Follow this blog:
RSS

Kids on flights: Would a new plane salve the pain?

By | October 15, 2012, 6:04 AM PDT

Yes please — kick your parent’s knees rather than my seat.

You’re on a long-haul flight from Heathrow to JFK. Not only is soothing your urge for nicotine restricted, but the man beside you is snoring, a child has been wailing in the background since take-off, and a toddler is taking delight in improving their motor skills by kicking your seat.

Raising your eyes to the heavens, you wish that you’d gone business class. Forget the cost, nothing is worth this for another eight hours in a metal tube.

However, we often forget that for parents, a child in a tantrum can be just as frustrating — and often humiliating as passengers turn as one and glare.

Passengers at AirAsia can book a seat in a ‘quiet zone’ where children under 12 are not allowed. However, design company RKS has gone further — developing a concept plane that caters for tired parents and their bundles of joy.

The California-based consultancy firm unveiled cAir as an airline that would cater for these types of clientele. Research based on a focus group revealed that parents cringed at the thought of flying with their young children, and may avoid it altogether:

“We have stopped even considering flying with kids anymore for vacation. As a frequent business flier, I am usually tuned to my own set rituals, but traveling with my two- and four-year-old is what I fear –staring eyes from other passengers, and fear of embarrassment. I wish it wasn’t a ‘get on fast, get off fast’ feeling, especially when I’m paying for one of the most expensive square footage areas.”

Co.Design reports that Ravi Sawhney, RKS founder and CEO began work on the project after identifying this “pain point”:

“We are constantly on the alert for pain points in people’s lives. We have looked deeper and deeper into the human condition and it has opened our eyes into things we have never seen before. In the case of cAir, it became apparent to us that we need to do something about it.”

The concept airline would include express check-in services, stroller rentals and play lounges to keep the kids amused. Children would be allowed to go to a kiosk to ‘rent’ a toy for the flight. (Although whether the parents would have to pay later to keep the peace — and the toy — remains to be seen).

In addition, seating arrangements on the plane would mean only parents would face the brunt of their children’s restless feet, lavatories will be large enough for diaper changes, and sound curtains may help quieten noise.

The concept — if financially viable — would include child-orientated food and additional storage. But of course, the less space on a craft, generally the more expensive the seating. In a market beset with rising fuel costs and cut-backs not only by companies but by the belt-tightening general public, it remains to be seen if a firm would be brave enough to try and dominate this customer niche.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Charlie Osborne

About Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne

Contributing Editor

Charlie Osborne is a freelance journalist and graphic designer based in London. In addition to SmartPlanet, she also writes the iGeneration column for business technology website ZDNet. She holds degrees in medical anthropology from the University of Kent.

Follow her on Twitter.

Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what she covers.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
11
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
-1 Votes
+ -
Been There Done That Got that Tee-Shirt
cAir presents no new solutions. The major question is how to get airlines to offer any new service in a business environment where the only solutions proffered provide any service with an attendant extraordinary premium. The only way to offer this kind of service is for government to legislate its requirement. How apt to happen is that in today's hostile bipartisan environment.
Posted by jblowe
15th Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
And please tell, why should government mandate this?
It doesn't exist because people are not willing to pay for it. So why should the government force people to pay for something they really don't want?
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
15th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
I wish them luck with this...
...as travelling with kids is a nightmare.

But the reality is that in the airline business, everything comes down to the cost/seat-mile, which usually comes down to "how many seats can we cram on every plane".

These are all great ideas above, but almost all of them require space that means fewer seats on a plane. In order to accommodate the loss in revenue for those seats, means higher airfare for the remaining seats. Since most people choose flights based upon price and convenience, it's questionable as to how many families will be willing to pay substantially more for these amenities. (And remember, an extra $50/seat to a family means at least an additional $150 more for the cost of the trip)
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
15th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
I think it will work
The airlines don't have to raise the prices. How many times have you been in nearly empty flights? I have, many times. Sometimes even on international flights. If there are families that are not flying because they have children, or individuals not flying because of noisy children, they are missing a lot of potential revenue. Sure seat-miles matter, but filled seat-miles are better than empty seat-miles.

