"Separating men and children is discrimination, plane and simple"

[PAXboy]

Can airlines have any justification for a policy of not seating male passengers next to unaccompanied children? It’s an old controversy, reignited this week by the case of firefighter Johnny McGirr, who blogged about his recent experience on a Virgin Australia flight.

After taking his seat next to two unaccompanied boys, McGirr was asked by a flight attendant to swap seats with a female passenger for the safety of the children. In the consequent media firestorm, Virgin Australia announced they would be reviewing the policy in the light of “feedback.”Separating men and children is discrimination, plane and simple | | Independent Notebook Blogs (http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/08/16/separating-men-and-children-is-discrimination-plane-and-simple/)

[Espada III]

Why would anyone want to be sat next to two unaccompanied children?

[TomU]

For me, the question needs to be asked - if an airline has this policy (rights and wrongs of that is another story) why on earth did the check in staff allocate the man a seat next to the child(ren). Why wait until he has boarded and then subject him to the humiliating situation of de-facto suggesting he is a child molester.

[Tableview]

It's a nonsensical policy for many reasons. One is that a woman is more likely to be trusted by children than a man, and is thus in a better position, if she has evil intentions, to succeed.

[Octopussy2]

I also think the policy is wrong, but agree with the point that IF it's going to be implemented, it should be taken care of when seat allocations are made (though in the days of on-line check-in, that could be impossible). At the very least, passengers should not be subjected to the experience this poor chap had.

[Rush2112]

If an airline has such a policy, it must be up to the check in staff to implement it.

That said, if I got on a plane and found myself next to 2 unaccompanied children, I would ask to be moved(!)

[gdiphil]

I would not ask to be moved if I were seated next to two unaccompanied children. In my experience such children are very self confident, used to travelling alone as parents live abroad and the children are off to school or returning to their ex-pat parents at the end of term. Generally they are very interesting and interested kids and of course can easily beat me in video games. If the IFF is new to me they sort it out for me much more quickly than any adult, and if I leave any food, boys in particular wolf it down. Any airline which implied I was a risk to children simply because I am male would find they would have a very irate passenger on their hands. If I am asked to change seats (and of course we all have been in our time for all sorts of reasons) and it is not inconvenient then of course I would but any suggestion of defamation would land them in deep and very hot water.

[ilesmark]

Agree with the 'would you really WANT to sit next to 2 unaccompanied children?' comments (I certainly wouldn't!!) but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a defamation (slander) claim in there somewhere as well, if the pax was humiliated in front of other travellers by being asked by a flight attendant to swap seats with a female passenger 'for the safety of the children.'

If that isn't insinuating to anyone listening that he's a potential predator I don't know what is. Maybe also a sex discrimination claim.

[LondonPax]

I agree with gdiphil. I'd rather sit next to two unaccompanied kids than two adults who strike up a conversation but don't possess the social skills to bring it to an end who therefore yak for the whole trip. Also agree that if that kind of humiliation happened to me I'd be on to my learned friends quicker than you can say Gary Glitter.

[PAXboy]

The online check-in can be fixed by ensuring that, when the u/c (unaccompanied child) reservation is made, the adjacents seats are blocked out. Any computer can do that - if the company thinks about it.

As to sitting alongside - I have had some right boring people. Last year I spent 12 hours next to a man who did not understand that if a person is using his iPod (prominently displayed for his education) AND is reading a book AND deliberately waits until he is tapped on the arm for the second time before looking up - then he doesn't want to be disturbed!! Besides he was obese and overflowed the seat - and a PE seat at that!! :yuk:

As LondonPax suggests, the u/c will probably get on with the games and video. And if CC cannot spot someone manoeuvring, or following, or 'casually' hanging around a child - then they are not the observant people they should be. There is no problem here and I think the article states it very well, hence listing it here.

[frontcheck]

What happens if the flight is full?
How can you block out seats in this situation?

