IE10 and below are not supported.

Contact us for any help on browser support

You need to be signed in to add your comment.

1. Should car seats (or other child restraint systems) be mandatory on planes for children under two?

over 1 year ago

Thank you for your feedback.

Please take this short survey to help us better understand who you are.

Consultation has concluded

  • JaciMac about 1 year ago
    Yes, but airlines need to be better regulated so they charge a lesser amount for infants, as this could be a cash grab and also what grounds many a family from travelling.
  • Rmayne about 1 year ago
    Absolutely. We know it is safest for the child and safest for all other passengers. This shouldn’t even be a conversation we have to have. Safety trumps opinion.
  • CB about 1 year ago
    Yes. It’s not about protection during a crash, where no one is really safe. It’s about turbulence, take off & landings. I’m sick of reading about having turbulence killing or injuring a baby or small child, when everyone else on board is fine. It’s a danger to the child and everyone else on the plane to have any item over a certain weight not secured.
    • CB about 1 year ago
      This would also protect the seat itself, as most car seats that are luggage checked are damaged, if not in a padded case or if dropped from a certain height or miss handled. One of the main messages from certified car seat techs is to not luggage check your car seat ever. You have no way of knowing what they did to it in transit.
  • CDTrain about 1 year ago
    Yes, I feel that children under two should use a restraint system on board an airplane. While a car seat might not always be the best or only solution (not all car seats can be used on board an airplane), there should be a restraint system available and used during take off and landing and when seat belts are required to be worn.
  • SSuzan about 1 year ago
    No. Children under 2 should be held on an adult's lap. This is just a money grab for the airlines. I wouldn't be surprised if they charged fees for the additional weight of the car seat. Aside from that, young infants need to eat on demand which would require holding the baby.
  • JennetteCorsi about 1 year ago
    I believe babies should be required to be in car seats but the fare should be lower for an infant and airlines should be required to allow parents travelling with infants to board early so that there is time to install the car seat.
  • Leelee over 1 year ago
    NO!Car seats are not needed!Take a look at what Quantas provides for children under two. It's an add on to the parents belt and kept the children restrained in the lap safely during take off, turbulence and landing. I have no idea why every airline does not have these, they are great.Problem solved!
  • Nazmus over 1 year ago
    Strictness in rules brings problem. The 2 year old age benchmark is not right. Benchmark should be the height and weight of the child. Children suffers more and are frightened from turbulence and bumpy rides. When the airplane suddenly drops a few hundred feet, it is not a comfortable feeling for even adults. In a situation like this, a child is better off in the arms of the parents, rather being put on their seats, crying and scared. Rules and regulations should be made considering all aspects.
  • monkad about 1 year ago
    I think car seats are great on a great idea. Kids travel better when in a seat. However, I think if seats are required then plane seats need to become wider so they can accomdate a car seat and an adult sitting next to each other. Also the price of a seat for a child should be cheaper. In addition, it may be helpful for airlines to have provided car seats and designated “family” rows where seats are installed prior to boarding by the airline and they could be wider seats or whatnot.
  • burkartt over 1 year ago
    No! Seriously, this should be the parent's decision. If a parent feels like a cataract is necessary, that is their decision. If another parent feels comfortable holding their child, that is also their choice. I can't imagine having my child strapped in a car seat for an 8 hour plane ride. Often times, breastfeeding helps reduce discomfort for babies during take off and landing, as well. I too am sorry that one child died during a flight in Nunavut, but thousands of children fly every year are just fine. That one incident should not dictate what happens for every other child and parent.
    • Angelique over 1 year ago
      There is anything puzzling for me. Why do we discuss the safety of babies on plane, while we find it normal to accept the seat belt? The plane won't take off if an adult refuses to put on his seat belt on a plane. Why should babies be less safe?Also, why is it mentioned several time that babies should be strapped for the whole time? When the seat belt sign is off, every one can move around. That would be still true for babies who need to breastfeed, have a hug, or prefer to be in their parents' arms!
    • ShesFromBoston over 1 year ago
      You say that a parent should hold their child if they are comfortable. It should be their choice. But what about all of the other passengers who are being put at risk with the child as a possible projectile? They did not get to choose.
      • crashkate over 1 year ago
        They can choose to take the greyhound next time if they’re so frightened my infant, snuggled in a wrap, is going to kill them.Since you’re so hell bent on this angle, how many passangers have bee killed by a rogue flying baby?
        • ShesFromBoston over 1 year ago
          Well that’s a kind opinion. You believe someone else should take a different mode of transportation for YOUR convenience. Very kind of you. Not selfish at all. It’s common sense. Or at least I thought it was. It is recommended that all objects and living beings be strapped down in moving vehicles, if at all possible. It’s the same reason that my dogs wear harnesses that get strapped in by seatbelts. It’s the same reason why I refuse to have luggage stored anywhere but in my trunk during a drive. These things are hazards should the moving vehicle encounter any sudden change of direction/force, ie. turbulence. Your wrap will not hold your child in the event of severe (or maybe even moderate) turbulence. Nor will my wrap. Nor will my structured carrier. But if you want to put your child and others around you in unnecessary danger, by all means!
          • crashkate over 1 year ago
            My son took 38 flights by the time he turned 3. One of them was in a car seat. That was the only flight he ever cried. Blood curdling cries for 6 hours, never again. I’ll decide what risks I’m comfortable taking with my children. You with yours. This is a choice I am very comfortable making. The government has no place in this decision my partner and I make for our family.I mean, they let lunatics not vaccinate their kids. When they make that a legal requirement then we’ll talk about forcing my infant into a car seat.
            • ShesFromBoston over 1 year ago
              Doesn’t the government have a place in your decision to use a car seat in a vehicle?I fail to see the difference. My eldest child screamed every single time I took her in the car, up until she was 6 months old and moved to an RF convertible. I took her in the car daily. Several times daily. And I listened to her scream. I sang to her. I talked. I played songs. I bought a mirror with lights on it. All, to no avail. After each ride, I held her until she calmed down, and I saw the broken blood vessels she got on her face, everytime, from crying so hard. But never once did I consider not putting her in her car seat for the drive. Clearly, we prioritize differently.
            • gibblett06 about 1 year ago
              Oh you're one of those people. When vaccines come without risk of injury, then we can talk about mandatory vaccines. When flying on a plane comes without risk, we can talk about you holding your child.
        • gibblett06 about 1 year ago
          Your infant cannot be in your carrier for take off, landing or turbulence, as per the rules. Those are the times where the baby is at most risk.
    • gibblett06 about 1 year ago
      Why should your unrestrained child be a risk to my safety as a projectile in case of turbulence? All for convenience to you? Self centered much?
  • bccrst about 1 year ago
  • amhook about 1 year ago
  • Sbruvall about 1 year ago
    Yes. But if not made mandatory, there should’ve info on the risk provided to parents with an opt out option after the parents read about the risks.
  • Alva about 1 year ago
  • Heyshmoley over 1 year ago
    No, especially not for children out of bucket seats (in convertible seats). Many car seat designs would extend well past the width of a seat making it impossible to sit in the seat next to it. This would cause discomfort for other travellers. Many children also dislike their seats, which could mean an increase in screaming, crying, unhappy children on planes. The stress level for all travellers would increase. Safety harnesses would be better for older children, with possible bucket seats for infants. Car seats are also difficult to install in vehicles properly without the input of a technician. To install quickly while loading the plane would surely result in many poorly installed seats anyways. Provide parents with the option, as is being done currently.
    • gibblett06 about 1 year ago
      The width was less of an issue than the rear facing depth on our last set of flights. Two lightweight, wide convertible seats. One rearfacing, one forward facing. And I'm not a small person in the slightest. If a parent reads the manual, they'll likely know how to install their carseat in a car. Installing on a plane is the same thing as using a seatbelt in the car.
  • Sampsonla about 1 year ago
  • jax over 1 year ago
    For those without children:-There will be delays as each carseat is installed on each flight. (This process takes forever!)-There will be fewer seats availabile on each flight which will drive up the price of YOUR seats - that's pure supply & demand, folks!-You'll be surrounded with more crying sounds than usual as infants often like to be held for comforting. Many infants need human contact to calm down. In a car, you pull over but that's not the case on a plane.For breast-feeding parents:-How will the baby eat? My baby refused bottle of any kind (which is quite common) and many babies need to be fed every 2-3hrs which is shorter than many flights. In a car you can pull over, but what do you do in a plane? Moreover, nursing is recommended on take off and landing to help release inner-ear pressure for babies. How is this possible in a carseat with a baby who refuses a bottle?For other parents with under 2s:-Despite low risks in aviation compared to other modes of transport where your baby is in greater danger but not required to wear safety restraints (taxis, busses, rail, ferries etc), your choice is being made for you. It should be up to you to make that decision, weighing the risks and costs and benefits for your family.-Cost of travel will go up if you would otherwise not have used a carseat. This is just fact. In fact, it will likely go up regardless due to my second point above (on supply & demand). This is one of many factors to weigh. For those who say cost doesn't matter I don't know what world you're living in.
  • gibblett06 about 1 year ago
    Yes. It should be mandatory but reduced fare for small children if it's mandatory. It's expensive to fly your family either way, but the free lap baby ticket is what sways most parents to go that way, putting their child's life at risk.
