Are male passengers perverts?

[Tolsti]

Hang on chaps.... could we not use this to our advantage ?.... If you're sitting directly in front of some apprentice chav who insists on kicking the back of your seat, folding and unfolding the meal tray (where fitted) can you not ask to be moved as you 'might be a pervert'?

[Glamgirl]

Before any more people get in a tizz about this:

As I understand the "article", the husband and wife were not asked to sit separately. They were asked to swap seats between the two of them.

We don't know for sure whether the child was a UM or sitting away from his parents (for whatever reason).

I'd like to remind people that although it seems that the cc in question seem to have been somewhat ott, none of us were there and therefore don't know the full story.

Gg

[MathFox]

Glamgirl, you are assuming things I don't read in the original article. It could be that "the Flight Attendant" didn't communicate clearly enough to Mirko...

I am single, male and flying regularly (for business.) On two flights I ended up seated next to "young women" that could use a hug (One girl was on her first holiday alone... age: AM-optional, the other (US-)girl was just refused entry to the UK )
What happened... I acted as a gentleman, listened to their stories and tried to provide some distraction. I even accompanied the "girl on first holiday" to her connecting gate (my flight was three gates down from hers).

But according to BA I would have been a criminal... just because the airline gave me a seat next to a female "minor"... bt!

(BTW, how can one commence anything serious in the space an airline allots in economy class?)

[MG23]

Originally Posted by Glamgirl

As I understand the "article", the husband and wife were not asked to sit separately. They were asked to swap seats between the two of them.

And? Why should they be forced to sit where they don't want to sit because of some paranoid scare stories?

Personally I'm more than glad to be told that kids won't be allowed to sit next to me on a flight because I'm sure to have a much less annoying time with adults sitting next to me who know how to behave. But if you have a problem with kids sitting next to adults then move the kids; I didn't ask them to be on the plane.

As to the idea that this is 'protecting adults', I would imagine that any sensible person would be more scared of discovering that our culture is bringing up kids so badly that they'll make accusations of sexual abuse against strangers just for the heck of it than that some pervert might try something on a plane full of people who'd probably be quite happy to beat the heck out of them for doing so.

P.S. I have no problem with moving when there's a good reason for it: on the last transatlantic flight I made I changed seats so a couple with a baby could sit together. But this is just nanny state nonsense: a kid on a plane is more likely to be blown up by a terrorist than abused by a stranger.

[Capetonian]

a much less annoying time with adults sitting next to me who know how to behave.

Really? The most annoying people who've sat adjacent to me on flights have been adults. Overflowing into my space, opening their newspapers into my space, playing their ghastly noise through raspy hissy headphones, farting, belching, sniffing, picking their noses, breathing halitosis and garlic laden breath over me, non-stop talking, trying to convert me, fidgeting, spilling drinks, falling asleep lolling over me. Children are far more pleasant travel companions.

Except the 24 year old blonde who had her hands all over me on the flight and tried to seduce me into coming to her hotel when we arrived in the evening. Sadly though I woke up and discovered my coffee was cold and it was all a dream.

[Final 3 Greens]

I think it is a great shame that JSL is getting some stick for explaining the BA SOPs and saying that she will apply these.

One should remember that cabin crew are in the chain of command and also that English company law says that employees must execute lawful instructions.

There is nothing 'jobsworth' in this attitude, it demonstrates a professional and disciplined attitude.

[InSeat19c]

Whatever the rights and wrongs are in an airline having such a ruling, Mr Fischer should not have been asked to move in such a way as to embarrass him.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty ?

No wonder he feels upset enough to sue.

I hope the cabin crew member concerned learns from this little escapade.

[apaddyinuk]

Whatever the rights and wrongs are in an airline having such a ruling, Mr Fischer should not have been asked to move in such a way as to embarrass him.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty ?

No wonder he feels upset enough to sue.

I hope the cabin crew member concerned learns from this little escapade.

And I personally think this is the core of the dilemma! It is not so much that BA do not want UMs sitting beside men, its because Mr Fischer was dealt with very poorly and was made to feel embarrassed as the crew member clearly failed to use any tact in the enforcement of the rule!

At the end of the day, agree or disagree with the rule, us crew must enforce it (and those attacking Jetsetlady deserve a slap for accusing her of being a jobsworth, from reading her replies over time she actually sounds like a hoot to work with) as that is their job! There are sooooo many rules and regulations that us crew must follow, so many of them are stupid and futile (and I can think of at least two others which could be considered offensive by some but am soooo keeping those to myself) but at the end of the day we must do them. We can take it up with who ever sets the rules but until we are told otherwise we must enforce!

[Xeque]

Is this thread for real?
I have no problem sitting next to an UM provided the UM behaves itself and doesn't upset me. The moment it does upset me I call a member of the cabin crew and tell them to deal with it.
What is wrong with that?

[MG23]

Originally Posted by apaddyinuk

And I personally think this is the core of the dilemma! It is not so much that BA do not want UMs sitting beside men, its because Mr Fischer was dealt with very poorly and was made to feel embarrassed as the crew member clearly failed to use any tact in the enforcement of the rule!

