http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... ml#gallery

Travellers are used to lost luggage, booking errors and on-board delays - but now an American airline is being sued for mixing up two children and sending them to the wrong cities.

One of the boys’ mothers has filed a lawsuit against JetBlue Airways for the mistake, saying she suffered “great emotional distress, extreme fear, horror, mental shock, mental anguish and psychological trauma”.

Maribel Martinez said she was shocked when her five-year-old son, Andy Martinez, failed to turn up at John F Kennedy international airport in New York as she waited to meet him on 17 August. Her son had instead been put on a flight to Logan airport in Boston, Massachusetts – 215 miles away.

To make matters worse, JetBlue staff escorted Andy to a woman he had never seen before, having told him he was being reunited with his mother.

Meanwhile, another boy who was supposed to be flying to Boston had been put on the flight to New York that Andy was meant to be on. He was presented to Ms Martinez at the airport as her son, leading her to inform airline staff that she had never seen the boy before.

Both Andy and the other, unnamed boy were flying from Cibao international airport in the Dominican Republic.

Her lawsuit seeks unspecified damages from JetBlue. Her lawyer, prominent New York attorney Sanford Rubenstein, said Ms Martinez hoped to shine a light on JetBlue’s practices and prevent a similar mistake happening again. “This never should have happened and the JetBlue employees should be ashamed of themselves,” Mr Rubenstein told the New York Daily News.

A JetBlue Airways spokesman said the company did not comment on pending litigation.

Big blunder from B6 IMO.

Is it bad that I find this hilarious?

This is absolutely a major screw up, but it doesn't sound like the kids were ever in danger. I agree that there is no reason that something like this should ever happen, but the lawsuit seems a bit over the top.

"great emotional distress, extreme fear, horror, mental shock, mental anguish and psychological trauma"

That is some strong language. I am sure it very worrying and a shock to the mother, but based on the vocabulary above, I think someone went a bit crazy with the thesaurus.

She was comfortable sending her kid as an unaccompanied minor to a foreign country, but this slight detour suddenly has her so traumatized she can't function. Give me a break. No harm, no foul. Of course, I wouldn't be sending my kid via JetBlue ever again.

Wow that's horrible.

The bigger issues is that it is ok to send a 5 year old on a commercial flight alone. There is absolutely no reason that a 5 year old should be on a flight unaccompanied.

flyDTW1992 wrote:

Is it bad that I find this hilarious?

Not bad at all. Better than hysterics. What is worse than the mix up, is how the parent is handling it. Sending a very bad message to the children involved in how to handle many of life's smaller crises. I wonder how the parent would handle a real life crisis.

Let's get real here. In the realm of human suffering, this really does not rate at all. The issue got resolved, nobody was hurt, and not at any risk.

This could have happened with any airline. And with all the hideous things happening in the world today, she should just be glad that her son is safe and sound. This level of immature behavior by the parent is most disturbing. In addition, it is totally irresponsible of a parent to let any child of that age travel unaccompanied. And wrong of any airline to accept that level of responsibility. Something sadly wrong with our society here. I realize that this is only my opinion, and I am sticking with it.

usflyguy wrote:

The bigger issues is that it is ok to send a 5 year old on a commercial flight alone. There is absolutely no reason that a 5 year old should be on a flight unaccompanied.

A lot of divorced parents live far far away from each other. Since the court order is shared custody, they have to send their kid on a UM trip to the other parents house. I used to do this. It wasn't the best experience but at least i got to see both parents. Not everyone has the time/money to fly them and their kid out to meet their own ex.

I'd bet that the kids plotted this when they got dumped on the airline in the D.R. "Hey. let's have some fun -- you go meet my mother and I'll meet yours."

flyDTW1992 wrote:

Is it bad that I find this hilarious?

I'm sure we'll both get flamed...but no.

I love how they throw all these "mental anguish, shock, etc" crap when they announce the lawsuit too...

Funny that the parents of the other kid aren't suing. Maybe they thought they got a better kid than the one they were expecting

Maybe it's like Parent Trap and they're trying to make both their parents fall in love.

This mother's watched too much Home Alone 2, honestly her kid was not in danger landing at an airport 5 hours away by car... crazy mix up and the airline's fault? Of course. But suing the airline? Calm down.

It's the good ol' US of A - of course something like this will have lawyers salivating in a lets-sue-for-any-mistake society.
This incident makes for a great tabloid newspaper story for sure and of course shouldn't have happened but it was resolved and I bet the kids had a great adventure.

