ANZ/QF Airlines' children policy 'insane'

[Chicken or Fish?]

Airlines' children policy 'insane'
Email Print Normal font Large font November 29, 2005 - 2:13PM

A leading psychologist has dismissed as "offensive" and "insane" a policy adopted by Qantas and Air New Zealand's not to seat men next to unaccompanied children.

The policy came to light when an Auckland man, Mark Worsley, was asked to shift seats on a Qantas flight because an unaccompanied child had been assigned the seat next to his.

"At the time I was so gobsmacked that I moved. I was so embarrassed and just stewed on it for the entire flight," Mr Worsley, a 37-year-old father of two-year-old twins, told the New Zealand Herald.

Qantas and Air New Zealand have both confirmed it is their policy not to allow unaccompanied children to sit next to men.

But Dunedin-based clinical psychologist Nigel Latta, who has 15 years experience with sex offenders and victims, told NZPA he disagreed entirely with the policy.

"I think it's completely insane. It's a crowded plane. For a start you've got to have someone who's sexually interested in children who just happens by chance to get sat next to an unaccompanied child who then in a small, crowded airplane is going to molest a kid on a flight.

"It's insane. It's political correctness and cautiousness gone made."

Latta said the policy was sending an "awful" message to society that "all men are pariahs".

He said some women and children were also sexual offenders "so we can't even sit them next to other children. We must sit them by themselves in a wee pen so nobody can get near them".

Latta agreed studies of sexual offenders showed somewhere between 70 and 90 percent were male but the airlines' policy would not help protect children.

"The principle is just utterly offensive. It's stupid and there's just no logic behind it.

"In 15 years of working with thousands of sexual offenders I've never treated or heard of a man who sexually offended against a child on a plane."

It was far more likely to happen on a bus or a train, where people could get on and off for a small fare.

Latta also suspected the airlines' policy would contravene human rights legislation against discriminating on the basis of gender.

He said people had to be sensible in protecting children. "Change the sentencing and probation laws if you want to keep kids safer. Let's put a little bit more into the primary prevention stuff."

The National Party's spokesman against political correctness, Wayne Mapp, said the policy was an example of political correctness that had got out of hand.

"I think this is a gross over-reaction by the airlines."

Air New Zealand spokeswoman Rosie Paul told the Herald they were temporary guardians of unaccompanied children and when possible seated them next to an empty seat.

"Sometimes this isn't possible, so the preference is to seat a female passenger next door to an unaccompanied minor," she said.

Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro commended the airlines for endeavouring to keep children safe.

She did not think it was intended to be a slur against men.

Green MP Keith Locke said today he would be writing to the Human Rights Commission asking it to intervene in what he felt was a clear breach of the Human Rights Act.

The airline needed to recognise that "men are people too".

"It is prejudicial to presume that men can't be trusted to have contact with children unless they are related to them or are specially trained," Locke said.

NZPA

[Animalclub]

It's been a couple of years since I've flown but from what I see in these forums (fora?) there's an insufficient number of cabin attendants to keep an eye on unaccompanied minors all the time. So why not play it safe?

It's got nothing to do with political correctness... it's to do with prevention being better than the cure. There's been more than one father that has abused children.

I agree with the airlines' policy.

[Farmer 1]

There's been more than one father that has abused children.

...and mother, aunt, sister etc. etc.

What if the child is old enough and intelligent enough to ask why the man was moved against his wishes? What does the CA say? "Because he's a man, and men do nasty things to children."?

Probably not, but they would have to be careful not to sow the seeds of a complex in the child's mind, especially if it happened regularly.

I disagree with the airline's policy.

[distracted cockroach]

Sorry, but what's the problem? I don't have kids of my own, and don't especially dislike children, but I'd happily pay NOT to have to sit next to unaccompanied minors. Especially the young whiney ones, or the precocious brats who don't shut up and keep asking a million questions or want to tell you all about what they did in the holidays or whatever. Don't even mention the ones that have been fed up on lollies and chocolate and end up making themselves sick everywhere (have personally experienced all of these)
Sorry, but I don't want to know. Shouldn't be my problem, or any other fare-paying passenger's.

[OzExpat]

Well said dc! I too have experienced all of that in the past. I like nothing more than to simply keep myself to myself, read my book, drink a little bit of wine, maybe watch a portion of a movie. But, above all, I just want to sleep, especially on a long-haul flight.

Perhaps what is really needed is scope in the reservation system so that WE can declare our preference not to have any kid sitting next to us! After all, this latest move by QF and ANZ must surely give us that right!

[Sunfish]

I agree with DC. I once had a four year old sitting next to me regurgitate his breakfast inot my lap as we rotated on takeoff.

[Lodown]

And I've experienced just the opposite with unaccompanied minors. The ones I have seen are mature, polite, handle themselves well and are usually well versed in travelling by air.

[Spinnerhead]

How come they stick all the screaming bloody kids up the front of the aircraft, yep right next to us high flyers in Business Class. I mean I pay a top dollar to sit up front with the rest of the rich people, and it s screaming bloody kids all the way.

Imagine if some nice Hostie asked you to move away from one -sh!t what a bonus, but I would still hit them up for free p!ss or similar for the intrusion.

I say that guy either needs his head read, OR he is A PRIME ROCK SPIDER SUSPECT.

And I'm Spinnerhead

[Fris B. Fairing]

There's nothing new about this. It was policy long before political correctness was foisted upon us.

[HI'er]

What is the basis upon which this policy is based?

Is it presuming that there is a higher risk that an adult male occupant is more likely a potential paedophile than a female?

Not that citizens of Helengrad are likely to be able to see the difference between the sexes in those fair isles.
On second thought, they probably can - it's the female gender that wear the pants, and have the hairy legs (not to mention the booming voices)!

[Capt. On Heat]

Not that citizens of Helengrad are likely to be able to see the difference between the sexes in those fair isles.

At least we get the species right Low'er

[RevMan2]

There's such a simple solution:
UMs get assigned an aisle seat in the vicinity of the galley at the time of booking, adjacent seats are blocked in inventory and are only assigned by check-in staff (who obviously have access to the seat map) to those people which the airline deems to be suitable travelling companions.
Result: No confontational situation in the cabin, reduced risk for the airline and passenger (if there ever was one in the first place).

Now we've got that sorted - what do we do on buses and trains......?

[OZcabincrew]

I have been in the situation a couple of times where groundstaff have mistakenly allocated a UM next to an adult passenger. The correct procedure is to move the UM. I don't know why the crew would've moved the adult. I have never seen this done, so it is not common practice. UM's are 99% allocated seats in the last rows of the cabin so they are close to the galley and crew seats etc and usually they are allocated the aisle seat.

I can understand the policy, but i can also understand how it is discrimination. However if the situation arises where the adult needs to be moved, the crew should use tact and move the adult with the use of another reason, it should've never been brought up that UM's aren't allowed to sit next to men, that's just asking for trouble.

In regards to other comments, at the end of the day, a UM who whinges and doesn't stop talking has just as much a right to be on that aircraft as the next person. Parents with screaming children etc etc have just as much a right to be on that aircraft just as much as the next person and if you think you're being hard done by by having to listen to a crying baby, then you should charter your own aircraft and fly privately, not on a major, public airline and if you still don't think it's right, you need to get over yourself. Don't forget, those passengers are paying passengers aswell and don't even think about having a go at the crew.

I've had mothers in the galley crying their eyes out because the passenger next to them has been downright nasty to them because their baby keeps crying. That is just crazy!!!!! There is no system and WILL NEVER be a system in place where you can have in your profile that you don't want to be seated next to chilren etc. What if you are one adult passenger on a plane load full of young school kids? then what you going to do, change flights?

Just one more thing, why is it that people including mothers are opposed to this policy because it's discrimination towards men, yet when their young son wants to go and use a public toilet, they won't let them yet instead takes them into the female toilets? slightly different i know, but what are they insinuating? are they saying that all men that use public toilets are on the look out for young kids and the women in the female toilets aren't? hmmmmm

[zulu_kilo]

I don't really see what all the fuss is about. Wether it is done because of a previous incident or whatever. I guess most airlines would use specific seats, and where the load is not high, block a couple of seats, and as required, seat a female in the seat. - One of the airlines I did work for did not even allow for male UMNR to sit next to other UMNR.

