visit her grandma and granddad as anyone else has to be on that plane. When we went when she was 21 months old, she cried a few times on the plane and I stayed up the whole flight to tend to her constantly to minimize that.

Now, if she was 10 years old and not suffering from any kind of disability and having screaming meltdowns, then sure, you could criticize my parenting then. And if I thought for one second that she'd do that on a flight at that age, I wouldn't travel because it'd be too hard on ME, let alone anyone else.

But little kids are unpredictable and still learning. Sometimes they shout things out or lack volume control. If a parent is doing nothing, then fine, complain, but most parents will be frantically trying to make it better any way they can. Cut them some slack, for pity's sake, and give them an understanding nod and smile. That will help relax them and might even make it easier for them to calm the kid.

Psicop, I'd hate to let facts to get in the way of their rant, but 2-year-olds have no restraint. They are entirely incapable of keeping quiet when they wanna yell. No amount of parenting in the world is gonna change that fact.

And yelling is hardly "monster" behavior. Hitting, maybe, but 2-year-olds can't restrain themselves from that either. While you can physically restrain kids from hitting, that doesn't work with yelling.

So then you are okay with the 40 year old to just get fuckin' RIPPED and start shouting and crying at the top of my lungs and kicking the seat in front of me for the whole flight? Clearly I have these rights, and being drunk, I have no self control.

I can understand that emergencies pop up and you don't have time to "test" to see if your child can handle the excitement and stress of being on a plane. The least any parent can do is be prepared. Its downright irresponsible for a parent to take their child on a plane without food or distractions.

So, mom's irresponsible because she didn't feed/distract her kid and now she's paying for it.

was that sarcasm?

It's awfully self-centered of this woman to think the child will magically calm down once the plane is moving.

Flying is a privilege not a right, so if you or your spawn can't handle it, stay away

However my parents always made it clear that any fuss I was to be putting up better be for damn good reason, and I also flew often, starting as a 2 month old infant. By the time I was 2, I'd flown so many times I could follow along the flight attendant's hand gestures for the safety instructions, which is how my parents got me to keep quiet ("can you do what she does? ready? let's follow along!")

A two year old can talk, and respond appropriately to speech. That's all that's needed to diffuse the situation. Instead she ignored him to follow her "plan" which was a plan to prevent a situation that was already happening.

The fact that she said her child "behaved beautifully" ONCE HE WAS ASLEEP says a lot to me. What child misbehaves while SLEEPING? exactly.

Why can't there be adults only fights like Adults only all-inclusives, etc.

Sheesh, you people who don't have kids are just full of stupid advice.

Get a grip, folks. Airlines are PUBLIC TRANSIT. Regulated heavily, yes, but PUBLIC. Don't like it? Get some friends together and pay for a PRIVATE chartered flight.

Suck it up and deal. You don't buy out the whole flight when you buy one seat. You don't get to dictate if someone in the next seat is an age you don't like or any other factor you don't like. Should racists get to kick people of colour off of the flight? Should a Muslim get to kick off a Jew or vice versa? I mean hell, that situation could get out of hand and noisy too, right?

I'm allergic to cologne...can I demand nobody wear it on a flight?

If you don't like noise, DON'T FLY, and please stay at home and whinge to yourselves instead!

We don't make it easy to raise a kid? Here are just SOME of the concessions I make to children:
-Property taxes going to schools I will never use
-Higher taxes due to parents' tax breaks
-Restrictions on my freedoms because of the "what about the children?" parents who don't want to actually, I don't know... PARENT (i.e. adult entertainment, video games, movies, music censorship, unfair drug laws, zoning restrictions, alcohol, TV... and on and on and on).

If these things aren't enough of a contribution, I want them back. And I'm not even getting to the stuff that is merely annoying and not flat out unjust.

If someone wants to be a villager and help raise children, more power to them. But co-opting someone who doesn't want to be involved makes you not just a bad parent, but a bad person. And if you can't kick in a little more money than the 200K you are already shelling out, maybe you shouldn't have kids yet. I mean, this is The Consumerist, where we believe in only paying for something when you can afford it!

