It's obvious that an unrestrained baby on a flight poses a risk to him/herself and other passengers in the event of something seriously affecting the plane's attitude. But then why do airlines (and their attorneys) have a "babe in arms" policy anyway if it's not safe? Or is that policy completely profit driven (they figure they'll lose out on the parent's airfare if they're not allowed to bring their under-2-year-old on the plane for free)?
While I'm not suggesting that any parent would necessarily value airfare costs over the safety of their child, is this the "correct" order (in descending order from "most safe" to "least safe")?
Or can someone suggest other alternatives to consider besides the ones mentioned above (except not flying at all and driving a car instead--that's not always an option for certain destinations)? At which point (or how many days trip duration) does one consider it safer/better/cheaper to just leave the baby at home with a caregiver for a few days instead of bringing baby with you (I know, it sounds impersonal, but I'm really trying to get at the objective criteria people apply when making these kinds of travel decisions). If the answer depends on the age of the child, for sake of argument let's assume a 6-month old baby that can be bottle-fed with breastmilk (and supply is not an issue).
While I'm not suggesting that any parent would necessarily value airfare costs over the safety of their child, is this the "correct" order (in descending order from "most safe" to "least safe")?
- Child under 2 flying in own RF car seat
- Child under 2 flying in rented/loaned RF car seat
- Child under 2 flying in own car seat but FF due to clearance or fitment issues in tight coach rows
- Child under 2 flying in rented/loaned car seat but FF due to clearance or fitment issues in tight coach rows
- Child under 2 flying in parent's Baby Bjorn or similar harness (except during take-off or landing)
- Child under 2 flying in lap (otherwise completely unrestrained)
Or can someone suggest other alternatives to consider besides the ones mentioned above (except not flying at all and driving a car instead--that's not always an option for certain destinations)? At which point (or how many days trip duration) does one consider it safer/better/cheaper to just leave the baby at home with a caregiver for a few days instead of bringing baby with you (I know, it sounds impersonal, but I'm really trying to get at the objective criteria people apply when making these kinds of travel decisions). If the answer depends on the age of the child, for sake of argument let's assume a 6-month old baby that can be bottle-fed with breastmilk (and supply is not an issue).