  • Lindsayrazb about 1 year ago
    Absolutely! I would happily pay for a ticket for my infant/toddler and feel much better knowing they were properly restrained. I am terrified every time I fly with a "lap baby" but feel pressure to do so instead of installing their car seat.
  • Bmaier99 about 1 year ago
    Absolutely should be required. Flying next month with my 5 month old for the first time, she has her own seat and will be in her car seat on board. I cannot imagine trying to hold on to her while she squirmed during turbulence. Even the peanuts are strapped down, my child is much more important than peanuts.
  • bcmegs about 1 year ago
  • Sarahrawrz about 1 year ago
    Yes. So much yes. Safer is always better. It's weird to me that bags have to be stowed under the seat in front of you, for safety, yet your baby can just sit on your lap.
  • MelMurray about 1 year ago
    Absolutely. This is a matter of safety for not only the child but all the other passengers on board as well.
  • Heather Ann about 1 year ago
    No. The added cost for flights would deter many family’s from flying. Driving long distances poses a much higher risk for accidents. By making it mandatory for children to ride in car seats we would actually increase infant fatalities.
  • mdaly16 over 1 year ago
  • AlishaDawn over 1 year ago
  • jflasko over 1 year ago
    Yes. I don't understand why currently children are not required to be restrained. It seems strange that the most fragile passengers (infants and toddlers) are allowed to fly in the most unsafe way.
  • jflasko over 1 year ago
  • vahanks75 over 1 year ago
    Yes they should be mandatory. We wouldn’t put our kids in a vehicle without one and planes go at much higher speeds and also there’s the possibility of turbulence where children have been seriously injured.
  • alleyjack over 1 year ago
    It should be mandatory to use car seats on planes. All the research says that we should be using them, so it is astonishing to me that there are no regulations in place pertaining to mandatory use of car seats on planes. As a new mom who has admittedly travelled in the past without a carseat, after reading the research I have made the decision to travel with a carseat from now on even though my child is under 2. If this does happen though, please also make airlines have pre-boarding for families with small children so that we are not pressured, more than we already are, to get out children and stuff into place while having to get through the 'elites' already boarded on the plane and then to be trampled by the other travellers coming behind us. Seriously, a 30 second window of opportunity is not enough. I can't imagine doing all this with carseat installations to boot.
  • Jofar066 over 1 year ago
  • AJR77 over 1 year ago
    I believe that all children should be properly secured during critical phases of flight (take off, landing, and during turbulence). If we secure our belongings and the crew doesn't serve food / beverages, why should there be able to be a child unsecured inside the aircraft. Safety and security should be paramount over people being upset with the inconvenience of having to lug a car seat, or the worry of having to pay for an extra seat. That being said, there are a lot of reasons why this is not feasible to implement all at once. First, if Canadian airlines are the only ones mandated to have all passengers secured, then some people will tend to fly with other airlines to avoid the rules. Thus, it must, at least at first, be at a minimum extra burden / cost to the parents who would otherwise not have bought a seat and brought their seat. Either a rental / borrowing system available through the airlines / airports, and/or an absolute minimum cost for the extra seat that would not have been purchased otherwise. Once this safety standard becomes more normalized across the industry, then the costs would be more acceptable for the consumer. The airlines cannot be expected to eat this cost either, as it will make them less competitive (cost-wise) with other airlines. I have witnessed this extra belt loop on a long-haul flight, with a mother who was uninterested in protecting her child (likely from a combination of exhaustion and ignorance of how she was endangering her child). She didn't have her lap belt on correctly, let alone the child loop, and the flight attendants had to come by her seat multiple times to check that she was complying with the rules, which she ultimately did not. During the phases of flight where the loop was not mandatory, her child (who was less than a year old but probably close to 30 lbs) was completely unsecured in the seat beside her. I'm not sure if she had paid for the 2nd seat or it just happened to be empty. Had there been unexpected major turbulence or any emergency, there is zero chance that she could have held her child securely. The arguments that school busses don't have seat belts is irrelevant. They don't travel at high speeds, and children under 2 aren't riding on school busses. Additionally, many school busses are starting to have harnessed seats for younger/smaller children. 40 years ago, we didn't have rules for proper car seats in passenger cars. Does that mean we shouldn't have ever moved to car seats? Was there an increased cost to parents to have to buy proper seats for their kids? Yes. Was there inconvenience in the fact you couldn't cram 4-5 kids in the back seat of a car? Yes, and I'm sure people used these as arguments back then when the government created car seat laws. It's not a reason not to be more safe in our travels.And, finally, I would hazard to guess that the statistics are not very accurate / existent on whether these are the only deaths of infants/toddlers, or if major injuries had babies/toddlers been better secured. You don't take stats on things that aren't of seemed importance at the time. Overall - a great idea, BUT, implementation needs to be very carefully calculated, as there are many follow-on effects to a poorly implemented policy/law.
  • summerinbc over 1 year ago
    “Placing an infant at the more upright 40° position, along with the vibration experienced in a car, leads to significantly increased heart and respiratory rates, and decreased oxygen saturation. Simulating motion reveals a striking increase in potentially clinically significant oxygen desaturations." If this is a direction the government chooses to go in, there absolutely needs to be more studies done on oxygen levels in babies while restrained during turbulence. Current studies on infants in carseats were done while the carseat was stationary, i'm only aware of this one study done where the motion of a car was simulated and of the 40 infants, two were given CPR before the 20 minute mark. My understanding is that it's recommended to limit carseat travel to 20 minutes for children under 3 months and I can surely recall experiencing airplane turbulence (which I imagine to be far more violent then the motion of a moving car) for hours on end. I believe flat on the back is the best position for healthy breathing. I would however say that by 12 months I preferred my mobile/walking baby sitting in a carseat on a plane. Unfortunately, with the size of plane seats, it was very difficult to get the correct regulated position/angle of our own carseat. There wasn't enough room to place it rear-facing as current regulations would require in a vehicle and when it was forward-facing my child's feet were squished against the back of the seat in front of us resulting in constant complaining from the person in the seat in front due to all the foot wiggling from my kid. Airlines may want to consider providing car seats that have been tested through turbulence and fit properly within the boundaries of their own seats to avoid costly complaints (the person in front of us was given a voucher for their next flight) and installation delays of parents bringing their own. That said, my child always vomited on planes, so i have no idea how you'd deal with the hygiene issue of shared carseats. http://fn.bmj.com/content/early/2016/09/30/archdischild-2016-310730https://www.nhs.uk/news/pregnancy-and-child/warning-over-babies-sleeping-in-car-seats/
  • dominiquesr over 1 year ago
    I've always used my car seat on a plane if there was a free seat available and found that both baby and I were happier. As stated by others, baby can come out to breastfeed or move a bit when the seatbelt sign isn't on. My son loved being in his seat and getting to see me and play. I do worry about the added cost of needing to purchase a seat.I'd love a middle ground where airlines are obligated to assign a seat to your child if there is space on the plane. I've found it challenging to get a straight answer with regards to whether there would be a seat for us that could be next to me. I did successfully use a car seat on a plane, for free, 4 or 5 times. It would be great if airlines had to assign a seat to an infant next to their travel companion if 24 hours before the plane wasn't full or some general guideline that makes sense for airlines.
  • ShesFromBoston over 1 year ago
    Yes, I believe they should be made mandatory. Seatbelts and child restraints are mandatory in cars - why not on airplanes? Turbulence poses a risk of injury just as car collisions do. And by injury, I mean to both the child, as well as to other passengers on the plane who did NOT choose to fly with a projectile (the child) nearby.
  • JimLumsden over 1 year ago
    No, airline travel is by far the safest form of transportation and the risk of injury to a child is exceptionally low. The only people who would benefit from this change are car seat manufacturers and potentially airlines if the number of new seats sold for children under 2 yrs exceed the resultant decline in overall travelers.
  • aparent over 1 year ago
    I’m very sorry to hear one child died as a result of a rough landing; however, it sounds like a small plane and there are many thousands of children per year that travel on planes without a restraint - and are just fine. This includes my own child under 2, and we’ve taken over a dozen flights with him. Car seats should absolutely not be mandatory. It’s already hard enough to manage a young child sometimes on a plane. Breastfeeding is key, especially at these ages to keeping the child happy for the most part. Walking around with him also helps. I could not imagine strapping him to a car seat for five, six, seven hours on end on a commercial flight. This would basically mean we don’t take him on a plane and we wouldn’t fly without him.
  • shirsch52 over 1 year ago
    Absolutely. Keep children safe. Anyone who disagrees is disagreeing because it’s inconvenient (financially or otherwise.) We must not jeopardize our children’s right to safe travel for the sake of convenience.
  • crashkate over 1 year ago
    Absolutely not. I cannot imagine being forced to strap my screaming infant into a car seat during turbulence. Imagine the screaming, and crying. It would be torture. Allowing caregivers to hold, nurse, comfort their babies at their discretion is best. We don’t need a police state. My children hated car seats on the plane, they cried the entire time!
