Friday, March 23, 2007

Justifiable infanticide

In London now, having arrived safely, and logging on from the computer in 80s Tom's delightfully posh Notting Hill home. Note, I say home, not flat. It's that posh. That's Tom there on the right. Say hi, Tom. I was greeted at the house with tea and homemade muffins. That is awesome.

The flight was successful enough, though as would be expected, I was within 5 rows of a wailing child. The flight itself took about 6 hours, with the child screaming for about 3 of them (meaning I slept for 3, and listened to the child for the other 3). There is really no worse sound in the world than a baby's screech. It makes my cheek twitch and my fists clench. And seriously, between incrementally shrinking personal space in airplanes and my incrementally growing inflexibility and general curmudgeonliness, it's hard enough to sleep on a flight already (this was a red-eye). 100% honestly, the thought that kept filling my mind during those waking hours: "Dear sir or madam, your child is a scourge upon humanity whose life I would gladly end if permitted to do so without consequences."

Note to potential/current employers who stumble upon this: I do not, in fact, have homicidal tendencies (that I will act on). I think what I'm trying to say is, please hire me/don't fire me.

Anyhow, this made me think, yet again, why isn't there an airline with no children under the age of 5 allowed? I paid $500 for my flight here. I would certainly pay a 10% premium, an extra $50, for the absolute guarantee that there will be no screaming infants on my flight. Wouldn't you?

So I have a question for all you law geeks out there: since airlines are common carriers, would such an airline violate any rules about discrimination by age or family status from the Civil Rights Act? The way I remember it, family status is only a protected class for the Fair Housing Act. Maybe age...but seriously. There must be a legal reason why this doesn't exist, because there is no good business reason not to have this airline. Sure, the whole air travel industry is completely unprofitable, but that doesn't seem to stop people from trying (and failing), whether it means theming an airline on breasts, or just offering the same old poor service under an even stupider new name. This is clearly a better idea.

Investors (and legal analysts), I await your messages.

1 comment:

Mars said...

you lucky bastard. i want to be in london. omg you have me as a link!! i had to link you because im too lazy to remember i hate us airways. in the course of two days i was on four planes and went through 3 airports twice, and all of my flights were delayed from 30 to 90 minutes. BLAH. HI TOM!! teehee.