[easyflyer83]

I'm a male.

I'm on the fence on this one. Discriminatory it certainly is. However, sometimes we have to discriminate. You can't argue that the majority of peadophiles and sex abusers are men. That is why the rule is in place. The key is for the crew to deal with it discreetly and with tact. I'm sure there will be some crew members who, with the best intention, will go to the passenger and say something like "i'm sorry but we need to ask you to move as we have UM's next to you and that isn't allowed to prevent child molestation". The majority of crew will have a quiet word, preferably in the galley, explaining the policy which is in place at most airlines and that is to sit females next to UM's. Thats a very neutral request and it infer's or explicitely insinuates nothing. You'd be hard pressed to go to your lawyer with that scenario.

I understand why some would be pissed off but I wouldn't be provided it was done discreetly and respectfully .....which i'm sure most crews do.

As LondonPax suggests, the u/c will probably get on with the games and video. And if CC cannot spot someone manoeuvring, or following, or 'casually' hanging around a child - then they are not the observant people they should be. There is no problem here and I think the article states it very well, hence listing it here.

Child abuse can happen right under parents nose. Looking after hundreds of other passengers carrying out other service/safety duties on a busy flight means that, in theory, the abuse of a child could quite easily be missed.

[Agaricus bisporus]

So it's OK to move men because they "might" be paedos then? I suppose priests are definitely moved then?

I assume that it's equally OK to move blacks because they might be muggers?

Or Gipsies because they might be pickpockets?

Or women in red dresses because they might be prostitutes?

Or Moslems, because everyone knows they are terrorists!

Have a care before making such idiotic and bigoted suggestions, it could and should get you into a shedload of BIIIG trouble.

What a delightful world some people live in.

:ugh:

[strake]

What Ab said...

BTW Is the headline to the piece some sort of pun that I don't quite get -ie Plane instead of Plain?
If it's a mistake then Para two is somewhat of a Petard Hoisting moment...

[easyflyer83]

So it's OK to move men because they "might" be paedos then? I suppose priests are definitely moved then?

I assume that it's equally OK to move blacks because they might be muggers?

Or Gipsies because they might be pickpockets?

Or women in red dresses because they might be prostitutes?

Or Moslems, because everyone knows they are terrorists!

Have a care before making such idiotic and bigoted suggestions, it could and should get you into a shedload of BIIIG trouble.

What a delightful world some people live in.

You'll find my friend that what you have just quoted are stereotypes. What I said meanwhile is pretty much fact.

[WHBM]

Some years ago (before the 9/11 flight deck restrictions) I found I had been seated on BA Berlin to London next to not just one but two, quite separate, UMs.

Just to humour things along, on climbout from Berlin I suggest to the boy, aged about 8, that we might enquire about a visit to the flight deck. That was a mistake ! Immediately "Can I. Wow. Oh, ask that lady [FA ahead in full drink service mode] there. Go on". I say we should do so only after the refreshments have been served. No joy "Ask her. She can almost hear you now. Ask. Oh yes ......."

Well eventually we did. What a relief to my eardrums those 10 minutes were !

[Sunnyjohn]

Interesting one. So, pray, what do I do if I want to travel on a public bus or train (I have no car) at the same time as children are travelling to or from school? I don't travel? I find a seat and tell all the school-kids that want to sit next to me that they can't? What a load of old rubbish. That one should be kicked right back where it came from, otherwise all men will be excluded from any form of public transport because there might be children travelling!

[PAXboy]

The last time I travelled on a bus (North West London about six years ago) the the school children on their way home frightened me a lot. Their comments, insults and racist comments were very unpleasant and I considered getting off the bus and getting a taxi. I stayed and rode back but have not used that service again.

For the record, I am a white, middle aged male and so the kind of male they would move away from UMs! :rolleyes:

[easyflyer83]

I think you're taking my comments a little too personally here. You're making it sound like i'm calling you a child abuser. Nobody is calling you a child abuser, even if you were moved on a aircraft (provided it was worded right) you would not be called a child abuser.

