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!

PC = Political Correctness.

STH

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.)

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?

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

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...

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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):)

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:)

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.