Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

StickShaker · Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:15 am

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 99):
Quite frankly though, it seems like a strange rule by airlines, given that they seem to target all men as a risk. Oh well, its their plane.

It might be their plane but if they are operating within Australia's borders they are legally obliged to respect Australian law including anti-discrimination legislation.

Regards,
StickShaker

OzarkD9S · Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:36 am

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 70):

I don't believe the standard contract of carriage protects your individual seat assignment.

If I paid for a specific seat and was charged extra for it, yes it does, which is why I used the term "somewhat". If I paid for F, and was asked to move to coach so someone "more important" than myself could have my seat that violates the contract I entered into with the airline. If the crew or captain insists I move to a different seat, I am not getting what I paid for.

It takes finesse to handle these situations and an upgrade or some form of compensation no matter how small is a good gesture on the airlines' part and will go a long way in avoiding problems down the road. Even if it's just a free lunch box or a few FF miles, whatever...not asking for the moon and the stars here.

readytotaxi · Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:45 pm

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 101):
If I paid for a specific seat and was charged extra for it, yes it does, which is why I used the term "somewhat". If I paid for F, and was asked to move to coach so someone "more important" than myself could have my seat that violates the contract I entered into with the airline. If the crew or captain insists I move to a different seat, I am not getting what I paid for.

It takes finesse to handle these situations and an upgrade or some form of compensation no matter how small is a good gesture on the airlines' part and will go a long way in avoiding problems down the road. Even if it's just a free lunch box or a few FF miles, whatever...not asking for the moon and the stars here.

Now that IS a balanced point of view, well said.

Peoro · Sun Aug 12, 2012 12:24 am

I'am a man and in my thirties, back in 2009/10 I flow from Lisbon to Gatwick with TP, the cabin crew seated next to me two UM girls around 11 years of age, there was not really a problem with that for me or the cabin crew or the children,they travel all the way next to me to London, I haven't been asked to move seats, the same situation did happen before to me again with TP back in 2004, they seated a 4 year old little girl travelling as UM in the same row of seats where I was seated, I was seated in the window seat while the little girl was seated in the aisle seat and the middle seat was empty, after 5 to 10 minutes, they decided to move the little girl somewhere else, they knew that it would be a nuisance for me and for the little girl to be there on her own without the necessary attention and care, again I haven't been asked to move seats. I believe that these rules have more to do with the country's culture and perception of that society of what is a danger to kids and what is not, than the airlines itself.

ckfred · Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:56 pm

Yet, if a small child needs to be patted down by TSA, they still follow the protocol that female screeners pat down girls and male screeners pat down boys.

Back in 2003, my wife was going through security at ATL, and she set off the metal detector. She was carrying our son, age 5 months. They asked if the baby was a boy or girl. When she said boy, you should have seen the screeners running around like a bunch of chickens without their heads, looking for a male screener to pat down our son.

Never mind that he had been seen naked by a number of nurses for exams, as well as my wife, my mother, my mother-in-law, and a couple of teenage girls who have undertaken changing of diapers and dressing him for the day or for bed.

TSA was bound and determined to only allow a man to pat him down.

mariner · Sun Aug 12, 2012 8:13 pm

I'm sympathetic to the airlines desire to avoid a problem, but I think it is sad that it has come to this. As a boy, my only unpleasant flying experience was because of a woman, not a man.

Because of my father's overseas posting, I flew on my own all over the Middle East and to/from the UK, from when I was about ten to when I was fifteen.

Usually I sat next to men, usually Arabs, who mostly politely ignored me. But once I was seated next to an elderly woman, an American Evangelist, who was on her way to Jerusalem and had all her Jesus juices flowing. I was about eleven and she thought I was putty in her hands. She wanted to bring me to Jesus right there on the plane, she wanted me to be "born again." After some considerable bible bashing, she insisted that we kneel and pray together (not easy to do in a packed DC3) and laid her hands on my head.

I was embarrassed and unhappy. I didn't complain because I didn't want to offend her and I wasn't physically harmed, but I thought it was offensive, intrusive - and weird.

I suppose some might say it was all right because it was religion and she didn't mean any harm - but I remember her to this day and I remember that she was the first who made me question religion.

mariner

pegasus1 · Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:34 am

Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 98):
Quoting bastew (Reply 16):

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'.
Quoting bastew (Reply 42):
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.

The BA policy has indeed been amended and it no longer explicitly states that adult males may not be seated next to UMs. Airport teams now have a set of guidelines to follow which ensures that all precautions are taken in a manner that does not discriminate.

BAstew. The policy has indeed been amended.

As it is an internal policy, I will not reprint it here, but it is as Speedbird2155 states and dates back to September 17, 2010

blueflyer · Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:14 am

Quoting smi0006 (Reply 7):
4. Female passengers

Unless they're teachers in a US high school
(what? sleazy stereotypes are not allowed?)

Dizzy777 · Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:09 am

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 89):
I think it would not only be likely but also successful. I would love to see this VB case tested in court - it just reeks of hypocracy. There have been many successful discrimination cases based upon far flimsier circumstances. Tarnishing all men as potential paedophiles displays massive hypocracy when compared to various cases for discrimination that have been bought forward over the years. A prosecuting QC (or any barrister) would have a field day.

Yes, but Australia has a whole raft of laws for one and not the other.. For instance - to open a "women only" gym is perfectly legal and is is no way considered discriminatory.. However, if you open a "men only" gym you will be taken to court for sexual discrimination and receive a large fine and your business will be ordered to close (this has already been tested and carried out in australia)

DIRECTFLT · Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:49 am

So, the airline can directt UM minors to sit together with no risk. But isn't it possible that a minor could do harm to another minor? Say, a 15 yr old next to a 10 yr old ?

Perhaps the airline would consider it less of risk to seat an UM next to a trans-generdered cross-dressing UM, than next to an adult male.

If you send your UM on a flight, you just never know who they'll be exposed to.

I guess all of this doesn't apply to city bus transporation.

And the things minors suffer on "Public" schools buses.

I flew as an UM when I was maybe 8, and I felt safe. The F/A knew where I was, and they kept an eye on me. That was enopugh.

aa757first · Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:17 am

I'm uncomfortable with this policy. After all, it assumes I'm going to somehow disturb a child because I'm a man. Nothing could be further from the truth. What's even more annoying is that you might have paid extra for a certain seat assignment. If there's a reassignment, the airline should definitely refund you the cost of your seat assignment.

keegd76 · Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:13 pm

Quoting Peoro (Reply 103):
I'am a man and in my thirties, back in 2009/10 I flow from Lisbon to Gatwick with TP, the cabin crew seated next to me two UM girls around 11 years of age, there was not really a problem with that for me or the cabin crew or the children,they travel all the way next to me to London, I haven't been asked to move seats, the same situation did happen before to me again with TP back in 2004, they seated a 4 year old little girl travelling as UM in the same row of seats where I was seated, I was seated in the window seat while the little girl was seated in the aisle seat and the middle seat was empty, after 5 to 10 minutes, they decided to move the little girl somewhere else, they knew that it would be a nuisance for me and for the little girl to be there on her own without the necessary attention and care, again I haven't been asked to move seats. I believe that these rules have more to do with the country's culture and perception of that society of what is a danger to kids and what is not, than the airlines itself.

A 4-yr-old travelling as a UM

Seriously???

Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

RE: Virgin's Unaccompanied Minor Policy Under Fire

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net