It's no good telling me your age and ethnicity. That has no bearing on the matter.

Even though i acknowledge that some men would be a bit perturbed at being moved I still cannot see it as being an over the top measure. It's a measure that is there to protect a child and provided the policy is adhered to in a sensitive and respectful way then it shouldn't be a problem and I think under those circumstances most men wouldn't mind too much. In fact I know they wouldn't as my old airline carried UM's. Most parents, both mum and dad would probably agree too.

An UM on aircraft isn't supervised every minute of the flight, thats impossible unless we begin to see sky nanny's. As I said before, most child sex abusers are Men and it's just an extra method of reducing risk and taking care of the child.

Comparing buses with planes is like comparing apples with pears. Children can't fly alone without the UM scheme in place. Airlines offer the UM scheme as a service so that children can fly without a parent/guardian and the airline is responsible. A child can travel by bus with no restrictions and the bus company will not accept liability above that of any other passenger.

[hval]

Easyflyer83,

I disagree with your logic. From what you write the following is your "logical" conclusion: -

1/ Woman are not and can not be child molesters

2/ All men are a threat to children. Many men are child molesters.

The above two points are the only logical processes that come from moving a man and replacing with a woman.

Both points are blatantly false. Therefore any difference in how male/ females are treated is discriminatory, and could lead, correctly, to a case for defamation.

As has been noted above, court cases have been won on this.

[lenhamlad]

Airlines offer the UM scheme as a service so that children can fly without a parent/guardian and the airline is responsible.

So the parents should pay for this service which could mean a responsible adult sitting with the child throughout the journey. Parents happily pay for babysitters whilst they are out for the evening for three or four hours. Why not pay for an airline babysitter for a a three hour flight?

[rgsaero]

":....As I said before, most child sex abusers are Men and it's just an extra method of reducing risk and taking care of the child."

That's an entirely spurious argument! Actually, far more important is the fact that most child abusers are members of the child's family or immediate familial group!

On that basis you wouldn't want to allow anyone to fly with their own children!

It's an absurd overreaction by some hypersensitive (poorly trained?) CC and the comment from the airline suggests that this was not policy.

And for the record I flew to and from Singapore in 1951 "unaccompanied" but the other people, most notably a number of army people, on the flight looked after me well, along with the BOAC crew.

[easyflyer83]

I know full well that alot of child abuse happens within the family but in the context we are talking about that is nothing the airline can do about.

Alot of airlines have this policy and by and large it's not some weird and wonderful rule made up by crew. As I said earlier I am sure some crew aren't very tactful when it comes down to enforcing the policy but there you go.

Discrimination, yes. Does it help prevent what it is intended to? There is no way of quantifying it. Is it right? It appears we are divided. I think I'm quite fair in saying that I see it from both angles but ultimately I don't see it as a particularly bad thing nor a huge injustice. Discrimination happens legitimately all the time. When did a woman last play in the Premiership? And who condones that?

[PAXboy]

Just to say easyflyer83, I wasn't replying to you personally and I did not take your comments personally. My age and ethnicity was mentioned to give 'colour' to the post and the mention of the bus because children can be ghastly little devils and know EXACTLY how to get adults into trouble! So, nothing personal, just in the overall discussion.

If I was asked to move? I would be highly irritated because it would almost certainly mean losing my window seat with all others being occupied. I go to great lengths - and cost - for that window and to be moved because the airline have not programmed their computer correctly to block seats?

They could prevent ALL of this. By allocating seats at booking and then blocking any neighbouiring ones with seating to be allocated at check in. The agent's VDU could easily show who was sitting in the designated seats and who they want adjacent to them. It is so flippin' simple but they don't do it and haven't done it in the more than ten years that this subject has been active. Therefore, it's the carrier's fault. :*

If it's unreserved seating, then the UMs get taken to the CC, who seat them and monitor who sits next to them. Yes, it's more rocket science. :rolleyes:

Thread drift:
The one time that I have had to collect a UM - it went wrong because of the carrier. My (then) 12 year old niece was travelling direct CPT~LHR with SAA. She later told me that they had looked after and the other UMs very well on board. They had to wait for all other pax to disembark and were then escorted by the CC all the way through passports and to the baggage hall. Once she had got her bag and it was put on a trolley for her ... they left her!

So she emerged into the arrivals hall as a truly UM. What if I had not been there? If I had been delayed by even five minutes? A 12 year old in a foreign country with only my mobile number and some English coins for a pay phone?

THAT'S why it's the carrier's fault and problem. If they cannot book, greet, escort, seat, escort and deliver them - then they should not be taking the money. Guess what? They take the money. :hmm:

[ilesmark]

Girl, 10, flying alone left stranded by United Airlines staff at Chicago Airport - AOL Travel UK (http://travel.aol.co.uk/2012/08/15/girl-10-flying-alone-United-AIrlines-stranded-chicago-airport/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cuk%7Cdl10%7Csec3_lnk4%26pLid%3D122688)

[kaikohe76]

Surely this is a case of political correctness gone totally mad. If asked or told to move seat in such a situation, suggest you stay put, have yourself removed from the aircraft & then sue the Airline!

[Tableview]

So she emerged into the arrivals hall as a truly UM. What if I had not been there? If I had been delayed by even five minutes? A 12 year old in a foreign country with only my mobile number and some English coins for a pay phone?

THAT'S why it's the carrier's fault and problem. If they cannot book, greet, escort, seat, escort and deliver them - then they should not be taking the money. Guess what? They take the money.

Some years ago, SAA 'lost' a UM. I forget the details but I know it was big news at the time.

My own experience with a couple of carriers when my son travelled as a UM has been more positive (other than the incident mentioned above) and the security when he was handed over was always good. At one time, I went to fetch him with his mother, who was the named person for arrival, and they wouldn't let me into the meeting area with her. I think that's good.

[radeng]

If you go back through Pprune, you will find the case of the 14 year old girl entrusted to KLM as a UM, and the problems with a missed connection - including expecting her to share a hotel room with a boy whe did not know, of somewhere around the same age.

Personally, I would not wish to sit next to a child: that way, I can avoid being accused of anything. Paranoid? maybe, but I prefer to be cautious, and these days, don't trust children. When mrs radeng was about 10, a girl in her class who had been reprimanded by a male teacher accused him of molestation out of spite. Fortunately, she had been heard to boast to her friend she was going to do it to 'get back at him'. She got moved to another school - hopefully a salutary lesson. That was over 40 years ago......

[Tableview]

don't trust children. When mrs radeng was about 10, a girl in her class who had been reprimanded by a male teacher accused him of molestation out of spite.

That's true. A year or so ago a seemingly decent young girl who asked me for lift from the beach towards town got into the car and asked me for money.When I refused said she'd go to the police and accuse me of molesting her. I called her bluff and drove her direct to the nearest police station, whereupon she legged it!

[Jamair]

Given the choice of sitting beside UMs or getting squashed by a 'plus-sized traveller' , or perhaps a throwback hippie with personal hygiene issues, or a half-tanked FIFO miner........Give me the UMs any day. At least I could be sure the CC would be paying attention to me!

[givemewings]

Hval, court cases have also been won the other way when an airline did not do what we are all debating about, and something happened I believe that is why the policy even exists in the first case.

When I first began flying I actually asked the airline I was working for at the time why we move only men not women or not just leave the seats empty, their explanation was the policy is based on statistical study and they could actually prove that the majority of cases (which had occured onboard aircraft) had been perpetrated by men.

Of course they are not saying that women cannot do these things, but that the less risky option is to sit a woman nearby. In the cases where I had to personally reseat people, I would do as suggested here and have the conversation in the galley. Most people were happy to accept the explanation that ladies are generally more willing to 'babysit' the kids should they need entertaining. In all cases the first preference is to find a woman travelling with her own kids and ask if she would mind if the UM sits next to/across from them so they can make friends...

So really the problem is not so much with the policy but the skills of the crew who are communicating it to the passengers... if done properly, the passenger being moved would have no idea why the real reason is...

[ilesmark]

When I first began flying I actually asked the airline I was working for at the time why we move only men not women or not just leave the seats empty, their explanation was the policy is based on statistical study and they could actually prove that the majority of cases (which had occured onboard aircraft) had been perpetrated by men.

Something tells me that wouldn't stand up in court. Otherwise any owner of a business could use it as a justification for not employing women of child-bearing age / gipsies / moslems and we all know how far that would get them.

[givemewings]

On the other hand I would suspect if the airline could prove that a previous case had resulted from NOT moving a male pax, then the court could find that it was not unreasonable for them to now have a policy in place to that effect to prevent same from happening again. If the airline in question did NOT have a history of such incident then I would agree with you that it would be a stretch.

I think it's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Sure they could leave the seats free but really it's better for someone to be nearby to help the kids in an emergency in case the crew cannot. (Decompression comes to mind) there's not always time to assign an ABP.

(FYI most parents are not willing to pay the cost to have a responsible adult escort the kids, since they must then pay for the seat for the escort) So you use the UM scheme, you take your chances that something might go wrong somewhere... it's not a perfect system nor a replacement for travelling with your child yourself.

[AdamFrisch]

There is zero scientific evidence supporting the fact that men are somehow genetically more prone to paedophilia then women. However, men do get arrested for it and therefore appear in statistics more. Mainly because there's a huge stigma around reporting when it comes to men/women being used by females. Young boys are supposed to "take it" and chalk it down to experience, and young girls are too terrified/shocked to speak up.

Just read this article and see how many comments from girls and boys (at the time) that were used by either a female relative or a mother.

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Are there women paedophiles? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8022861.stm)

[PAXboy]

Block the adjacent seats at booking
Assign adjacent seats only at check-in
Number of conversations in the galley reduced to tiny fraction of current cases
Job done - and 99% of people will never know

[TightSlot]

Block the adjacent seats at booking
Assign adjacent seats only at check-in
Number of conversations in the galley reduced to tiny fraction of current cases
Job done - and 99% of people will never know



... is actually pretty much what happens in real life.

[MerchantVenturer]

On the other hand I would suspect if the airline could prove that a previous case had resulted from NOT moving a male pax, then the court could find that it was not unreasonable for them to now have a policy in place to that effect to prevent same from happening again. If the airline in question did NOT have a history of such incident then I would agree with you that it would be a stretch.

What if there had been a previous case with an airline where a female passenger had indecently assaulted an unaccompanied minor? Would the airline then be justified in placing only men next to UMs?

What if a male passenger had been moved by cabin staff and replaced by a female passenger who then indecently assaulted the UM?

What if a female was moved next to a male UM (or female one for that matter) and she was then 'touched up' by the UM?

Some airlines have hinted that the person being protected is the male passenger being moved to avoid untrue allegations on the part of a UM or the possibility of such an allegation.

That argument could extend to males sitting next to 'unaccompanied' adult females because if there is evidence that males are more likely to indulge in paedophilic behaviour than females, there is little doubt that women are far more likely to make false sexual allegations against men than men are against women.

If airlines do have a policy of no male next to a UM it should be kept inhouse and applied in a way that does not cause embarrassment to a male passenger in front of fellow passengers. To require him to move when already seated merely because he is a man is not only the height of discourtesy but is unlikely to be supported by a UK court without compelling evidence that the airline had knowledge that a particular man was known to it as a danger to juveniles.

