Male passenger sues BA

[dudleydick]

In today's Daily Mail a male passenger is suing BA:

"Mirko Fischer has accused the airline of branding all men as potential sex offenders. He became aware of the policy while he was flying from Gatwick with his pregnant wife. He was in the middle seat between her and a young boy but, after all the passengers had sat down, a steward asked Mr Fischer to change his seat."
Mr. Fischer was sitting next to his pregnant wife and objected to being moved but was required to do so.

I am a retired airline person and not CC. It always concerns me that airlines are being sued by just about anyone for just about anything.

[Dawdler]

Perhaps as the man's pregnant wife was also sitting next to the child, perhaps the child should have been moved instead of the CC raising his voice to the passenger, announcing the problem to all around.

[Thunderbug]

I don't think it is an issue to sue over - but the steward was wrong.

The restriction is that unaccompanied minors must not to be sat next to "adult males travelling alone". If this guy was travelling with his wife then the restriction does not apply.

Yes, the rule is a petty one - but unfortunately reflects the crazy, lazy, litigious world that we live in. I'm sure the Daily hate Mail's high quality journalism would just as likely publish a story of "BA lets peddo sit next to unaccompanied minor"

[apaddyinuk]

I bloody well hope this changes the rules. Females are just as risky as males in my opinion!

[Capetonian]

unaccompanied minors must not to be sat next to "adult males travelling alone"

Then the policy is sexist.

[Yarpy]

Some years ago my family traveled to New Zealand with Qantas just after they introduced this policy. For every leg of the six sector journey I had to fight to sit with my family. 'Wouldn't you feel better in a seat on your own sir?' was one excuse. On another occasion I refused to board the family unless they allowed us to sit together.

I only understood what was going on when I read about the new policy in a New Zealand newspaper. :mad:

[apaddyinuk]

As I said in another thread. This policy although stupid is every bit as much about protecting you the Male traveller as it is the children. Kids are not innocent in this day and age, they know the "a" word and any form of kindness or assistance by an unknown gentleman towards an unsupervised child could easy be "a"bused by the child themselves putting you in a very awkward situation!

lets face it, there are lots of pricosious little brats out there that are quite frankly..INSANE!

[Checkboard]

The restriction is that unaccompanied minors must not to be sat next to "adult males travelling alone".
Then the employee who booked and seated the unaccompanied minor was in the wrong, and it is the minor who should be moved. :hmm:

The policy IS not only sexist, but dangerous, as it doesn't take into account people like this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8022861.stm).

[jetset lady]

Also as stated on another thread, the UM's are allocated particular rows specifically for their proximity to the galleys and crew.

[Boss Raptor]

same thing happened to me best part of 8 years ago now - as I have been in the industry a fair time and used to travel a lot on ID tickets I was often asked if I would mind sitting next to an unaccompanied minor by the cabin crew just to make sure they were ok, not scared, sick etc...of course the cabin crew would also be coming by and doing their job to do the same

then I travelled on a US airline with a pre-reserved seat and the next seat was to be taken by a UM, I was asked/told very abruptly by cabin crew I should change seats as I was a single male next to an unaccompanied minor and that was against recent company policy...I explained I was airline staff and was quite happy with the scenario...but no

Yes I took offense 'single male = pervert' and refused to move and told them that was their issue/problem and that I had a pre-reserved seat and wasnt shifting, I suggested they 'shift' the kid...(and if they didnt like it they could off load me and my baggage delaying their flight...followed up by one hell of a PR nightmare/offensive by me on my return home...come on make my day!) - they shifted the kid...

At the time I and other passengers took great offense at that policy, its' insinuation and ramifications

Well done Mr. Fischer :ok:

[Matt101]

I bloody well hope this changes the rules. Females are just as risky as males in my opinion!

Not being argumentative but, statistically, you are wrong - I had the displeasure of working in this area for a while.

Whatever you think of this policy it has a reason for it's existence - it reduces risk for both parties and the airline.

If anything it's a sad reflection of a reality where suing is rampant, nobody can be trusted and pedophiles exist.

However, as has been said, the Steward implemented the policy wrongly, but I have to say that the mentality some passengers possess of being difficult at any opportunity may have made the situation worse too. ;)

[apaddyinuk]

Matt, I dont doubt you "statistically" but I am living in a country where stories of both men and women horrendously abusing children throughout the years are daily publications in the rags! Personally I think the rule should be changed to no UM being put sitting next to a member of the clergy but that is perhaps not a PC thing to say! LOL!

Lets not forget the Carol Clarke case just a few weeks ago!

[Matt101]

No no I quite agree with you on the Clergy Front, that's coming from a "lapsed Roman Catholic".

[blimey]

The passenger could well have passed an enhanced crb check. All of the crew in charge of the um may not have even have been cleared to the less demanding airside pass level if they were foreign nationals.

Don't forget, this stupid government regards all of us, about 10 million requiring clearance at the last count, as potential paedophiles (and terrorists).

[dudleydick]

Thanks for the interesting response to my thread. In my time we placed UM's close to the galley/duty area and usually next to a lady pax. Nevertheless merely by moving the kid, which appears to have been a UM, would have prevented all the hassles. BA does not need more problems!

[al446]

I have just opened today's incoming mail and received my enhanced CRB check which is clear. However, if it was explained to me discretely that the policy existed I would have asked that a solution be found which is acceptable to myself and my wife. As Matt101 states the stats uphold this but I would argue that the stats are wrong as has been recognised by at least one national broadsheet (Guardian). Maternal and female physical of children has been with us for ages, nuns spring to mind, female sexual abuse of kids was not seen as being as widespread as it is now presently feared. Until the situation becomes clearer I think this policy will remain in place and the court case will fail.

[ONTPax]

Perhaps some of the sexism exists because documented cases of molestations in flight have been initiated only by males.

A cursory search in Lexis Nexis, a news search engine, turns up 10 instances of child molestation cases aboard airplanes from the past couple of decades, though there have almost certainly been more. It's likely that many other cases did not make the news, or were never reported by the children.

Although an airplane full of potential witnesses may seem an unlikely place for a child to be molested, criminal and civil lawyers who have handled these cases say that the controlled and confined yet anonymous environment is well suited for a child predator.

In going over the news stories, court documents, and FBI reports on the molestation cases, certain patterns begin to emerge. The predators were all adult males, although they did not fit any other stereotype. One was a computer consultant from India. Two were Hasidic Jews. Another was a world-renowned hairdresser from Savannah, Georgia.

In a majority of the instances, a man switched seats to be next to a child traveling alone. Also, a significant number of the reported molestations occurred on evening flights, when the victim and any potential witnesses were asleep. Several children reported that when the touching began, it seemed accidental or even well intentioned, and only later crossed the line.

The above came from an excellent, in-depth article on this subject from the San Francisco Weekly magazine that I GOOGLED off the Internet. Highly recommended reading.

ONTPax

SOURCE:

San Francisco (http://www.sfweekly.com/content/printVersion/1592695)

[Qansett]

I think it's fair because I do not like to be seated next to the kids. They are making noise, hit my legs when they wanted to have more space.

[Mr Optimistic]

I could sit next to an unaccompanied child on a bus, the train or in the cinema. It is silly corporations with under-employed people in overhead functions which cause this nonsense, the 'diversity' bandwagon being the worst.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

I make an effort never to smile at any children, whether on aircraft or in a supermarket.
It helps that I don't like children anyway, but the basic premise still stands ... men are apparently now a universal hazard to children.

Werther's, anyone? ;)

[Right Way Up]

Another example of "New Britain". What a crock. With regard to British Airways, I bought traveller plus tickets for 6 of us (wife, 2 girls 7 & 5, grandparents & myself). Imagine my surprise when the seats were allocated that the girls were on their own, & the rest of us were split up around the cabin. I explained to customer services that I hoped the 2 gold card holders next to them wouldn't be too upset to be next to my kids & that they wouldn't mind being responsible for them in case of evacuation. I hope the extra profit they make from these daft ideas are worth it. Somehow I doubt it! :ugh:

[al446]

As you say - what a crock. But I mean your post. This is not "New Britain" at work it is BA. Did you ask BA to change your seating arrangement or did you only say to them what you posted? What extra profit?

[Right Way Up]

AL446,
I should have been clearer. The seats were allocated 3 days before the flight. I spent an hour on the phone trying to sort out the seating to be told finally that I would have to wait until 24 hours before the flight to try to change the seating. Cometh the hour still no chance of swopping seats as the cabin was full. Finally on board the crew were excellent & picked up the issue before I even had to say something. With minimal fuss it was dealt with. This all happened before the new BA charge for seat allocation which I would obviously would now have to pay to ensure my 7 & 5 year daughters sit next to a parent. I would rather fly with somebody else.

