Single Men and Minors

[Jungle Strip]

Picking up on recent Unaccompanied Minors threads:
On a recent transatlantic flight, we had a huge upheaval because a single male passenger decided to move seats to be in an aisle, and sat himself next to two (male) unaccompanied minors. They were aged 12 and 13. Because the airline says this must not happen, the Purser insisted the man should move, causing a huge, ugly scene in the cabin. It wasn't the Purser's fault, except that she was being a bit slavish to the rules... But surely this is a ridiculous situation.

What are other airlines' policies? How rigorously do cabin crew enforce them?

My own view is that, Yes, sure, we should be sensible. But when it comes to an open assumption that all men are potential, if not actual, child abusers, isn't there an argument for individual discretion? Or perhaps the airlines feel their employees are too stupid for that, and must be given a Hard-and-Fast rule, however ludicrous or embarrassing...?

- JS

[Squawk 8888]

Rather absurd. Two questions for the geniuses who dreamed up this policy:

1) With all the antidiscrimination laws on the books, aren't they worried about a lawsuit from a male pax who gets bumped because of their policy? Mind you, with the legal climate nowadays just about any business decision is a case of doomed if you do, doomed if you don't.

2) If they're really concerned about the kids' safety perhaps they shouldn't allow family members to travel with them- in the overwhelming majority of cases where kids are victims of crime the guilty party is their own mother.

[min]

Interestingly, there appears to have been an alleged assault on a NorthWest flight recently (see Rumours and News).

Agreed that most assaults are carried out by someone known to the child (not sure where you got the idea it was the mother, Squawk - everything I've read has suggested male family friends and stepfathers figure more prominently in statistics). However, I guess, as FA's, your job is ultimately passenger safety and comfort, and for UM's, that involves more than just giving them colouring in pencils and a coke. You are there to cater for the needs of the passengers, whatever their age. Therefore, in order to fulfil your duty of care, if that involves moving passengers, then so be it, unless you can think of another way of managing it?

I don't think it's fair for males to be thought of as guilty before proven innocent by the way. Perhaps a by-product of an overly litigious society?

[Squawk 8888]

Min, most child assaults murders are committed by the mothers- not that they're particularly dangerous, just that they spend the most time with the kids so the law of averages kicks in. Think of the SC woman who dumped her car in a lake with the kids in it, or the Texas woman who admitted to drowning her five kids, one at a time (and will probably get away with it, but that's a whole 'nother rant). I looked at the child murders here in Toronto over the past decade and saw 4 mothers, 2 stepfathers, 1 stepmother. No strangers among the perps. The airline's policy of segregating single males is no different from a lot of other measures seen these days- they were never intended to enhance safety, they are only in place for the sake of lawyers and paranoid parents.

[min]

Sorry...I was referring to stats for sexual assaults as this was in reference to the assualt on the NW flight. Put the lack of clarity down to a lack of sleep on my part!

I suppose at the end of the day, you need to do what you think is in the child's best interests. Whilst some at age 10 are quite mature, others aren't, and if unaccompanied, they probably need you to act as their advocate in situations where their safety is a concern. Rule of thumb should be to treat them as you would like your own child/niece/whatever to be treated...I'm not advocating that people should be moved or whatever. I agree that paranoia sometimes results in extreme measures being taken without little justification. But I would be surprised if that's the only thing that could be done.

[Squawk 8888]

Agree with you there, min. If a kid gets attacked on the plane, we should look at it the way we look at crashes- a chain of events, break one link and it won't happen. In the case of the alleged assault, if true then the parents and CC didn't brief the kid adequately (she should have been aware that the FAs could help), and the FAs should have been a bit more vigilant. I know the CC don't have an easy job but is it really too much to look in on the kid once in a while?

[Jungle Strip]

Min, I see that NW case is as yet only an accusation. Funnily enough, it reminds me hugely of an incident on one of our flights last year. Two teenage girls (who happened also to be American) made a similar accusation against a man (who happened also to be Asian) sitting next to them. It started as a timid suggestion; their mother became increasingly frenzied and by the time we landed they were near-hysterical and the police were called.

