Toddler's temper ousts family from plane

[Subby]

One time we were at an Applebees and there was a long wait for a table, so all six of us sat at the bar to have our dinner. I was drinking Bud Dry and hitting on the bartender mainly because my kids were annoying the shit out of me and my wife kept bugging me to "step in" and do something.

Whatever.

Anyway, one of my four year olds grabbed my beer when I wasn't looking and just started drinking it. I guess he thought it was his juice or something. I was like - what the fuck, elroy, does this look like your sippy cup? Anyway, the manager comes over and starts yelling at me for letting my kid drink my beer. All up in my grill. So we are going at it and then my kid lets out this monster burp that totally catches everyone off guard. Well it was so cute that manager just had to laugh and he ended up comping us dessert. After that everyone kept coming over and telling me how preccocious my kids were!

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by panerd

No they don't leave. They complain to the manager.

that's some balls

particularly if this is a consistent thing. what did it happen once that someone complained?

If it happens all the time this can't be a "bar" in the sense I am picturing it.

[Butter]

At that point, the manager has to decide what is best for the restaurant. Just like AirTran decided what was best for their flight. Is it best to accommodate the loud, raucous group of adults who just showed up or to accommodate the family who is bothered by the loud, raucous group?

Maybe the loud, raucous group should learn to shut the hell up so the rest of the patrons can enjoy their meal...

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

At that point, the manager has to decide what is best for the restaurant. Just like AirTran decided what was best for their flight. Is it best to accommodate the loud, raucous group of adults who just showed up or to accommodate the family who is bothered by the loud, raucous group?

Maybe the loud, raucous group should learn to shut the hell up so the rest of the patrons can enjoy their meal...

which is why I wonder the nature of this place to begin with

[panerd]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

that's some balls

particularly if this is a consistent thing. what did it happen once that someone complained?

If it happens all the time this can't be a "bar" in the sense I am picturing it.

The manager didn't do anything. He came over and told us about the complaint but that was about it. What is a Columbia, Missouri bar manager going to do? Kick out 90% of the alumni base that will be spending $100's of dollars or the guy whose wife and kids are going to split a chicken strips and a sprite.

My more general point is that there are some childless people who are completely out of touch with how children behave just like there are some people with kids who are completly out of touch with the fact that not every place is a good place to take their kid.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by panerd

My more general point is that there are some childless people who are completely out of touch with how children behave just like there are some people with kids who are completly out of touch with the fact that not eveyplace is a good place to take their kid.

quoted for truth

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by panerd

The manager didn't do anything. He came over and told us about the complaint but that was about it. What is a Columbia, Missouri bar manager going to do? Kick out 90% of the alumni base that will be spending $100's of dollars or the guy whose wife and kids are going to split a chicken strips and a spirte.

My more general point is that there are some childless people who are completely out of touch with how children behave just like there are some people with kids who are completly out of touch with the fact that not every place is a good place to take their kid.

And that is the point I was trying to make.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Once again absolutely nowhere does it say that the 15 minute delay was because of the child.

How can a kid walking under seats and refusing to sit down NOT delay a flight? They're not going to take off until he's sitting and belted in. How long are they supossed to wait?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Once again absolutely nowhere does it say that the 15 minute delay was because of the child.

Yes it does. Anyone over the age of 2 has to be belted in before the plane can push away from the gate. The article's pretty clear on this point. The kid didn't want to be belted in, and the parents weren't belting him in.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Mustang

It took a few messages but, glad to see the thread devolved into the 'I have kids so you can't say anything' vs 'I don't have kids so control them' argument.

Nicely done...

Concur. Now, if we can only bring in the requisite tipping discussion (a slight possibility based on the direction of the thread), or racial profiling (less of a possibility), then we'll have a real FOFC classic on our hands...

Again, keep up the good work!

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by dangarion

They already had 15 minutes to shut the kid up. Regardless if it was because of them.

If it says somewhere that the 15 minute delay happened after boarding but before takeoff I didn't see it.

Originally Posted by molson

How can a kid walking under seats and refusing to sit down NOT delay a flight? They're not going to take off until he's sitting and belted in. How long are they supossed to wait?

