"Separating men and children is discrimination, plane and simple"
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere under the rainbow
Airlines offer the UM scheme as a service so that children can fly without a parent/guardian and the airline is responsible.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
From: London
":....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.
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.
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,165
Likes: 164
From: U.K.
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?
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?
Thread Starter
Paxing All Over The World
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,842
Likes: 328
From: Hertfordshire, UK.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
From: London, UK
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
From: Cape Town / UK / Europe
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.
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.
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.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 92
From: south of Cirencester, north of Lyneham
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......
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......
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
From: Cape Town / UK / Europe
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.
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
From: Still in Paradise
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!
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 32
From: In the back of a bus
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...
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...
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
From: London, UK
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.
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 32
From: In the back of a bus
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.
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.
Last edited by givemewings; 17th August 2012 at 13:55.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, USA
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?
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?
Last edited by AdamFrisch; 17th August 2012 at 16:37.
Thread Starter
Paxing All Over The World
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,842
Likes: 328
From: Hertfordshire, UK.
- 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
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 3,585
Likes: 0
From: UK
- 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
Brunel to Concorde
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
From: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
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 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.
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 32
From: In the back of a bus
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.
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.
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
From: Confoederatio Helvetica
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?
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?
Last edited by ExXB; 18th August 2012 at 07:08.