Interestingly, I haven't heard or seen anything more about it.

[flyblue]

I think the main concern should be the kid's safety. Would you, as a mother/father be rhappy knowing that your son/daughter could be sitting next to any nutter who wants to move next to them?
Of course FA have to look after them, but it is not always possible to check as the situation would require. In a company I used to work for, a male pax moved next two UM and did some very explicit things before he was discovered by a FA.
I sure wouldn't let my son/daughter fly alone knowing that the company hasn't the policy of not allowing stranger pax next to him/her.
And knowing that lots of parents harm their children is not a good argument to let your child alone among strangers.

[Squawk 8888]

So flyblue, why single out the male pax? Women are capable of being quite vicious as well, MOF the last child abduction near my town (by a stranger, that is) was done by a woman.

[ONTPax]

I think, in the case of the NW incident, the guy's "goose is cooked" because he's admitted in a statement that he touched the girl. Whether he felt it was appropriate or not is not really the issue. He supposedly said the flight was experiencing some severe turbulence and he touched her on the upper thigh to "reassure her." Come on. Cultural diversity or not, there is no excuse for that. The guy was from India. Maybe that's appropriate behavior in India, but it isn't in the U.S. He should have been practicing the "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" approach to living in a foreign country.

Call me a bigot if you wish, but IMHO, that's part of the problem with this massive influx of unbridled immigration in the last few years. We're supposed to accept everything as part of "cultural diversity." Give me a break. I think there was a case in Ohio a few years ago of the local community voicing outrage over some African immigrants practicing genitial circumcision on their young females because, after all, that's accepted practice in their "mother country." To what extent do we have to accomodate "cultural diversity"?
:confused:

[ 10 August 2001: Message edited by: ONTpax ]

[Capt EFIS]

ONTpax,

I would have to agree with you on that. If I go to another country then I have to abide by their laws, and the same should be, if someone else comes here.

[mainfrog2]

Most of the posts talk of moving the male pax away. An easier option I find is to move the UM's. Move them on some pretext (nearer to the galley where you can keep a better eye on them). However if this seating thing is such an issue why not block off one row until last minute which could be used for UM's? After all we're only allowed two per crew on our flights. If the row isn't used for UM's then you can fill it with those pax who are about to be bumped off due to overselling or staff standby's or last minute check ins.

[flyblue]

squawk,

If you read my post carefully you will notice I never used a gender, but talked about "strangers". I referred to a male only when it was something I witnessed.

Mainfrog,
the cases we were referring to are about pax moving from their assigned seat next to the UM.

[Jungle Strip]

Gentle question, Flyblue: Would you be happy to think that your son might accidentally find himself sitting next to an adolescent girl who decided to accuse him of touching her up?

Yes, children must be protected. But should that swing over into an assumption that no-one under the age of 18 can tell a lie, exaggerate or just be confused? Or grateful for a bit of attention?
Many weird bits of earthbound human interaction seem to be intensified in that tube at 38000 ft...
It still seems, IMHO, that the best measure is to give FAs the chance to use their judgement and common sense, rather than having to move any single male seated next to UMs, regardless.

[flyblue]

Fact is, dear Jungle strip, that I am not really concerned about grown ups, as they are grown ups and can defend themselves. At least they know what they can expect from people: harm, even if not done on purpose as you suggest.
I think yours is a nonexistent problem compared to a child being put in the situation we were talking about.
And I sure wouldn't rely on any FA's (or anyone of any other profession's) good judgment "only" when it comes up to my kid.
And, again, no one is talking to move male pax generally, but just the ones who MOVE next to UM.

[exrotarybooty]

Last year I was flying with my family from Heathrow to Edinburgh with BA, and after we had boarded and settled down,I was asked if my 12 years old son would move and sit some distance away with 2 x UM girls. I was very impressed with the way it was handled by the cabin crew, who were obviously ill at ease about this regulation. On the plus side, my son was able to gain a visit to the flight deck as a result,( yes, he now wants to be an airline pilot!!!but hates girls even more!!) However, we really felt sorry for the poor guy who then had to move and sit with us, as he was very embarrassed. Couldn't this have been sorted out before we loaded, as the check-in-desk staff, I guess, were aware that there were two UM girls travelling?