An entire episode like the one described can take place in one minute.

The answer that AirTran was reasonable to remove the family is correct. Not sure why some of you find it necessary to make stuff up or embellish the story in order to support that argument.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Yes it does. Anyone over the age of 2 has to be belted in before the plane can push away from the gate. The article's pretty clear on this point. The kid didn't want to be belted in, and the parents weren't belting him in.

No, it doesn't. It says this

Originally Posted by The Article

"The flight was already delayed 15 minutes and in fairness to the other 112 passengers on the plane, the crew made an operational decision to remove the family," AirTran spokeswoman Judy Graham-Weaver said.

Ms. Graham-Weaver is a wise woman that makes a good point. But she didn't say the 15 minutes was becauase of the child situation. It's completely possible but it is not stated. It could have been delayed 15 minutes because of maintenance and the crew decided to remove the family after 45 seconds because the passengers were already upset by the 15 minutes. Which would be fine.

That is all.

[flere-imsaho]

You're right, the article doesn't say the 15-minute delay was due to the kid, specifically. Good catch.

Ping Dutch, I think.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

No, it doesn't. It says this



Ms. Graham-Weaver is a wise woman that makes a good point. But she didn't say the 15 minutes was becauase of the child situation. It's completely possible but it is not stated. It could have been delayed 15 minutes because of maintenance and the crew decided to remove the family after 45 seconds because the passengers were already upset by the 15 minutes. Which would be fine.

That is all.

Yes but I still stand by my response that regardless if it was caused by the child, they still have 15 minutes of delay that the parents could have used to strap their "angel" in.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by dangarion

Yes but I still stand by my response that regardless if it was caused by the child, they still have 15 minutes of delay that the parents could have used to strap their "angel" in.

One of the articles stated that she didn't start throwing a fit until they were boarding. And there's no mention of whether that 15 minute delay happened before or after boarding.

[ctmason]

I'm told that my parents intentionally did not take me or my brother out to restaurants until he was 12 and I was 8. My memory seems to confirm that. We may have gone to the occassional take out or fast food to grab something but I don't recall sitting down in a restaurant before that point, and certainly nowhere nicer than Shoney's or Applebee's until I was at least 15 or 16.

Maybe that's why it took me so long to learn which fork to use.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I've often thought that restaurants should have a family section of the restaurant. Kids do make noise and parents shouldn't be prevented from going to the restaurant (assuming they make reasonable efforts with their kids), but even reasonable noise can be disturbing to people. Why not put all the families with kids in one section and the families without kids in another section? At least that would localize the noise and hopefully be a decent compromise.

while it is a good concept it would never work

[Lathum]

dola-
I have worked for TGI Fridays for 11 years most as a bartender and corporate trainer. My opinion of families in the bar is enter at your own risk.
It doesn't matter if it is Joe's Lounge or Fridays, a bar is a bar. Fridays actually started as a singles bar and while it has evolved the bar remains a focal point of the restuarant and alot of Fridays have a 65-35 food to bar split which is very high. anyway, my point is that there is ample waiting space not in the bar area so if you choose to wait in the bar or eat in the bar you take the atmosphere with it.

[Subby]

Corporate Trainer Says TGI Fridays "Not Family Friendly"

(CNN) - An unnamed corporate trainer for the casual dining chain TGI Fridays said today that families should "enter at [their] own risk."

"It doesn't matter if it is Joe's Lounge or Fridays, a bar is a bar. Fridays actually started as a singles bar and while it has evolved the bar remains a focal point of the restuarant and alot of Fridays have a 65-35 food to bar split which is very high."

When asked to clarify his statement, the trainer said, "there is ample waiting space not in the bar area so if you choose to wait in the bar or eat in the bar you take the atmosphere with it."

Corporate headquarters was not available for comment.

[rkmsuf]

lol

[wade moore]

awesome.

[Lathum]

lmao

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by ctmason

I'm told that my parents intentionally did not take me or my brother out to restaurants until he was 12 and I was 8. My memory seems to confirm that. We may have gone to the occassional take out or fast food to grab something but I don't recall sitting down in a restaurant before that point, and certainly nowhere nicer than Shoney's or Applebee's until I was at least 15 or 16.

