"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.