As stated earlier prevention is better than the cure.

On the other side of the coin, imagine you were a 7 year old, and had a big guy come a sit next to you - I think I would prefer, as most would, an empty seat!

As we speak, there is some guy down in NSN who is protesting up a tree until QF and NZ change their policy. - I would be very surprised if it did change, I have spoken to a couple of people around the industry, and have same or similar policies to the airline I work for.


Its all about removing the oppurtunity.

[CT7]

If parents are worried about who the passenger next to their offspring, then travel with them!

Personally, I would expect the airline to move the UM, NOT the passenger!

[priapism]

well,

I hope QF takes it's policy all the way and does not allow contact between unnacompanied children and any male staff then.

I remember one male F/A at Ansett who was given his marching orders after an incident alleged by a child whilst he was in this particular chaps care during a transit in a major port. It was alleged that during a private visit to the cockpit this disgusting bloke showed him more than the control stick.


That aside . Wouldn't it have been easier to just move the child instead of creating a major kerfuffle by moving the passenger?

my two bob's worth anyway

[sage]

Preferring to lurk and listen I seldom post, but Animalclub successfully evoked my ire.

Animalclub said: "So why not play it safe?"

Here is a smarter idea. If "playing" it safe is truly the uncompromisable objective and penultimate priority, then clearly unescorted minors ipso facto are at risk and should not be permitted to travel at all. Problem resolved. Simple, safe, effective, and so common sense it's in front of your face.

But of course, this whole specific incident making an issue out of it would not have been one at all had the flight attendant demonstrated any initiative through application of a modicum of obviously lacking intelligence and diplomacy by moving the child instead. Duh!

Were such an undeniably offensive to men policy instituted, it could and should be instituted at the seating allocation point. This would of course avoid the sort of objectionable and unnecessary public humiliation to which that male passenger was subjected.

But no. A classic feminazi wade in boots 'n all. Isn't that just so typical. One minute it's "Why are you so insensitive?" then almost in the same breath at times when it suits it's "Oh you are just being oversenstive!". Female 'logic'.

Not that I am advocating for any of the clearly distorted perception of the world alternatives suggested above.

Animalclub said: "It's got nothing to do with political correctness... it's to do with prevention being better than the cure."

It has everything to do with arse guarding and abeyance to political correctness. The inarguable answer to eliminating risk to unaccompanied minors if the airline is truly serious in its regard for uncompromised safety in regards a perceived risk of predation threat is straightforward. Refusal of carriage.

When we start publically humiliating and penalising males as "to be regarded with suspicion on the premise of being deemed untrustworthy by virtue of being born male", the insult aside, it's detrimental to not only to the healthiest self esteem , but damaging to society by virtue of relationships between children and (not to be trusted) men and how they interact and relate to one another. Truly this absurdity serves none other than the incurably neurotic and paranoid and must be stopped.

If justice be served, the hostie...oops...flight attendant responsible should be terminated. Clearly if she can't handle a situation like that without sufficient intelligence and tact to avoid aggrieving that passenger, clearly and predictably a true emergency would beyond her capability making her an unnacceptable risk to safety of the aircraft and passengers.

Another way to fix such a problem. Thanks Mr. De Bono.

Men travel as paying passenger with this airline? I shouldn't think so where any alternative is available. A public apology and reassurance there'll be no repeat of this nonsense is an urgent prerequisite.

PS: DC I don't think many men would disagree with you about preferring not to be seated next to someone else's brat, accompanied or otherwise.

But that's not the point. I do presume you are smart enough to see past your self serving humour to the greater issue and wider implication were such a wisdom and logic defying policy as this to be apathetically accepted as reasonable?

[megan]

Lem me see. Its PC these days to be AC or DC. Soft porn is used for advertising. Your kids can divorce you, and the guvmint will pay them an allowance. Discipline??????? Standards????????? All men are barstards. I guess the feminist solution to come will be the abortion of any male. After all we have the technology to clone the desired sex - female.

[Animalclub]

sage I'm pleased that I woke you up......