Maybe that's why it took me so long to learn which fork to use.

If Wade and I were throwing a fit our mom would take us to the grocery store because we were always quiet in public. I don't know what is wrong with us.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Subby

Corporate Trainer Says TGI Fridays "Not Family Friendly"

(CNN) - An unnamed corporate trainer for the casual dining chain TGI Fridays said today that families should "enter at [their] own risk."

"It doesn't matter if it is Joe's Lounge or Fridays, a bar is a bar. Fridays actually started as a singles bar and while it has evolved the bar remains a focal point of the restuarant and alot of Fridays have a 65-35 food to bar split which is very high."

When asked to clarify his statement, the trainer said, "there is ample waiting space not in the bar area so if you choose to wait in the bar or eat in the bar you take the atmosphere with it."

Corporate headquarters was not available for comment.

hahahahaha

[ISiddiqui]

That's brilliant .

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Lathum

while it is a good concept it would never work

Care to elaborate?

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Lathum

dola-
I have worked for TGI Fridays for 11 years most as a bartender and corporate trainer. My opinion of families in the bar is enter at your own risk.
It doesn't matter if it is Joe's Lounge or Fridays, a bar is a bar. Fridays actually started as a singles bar and while it has evolved the bar remains a focal point of the restuarant and alot of Fridays have a 65-35 food to bar split which is very high. anyway, my point is that there is ample waiting space not in the bar area so if you choose to wait in the bar or eat in the bar you take the atmosphere with it.

Plain and simple a BAR is not a place to be taking a child. Children should be no where near a bar.

[Butter]

What about the seating areas that are near the bar?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by dangarion

Plain and simple a BAR is not a place to be taking a child. Children should be no where near a bar.

Fridays is not a bar in the traditional sense. It's a restaurant that has a bar that does a good amount of business. Without the restaurant part there is no flair and no Fridays.

Same way Applebees, Chili's and Uno's are "bars".

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

What about the seating areas that are near the bar?

Most places have a defined "bar" area. Where a wall or partition separates the "restaurant" from the "bar". I don't think children should be in that area. And for those parents that complain that it's unfair that they can't wait in the bar to be seated with their children, this is my response. It was your choice to have children, unfortunately there are things that you have to give up in order to be a parent. Such as going out late, catching R rated movies, and hanging out in a bar. If you want to do these things get a sitter. These are adult things, not things you should be taking your children out to do. And being a responsible parent is making these types of scarifies for the well being of your child.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Fridays is not a bar in the traditional sense. It's a restaurant that has a bar that does a good amount of business. Without the restaurant part there is no flair and no Fridays.

Same way Applebees, Chili's and Uno's are "bars".

Fridays has a defined "bar" area. This area is partitioned from the "restaurant" area. If you enter your local establishment you will easily notice this area as it has a bar and is surrounded normally by higher tables and bar stools.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by dangarion

Fridays has a defined "bar" area. This area is partitioned from the "restaurant" area. If you enter your local establishment you will easily notice this area as it has a bar and is surrounded normally by higher tables and bar stools.

right, like most places like that. applebee's is in the middle.

I guess my point in places like those is that at least where I am it's 95% about the restaurant and 5% about the bar. Not many people cram in these places to stand around and get shitfaced and otherwise provide questionable behavior. Most people there eat at the bar or have a couple beers with a buddy or date and read the paper or shoot the shit. There's no smoking anywhere.

At Applebees there are high tables all around the bar. I have no problem with the family sitting there and we are 15 feet from the bar. Of course we aren't there other than between 5-7 pm so I can't speak for the 8-11 pm hour but I'm guessing things aren't rip roaring in there.

I guess it all depends on the mix of people. If it was a college town maybe I'd feel differently. Or if it was more a sports bar/restaurant.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by dangarion

And for those parents that complain that it's unfair that they can't wait in the bar to be seated with their children, this is my response. It was your choice to have children, unfortunately there are things that you have to give up in order to be a parent. Such as going out late, catching R rated movies, and hanging out in a bar. If you want to do these things get a sitter. These are adult things, not things you should be taking your children out to do. And being a responsible parent is making these types of scarifies for the well being of your child.