  • Csharwood over 1 year ago
    Yes, they should be. But parents can’t afford to pay for a full extra seat. Airlines need to have discounts for such young children
  • Hyacinth22 over 1 year ago
    I think we can all agree that air travel is safe and with low risks. That being said, I think you answered your own question. "1 (infant) fatality per 646,558,889 passenger boardings from 2012-2016." AND "Making car seats a requirement when flying could raise air fare prices by 45% according to an FAA study. In Canada, this would affect just under 4 million families with small children. Because family travel is among the most price sensitive, families would choose to drive to their destination rather than pay for a seat for their young child to be in a mandatory aircraft CRS." Shall we get out the statistics for car fatalities? According to your website, in 2015 there were 21 deaths in car accidents (age group 0-4 years). There has been 5 infant deaths (that may have been prevented by the use of a car seat) in a period of 30 years. Again, we can all agree that to be a passenger in a car, even with a car seat, is more dangerous than a plane. I don't believe that infants are at risk here.As parents we judge the risks for ourselves daily and we still put our children in cars. Let me ask you this: in the unlikely event of an emergency and I'm unconscious, will you take the time to unstrap my child and exit the burning plane? How about on the flight to Orlando, on a overbooked flight with every third row has a child in a car seat? How about when there is mad panic, when there's a smoke filled cabin? I myself would not take that risk. I have judged the risks for myself and I would still prefer to hold my child. Yes I realize that scenario is unlikely, because air travel is safe.How about during times of turbulence? Again, stats on injuries are low. I think it would be better to implement a system where parents can use a loop belt BUT they must be in good working order AND there MUST be one per aisle, just as there is one extra oxygen mask per aisle. You should be asking if parents would use a loop belt if provided with one. I myself have never tried one but I would consider it if I was provided one.
  • Tlanouette over 1 year ago
    I don’t think they should be mandatory just as they’re not mandatory on busses, school busses or taxis. If they do become mandatory they should definitely only be mandatory to use when the seatbelt sign is on. Also if they become mandatory I think it should be mandatory for the airlines to provide them. Traveling with a small child is already very difficult and cumbersome and car seats are heavy and difficult to transport around the airport. Also as Canadian car seats are not permitted to be used in all countries flying with your own car seat means you’re opening them up to addition damage, either in the baggage area of additional flights or being lugged around in trunks etc throughout the trip (making them unsafe for use in the car afterwards).
  • brookemd over 1 year ago
  • Ariettarhapsody over 1 year ago
    I don't believe they should be mandatory, but if children under the age of 2 are allowed to fly for free they should be offered a seat for free so that if the parent wishes to use a car sear to keep said infant safe they don't need to pay another $500+ dollars for a seat for they. It should just be offered because the infants safety should be important to the airline.
  • Stephyloo over 1 year ago
    Yes they should be. During turbulence is when young children get hurt
  • Nikouro over 1 year ago
    I think they should be strongly encourage but maybe not mandatory. Personally I'd want my children to be in the safest seat possible so I'd be bringing my car seats.
  • AngelaEckstrand over 1 year ago
    I agree car seats are the safest route but honestly I would not have flown if this was a rule. Not all babies like car seats nor do they all sleep in car seats - my child hated the car seat and never slept more than 30min in a seat. So going on a 7 hour overnight flight would have been a nightmare (screaming overtired child) for me and everyone on that plane if this was a rule. You can say that’s selfish or just an inconvenience but all I’m saying is that if that was the choice I would have not have flown and had that experience with my family. The anxiety with flying was high enough without having to worry about a child who hated his car seat.There is always risk with every choice and it’s balance between what’s safest and what’s practical. I still choose to drive even though I’m way more likely to be seriously injured or killed in a motor vehicle collision than an airplane.
  • Breana888 over 1 year ago
    The last question in the survey was misleading. Yes, having to haul a car seat around, and pay for an extra seat on a plane would impact my travel, but ultimately I believe it should be mandatory. I recently travelled with my infant and it felt very strange and unnerving to not have an option to buckle my child in (I realize I chose not to book an extra seat due to cost). I would have felt much better if he wasn’t strapped in.
  • laurachurch over 1 year ago
    Basically, yes! Restraint systems should be mandatory on planes. I think children under 6 months old could ride on their parents laps since they are newborns and many of them are miserable in car seats anyways. There should be a restraint device available and in my experience they should be allowed to ride in carriers on their parents bodies. They are happy and snug there. Children 6 months or older should definitely be in a car seat in their own seat. In my opinion, airlines should be mandated to offer child fares. Yes, airlines can just add this cost elsewhere (such as onto an adult ticket or cargo rates). That's business. Still, on the outside, it should be cheaper to book a child seat than an adult seat. And on the other hand, lots of seats are flying empty and end up with the "free" children under 2 sitting in them anyways so in that case the airline is getting more revenue from that seat by booking it.
  • Lk over 1 year ago
    Yes - everyone one is required to wear a seatbelt while seated, therefore infants and toddlers should be in car seats designed for thier bodies not adult bodies. It’s about safety!!
  • Fifomom over 1 year ago
    Absolutely ALL children should be restrained. We always take our car seat and it’s never been a problem. Kids are used to them anyways as most travel daily in the car. If I need a seat belt what makes my baby any different ? My arms Would never be physically able to hold my baby in the event of an aborted takeoff, severe turbulence etc.
  • RositaB over 1 year ago
    Most definitely. Babies are most safe in car seats when used properly on the airplane. We have traveled with our infant in a car seat. I had him out of his car seat for the a portion of the time, including takeoff when I could breastfeed him so that his ears were comfortable. We found that he took a better nap in his car seat vs being held the whole time.
  • Pchev1 over 1 year ago
    I believe that planes should be equipped with child restraint systems that can be used for take-off and landing. It is ridiculous to think that so many rules exist for takeoff and landing yet there are no true security measures for the most vulnerable. I fly with my child very often and would feel much better if there was a safer way to protect my child other than me holding her. On the other hand, i believe that bringing my own car seat on the plane and having to pay for another seat would be extremely stressful. Planes should be equipped with infant restraint systems. We already pay enough money to travel. This is the least they can do.
  • Golfer over 1 year ago
    Seats need to be small and not impact the other passengers. They MUST be on the window seat so they do not impede passengers getting off in an emergency,
    • ShesFromBoston over 1 year ago
      That is already a rule - that car seats are to be installed in window seats only. For my last trip, I flew with a 3 year old and a 5 month old, both in car seats. My family was split up because of this rule, and I have zero complaints about that.
      • NB mom over 1 year ago
        I don’t believe this is actually a rule. We have installed a seat in the middle seat, of the middle row of the plane before. And with respect to the earlier poster, a airplane passenger who would try to -“in a hurry” exit a plane before an infant or toddler could be safely unbuckled, should really re-think what kind of a world they are trying so hard to live for, in my personal opinion.
  • NB mom over 1 year ago
  • Nelleon over 1 year ago
    Yes, they should be mandatory. While air travel is very safe, simple turbulence can send a young child flying where they can be seriously injured or killed and they could seriously injure another passenger. Carriers are not made to hold children through sudden jerks like that and it's nearly impossible to keep a child in your arms through that. Though I do think if this is implemented it should be illegal to charge a fee to ensure the child and caregiver can sit together. I flew to Saskatchewan with my 1 year old last summer and had to pay extra to select my seats ahead of time to make sure I was seated with my infant!Edit just to say: they should be allowed out of the carseat when it's safe (before takeoff and when the seatbelt sign is off) for cuddles and nursing. I would say that carriers could be a solution as well if they were made and safety tested to withstand the forces of turbulence and accidents.
  • Kdz over 1 year ago
    Absolutely not. Flying is one of the safest forms of transportation. This will only make travel harder for families.Leave it optional and let the parents decide. I feel this is less about safety and more a ploy to force parents to pay full price for a child's seat so the government can collect more taxes and fees.
    • ShesFromBoston over 1 year ago
      When a parent chooses to have their child in their lap for a flight, they are also making the choice to put every other passenger at risk. Infants can very easily become projectiles and injure others in the event of turbulence. A parent’s choice, but one that puts an entire airplane at risk.
  • Suzanne over 1 year ago
  • burkartt over 1 year ago
    Also, if you are a parent who feels like it is necessary to have a car seat, nothing is stopping you from bringing one on board. Why are forcing your decisions on everyone though?
  • JennySmith over 1 year ago
    Other passengers should not be put at risk of a flying ~20lbs projectile - aka a lap baby - in times of turbulence/rough landing/rough take off. Would you like to be hit in the head by a human baby? Probably not. No matter how strong a parent is, they are unable to physically hold their child in severe turbulence. Our purses/laptops must be stowed. The food is restrained. Yet babies are not? Where is the logic in that? Child restraints should be mandatory for all children who do not fit the lap belt. Transport Canada has deemed this to be under 7 years or under 49 inches.
  • laurasfash over 1 year ago
    They should be mandatory for all children for whom they are needed for safest travel, including those children above aged 2 whose skeletal structure/weight/height is not safely protected by airline restraints. This shouldn't be about cost, emotions or ANYTHING other than the safety of the child in question. This should be no different than restrictions placed on children in cars. Infants in cars can't just come out of their seat in the middle of the highway to nurse or be held because they're upset, you have to wait until you're stopped and it's safe to do so - just like you should wait until the seatbelt sign is turned off to do the same on an airplane. This decision should be based entirely on what is scientifically safest.