By attempting to enforce this rule you're either saying:

1. You believe that the man is a pervert who can't be trusted around kids, or:
2. You believe that the kid is going to cry 'rape!' for no good reason.

There's no way can be 'tactful' about something as insulting as that.

As for 'enforcing company rules', personally I've routinely ignored stupid company rules in my professional career when it was clearly detrimental to our customers; I think you'll find that's the norm in most other industries, because the airline business seems to be one of the few which doesn't believe that 'the customer knows best'. Anyone who uses that excuse is merely trying to avoid taking the blame for their own actions by passing the buck: they are precisely what we use to call 'jobsworth' back in the days when Britons used to laugh at such people rather than take them seriously.

My question is what will happen if he wins this case, which I suspect he has a good chance of doing given it clearly is sexual discrimination? Either BA will have to start putting kids in their own section of the plane, or simply ban them from flying altogether to ensure that they're 'protected'.

[al446]

Without being judgemental I notice that nobody has yet forwarded the possibility that Mr Fischer is just throwing HIS dummy out of the pram and the CC acted correctly. We do not know.

[Capot]

English company law says that employees must execute lawful instructions.

There is nothing 'jobsworth' in this attitude, it demonstrates a professional and disciplined attitude.

Hmmm, does "English company law" really say that? Act, Section, any references? I would be interested. Does England have its own laws?

That general line is what I understand the lawyering trade call "The Nurnberg Defence". In short, "Only doing what I'm told, snot my fault innit."

It doesn't stack up any more than the feeble drivel about "it's to protect the adult, not the child". I'll decide what protection I need, thanks, and if I feel threatened by a child next to me I'll ask to move and explain why.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

I really understand that this is a serious subject, but are we now looking to Security confiscating Werther's Originals, just in case?

PC has gone completely mad.

[Final 3 Greens]

Capot

In my opinion, you are slightly deranged, but I will defend you right to be deranged to the death.

For the reference,try the Employment Relations Act 2000.

[InSeat19c]

Is this thread for real?
I have no problem sitting next to an UM provided the UM behaves itself and doesn't upset me. The moment it does upset me I call a member of the cabin crew and tell them to deal with it.
What is wrong with that?

@Xeque

I think you've misunderstood this thread. No one is objecting to sitting next to a youngster, but some (including me who as a single chap that sometimes flies alone) object to assumptions being made that we are somehow a threat to a child travelling on their own.

That's bad enough, but if a member of the cabin crew loudly insists that you move (as happened to Mr Fischer who was sitting next to a child he did not know) then I think we have a right to feel aggrieved.

[Xeque]

InSeat19C

I was being sarcastic (or trying to be). I do think the whole thing is shameful. Protect children - yes. But this? It is a very sad reflection on the state of affairs that exists in poor Broken Britain today.

[kaikohe76]

There appears to be little difference these days in flying as pax with BA & all the fun of arrival or departure through any US major airport, I would avoid both these situations.
Personally, I hope the pax wins his case & takes BA to the cleaners & oh a big kick up the backside for the particular CC member, who did a great discredit to his/her colleagues by leaving his brain at home that day!

[mmurray]

Really? The most annoying people who've sat adjacent to me on flights have been adults. Overflowing into my space, opening their newspapers into my space, playing their ghastly noise through raspy hissy headphones, farting, belching, sniffing, picking their noses, breathing halitosis and garlic laden breath over me, non-stop talking, trying to convert me, fidgeting, spilling drinks, falling asleep lolling over me. Children are far more pleasant travel companions.

Well said. You missed snoring. I wish I could have swapped the guy on my last flight for a crying baby.

It would seem that on this whole issue a strategic upgrade might be the solution. I think I could manage to cope with `excuse me sir we think you might be a threat to this child could you please accompany me to first class' without taking offense. At least if I was starting in my usual economy class seat. Of course the guy in question had his wife with him who seemed to want the window seat due for some reason I assume related to her pregnancy. So swap the child with someone else.

Michael

[Wannabe Flyer]

Policy Aside

A Policy set up by BA is their Prerogative taking into account the times/litigious society we live in. However am I missing something here...........

His wife, who was six months pregnant, had booked a window seat which she thought would be more spacious. Mr Fischer was in the middle seat between her and a 12-year-old boy.

Have people not been taught to gauge the situation before enforcing policy blindly???

If the steward thought the man in question was a threat in spite of sitting next to his pregnant wife then switching seats in my opinion would not have helped as this would imply that his pregnant wife in the first place would have assisted or condoned his behavior if he so chose to molest the child by simply leaning over her. Apparently her presence or for that matter a third persons presence is not an adequate deterrent.! If that was the case then BA should amend their policy to read "No Children to be seated in the same row as a un related male!"

My personal opinion all policy written by a lawyer that BA hired of the thrift line (probably an ambulance chaser) to save a few bucks and enforced by an inadequately trained crew member.

[hotmetal]

For the reference,try the Employment Relations Act 2000.

Can you be more specific. I have had a quick look and can't find this act in UK law. I have found a New Zealand act but nothing for the UK. Which section do you think applies?