Kids are banned

[LieLowTheWantedMan]

Surprised most approve of it. I for one think it's BS and one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.|

EDIT: Actually, on second thought, it makes sense. But it depends on the establishment.

[Quadrochosis]

I can only pray that this ban happens on airlines.

[yorost]

I'm really curious since nobody answered in the first place, but how much would any of you wanting no-kid flights pay for such a flight?  It will cost a premium over comparable flights, would you actually take the more expensive flight with no kids or keep the cheaper one and hope for no annoying kids?

[El Barto]

I'm really curious since nobody answered in the first place, but how much would any of you wanting no-kid flights pay for such a flight?  It will cost a premium over comparable flights, would you actually take the more expensive flight with no kids or keep the cheaper one and hope for no annoying kids?

This.  Unless I magically find myself being able to afford first class,  I've just accepted the reality that flying can be a fucking miserable experience.  I get a window seat, eat some Xanax, take my lappy/noise canceling headphones, and hope for the best.  Plus, I can barely afford to travel anyway, so I spend weeks hunting for the absolute cheapest fare (which I've actually gotten pretty good at).  Furthermore, since I'm right in the middle of the US, most of my flights top out at 3.5 hours, so it's not so bad that I can't suffer through it. 

Restaurants are certainly a different story.  That's something that one expects to be an enjoyable experience. 

[Orbert]

Surprised most approve of it. I for one think it's BS and one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.|

EDIT: Actually, on second thought, it makes sense. But it depends on the establishment.

I'm curious, why the change of position?  Why did you initially think it was stupid, then change your mind?

[LieLowTheWantedMan]

Surprised most approve of it. I for one think it's BS and one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.|

EDIT: Actually, on second thought, it makes sense. But it depends on the establishment.

I'm curious, why the change of position?  Why did you initially think it was stupid, then change your mind?

Well I guess my initial reaction was that it was stupid, but then I thought for classier restaurants, it makes perfect sense. If it was a more casual restaurant though, I would oppose.

[MasterShakezula]

It's don't generally travel without noise-cancelling headphones, but when I do, I prefer it child-free. 

[Orbert]

Surprised most approve of it. I for one think it's BS and one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.|

EDIT: Actually, on second thought, it makes sense. But it depends on the establishment.

I'm curious, why the change of position?  Why did you initially think it was stupid, then change your mind?

Well I guess my initial reaction was that it was stupid, but then I thought for classier restaurants, it makes perfect sense. If it was a more casual restaurant though, I would oppose.

The restaurant in question is a casual place, not some upscale bistro, but they've had a number of complaints recently about people's kids making noise, and they've had little success getting the parents to cooperate.  So they finally just made it a rule that kids under 6 aren't welcome.  The owner is betting that overall, business will not suffer (he'll lose a few families with kids, but gain enough business to make up for it).

I just don't understand why anyone would oppose a proprietor making such a decision or even consider it a stupid decision.  Anyone who doesn't agree with it can always eat somewhere else.

[TheMadgician]

The article and DTVT made it sound like it was a step above casual, but not quite suit and tie mandatory.

Regardless of that fairly moot point, the rest of your post was 100% spot on.

[jingle.boy]

I just don't understand why anyone would oppose a proprietor making such a decision or even consider it a stupid decision.  Anyone who doesn't agree with it can always eat somewhere else.

Agreed.  I didn't catch that the definition of "kids" was under 6.  I was thinking under 13 or something.  Not that I would agree with this decision with that clarification regardless.  I still say they could create an environment that discourages younger children, because here's the thing - couples that do have children are unlikely to go there on a non-child 'date-night' (or whatever) as a matter of principle.

I still say that patrons without kids could also vote with their wallet and go somewhere else.  Clearly, as a business owner, they feel they attract/cater to more guests without children, otherwise this would be a bad business decision.

[Dr. DTVT]

I'm really curious since nobody answered in the first place, but how much would any of you wanting no-kid flights pay for such a flight?  It will cost a premium over comparable flights, would you actually take the more expensive flight with no kids or keep the cheaper one and hope for no annoying kids?

Well, if you're like me half the time I'm travelling on someone else's dime (my boss), and last time I was mockingly chastized for staying at a budget roach closet instead of the $229 a night place he chose.  Never mind that I was slightly closer to one convention center and significantly closer to the other one and ended up spending only $79 a night.  Well, there was one other benefit of where I stayed but that was more luck and coincidence    

EDIT - How did my post start off on airfare and move to hotel accomidations?    Oh yeah...if someone else is paying for the trip, I'd take a childless flight.  Thankfully the only poor flight experience had more to do with the fact I'm almost 6'1" and I felt like my knees where going to get jammed into my hips.

2nd edit - I'm a cheap bastard when it comes to my own money.  I'd have to deal with an annoying kid first, but I'm also the type to tell a parent to do their job and get quite nasty if they give me lip back.