Absurdly Driven looks at the world of business with a skeptical eye and a firmly rooted tongue in cheek.

This is your challenge question: Would you rather be popular or honest?

You know you can't be both.

You know that pleasing others involves a certain amount of editing, flattery and hideous deception.

For example, you tell everyone that you love kids.

How much, though, do you love kids on planes?

How much do you love it when they run up and down the single aisle and headbutt your thigh, should you be going toward the restroom?

How much do you love their screaming, whining and dribbling?

And don't you just adore it when they kick the seat in front of them -- which happens to contain you -- for the whole of a cross-country flight?

One airline has decided to be a little more honest about kids.

It's banning them from certain sections of the plane.

Indian budget airline IndiGo has introduced Quiet Zones.

The word "quiet", you'd think, would inevitably exclude kids.

Just to be sure, though, the airline explained that fliers in rows 1-4 and 11-14 can't be accompanied by kids under the age of 12. (Kids are banned from exit rows too.)

The less tolerant might mutter than this should be extended to under the age of 24.

The airline explained precisely why this was happening, though: "These zones have been created for business travelers who prefer to use the quiet time to do their work."

The row numbers are significant. These are the premium sections of the plane, the ones with a little more legroom.

IndiGo isn't the first to institute such a rule. Singaporean airline Scoot, AirAsia X and Malaysian Airlines have all tried versions of the notion.

But IndiGo is a very big airline in India. So, as the Hindustan Times reports, passengers with kids aren't happy.

"It's clear that they do not want children to disturb fliers paying extra for these seats," said passenger Anshuman Sinha. "But then why permit children in the nearby rows either?"

It's an excellent question.

Of course, one reply might be: "Alrighty, we've decided to split our services into kids-only flights and non-kids flights."

But perhaps that's too draconian or progressive, depending on your perspective.

Sinha insisted the current policy is discriminatory.

One wonders, too, how much difference it will make given that when kids make noise on planes, rather a large section of the plane can hear them.

It's one of those difficult issues. It's not as if it's always the parents' fault if the kids are disruptive.

There again, some restaurants are now becoming far less tolerant of certain parents and their ill-behaved children.

Some parents believe that everyone adores their little Jack and Jocasta. Some parents believe their Jack and Jocasta should simply roam free.

The truth might be that little Jack and Jocasta are privileged menaces who have never been taught the notion of, well, the existence of others.

And then there's this.

A friend was once on a flight from Miami to San Francisco.

A child was playing a video game, with the sound on. At full blast.

The parents did nothing. She asked the parents, after a couple of hours of this, if they could please do something. The parents did nothing.

In the end, she crept up behind the kid and shouted in his ear.

He was startled, and still went back to playing his game.

My friend took a picture of this wastrel.