[LatviaCalling]

Well, as the original perpetrator on Rumors and then it was switched to Miscellaneous matters, I'm still much alive and I appreciate you guys carrying on this thread.

How to move the PAX? I know that BA has a program that no single male PAX is allowed to sit next to an unaccompaied child. But then again, I read in your above postings that in some cases women are not much better.

I tend to disagree with the woman bashers. There may be deep psychological problems why they kill their children, but I think that sexual perversion has been, on the whole, more associated with men. Pardon the expression, but I think that men get more of a hard-on than women get a G-spot erection.

Even after my original posting on this subject there were several replies that this kind of thing happens occasionaly on aircraft. After going through some search engines, I was surprised that it happens more often than not.

So what do we do about it? We don't want Dr. Kevorkian's lawyer to sue NW for $20+ million or so, unless the passenger next to the girl was actually a perp.

Actually, I also don't agree with the defendant's statement that TWICE he had to hold he girl's upper thigh to calm her down because of air turbulence. As I explained in the other site, my first reaction would be to hold her shoulder and then her hand -- if asked.

I think that this court case, if it comes to that, will be a major guideline for airlines.

[Squawk 8888]

I think that this court case, if it comes to that, will be a major guideline for airlines.Already has- thanks to "liability chill" at least on carrier has decided to stop taking UMs, I can see the day where kids will have less access to out-of-town parents as the rest follow suit.

[Jungle Strip]

Exrotary: At risk of repeating myself, in a few years, your son could find himself sitting next to two similar girls.. And be accused of molesting them. Would you admire the airline's handling so much then?

Squawk 8888: You have a point. No airline will carry UMs. Great for us FAs..! Here's hoping...

[exrotarybooty]

Jungle Strip: Sorry, the point I was trying to make was that the seating on the 737 was 3 and 3, and with a bit of planning before loading, couldn't my family have been seated so that we occupied the same set of six seats as the UMs? In that case my 9 years old daughter could have sat next to the UMs and still been within speaking distance of us. That way, the FAs wouldn't have had to play musical chairs at their busiest time.
I take your point about my son in the future; I'm sure his attitude to girls will have changed,( I hope!), and I also hope, by then, they will have sorted out this problem to everyones' satisfaction! Your post should help.

[Ditch]

Our airlines policy is that Unaccompanied minors are to be sat at an aisle seat only and the seat/s next door are blocked unless chockers.. Ums also are allocated seats closest to FA jump seats/Galleys. Any other airlines around with similar policies??? :cool:

[Do28]

This thread does not make me think happy thoughts about going back to work on Sat. In our 19 seat aircraft, we have no cabin crew, so the flight crew (specifically the FO, i.e. me) becomes responsible for the cabin. I think of a flight recently where I had 2 U.M.s I just wonder how long it will be until something ugly happens.

[Eboy]

As a passenger, let me suggest that parents have to take more responsiblity here. I was on a flight from DC to Savannah, small jet, two seats each side of the aisle, fully loaded. Sat next to a very-extroverted 10 year old. She wanted to tell me all about her life, and exchange e-mail and home addresses so we could stay in touch. I declined and explained to her that she should not give indentifying information to strangers, and to talk with her parents about it. (Both parents were very busy professionals, and spent little time with her, she suggested.) Parents, talk with your kids before these flights. Be a friend and spend time with your kids. If you don't, others you don't want may. Maybe some of us parents have to slow down.

[Perky Penguin]

Why not ban UMs completely, unless they travel with a designated and responsible member of airline staff? A total ban might bother or incovenience some parents who want their children to fly unaccompanied but a ban would make a lot of sexually normal frequesnt travellers feel a lot better about flying, without being categorised as perverts as a starting point for a seating plan.

[amtcndtr35]

I'm an Amtrak Assistant Conductor out of Oakland. I've been on quite a few trains out here where parents dump off UMs on our trains. They're required by Amtrak policy to have a copy of their UM paperwork and to present it to the Conductor. The Conductor/ A.C. is then only allowed to turn the child over to the adult/ parent/ family member at the UMs destination. UMs under the age of 11 are only allowed to ride between staffed stations and during daylight hours only.

