peh
Topic Author
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:29 pm

Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:24 am

A number of Australian airlines, including Virgin, have implemented a policy that prevents male passengers from being seated next to unaccompanied minors.

This all came to light earlier this week when a Virgin customer, who was asked to move away from two unaccompanied minors, objected to the insinuation that he might be a danger to children simply because he was male.

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-...to-think-again-20120810-23y7q.html

It hardly seems fair to paint all men with the same brush.

Do we agree? What would be a better policy?

[Edited 2012-08-10 01:34:55]
Flown: ATR72, DASH 8, 737, 747, 767, 777, A300, A320, A321, A330, A340, MD80
 
smi0006
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:45 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:53 am

This is not unique to Virgin, Qantas have the same policy.

As does every other airline I have interacted with; QR, EK, PR, and CZ. Some even stipulate that ground-staff escorting the UMs to and from their families should if possible (depending on staffing) be female as well.

I have no doubt that whilst it is a generalisation this rule came about as a child was molested by a male passenger... and the airline was sued for negligence. I doubt if airlines actually feel male passengers are a threat its just a way of protecting themselves.

From a side note and from casual and anecdotal observations woman are much better at interacting with children then men are - again generally from my personal observations.
 
User avatar
zkokq
Posts: 515
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:44 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:05 am

Surely the airlines have the capability for not seating males next to minors with some sort of query through the database when they book tickets and such. I agree with the policy (in the sense of protecting the kids and the male, because I dont want to be accused or something I didnt do). I just dont agree with how it is handled.
 
cygnuschicago
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:34 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:09 am

I'm quite happy with a policy to not be seated next to an UM. Afterall, it is probably just as much for my protection from some poorly raised kid.

However, since I pick my seats well in advance, if I was already on the plane, and then the flight attendant asked me to move, I'd kick up a fuss.
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
 
twa@fra
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 8:10 pm

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:16 am

As per my knowledge the most ““attacks”” had been by male passengers, as this policy simple reduce the risk for kids… I’m fine with it.
But I must admit the 1st time I’ve heard of similar rules at other airlines (IIRC AF) it felt weird simply because of my gender being assigned to that “risk” group and it must be even more strange being asked to move, but as mention above, if that general rules helps, I’m fine with it.
 
flyboy_se
Posts: 713
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2000 5:31 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:50 am

I a pretty sure most airlines have this policy.
The UM s are always pre seated , if flight is not full then no one is sitting next to them, if not, a female passenger is seated next to the UM.
However this is only possible if the UM is pre booked. You would be surprised how many irresponsible parents there are out there. Many times showing up just before flight closure not having booked the UM assistance. In cases like these, then some seat shuffling happens, and passengers are asked to move.
I prefer to be crazy and happy rather than normal and bitter
 
Cipango
Posts: 1465
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:55 pm

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:01 am

Personally I can see how this could turn nasty leaving the FA's in a very uncomfortable position. But its all to do with how its handled.

If I was asked to move because I'm male and I was seated next to an unaccompanied minor I would definitely kick up a fuss. But if it was put differently to me, it might be different.
Let's fly! Unless it's on a CRJ 200, then I'll stay down here.
 
smi0006
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:45 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:09 am

Quoting zkokq (Reply 2):
Surely the airlines have the capability for not seating males next to minors with some sort of query through the database when they book tickets and such. I agree with the policy (in the sense of protecting the kids and the male, because I dont want to be accused or something I didnt do). I just dont agree with how it is handled.

This is the case. The only time that I have ever seen this occur is due to an accidental seat change by which the passengers have their seats swapped post check-in for a variety of factors and the staff member actioning the seat change does not look at who has been seated around them. Generally Female passengers seat next to UMs are commented not to be moved for this reason. But accidents do happen.

According to most airline procedures in priority UM should be seated next to the following people:

1. Other UMs
2. Female crew on duty travel in uniform.
3. Female airline staff on duty travel out of uniform
4. Female passengers

UMs should be seated in the last row of the aircraft near a galley.
 