And lo the sky opened up and rained down upon the earth so goddamned many comeback lines that the only thing anyone could make any sense out of all them were the words MAJOR RHETORICAL FAILURE.

Parenting isn't the Most Important Job In The World. Not even close. It's a choice that at least one person made and if that person was ignorant of the costs or realities of doing so, tough.

I'm glad that many of the people bashing kids here don't have any of their own. Self-extraction from the gene pool!

ProTip: Shouting at the childfree and/or childless by choice demographic that you're glad they're not going to have children generally only results in cheerful agreement. You only think it's a cutting insult because from your viewpoint, not having children is The Worst Thing Ever. Try not to be so incoherent in the future.

For years, I've dreamed of being able to throw screaming kids, or kids in the seat behind me who won't stop kicking the back of my seat or are otherwise obnoxious or ill-mannered, off of the plane -- while it was in the goddamn' air.

You go, Southwest Airlines.

And maybe she did not want to feed him until take off to ensure he did not choke while the plain was lifting off.

@eggalinameggalina: Yes, Americans don't like kids. Common knowledge.

Soooo... Ben,...Your selective and fallacious reasoning fails to consider the democracy of a group of people closely packed in a long slender silver tube.

Perhaps the woman with the screaming child should have considered the larger group of people that were being effected by the child's screams instead of the larger group having to yielding to the screams.
Was the larger/majority group all supposed to get up and deplane because of one child's action or should source of the noise yield to the larger/majority group's concerns?

The airline was certainly right in this instance of applying democracy in their aircraft by favoring the majority and removing the mother and child because, as you stated, for her to try to control her kid would have been..."ridiculous".

How did the kid get on without any ID?

Every once in a while I think Consumerist posts stuff like this just to kick the commenter's ant hill. Have we not already proven we are, for the most part, incapable of civilized discussion regarding children and fat people on airplanes?

Kids will be kids, yes. But there is also a reasonable expectation on the parent to control the kid. If you have a 2 year old that is screaming and acting in an uncontrollable manner, then you do something. Sitting there and saying "Oh, I'm sure he'll calm down after takeoff" isn't doing something. You address the problem.

Don't put the responsibility of playing nanny on the flight crew. I think they did the right think by having the kid and the parent removed.

As a former training flight attendant, this is one thing that cabin crew has a high tolerance for. Crews are trained to deal with this situation, and generally will let the behavior slide, if they feel the child and parent can remain more calm in pre-flight duration. If they cant demonstrate at least the slightest bit of restrain and the matter seems a safety issue or a distraction to the comfort of all passengers, then crew has 100% right to bump that parent and child off that flight.

Now, Southwest was nice enough to give them free travel and apology. Southwest COULD have waited to put them on another flight, or simply refund their money and ask them to fly another carrier. But they didnt, they did the right thing.

Perhaps you were smacked upside the head too many times a as a child that you don't actually realize you don't have children.

On a more serious note, you might want to remove your kids names from the photo captions. Especially given that you use your full name. My experiences have made me somewhat dark and cynical, and those experiences have shown me too many children with stolen identities. Of course they don't discover this until they're ready to apply for student loans to get into college, but by then the damage is done. Your relatives who look at your photos will know their names, and the rest of us are happy just to see the pictures of cute kids.

I'll accept my social "responsibility" to pitch in with other peoples' ill behaved children when you stop by and clean the litterboxes for all my friends' cats.

Dont forget, those kids will be paying for your social security and Medicare...

be nice to the breeders, you need them.

It all comes down to PLANNING. The feeding was important. Not just that he ate, but that he should have eaten a no-sugar lunch of turkey and vegetables that are easy on the tummy. Timing is crucial - a mother knows her kid's schedule. Time the flight for after naptime, but don't put him down to sleep, for example. Planned well, you'll have a nice, groggy or sleeping child curled up for the whole flight. It depends - each child is different. But the parent is responsible for the child's behavior, good or bad. Bring along plenty of activities, skip sweets that would give him a sugar-rush, and even use safe medications if needed (Dramamine and Benadryl are both effective and safe).

