Easy-PC
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad World
Personally I can't see why the Captain cannot stand up and be counted. To abrogate his command responsibility and make life miserable for this passenger is too crass for words. He is obviously a "yes" man with no sense of leadership in a different situation. Sometimes we need to use Nelsons patch on the stupidity of the rules raher than always protecting our own backside. I would call the behaviour of the crew a disgrace and showing no initiative whatsoever.
We are becoming a nation of idiots. What about the old saying regarding rules being for the "obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men!!"
I know which category the crew of that particular flight belong!!
We are becoming a nation of idiots. What about the old saying regarding rules being for the "obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men!!"
I know which category the crew of that particular flight belong!!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever reason was given, I would not allow a passenger to be inconvenienced by another.
About time people take responsibilty for their own children.
A few years ago, one of my colleagues allowed a passenger to occupy the jumpseat instead of having to wait for the next flight.
Then the company received a complaint from said pax to the effect that the service wasn't good enough and it was uncomfortable. Seemed to have forgotten that the crew were doing HIM a favour.
About time people take responsibilty for their own children.
A few years ago, one of my colleagues allowed a passenger to occupy the jumpseat instead of having to wait for the next flight.
Then the company received a complaint from said pax to the effect that the service wasn't good enough and it was uncomfortable. Seemed to have forgotten that the crew were doing HIM a favour.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ LOGOS
Wow, strong words!
Where do you start or end not following written rules and think you can "rule" just because you are a captain?
@dv8
thank´s for lighting up my simple mind!
Wow, strong words!
Where do you start or end not following written rules and think you can "rule" just because you are a captain?
@dv8
thank´s for lighting up my simple mind!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on Kraut.
Logos
Do you think the captain in question enjoyed kicking off that women and two young kids? The easy course of action was to tell the senior to close the door and get cracking with the safety demo. The commander took the difficult decision of sticking to the company regulations, however unpleasant and unpopular that decision was. As Kraut alludes to, it isn't the captain's aircraft and it isn't his/her airline.
Call the crew all the names under the sun Logos - fact is you weren't there. It's very easy to armchair quarter back this one; I imagine it is a hell of a lot tougher to stand infront of a plane load of pax and explain to a mother of two that she and her young family aren't travelling because the company regulations reflect the sh*t world we live in. The captain was bound by those regulations whether he liked them or not.
Logos
Do you think the captain in question enjoyed kicking off that women and two young kids? The easy course of action was to tell the senior to close the door and get cracking with the safety demo. The commander took the difficult decision of sticking to the company regulations, however unpleasant and unpopular that decision was. As Kraut alludes to, it isn't the captain's aircraft and it isn't his/her airline.
Call the crew all the names under the sun Logos - fact is you weren't there. It's very easy to armchair quarter back this one; I imagine it is a hell of a lot tougher to stand infront of a plane load of pax and explain to a mother of two that she and her young family aren't travelling because the company regulations reflect the sh*t world we live in. The captain was bound by those regulations whether he liked them or not.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: EGNT
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also think the captain has made a the right choice and has followed the rules correctly. Why would he want to dealy the flight for 45 mins whislt she was offloaded and her bags were found and whilst the load sheet was changed also. He didnt do it just to make the woman strugle he did it because it wasnt worth him possibly losing his job over. The article says that the entire crew showed no comfort or consideration towards the lady. I suspect that the paper may have went a little over the top on this one yet again.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A parent travelling with two children under the age of 2 needs to plan carefully. It appears that on one flight she took along another family member who took charge of one infant or young child and obviously that was sensible and mitigated any problem. On the second flight she had attempted to solve the problem by utilizing a car seat that unfortunetaly wouldn't fit in the seat.
Although another passsenger offered to assist by taking charge of one of the children, the airline it seems wouldn't permit that to occur.
I can imagine that staff might have (as sometimes happens in these difficult situations), quoted acts such as the Child Protection Act to excuse an action, when in reality they probably have no idea what the act actually states or encompasses ? However parental authority it seems was being given to another adult to act in loco parentis on this occaision thereby giving the necessary permission.
The problem arises because such permission it seems, is contrary to the airlines rules (which presumably are stated in its booking terms and conditions). If that is the case then the passenger implicitly accepted those conditions when booking the flight. The airlines staff were obliged to ensure those rules were executed, and as unfortunate as it was the passengers had to be removed.
It sounds like better planning by all, would have prevented this situation being allowed to develop all the way through to the "onboard stage". I have always believed that child seats (where required ) should only be supplied by the airline as a part of the advance booking procedure. Children under 12 should never be seperated on board from the responsible adult or guardian unless alternative arrangements have been made with the carrier. No more than one infant or child under 2 should be allowed to accompany one responsible adult.