  • seatsforall over 1 year ago
    Child restraint systems/car seats should be mandatory for every person who cannot sit in an airplane seat safely (less than 40 pounds and up to 40" tall). Lap children should not be permitted. Every person on an airplane should be secured appropriately, including for takeoff, landing, and any time the "fasten seatbelt" sign is lighted. Adults cannot hold onto an infant during deceleration or turbulence, and "belly belts" and child harnesses are unsafe for use and should be prohibited. Parents or caregivers should be responsible for providing the appropriate CRS, since they will know that the device fits the infant/child and that the device hasn't been involved in an accident. If regulatory bodies aren't going to require CRS use, and prohibit lap held children, airlines should voluntarily implement those rules, based on safety for all its customers. It's time to protect those who can't speak for themselves.
  • gillandjohn4 over 1 year ago
    Having travelled with a child under the age of 2 to England I absolutely agree with the child seats. Our son was strapped to me for landing and take off when travelling on a British Airways flight. He had to be strapped to me facing forward so I was unable to cuddle him, plus he was woken up to be strapped to me for the landing instead of being allowed to stay asleep in his bassinete. Our baby screamed the entire landing, he was uncomfortable and he became over heated. A child seat would ensure the child is safe, secure, and would not have to be woken up for a landing.
  • Seustace over 1 year ago
    For me it wpuld depend on the strictness of the rule - i.e. i was told that if we had used a car seat for our child before 2 they would of had to stay in the seat for the whole duration. With car journeys you can stop the car and unbelt a child to calm them feed them etc but no stopping a 0lane mid journey so i would say yes providing they are allowed to get out for short periods i.e. to eat and to calm a particularly upset infant. Yes i know this would expose them to risk while not strapped im but i think it is unavoidable in these circumstances. Another alternative is to employ the lap straps that European airlines use to connect caregiver and child. Not as secure as a car seat for sure but i would imagine safer than no restraint at all. I also think babywearing should be more accepted as a form of restraint, again not as secure as a car seat but definitely more caregiver and baby friendly and other passenger friendly if there is a fussy child. I think all restraint methods habe their pros and cons.Weight and/or height would also be my benchmark if one used as children do vary considerably!!!
  • mabmax1 over 1 year ago
    Rather than adding the extra level of burden to travellers (both physical due to the extra items a family will now need to carry into the plane, as well as financial due to the need to purchase another ticket), how about opening up to design ideas for some type of secure harness that attaches the child to the parent. This way the child is secured during all the same phases of flight where the seat belts are required to be on. There are currently many baby-carrier designs on the market where the child is strapped to the chest of the parent, it would be a question of evaluating and approving those designs that conform to the level of restraint required. I would say the car seat should also be an approved option, so parents that can afford to purchase the extra seat for the added level of confort to them and the child, can do so. Don't forget that the airlines are also going to have an added level of complication with a mandatory request for a car seat: granted they'll increase profits by selling more seats, but they will also be forced to accommodate more bookings where more seats must absolutely be next to each other.
  • sunnycdn over 1 year ago
    Yes they should be mandatory. We take the time and care to put our children into a car seat every day we get into a moving vehicle, I don't understand why we don't do it in a plane. God forbid something happens at least your child is safe.
  • Carinne over 1 year ago
    Car seats shouldn’t be mandatory for children under 2. I speak from experience. When I travelled with my 6 months old, for take off and landing, he just wanted to be in my arms and to drink his milk to comfort himself. It’s impossible to feed a baby when he is in a car seat and his ears hurt. Also, older babies do not want to stay in their car seat when they are awake. They will scream, cry and be too hot in there until the parent picks them up in their arms. If it were ever to be mandatory, it should be at no costs or a very reduced price, if airlines don’t want to loose their customers. Also, the airline should provide such car seats, as parents sometimes don’t need it during their vacation and don’t want to be stuck with this bulky item. I really think making them mandatory would only benefit airlines (one more ticket sold at full price or almost full price).
  • Nunavut Parent over 1 year ago
    Car sets should be allowed but not mandatory for children under 2. Loop belts should be mandatory for children under 2 who are sitting on an adults lap.
  • geographygeek over 1 year ago
    Car seats should be mandatory for all children under 2. I do also agree that the price should be reduced. We strap in our luggage and protect it but not our children? We have travelled with a small infant on our laps and with a 20 month toddler in a seat. We paid full price for the toddler seat and felt much safer with a toddler confined. The issue is not the safety of planes, the issue is one of turbulance. Holding a small child I didn't feel safe and it is a fact that small children are safer in car seats (that is not my opinion, that is the statement of Transport Canada and The FAA). Even over the age of 2, I wondering if children should be in car seats? Are the seat belts on planes designed for all passengers over 2?
  • Mrsreed over 1 year ago
    I agree car seat use should be mandatory. It's mandatory in vehicles, and an adult is required to be buckled in before takeoff, so I think so should all children. Young children are too small for normal plane restraints, so a carseat should be used for safety.
  • Angelique over 1 year ago
    Absolutely. There is no reason why a baby should be less safe than an adult on a plane. It would be more convenient actually if it was possible to rent / borrow a car seat / 5-point harness directly to the air flight company, so parents don't have to bring theirs. With a newborn, it's easy to bring the car seat, but after 1yo, the car seat is too big and heavy.
  • ma over 1 year ago
    Infants deserve the same safe environment while travelling like everyone else. Car seats should be mandatory while travelling on aircrafts. Parents and others should accommodate/support car seats on aircrafts as safety is more important than minor personal inconvenience.
  • DPM17 over 1 year ago
  • DTrain over 1 year ago
    Yes, but there should be a reduced price for seats for children under 2.
    • Maurice over 1 year ago
      DTrain ... there should be a surcharge for babies since they require additional attention and care by the staff. Babies also make double or triple the noise with all the crying compared to a drunk on the plane and 6 to 10 times the noise compared to a mature adult.
      • DTrain over 1 year ago
        Nowhere in the question did it ask about noise and it is not relevant to the consultation that is currently taking place. Based on your other comments, it seems as though you are trying to use this consultation as a forum to air your grievances about young families.
        • Maurice over 1 year ago
          Removed by moderator.
        • Maurice over 1 year ago
          I am sorry DTrain, but I have become deaf on the plane for obvious reason, and need to do my laundry after a flight with a baby sitting next to me on a mother's lap .... and your point is?To deal with your primary objection ... yes there should be a child restraint on every plane where the child is restrained and away from other passengers who do not want interaction. How's that?
      • Dodgingwrenches over 1 year ago
        Staff have never had any work related to my infant. Whining adults on the other hand cause them major headaches. My child also never cried on a plane. Noisy adults talking about all their "drama" and complaining about life is a major irritant. Given that Maurice has registered here not to discuss the topic, but to only whine and complain about children being on planes in response to other people's posts, he must be one of those adults I am referring to that are constantly negative and complaining during flights.
        • Maurice over 1 year ago
          Dodgingwrenches ... congratulation on being a responsible parent in control over your child in a responsible manner .... that is all anyone can ask of you and other parents! Well done!!!Now back to the topic at hand .... yes, there should be child restraints on every plane in such a way that all children cannot have contact with other passengers who choose not to engage on long flights and prefer peace and quiet. Fair enough?
  • Maurice over 1 year ago
    I think everybody should pay for a seat on the plane and so should children under 2 years of age. The crying of babies and the temper tantrums these babies cause create a nuisance for the traveling public who have saved their hard earned money to go on holidays only to have these little snot noses and ankle biters ruin our vacation! Pay up or shut up!!!
  • TamaraO over 1 year ago
    I think that if the rules are the same for adults vs children (only have to be restrained when the seat belt signs are on) then it's a fair safety precaution. However, mandatory car seat restraint for an entire flight is not safe or feasible for children that age. Also, people will have to start getting used to the sound of more kids crying in-flight, and be ok with it. I do think flight cost would have to be far less, though, or these families may choose not to fly at all. Many flights I've been on are already empty as it is. Financially speaking, this will not help fill seats.
  • Bbartlettcpst over 1 year ago
    I’m a Car Seat Technician and I believe that any child that fits in a harnessed car seat should ride in one on aircrafts. Children are safer but they are also much more comfortable when they have their own space. Most of the flights I’ve been on that have an upset child it’s a lap child, having to be held for 4/5 hours. They don’t like it any more than the exhausted parent does!However if this comes to pass (which it should) the fare for a under 2 child should not be the same as an adult fare just because they require the seat. If regulations are going to make car seats mandatory then parents should not have to pay any more than they do for a lap child.
  • Kathy over 1 year ago
    Babies riding in airplanes are safest riding in government-approved car seats and it SHOULD be mandatory PERIOD! To think otherwise is feebleminded at best and at worst ill-considered and just plain stupid. I don't think the naysayers understand the severity of the risk they are accepting. If you want to do all you can to protect your child from death, serious injury, and trauma, it is the single most important thing you can do to keep YOUR child safe. Yes, it's much more costly. Granted, it's much more inconvenient for breastfeeding purpose. I don't know about your kids but my girls are worth the cost and the inconvenience. ( a price I have paid and will willingly pay again) When the same risks are involved in flying as they are present in driving (however low they may be), and the law has made it is mandatory for driving, why should flying be any different? I've heard it a thousand times: “No one wore car seats in my day, and we all turned out ok.” But anecdote is NOT data. The risks are just not worth it to save a few dollars. Besides, they won't allow adults to fly without restraints, why are BABIES ok to fly again? Are they immune trauma, injury and death when flying?
