upworthy

planes

Canva Photos

Some say kids shouldn't bring roller bags on airplanes

Taking kids on airplanes is tricky business. Yes, even us moms and dads know they can be annoying. Some parents pass out little care packages as a sort of pre-apology for their children crying, kicking seats, and making noise. Others put on movies and headphones and just pray for the best, and for the flight to go faster than anticipated.

One issue regarding flying with children has taken the cake for a while now. The discourse du jour has been whether or not paying passengers should give up premium seats so that children and parents can sit together. It's a tricky problem that pits passengers against each other when it's really, usually (but not always) the airlines' fault for crappy booking processes.

But move over, seat switchers. There's a new controversy in town.

A guy on Threads recently shared what turned out to be a controversial opinion: Parents shouldn't put children's luggage in the overhead bin.


airplane, flying, airports, planes, passengers, pilotsPlane taking offGiphy

"Please stop letting your little kid carry on a roller bag," he wrote in the now viral post. "It’s unnecessary and takes up bin space for people who actually need it. Give them a backpack or something that fits under a seat."

It's definitely frustrating boarding a flight and finding there's no overhead space left for your bag. Scrambling to find a spot many rows away, or being forced to check it off to a flight attendant, is awkward and stressful; especially so when you see things in the overhead bin that don't really belong there.

The person behind the small account unwittingly unleashed a firestorm of a debate as the post went viral.

First came the parents who were appalled at the suggestion. Some accused the man of not having kids and, thus, not knowing what he was talking about. But it turns out that wasn't the case.

"You don't have children do you if you think that all their stuff fits in a backpack that goes under the seat," one user wrote.

The OP responded: "Took two kids all over the country on planes and neither ever carried on a roller because it’s not necessary for them to do so."

That didn't quiet the angry response:


angry, mad, emotions, angry passengers, airplanes, flight etiquetteAnger from Inside OutGiphy

"As someone who squeezed all of their and their kids clothes into one carry on bag and nearly broke my back while carrying my infant.. disrespectfully, [hell no]... my oldest will have his own roller bag next time."

"The back pack my kid carries is the entertainment & snacks so they aren't screaming, kicking your chair, or otherwise being the nuisance that all passengers without kids complain about. The roller bag is her actual clothing, shoes, and other things she needs for a week. Also consider kids can't carry heavy things for prolonged periods of walking. The roller bag allows them to port their own things and not make the parents pack mules."

Some wondered why it was apparently a horrible crime for kids to stow a suitcase in the bin while adults get away with all kinds of outrageous behavior on planes:

"This made me so ... angry. Been on probably 200+ flights and never once experienced this. I have however seen people put jackets up there, suitcases the wrong way, small bags that would easily fit under their seat, and an array of other ridiculous shit ADULTS do up in that space. On EVERY FLIGHT IVE EVER BEEN ON. Like y’all just ... hate kids and it’s weird."

It's only every single flight where the attendants ask everyone to please stay seated until they're ready to disembark, and then what happens? Every single person stands up anyway, clogging the aisles and making a mess of the deplaning process.


airplane, planes, flying, passengers, flights, children, kids, parentsEmotions tend to run hot when it comes to airplanes and flying. Photo by Alev Takil on Unsplash

It is super frustrating getting on a flight and finding there's no more room left in the overhead bin. But again, it's not children's fault!

Airlines are incentivized to fill flights to the max as often as they can, and sometimes there's just not enough room in the cabin for everyone's luggage. The idea that kids — whose parents have to pay for a full-fledged ticket — don't deserve that space is ludicrous.

(Speaking of, maybe a kid-priced ticket is a good idea: Parents might be willing to pay less for the ticket and give up some of that luggage space.)

"When my kid's plane ticket costs less than my adult ticket, then we can talk about his luggage (with clothes he wears and items he needs at the destination) taking up less bin space," one parent wrote.

OP had a hard time finding anyone who agreed with him, but the dad clarified his position in further comments. He says he sees kids on flights all the time with only a roller bag and no "personal item" like a backpack that can fit under the seat. The spirit of his post is that, ultimately, parents bringing kids on flights should be as considerate as possible of others, and try to save space whenever possible.

To many parents, though, it felt like just another reminder that kids are less and less welcome in public spaces — and they're not happy about the trend.

True
United Technologies

At any given moment, there are about 5,000 planes flying above the United States.

87,000 flights take place per day. Millions of flights per year. And that's just the United States.

With that volume of air traffic, needless to say, a new type of aircraft engine — one that produces 75% less noise for those on the ground and burns 16% less fuel — is a huge deal for both people and the planet.


It’s called the PurePower® Geared Turbofan™ engine, and after 20 years in development at Pratt & Whitney, a division of United Technologies, it’s going to change the game of aviation.

See for yourself what makes this engine so special:

So what’s the secret? The basic concept is this: Pratt & Whitney’s engine is designed with a high bypass ratio, meaning that 12 times the amount of airflow passes around the engine’s core versus going through the core itself, which makes the engine more efficient overall.

Higher efficiency means less fuel burn, and less fuel burn means fewer emissions.

Still not impressed? Here's the kicker: This new aircraft engine reduces annual carbon dioxide emissions by 3,600 metric tons per plane.

