PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   Easy-PC (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/264196-easy-pc.html)

atmosphere 15th Feb 2007 08:53

Child Abuse at 35000ft
 
A child was abused onboard an Easyjet aircraft today. A mother flying with her two children asked another passenger to help out, the passenger agreed and took control of the infant on his lap! Subsequently, the child was abused. Although rules in Easyjets operational manual and conditions of carriage state that this shouldn't happen, EasyJet ignored this rule, leading to this horrible attack.

The mother is now in legal proceedings, and is thought to be claiming for £10million in damages.

Although untrue, Imagine reading that in a newspaper, Easyjet have RULES to protect themselves, Crew, and Passengers!! If they are going to break one rule, why not break them all!!!??

Good on easyjet and the crew for enforcing this rule, and making what must of been a horrible decision for all involved!

SirToppamHat 15th Feb 2007 09:02

PC = Political Correctness.

STH

Red Comet 15th Feb 2007 09:13

It might help future situations if airlines provided suitable booster seats......

Saintsman 15th Feb 2007 13:57

Lots of oppinions regarding the crew doing the right thing and carrying out the rules. I wonder, however, if it is true that said crew always carry out every rule in the book to the letter?

Quite right that Easyjet has backed them up but you should expect the oposite if the rules are broken. You can't pick and choose.

A common sense approach is what's really needed.


BTW, I flew Easyjet yesterday and a pleasant experience it was, with what appeared the whole crew fully enjoying their job. Excellent.

Marra123 15th Feb 2007 15:47

This has been in the Daily Mail and has been in North East papers and T.V for the last two days,and has also managed 3pages on here!!

The passenger was offloaded I think it was around 7.45pm on friday evening, the a/c departed to NCL ten a little later, It then returned to BRS with the same crew approx 2hrs later and the passenger was accepted with two infants as her mother had brought a soutable car seat to carry the baby. At the end of the day she was in the wrong regarding the t and c's and was not left stranded, she was accepted on the next flight by the same captain two hours later! and arrived at her destination 3 hours late.

mini 15th Feb 2007 22:58

We live in a world gone mad.

Mother reads the T & C.

Mother hands over the child to next seat pax. - mothers decision, had option of otherwise buying a seat for mentioned sprog, where's the airline liability?

Mother hands over child to CC - airline see's no potential liability...

Jeez.

llondel 16th Feb 2007 06:23

I think part of the problem is: how many people ever read the Ts & Cs? Ask yourself when you last checked out the small print before getting on a train or a bus or an aircraft (as paying pax!). Apart from the rules about what can be taken through security (not read/understood by many, based on the pile of confiscated items) I doubt if many people think of more than (pay for ticket) = (transport to destination).

Curious Pax 16th Feb 2007 07:17

If the return flight was booked as an adult and 2 infants you would have thought that the confirmation e-mail would emphasise the restrictions in such cases - never having been in that position it could be that it does of course.

Like others I don't see this as PC gone mad, but a failure in the system that allowed the problem to get any further than the check in desk. It is fairly well known that not all car seats are suitable for use on an aircraft seat, so a quick check at the check in desk (or bag drop if they did it online) to ensure compliance would have saved the trouble, and depending on when they checked in may even have given them chance to get a different seat before the original flight left.

Globaliser 16th Feb 2007 07:51


Originally Posted by mini (Post 3129297)
Mother hands over the child to next seat pax. - mothers decision, had option of otherwise buying a seat for mentioned sprog, where's the airline liability?

You're forgetting the difference between the truth and the litigation that might be necessary to try to establish the truth. There are few bounds to the ingenuity and persistence of lawyers trying to establish liability. In such a situation, it could cost EZY many tens of thousands of pounds just to prove that it was not liable. Many companies and insurers give up and pay out substantial sums of money as nuisance value settlements, even though they weren't to blame - just to avoid the costs of being right.

Where's the sense in that? Far better to avoid the problem to start off with.

(And this is a view from a lawyer.)

zon3 16th Feb 2007 08:11

Oxygen masks...
 
Hi all. How could the mother+ infant#1 be seated next to a stranger+ infant #2, and then another person in a 3-seat row? Surely that would mean a requirement for 3+2=5 oxygen masks... How many masks per 3-seat row is that aircraft fitted with?

NiteKos 16th Feb 2007 08:31

Seen it written several times on this thread.
An old saying
" Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools."
Get real after 40 years in the business
A new saying.
" Rules are for the obedience of wise men and the guidance of fools."
We have moved on for better or worse and have to live with it.
NK

The Trappist 16th Feb 2007 08:44

I'm sure I was told that the 'Rule Book' was something to sit on, so you could see better out of the cockpit window...

merlinxx 16th Feb 2007 08:59

Easyjet T&Cs
 
I use Easy often and can commend the service. CC & F/D are a good bunch. I've been in the industry many years and have spent a lot of my life positioning as SLF and welcomed Easy, it's made European travel much more cost effective for many of us, don't break a good thing not just for joe public, bit also for us in the industry that have to travel a heck of alot.