  • socialinjustice over 1 year ago
    This is a no brainer. We definitely need to enforce children under 2 to be in car seats. The airlines will have to charge less for a baby if they want to keep their sales up. It is not up to the government to worry about the cost, it is their resposibility to make and enforce laws that protect individuals from things that are scientifically proven to be detrimental.
  • Susan.b over 1 year ago
    Car seats are a child restraint system specifically designed for the protection of children during vehicle operation and crashes. The motivation that was behind requiring those traveling with small children and infants to fasten them in before travelling down the highway is to prevent injury or death. The aviation industry is presented with the same requirements and thus should have a similar conclusion: that holding a small child or infant during an accident can not be sufficient to prevent injury. Yes, this could amount to additional costs for these travelers but what about the costs of the injury or death they are preventing.
  • Jbeaupre over 1 year ago
    No. But maybe an additional seat belt system like the ones available in Europe could be used instead. Car seats are also beyond huge and clunky. I doubt they could be placed in the seat without taking up the next persons space.
  • Speak2iphy over 1 year ago
    As much as I think using car seat on planes is safe, I must say that it is a lot of work for a nursing mum who has to breastfeed every now and then. Unstrapping and strapping a child everytime you want to feed or change diapers. Not easy at all. Besides, i can't afford to pay for a whole seat for a new baby or one less than 2yrs old
  • Eg over 1 year ago
    Yes car seats should be mandatory. They are safer and that is what matters. We use them in cars for a reason same thing should apply in air travel. Yes it will be more expensive for families to fly. I have 3 kids and we rarely fly but when we do we make sure we have car seats for our children on the plane.
  • Kdz over 1 year ago
    Why is it none of the survey questions actually address the topic and instead want to know how old we are and how much money we make?
  • kimebaxter over 1 year ago
  • Nic1 over 1 year ago
    2 options here rather. Than a car seat. Especially since I'm assuming people with kids under 2 would then have to pay for a seat? It already costs me more to travel.across Canada with my kids than a tropical vacation. http://kidsflysafe.comOr allow the parents to leave their child in their carrier, which is strapped to to parents chest. Their neck is protected, they're secure and the parent can reinforce with their arms and brace better.
  • thorshammer over 1 year ago
    Statistically, it has not been an issue, however improvements in safety should also not be ignored. Like everything else, it requires a balance. Ask any parent, the ordeal they have to go through while passing through security at an airport. Traveling light for parents is not an option, and adding a bulky car seat makes it even more difficult. The solution here has to take in equation the issue of getting the restraint system to the plane door. In my opinion, it should be a easy to carry solution that could possibly fit into a bag. Maybe even available for purchase styrofoam one time seats.Bottomline - the solution needs to consider the whole journey(curb to the seat), rather than a simplistic view of a child MUST be in a CAR SEAT that a parent has to bring along.
  • Flana over 1 year ago
    No. At least in flights to/from other countries. The reason for that is other aircraft companies (not Canadian) have absolutely different rules. I will give an example of my own experience. A year ago I had to travel with my 14 month daughter from Moscow (Russia) to Vancouver (Canada). There is no straight flight for those destinations. You have to stop at least once. So, we chose a flight. We had a car seat which can be used in flights. Air Canada (our second carrier) was more than OK with it (actually it is written in their website that you have to have a restraint system if you buy a seat for an infant). But Aeroflot (our first carrier) didn't allow to use car seats in airplane! I was in shock when I found out (fortunately I firstly called to both air companies for information, so I didn't end up in the airport with a useless car seat). If using of a car seat had been mandatory for Canadian aircrafts I would not know what to do. i wouldn't have a chance to come to my husband (who was already in Canada) for at least 10 more months.
  • TJC over 1 year ago
    Making car seats mandatory on planes for young children seems inconsistent with the decision that children on school buses are not required to wear seat belts. The rationale is that children are less likely to be injured in a school bus in the event of an accident -but how likely is it that they would experience an event in a plane that could cause an injury? The background documents indicate there has been one infant death in the last 30 years on Canadian airlines. In comparison there were 11 child fatalities on Canadian school buses between 2003-2012 alone (http://wwwapps2.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/7/NCDB-BNDC/p.aspx?l=en). Making car seats mandatory would force more families to choose (the more dangerous option) of driving long distances. Who stands to gain from taking the option away from parents? The ones who benefit from increased airline profits. Let parents decide.
  • Fournier over 1 year ago
    Children should have a restraint system that is appropriate for them (car seat or other) that is mandatory when seatbelts are mandatory for adults. Right now on flights your lunch is more safely secured than children under two on a parent’s lap. When we flew with a child under two we bought a seat and used a car seat. If you can’t afford tickets for everyone traveling with you, you can’t afford to fly.
  • JM over 1 year ago
    No, I don't think car seats should be mandatory. A canadian carseat is not approved in all parts of the world for travel and would make it much more cumbersome to people who rent car seats at their destinations or who bring their child around in carriers instead. Car seats are not mandatory in other modes of public transportation (taxis, buses, etc) only personal vehicles so why should a plane be any different? I understand the safery concerns and would probably feel more secure during take-off and landing, which are at higher risk for accidents, but realistically I don't want to bring extra stuff with me when I'm travelling if it's just for a few minutes. I think it should be the parents choice and responsibility to make the decision that is right for them. I'm not saying don't allow the car seats on planes, but rather don't make it mandatory.
  • Marksfriel over 1 year ago
    There are are child carriers that the parents can wear to secure the child. Swaddles, harnessing them in a child carrier. The idea is to mitigate risk you will never eliminate it completely. Child comfort and safety need to be balanced. If a parent wants to car seat them that should also be an option. If the flight is not full the extra seat should be assigned at no extra cost.
  • Dodgingwrenches over 1 year ago
    Has anyone considered the health recommendation by either the America Academy of Pediatrics or the the Canadian Paediatric Scoeity that infants should not spend more than two hours in a car seat? Infants should not sleep in a car seat? People fly when it is for long durations and distances. Force them to be in a car seat for 4,6,8,10+ hours and you increase the risk of positional asphyxia. Might be a higher risk than dying from not being in a car seat.
  • Mcbgilby over 1 year ago
    Yes. It is safer for the children as well as everyone around them. We don’t want to think of kids as projectiles but that is what they could become during a period of turbulence or worse event. A parent just isn’t strong enough in an emergency situation to counteract the laws of physics. It is also safer for the car seat for it wouldn’t be damaged as it could be if checked. Finally kids are likely to be happier in their seats as it is something they are used to. Car seats should be mandatory for all kids under 5 and optional until they are of booster size.
  • heatherg over 1 year ago
    Absolutely child restraint systems should be mandatory on airplanes for children under two (under four would be ideal). In the event of a crash or turbulence there is no way an adults arms will contain that child. This is the safe way to travel. Infants generally fly happier if they are contained in their car seat. This wouldn’t make traveling by air more difficult, just bring your car seat with you. Then you have a seat to you at your destination. I think this is a great idea.
  • Gpshsnahan over 1 year ago
    No.1. It will make air travel vastly more expensive for new parents or larger families . Particularly new parents who wish to visit family after the birth of their child.2. Anyone who has driven a baby in a car knows that once they don't like being in the chair there will be crying for some time. It will be disruptive to other passengers and create anxiety for the parents.Just yesterday a father was kicked off a Southwest flight due to a crying 2 year old.3. Having to lug around a car seat through the airport(s), in addition all the other baby accoutrements will tax the parent(s) carrying capacity and burden Irport assisted.4. Transport Canada should focus their attention in making people's lives easier, perhaps at airport security (?), not more difficult.
  • Joasia82 over 1 year ago
    I believe that the seats should be provided by the airlines. Why is the money and tremendous planning effort in hauling an extra seats for multiple children be placed on the parents? Passengers don't have to bring their own lifeboats or seat seatbelts, why do children have to bring their own seat to be safe on a plane?
  • asana over 1 year ago
    yes I think they should however I think there should be other options parents can use rather then having to purchase another seat as cost of travel is already so high. one option could be to use a baby carrier that is strapped onto one of the parents. this way the child is safely attached to the parent and the parent doesn't need to hold onto the child in an emergency
  • Dodgingwrenches over 1 year ago
    Absolutely not. There is no scientific evidence to support this. Typical example of one incident (in 30 years) threatening to change and restrict everything. Lugging carseats through airports is a hassle, and it will be an extra major expense, so absolutely it will make more young families drive in cars instead, adding much greater risk of infant death.
  • Ninavera over 1 year ago
  • Erfan over 1 year ago
    This is a terrible idea. I know the Transport safety board must feel pressure to make recommendations after a tragedy, but this recommendation lacks any scientific vigor, which one would expect rather than a knee jerk reaction. It is also hard to imagine that no other air safety board internationally would have imposed this if it was actually a statistically significant safety issue.