And if you can't or won't do what it takes to have a calm child, then don't bring him. You decided to make a lot of sacrifices when you had a kid. This may well be one of them.

I don't think this was a case of a bad parent, I think it was a case of a stressed out, cranky kid.

But I'm dismayed by the number of anti-child/anti-bad parent people here

[ericwarnke.smugmug.com] - Grandma and the two darlings on fathers day.

Don't get me wrong - as a mother of five, I'm appalled that she wouldn't discipline her child. But I'm dismayed by the number of anti-child/anti-bad parent people here who display entitlement issues that are just as bad as the pro-don't-tread-on-my-children types. Yes, children are boogery, noisy, rambunctious little energizer bunnies, but they still have the same rights as the rest of y'all. You cannot simply bar them or the parents from taking them where they will, however, bad parents deserve more of the blame than the kids. I wish more of my fellow parental unit types would understand that there needs to be accommodation on both sides.

Parents who can't be bothered to deal with or discipline their kids are one of my pet peeves. I have five children who know and understand that it's rude and inconsiderate to others to behave badly in public places such as restaurants, theaters, airplanes, etc. That's not to say they don't get tired, cranky, and fussy while out; generally, we try to stave off problems by taking them home before they really start winding up, feeding them, distracting them, whatever. If that doesn't work, I usually fall back on my old standby: "Outside, there are no witnesses." That usually does the trick.

"As was mentioned above, I didn't act this way in public when I was young "

but conveniently left out the second half of his statement:

"because my parents made the responsible choice of not putting me in the situation"

If we acted up in stores, it was a swat on the behind and we were sent to go sit in the car.

"I'm sure we are not suggesting that every child be kicked off a plane if they even made a peep..."

I'm fine with kids on a plane. I was a kid once and I flew on planes and I'm sure people had to put up with my annoyin prattling or whatever. But you can be sure that if I did it during the safety announcements my parents would have dealt with it swiftly.

You can have your kid and you can use public transportation just like me. But if that kid becomes a "little horror" during a safety announcement and you are just going to sit there and "deal," I hope they kick you and your kid off too.

Way off base.

Besides, I hardly think making excuses for parents who don't know how, or know how to but refuse to try, to control their children, "supports" them. It might let them off the hook, but those parents are raising monsters, not people. It's hardly to their own benefit to do so.

Two sets of responsible parents in one thread? That's unpossible!

I'm glad that many of the people bashing kids here don't have any of their own. Self-extraction from the gene pool!

When and if I ever find myself in this parent's shoes, I won't be traveling without enough earplugs for everyone several rows ahead and behind me. It's the right thing to do.

Two year olds with self-absorbed incompetent parents that will not control them are unpredictable.

@mrsultana: "Removed from the situation?" I got smacked upside the head until I was i conformity with the (reasonable) requirements of the situation.

Here's another article with far more detail.

Interesting to note:

- She was staying with her parents. I can see buying more diapers because your stay got extended (although surely she didn't plan just enough diapers of the stay and it was only coincidence she was out before she went back, right?) But why does she need to buy a crib for one night if she's already been staying with her folks and the baby's been fine?

- She had traveled with him before, to the point where I might even class them frequent travelers.

- She purposely didn't feed him before the flight, and knew he got cranky when she didn't.

Now the article doesn't say whether the flgiht attendants warned her or anything, but with the article presented there, I have trouble siding with her...

She also doesn't (or at least very rarely) get(s) taken into public.

We can stand around and make excuses all we want to, "Oh, maybe the poor thing has ADHD!" "Maybe the mother was traveling to a funeral and had no choice but to take the plane!" "The flight attendants should have given the kid juice, full of sugar and artificial colors! That would calm him down!"