PS. I'm not Easy staff, just a happy user

bolkow 16th Feb 2007 09:19

I cant help thinking all of this is self made by the travelling public who are all to eager to sue given the slightest opportunity, we are simply witnessing the results of our own greed.

Permafrost_ATPL 16th Feb 2007 12:18


The country's going to hell in a hand basket.
When is this pc madness going to stop???
Put the Daily Mail down... Slooooowly. There. Breathe in. Relax. Try not picking up the Mail for a whole week. Read other papers. Take long walks in the woods.

Now, not too fast, start using your brain a little. Have you or your relatives been mugged recently? No. Do you live next door to a pedophile? No. Do you have a good salary? Yes. Would you pay more taxes in France, Germany, Belgium,etc? Yes.

See? Better. Smile

:ok:

P

poorwanderingwun 17th Feb 2007 03:18

Simple answer to this one... should be no children allowed on flights who are under 5 years of age... flying today is more than uncomfortable enough without the addition of screaming infants... ( incoming )
While at it... when it comes to Brit pax... no adults under the age of 5 years either.

RAT 5 22nd Feb 2007 15:09

easyJet does not operate an indemnity policy and therefore under no circumstance, under the Child Protection Act, must another passenger be asked to accept responsibility during flight of an unaccompanied minor.

Am I missing something here? I interpret this a meaning the airline can not ask a fare paying pax to take care of an unaccompanied minor. The minor was not unaccompanied, and the airline did not ask a fare paying pax to look after them.

This would seem to be a misinterpretation of the rule quoted.

What right does any transport carrier of any type have to overrule a parent in this way? What would have happened if the mother had used the booster seat and carried her baby and then wanted to use the toilet? Would it have been allowed by the captain for the parent to give consent to a neighbouring volunteering pax to oversee 2 children for 5 minutes. Or would she have had to cross her legs for 2 hours.

Easy jet were quoted as saying that the safety of the passengers is their top priority. Correct. That means don't bend the a/c on takeoff or landing, and if they do, make sure all pax are best prepared to survive same said oopse daisy. That is where it stops. If all pax are strapped in and briefed, and all children are also secured in a booster seat or on a lap in a lap strap, then they have fulfilled their end of the bargain. (I don'tt want to get inot the discussion about abusive agressive pax. That is another mattere entirely.)

Regarding the question about whether a stanger would offer due care to the child in an evacuation is a matter for the parent and not the carrier. In the past, any minor had to have an accompanying adult. One parent + 2 young children might not have been allowed. Imagine one parent blocking an evac struggling with 2 screaming kids. Better to give one to another sane adult and risk fire and damnation from the crew, than not do so and go into the real fires, with a good many others, still stuck on board.

What's more, from posts above, it seems the crew were the only ones who wanted to do this. The pax supported the mother. Democracy did not rule on that day, neither did common sense.

BOAC 22nd Feb 2007 15:38

This happened to me on a BA flight a few years back. I sought 'guidance' from on high.On my flight the 'other passenger' was female - and the decision was absolutely definite - no!

No business can risk the cash-hungry lawyers seizing on every piece of small print. 'Atmosphere' (#41) has said it all. I also commend the post by 'Permafrost_ATPL' (#55):)

Max Angle 22nd Feb 2007 15:52


Would it have been allowed by the captain for the parent to give consent to a neighbouring volunteering pax to oversee 2 children for 5 minutes. Or would she have had to cross her legs for 2 hours.
A female friend of mine did just this for a woman on flight a year or two ago. Mother and toddler went to the loo and she volunteered to look after the baby which promptly puked up all over her. Perhaps Easy have a point after all:)

cwatters 22nd Feb 2007 16:22

Would have been nice of Easy to have provided a suitable booster seat or at least checked her seat was suitable at checkin.
I've travelled with twins under 1 year old and the biggest problem is predicting what the rules will be and what will/won't be available on the day... Do you struggle to the gate with a pair of cots and hope there is room on the floor somewhere or rely on the airline providing one that fits to a bulkhead? Will you even be able to get a seat at a bulkhead. Will the cot you requested/booked be on the plane? Given the right conditions our two slept right through a 10 hour flight.

old,not bold 22nd Feb 2007 16:30

If the rule has been correctly quoted as:

"easyJet does not operate an indemnity policy and therefore under no circumstance, under the Child Protection Act, must another passenger be asked to accept responsibility during flight of an unaccompanied minor."

I'm with all those who have pointed that the crew misapplied it, in what was certainly a genuine misunderstanding.