Yeah, someone screwed up but it wasn't dangerous for anyone involved, just inconvenient.

They should absolutely refund the costs as a customer service measure.

What, exactly, is the mother attempting to get in terms of damages. Her histeria because the kid was entrusted to the airline (entirely fine) for a few extra hours doesn't seem to pass the smell test of actually having damages to me.

If this happened in another country I think the airline would come out worse. I think the US way of lawsuit and then probable settlement helps in a way, by muddying things.

Another question is how much do the kids look like their passports. Potentially it could be a baby photo if a child passport lasts for 5 years. Kids change a lot in that time.

I'm guessing a solution would be to photograph the kid at check in with the photo appearing when boarding passes etc are scanned, so if any "swaps" occur by mischievous kids things can be picked up quickly. Similar technology is used in the UK to allow Domestic and International passengers to share common areas. (Passengers are automatically photographed at check in or at automatic gates prior to security with the photo being shown to the gate agent when the passengers boarding pass is scanned)

OK, the airline staff screwed up. No way has this incident caused any real mental or emotional distress. The kids were perfectly safe all the way through and probable were all the happier for the adventure.

This suit is a money grab. Pure and simple.

I think its horrible for her to sue, the fact that you send a kid as a UM you consider the risk of this happening. Surely someone was slack but i think this is not the first time this has happened. What about if flight is delayed, diverts due to a tech problem, and there is no flight until the next day. My son at 5 years always travelled with a connecting flight and i was always afraid something like this could happen, but suing that over the top. Grateful that airlines offer this service.

flyDTW1992 wrote:

Is it bad that I find this hilarious?

no.
For unaccompanied train rides kids here used to get hung with piece of cardboard
"I am $little boy traveling to $othertown"
And you notified the local "Station Mission" which would then advise their personel
in change over stations on the route to superwise the transitions.
Worked like a charm.

Given the bad publicity along with the hassle and cost of dealing with this lawsuit, whether or not it is successful, I wonder if JetBlue may be tempted to refuse to deal with UMs anymore? I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wring but I doubt that JetBlue makes that much money from it.

Kickert wrote:

This is absolutely a major screw up, but it doesn't sound like the kids were ever in danger. I agree that there is no reason that something like this should ever happen, but the lawsuit seems a bit over the top.

"great emotional distress, extreme fear, horror, mental shock, mental anguish and psychological trauma"

That is some strong language. I am sure it very worrying and a shock to the mother, but based on the vocabulary above, I think someone went a bit crazy with the thesaurus.

She was comfortable sending her kid as an unaccompanied minor to a foreign country, but this slight detour suddenly has her so traumatized she can't function. Give me a break. No harm, no foul. Of course, I wouldn't be sending my kid via JetBlue ever again.

Of course it is distressing. It's not like the staff responded immediately knowing what the error was. For some time, the mother would have been at JFK and not known where her 5 year old son is. At the same time worrying what the 5 year old is thinking. He was expecting to meet his mother, and didn't.

flyDTW1992 wrote:

Is it bad that I find this hilarious?

I find it pretty funny too.

Kickert wrote:

"great emotional distress, extreme fear, horror, mental shock, mental anguish and psychological trauma"

That is some strong language. I am sure it very worrying and a shock to the mother, but based on the vocabulary above, I think someone went a bit crazy with the thesaurus.

I agree.. I'm sure the mothers were distressed, but these lawsuits are ridiculus. Only in America.

usflyguy wrote:

The bigger issues is that it is ok to send a 5 year old on a commercial flight alone. There is absolutely no reason that a 5 year old should be on a flight unaccompanied.

Really? I've flown on airlines by myself and with my brother since I could barely walk. And it was a lot of fun! Screwups like this rarely ever happens. You sound too protective.

AY104 wrote:

Let's get real here. In the realm of human suffering, this really does not rate at all. The issue got resolved, nobody was hurt, and not at any risk.

I agree.

I'm wondering how come none of the kids noticed they were being boarded on a flight to a completely different city. Or when staff called them by their names, they didn't realize something was wrong. Maybe they're named the same.

usflyguy wrote:

The bigger issues is that it is ok to send a 5 year old on a commercial flight alone. There is absolutely no reason that a 5 year old should be on a flight unaccompanied.

No it isn't. In the real World, parents occasionally have to send their kids on flights.

It's not like the kid was dropped at the terminal and just waved off. He was entrusted to an airline that provides exactly the service his parents needed. JB screwed up big time and that is the bigger issue.