Children, especially at that age, cannot necessarily be controlled. Yes, this woman probably had no idea that her child would shit a brick on the plane, but shouldn't she have? Guess what? Plane rides are terrible. After 9/11, the entire flying industry has become a nightmare to deal with. 10 years ago, the woman could have strolled into the terminal 20 minutes before her flight, boarded with her son (probably early, due to his age), and they would have been on their merry way. Now, she has to show up at least an hour early, walk through multiple metal detectors, have her bags searched, and then try to keep the child entertained and not crying for goodness-knows-how-long until the plane gets to the gate, sitting in uncomfortable seats and not letting him run around unattended. That's stressful, on the child and the parent. Then, waiting on the runway for however long. Of course the child got cranky.

That's why you had to get off of the plane. Period. "I can't control him!" is not a reasonable excuse to disrupt the lives of strangers who have paid through the nose to expedite their trip. To expect others to put up with your child when
a.) you should know the child is going to be miserable
b.) you fail to plan for the eventuality of (a)
c.) the expense of flying is so high
d.) no one on the plane forced you to have a baby
...is so selfish, and, worse, so mind bendingly unaware of its own narcissism boggles my mind.

Also I applaud the flight crew. "We're gonna have to wait even longer to see Daddy because you threw a temper tantrum," is an excellent lesson, even if it had to be forced on the child by strangers, instead of his own mother. It could have gone like this: [consumerist.com]
, and wouldn't that have been shit tons worse?

It seems like the problem here was that the woman was actively not feeding the kid, though, which was one of the big things leading to the problem. So unless the village springs to feed the kid (which is inappropriate for a lot of reasons), it doesn't seem as if it would have helped.

Those of us that a) don't have kids, or b) have kids that can act in a civil manner should NOT have to "deal" with your little horror just like you. You made a choice to have a kid, that's not my problem and it shouldn't be.

Your attitude screams "I'm going to be a lazy, rude parent who thinks my child and my activities take precedent over everyone else's comfort." Do us all a favor and don't procreate.

Much better to just kick them off. :)

As for covering their mouths - neat idea, but have you ever tried it? The term "wet squirrel" comes to mind.

In many, many flights I have never had this problem go on for more than a few minutes and I, myself, am not a fan of children. However, there is a direct difference between deciding that they aren't for you and disliking all of them based on some story you read on consumerist.

You wouldn't allow your 2 year old to distract you while you were driving right? Why then is it ok to allow him/her to hinder the safe operation of a flight?

In England, I traveled a lot throughout Europe. And on many flights, as I said before, I saw a lot of screaming kids that were calmed down in a reasonable amount of time. Sometimes people would get involved because mom and Dad were trying, but perhaps a new distraction would help. However, I found that a lot of Brits will complain quitely about the child, but will not get involved (like most Americans) but for a different reason - they feel it isn't their place to be rude, but yeah, they are relatively like us. Meanwhile Norwegian, Dutch, or Germans would help "pitch in". Just a social difference, but I personally find it is the parent's responsibility as they brought the child into this world ;)

I'm sure we are not suggesting that every child be kicked off a plane if they even made a peep, but to cause disturbances that interfere with the normal operation of a plane is a serious matter and needs to be dealt with. If the mother in this case cannot control the child during this critical operation, then she cannot be on the plane. It's that simple.

No need to get on a high horse and immediately assume that everyone who sides with Southwest on this one is automatically an anti-child curmudgeon. I personally am fine with parents who have some trouble controlling their kids on the rare occasion that they get excited (like during a flight), but if that excitement is endangering other passengers or the safe operation of the flight then that disturbance needs to be removed.

Because that's life, and sometimes it sucks. So get over it and yourself.

You know nothing about a person's situation, their overall parenting skills, the temperament of their child (what works best to make them calm), but you can still call them "lazy/incompetent/rude"?

Making that kind of blanket statement is pretty lazy/incompetent/rude. Being a parent is hard, don't judge them blindly. Maybe instead sympathize, the last person a mom on a plane needs is a judgmental jerk who KNOWS the best thing all the time.

They need to change the rules about reboarding. This problem may have been averted if the mother would have been able to take the kid away from the situation and calm it down, then reboard and probably carry on the rest of the day incident free.

Get real. The world is populated by adults AND children, by the smart AND the stupid, by the young AND the old, by the able-bodied AND the disabled, by republicans AND democrats

- and -

by people who are grounded in reality AND those who are hopelessly self-centered and narcissistic. You know who you are.

@Esquire99: Amen! Preach it!

I would gladly pay 10x the asking price of a ticket for a child free flight where there will be no screaming little snowflakes to shatter my eardrums.

The luggage question (someone said her luggage went on?)is an interesting in respect of post 911 attitudes of TSA. I thought any luggage one has has to travel with that individual (kind of makes one wonder how they can 'loose' you luggage if this is true). Wouldn't this be a perfect way to have your luggage go on a flight and not you? OMG we need to arrest her and send her to gitmo!!! This wasn't a case of a baby making noise, we have been duped. This was a test run!!!!

Should I not attend the funeral of a family member because I am unable to drive there and - God forbid - someone on the plane might be annoyed by my child if he gets upset?

Yes, having children changes your life. You have to factor them into every decision you make (and you do so gladly). But that doesn't mean you can(or want) to just avoid bringing your child in public at all costs!

I understand there are people who do not have/want/like kids, but that doesn't get you out of having to deal with real people and their real life situations.

Instead of helping this woman calm her child down they kick her off the plane.

I think the flight attendant should have said, "Do you want your ass beat for your screaming kid?" I think if we start disciplining the parents, the kids will either fall in line or the parents will start passing along the beatings. Who's with me?

OR...you could offer the kid some juice...with vodka in it. That always calms me down.

Kids will be kids. They will scream, yell, knock shit over, etc. That's to be expected. But is too much to expect parents to either control the kid or take them out of (or never put them in) the situation? Why should I suffer because a parent is too lazy/incompetent/rude to inconvenience themselves for the sake of the rest of us?

Anyway, I'm not really trying to argue what is or isn't proper parenting. What I'm mostly saying is that not being able to control a two year old doesn't make one a bad parent.

I think she was calmer than my wife the whole flight, only getting antsy towards the end from sitting so long.

[ericwarnke.smugmug.com] - Cute pics of 2 year old on plane. It was even a southwest flight.

You don't have to like it, but babies scream and people are assholes. You can complain all you want about how you were inconvenienced, and that this lady over here should shut her kid up, and that this guy should stop being rude to you, or that people have responsibilities to make sure those around them are not bothered by their (or their kids') behavior. Fine. Tell them to stop, complain to a manager or call the cops. Otherwise, though shit. Welcome to the party.

I understand kids can throw tantrums but if your kid is out of control anywhere you should get escorted out. I am sick of screaming kids in movies, restaurants or anywhere else and the parents feel they have a right to be there so they sit and ruin everyone else time.

Why does everyone else have to make accommodations for your idiotness. WHy don't you have some common courtesy and take action instead of feeling self righteous that the world owes you for doing something that people and animals have been doing for eons, squatting out brats.

I do have to say I have to wonder about this mother. There is a way to calm a 2 year old. It's called distraction. Works wonders with my 2 year old and 4 year old.

Still would rather drive.

Actually, it's the people who think that the flight should be run according to their preferences who have the "precious snowflake" mentality.

But feel free to no longer respond to my comments.

Ah yes, you were an angel. And you know this because your mom told you that and she's never wrong because she's a saint.

Everyone shut up, you don't know why she had to go on a flight, you don't know if she had anyone she could leave her kid with, you don't know ANYTHING about her. Was she on a connecting flight? Was she going somewhere important? You don't know, but you like to whine anyway.

I hate screaming kids too, but newsflash, there are more people in the world than YOU. And they have stuff to do as well.

Get over yourselves.

Regardless, I've consistently said that it's completely up to the flight crew whether or not the woman and her kid should have remained on the flight. They made that determination and I am not second guessing them. Anyone who's flown a significant amount knows that there are plenty of flights where there are screaming/crying kids, though. It's just part of flying. As I said in another post, if enough people have a problem with it, they can try to convince some airlines to institute childless flights.

or give the child a plastic bag to play, he/she will eventually quiet down when he/she ran out of breath.

Other unruly/disruptive passengers who are kicked off a flight do not get an apology and compensation.

Mom messed up by not feeding the kid and not being able to keep him quiet. Instead of getting all offended, can't you just say, "whoops, I messed up. Sorry." and learn that next time, you should have a better plan.

BTW, they don't kick kids off planes for a few moments of typical child rowdiness; it takes a significant amount of disruption before they will escalate it to the point of removal.

Kids aren't objects that can be controlled. They're individuals with not fully developed brains. Sometimes they'll cry, sometimes they'll scream, regardless of how good the parents are.

Perhaps this woman was a terrible mom -- I have no idea. But neither do you. Maybe you can start a campaign to get Southwest or some other airline to start having childless flights. If the public is really substantially for that, I'm sure the airlines would love to have another way to charge an additional fee.

If an adult is doing something that for some reason they don't realize is disruptive, a flight attendant can ask them to stop, and they usually will. If they continue to be disruptive, they will probably be met by law enforcement upon landing. You can ask a two year old to stop making noise, but that won't always work -- even with a darling angel.

It's not Southwest's policy to automatically kick a screaming kid off of a flight. So if that's something you have a problem with, you should take that into consideration when you fly. It's not up to you whether or not the kid gets kicked off, so I don't really know what more to tell you.

@ben:

I don't know, on the one hand I understand that sometimes the world's best kid, toddler, baby can have a melt down and its impossible for the world's best parent to calm that child down. Does that mean the child and parent need to be kicked off the plane, I don't know seems pretty harsh but on the other hand do the 100 other passangers have to listen to the screaming child for the next two hours?

Perhaps it is best to kick child off, give parent free flight as compensation, make all other 100 passengers super happy?

They kicked off my son. MY SON.

Then I had to buy some more diapers. MORE DIAPERS.

And there was no crib. NO CRIB.

@Colonel Jack O'Neill: That would be egotistical parent-centered thinking. Please take that somewhere else.

Exactly right. You understand, as too many parents don't, that having children has changed your life. You now have to make different decisions, do things in different ways, when you include your children in your plans.

Modern parenting seems too often based on a presumption that the child is simply a new accessory. You can go everywhere, do everything you ever did, and nothing changes. If you were always a self-absorbed airhead spouting vacuum into your cell every minute of the day, you can still be that. Just ignore the kid, it can't talk anyway.

What I see now are lazy parents who don't want the kid to inconvenience their own lives. If they want to go eat at a nice steak place, why shouldn't they be able to take the kid? Hire a babysitter? Not go? That's crazy talk. Many of them just want to keep living live as they did pre-child, regardless of how it affects others.

I applaud and appreciate your efforts and your decisions.

@PsiCop: I'll be Joe and say, "on BALLS?"

However. Can someone explain to me what is so inappropriate or abusive about covering a child's mouth (not the NOSTRILS, just the mouth) with one's hand?

I have a two year old son. He is the world's best behaved two year old (as well as being the smartest, fastests developing, and cutest two year old in the world), but I do know that sometimes he is impossible to control. He can get cranky if he's hungry , or thirsty, or tired, or bored, or whatever. How do we deal with this, in light of the fact that we travel frequently?

We simply do not fly. We drive.

We also do not take him to adult restaurants, movie theaters, museums, funerals, or any other places I've encountered screaming brats.

See, while I love my son (who, as I previously mentioned, is the single most important human being that has ever lived or ever will live), I also understand that inconveniencing other peple is more or less inexcusable, especially if it can be eliminated by prior planning.

I should be able to assume that I won't be substantially disturbed on my flight. I don't care who is doing the disturbing, the airline should make it stop. If that means kicking that person of the plane, even if it's a child, so be it.

I will be using that sometime in the future :)

Did you click the link to the poll about whether SWA was right here? Well over 70% agreed with SWA.

The only things I have a problem with are people assuming that this woman is automatically a bad parent because her two year old was making noise and that they have the right to be on a noiseless airplane. In this instance, the crew kicked the woman off. There are plenty of flights where crying/screaming kids are not kicked off. Southwest (as well as every other airline that I'm aware of) doesn't have a "no kid" policy, so by buying a ticket for a flight, part of the risk you're assuming is that you might have to listen to a screaming kid.

...or heck, a whiskey soaked gag.

Shame that Southwest actually paid her, I would have liked to have seen the lawsuit.

On a flight coming back from Italy on a holiday, my partner had helped a single mother with her two young babies get in the plane. One was less than a year and the other was just a half. We had to walk up to the plane and both were having trouble. People were pitching a fit. My boyfriend, sick of the way the woman was getting treated, picked up the older baby and scooped up the youngest that the woman was holding so that she could get her luggage and get into the plane. When we came back, she was on our flight and my partner did the same. When the older child got cranky on the way over, a woman sitting behind them colored with him for a bit. When the baby was screaming and mom was ready to pull her hair out, my partner helped her rock him to sleep, as he is really good at that. Baby went to sleep and all was

However, mom understood that it needed to stop and it never was so loud for so long that you wanted to stab yourself or anything. Kids can be cranky, but it is the parent's job to try and weed this out. Seems like she didn't feed him before the flight. I agree with the decision that south west made. No one should have to endure that - including the child who was apparently hungry and miserable.

My parents never took us flying not only because of the expense but because when we were little, it was just too much to ask of us. Nowadays, it is even worse with all of the security stuff. I couldn't imagine my father handling all of that with us - short fuse. My sister was a tantrum thrower until about age 6. She would have found some way to be upset. In short, it would have been irresponsible.

If the airlines were a little more predictable or communicative when there are problems, it would be easier to plan and hopefully avoid these situations.

When I was little, my brothers and I had a tendency to get airsick. My parents made absolutely sure we were doped up with dramamine - which also knocked us out cold, making us extremely well-behaved children.

BUT: It's very easy to take the "No one's forcing you to get on the plane" and turn it around... No one forced you (and your kids) to get on the plane either.

Also, I'm a little shocked at people who suggest drugging children for what could be considered "normal" child behavior, all for the convenience of adults. There's something very disturbing about that.

And no, I don't have nor will I ever have children myself.

When a kid gets in a certain mood it is impossible for a parent to control them. In those situations I take my children out of earshot of others as a courtesy. When you are on a plane this is not practical. The alternative is to cover you kids mouth and suffocate them. That would be considered abuse so it's also out of the question. To those who dislike children on planes I wouls suggest that you buy you own LearJet so that you can be assured peace and quiet.

Wouldn't have happened if Sully was there.

I would just like to point out the results of the msnbc poll:

[travel.newsvine.com]

People are going to go after you for saying that ... but this is — as Mona Lisa Vito (Marisa Tomei) said so well in My Cousin Vinny — "dead on balls accurate."

I think SWA was 100% in the right here. I wish all of the airlines would remove the screaming children and their parents who can't control them. I don't want to spend 1-4 hours in a small area with a child they clearly cannot control.

As was mentioned above, I didn't act this way in public when I was young because my parents made the responsible choice of not putting me in the situation. Your inability to control your child shouldn't inconvenience me. I don't care if you can no longer fly because you child is an uncontrollable brat; those are the consequences of deciding to have a child.

What a chilren's off switch might look like.

(I have kids of my own)

"Our flight attendants gave the child juice and coloring books, and we're sorry she was inconvenienced."

