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..

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?

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.

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'.

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..."

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...........

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

Wow, this is cool! The President of the Oxford Union is a member of PPRuNE. Who would have thought...

P

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Ya get what ya pay for.

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!