  • Casa7036 over 1 year ago
    I think that airlines should provide adequate child restraints to keep them safe. Whether the airline chooses a restraint or a airseat should be up to that airline. I think the airline should cover the cost of this and provide it. When the ticket is bought, they could require the age of the child and then once they book for a child 2 and under, the safety seat or restraint is reserved. Once they pick up their boarding pass they could get the seat, or in the plane itself get the seat or restraint that is added to current seatbelts. I also believe that because parents have the choice to have them on their laps now, that the airline ticket should be at a reduced price for children under 2.
    • Maurice over 1 year ago
      Removed by moderator.
    • Maurice over 1 year ago
      Removed by moderator.
  • Geiselb1 over 1 year ago
    Not if Transport Canada and the airlines are unable to come up with a way to make the process as simple as possible for families by providing seats for families if they choose not to bring their own, or if a child fare is not available. From a safety standpoint, yes, child restraints should be mandatory, however, as a parent of a breastfed baby, baby has to eat during a flight sometimes, so that has to be taken into consideration as well. I have always nursed my babies during takeoff and landing, but would put them in a car seat if required, as long as I could nurse them during the flight. So, I guess it would have to be "if the seatbelt sign is on, baby must be in the car seat." Just another factor to consider.
  • Maurice over 1 year ago
    Maybe the Airline companies need to create an adult only flight program and one for parents with young children ... that way those who want peace and quiet can travel in peace and quiet and those who love baby noise and screaming young children can have their cake and eat it too lol
  • Michelle 990 over 1 year ago
  • jacksonh98 over 1 year ago
  • Juliak over 1 year ago
    Absolutely! Everything else is tied down during a flight, of course our most precious and fragile cargo should be as well!
  • Cara B. over 1 year ago
  • DW over 1 year ago
    Yes, there is no denying that it is safer. However, since the consequnce of having a proper restraint system is to purchase an extra seat, it should be the airlines' responsibilty to provide an adequate restraint system for infants and small children. If not, it is no different than telling you to bring your own seat belt.
  • AmberMcQuaker over 1 year ago
    Yes child restraint systems should be mandatory on planes. Children are the most precious cargo, so why is it more important for food to be secured, but not babies or children? If food goes flying, it's not going to cause major injuries, but if an unsecured infant goes flying in the aeroplane either the child or another passenger or going to get seriously injured if not killed. Car seats should be required to be used for children until the age of 1, and then parents should have the choice between the car seat or CARES child restraint system until the child is 3. The extra 5 minutes that it takes to install a car seat in the plane, could save a child's life.
    • JimLumsden over 1 year ago
      Removed by moderator.
  • Mommabear232 over 1 year ago
    I think that car seats should be mandatory on flights for safety of children under 2. I can't believe they arent already.
    • JimLumsden over 1 year ago
      Removed by moderator.
  • emfser over 1 year ago
    No. Apart from the unreasonable burden placed on parents, airlines based outside Canada supply attachable baby baskets that can be requested in advance. Finally if you're going to make airlines require it, you can help airlines provide it.
  • Elenialexia over 1 year ago
    I can understand the safety argument but, no, cars seats should not be mandatory and neither should buying a seat! My whole family lives in Europe and I've had to travel on my own with 2 under the age of 3, if I had to lug around 2 and 3 different airports 2 cars seats, in addition to their strollers and carry on (with essentials like snacks, bottles of water, some toys, extra clothes diapers and wipes) I would not have been able to make the trip. Not to mention the cost! One ticket costs over $1000 to have to pay full price for 2 children so they can visit their grandparents and aunts and uncles (which I don't belive is a luxury) is absolutely insane! Free to majorly discounted seats and being given provided car seats on the plane maybe but to ask parents to pay and carry carseats is unthinkable! And before u being given the argument of cars and car seats, ur not in a car for 10 hours straight nor are you carrying all ur belongings through airports when traveling with a car... Apples and oranges!
  • Janna CPST over 1 year ago
    Yes, I believe that all passengers regardless of age should be properly restrained on aircrafts. Children are particularly at risk from turbulence and rough landings. They are at risk of injury to themselves and other passengers.
  • Rukiddingme over 1 year ago
    No. Perhaps there could be a better way to ensure that child is strapped to the parent. 1% doesn't equate the need for the car seat. Parents who are concerned can buy an extra seat for their child.
  • Kathy Heys over 1 year ago
  • Kendrawootton over 1 year ago
  • Elria over 1 year ago
  • HeatherS over 1 year ago
    Yes. But alternates to full out car seats need to be available. My biggest issue with needing child restraint systems is lugging them through the airport. Especially if they aren't needed at the destination. With two children under 4 both of whom would benefit from a more secure attachment than airline seat belts I need a system that allows me to bring them, carry on, and the restraint systems to the gate. We have a cares harness for our oldest which is great as it fits nicely in a bag taking up next to no room, but there isn't a good product option for an infant. I wish airlines were required to provide something. The need could be identified at time of booking (like bassinets are on international flights).
  • Chrissy over 1 year ago
    Yes. Everything else on flights must be secured (even the food and drinks!), so why not infants?
    • AmberMcQuaker over 1 year ago
      100% agree. Children are the most precious cargo, so why is it considered more important for food to be secured, but not babies or children? At least if food goes flying, it's not going to cause major injuries, but if an unsecured infant goes flying in the aeroplane either the child or another passenger or going to get seriously injured if not killed.
  • Deb over 1 year ago
    No. If a parent wants to put their child in a car seat in a plane then let them, but I do not believe it should be mandatory. Why isn’t it mandatory to have a child in a car seat on a bus? Or a shuttle? I think this is a money grab. If a parent is very concerned and does not feel comfortable not restraining their child in a seat then they should pay for the seat and if a parent decides they will have a lap child then they should have a lap child.
  • Thoops over 1 year ago
    No. Chances are you will need to hold the child to comfort them and feed them that they will rarely be in the car seat.
  • Michcar over 1 year ago
    No. I guarantee the airline will start losing money as a lot of families will not be able to afford to fly. Having a car seat does not even guarantee safety on a plane. You don’t have them on buses so why planes which is supposed to be the safest way to travel.
  • Kimmerz71@hotmail.com over 1 year ago
    No, it should be left up to the parents to decide.
  • myw over 1 year ago
    The risk analysis estimates that 10 kids may die due to road travel for every one life saved in air travel if buying a seat for kids under 2 is mandatory. For this reason I don't support making CRS mandatory for kids under 2 unless airlines are also mandated to offer discounted seats for kids under 2. However that will likely cause flying costs to increase which would again make it difficult for some families to afford to fly, and thus increase road travel. I think it's important for parents to understand the risks of air travel with kids not in CRS, but for the benefit of most families the use of CRS should not be made mandatory.
  • Nancy over 1 year ago
    It is very elitist to think everyone can afford to pay full fare for their baby (who won't even remember the travel). My husband and I do not have any family living close to us and had very little money when our babies were born. Most of our family is 2000km away and the rest 4500km away. Those free flights allowed our kids to meet their grandparents, aunts, uncles, great aunts and uncles, and cousins. There is no possibility that we could have done it otherwise. This thread makes me so sad for the families who will never get to meet their grandbabies, greatgrandbabies, neices/nephews, cousins if this passes.
  • NiftyWilly over 1 year ago
    I understand the points expressed here in favour of chld seats.I am not opposed to this.What I cannot reconcile is the complete disregard for all passenger safety by Transport Canada and all airlines for still equipping planes with lap belts.People have been crashing cars at 100 kpm for almost a century, and the lap belt was made illegal on highways in the late 1970's. All vehicles on the roads need shoulder/lap combination belts.When it comes to air travel, we are expected to absorb crashes at + 200 kph with only a lap belt.Or, perhaps my perception is skewed and TC and the airlines will not just admit there is so little chance of survival that lap belts are only provided for minor damage control due to turbulence.
  • Wendybird1978 over 1 year ago
    I wonder why this is even a question! Of course this should be mandatory. The safest way for a child to travel should be the standard. They can’t choose the risk for themselves so we need to make sure we’re doing our best to protect them.
  • JennF over 1 year ago
    I do believe car seats should be mandatory for children under 2. It would have meant that I would not have been able to take my 1.5 yr old son to Australia to see my sister's family but I had no idea of the real risks to his safety until I we were already in the air and I spoke to a flight attendant who instructed me on how to keep him safest. We had significant turbulence and I was worried about his safety the entire way.
  • luisfedo over 1 year ago
  • Jprgh over 1 year ago
    Yes, safety seats for children should be mandatory. The reality is that in an emergency situation a parent may not be able to hold a small child, the risk being not only that the child becomes injured, but in severe turbulence or a more significant event the small child may become an unrestrained projectile in the cabin injuring others. I have had 3 small children, and when we as a family chose to travel the cost of an additional seat was budgeted for, even if we had to make other choices so we could afford safety for our child. We are now grandparents and make the same choices, or assist our family with travel costs to ensure the safety of the child. All parents must accept the financial cost of parenthood, it is not the businesses or the government that should carry the financial burden. There is a sound business case for airlines to attract families by using discounts and incentives as appropriate which they undoubtedly will do in a competitive environment. Unfortunately in the absence of universal common sense safety decisions must be regulated .