As for those saying it was not an emotionally distressing event for the mother, I can only assume none of you have kids.

usflyguy wrote:

The bigger issues is that it is ok to send a 5 year old on a commercial flight alone. There is absolutely no reason that a 5 year old should be on a flight unaccomcpanied.

This lawsuit will increase the minimum age of UM.

Personally, 5 is too young. Maybe minimum of 9?

Lightsaber

"Maybe they're named the same."

Tom Jones

Really don't care about the parents selfish decisions to divorce. Airliners should not take on the responsibility for transporting unaccompanied babies. Jet Blue should be sued for their mistake.

This misplacing of a kid is not hilarious, Perhaps if people here find it hilarious to forget to put the gear down before a landing or something like that, than it is perhaps hilarious. It is also not a mistake. A mistake is getting a normal meal instead the kosher or vegetable one you had ordered.
Here somebody has royaly fucked up. A break down of protocol, of a system that should ensure that such things would not happen.

tp1040 wrote:

Really don't care about the parents selfish decisions to divorce. Airliners should not take on the responsibility for transporting unaccompanied babies. Jet Blue should be sued for their mistake.

It does not matter what airline should or should not do. They offered the service, they took the responsibility and they fucked up.

mjoelnir wrote:

This misplacing of a kid is not hilarious, Perhaps if people here find it hilarious to forget to put the gear down before a landing or something like that, than it is perhaps hilarious. It is also not a mistake. A mistake is getting a normal meal instead the kosher or vegetable one you had ordered.
Here somebody has royaly fucked up. A break down of protocol, of a system that should ensure that such things would not happen.

A royal f up would be feeding peanuts to a kid with allergies, or turning Todd into FOD. This was a screw up, but not one that merits the reaction the mom put up for the cameras.

They interviewed her a few weeks ago and a reporter asked how the passports got switched, and her lawyer immediately cut off questioning.

B6 offered a refund plus free trips and such but it looks like that's not enough

mjoelnir wrote:

Here somebody has royaly fucked up. A break down of protocol, of a system that should ensure that such things would not happen.

It's still amusing to everyone without some vested interest in the matter.

Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
Mr. Praline: The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
Owner: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!

E's not my son!
Uh, sure he is. Says right here.
Look, I know my son when I see him.

flyDTW1992 wrote:

Is it bad that I find this hilarious?

Sometimes the easiest thing to do is laugh. Also, I'm pretty sure similar routines have been used in comedy. At a minimum, Red Green (Canadian comedian) had a story about picking his son up from school, and in drawn out form, unwrapping his winter clothes layer by layer, only to discover when he removed the last one that he had the wrong kid.

usflyguy wrote:

The bigger issues is that it is ok to send a 5 year old on a commercial flight alone. There is absolutely no reason that a 5 year old should be on a flight unaccompanied.

I assume you also disapprove of baby sitters? Jet Blue pledge to take responsibility for the children's safety. If their policies for those in charge of unaccompanied minors are like most business organizations that work with children, they actually have far more rigorous qualification and strict policies than pretty much any baby sitter does.

Sure, an unaccompanied minor on a flight is around a very large number of strangers, but they potentially also are in a daycare, and the environment on the flight and in the airport is far more controlled than in a daycare, much more for an at-home sitter.

Millions of unaccompanied minors fly every year, and as far as I can find, the rate of incidents is extremely low.

luv2cattlecall wrote:

They interviewed her a few weeks ago and a reporter asked how the passports got switched, and her lawyer immediately cut off questioning.

I wonder if the two kids knew each other before the day of their flights? It seems that they might have decided to swap passports and tickets as a prank. Or maybe their parents conspired to have them do this, knowing that they would both end up safe but in the wrong cities, to create a reason for a lawsuit and/or cash settlement.

lightsaber wrote:

This lawsuit will increase the minimum age of UM.

Personally, 5 is too young. Maybe minimum of 9?

Lightsaber

BA dropped their unaccompanied minor service a year or so ago. Slowly but surely most other airlines will probably follow suit and raise prices, increase the minimum age, or drop their UM programs altogether because of cases like this.

usflyguy wrote:

The bigger issues is that it is ok to send a 5 year old on a commercial flight alone. There is absolutely no reason that a 5 year old should be on a flight unaccompanied.

Agreed.

luv2cattlecall wrote:

They interviewed her a few weeks ago and a reporter asked how the passports got switched, and her lawyer immediately cut off questioning.

