"Separating men and children is discrimination, plane and simple"
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
From: Confoederatio Helvetica
Why? Prostitution isn't illegal, at least here it isn't WRS | No more appeals against Zurich sex boxes
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 32
From: In the back of a bus
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!
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!
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 421
Likes: 38
From: London, UK
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.....
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,165
Likes: 164
From: U.K.
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.
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
From: Confoederatio Helvetica
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.
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.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 471
Likes: 1
From: Australia
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
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
Last edited by Wunwing; 20th August 2012 at 05:53.
