Ah, but we are speaking of foreign parents, and restricting the argument for citizenship to be that of being born over American territory. The jus soli (or 14th amendment misreaders) argue that the only thing necessary for a person to be a "natural born citizen" is birth within the borders. My example is put forth to demonstrate how silly of a standard is this.
If there is a legal clarification of the term "natural born" to be restrictive to geographical birth, then the term is more restrictive.
There are those that argue that parents are irrelevant to the citizenship of a child born within the borders of the United States. They claim that anyone born within it's borders are "natural born citizens" just BECAUSE they were born within the borders.
No doubt your underlying premise is the use of "natural born" in the Constitution. Interestingly, none of the Founders were born within a United States of America, but their birth rite was grandfathered in.
As there could be no "natural born citizens" until the nation existed, they had no other choice.
What exactly is your point of contention; the Obama birth right? If he was foreign born with a foreign parent and declared foreign citizenship before U.S. citizenship, he has some clear challenges concerning meeting the qualification of "natural born".
I like to break things down into small clearly defined pieces and go from there. I am trying to demonstrate that birth within the borders of a nation is a foolish standard for declaring someone a citizen. It was used under English Common law because it gave the King an excuse to claim more servants. It was used under the 14th amendment (with qualifications which everyone seems to ignore) because former slaves had no jus sanguinus claim on citizenship.
As much as I detect the concept of anchor babies and citizenship by happenstance, there is a downside to eliminating birthright citizenship.
Take a look at Europe where you have stateless people of the fourth and fifth generation and beyond.
Would you be comfortable with deporting families that have been here for 100 years? Not I.
Truly, this is only a problem because we don’t enforce our borders.
If you can show that you AND your mother were born in the USA, then automatic citizenship. Otherwise, due process to assertain citizenship.
So the question of what citizenship a baby born on an airplane has, has a real-world answer, if you care to research it. If the answer is that a baby born on an airplane is (in some cases) an American citizen, then you're back to the argument over whether "born an American citizen" means the same thing as "natural born American citizen" or not. And we know the arguments on both sides of that, so I don't think your thought experiment gets us anywhere.