I have to disagree with you about BA vs New Britain. Companies are now having to implement these rules such as in the OPs post, because we have become such a nanny state. I am not sure whether it was the influence of the EU or the influence of the lawyers on the New labour gravy train. Either way Britain is losing out because of it.

[cyclops16]

As SLF it seems there is possible legal argument either way.All the situation required was a little common sense.But it is very apparent that it has become an anti-male society whether it is currently PC or not, or Harriet Harman on her crusades that is putting us down.
Please allow me to go on a tangent.
I am a Male 40 something full-time single parent with 3 girls under 11.I have been on my own with them for almost 7 years when the youngest was 2. I am also a School Governer and hold an Enhanced CRB. Yet I am treated with what could be described as contempt when buying such items as underwear for my kids and have been abruptly questioned by sales staff to the effect of was I sure as to what I was buying as it was little girls items.After one such "interrogation" that was rather brutal as the sales assistant raised her voice so the other (female) shoppers could hear. I took out my Court Orders which I keep in my wallet which state my Parental Responsibility and Residence Orders for my girls until they are 18 and made the sales assistant read them then I walked out in disgust as it appears the S*x Discrimination Act doesn't work both ways when being a parent.I hate being treated as a potential Peado and I will take to task any company,corporation or civil dept(council,etc) who suggest anything of the sort. It wasn't my fault as a Male I ended up as a single parent. I stood up to the plate and took responsibility for my kids instead of them going into care after their Mother left.Yet, I am constantly fighting a wall of officialdom because of my gender as the system expects a single parent to be Female.
Sorry that it turned into a rant I apologise. But this Government and it's PC attitude, it's hate of Males over the years and the companies who expand on PC policy and then the litigators who get rich off it really P*ss me off and I feel like a 3rd or 4th class citizen who is always under suspicion from big brother and it's policies.

[Finnster]

to cyclops totally agree with you post only thing i would have done as well was demand to see manager , if this was company policy , my partner loves it when i do this!!

[Iain Wilson]

Cyclops
Very well put - I agree entirely with what you say. In my case, I always insisted that my daughters accompany their friends when I was giving them a lift home - no exceptions.
And yes, the PC Nutters and the Harriet Harmons of this world on their somewhat skewed female emancipation quests are largely ( but not entirely ) responsible for this sad sad state of affairs.

[MrBernoulli]

cyclops16

Good on you, for looking after your kids, and for putting the PC brigade back in their boxes!

Political correctness is discrimination on steroids - it achieves bugger all, except create jobs and attitudes for the pathetically weak-minded.

[neilperrin]

Just as a matter of interest. Would that male passenger have been asked to move had he paid BA's seat levy for the location he occupied?

[apaddyinuk]

Just as a matter of interest. Would that male passenger have been asked to move had he paid BA's seat levy for the location he occupied?

You are making the assumption that the rule states that "male passengers should be moved"!

The fact of the matter is that the rule states that UM's cannot be seated next to "Male passengers travelling alone"! Therefore it is actually up to the checkin agent to ensure when the UM is being allocated a seat that it is next to a female. What happened on board this flight happened because the crew member WAS IN THE WRONG. This man was NOT travelling alone so therefore does not come under the ruling AND even if he was, the rule does not state that the male needs to move, the crew member should have used some cop on and just move the kid without causing any fuss or even needing to reveal the rule.

Every company has idiots like that who both get the rules wrong and seem to glee in imposing their version of the rules on others...suppose its a power trip thing!

[neilperrin]

I wasn't assuming anything - just asking a question. But, I'm grateful for your insight. If what you say is correct, then BA had better settle this one out of court asap.

[lowcostdolly]

I think BA may well be on a sticky wicket on this one under the sexual discrimination rules.

They seem to have a written policy that discriminates against male's. I think nielperrin is correct and BA will find themselves not only settling out of court but then re writing their policy.

I'm neutral on their policy. I can see it's origins but i can also see the pitfalls as illustrated by JSL and Paddy.

Please can I ask a question here which is based purely on the ignorance of a concerned SLF who could recieve an UM SLF into the UK.

