"Separating men and children is discrimination, plane and simple"
Paxing All Over The World
Thread Starter
"Separating men and children is discrimination, plane and simple"
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.”
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.”
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Thailand
Age: 75
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by TomU; 16th Aug 2012 at 07:15.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Cape Town / UK / Europe
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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(!)
That said, if I got on a plane and found myself next to 2 unaccompanied children, I would ask to be moved(!)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: London, UK
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by ilesmark; 16th Aug 2012 at 10:19.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Paxing All Over The World
Thread Starter
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!!
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.
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by easyflyer83; 16th Aug 2012 at 15:12.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 16th Aug 2012 at 15:34.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
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.
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.
Last edited by easyflyer83; 16th Aug 2012 at 17:31.
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 !
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 !
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 82
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Paxing All Over The World
Thread Starter
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!
For the record, I am a white, middle aged male and so the kind of male they would move away from UMs!
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.
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.
Last edited by easyflyer83; 16th Aug 2012 at 19:38.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.