What the rule is intended to achieve , quite rightly, is that no ground staff member, or aircrew, should ask a passenger to look after an unaccompanied minor during a flight, for many good reasons including the danger of sexual abuse. We all know what an unaccompanied minor is; a young child travelling without parent or guardian, known to the trade as an UM, labelled as such and positively handed over at each stage of its jpourney until returned to a named parent or guardian.

The rule has little or nothing to do with the case on Easyjet, and had the Captain known this I am confident he/she would have acted with common-sense..

RAT 5 22nd Feb 2007 16:57

People seem to be supporting ej because they can not risk being sued by a parent in case something goes wrong. That is a red herring. The parent gave consent to a prefectly acceptable solution. I still can not see how ej can overrule a parent acting lawfully. If the child pukes that is a risk taken and accepted by the volunteer. If they took umbrage at that it would be with the parent and not ej.

Regarding suing. If it could be shown that the crew acted outside their jurisdiction and mis-interpreted the Ops manual so that this lady and chldren suffered considerable discomfort and financial loss, it is perhaps she who has a case to pursue against ej?

Skylion 22nd Feb 2007 22:11

Sue for discomfort or financial loss after a delay of around 3 hours in a nice warm terminal building due to a situation she herself had created? You must be a lawyer.

RAT 5 24th Feb 2007 10:38

Skylion:

I am not a lawyer. When you re-read my sentance you will note that it started with IF....... Should the answer be YES, there might be a case; should the answer ne NO, there will be no case.

In any case, this thread is rapidly whirling down the plug hole and so might I suggest 'case closed'.

CargoOne 24th Feb 2007 11:10

For those who think EZY crew did it right...
You wouldn't be then surprised to read in news "firefighters left small child in burning house because they considered other action may compromise Child Protection Act specifically in the article of not allowing strangers to take child on hands..."

FlapsOne 24th Feb 2007 11:34

Cargo One

What nonsense! you are equating a scheduled passenger transport flight with a burning building.

I am a Captain with EZ and there is no doubt in my mind that this 'rule' was incorrectly applied in this case. The rule is there to stop crew/ground staff attempting to ask others to care for a child during a flight. If a parent does it, that's now the parent's issue and no longer the concern of the airline.

If I had been asked to rule on the circumstances on that day, having clarified that the parent was happy - close doors and go!

Not worth 4 pages of PPrune though...........

Right Way Up 24th Feb 2007 11:39

Cargoone...............not even close to being relevant!

Permafrost_ATPL 24th Feb 2007 11:39


For those who think EZY crew did it right...
You wouldn't be then surprised to read in news "firefighters left small child in burning house because they considered other action may compromise Child Protection Act specifically in the article of not allowing strangers to take child on hands..."
Wow, this is cool! The President of the Oxford Union is a member of PPRuNE. Who would have thought...

P

CargoOne 24th Feb 2007 12:22

FlapsOne
No, this is not a nonsense. It is just a matter of time and PC progress in EU. 30 years ago no one would even think that helping mother with her child may be considered as possible child abuse. Now that's what we have.
Wait for another 10 years and one day you realize my words were not that far from the truth. Another 15 years and you would be required to sign a release of liability to any emergency service before they will start helping you.

V1 24th Feb 2007 22:45

Easy-PC
 
Complete nonsense!

A Captain is employed to use his professional judgement. That's what we get paid a reasonable (let's not get side-tracked on that one!) salary for. Day after day this involves making judgements about acceptable risks.

This usually means taking the most sensible course of action AND taking responsibility for it. It is impossible to cover all situations with an Ops Manual, and sometimes real life comes up with situations that were never envisaged when drafting such documents.

As the child in question was sat next to the mother (and was being looked after by another woman) - the risk of child abuse was so small as to be completely negligible.

The chances of an accident from which the child would be injured was also exceedingly small - and if there had been such an accident the chances of a Judge convicting someone of not looking after that child after the parent had accepted their offer of help, is again incredibly small.

Factored together I think the Captain in this situation make a poor assessment of the possible risks.

Too often the "unintended consequences of well mean legislation" bugs our lives and it can only be balanced by good professional judgement.

The paranoid will always try and hide behind the "just in case I get sued" caveat. In this case I suspect it may have been a very junior Captain not used to shouldering the responsibilities involved.

When these sorts of situations crop up you have to take a deep breath, then take a balanced look at the risks involved and use a grown up, professional, responsible, and often common sense, decision.

Wingswinger 25th Feb 2007 03:18


When these sorts of situations crop up you have to take a deep breath, then take a balanced look at the risks involved and use a grown up, professional, responsible, and often common sense, decision.
Sadly, as those of us who were raised in earlier, happier, non-PC times retire and die out this will be less and less likely.