I have a really close friend who lives in Jersey who would like to send her daughter aged 7 unaccompanied over to meet me at LGW to spend a week with me. Apparently she can travel on BA aged 7 but I have not checked this myself. My friend seems to have gleaned this from BA somehow.

My friend also is under the impression BA will provide a chaperone? Is this correct? If so why do we have the seating issues/policies stated on this thread?

Paddy/JSL any info would be appreciated.

[interpreter]

What absurd rubbish! How come there was a single male child on his own anyway? Where were his parent/s? If I had been the passenger I would have flatly refused - whatever the circumstances. Yes - whatever. The CC member also needed his/her common sense examined. I hope the airline has sunstantial damages to pay out. As a former CRB checked school governor I was contsantly having to advise the governors and teachers to "get a grip on themselves" and stop being so suspicious of every male. In any event most males who are likely to "interfere" with young males have a homosexual predisposition and not husbands accompanying their pregant wives!

[jetset lady]

Lowcostdolly,

We do offer the Skyflyers Solo on the Jersey route. Hopefully, the following link will be able to answer your questions. I would be put it all on here, but it's a bit long!

British Airways - Children travelling alone (http://www.britishairways.com/travel/childinfo/public/en_gb?gsLink=searchResults)

Jersey is a great route for UM's. Most of the kids are real regulars and know the routine, and us, better than we do!

[Bad Hat Harry]

Being male in the 21st century you are considered to be a potential wife basher,criminal,rapist,war monger,muderer and child abuser.
No wonder the young men of today have self esteem problems

[apaddyinuk]

What absurd rubbish! How come there was a single male child on his own anyway? Where were his parent/s? If I had been the passenger I would have flatly refused - whatever the circumstances. Yes - whatever. The CC member also needed his/her common sense examined. I hope the airline has sunstantial damages to pay out. As a former CRB checked school governor I was contsantly having to advise the governors and teachers to "get a grip on themselves" and stop being so suspicious of every male. In any event most males who are likely to "interfere" with young males have a homosexual predisposition and not husbands accompanying their pregant wives!

No disrespect Interpreter but...what planet do live on? "most males who are likely to "interfere" with young males have a homosexual predispostion and not husbands accompanying their pregnant wives"! That is perhaps one of the most innocent...nee, niave comments I have ever read on this forum. Men with Homosexual tendencies marry and impregnate women all the time! And lets face it, there are countless examples in the press of relatively upstanding family men being prosecuted for just such activity towards young children male and female!
And as for children travelling alone...you certainly have your head in the clouds....hundreds of thousands of children fly unaccompanied every year for various reasons, it is a service that is considered very valuable by many and for the very reasons being discussed here many airlines are no longer providing the service for fear of even the slightest prosecution. And I do not think you are one to judge parents who feel the need to use such a service.

My friend also is under the impression BA will provide a chaperone? Is this correct? If so why do we have the seating issues/policies stated on this thread?

The child will be handed over to a member of ground staff who will bring them to the aircraft. There they are signed over to the cabin crew who then look after them for the flight, they are then handed back over to a new member of ground staff at the arrival airport who then escorts them to baggage reclaim and to yourself where you will be listed on a form as the designated collector (you will probably need ID) of the kid and you will sign the form! But there is no one person who stays with the kid for the whole experience.

I wasn't assuming anything - just asking a question. But, I'm grateful for your insight. If what you say is correct, then BA had better settle this one out of court asap.

My "assumption" comment was just a figure of speech, apologies if it came across rude. LOL. Alas what I am saying is correct and I think this will be settled out of court as are most cases brought against BA by private customers. However I hope that if there is a monetary pay out that it is not given to this man but perhaps a suggested donation to a charity or something. I do not feel this man deserves a monetary payout under the circumstances when this is a rule adopted by most of the worlds prominent carriers who still over the UM service.
IF it happened the way this man says it happened then its a mere case of a crew member being an idiot!

[AndoniP]

simple solution then. no unaccomanied minors. end of. yes sometimes it's not as simple as that but it's probably the only way you can prevent this idiocy from continuing.

i believe some airlines already have this policy in place.


Children travelling alone


We do not accept any unaccompanied children under the age of 14 for travel. Children under 14 years of age cannot travel unless accompanied by a person aged 16 years or older who will take responsibility for them. easyJet does not operate an indemnity policy and therefore, under no circumstance, under the Child Protection Act, must another passenger be asked to accept responsibility during flight of an unaccompanied minor.

[meat bomb]

The no um idea does seem like a better solution. If you're worried that every male in the world is out to get your kid, have the decency to travel with them yourself instead of relying on someone else ( oh no - possibly a man!) to look after them.

[Matoki]

What a mamby pamby society, full of useless rules that frighten good people. As a child aged 11 years in 1961, I flew from Manchester to Entebbe with one of the following EAA , BEA and possible BOAC as an UM. Some of the flights were known as lolly pop specials as it was expats kids returning home for the holidays. On the flights from Heathrow were 'aunties', mature ladies who looked after the little ones, and you did sit next to adults who out of normal behavior kept an eye on you as every one should today, but who now have a fear of doing or saying anything in case they get verbally abused or accused of some thing else.

I travelled alone from boarding school in Gargrave ,Yorkshire, by train with changes at Manchester and sometimes Preston, to my grandmothers in Blackpool, left my school stuff and the next day went alone by train to Manchester, bus to Ringway, and then check in staff told you where to meet them in the departure lounge at a given time. I then flew to Heathrow changed planes and flew to Entebbe, with stops at one or two of the following Rome, Paris , Munich and Athens and at the end of the holidays I made the return journey. I did this until 1969 as an UM as it was beneficial to do so if the aircraft was delayed for any reason. I met lots of adults who were not frightened of talking to me and me to them as normal caring human beings, who often watched to make sure I had gone to the correct platform, along with the railway and airport staff.

Perhaps my many school friends and I were lucky none of them ever said they had been molested, some moaned about the miserable person they had been sat next to, but all of us felt safe. In today's world Social Services would have had a field day, airlines wouldn't have let me travel so I wouldn't have seen my dad for two years , and my parents branded neglectful for making me travel alone. I met lots of good people, people cared, but today as I thankfully come to the end of my teaching career, I wonder if we will ever be able to give the freedoms to children I had in being able to sit and talk to a stranger, travel and roam without fear. Sad world in many ways, made sadder by the many children who cannot behave and who no longer know that big word NO, but who know there rights but not responsibilities, and by rules and regulations that say they can't fly as an UM till they are 14 or talk to a male adult sat next to them.

[Snas]

When my lad was 6 his school closed for a day (some sort of staff training) so I took him swimming at the local pool which was full of mum's and pre school kids...

As a 35 year old male the looks of horror that were thrown at me for the duraton of my swim (Oh my god, a lone man and a child..!) meant that was the first and last time I did that outing.

On a plane, frankly the further away other peoples kids are from me the better, most adults too for that matter!

[falconeasydriver]

I have a 2 year old girl, can you imagine the looks when I took her to a toddlers swimming session and was the only male.
The looks of suspicion and fear in the eyes of the mums assembled made me feel sick........
I am fed up of being considered a potential paedophile :ugh:

[doors2womanual]

The fact of the matter is that the rule states that UM's cannot be seated next to "Male passengers travelling alone"! Therefore it is actually up to the checkin agent to ensure when the UM is being allocated a seat that it is next to a female. What happened on board this flight happened because the crew member WAS IN THE WRONG. This man was NOT travelling alone so therefore does not come under the ruling AND even if he was, the rule does not state that the male needs to move, the crew member should have used some cop on and just move the kid without causing any fuss or even needing to reveal the rule.

Every company has idiots like that who both get the rules wrong and seem to glee in imposing their version of the rules on others...suppose its a power trip thing! 18th January 2010 13:27
Apaddyinuk,
Sadly these mistakes do happen from time to time.
These situations are not cut and dry. The check in agent may well have seated the female of the couple next to the UM. People often swap places when they get on the aircraft. I am sure you have done it yourself.
The child was allowed to be sat next to the male pax anyway as he was travelling with his wife. It really seems unfair to accuse the ground staff person of getting rules wrong when they clearly have followed the rules.
The crew member unfortunately did get the rules wrong by asking the man to move as he was accompanid by his wife.
A more experienced crew member would not have made this mistake.
This problem is something that BA needs to bear in mind when rushing people through training courses to work on board as temporary crew. There really is so much to know and learn to work on board as cabin crew. As an ex trainer I am fully aware that there is a limit to how much can be learnt and absorbed in the proposed 3 day training.

[cyclops16]

With regards to Falcon #40
I know exactly what you mean.The hardest thing when my youngest was nappy changing in public stores and the look on the face of the women passing when I came out of the changing room and I was asked to leave a Mothercare store because I wanted to change my little one in the "Mother and Baby" room,because I was male I was banned from changing her. At my kids school I am the only single parent male and it took over a year for any other parent to speak to me as an equal instead of behind my back or down their noses.I find it harder on my girls because they get invited to sleep overs,etc.But when I have offered to have a sleep over here this has been rejected I suspect because I am male. It is a minefield after 7 years I am still learning and all the PC crap isn't helping.

[apaddyinuk]

Doorstowomanual said:
It really seems unfair to accuse the ground staff person of getting rules wrong when they clearly have followed the rules.

I wasnt actually blaming the check in agent at all, it was the crew member who was in the wrong, there was nothing wrong with where the UM was seated by the ground staff.

As for the training, I totally agree. And can you believe that BA now wish to train up ground staff, managers and other office staff for a week or two to work as crew on flights in the event of a strike?

[neilperrin]

Yes I can believe it. As you have pointed out, the ground crew member got it right on this occasion. Seems to me a sensible step to take by BA to have those who get the rules right carrying them out on board the aircraft.

[racedo]

Crikey about 20 years ago I was travelling from London to Cheltenham on a morning train to meet a few people for a "chat" and got on the train at Paddington. A woman appeared with a 7 year old who was travelling on her own to Bristol and put her in the seat across from me and asked would I keep an eye on here until station I was leaving at.

I chatted to the young lady during the trip as far as Bath and think bought her a hot chocolate from the trolly, she had the money but as I was buying a coffee anyway I did it plus a biscuit. I had a pleasant train journey with a very polite young lady

10-12 years ago was in central london and lots of train disruption and a 10 year old on way to her grandparents from Norwich to Bournemouth at station and the trains weren't running. She asking for help very upset and no idea and everybody not helping, asked what was the problem and used my mobile to call her grandparents and let them know trains were kaput, suggested that if they could get to Guildford which was miles away from where I needed to be then would stay with her at station until they arrived. They duly arrived and GC was picked up, a nice call received from her parents a week later saying thanks.

Reality is kindness of a complete stranger is more likely to happen than anything else but PC brigade want to terrorise everyone. A child is more at risk at home than anywhere else.

[air doris]

Here's a difficult one...I am boarding a 3 hour domestic flight (am CC) and am confronted with 6 UM's. All have seats at the back of the plane and together, except 1 who in seated in 6C. Of course I questioned this then noticed the comment on the boarding pass "do not change seats". I thought this was odd and when I took this little guy to 6C he appeared scared and felt alone. There was a male in the next seat. I asked him if he wanted to sit there and he said no. I asked if he would like to sit at the back with the rest of the kids and thats what he wanted. Without even getting permission from the Purser or Captain I immediatedy took him to the back and moved a single pax into his seat at row 6. I know I should have asked permission to move pax but I felt this was a valid reason. Why on earth would a father book his child in a seat and say "do not change seats" and why the hell was this allowed by ground staff? We as cabin crew are becoming more and more responsible for not only our jobs but for looking out for the welfare of children. Enough is enough, we don't need grief if your child is abused or assaulted under our care. Travel with your kid, not post them around the country like a commodity.

[logicandsin]

interpreter

i hope you have sufficient funds to cover the cost of a court case in the event that someone decides to sue you for your comment and i quote "most males who are likely to "interfere" with young males have a homosexual predisposition"

to make such a statement is totally unjust as it has been proven in many court cases that the vast majority of a*use cases are infact carried out by heterosexual males who have no homosexual tendancies whatsoever.

your statement was just as out of order as the actions of the cc (imho)

[ShyTorque]

When he was 14 my son travelled as an UM a number of times.

"Where were the parents?", someone asked, tut, tut.

Over 6,000 miles away! After his first flight, where he was allocated a member of staff to look after him, he specifically asked not to be "nannied" over again as he found it very embarrassing. He was perfectly capable of getting himself from boarding school in Lincolnshire to LHR and onto the flight. We spoke to the airline in this respect and subsequently wrote a letter waiver to them, which was accepted.

He came to no harm. But by that age he was nearly 6ft tall and was an athletically built rugby player; he towered over the CC and many other pax.

[FloridaCandle]

The "child" involved in this incident was not a child in the eyes of BA, but a 12 year old adult. As such there was no requirement to sit them next to any specific person. Any person over 12 years old is able to travel without being registered as a UM.

I think the crew should have handled this in a better way.

[Vld1977]

I would obviously would now have to pay to ensure my 7 & 5 year daughters sit next to a parent. I would rather fly with somebody else.

Right Way Up, In BA (and in many others), children under 12 will ALWAYS be seated next to an accompanying adult. Even if the group or family is split, no children under 12 who are travelling with parents/guardians are to be seated on their own. Even gold card holders would be moved, and if they don't like it, they can fill in a complain form, but, as I said, your daughters HAVE to be seated next to, at least, one of the adults they are travelling with.

In the terms and conditions of travel of most airlines, you will find a clause that says that airlines can move passengers (even with pre allocated seats, or even with prepaid seats, obviously refunded) whenever they need it for operational reasons, like children under 12 separated from their families, or trim restrictions, for example.

[Gibon2]

Well, the fellow had his day in court and won... nice touch that he donated the compensation to a child protection charity:

BBC News - BA compensates man 'humiliated' over child seat policy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/10401416.stm)

Now I wonder if BA will actually change the policy.

[Mr Optimistic]

quite right too. Hopefully the persons responsible for setting policy will be realigned in the direction of common sense.

[sixmilehighclub]

On a flight 5 years ago, I spotted an UM sitting next to male passenger. I asked a colleague (European language being her mother tongue) if she had seen him board with anyone. She went off and in a very strong accent said to him - "I must move you in case you interfere with this boy". Once the poor guy had moved and she and the boy were out of earshot I then follwed up her rather diplomatic approach, explaining to him that it is a rule to protect him. For example, if the child fell asleep and the man needed to jump over him to get to the lav. Or, if he dropped his book on the floor and leant down to get it, accidentally brushing the boys knee or hand, the boy could tell a guardian and it could be misconstrued. So we try to remove all risk of any false accusation or misunderstanding. (Or words to that effect).

I have had to move four gentlemen in the past, (its not always an allocation issue, they have mostly just swapped seats to allow couples to be seated together and landed themselves next to the UM).
I always try to phrase it so it seems we are looking after their best interests, all have been very co-operative and understanding so far.

It is something not taught in training, how to approach the situation.

The other delicate issue is an obese passenger in an exit row (not allowed).
Best tip from me - they are probably obese if they request an extension seatbelt. I politely say that extension seatbelts (same for babies) are not allowed at emergency exits (maybe they could become a trip hazard in an evacuation?). Sometimes the seats are more comfortable further back anyway because the armrests are movable between the seats whereas the exit armrests as as a rule aren't always.

Six:ok:

[I'm Off!]

I think the point the court made, was that the policy was discriminatory and unfair, as well as illegal (as proved by the award of damages). It matters not which crew member made the mistake, the general policy needs examining and amending.

[Desk Jockey]

I think the point the court made, was that the policy was discriminatory and unfair, as well as illegal (as proved by the award of damages). It matters not which crew member made the mistake, the general policy needs examining and amending.


I doubt the court said anything of the sort. The policy was incorrectly interpreted and applied by the staff and it was the child that should have been moved. A consent order detailing a settlement made between the parties was drawn up at court between the parties not a judgement made by the court not damages awarded.

Just to clear up something from earlier posts. A clear enhanced CRB check does not mean a person is no risk. It means they have not come to police attention. There is nothing wrong with having some suspicion. Thats what risk assessment is about. The question to ask is, if it were my child what would I want to happen?

[etrang]

I think the point the court made, was that the policy was discriminatory and unfair,

It seems it was a negotiated settlement between the 2 parties, not a court judgment. But BA did admit they were in the wrong.

[sprocky_ger]

Being male I do not like the policy itself (although I do not like yelling kids near to me either).

This world is going worse each day. When I was a kid and barely learned to walk we were playing naked outside in hot summers. It was more comfortable for us and easier for our parents - no diaper for us. On various occasions our relatives took pictures when we were running into the water or piling up some sand on the beach. Do it today they may arrest you and call you perverts. Its stupid. Who feels sexual stimulated buy a naked minor? A little percentage of mankind forces governments to bring in :mad: rules.