Allow Carriers on Planes
by surprisetalk on 9/25/2026, 2:00:10 PM
https://www.jefftk.com/p/allow-carriers-on-planes
Comments
by: areoform
There is a deeper issue, in a crash, a poorly secured rigid baby carrier seat becomes a potentially lethal projectile. Worst comes to worst, today, the projectile is an infant. An infant is substantially softer and less massive than a rigid seat <i>containing</i> an infant.<p>For soft babywearing carriers, the outlook is also grim. The kinematics of the baby, adult, carrier and airplane seat lead to crush injuries that are <i>worse</i> than the poorly restrained arm hold version.<p>Could there be a solution here that straps around a seat to give babies a safe seat?<p>Yes, but it wouldn't necessarily be easy to use or consumer friendly. The ideal solution would have the baby with their back facing front, and the attached carrier facing inwards towards the seat. It would have to be carefully specced and tested so no unverified, third-party seats... Logically extrapolated, in this scenario, the airline becomes responsible for the baby's wellbeing. And I don't think that's a good place for the airlines to be?
9/25/2026, 2:31:20 PM
by: ofek
Relatedly, I wish I could bring my electric wheelchair with me in the cabin. I went on a work trip to Paris in April and sitting in a regular seat was just as uncomfortable as I remember. Fortunately, halfway through the first flight one of the attendants noticed my caregiver frequently repositioning me and had the other person in our row move elsewhere so that I could lie down across two seats. American Airlines allowed me to do that on the return flight as well.<p>I was quite worried that my wheelchair would break in some way like I've experienced several times before but everything went quite smoothly! AI helped tremendously with planning, e.g. here's Claude: <a href="https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/6c977d23-1b7c-4a00-a7aa-d2cd6403c51a" rel="nofollow">https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/6c977d23-1b7c-4a00-a7aa-d...</a>
9/25/2026, 3:23:28 PM
by: MostlyStable
The decision to not require seats is one of the best regulatory decisions I have ever heard of, and I wish this kind of thought process was more present in all kinds of places. The funny thing is that, I bet if it were used more broadly, given the absolutely <i>enormous</i> safety advantage that flying has over basically any other mode of transportation, there would be a non trivial number of other flight safety regulations that would get reconsidered.
9/25/2026, 2:20:11 PM
by: tadzikpk
As a parent of 3 kids and an extensive baby-carrier user, I see your argument but I think you're lacking consideration of the failure modes.<p>Yes, almost every baby carrier would likely restrain the infant better than add-on infant belt if the adult lap belt rides up over the infant carrier, the infant's going to be crushed between the adult and the belt. Not a good outcome.<p>Thus you're likely going to need FAA-approved infant carriers, same way as you'd need FAA-approved car seats you can take on planes.
9/25/2026, 2:59:24 PM
by: another-dave
It's been awhile since I used one so maybe I'm misremembering, but isn't the brace position for a lap infant basically the same as what a rear facing soft baby carrier does naturally?<p>It seems strange to disallow the carrier, have the belt that loops through the adult belt but then if the plane is going down you have to get them into the same position they'll be in in the carrier anyway!
9/25/2026, 3:13:09 PM
by: molsongolden
Sort of tangential to the rulemaking discussion but I’ve had two flight attendants note that unbuckling the carrier during takeoff and landing is required due to the risk of breaking the child’s back.<p>If the adult is pitched forward with the child strapped to their chest (facing inward) then they risk bending the child’s spine backwards.
9/25/2026, 2:22:26 PM
by: brettcvz
Strongly agree. I’ve been made to multiple times to wake up a sleeping baby that was strapped to my chest and it feels absurd for everyone involved.
9/25/2026, 2:40:31 PM
by: DonHopkins
It's only fair, since they allow planes on aircraft carriers.
9/25/2026, 2:48:44 PM
by: ChrisArchitect
Please adjust title to ..."Baby Carriers" for clarity
9/25/2026, 2:34:51 PM
by: cyanydeez
"All things considered" is easily attacked by vultures and businesses typically pick it apart.<p>PFAS bans are another where the whole class is likely hazardous but EPA will continue chasing specific molecules rather than consider the whole class.<p>Now adays, chem engineering will just put different monomers in and move on untill 20 years and we find, all things considered, it still reaches humans at toxic levels.
9/25/2026, 2:24:48 PM
by: poltergeist11
hot take: we should instead disincentivize parents taking their very young on planes, as babies experience a lot of pain and pressure from flying at altitude, that is unnecessary. Where is SO important that you need to take a baby with you on a plane?
9/25/2026, 2:28:38 PM
by: serf
I prefer the Fran Lebowitz suggestion : a separate plane with no seats for children, they can float round the whole trip from takeoff to landing. also let's option the adult plane with opening windows so we can smoke again.<p>here's the /s for those of you who are tonedeaf.
9/25/2026, 2:45:20 PM
by: cyberrock
If they do then I hope there is an additional rule forcing the guardian to purchase an adjacent seat, so there's no risk of someone (me) being guilt tripped into swapping seats.
9/25/2026, 2:41:01 PM
by:
9/25/2026, 2:29:49 PM