I'm not sure if you are old enough to remember flying a long time ago (when the Boeing 707 and the Super DC 8 where the "largest" airplanes - yes, before the 747), but flying used to be really expensive (only upper middle class could afford to fly). I remember my father getting up and saying he was going to the bar in the back of the plane. I remember going to the lounge around mid-plane to sit around and chat with others. After the 747, the bar and lounges were great. Somewhere along the timeline, the bars and lounges were gone and seats took their places. Pitch changed, to cram more people in. Flights became relatively inexpensive and just about anyone can fly. The point is, excess capacity, less filled flights, keep prices higher than if they could fill every plane, without dropping flights.
Posted by ManoaHI
15th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
Where the heck have you been flying?
The facts do not support your observation; As demand drops, airlines have been parking planes in the desert rather than run them less than full. Load factors are as high as ever:

http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/pages/2012-02-29-01.aspx

I cannot remember the last time I was on anything less than a completely full flight. I haven't been on any plane that was anywhere near "empty" in at least 10 years. I used to collect vouchers for overbooked flights roughly 50% of the time. (At least until the airlines started rendering vouchers nearly worthless by making them a hassle or nearly almost impossible to use)

And yes, I remember the pre-deregulation days as well. Plenty of seats available and perks galore. And we wore our Sunday best, and everyone was well-behaved. It was a completely different world.

And fares that were much higher than today's even before adjusting for inflation. Before 1979, air travel was exclusively for the upper and upper-middle class. It was expensive, but at least it kept the riff-raff out with their BO and tube tops. My guess is that for those whom money is not so much an object would be more than happy to return to those days.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 15th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
Kid cars on Norway's trains
Maybe they take a page from Norway's train service -- the Norwegians include a train car outfitted 100% like a really big kid's play room. The parents put them in there and close the door. Maybe airlines could create all family/all kid flights for trips to Orlando around spring break and Christmas -- business travelers could avoid those particular flights and families with small kids could choose them.
Posted by bbeaven@...
15th Oct
-1 Votes
+ -
Asked and Answered
Exactly, why should government mandate high def TV or auto gas mileage requirements for autos? Because business is not required to be altruistic and it never rises above the profit motive. Even if people will pay, business is unwilling to risk innovation unless they're convinced the payoff is certain. Government should only become involved when there is an obvious common good and business is unwilling to pioneer the effort.
The reason the cAir suggestion won't work is because we won't pay the additional fee for a marginal utility and no airline will be willing to volunteer the cost to provide the service in steerage. And, the solution of the kid problem already exists - pay for and go first class. It's my understanding families can rarely afford to go that way.
Posted by jblowe
15th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
If they can't afford to go that way now without the regulation...
...what makes you think that they will be able to post-regulation?

And I don't think that government should mandate gas mileage requirements either. That's how we got SUVs.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
15th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
Ask again
Businesses are not required to be altruistic. If a company does that too much, they will fail. Businesses exist to make money, there is noting immoral about that. Remember, they pay taxes on profits. Every year, we get law after law, regulation after regulation, the end result is almost never good when government steps in. There are very few airlines that have not declared bankruptcy at least once in their lifetimes. Pour on more regulations and you will force some bankruptcies to be permanent shut downs. (No, I am not employed by an airlines, nor do I own any stock in any airlines). Guess why there are no play areas for children. Come on guess. The FAA won't allow it. See, regulations. (ok, I'll admit, airlines not willing to have any excess liability - tort law has to be fixed).
Posted by ManoaHI
15th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
People are locked into old think
It is refreshing that someone is looking into this. As far as people with their knee-jerk reactions against this and the "costs" associated - try this on:

1) A significant number of us simply forgo flyling altogether because we have children. This is lost revenue.

2) Changes to seating arrangements need not require extra space.

The possibility immediately came to me that if there was a portion of the plane that intentionally catered for families with kids, it could actually have smaller seats, rearward facing, so the leg space was shared with the parents. This would probably use no more space than the conventional arrangement, and keep the little tikes kicking feet away from other passengers. A row of such seats would be well placed at the forward bulkhead and be more or less "free" and isolate small children from the childless passengers.

There are many business that have found it advantageous from a purely business point of view to cater expressly for families. Why should airlines be any different?

Peronally I would welcome a better way to fly with children, and would consider flying (at all) instead of shying away from it entirely.
Posted by dimonic
15th Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
Understanding the math is hardly being "knee-jerk".
1) A significant number of us forgo flying because cost + hassle > driving + time.

And none of the suggestions above address the nightmare it is getting the kids out of the car, into the terminal, through security and to the gate. That's half the battle, and as long as the government runs that it will never get better.

Also, as I pointed out above, the additional cost times the 3 or more tickets buys a lot of gasoline.

2) Airlines are loathe to create additional sections to planes because it locks those seats into a particular class. They'll do it for first class, since if it isn't full, it's no problem at all to get someone from coach to move forward. It certainly won't be so easy to get someone from other classes to wish to move to the "family" section. Empty seats equate lost revenue, and the difference between profitability and bankruptcy.

Also, you aren't likely to see the rear-facing rows either, since doing so basically means 1 row less of seats for every so many rows of reversed seats, due to the space lost between facing seatbacks.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 15th Oct
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!