  • Travelmama over 1 year ago
    I would be in support of a mandatory seat for infants in the name of safety, even though paying for a seat you are used to not paying for would be difficult to swallow at first. My concern with this is the way airlines would handle this new rule. With the recent viral video of a family being escorted off of a plane ( #southwestairlines ) due to their child being afraid to sit in her own seat & not given the proper opportunity to calm her, concerns me that there might be a whole lot of confusion and mishandling of these scenarios, which we keep seeing unfortunately. There are many reasons a young child/infant may have difficulty sitting in their own seat, such as pain in ears during take off, needing to be fed (bottle or nursed), being afraid. I suppose all of this can be survived for a short while during take-off & landing or during turbulence, but people and airline staff will have to be prepared to deal with and accept crying babies.
  • Peter Vella over 1 year ago
    I am a flight attendant of forty years. Please listen to my view. On a flight to Australia both parents and their 23 month old lap held child fall asleep.. The parent’s arms (aka the restraint device) are not active when the plane hits unexpected moderate turbulence. The child is injured as is another passenger who is hit by the untethered baby. Who is responsible for these injuries? Safety institutions have the research to prove that holding a baby in an aircraft is not safe. Do you remember unrestrained children in cars? Airplanes do not have airbags, or pre-tensioned three point seatbelts they travel much faster than cars, and experience unexpected chances in stability. We have decided as a nation that we are okay with safety experts acting in the best interest of children when it comes to cars. Why not airplanes? If you are thinking of all this as a financial issue then ask any guardian of any child that was injured in an incident if they could go back in time and undue that physical and emotional damage for a cost of four to twelve hundred dollars. Canada was a pioneer in removing secondary smoke from the airline passenver’s environment. How do we all feel about that now? Let’s not wait for another incident similar to the one in Nunavut to act in protecting the safety of our children travelling on a airplane.
  • Tamas over 1 year ago
    short answer - no! BUT if it does become mandatory, a seat for an infant should be sold at a significant discount (as in 90% off)
  • jstrelioff over 1 year ago
    Yes - and these seats should be paid for by the parents.
  • PetiteD over 1 year ago
    Not unless fares for children will be heavily discounted. Considering airlines will not take the hit for that, I think there should be some government regulation on fares if they plan on making it mandatory.
  • Dee9999ca over 1 year ago
    Absolutely! No parent can possibly hold on to a child during rough turbulence, as I recently discovered. I was on a flight when we experienced turbulence and a parent dropped the child in front of her, and for the next 30 minutes, the rest of the paying patrons, had to listen to this child screaming. And if you hear the dreaded ‘brace brace brace’ where does she put her child when she’s supposed to be bent forward? Safety first!
  • Frequentflyer2018 over 1 year ago
    Yes, the child should be in a car seat. The child is never held on the parents lap the whole time, the child is passed back and forth between parents and across isles to other family. Or like a recent flight , laid down in an empty seat, with no parent even supporting them physically. I’ve also had many flights were the child on the lap of a parent behind me, allowed the child to keep kicking the back of my seat the whole flight. The legs of children under two are constantly moving! I didn’t fly with my children when they were under five, but if I had, they would have been in a car seat.
  • Kaitlynpipe over 1 year ago
  • Danhall1984 over 1 year ago
    Child restraints should be mandatory for all children too small for the adult restraint system. Infants held in the laps of adults are at an increased danger during inflight turbulence and accidents.
  • hematite153 over 1 year ago
    Yes.Child restraints should be mandatory for all children who are too small to be safe within the adult safety systems of an aircraft.
  • andrewchristmas over 1 year ago
    I am happy to see that the majority of people responding support mandatory child restraint system use for infants and small children onboard aircraft.As a father I used car seats for my children. I can't see why a parent who does the same at 50 km/h would be comfortable holding their child on their lap at 800 km/h.
    • Nazmus over 1 year ago
      Undoubtedly child's safety is very important. However, child suffers more from the bumpy ride. When an airplane drops a few hundred feet suddenly, the feeling is not pleasant even for adults. One can only imagine what a child feels. Sometimes it is better to hold the child. Rules and regulations should not be made so strict that it brings inconvenience and trouble.
      • hematite153 over 1 year ago
        The problem is that crash tests and real life experiences of turbulence prove that parents do not have the strength to hold onto children when the plane suddenly drops a few hundred feet or lands in an emergency situation.If a child were required to be safely harnessed AND to be seated beside their parent (without expecting them to pay an extra fee to sit beside each other) then they would be safe from hitting their heads during turbulence AND be able to receive comfort from their parents.
  • Nancy over 1 year ago
    No. Planes are extremely safe and if restraints are not necessary on city buses or school busses, they shouldn't be on planes. I do think the seat belt attachment most non Canadian and non American airlines use should be available so the baby stays in the guardian's lap if there is extreme turbulence.
  • vsc over 1 year ago
    Absolutely. For their own safety, the safety of their parents and the safety of others on the plane.
  • Jcronk over 1 year ago
    Yes and a special rate for purchasing the air plane seat should be available.
  • ryconnolly over 1 year ago
  • Colleenoco over 1 year ago
    Absolutely. Despite knowing better I was talked into flying to Hawaii with our daughter as a lap baby. It’ was terrible. The morning after arrival we bought a car seat for the trip back even though we can only use it in US and for lying as it’s a US seat. Obviously there is the safety factor as babies die during turbulence and it’s completely avoidable, but I spent most of that flight walking up and down the aisle trying to calm a child. It was a pain to other passengers and an obvious safety risk. The flight back with a car seat was a dream.
  • SSB75 over 1 year ago
    Yes for the safety of children and other passengers children should be in a car seat or FAA certified CARES system. Families should be given ample time to board early and put in the child restraint system and airline staff need to be trained to understand and support families for installing child restraint properly. I have traveled with my child using the CARES system and needed to print off the airline policies each time to show the airline staff that the CARES system was FAA approved and I could use it for my child. I would also recommend having child seats be cheaper for families.
  • Jene over 1 year ago
    Ideally, yes all passengers would be restrained during airline travel for their own safety and the safety of others. This may limit travel for a lot of families, and place some barriers to travel. However, this does remain the safest option. What would be even better is to have training and consistency among flight cabin crew regarding use of child restraints in flight for children who have paid seats. I have had some negative experiences bringing a child restraint seat on board, and the CARES harness for airline travel - despite both of these being approved and recommended for airline travel. Before we go making seats mandatory, you’d think we could at least get some consistency with this.
  • raelenet over 1 year ago
  • Desi101 over 1 year ago
    Yes they should be. If Car Seats were mandatory on planes everyone would be safer along with carseats not getting damaged by checking them under the plane.
  • Kyrajnoble over 1 year ago
  • Crussell over 1 year ago
    Yes, because in the event of an accident, they will be safer. However, I acknowledge that paying full price for their seat will limit parents from using air planes, including myself.
  • Lemcallister over 1 year ago
    Absolutely. Having flown with a “lap baby” before I knew better, and now many times with my child under 2 in a car seat, it amazes me that children under 2 are allowed to be unrestrained. It felt very unsafe. And when we think about the fact that even the food is restrained on a plane, how is it that infants don’t have to be? In addition, car seats should be required for all children according to the transport Canada recommendations. I’ve seen many children who are old enough to be in a seat by them self but without a car seat jumping around when supposed to be restrained by the lap belt. It does nothing to hold them in and I cringe to think what would happen in the event of severe turbulence. Installing the car seat on the plane is easy, but it does take time, especially with an infant to deal with it. It’s super frustrating that practically half the plane gets to board before families. I’m sure I hit many people in the head with my child’s car seat and I was juggling it down the tiny aisle. The boarding order should be changed to allow families with car seats to board first and install the car seat.
  • StephanieVB over 1 year ago
    Yes, car seats are a safer and more responsible choice when flying.
  • kaobyrne7 over 1 year ago
    Yes. It helps keep children safer in the event of a plane crash. They are properly restrained like in a car to provide maximum protection. Installation is not really difficult but does require time which hopefully airlines will allow for. We have travelled with our 2 year old and her car seat before and honestly it was much easier. She was safe and in a space she was used to.
  • amlannon over 1 year ago
    I support anything that makes a child safer while travelling and would support the creation of an airline produced/provided child restraint system but I am not confident that car seats on plane are actually any safer. I am not aware of any studies or safety experiments that have considered whether all car seats will fit securely in all airplane seats. It is often difficult to ensure that they are installed in your vehicle correctly let alone trying to instal one in such a small space and without many of the required supports to attach the car seat to the plane seat. If they were not attached properly because they were not compatible or because of human error I believe (subject to evidence to the contrary) that there would be greater risk to the child and other passengers in the event that the seat became dislodged.