[gaunty]

sage

Thanks for that eloquent post you saved me the trouble and said it heaps better.

I would have been a whole lot more than "just gobsmacked". One wonders what would have been the result if he had just refused point blank.

OK I'll admit it, I'll out myself ......... I just love children and offentimes given the choice, I would rather spend an hour or two talking to them than with some of the sad sacks who make or implement these policies.

[Capt Claret]

A not so long time ago, in a far off land (some where over the GAFFA) a mother was seated in the cabin of a (sort of) high speed aluminium tube. She had a toddler daughter and a babe-at-the-breast.

Seated next to her was a big nasty MAN.

Mum was doing what mums do with babies-at-the-breast, when toddler daughter says "mummy I need go toily, MUMMY, I need go".

So that big nasty MAN person in the same row, offered to take the little girl to the toily, to allow mum to keep doing what she was doing.

The big nasty MAN wasn't really nasty, in fact he was quite nice. He led the little toddler girl to the toily, and stood at the door, with the door just pushed-to, so that in the event of any problems, he'd have access to the toily, to assist. (Must've been one of those strange big bad men with children of his own! )

Now some shiela on the flight took umbrige at this unrelate big nasty man, taking a little child, not his own, to the toily, and standing by the door while the little kid did what little kids do on the toily. I believe that said shiela wanted to make a real issue of this inappropriate and deviant behaviour and it took some talking by the sensible CC to resolve the issue.

The End

Bloody PC gone wrong but if you look at it from the airline's perspective, they're buggered which ever way they go. If they do nothing and a child is interfered with, they'll be sued. If they don't use tact with seating, they'll upset big bad men. And even when a mother is gratefull for some assistance from a fellow passenger, even if he is a big bad man, some bloody shiela'll want to stick her nose in and complain!

[Brian Abraham]

You're right Capt Claret, the airlines are between a rock and a hard place. Re PC - You can keep some of the people happy all the time, all the people happy some of the time but not all the people happy all the time. Can you imagine the to do if you had had to make entry to assist?
As a daughter bottom wiper I remember the days with nostalga - and not for the reasons the PC out there might think.

[Old Smokey]

I had an unpleasant experience in the pre-Politically Correct era, some 20 something years ago as a F27 Captain in Australia. We had an unnacompanied 12 year old quadraplegic male passenger 'busting to go' on a turn-round, with the 2 female cabin crew unwilling to assist (they must have been pre-warned that the PC era was coming). The F/O wanted no part in it (must have been pre-warned also), and nor did I, 'cos I really wanted nothing to do with boy's "things".

Mercy had it's day, we couldn't let the poor bugger burst his bladder, so I bravely took on the role as his assistant. God!, he was heavy, a dead weight. Literally dragged him to the loo, with the F/O briefed to stay close as witness, held him up under the shoulders with one arm, unzipped him and pulled down his underdaks with the other without looking, and, hoping that "it" was aimed properly, told him to let fly. He did a good job of spray painting the loo, but I couldn't have cared less. God must have heard my prayers, because he didn't want to do a No.2 as well. During the whole event, had to make sure that my hips were arched backwards to avoid any contact, got a back sprain for the trouble, and, when the ordeal was over pulled up his underdaks, pulled up his fly, thankfully without zipping anything personal, and returned him to the seat. The F/O now asked if he could help, to which I replied, "Yeah, clean up the toilet".

I found later, from his thankful parents, that he'd waited 10 hours to go to the loo.

Nowadays, in our politically correct world, where ALL men, without exception, are paedophiles, the only solution would be to let him sit in his own mess.

Some posters here have mentioned a wish to avoid seating next to children, I can go along with that, a good idea. Much higher on my list of priorities would be the ability to choose to not have to sit next to a Politically Correct loser.

Regards,

Old Smokey (who loves grown up ladies)

[OZcabincrew]

will be interesting to see if the policy changes or disappears altogether. If they do remove it (which i highly doubt) then they'll probably have the pro-policy protesters on their back then aswell. Like always, you just can't win. Must admit though, as i said, a little bit of tact by the F/A would've gone a long way, however we don't know the exact situation to be able to accurately comment on what they should have and should not have done.

Oz