Susan Reimer's commentary touched on an issue that has bothered me for years ("Babies on a plane: Can the rest of the flying public cut mom some slack?" April 4).
As an executive, I have been required to travel by plane on business for well over 30 years. I fly about once a month and often more than that.
As a result, I have been held captive many times to crying, screaming infants or toddlers who keep it up for most if not the entire duration of the flight. Somehow, this just doesn't seem fair.
I have no choice but to fly to earn my living. How about a little sympathy for those of us who are forced to endure hours of some kid's screaming because we can't get up and move away from the noise or take another flight?
When I travel for personal reasons, the last thing I want to do is get on an plane. Flying today is already an uncomfortable experience that is only made worse by crying tots on board.
Other than some compelling reason such as a death in the family, I doubt that the parents or mother of the screaming kid really have to fly. Even in Ms. Reimer's example, she could have flown to her daughter-in-law's location instead of her daughter-in-law flying to hers with an infant.
That would have saved the poor working person who had no choice but to take that flight the anguish of being forced to listen to a crying baby for hours.
Years of experience have taught me that none of Ms. Reimer's suggestions for distracting a child who doesn't want to be in an airplane work. Next time she gets on a plane with crying, screaming kids in tow, she should look around to see if there is an older businessman with a briefcase and a pained expression on his face. She may have to deal with him.
Rod Krich, BaltimoreCopyright © 2015, CT Now