Trying to artificially manage such situations could one day bring about more trouble for an airline than letting matters run their natural course.

[givemewings]

The original article states this specified incident occured on board Virgin Australia.

If it were to happen as you suppose then the policy would likely change accordingly. If it were up to me UMs would be required to travel with an airline escort and the parents pay accordingly, or travel with their own kids. However as someone else mentioned, most parents do not want to or cannot afford to pay such fees therefore the UM scheme was born. It;s not perfect by any means and as I said no substitute for travelling with a kids themselves.

The policy has been kept 'in house' and only came to light because someone felt offended by being asked to move and the media got ahold of it. No one knew the actual reason in the beginning, it was just done and 99% of pax have no problem with it.

[ExXB]

Out of principle I believe that the airlines, which now charge significant fees, should care for the UMs from delivery at checkin, to return at arrival. Leaving them to other customers oversight, supervision, presence or whatever is wrong.

If this means having the seat(s) blocked off, and having a flight attendant seated there for take off, turbulence and landing - so be it. They could also have vetted employees (travelling on reduced rate tickets) seated there - in exchange for having a booked seat on a standby ticket. Lots of opportunities for the airline to do what they are promising to do.

Without doubt the cost would go up, but isn't that besides the point?

[PURPLE PITOT]

Does this mean i can arrest any passing female for going equipped to be a prostitute?

[ExXB]

Why? Prostitution isn't illegal, at least here it isn't WRS | No more appeals against Zurich sex boxes (http://worldradio.ch/wrs/news/wrsnews/no-more-appeals-against-zurich-sex-boxes.shtml?32043)

[givemewings]

To have a flight attendant seated with a UM for t/o and landing would require having a supernumerary crewmember (additional to the operating crew). This costs money and is exactly what happens IF the parents are willing to pay for an airline escort. (If not an FA then it would be a ground staff/suitable approved person for the purpose) so it already exists and as I have already mentioned, almost no parents are willing to pay for it. I've seen it once in more than 5 years of flying.

The rest want to just pay the normal fare so entrust the kids to the UM scheme. It does not guarantee 24/7 attention, only that the kid will be seen to/from the drop-off/pick up and looked after in an emergency, fed and watered. anything above that is pretty much a bonus considering the crew onboard have how many other people to feed etc... sounds harsh but you get what you pay for!

[SLF3]

Something like 98% of sexual assaults on children are by someone known to them. Thus an airline that truly cared would ensure children were allocated a seat at random and were NEVER sat next to a carer, friend, relative or parent.....

[easyflyer83]

We know that most child abuse is carried out by someone the hold knows but the 98% is wildly exaggerated. Your suggestion however is ludicrous. When travelling with family the airline isn't responsible for the child. Let's be sensible.

[ExXB]

Givemewings:

The point I was trying to make is it is the airline's responsibility to deal with UMs. They charge significant fees for this service. If their fees are not sufficient for them to do their job properly then they should either get out of the business or charge more.

It is not the responsibility of other passengers to do the airline's job for them. Nor should they be asked, in a normal situation, to give up a favourite seat to accommodate the airlines incompetence in dealing with their business.

[Wunwing]

There have been 3 different cases written up in Australian news recently.
The males moved were by occupation, a fire fighter, school teacher and a nurse.
One assumes that that to be consistent,in their occupations, the fire fighter should only rescue adults and if confronted by a life threatening situation involving children,he should request that a substitute female be sourced and rushed to the scene. The teacher should only teach males (under constant female supervision)and the nurse should only treat adults. Again if working in emergency he should refuse to treat children, even if no female nurses are available.
As a father and grandfather I would much rather have a male fire fighter sitting next to my family on an aircraft than a 20 something female. I suspect in an accident the firefighter would make sure of the childs safety. But I'm not allowed to say that am I? Thats sexist?
Wunwing