I'm sure the parents of the world appreciate you giving them such an upbraiding, and they tell me they will try to stay out of your hair in the future and they will try to continue to make scarifies whenever possible so that their child can live a clean, healthy and danger free life.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by dangarion

Such as going out late, catching R rated movies, and hanging out in a bar. If you want to do these things get a sitter. These are adult things, not things you should be taking your children out to do. And being a responsible parent is making these types of scarifies for the well being of your child.

How is sitting in the bar section while waiting for a restaurant table to open up inimical to the interests of the child? Unless you are feeding the little urchins alcohol, I don't see much of a problem.

I think that you are black-and-whiting the issue a bit too much here. The appropriateness of a child's presence at anything is, I think, dependent on the situation, cultural norms, and the temperament/cognitive abilities of the child. Every kid is different, my parents took me on long-haul flights since I was six. To this day, I am grateful that I got a chance to see the world at such a young age--I think that my outlook on the world was shaped by these experiences. I do understand, on the other hand, that not every kid will react to long haul travel in the same way. But the point being, it's not always a black and white issue.

[DanGarion]

I'm not trying to sound like I hate kids. I love kids, in fact I take my niece and nephews out a lot, but I also make sure they are not disrupting other people. Because it's my responsibility to do so, and it's what I would expect people to do with their children.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Care to elaborate?

Sure. Why I think your idea is a good one it could never work.

Lets say there is a restaurant with a "family only area" What happens when that area gets full and the other area's of the reataurant aren't. Then people with children would have to wait while there are open tables available. I can tell you 100% people would be VERY angry. Nothing angers people more in a restaurant then having to wait to be seated when there are open tables.

Likewise, lets say the "normal" area is full, would diners who don't have children be allowed to sit in the "family" area? Either way they would end up getting mixed and it wouldn't work.

I'm not being critical of your idea, it's just that it wouldn't work.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Sure. Why I think your idea is a good one it could never work.

Lets say there is a restaurant with a "family only area" What happens when that area gets full and the other area's of the reataurant aren't. Then people with children would have to wait while there are open tables available. I can tell you 100% people would be VERY angry. Nothing angers people more in a restaurant then having to wait to be seated when there are open tables.

Likewise, lets say the "normal" area is full, would diners who don't have children be allowed to sit in the "family" area? Either way they would end up getting mixed and it wouldn't work.

I'm not being critical of your idea, it's just that it wouldn't work.

there should be an old people section too. they can really be pains in the asses sometimes.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Sure. Why I think your idea is a good one it could never work.

Lets say there is a restaurant with a "family only area" What happens when that area gets full and the other area's of the reataurant aren't. Then people with children would have to wait while there are open tables available. I can tell you 100% people would be VERY angry. Nothing angers people more in a restaurant then having to wait to be seated when there are open tables.

Likewise, lets say the "normal" area is full, would diners who don't have children be allowed to sit in the "family" area? Either way they would end up getting mixed and it wouldn't work.

I'm not being critical of your idea, it's just that it wouldn't work.

I don't really see it as being any different than a smoking section. Non-smokers can sit in the smoking section but they have to deal with the smoke. Smokers can't take their cigarettes into the non-smoking section. The only real difference is that smokers can choose to give up smoking for the course of the meal and sit in the non-smoking section while parents don't really have the choice of giving up their kids for the course of the meal. Success would depend on restaurants doing their market research to provide appropriate levels of seating in each section, and probably choosing to give up some family business to get more non-family business.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I don't really see it as being any different than a smoking section. Non-smokers can sit in the smoking section but they have to deal with the smoke. Smokers can't take their cigarettes into the non-smoking section. The only real difference is that smokers can choose to give up smoking for the course of the meal and sit in the non-smoking section while parents don't really have the choice of giving up their kids for the course of the meal. Success would depend on restaurants doing their market research to provide appropriate levels of seating in each section, and probably choosing to give up some family business to get more non-family business.

That makes no sense at all. I'd love to see you market this idea.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

That makes no sense at all. I'd love to see you market this idea.