It seems that neither the airline nor its handling agents did a very good job of allowing this situation to develop. However with the best will in the world we all know these type of things sometimes happen. The crew were the last link in the chain and shouldn't be blamed for then having to be the ones who ensured the compliance.
Although another passsenger offered to assist by taking charge of one of the children, the airline it seems wouldn't permit that to occur.
I can imagine that staff might have (as sometimes happens in these difficult situations), quoted acts such as the Child Protection Act to excuse an action, when in reality they probably have no idea what the act actually states or encompasses ? However parental authority it seems was being given to another adult to act in loco parentis on this occaision thereby giving the necessary permission.
The problem arises because such permission it seems, is contrary to the airlines rules (which presumably are stated in its booking terms and conditions). If that is the case then the passenger implicitly accepted those conditions when booking the flight. The airlines staff were obliged to ensure those rules were executed, and as unfortunate as it was the passengers had to be removed.
It sounds like better planning by all, would have prevented this situation being allowed to develop all the way through to the "onboard stage". I have always believed that child seats (where required ) should only be supplied by the airline as a part of the advance booking procedure. Children under 12 should never be seperated on board from the responsible adult or guardian unless alternative arrangements have been made with the carrier. No more than one infant or child under 2 should be allowed to accompany one responsible adult.
It seems that neither the airline nor its handling agents did a very good job of allowing this situation to develop. However with the best will in the world we all know these type of things sometimes happen. The crew were the last link in the chain and shouldn't be blamed for then having to be the ones who ensured the compliance.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes the best way to deal with 'silly' rules is to stick to them rigidly and with lots of publicity, exactly as done here. That way the senior management get to review things and either allow a bit of discretion or modify things to work better next time.
Subject to what the lawyers say, provided both the parent and the helper understand the risks and agree to them, the airline should just let them get on with it (they're still safer than they were on the car journey to the airport). After all, had the mother found someone in the departure lounge who would agree to help out, would the airline have been any wiser? Two people boarding together with two children wouldn't have attracted any particular notice
Subject to what the lawyers say, provided both the parent and the helper understand the risks and agree to them, the airline should just let them get on with it (they're still safer than they were on the car journey to the airport). After all, had the mother found someone in the departure lounge who would agree to help out, would the airline have been any wiser? Two people boarding together with two children wouldn't have attracted any particular notice
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: EGNT
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No more than two infants per accompanying person are allowed. Infants under two weeks of age will not be accepted for travel.
Children aged two years or over must occupy their own seat and pay the same fares as adults.
It is the accompanying person's responsibility to ensure that the minor is adequately secured into the aircraft seat. To this end easyJet will accept a car seat supplied by the accompanying person for any child over six months for whom an airline seat has been purchased, provided that the car seat has a rigid metal or plastic frame, is no wider than 42cm, includes lap, shoulder and crotch straps, and is upright and forward facing. The required restraint device for the age of the infant is detailed below:
The above text is from the Easyjet websites terms and conditions.
Looks as though the seat was wider than 42cm and thats why she was obviously refused travel. Cant really blame anyone I dont think, Obviously the passenger didnt get the tape measure out!
Children aged two years or over must occupy their own seat and pay the same fares as adults.
It is the accompanying person's responsibility to ensure that the minor is adequately secured into the aircraft seat. To this end easyJet will accept a car seat supplied by the accompanying person for any child over six months for whom an airline seat has been purchased, provided that the car seat has a rigid metal or plastic frame, is no wider than 42cm, includes lap, shoulder and crotch straps, and is upright and forward facing. The required restraint device for the age of the infant is detailed below:
The above text is from the Easyjet websites terms and conditions.
Looks as though the seat was wider than 42cm and thats why she was obviously refused travel. Cant really blame anyone I dont think, Obviously the passenger didnt get the tape measure out!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
After all, had the mother found someone in the departure lounge who would agree to help out, would the airline have been any wiser? Two people boarding together with two children wouldn't have attracted any particular notice
) imagine a situation where an emergency takes place.Would you be happy to entrust your toddler with someone you meet in a departure lounge?
The next thing that will happen is that the "helper" would get sued for contributing to a toddlers' injuries etc.....
Most rules like this protect an airline from particularly litigious individuals..and you can bet that someone who runs to the Daily Mail over their own ignorant mistake, would be the same type of individual who would run to a "where theres blame theres a claim" legal practice.
Just your average stupid passenger getting upset and trying to blame someone else because of their own lack of intelligence.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of us (sadly not all of us) realise that the country is going to the dogs. Not sure who is ultimately responsible for this, but I suppose the last two governments (Conservative and Labour) have a lot to do with it. But clearly there are posters who actually think what happened is perfectly reasonable - not many, thank goodness. But those that do are party to the problem, and I am afraid we are on a runaway train, and whilst they may be in the minority right now, in 10 years time they will be in the majority. We will probably have to have a major world catastrophe with massive mortalitities and starvation before people in this country start to get their values sorted out.