It sounds like the mother wasn't doing anything to help the situation. I know if I had been on that plane I would have been glad to see her and the kid get off!

I think they did the right thing. If that situation had continued for the whole trip, it could have de-evolved to a much worse situation while in the air. It's up to the flight crew to control the passengers. I don't blame them at all. They made a judgment call based on a bad situation and for what they thought was best. Kudos to them for making a tough call!

Sure, a 2-year-old is a 2-year-old, but not all 2-year-olds are capable of handling plane flights well. I also get that the preflight instructions are not something most people listen to. But they ARE mandated to be given, and if they must be given, then even those who aren't interested, should be respectful enough to keep quiet and let them be delivered to the 1 or 2 people who ARE interested.

The bottom line is, you don't take your kids out in public, if you can't control them.

Oh and yes, I was raised by parents who followed that philosophy. If I didn't behave in public, I was removed ... and I didn't go out in public again for a LONG time. (Not that it happened very much. Once was enough for me to have learned the lesson. Funny how it works that way, no?)

Step 1: put some valium in chocolate milk*
Step 2: give that milk to child prior to flight
Step 3: Stress free flying

*Amount of valium depends on the child's weight/height.

People need to control their damn kids, slap them if you have to.

Frankly, the kid was just shouting GO PLANE GO! which is probably what everyone else wanted to scream, too.

-"You don't know what it is like!" You're right. I don't. I chose not to have kids. Don't force your poor parenting or just poor decision making on the rest of us.

-"We have the same rights as you." Yup, and the same responsibilities. Just because it is a public place, there is no right for you to piss off everyone around you. Junior may quite possibly be the most adorable thing you have ever seen, but that is only your opinion. The rest of us couldn't care less.

-"People had to put up with you when you were a kid." Uh, actually, they didn't. If I acted out in public, my parents immediately removed me from the situation. And I didn't actually ride on a plane until I was 16. But it doesn't matter. You know if your kid is going to be an idiot. Do something in advance if you are rude enough to have to inflict him on the rest of us. Like the Xanax idea about an hour before the flight. Or a condom about five minutes before you got knocked up.

Whether or not she should have been kicked off is up to the discretion of the flight crew, but to say that the woman should have controlled her kid is ridiculous. If you can't handle the fact that sometimes kids are going to scream, it's best you avoid places with children. No one is forcing you to get on a plane.

Do you think we want to hear that bullshit whining and screaming for hours on a flight we paid hundreds of dollars for? If you can't keep your kid quiet, don't fly; selfish pricks.

@GitEmSteveDave: #RosaRocks: That sounds more dangerous than removing them from the plane, but I don't remember that story.

@LadySiren:

I'm not anti-kid. I'm anti-out-of-control kid though yes.

Sure I think they could have offered him a snack or something to drink, but that may be a hit or miss. It might not calm him down. I believe they were trying to resolve the problem the fastest, by removing him from the plane.

Though it probably wouldnt hurt to offer him something and if he continues, then remove them.

It may not be the friendliest solution but I'm pretty sure nobody on that plane objected to his removal.

They sure as hell shouldn't have apologized unless the mother apologized to every single other person on the plane.

I'm not frothing, but I am against any out of control people on planes. Kids, drunks, what ever.

I'm pretty sure the money SW may lose by flying this woman and her kid later will be made up by EVERY OTHER PERSON ON THE PLANE always flying SW from now on.

Good-bye Jeffrey!

While I think this mother was irresponsible for allowing her child to drown out the safety announcements, I'm not sure that kicking her off the plane was the right idea. Since this woman was apparently incapable of getting her child to settle down, maybe the flight crew could've offered him a snack and some juice or something. Yes, I realize this is something the mother should've been doing, however, since she wasn't, it might've been a better option and wouldn't have ended up costing SW the reimbursement of the cost of her flight.

I think they did the right move by kicking her and her kid off the plane. Control your kids people.

I don't think they had to give her a free flight though, just put her on another plane when her kid calms down.