You don't think people without kids would choose to go to a restaurant (all other factors being roughly equal) with a separate "family section"?

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

there should be an old people section too. they can really be pains in the asses sometimes.

I see you have met my mother...

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by BrianD

You don't think people without kids would choose to go to a restaurant (all other factors being roughly equal) with a separate "family section"?

I think some would but I think those people are in the distinct minortiy.

I mean we are talking restaruants here. Not a singles scene and not upscale dining. Run of the mill casual dining I mean. If you are continually bothered everywhere you go by the precense of children or families I think you have deeper issues than finding a restaurant with a familty section. Seems life would really be a struggle for you the majority of time given families are everywhere.

[Butter]

Ksmurf almost wrote a paragraph, somebody get him some tranquilizers.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Ksmurf almost wrote a paragraph, somebody get him some tranquilizers.

spent, I am.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I think some would but I think those people are in the distinct minortiy.

I mean we are talking restaruants here. Not a singles scene and not upscale dining. Run of the mill casual dining I mean. If you are continually bothered everywhere you go by the precense of children or families I think you have deeper issues than finding a restaurant with a familty section. Seems life would really be a struggle for you the majority of time given families are everywhere.

I am not continually bothered by the presence of of children or families, but I am occasionally bothered by them. If I was given the choice of a family section or a non-family section I would happily choose the non-family section just to avoid the small possibility of being annoyed by children (and understanding that I get no protection from annoying adults).

I basically think that with more people getting married later in life and not having children, this could be a demographic that may be worth looking at and possibly catering to. I haven't personally done the market research to know if there is any value here, but I could see where the research would be worth doing.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Ksmurf almost wrote a paragraph, somebody get him some tranquilizers.

This was my first thought in reading the response as well.

Even more shocking when I realized it wasn't some elaborate joke, but a really good post .

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I am not continually bothered by the presence of of children or families, but I am occasionally bothered by them. If I was given the choice of a family section or a non-family section I would happily choose the non-family section just to avoid the small possibility of being annoyed by children (and understanding that I get no protection from annoying adults).

I basically think that with more people getting married later in life and not having children, this could be a demographic that may be worth looking at and possibly catering to. I haven't personally done the market research to know if there is any value here, but I could see where the research would be worth doing.

Maybe but I'd guess that market is satified with a more upscale restaurant. In other words, older married couples or ones without kids probably aren't going to Fridays on a regular basis to begin with.

I guess I'm not sure overall where you want to draw the line. Everyone is occasionally bothered by something. I have kids and am occasionally bothered by other kids. And not at restaurants. Should say Supercuts have a familty and non-familty section because kids might be running around? How about church? I hate when kids are talking during the homily. Maybe the car wash. This little kid sprayed me one day...man was I mad.

I see where you are coming from but can't see the whole concept put into much practice.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Even more shocking when I realized it wasn't some elaborate joke, but a really good post .

I was as shocked as you.

[heybrad]

I'm with rksmurf on this one. Make sure your restaurant also has a cell phone section, smoking section, loud talker section and a BO section.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I am not continually bothered by the presence of of children or families, but I am occasionally bothered by them. If I was given the choice of a family section or a non-family section I would happily choose the non-family section just to avoid the small possibility of being annoyed by children (and understanding that I get no protection from annoying adults).

I basically think that with more people getting married later in life and not having children, this could be a demographic that may be worth looking at and possibly catering to. I haven't personally done the market research to know if there is any value here, but I could see where the research would be worth doing.

I think this demographic is served simply by restaurants that do not cater towards families.

For instance, I expect a different environment when I go to Hooters than when I go to Outback than when I go to Ruth Kris (sp?) than when I go to Chuckie Cheese.

I think that those of us without children should have a feel for what restaurants (and times of day) you are more likely to find an atmosphere that is bothersome to you.

For instance, for me and my fiance, only children that are allowed to basically scream their heads off and wander around the restaurant unsupervised bother us. I don't find that too often anywhere, but I know that if I go to Hooters at noon on Saturday that I can expect the likelihood to be much higher than when I go to the local Japanese Steakhouse at 6:00 on Thursday night.