So given this situation, did the Captain make the right or wrong decision? The wrong one, because we should all do whatever we can to arrest this decline of common sense (actually, an elemination of common sense) whenever we can. This takes guts. We should encourage people to DO THE RIGHT THING, and support them when they do.
So given this situation, did the Captain make the right or wrong decision? The wrong one, because we should all do whatever we can to arrest this decline of common sense (actually, an elemination of common sense) whenever we can. This takes guts. We should encourage people to DO THE RIGHT THING, and support them when they do.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You say that, but I do remember a case a while back where a mother turned up with too many underage children and a man (even more scary, according to today's media) offered (in the presence of cabin crew) to have one on his lap even though he was wearing his suit at the time. His comment was that he had kids of his own and understood the mother's dilemma having no way of getting home with all the children. The family was allowed to fly on that occasion. I've just done a quick search for it but haven't found a relevant article yet. However, I don't think it was on easyJet.
I make no comment on whether it's a good idea or not, merely that (a) it has happened in the past and (b) it can happen even if the crew know nothing of it. I only have one kid so I hope it wouldn't apply to me, and he's old enough for his own seat now
I make no comment on whether it's a good idea or not, merely that (a) it has happened in the past and (b) it can happen even if the crew know nothing of it. I only have one kid so I hope it wouldn't apply to me, and he's old enough for his own seat now
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
The fact that this thread has even gotten to 2 pages in length indicates that pprune is now pretty much ruled by enthusiasts and armchair experts ... and muppets that actually believe what they read in the daily mail.
The airline pays us a great deal of money to operate their aircraft in accordance with the rules outlined in the law and in the ops manuals. End of story. Except in certain well defined emergency cases we do NOT have carte blanche to operate outside the rules - and even then, if we do we had better be prepared to provide a damn good reason for it afterwards.
The daily mail's basic reason for existence is to cook up 50 pages a day of manufactured 'political correctness' outrages because the British Public love to be outraged by stories of political correctness gone mad. Looks to me like the truth here is a lot more mundane, some punter has pitched up with two kids and a car seat that won't fit in the seat. She's in clear breach of the conditions of boarding but expects to be accommodated nevertheless even though that means the crew have to go outside the clearly defined parameters of the rules - which have nothing whatsoever to do with child molesting and everything to do with pax safety in the event of an evacuation. In accordance with SOP, the passenger is duly denied boarding. Well woop de doo, I'm sorry but where's the story in that?
The airline pays us a great deal of money to operate their aircraft in accordance with the rules outlined in the law and in the ops manuals. End of story. Except in certain well defined emergency cases we do NOT have carte blanche to operate outside the rules - and even then, if we do we had better be prepared to provide a damn good reason for it afterwards.
The daily mail's basic reason for existence is to cook up 50 pages a day of manufactured 'political correctness' outrages because the British Public love to be outraged by stories of political correctness gone mad. Looks to me like the truth here is a lot more mundane, some punter has pitched up with two kids and a car seat that won't fit in the seat. She's in clear breach of the conditions of boarding but expects to be accommodated nevertheless even though that means the crew have to go outside the clearly defined parameters of the rules - which have nothing whatsoever to do with child molesting and everything to do with pax safety in the event of an evacuation. In accordance with SOP, the passenger is duly denied boarding. Well woop de doo, I'm sorry but where's the story in that?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riverboat wrote :
"So given this situation, did the Captain make the right or wrong decision? The wrong one, because we should all do whatever we can to arrest this decline of common sense (actually, an elemination of common sense) whenever we can. This takes guts. We should encourage people to DO THE RIGHT THING, and support them when they do."
The Captain made a decision and in that situation the Captain is the final arbiter. In any event that decision was correct because it was in accordance with the companies rules which the Captain is charged with ensuring are, in all normal situations, complied with. There was nothing extraordinary about this womans situation. The Captain is in any event charged with ensuring the safety of everybody on board. Safety is not enhanced by a woman struggling with two infants / young children who she cannot adequately secure without enlisting the help of other passengers. In an emergency those same volunteers or willing conscriptees may not be able to ensure the safety of the young child or infant and may therefore compromise the safety of other people around them. In fact common sense would actually be to remove the passengers. Of course natural human compassion would wish for a better outcome or resolution, but that is another matter and when it comes down to hard facts, as ultimately it must, irrelevant.