Of course the lawyer cut that question, because that is a question to be answered by the airline at trial.

If it had not been an airline, but for example a preschool mixing up kids this way, it would have been simple a case for the police and a really black mark for that institution.

scbriml wrote:

usflyguy wrote:

The bigger issues is that it is ok to send a 5 year old on a commercial flight alone. There is absolutely no reason that a 5 year old should be on a flight unaccompanied.

No it isn't. In the real World, parents occasionally have to send their kids on flights.

It's not like the kid was dropped at the terminal and just waved off. He was entrusted to an airline that provides exactly the service his parents needed. JB screwed up big time and that is the bigger issue.

As for those saying it was not an emotionally distressing event for the mother, I can only assume none of you have kids.

LOL, I raised five kids, all boys, who would have loved this.

Look, if you treat kids like baggage, expect it to be misdirected now and then. No big deal.

At least they weren't sent as belly cargo.

AWACSooner wrote:

flyDTW1992 wrote:

Is it bad that I find this hilarious?

I'm sure we'll both get flamed...but no.

I love how they throw all these "mental anguish, shock, etc" crap when they announce the lawsuit too...

A military bro who thinks emotions are for wussies? I am shocked.

BobPatterson wrote:

scbriml wrote:

usflyguy wrote:

The bigger issues is that it is ok to send a 5 year old on a commercial flight alone. There is absolutely no reason that a 5 year old should be on a flight unaccompanied.

No it isn't. In the real World, parents occasionally have to send their kids on flights.

It's not like the kid was dropped at the terminal and just waved off. He was entrusted to an airline that provides exactly the service his parents needed. JB screwed up big time and that is the bigger issue.

As for those saying it was not an emotionally distressing event for the mother, I can only assume none of you have kids.

LOL, I raised five kids, all boys, who would have loved this.

Look, if you treat kids like baggage, expect it to be misdirected now and then. No big deal.

At least they weren't sent as belly cargo.

Not everyone can afford to buy a ticket for themselves as well, if you can't comprehend the life of someone else not you, then you should not be commenting on other people's lives.

tp1040 wrote:

Really don't care about the parents selfish decisions to divorce. Airliners should not take on the responsibility for transporting unaccompanied babies. Jet Blue should be sued for their mistake.

Can't be positive, but doesn't look like divorce in this case. There appears to be a current family photo in one of the news account. The kid flew back to the D.R. just a few days later, with his father this time (on Delta!). I'll bet he comes back home with his Dad, in time to start kindergarten according to the news account.

b747400erf wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

scbriml wrote:

No it isn't. In the real World, parents occasionally have to send their kids on flights.

It's not like the kid was dropped at the terminal and just waved off. He was entrusted to an airline that provides exactly the service his parents needed. JB screwed up big time and that is the bigger issue.

As for those saying it was not an emotionally distressing event for the mother, I can only assume none of you have kids.

LOL, I raised five kids, all boys, who would have loved this.

Look, if you treat kids like baggage, expect it to be misdirected now and then. No big deal.

At least they weren't sent as belly cargo.

Not everyone can afford to buy a ticket for themselves as well, if you can't comprehend the life of someone else not you, then you should not be commenting on other people's lives.

Have you read the news articles? This family can afford to fly to the D.R. frequently. They can afford to live in Manhattan. They are not paupers. They can afford to have Andrew fly back and forth both with them and without them. And they can afford the $100 extra charge for baby-sitter service.

I'm able to see humor in at least some human foibles. You might try to cultivate the ability instead of looking through a glass darkly.

I wonder how much she is seeking. Paying for a 'prominent New York attorney' would suggest no less that 7 figures.
Mistakes happen. Flying an unaccompanied 5 year old is a huge liability in and of itself. Sending a kid to the wrong city is probably both the least likely and harmful of all the things that could happen.
My guess is this never goes to court. The unspecified dollar amount of the lawsuit likely means 'how much will you give me in an out of court settlement'.

Kickert wrote:

This is absolutely a major screw up, but it doesn't sound like the kids were ever in danger. I agree that there is no reason that something like this should ever happen, but the lawsuit seems a bit over the top.

"great emotional distress, extreme fear, horror, mental shock, mental anguish and psychological trauma"

That is some strong language. I am sure it very worrying and a shock to the mother, but based on the vocabulary above, I think someone went a bit crazy with the thesaurus.

She was comfortable sending her kid as an unaccompanied minor to a foreign country, but this slight detour suddenly has her so traumatized she can't function. Give me a break. No harm, no foul. Of course, I wouldn't be sending my kid via JetBlue ever again.