At a time when our environment is in serious need of some tender loving care, cutting our carbon footprint in any way we can is more important than ever.

But even we'll admit that 3,600 metric tons of carbon dioxide is pretty hard to visualize. So what does that actually mean?

It's the equivalent of 766 cars being taken off the road for an entire year.

Calculated differently, that's 279,574 cars being taken off the road for a day — only a few thousand cars shy of the daily traffic crossing from New Jersey into New York City.

What if nearly all the cars driving into NYC simply didn’t show up one day? The resulting reduction of carbon dioxide would be equivalent to a single PurePower engine.

Image via iStock.

It's also equivalent to more than 4.6 million households using absolutely no electricity for 24 hours.

About 4,660,000 households, actually.

That’s like if everyone who lives in New York City (3 million households) Los Angeles (1.3 million households), and Las Vegas (213,000 households) used no electricity whatsoever for 24 hours.

Image via iStock.

It's even equivalent to 5,419 people going vegetarian for a whole year.

Typical meat eaters have a bigger carbon footprint than vegetarians — even those who only eat the USDA recommended 0.21 pound of meat per day (or less).

Have you ever considered going vegetarian for a year to reduce your impact on the environment? How about convincing 5,418 people to do it with you? Your collective impact would equal that of just one PurePower engine.

Image via iStock.

Chances are, commuters aren’t just going to suddenly stop driving into NYC. But that’s why innovations like this aircraft engine are so important.

As Pratt & Whitney Engineer Monica Dujic explains, “There is a future in aviation that can help the environment ... and the people around you.”

Now that is something worth celebrating.

True
United Technologies

In 1914, it could take over 40 days to travel to remote places in the world.

That year, John G. Bartholomew — Great Britain’s royal cartographer at the time — published an isochronic map showing travel times from London to various places around the globe. "Isochronic" simply means that lines (isochrones) are drawn on the map between locations that could be reached in the same amount of time. Trips range from “within 5 days journey” to “over 40 days.”

Even at first glance, it’s stunning.


Map by John G. Bartholomew, 1914.

This map tells a story of the evolution of travel in the early 20th century.

Look closely at what happens when a route reaches a land mass.

In North America, the pink range (five to 10 days) extends from New York to Winnipeg.

But in South America, the yellow segment (10 to 20 days) only reaches a hundred miles or so inland before giving way to green, light blue, and soon dark blue (over 40 days).

The difference between these areas lies in railroads, which in 1914 were fairly common in the eastern United States but significantly harder to come by in South America. An article in The Economist quotes geographer L.W. Lyde as writing, “isochronic distances ... change with every additional mile of railway brought into use.”

But the very year that Bartholomew released his map, another form of travel entered the scene: airplanes.

On Jan. 1, 1914, the first scheduled commercial airline flight took place. It lasted just 23 minutes, and its single passenger spent $400 for the ticket (equivalent to over $9,600 today) at an auction, eager to go down in history as the world's first commercial flight passenger.

A Benoist XIV floatplane in 1914, the type used for the first commercial flight. Image from the Florida Photographic Collection/Wikimedia Commons.

By the 1950s, commercial air travel was booming. Passenger flights were expensive and about five times as dangerous as they are today, but rapid innovation and competition among airlines continued to make flights increasingly accessible. From 1954 to 2014, the number of flight passengers in the U.S. grew by by a factor of 21.

Travel on the ground was rapidly changing as well: 1914 was the time of the Ford Model T, a car often credited with bringing affordable travel to middle-class Americans.

A Ford Model T in 1923, nine years after the creation of Bartholomew's map. Via Conrad Poirier/Wikimedia Commons.

In 1956, President Eisenhower authorized the construction of 41,000 miles of the Interstate Highway System. The Interstate was declared complete in 1992 — at which point the project was about $91 billion over its initial budget and about 23 years overdue.

A century after the original, an updated version of Bartholomew’s map shows how much travel has changed.

In 2016, travel search platform Rome2rio updated Bartholomew’s map to show modern travel times from London around the world. The new map calculates journeys by plane, train, car, bus, ferry, and more.

As Rome2rio wrote on their blog, “What we uncovered was fascinating.”

Map by Rome2rio, 2016. To purchase this map, visit Wellingtons Travel Co. Used with permission.

Note that the legend on this map shows a new time scale. No longer do the dark pink areas represent travel “within 5 days,” but instead, “Within ½ day.” On the other end of the spectrum, in blue, what used to show “over 40 days” now shows “over 1½ days.”

Significant changes in the updated map can be seen in Asia, Africa, and parts of South America. In 1914, a traveler from London could reach any part of India in 10 to 20 days. In 2016, the entire country can be reached within ¾ of a day — with many major cities accessible in less than that.

In the coming years, the isochronic map will undoubtedly continue to change as modes of travel evolve across the globe.

How would a high-speed rail system in the U.S. change the map — not to mention your daily life? Will more of South America become pink in the next couple of decades?

However the map changes in the coming years, one thing is certain: Travel today is faster, safer, and cheaper than it's ever been.

Which begs the question: What part of the globe are you planning to explore next?