The woman was not complying with the conditions of carriage. It is very likely that as a result of an unfortunate set of circumstances she found herself in that situation, but nevertheless that is where the fault lies, like it or not.
"So given this situation, did the Captain make the right or wrong decision? The wrong one, because we should all do whatever we can to arrest this decline of common sense (actually, an elemination of common sense) whenever we can. This takes guts. We should encourage people to DO THE RIGHT THING, and support them when they do."
The Captain made a decision and in that situation the Captain is the final arbiter. In any event that decision was correct because it was in accordance with the companies rules which the Captain is charged with ensuring are, in all normal situations, complied with. There was nothing extraordinary about this womans situation. The Captain is in any event charged with ensuring the safety of everybody on board. Safety is not enhanced by a woman struggling with two infants / young children who she cannot adequately secure without enlisting the help of other passengers. In an emergency those same volunteers or willing conscriptees may not be able to ensure the safety of the young child or infant and may therefore compromise the safety of other people around them. In fact common sense would actually be to remove the passengers. Of course natural human compassion would wish for a better outcome or resolution, but that is another matter and when it comes down to hard facts, as ultimately it must, irrelevant.
The woman was not complying with the conditions of carriage. It is very likely that as a result of an unfortunate set of circumstances she found herself in that situation, but nevertheless that is where the fault lies, like it or not.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
When travelling with small children, I've found that sometimes airlines and airports are prepared to provide staff to help cope with them ...
... but the one thing the parent actually wants to the staff to do is hang onto the child and stop it from escaping, whilst the (lone) parent does something else exciting, like collect the baggage or go to the loo ...
... and the one thing that the airline or aiport staff will absolutely refuse to do is ...
... touch the child
So why offer to help if they're not, in practice, actually going to be prepared to do anything useful????
... but the one thing the parent actually wants to the staff to do is hang onto the child and stop it from escaping, whilst the (lone) parent does something else exciting, like collect the baggage or go to the loo ...
... and the one thing that the airline or aiport staff will absolutely refuse to do is ...
... touch the child
So why offer to help if they're not, in practice, actually going to be prepared to do anything useful????
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: England
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with shaky on this one - why wasn't this issue spotted and dealt with at check-in? I've sat at Edinburgh as pax on an Easyjet flight for over 2 hours whilst a replacement child seat was sought for a passenger carrying two infants. Timewasted for ops and passengers alike.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Up to now, no-one appears to have quoted the Conditions of Carriage correctly. The key Condition is "An adult with two or more infants aged six months or less cannot be accepted for travel."
This should have been caught at check-in
EasyJet Reg's do not allow child car seats for infants under 6 months.
Anyway the seat should have shoulder, lap & crotch straps and be forward facing.
Their requirement is in excess of an EU approved child car seat Cat 0 so I doubt many would be permissable
Business sense suggests EasyJet should provide an approved seat at booking/check-in for a nominal fee (if any) since they will charge for the extra a/c seat reqd (with tax)
Rules may be rules, and I don't criticise the crew, but silly rules can be changed, as BA and Ryanair have found to their cost. (crosses and wheelchairs) Single parents with 2+ kids, no car or immediate family cannot fly?
This should have been caught at check-in
EasyJet Reg's do not allow child car seats for infants under 6 months.
Anyway the seat should have shoulder, lap & crotch straps and be forward facing.
Their requirement is in excess of an EU approved child car seat Cat 0 so I doubt many would be permissable
Business sense suggests EasyJet should provide an approved seat at booking/check-in for a nominal fee (if any) since they will charge for the extra a/c seat reqd (with tax)
Rules may be rules, and I don't criticise the crew, but silly rules can be changed, as BA and Ryanair have found to their cost. (crosses and wheelchairs) Single parents with 2+ kids, no car or immediate family cannot fly?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Queensland, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Nov71 speaks some sense here.
As a piece of SLF, even I can see that the Captain had little choice but to enforce the rules. I can also see that putting this down to simple political correctness was, as usual, journalistic licence. The Captain in no way deserves to be criticised or villified for enforcing the rule.
However, as Nov71 says, that doesn't mean people shouldn't be critical of the rather unfair and inconsistant rule itself. I would agree that a far better way of handling this (and ensuring any child seats used are up to standard) would be for the airline to provide them at an appropriate charge.
Bobbsy
As a piece of SLF, even I can see that the Captain had little choice but to enforce the rules. I can also see that putting this down to simple political correctness was, as usual, journalistic licence. The Captain in no way deserves to be criticised or villified for enforcing the rule.
However, as Nov71 says, that doesn't mean people shouldn't be critical of the rather unfair and inconsistant rule itself. I would agree that a far better way of handling this (and ensuring any child seats used are up to standard) would be for the airline to provide them at an appropriate charge.
Bobbsy