PPRuNeUser0205 25th Feb 2007 11:56

The easyJet ops manual states the following on this subject:
"easyJet does not operate an indemnity policy and therefore under no
circumstances, under the Child Protection Act, must another passenger be asked
to accept responsibility during flight of an unaccompanied minor. In addition, it
is not easyJet's policy to allow another passenger to take responsibility for an
infant to be seated on their lap for take-off or landing."
The captain involved complied with a black and white company rule. This rule has been created by senior management in consultation with lawyers who can reasonably be expected to know an awful lot more about the legal aspects of the situation than a line captain. There was absolutely no excuse for the captain to override this particular rule, and he would have been completely out of his mind to do so.
Feel free to condemn the management, the legal system or even the government if you disagree with the rule. Do not condemn someone for doing their job right.

RAT 5 25th Feb 2007 18:41

Cargo One.

Oh dear I was hoping common sense would have prevailed and this would have died a timely death. However, the nonsense continues.
Considering the firefighters' dilema.....
What about the mother with 2 screaming children who is on the sinking ferry. "All to the boats" is the cry. She can't make it in time, unless she lets someone else take one of her children, possibly even in another boat. If she doesn't, all 3 drown. What should she do? She agrees, but the captain notices and refuses her permission! What next?

No, this is not a nonsense. It is just a matter of time and PC progress in EU.

Progress my aunt-fanny. Why should we lie down and let this process degrade our society into a case for 'One flew over the cukoo's nest'? Show common sense and be damned.

Stangely, the most common sense thing more airlines could do is to carry a disclaimer form. Why do they not? It was always the case, especially in the case of ill pax who did not have a Dr's certificate for travel and needed to get home for treatment at the last minute. Alolwed it plenty of times. If ej stopped trying to re-invent the wheel and followed commonsense SOP this form would have solved an dilema.

Nov71 26th Feb 2007 01:17

EJ Conditions of Carriage
"An adult with two or more infants aged six months or less cannot be accepted for travel."
Issue of boarding pass at check in suggests Co waiver of this rule

"A child under 6mo of age cannot be placed in a booster seat"
Yet the pax later flew with 'spare' infant in 'acceptable' booster seat having paid for additional cabin seat

T&C at booking did not provide specific acceptable dimensions of suitable booster seat nor indicate that EU specs for car seat for appropriate age was not acceptable. Unfair contract T&Cs

If a parent was accompanig the 'surplus' infant a simple waiver signed by parent and surrogate prior to departure should exonerate the airline of liablity

This case suggests EJ wanted to sell an additional seat to an exempt infant in spite of its T&C

llondel 26th Feb 2007 06:30

We looked into the booster seat option when we had a child of relevant age, and gave up because British airlines don't seem to comprehend their use and don't publish dimensions anywhere. Similarly, seats aren't sold as being airline-friendly. However, we do get those nice organge lap belts, which US airlines don't supply, but of course you do need a suitable adult lap for the child to sit on, which brings us back to the original problem of one adult, two small children.

Paranoid Parrot 26th Feb 2007 09:08

Quote from V1:

"As the child in question was sat next to the mother (and was being looked after by another woman) - the risk of child abuse was so small as to be completely negligible.

The chances of an accident from which the child would be injured was also exceedingly small - and if there had been such an accident the chances of a Judge convicting someone of not looking after that child after the parent had accepted their offer of help, is again incredibly small.

Factored together I think the Captain in this situation make a poor assessment of the possible risks.

Too often the "unintended consequences of well mean legislation" bugs our lives and it can only be balanced by good professional judgement."

Agreed.

It brings to mind the saying:
"Rules were made for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools".

How often as a captain have I had First Officers pointing out trivial things when they have overlooked the big picture.

Boneman 27th Feb 2007 15:51

Ya get what ya pay for.

Jambo Buana 28th Feb 2007 20:54

I wouldnt be suprised if the CSD informed the captain of the discrepancy and of his/her concern for contravening the OPS manual. This then puts any captain in an awkward position, as he should back his CSD, even though it is not a democracy! So going through his mind is 'what if this old/young trout throws me to the dogs when we get back?' And by all accounts, having already shown no common sense, the CSD will probably let you down, so why risk it for a biscuit?

What is interesting is there is the pilot on this website that follows the book to the comma, and those that are willing to take responsibility for unusual scenarios and make allowances. Provided these pilots are willing, if they end up in gaol, to say they did their level best and were pragmatic in their approach and that they used their discretion and judgement when making their decision then thats fine! But dont moan when the company cannot support you because the book says you messed up.

I come from the Al Haynes and Eric Moody school of flying and I bet 100% that I can guess what they would have done in this scenario!!

Lets not forget, common sense is not very common any more!


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:58.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.