  • Flyonthewall over 1 year ago
    As a parent who travels a lot with a children from days old to well into school age (and still travels in an approved car seat), I am baffled that car seats are not mandatory in planes. I also work in aviation, and although I have yet to see a 'lap baby' go flying from a parents arms, I have been in sudden turbulence strong enough to dislodge equipment and send grownups flying around the cabin. The cost of the seat is just part of the cost of the trip, just because we have been used to having an infants seat as an option, doesn't mean that this is good policy. In conjunction with this, airlines should offer restraints for older children such as the CARES restraint onboard (as many children of older preschooler and school age use an unapproved unharnessed booster in their vehicle but are still not adequately protected by a lap belt) and ideally see it/similar approved for children up to age 8 or so (the current weight/height restrictions and regulations for the CARES PLUS are prohibitively difficult to follow). Airlines as well need to acknowledge that correct installation of car seats takes time, and parents travelling with car seats should be boarded first and assisted when possible, instead of the increasing trend to board families in the middle of the process, when full seats and aisles makes getting a car seat safely onboard and secured challenging. As (very sympathetic) adult who has flown beside many a parent travelling with a 'days under 2' year old on their lap, I would also like to see these children properly seated and restrained. When I am travelling alone for work/leisure, the LAST thing I want is a loose 20+lb toddler clambering out of their parents arms, and inevitably into my (very limited) space. I have seen parents place children at their feet or into the aisle to give themselves a moments respite from an annoyed toddler in their arms, and this isn't safe for the child or other passengers. I can't speak to the use of items such as belly loops, but I would also suggest that any new regulations on child restraint onboard aircraft also address the restraint of children/infants onboard air ambulances, and the situations in which children are in atypical restraints (incubators, pedi/neo mate, Babypod) or when for health reasons infants/under 2's may be best cared for in the parents arms.
  • SunshinenRoses over 1 year ago
    Yes, all passengers should be restrained on a plane. I fly quite a lot and I have been through some bad turbulence and the parents of lap babies themselves are quite scared in those situations as well. I have flown with my kids using the CARES harness as well as regular harness seats and would support airlines providing CARES harnesses for passengers 18 months to 4 yrs of age who were within the height and weight limits. Infants cannot use CARES so would require an infant seat of some sort. I would prefer that airlines not be required to provide those unless they were self adjusting - just so that families weren’t faced with using an unfamiliar restraint on the plane. People always cite the cost of buying a seat for a child under two but maybe reduce the price? When the child turns 2 people don’t instantly stop travelling - if it’s a 4 hr flight vs a 3 day drive the flying option will always win out even if it costs more - it just means budgeting differently. In short, kids will be safer, they will generally be more content when flying, and I don’t think airlines will lose money as a result. Kids have survived plane crashes before due to a correctly used car seat - and I know of at least one fairly recent Canadian coroner inquest following a kid who died in a plane crash that was otherwise survivable due to lack of restraint. CARES harnesses retail for under $70 and most families are already checking their strollers and car seat anyways, so this is really more about whether it would limit people from flying. I don't think that it would. I know I certainly wouldn’t complain about a buckled kid beside me vs one who is mobile and refusing to stay in the parent’s lap so is kicking and invading my space. ANyone who has ever been the passenger beside a lap child like that knows just how bad it is. All travellers would benefit from kids being buckle in a car seat on a plane.
  • C.smellink over 1 year ago
    Definitely! It's crazy to me that they aren't mandatory already.
  • sebandtoby over 1 year ago
    Car Seats should be mandatory for children as minimums up to 40lbs, as they are in cars. If airlines are worried that families will fly less, they can charge half price for kids. But we also need to ensure that car seat manufacturers are taking the size of airplane seats into account when they engineer seats.
  • katehumphrys over 1 year ago
    Yes. This is an opportunity to improve.Follow the recommendations and make it mandatory for children and babies to be safe. Just because it’s new, different, less convenient etc doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. Even the grocery store carts have a restraint system!
  • Snowamber over 1 year ago
    They should absolutely be mandatory. Why should a 2 year old be more safe that a 23 month old? And why should all the other passengers be put at risk of injury (or worse) due to a lap baby becoming a projectile? The European belt loops just prevent the child from becoming a projectile, they don't actually protect the infant/toddler at all. I've travelled with a lap baby myself (before I knew better) and I've travelled with infants and small children in proper child restraints on planes. Yes, it's a hassle lugging the seats, and the flight crews do NOT give parents enough time to properly install seats before general boarding, but those are issues that could be easily remedied. Once the seat is installed and the child is harnessed, it's SO MUCH BETTER than having a lap child.
  • MSpil over 1 year ago
    I'm pro the European loop-belt system. We don't always travel to a resort or family and it would be very inconvenient to have to carry around a child-seat during travels. Also, being able to have the child close during take-off and landing in particular can help calm the child. Also, it seems to happen more that families are seated apart when seats are not pre-purchased (happened to me more than once) and having to buy an extra seat would make it more likely that the family won't be seated together. If mandatory CRS come, the airlines should have to provide the CRS if requested (free of charge) and have to seat families together (free of charge). Looking at the 30 years with one fatality where a CRS MAY have saved the child, I believe that the inconvenience and price coming with a mandatory CRS should not be the number one focus as there are much more important issues.
  • Traumadoc over 1 year ago
    I am a pediatric surgeon. I have taken care of many children with broken bones and concussions from injuries on an airplane. If the plane hits an air pocket - it is impossible to hold onto the child by the laws of physics - the kids go flying. In addition I have taken care of many burns from hot coffee/tea on lap kids. A child needs to be protected. Whether or not it is rare does not matter when it is your child
  • Kaasam over 1 year ago
    No. We travel extensively and international with our children and have never used a car seat restraint under 2, or when they are 2 and above. We would happily use the belt attachment harness for under 2 on the lap of parent but when you are traveling not everyone should be required to lug a car seat with them. Now should the airlines and transport Canada implement this policy I certainly hope you set aside a budget to have airline approved/transport Canada approved seats in your own annual budget to provide families. Will these be issued at the gate complimentary? There are already barriers to flying as a family such a cost, being separated from your family members/children (yes toddlers!) and now to bring this up as safety issue is ridiculous. Please show the Canada statistics on dangers of lap restraining!?Please work on the real issues flyers face such as NO leg room which is a real safety concern for movement, circulation and exiting in an emergency. The airlines are the ones needing the oversight and modifications, not families just paying to fly on the already broke system!
  • RLittle over 1 year ago
  • Slangner over 1 year ago
    I think airlines need to provide a safe restraining system for children under 2. However, I don’t think parents should be required to bring a car seat for in flight use. We have attempted to purchase a seat for use with a car seat for our children 2 and under. Most car seats that fit a child 2 and under are rear facing for use in a car. Of the 4 different rear facing seats we’ve had and the many different flights we’ve taken, only 1 of our car seats fit on 1 plane. We have used a CARES harness a few times with greater success, but it has many limitations as well, it cannot be used for very small or large children, but it is more universally usable on different planes. So, if I was flying with a 4 month old infant, my rear facing seat would likely not fit in an airline seat, and my baby would be too young for a CARES harness to be used.
  • shortyv4 over 1 year ago
    absolutely! even the food on planes is restrained. babies are more important than food, haha. all kids under 7 years old or 40lbs/49 inches should be harnessed on planes.
  • jooleeyaa over 1 year ago
    Yes. Their safety is just as important as their parent who is holding them and other passengers around them. An unrestrained child can easily be harmed during turbulence, take off and landing, but they also pose a risk to passengers around them.
  • bknopp over 1 year ago
    Yes car seats should absolutely be mandatory. They are mandatory in vehicles and all airplane passengers over two need to be restrained, so why not infants? Unrestrained infants pose a risk to everyone around them as well. That being said airlines should be more accommodating to this and like other places have an infant/child fare option.
  • Shudson over 1 year ago
    Child restraints should absolutely be required for children under two. During moderate to severe turbulence or a hard take off or landing, a lap baby can become a projectile or an airbag for the caregiver. Unrestrained babies are a danger to themselves and the rest of the passengers.
  • KMcKay85 over 1 year ago
  • Amanda.cpst over 1 year ago
    Yes. Between turbulence, aborted take offs, and hard landings there is simply too much risk. You get multiple reminders to ensure bags are securely stowed, but then are told that holding your child in your lap is fine.
  • Vrobinson over 1 year ago
    Yes - everything else is restrained on the plane (food, other supplies, etc.), why not little kids?
  • Raucarré over 1 year ago
    Yes, if adults and children over two need to be restrained, why shouldn’t we restrain children under the age of two. Not restraining small chidren is a risk for the child and for the other passengers.
  • SarahStP over 1 year ago
    Absolutely yes. An unrestrained child is a risk to all passengers aboard. A parent or caregiver cannot hold their child during severe turbulence. Not only does the child have a high risk of injury but also becomes a projectile that can injure other passengers - passengers who have secured themselves and their children. They put everyone at risk.
  • Nrrdgrrl87 over 1 year ago
    Yes, they absolutely should be mandatory, I think up until the child weighs 40 pounds (the weight at which the airplane seat pelt can effectively restrain a small child) if coffee needs to be secured, so should our most precious cargo. I also think children should be properly restrained on buses!
  • Sandra Kalyta over 1 year ago
    Yes restraints should be mandatory. The force of turbulence far exceeds the ability of a caregiver to hold their child safely. The abdominal loops favoured in other countries do not reduce injuries to the child they only keep the child teetherd in place to act as the adult’s airbag. The FAA’s and Transportation Canada’s advisories on safe child transportation should become mandatory on all North American flights. Unrestrained children are at risk and pose a risk to other passengers seated around them.