I wasn't allowed to bf on take off and landing on a flight.

[belgo]

This happened a few months ago, I have since stopped bfing. I was on a Transavia (dutch) flight to Tunisia and still bfing my 18 month old dd2, who didn't have her own seat, she had to sit on my lap. I wanted to bf her on landing and take off, to comfort her and to help with her ears. I was told I wasn't allowed to because their policy is that the child has to sit on my lap with her back to me, making bfing impossible in the process.

Anyone else had this experience?

[NotQuiteCockney]

Oh, I've had them say this sort of thing, but I just ignored them.

Last flight was to Ireland, and DS2 sat next to me, and bfed anyway.

(Worst flight - we flew some shit American carrier once, where they didn't have those seatbelt things ! But I was meant to hold on to DS2 whenever there was turbulence. )

[belgo]

I tried to ignore them, but they kept a close eye on me, and came up and told me off!

[LucyJones]

I would write and complain.
As long as you had your seat belt on I don't see the problem.
There is obviously a safety issue and the flight attendant was just doing her job.
But even so I would write and complain to the managemtn and get them to change their policy.

[PrettyCandles]

Similar situation with my dd a few years ago. I simply waited until the plane was doing its final run accelerating towards the take-off, then swiveled dd round (still in her seatbelt thingy) and fed her. The cabin crew by then were sitting down and belted in, so couldn't see us.

Actually, I thik they possibly could see us on one leg, as we had bulkhead seats near their seats, but they didn't interfere. AFter all, what's more likely - that the plane will crash on take-off/landing or that the baby will scream her head off at the pressuer changes and upset the other passengers?

They can only make sure that people are following the rules, belted in etc, as long as they can see them. What's to stop a passenger undoing their seatbelt once the crew cannot see them any longer? I imagine at that point the crew can not be responsible for the passenger's safety if they do so.

[NotQuiteCockney]

Ah, I would offer crying child or bfing, I think. I don't cope well with flight attendants telling me what to do. (I do follow most of the rules.)

[artichokes]

I had this once with BMI. I told them that I was going to do it anyone and if they wished to remove me from the flight I would take it up with their Chief Exec and any interested media. That shut them up.

[artichokes]

anyway not anyone
am not concentrating today

[ComeOVeneer]

NQC from my experience all american airlines don't carry those lap belts. We flew american airlines when ds was 4 months old. He had his own seat and we brought his car seat on board (a mama and papas one with the base that is held in place with the belt then the seat clicks onto the base. They said we couldn't use it as it wasn't regultation and expected us to hold a 4 month old for take off and laning. We refused and eventually the pilot came out and said we could use it but had to sign a waver exempting the airline from any comeback (although he did privately agree that ds would be a million times safer in the car seat than on our lap).

[MerlinsBeard]

is it a safety thing though?

They have to sit in a certain position for take off and landing just like an adult does. sitting facing forwards i mean.

I dwouldn't be complaining in that situation. i would be annoyed but glad that they had put the safety of my child first tbh.

[ComeOVeneer]

Anyway I hate to say it, but I'm not really sure what benefit a seatbelt does you if a plan crahes, it isn't in the same league as wearing/not wearing a car seat belt is it?

[NotQuiteCockney]

No, the seatbelt makes no difference for a crash landing - but it does make a difference if you hit severe turbulance. Everyone who's sat down and buckled up would be fine, but your baby might hit the ceiling .

(I've been reading in the New Scientist, apparently the whole 'crash position' thing is to prevent damage to your teeth ... so they can identify you better.)

[NotQuiteCockney]

Oh, and facing forwards is irrelevant for safety, surely? Given that facing backwards is safer! (as they do on military aircraft ... and half of BA's business class for that matter)

[ComeOVeneer]

Sorry for lousy typing

[belgo]

They said it was a safety thing, but the emphasis seemed to be on 'you can't bf her like that'. She then spent the whole take off crying and wiggling which I suspect is more dangerous. If I had bf her, she would at least have stayed still.

[MerlinsBeard]

i don't know NQC but would assume that it was a rule and would have ffered my DC something else to eat/drink.

I know i am treading on dangerous ground here but i do think if the child had been younger then maybe there could have been allowances made.

(disclaimer...I am not against breastfeeding ot extended breastfeeding in any way)

[belgo]

I don't see how sitting with her facing forwards could have been safer - if we had hit turbelance, she would have head butted me in the chin.

[belgo]

mom - I can't help but speculate that they might have made allowances if dd had been younger - especially as I have flown so much when she was younger, and never had a problem.

[belgo]

I don't want to write and complain, but I might like to write asking for an explanation and the research findings leading them to have this policy.

[popsycal]

At least her teeth would have been protected had you been feeding her ;)

[mawbroon]

Hmm, I tried to breastfeed 17 month old ds on a flight earlier this year for the ear popping thing. He was FAR too interested in looking out the window and signing aeroplane to bother with the breastfeeding. I think it was the first time he ever refused the breast!!