Male passenger sues BA
 

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.

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.

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"

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

Then the policy is sexist.

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:

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!

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.

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

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:

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. ;)

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!

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

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).

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!

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.

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

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

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.

just silly
 

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.

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? ;)