User avatar
RWA380
Posts: 4532
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:51 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:22 am

Mary Kay Letourneau, is a female, she has spent time in prison for having sex with a male student, it's not just men that commit Most times in human trafficking for sex, the people that those kids first trust is a woman who lures them into a situation that they are forced to be prostitutes, a very real crime that happens everyday in this country, woman can be just as awful to a child as a man can. I understand if they gave UM's their own row of seats, putting 1-3 UM's together where one flight attendant can at least watch them when making the usual rounds. Do problems with male passengers and UM's happen at all, or with any kind of regularity? One is too many, and I recognize it is mostly males that offend, but it's a big reaction unless this is a real problem, right?
707, 717, 720, 727-1/2, 737-1/2/3/4/5/7/8/9, 747-1/2/3/4, 757, 767-2/3/4, 777, DC-8-5/6/7, DC-9-1/3/5, MD-80/2/3/7/8, DC-10-10/30/40, MD-11, F-27, F-28, SWM, J31, D38, DH7, DH8, DH4 SD-330, B-146, L-1011-2/500, ATR-42/72, VCV, A-300/310/318/319/320, CR2/7
 
bastew
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:21 pm

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:37 am

We have had the same policy at BA for years now.
 
tayser
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:49 pm

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:47 am

The Australian Sex discrimination commissioner / Australian Human Rights commission should scrutinise ALL Australian airline policies in this area - the policy is tantamount to labelling all males as kiddie-fiddlers - this is:

1) repugnant,
2) ignorant of the fact that not every paedophile has male genitalia,
3) absolutely atrocious, and
4) 100% sexist.
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:48 am

BA came under fire for this in 2010: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10182869
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
tayser
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:49 pm

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:50 am

oh and 5) a nanny state gone completely mad.

[Edited 2012-08-10 03:50:17]
 
StickShaker
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 7:34 pm

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:56 am

I think such policies are a sign of political correctness gone mad - something not restricted to airlines. Just how often are airlines confronted with litigation due to an UM being abused ?
It has taken decades to eradicate/improve discrimination against women in the workplace and many other areas of society and yet we are have this parnoia that all men are potential child molesters and must be treated as such. Is it going to be illegal for men to walk past schools and kindergardens one day. Enough is enough - I hope this incident returns some common sense to the fold.


Regards,
StickShaker
 
tayser
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:49 pm

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:05 am

Hooray for common sense.......... Virgin are now reviewing the policy:

http://www.theage.com.au/travel/trav...to-think-again-20120810-23y7q.html
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5549
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:24 am

It is more than repugnant it is unfounded.

As a regular train commuter, sometimes I move train carriages because of loud and uncontrollable children(ironically often with their parents) I would prefer to not be seated next to same.
Having said that, having to move because airline "profiling" has decided I am a threat to children is abhorrent in the extreme... try similar profiling on a bearded gentleman in a thobe or shalwar kameez and see how ballistic the civil liberties folk and media go!

Not much documentary evidence of minors being assaulted on aircraft in this country, more coverage of teacher/student issues and these cases are more often than not female teachers and male students yet this "kiddie fiddler" mind set has driven males out of many roles where they once made great contributions.

I once did some contract work in schools... never in a situation where I would be with students without a teacher present, I had to fill out forms for police checks to confirm that I was not a sex offender... females of similar background to me did not have to submit.

If someone can explain this to me I am all ears...

I wonder if those organisations with a true and meaningful Equal Opportunity policy(and culture) let Virgin know they were rethinking their travel policy..

Quoting tayser (Reply 14):
Hooray for common sense.......... Virgin are now reviewing the policy:

That is not yet a victory for common sense, the wording from Virgin looks to me more like a media release to defuse the bad press and get the issue out of the headlines rather than do anything meaningful.

A well advised and decisive management could change the policy within hours.. a "review" is a bureaucrat's way of saying file it away.

[Edited 2012-08-10 04:30:41]
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
bastew
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:21 pm

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:34 am

I agree with all of the above. A needless policy.

Alas, we had the same uproar at BA when it was first publicised. Funny thing is, the policy had ALWAYS been in place. It's just that when the media got wind of it that it exploded.

Suffice to say, the policy remains in place. And thats saying something in a country like the UK where we can't even deport an illegal immigrant rapist/murderer to their home country because it is 'against their human rights'.

BA introduced their policy regarding the seating of UM's due to 1) The request of many parents and 2) So they can be seen as doing all they can under their 'duty of care' to protect the childs wellbeing during the flight. Should an allegation be made BA is in the best position to protect itself in a court if it can show it followed this seating policy.

BTW, I am not advocating or agreeing with points one or two above! Just being the messenger  Smile

[Edited 2012-08-10 04:38:59]
 
kaitak
Posts: 9035
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:35 am

I think the intention here is purely CYA; they have made a calculation that although they might get ticked off by equal opportunities and anti-discrimination quangos, it's a lot better than getting sued.

Were I in that position, I wouldn't see a point in kicking up a fuss, because you'd probably end up being escorted off the plane, probably getting a police caution; I would however ask to be seated in another window seat.

Unfortunately, there's not a lot else you can do.
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5549
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:44 am

Quoting kaitak (Reply 17):
Unfortunately, there's not a lot else you can do.

Yes there is .. not accept blindly criminally discriminatory policy.
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
bastew
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:21 pm

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:51 am

Quoting kaitak (Reply 17):
Unfortunately, there's not a lot else you can do.

Or we may even see the day where airlines just stop offering a UM service.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13268
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:57 am

Quoting cygnuschicago (Reply 3):
I'm quite happy with a policy to not be seated next to an UM.

Perfectly fine with this policy, protecting children should be paramount over everything else, in fact I think it should be policy of all airlines.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5549
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:13 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 20):
protecting children should be paramount over everything else,

Absolutely, but sending a message that all men are perverted child molesters is NOT protecting children.

We, in the West have created a mindset that all men are evil and children should be scared of them.

That needs to change and it needs to change now!!!

Don't get me wrong, I think sex offenders and child molesters should be locked up .. forever(in the general prison population so the "honourable" criminals" can take care of them)
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13268
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:23 pm

Quoting stealthz (Reply 21):
Absolutely, but sending a message that all men are perverted child molesters is NOT protecting children.

We, in the West have created a mindset that all men are evil and children should be scared of them.

All men are not predators, but are all predators men?
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
DLD9S
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:25 pm

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:33 pm

What happens if the male passenger pre-paid his seat assignment for say a window at the bulkhead and gets moved to a middle in the back... Is it like checked bag fees and lost bags? No refunds even if the service is not provided?
717 727 737 747 757 767 777 DC9 DC10 M80 M90 M11 L10 AB6 333 340 319 320 321 ARJ CRJ EM2 EMJ SF3 146 100 BE1...
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:37 pm

Quoting tayser (Reply 10):
The Australian Sex discrimination commissioner / Australian Human Rights commission should scrutinise ALL Australian airline policies in this area - the policy is tantamount to labelling all males as kiddie-fiddlers - this is:

1) repugnant,
2) ignorant of the fact that not every paedophile has male genitalia,
3) absolutely atrocious, and
4) 100% sexist.

Well, I had to ship a child UM from Europe to Australia and I requested that SQ not sit her next to a male adult, they were quite happy to do so, and did so.

I would hope that airlines would plan seating in advance so as not to create situations where male PAX were moved away from children but I wouldn't be too offended if I was asked to move as long as I got an equivalent seat.

Adults try to protect their children from imagined as well as real threats, you have to make allowances for this and get off of your high horse.
BV
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5549
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:42 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 22):
All men are not predators, but are all predators men?

I have seen some BS on this site in the 7 or so years I have been a member and that is without doubt the most flagrantly so I have seen.

The Criminal trial proceedings in most countries show that is not the case!
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5549
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:46 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 24):
you have to make allowances for this and get off of your high horse.

No, you have to be honest enough to admit your child is at far more risk of abuse from someone in your family or a close friend and not someone in a very public space!
Much of the hysteria around child abuse is based on that denial...
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
VHHYI
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:52 pm

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:35 pm

Quoting bastew (Reply 9):
We have had the same policy at BA for years now.

Wasn't it changed after the an affected pax sued and won?

Quote:

"On some services, this will be in a specially created Unaccompanied Minors zone within a short distance of the cabin crew in the galley.
"We have recently changed our internal advice to our seating and airport teams to ensure that the seating of unaccompanied minors is managed in a safe but non discriminatory manner."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/tr...natory-seating-policy-for-men.html

Sounds like a reasonable approach to me..

Pity Virgin got the short stick from the media, as QF and NZ have the same policy. I imagine other airlines must be checking procedures to ensure such confrontations with pax at least don't happen in the first instance.
This Porsche is like an Airbus;an Engineering marvel, but without passion - Jeremy Clarkson
 
User avatar
kgaiflyer
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:22 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:52 pm

Three ideas:

(1)-Since the vast majority of business travelers are men, the airlines seem to have invented yet another way to drive away clients and drive down profitability.

(2)-On the positive side, it's a very good thing that "kiddie fiddlers" only fly the airlines and don't ride Greyhound buses or ride Amtrak and Via trains.

(3)-Here's an idea -- maybe we can make UMs wear bright orange or bright electric blue jumpsuits so we can avoid them like transported criminals.
 
tayser
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:49 pm

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:05 pm

Quoting stealthz (Reply 26):
No, you have to be honest enough to admit your child is at far more risk of abuse from someone in your family or a close friend and not someone in a very public space!
Much of the hysteria around child abuse is based on that denial..

This.
 
StickShaker
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 7:34 pm

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:07 pm

Quoting kaitak (Reply 17):
they have made a calculation that although they might get ticked off by equal opportunities and anti-discrimination quangos, it's a lot better than getting sued

They can also get sued for that discrimination and that could occur many times more often than being sued for an UM being abused. If anyone is going to be sued why wouldn't it be the person actually convicted of child abuse - or are the airlines a better target as they have deeper pockets.

Quoting stealthz (Reply 26):
No, you have to be honest enough to admit your child is at far more risk of abuse from someone in your family or a close friend and not someone in a very public space

  
Of all the child abuse cases that occur over a given timeframe it would be revealing to see just how many of those occurred during a flight by an UM.

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 28):
On the positive side, it's a very good thing that "kiddie fiddlers" only fly the airlines and don't ride Greyhound buses or ride Amtrak and Via trains

Yep - as long as your kids don't sit next to a male adult when flying they will always be perfectly safe. Kiddie fiddlers only exist aboard aircraft.


Regards,
StickShaker
 
OB1504
Posts: 3031
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 5:10 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:36 pm

If the parent initiates the request, that's fine, but this shouldn't be the standard airline policy. I wouldn't move out of a window or aisle seat (especially one with additional legroom) to be stuck in the middle of the last row simply because an airline is profiling based on gender. It's their problem, not mine.

(of course, one easy way to avoid this is to always try to sit in the exit row where minors aren't allowed)

Quoting smi0006 (Reply 7):
According to most airline procedures in priority UM should be seated next to the following people:

1. Other UMs
2. Female crew on duty travel in uniform.
3. Female airline staff on duty travel out of uniform
4. Female passengers

Are you telling me the airline would rather sit a UM next to an unidentified female passenger rather than a male employee who has undergone background and security checks?
 
AA94
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:37 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:45 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 20):
Perfectly fine with this policy, protecting children should be paramount over everything else

I agree with the sentiment that children need to be protected, but the problem is that it's ignorant to narrow the "offenders" category to only include men. In the past few days here in the US, there have been a handful of news stories about female teachers engaging in illicit behavior with students. You can't just assume that because a passenger is a man that he poses a threat to children, and that a woman passenger wouldn't pose any threat.

Looking back on my years of UM flying (only finished flying UM about five years ago), I think DL must have had this policy as well. I can't ever remember sitting next to a male passenger. I was either sitting next to other UMs, women, or an empty middle seat.
If you can't take the heat, you best get out of the kitchen
 
Dizzy777
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:43 pm

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:00 pm

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 31):
Are you telling me the airline would rather sit a UM next to an unidentified female passenger rather than a male employee who has undergone background and security checks?



that was QF's policy last time i checked too
 
silentbob
Posts: 1541
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:26 pm

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:45 pm

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 30):
Of all the child abuse cases that occur over a given timeframe it would be revealing to see just how many of those occurred during a flight by an UM.

;well, then you will get the "if it will prevent even one future attack it is worth the hassle" argument from those in favor.

Quoting tayser (Reply 10):
The Australian Sex discrimination commissioner / Australian Human Rights commission should scrutinise ALL Australian airline policies in this area - the policy is tantamount to labelling all males as kiddie-fiddlers - this is:

1) repugnant,
2) ignorant of the fact that not every paedophile has male genitalia,
3) absolutely atrocious, and
4) 100% sexist.

In the US at least, it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against men, as long as they aren't a minority. In a case like this, being a man would probably trump minority status as well.
 
Markam
Posts: 319
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:17 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:49 pm

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 31):
If the parent initiates the request, that's fine

I don't know whether it is so clear that this is fine. Does the fact that parents believe in gender discrimination justify the airline implementing it? What if parents ask for their children not to be seated by a female passenger? What if an adult female passenger asks not to be seated together with a male passenger? Or if an adult male passenger asks not to be seated together with female passengers? Or if adult passengers ask not to be seated with same sex passengers?

I believe in gender equality of opportunity, and unfortunately there is still discrimination against women in some aspects of life, however I find it deeply troubling that policies such as these, which in turn discriminate men, are tolerated, and cannot but wonder whether an analogous policy discriminating against women would be met with the same public indifference.
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:51 pm

Quoting stealthz (Reply 26):
No, you have to be honest enough to admit your child is at far more risk of abuse from someone in your family or a close friend and not someone in a very public space!
Much of the hysteria around child abuse is based on that denial...

What?

I find your post highly offensive, you don't know me yet you make a ridiculous assumption about what I know and what I believe; you need to pull your head out of your self-righteous arse my friend and smell the coffee.

One instance of child abuse is one too many; I don't care if this 'stupid' rule saves one child per year from a frightening experience that would be enough.
BV
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13812
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:05 pm

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 8):
Mary Kay Letourneau, is a female, she has spent time in prison for having sex with a male student, it's not just men that commit

While there are plenty of examples of women having sex with minors, they tend to be cases where the wacko women claim to be "in love" with the kid, they have a relationship (not attack based) and the child is into it. There are very few cases that can be cited of women randomly touching unfamiliar children.

That's more the m.o. of men. I'm a man and don't have an issue with this rule, really. There are plenty of places to sit on an aircraft. But, why are they moving the man? Why aren't they moving the UM? The man did nothing wrong, it's the airline that seated pax incorrectly. They should look around for another location for the child and then ask someone in that row to move, explaining that the UM needs to be here for xyz reason.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
PHX787
Posts: 7881
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:13 pm

Quoting smi0006 (Reply 1):
I have no doubt that whilst it is a generalisation this rule came about as a child was molested by a male passenger... and the airline was sued for negligence. I doubt if airlines actually feel male passengers are a threat its just a way of protecting themselves.

The negligence is not sitting the molester next to the child, but simply the F/A not doing anything while the molestation occurred. Or the people around the molester. The airplane is NOT a private space at all.

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 28):
(3)-Here's an idea -- maybe we can make UMs wear bright orange or bright electric blue jumpsuits so we can avoid them like transported criminals.

Haaaa that's hilarious. There was an extradited criminal on my flight from NRT-SEA yesterday wearing a dark green jumpsuit with a sign on him that says "Do not talk to me"

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 37):
But, why are they moving the man? Why aren't they moving the UM? The man did nothing wrong, it's the airline that seated pax incorrectly. They should look around for another location for the child and then ask someone in that row to move, explaining that the UM needs to be here for xyz reason.

With DL the UM is pretty much a fluid position. I once requested to be moved from a seat because my dad and cousins were sitting behind me and they moved the UM from the seat next to my cousin and moved me there, and the UM in my old seat.
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:27 pm

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 37):
I'm a man and don't have an issue with this rule, really. There are plenty of places to sit on an aircraft. But, why are they moving the man? Why aren't they moving the UM? The man did nothing wrong, it's the airline that seated pax incorrectly.

Bingo.

I once asked for AA to reassign the seating of a 14/15-year old male seated next to me to another seat in First—turns out he was the son of one of the f/a's, and she moved him to somewhere in Coach. In this day and age, it's not just the airline, but the passengers who have to pro-actively CYA.
International Homo of Mystery
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 3500
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:35 pm

What we need is more passenger profiling.

Everyone know what a terrorist looks like, right, we need to apply this to the “kiddie fiddler” too.
He will be a travelling alone aged between 18 and 100 and carrying a small bag of sweets and saying
that he has lost his puppy dog and can you help him find it.
Keep up the pressure airlines of the world, our children are safe with you.
     
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
 
JONC777
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:41 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:47 pm

not too long ago an older lady gave a um sitting next to her drugs for his headache. . . . this happened at LAS. . .they were prescription drugs also! I think this policy is mis guided, unless your simply going to sit um's by themeselves, men as well as women are all capable of being crazies !
 
bastew
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:21 pm

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:53 pm

Quoting VHHYI (Reply 27):
Quoting bastew (Reply 9):
We have had the same policy at BA for years now.

Wasn't it changed after the an affected pax sued and won?

The policy was reviewed and some tweaks were made.

But the seating policy remains: UM's will not be sat next to male adult passengers travelling alone.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:54 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 22):
but are all predators men?

Nope
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
ajd1992
Posts: 2390
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:11 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:02 pm

I personally would refuse to move. If they think I'm a paedophile then that is their business - I cannot stop people from thinking what they like. However I object to being profiled because of my gender - it's wrong. A woman is just as capable of being a paedophile as much as a man is. Look at Vanessa George as an example - she abused children in a nursery while she was changing them, took photos of them and sent them to another female paedophile - but would you seat a child next to her simply because she is a female?

I think not, some how.
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 4796
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:19 pm

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 44):


I personally would refuse to move.

If they moved me to a First Class window seat I would gladly move away from any child, UM or not. Seriously, I've been asked to move once, very discretely and I was indeed moved to First, although my window seat was not forthcoming. The F meal was however and the flight was just over 2 hours (pre 9/11 if you haven't guessed). No window, but I had a good trashy book to read so no biggie. I was not offended in the slightest.

No window seat or no First Class...send the little bugger elsewhere, sorry.
Next up: STL-CVG-MKE-MSP-STL.
 
ajd1992
Posts: 2390
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:11 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:25 pm

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 45):
If they moved me to a First Class window seat I would gladly move away from any child, UM or not. Seriously, I've been asked to move once, very discretely and I was indeed moved to First, although my window seat was not forthcoming. The F meal was however and the flight was just over 2 hours (pre 9/11 if you haven't guessed). No window, but I had a good trashy book to read so no biggie. I was not offended in the slightest.

No window seat or no First Class...send the little bugger elsewhere, sorry.

It's not even that though, it's the principle of they think because I've got wedding tackle i'm automatically a child abuser. It's on exactly the same lines of saying "Oh, he's Mexican so he's an illegal immigrant" or "he's black so he's been in prison for stealing a car". It's stereotyping of the highest degree. If they have a problem (and it is them, although if they asked me to move I would have problem with them) then that is for them to deal with - not to move a perfectly innocent passenger they have just implied is a child abuser.
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 6:02 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 39):
I once asked for AA to reassign the seating of a 14/15-year old male seated next to me to another seat in First—turns out he was the son of one of the f/a's, and she moved him to somewhere in Coach. In this day and age, it's not just the airline, but the passengers who have to pro-actively CYA.

Frankly I wouldn't've bothered but to each his own.
 
Gingersnap
Posts: 827
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 9:09 pm

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 6:11 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 22):
All men are not predators, but are all predators men?

No of course not.

There was an extensively covered paedophile case that happened in the UK not so long ago. The main perpetrators were female working within a childcare/nursery facility.
I would wager that the majority of "predators" are male, I don't think anyone is denying that in the slightest. But what we are arguing, is that you can't label all men as potential kiddy fiddlers as that is completely and utterly sexist (not to mention disgustingly discriminatory).

[Edited 2012-08-10 11:12:13]
Flown on: A306 A319/20/21 A332 B732/3/4/5/7/8 B742/4 B752 B762/3 B772/W C152 E195 F70/100 MD-82 Q400
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 4796
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Fri Aug 10, 2012 6:37 pm

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 46):


It's not even that though, it's the principle of they think because I've got wedding tackle i'm automatically a child abuser. It's on exactly the same lines of saying "Oh, he's Mexican so he's an illegal immigrant" or "he's black so he's been in prison for stealing a car". It's stereotyping of the highest degree. If they have a problem (and it is them, although if they asked me to move I would have problem with them) then that is for them to deal with - not to move a perfectly innocent passenger they have just implied is a child abuser.

I'm hardly suggesting it's not stereotyping. But we have several different perspectives going on at once: 1) The responsibility of the airline 2) The concern of the parents 3) The well being of the child, and 4) The feelings of the adult male passenger.

1 is 50/50 regarding the airline, me vs. the child
2 and 3 are valid concerns which probably trump half of 1 and all of 4.

Erring on the side of caution is rarely a bad thing, however as I have paid for and more than likely chosen my seat because that is the one I want and paid for, some small compensation by the airline to me is not out of realistic consideration. I've switched seats with other passengers before to be nice (if they were nice to me) but if the airline makes a similar request, they're altering the contract of carriage somewhat and I would like some small token in return.

It's the world we live in unfortunately, but hardly worth going to court over a REQUEST, which you have every right to turn down.
Next up: STL-CVG-MKE-MSP-STL.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos