Beware travelers with bratty kids

Mortimer Schnerd, RN schrieb:


According to the story, they delayed the flight a good 15 minutes before they
got the boot. I'd say the airline was more than patient.


and one may assume that they were one of the first to board the plane.
Don't they board families w/kids first (with 1st class)? this gives some
extra time, too.

#m
--
I am not a terrorist http://www.casualdisobedience.com/

Jake Brodsky wrote:
Kingfish wrote:
Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always Trailways...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773655/?GT1=8921

I'm appalled at how many of you were cheering AirTran on for their
behavior. I'm a father of three typically well behaved children.

Perhaps most of you prefer not to remember, but kids have energy: LOTS
of energy. Yes, my kids do sit still on aircraft. I've taught them
very well how to behave in airports and on board an airplane. They also
have practice from long road trips. They've done well --even my three
year old.

Yet everyone has an off day. I don't know what the situation was with
these parents or why their kid was such a problem. When I've traveled
with my three children, I took their car seats with them on board the
airliner. It wasn't easy. However, they felt right at home and they
all behaved very well. Expecting a child to sit still in a seat they're
not familiar with is no simple affair, especially when it has so many
buttons and stuff to play with.

I'd have given the parents a few minutes to calm the kid down. It makes
for better press...

Jake Brodsky
Just how long do you want to give them? According to the article the
flight was already delayed 15 minutes. The parents could not or would
not get the child into her seat. The plane can't pull back until
everyone is in their seat and belted in. Do you tell all the other
people on the flight that they had better not have connecting flights
because you need to delay more for these parents? Perhaps the parents
should have thought about the rest of the passengers and offered to get
off the plane because their daughter was too upset to fly. I have 2
children and yes I've had to deal with meltdowns. It's not fun but I've
had to leave restaurants because I could not get my kids to stop acting
out. Bottom line is one person should not be allowed to mess up the
lives of 112 others when it's avoidable.

"John Theune" wrote in message
news:5rPth.7114$qN1.5732@trndny02...

Just how long do you want to give them? According to the article the
flight was already delayed 15 minutes.

Did it say the 15 minute delay was caused by the unruly kid?

I got the impression ( I could be wrong - it happened once before) that
there had already been a delay boarding, and that the parents were given
virtually no time to try to settle the kid down.

"Steve Foley" wrote in news:7LPth.7870$8P.7586
@trndny05:

"John Theune" wrote in message
news:5rPth.7114$qN1.5732@trndny02...

Just how long do you want to give them? According to the article the
flight was already delayed 15 minutes.

Did it say the 15 minute delay was caused by the unruly kid?

I got the impression ( I could be wrong - it happened once before) that
there had already been a delay boarding, and that the parents were given
virtually no time to try to settle the kid down.

I too got that impression, but it isn't clear. The passenger who was quoted
describing the situation was quoted as having seen it while he was
boarding. But the quote referring to the "walkie-talkie" person coming back
to kick them off was from the father, who probably did not track time
effectively while he was otherwise engaged in managing his crisis, so it
could have been 15 minutes before he was kicked off and felt like no time
at all.

I also agree that they should have returned the luggage. In fact, I'm
surprised that someone didn't make them do that under the "national
security" risk story. I have been on a plane that was delayed for a luggage
/ passenger check.

IMHO they should have given the parents the choice to get off the plane or
to force the child to sit seatbelted-in for taxi and takeoff - either in
her own seat or even on the father's lap at the window seat. The child
would most likely have calmed down after 5-10 minutes, and there would have
been no compromise to safety except to the parent and child themselves, who
volunteered to accept that risk by not getting off the plane.

It would have also helped to warn them of the choice during the final seat
checks. It would have escalated the urgency of the issue to the parents,
and force them to accept culpability for not being able to get the child
restrained in time. The end result may not have been any different, but the
parents would no longer be perceived as the victim - by themselves or
others.

Judah wrote:
"Steve Foley" wrote in news:7LPth.7870$8P.7586
@trndny05:

"John Theune" wrote in message
news:5rPth.7114$qN1.5732@trndny02...

Just how long do you want to give them? According to the article the
flight was already delayed 15 minutes.
Did it say the 15 minute delay was caused by the unruly kid?

I got the impression ( I could be wrong - it happened once before) that
there had already been a delay boarding, and that the parents were given
virtually no time to try to settle the kid down.

I too got that impression, but it isn't clear. The passenger who was quoted
describing the situation was quoted as having seen it while he was
boarding. But the quote referring to the "walkie-talkie" person coming back
to kick them off was from the father, who probably did not track time
effectively while he was otherwise engaged in managing his crisis, so it
could have been 15 minutes before he was kicked off and felt like no time
at all.

I also agree that they should have returned the luggage. In fact, I'm
surprised that someone didn't make them do that under the "national
security" risk story. I have been on a plane that was delayed for a luggage
/ passenger check.

IMHO they should have given the parents the choice to get off the plane or
to force the child to sit seatbelted-in for taxi and takeoff - either in
her own seat or even on the father's lap at the window seat. The child
would most likely have calmed down after 5-10 minutes, and there would have
been no compromise to safety except to the parent and child themselves, who
volunteered to accept that risk by not getting off the plane.

It would have also helped to warn them of the choice during the final seat
checks. It would have escalated the urgency of the issue to the parents,
and force them to accept culpability for not being able to get the child
restrained in time. The end result may not have been any different, but the
parents would no longer be perceived as the victim - by themselves or
others.
The flight crew did not have the option to let them have the child ride
on a parent's lap. The FAR's are quite clear about age and need to be
in your seat with the seatbelt fastened.

On 1/24/2007 3:36:17 PM, John Theune wrote:

Bottom line is one person should not be allowed to mess up the
lives of 112 others when it's avoidable.

I was on a 7:00p USAir flight once at busy Philadelphia International where
it took us over an hour to taxi to the runway due to the long line of
departing aircraft.

We were next to go when the pilot comes on and states, "Well folks, I have
never had to apologize for this before but we have been instructed to return
to the gate to pick up two of our pilots that need to be at our destination
before XX:00 due to FAA rules. The problem is, getting back to the gate will
be like a fish swimming upstream, so this will take awhile."

It took us another half hour to get back to the gate. By the time the jetway
rolled over to our aircraft and the door opened, it was time for the 9:00p
flight to our same city to roll back from the gate, which meant that our
entire odyssey was in vane.

I'd say that was a case where two people were allowed to significantly delay
the lives of about 100 others.

--
Peter

Peter R. writes:

I'd say that was a case where two people were allowed to significantly delay
the lives of about 100 others.

If you fire them, they won't be a problem again.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Peter R. writes:

I'd say that was a case where two people were allowed to
significantly delay the lives of about 100 others.

If you fire them, they won't be a problem again.

And what would you fire them for? Not having personal access to a wormhole?

Peter R. wrote:
On 1/24/2007 3:36:17 PM, John Theune wrote:

Bottom line is one person should not be allowed to mess up the
lives of 112 others when it's avoidable.

I was on a 7:00p USAir flight once at busy Philadelphia International where
it took us over an hour to taxi to the runway due to the long line of
departing aircraft.

We were next to go when the pilot comes on and states, "Well folks, I have
never had to apologize for this before but we have been instructed to return
to the gate to pick up two of our pilots that need to be at our destination
before XX:00 due to FAA rules. The problem is, getting back to the gate will
be like a fish swimming upstream, so this will take awhile."

It took us another half hour to get back to the gate. By the time the jetway
rolled over to our aircraft and the door opened, it was time for the 9:00p
flight to our same city to roll back from the gate, which meant that our
entire odyssey was in vane.

I'd say that was a case where two people were allowed to significantly delay
the lives of about 100 others.

and how does this make it right?

On 1/24/2007 5:07:52 PM, John Theune wrote:

and how does this make it right?

It doesn't make it right, it just demonstrates that it happens. After flying
commercial for 10 years, I can attest that it happens all the time. How many
times have airlines held flights for a few passengers who were late
connecting? I have been on a number of flights where this was done, and the
delay was probably on average of 10 to 15 minutes.

--
Peter