I suspect that you don't have any kids, or your reaction will be different. Good money was paid to B6 with the expectation that they would perform their job. This isn't a missing bag. This is a young kid and who knows what could have happened to that child if it was delivered to some one with evil intent. I guess you haven't heard of human trafficking

garpd wrote:

OK, the airline staff screwed up. No way has this incident caused any real mental or emotional distress. The kids were perfectly safe all the way through and probable were all the happier for the adventure.

This suit is a money grab. Pure and simple.

Another one who doesn't have kids. If you did and this happened to one of them I bet it wouldn't be a minor event to you.

How do you know that they were safe?

If B6 cannot handle the task then they should just not allow UM. Its that simple. If they accept the task, and the money involved then they should accept responsibility by not performing.

There were a number of lapses. Not only in boarding, but even in knowing who was on the plane. Aircraft arriving into US airspace have to communicate who is on board. Documents have to be verified as not being fraudulent. DR has significant levels of human trafficking and people traveling under forged documentation, as they seek illegal entry. If an airline boards people with forged documents then they get fined.

So how come at some stage during this 3 hour flight no one noticed. If the parents were contacted, with apologies and information as to when reach the right city then that would have been fine. But to discover that there was a problem when the mother said that this wasn't their kid! Unacceptable.

I wonder if these kids (looks like there were five or more on this flight) had to go through customs on arrival, or would they have been pre-cleared before boarding? I ask because I wonder whether a customs officers might have noticed the mixup.

I don't have kids but I can certainly see a mother/father being distraught. How can you not?

I've worked customer service for major airlines and escorted many um's from plane to parent so I know how the system works.

First I find it hard to believe a 5yrold can be a UM on an international flight. But I digress.

First off lawyers in these cases are not paid by the the client upfront and take these cases on contingency they'll win or get a settlement and a percentage of the award. I have to say a lawsuit is justified if anything to get the airlines to better handle their UM's. Now does she need millions? I think not but surely an award/settlement is due.

I don't have kids but I can certainly see a mother/father being distraught. How can you not?

I've worked customer service for major airlines and escorted many um's from plane to parent so I know how the system works.

First I find it hard to believe a 5yrold can be a UM on an international flight. But I digress.

First off lawyers in these cases are not paid by the the client upfront and take these cases on contingency they'll win or get a settlement and a percentage of the award. I have to say a lawsuit is justified if anything to get the airlines to better handle their UM's. Now does she need millions? I think not but surely an award/settlement is due.

UM programs are just stupid. B6 should not have promised to take a child somewhere.

Similarly, if a mother wants a kid to travel safely, she should be there and make sure her child is safe.

BobbyPSP, exactly. I think JetBlue IS at fault here, and the reason is, they accepted a 5 year old as a UM. Incredibly irresponsible mother, and a shabby policy by B6 that they should correct.

It's not that they finally got the kid back. It's that for a short while the parents had no idea what happened to their child and neither did the airline. If you can't find your young kid for even 15 seconds it's traumatic. And that's when they run away from you at the park. Imagine not knowing where in North America your kindergartener might be and if he's okay?

Perhaps airlines ought to require unattended minors have photo ID's. Also, they could take a picture of the child at check in the way cruise ships check in all passengers.

That an airline should not have program for unaccompanied minors is about the most stupid argument one can provide in this case. Yes an airline has the choice to have such a program or not. But when the airline has decided to offer this service, than they are responsible for the kids. There are safeguards in place to prevent something like this happening, certain protocols to follow, a system were inside the airline the responsibility is transferred from one employee to another without a break, transfer should be confirmed in writing on a paper that follows the minor in the document bag. A system that checks if on the other end the minor is put in the care of only the authorised person. This system must have had a serious break down at JetBlue.

iamlucky13 wrote:

I assume you also disapprove of baby sitters? Jet Blue pledge to take responsibility for the children's safety. If their policies for those in charge of unaccompanied minors are like most business organizations that work with children, they actually have far more rigorous qualification and strict policies than pretty much any baby sitter does.

Sure, an unaccompanied minor on a flight is around a very large number of strangers, but they potentially also are in a daycare, and the environment on the flight and in the airport is far more controlled than in a daycare, much more for an at-home sitter.

Millions of unaccompanied minors fly every year, and as far as I can find, the rate of incidents is extremely low.

Then send a baby sitter with the child; flight attendants are not babysitters.