A lot time this does not happen. The parent goes in and buys the ticket for the UM and the station agent doesn't know he/she are selling a ticket for a UM. I've worked trains from OAK (our symbol is OKJ for Jack London Square) to SAC on Sunday evenings when parents send their kids back to their custodial parents. A few of them have the proper papers and we can somewhat can control it.

On the San Joaquin trains, however, I've UMs without the proper paper work, especially on 715 out BFD on Sundays which I've seen loads just from BFD as high as 250 alone! There are only two of us, plus the LSA and SA to watch out for them. I can't even count the times I've seen single males hit on teenage UMs. I wish we had the controls the airlines had.

Amtcndtr35

[Eboy]

That's amazing, amtcndtr35. I checked the Amtrak web site and it says children as young as 8 can ride unaccompanied. I don't see how you keep them from getting off at the wrong stop. I ride the Northeast Corridor. I've seen some strange characters get on, and get booted off at the next stop. Also, around the 4th of July I can count on seeing thieves jump on at Newark, NJ, grab the chemical light sticks out of the fire extinguisher box, and run away. They could grab a kid just as easily. As you say, you are just not staffed sufficiently to see everything at once.

[ONTPax]

Like the other contributor suggested, I'd like to see UM's banned completely. On a commuter rail line that I have a little familiararity with, there used to be an entire private school class, all traveling on a regular basis, without supervision. The school, the parents and the railroad management couldn't seem to see the potential seriousness of the situation. One of the little girls claimed some weirdo tried to lure her into the restroom. This, in addition to the fact that, with no supervision, they were a constant disciplinary problem. The railroad manangment apparently didn't want to appear as the "bad guy" by denying them passage. I think they eventually broke down and bough a school bus. I haven't seen them lately.

Yesterday, a kid got on the wrong train, going the wrong direction. Parents use public transportation as a means of "day care" and the kids aren't savvy enough to figure out schedules, connection points and all the other details. Who cares, as long as they're out of Dad's (or Mom's) hair for the weekend and he/she can then go scoring for action at the nearest nightspot? :mad:


I brought the following over from a similar discussion thread over on "Rumours & News."

This will probably be a problem as long as unaccompanied minors are handled by public transportation.

And the kids aren't always innocent angels either. Amtrak had to modify their unaccompanied minor policy on the Los Angeles-San Diego route to a restriction of handling kids only during daylight hours. Why? Seems there was an incident of an unaccompanied female who befriended some
Marines and got off the train with them, short of her intended destination.

Camp Pendleton --- the undiscovered Southern California vacation destination! :eek:

[ 19 August 2001: Message edited by: ONTpax ]

[Eboy]

ONTpax and others put it well. Having thought about it some I agree. As a passenger with a child, I say ban UMs on aircraft (and trains!). As ONTpax says, these are not day care centers, and you all are travel and safety professionals, not day care workers.

Safety to the UMs, yes. But what about safety to other passengers? Do those emergency plans you study and practice as crew take into account the presence of UMs? I read about these FAA evacuation experiments, where manufacturers try to show they can evacuate the plane in so-many seconds. Do those experiments, or your crew practice drills, include four crying UMs frozen to their seat in fear? My guess is no.

[Jungle Strip]

You would be guessing right, Eboy. But then, better to have something small frozen to its seat that a sumo wrestler. Who knows how anyone will react...?

But then, no doubt if we threw a UM down the shute, someone would acuse us of abuse.

[PrettyBoy]

It's amazing to me that so many parents don't hesitate one second to send one or all their children as UM:s. Maybe the same way they motivate sending their kids to daycare...

Anyway, if the parents are worried about their children being molested on the flight, why don't they fly with them? Surely the best way to avoid this possibility?? Unfortunately, this requires an effort by the parent...

It is interesting to know that I am concidered a possible child molester every time I travel. Maybe thats why the cabin crew gives me such lousy service :D :D

[Viivi Wepf]

Why don't airlines sit these UMs according to their age? but again crew's are made up of both adult males and females, they might as well end up as pontential molesters..;-). I might agree with that the UM should be banned but then again again I got no kids yet so I might need to send the duo when I got them to their grand parents in the future and is cheaper to send the kid alone anyway.

Surely a good conclusion fitting both will be reached hopefully before more kids are REAL molested and innocent people are accused of things they didn't do. Kids DO tell lies sometimes so let's not over look this.

[Jungle Strip]

Quite, Friends. And isn't a kid more likely to lie if they know that adults around them are already palpitating with anxiety and suppressed rage over something the kid only vaguely understands... But which it knows will generate its 15 minutes' fame..?

[Squawk 8888]

JS, you're on the right track there. There are innumerable cases where kids lied about abuse because of the way they were questioned by therapists with a hidden agenda. Essentially, what happens is the therapist subjects the kid to an interrogation until the kid gives in and tells her (in nearly all such cases the therapist is female) what she wants to hear. It happened with a lot of adults as well before the "recovered memories" scam was debunked. The problem is that the whole area of child abuse has taken on the characteristics of a witch-hunt, to the point where a kid who alleges abuse is not only instantly believed but is rewarded with boatloads of attention while those who say "nothing happened" are subjected to endless sessions of psychobabble. Hardly surprising the choice most of them end up making.

[amtcndtr35]

Well, to answer the question on UM policy of Amtrak, is that UMs under the age of 11 are allowed to ride in daylight hours ONLY and with the proper paperwork between staffed stations ONLY. Does this happen all the time, NO. A lot parents just find it convienient to drop them off at the station with a ticket to send them off to the other parents. I found, one time, a kid who couldn't've been more 11 or 12 riding by himself. He said his brother, who I saw right before they got off the train and was about 19 or older, was sitting at the other end of the train had his ticket. :eek: I wasn't happy but I sent him to get the ticket from the brother and kept my eye on him the rest of the trip.

There have been times when accompanied minors have caused problems on night trains. Kids these days need more control and disicipline. I don't agree with dumping a child off on a train or a plane. I think the child SHOULD be accompanied and not babysat by flight crews or train crews. Too many things can go wrong to both the child and a possible innocent by stander.

[Pointer]

as i'm 99% of the time up front i don't get to witness most off it but in the begining of this year we did a wetlease in France for a regional carrier. Apperantly there was a holiday period and we shipped masses of UM's from north to south and visa versa. i was not aware that there were so many children flying around!!! and most of them were frequent flyers!!! as for the seating, it was on some flight just like a shool cafeteria...the FA's were going mad.
But the point to make..it is as normal there as eating breakfast. The hysteria arround law suits is out off proportion. therefore as a wise FA said "break the chain" and stick to the rules! not the most elegant way but banning UM's is not the sullution...think about UneMploiment :rolleyes:

[BayAreaLondoner]

My vote:
Ban UMs.
Ban kids in business and first.
(and while we're at it, ban any luggage from being taken on board that the passenger can't lift!)

Seriously, though, I was SLF on a flight last night, which was due to be mostly empty and then became mostly full owing to a girls soccer team on their way from Denver to California. I was window over the wing and got two 12 year olds next to me. I helped two of them with their luggage in an effort to help get the flight out on time. No doubt I have been branded a "molesterer" (if any of you saw that recent South Park episode)
Now these girls weren't unaccompanied, but the two or three adults travelling with them made no attempt whatsoever to keep them under control of any sort. It was without doubt one of the most unruly flights I've had the misfortune of being on. Thankfully I slept through much of it - until one of the girls presumably fell out with another and lobbed a glass of water all over her, most of which ended up on me!

Am I making a point? Not really. Just need to vent. :)

[catswhisker]

OK pigeons,here comes the cat:
Has anyone heard of an accusation of inflight molestation being made by any child or young adult who wasn't American? I haven't.
A straight question. But it makes you wonder...

[ONTPax]

Although this may be slightly "off topic" because it involves a train rather than an airplane, here's another horror story in the continuing saga of unaccompanied kids on public transportation.

Date: Friday, Sept. 7, 2001
Location: Metrolink's Anaheim Canyon station
Train: Metrolink train # 804

With this being a Friday, we're treated to all the divorced parents taking their kids down to the commuter train station so they can "pawn off" those kids for the weekend to the person they divorced.

Biological Dad and stepmom place eight-year old Brandon on the train and advise me, the conductor, that biological Mom and stepdad will be picking him up at the next station downline, which is West Corona. Unlike you hosties, I am not furnished with any paper documentation showing the names and phone numbers of the parties involved in this "kid swap."

About mid-way through the trip, I ask Brandon if he has a telephone contact for biological Mom in case we don't see them at the station. I have an uncanny way of seeing these events unfold before they actually do. Sometimes the parent at the "receiving" end is "forgetful" or "confused" or "uninformed." Brandon announces that he's just moved to the area and hasn't had an opportunity to memorize any phone numbers. The only tidbits of information he can furnish me are his name and age. Wonderful. Just as I expected, when we arrive at West Corona, biological Mom and stepdad are nowhere to be found. I delay the train for a good five minutes, waiting for the mass of exiting passengers to disperse and allow us to see if his Mom is anywhere to be seen. No such luck. I decide to take Brandon to the train's destination, San Bernardino, and figure on turning him over to the police there. They can then sort out the mess. As per procedure, I have to call Metrolink's operational headquarters and advise them of what's happening. For reasons I can't quite understand, one of the clerks there calls my immediate supervisor and advises him of what's happening. He then calls me and more or less wants a continuous minute-by-minute appraisal of the situation. I might be exaggerating a little here, but, the point is, he's now in the mix of it all, in addition to the operational headquarters.

Brandon suddenly makes the proclamation "OH! Sometimes my mom meets me at the Riverside - La Sierra station", which, as it happens, is the next station downline. Sure enough, at La Sierra, we finally find biological Mom and stepdad.

Observations:

<> If we're going to assume the role of daycare center and provide free babysitting services, all for the cost of a train ticket, you'd think the parents could at least come to an agreement as to where the kid should be received off the train. These yo-yo's couldn't even accomplish that much.

<> All for the revenue of a $5.00 ticket, I had to make two cell phone calls (one to advise operational headquarters of the problem, another to advise them that the crisis had been solved), and received one from my immediate supervisor. Calculate, also, the time and money involved of having three (or more) employees devote their energies in an effort to take care of this problem.

<> All of the other duties that I could have done were, more or less, put on "low priority" while I was handling this situation.

<> If there had there been a more important crisis evolve (running over a trespasser, as an example), I would have had to bump the "unaccompanied kid" crisis to a lower priority. This might have opened a "window of opportunity" for a child molestor to have his way with this kid, while I would have been preoccupied with other details such as walking the right-of-way counting body parts and dealing with emergency personnel and the coroner. :eek:

<> Had I allowed the kid to get off at the first stop, West Corona, and if anything bad had happened to him, you can be assured that it would have been my ass on the carpet for not handling the situation "correctly." I just love having parental responsibility rammed down my throat as a requirement of my job. :mad:

<> Once, during a similar fiasco like this, we did have to turn the kid over to the police at San Bernardino, as his "receiving party" never showed up. To this day, I still remember his emotional state, realizing, more or less, that no one wanted him that particular weekend. I think the cops finally sorted it out, but what a price to pay just to get parents to act responsibly. :mad:

<> I think the fact that the commuter rail agency gets taxpayer money for its operational budget requires them to provide this "social service." You don't bite the hand that feeds you, and if the taxpayer dollars coming from divorced parents keeps you afloat, you haul their kids around from point "A" to point "B" and you smile while doing so. They have a lot of political clout. Any discussion of banning UM's would never be seriously considered. :eek:

<> If there will ever be any reforms, it will only be after a kid is molested, injured or killed. There is no such thing as proactive responses. :mad:

<> Sometimes I wish the cell phone had never been invented. It's hard to do your job and have to handle endless calls, both received and transmited. :rolleyes: