I'd heard (strictly second-hand) that the old Hong Kong airport in fact had an excellent safety record. It was notorious as a horror to fly into and out of, so pilots doing so, were extremely careful and attentive...
Especially the old "Checkerboard Approach"
Sounds like the phenomenon where they take away the traffic lights and excessive highway signs, making a particular route seem more scary and dangerous. Drivers are then more careful because they consider the route a dangerous one, without proper signage or traffic lights to tell them when they can go, and then you end up with fewer accidents overall because everybody is being so careful. Heh.
I can see both sides of the stroller debate, too. I've barely used the stroller since I had my third child (Ergo all the way), but my 10-month-old is both heavy and doesn't like being confined in the Ergo much anymore (she's always pinching my neck, if she's in the front, or pulling my hair if she's in the back). And I also have a 3-year-old who gets tired quickly. It can be very physically exhausting to transport them around. Somehow it usually ends up working, but there are times a stroller would be really nice, if it wasn't too much work to dig out the stroller and clean it out because it's been too long since I last used it. But strollers definitely take a lot of work to negotiate through crowds, and they take up a lot of room.
I can see both sides too, which is why I was just resigned, but I thought some of Snowdragon's ideas were really good, different solutions so that's why I wrote in. I regret to report, though, that now the NA has ticked me off. They replied with a completely canned email that was intended to look personal. Few things annoy me more. The first paragraph apologized for my "negative experience during my recent visit" - which I didn't describe or report (I said that I was offering general feedback") then three paragraphs lifted directly from the FAQs page. And not quoted, mind youa, as in "As you may have seen on our FAQs page, the reasons for our policy are..." but presented as though this was fresh writing directly to me (the FAQs page has that false friendly tone that I also find aggravating). Then a final paragraph apologizing again for my negative visit and telling me all comments are "taken to heart."
Given that the canned, cut and paste reply appeared in my inbox within 30 minutes, I find it unlikely that my comments were taken to heart. I'd have respected them more if they just said "This is our policy, sorry it doesn't work for you, hope you can come back when our services better meet your family's needs." At least that would be honest.
Oh well. Looks like a Science Center membership next year. Or maybe the zoo...hmmm...