Mom and Chatty Toddler Removed From Flight

Thank you for the careful reading. It happens to be applicable law - if you want to make it better don't argue here, call Congress.

High Seas:

1. How many of those passengers were children?

2. From what I read, it says unruly passengers can be fined. This Flight Attendant made the pilot turn the plane around.

Joe:

As a flight attendant, she made a call, but she over-reacted and made a bad decision. I think she was just an idiot, and it is irrelevant if she was a parent or not. Being a parent doesn't necessarily make you more sympathetic to children's fussiness, nor does being single make you more annoyed by it. My kids are grown now but I could never stand the sound of screaming children (unless it was from pain or an infant). I find all that racket extremely annoying and I do shoot dirty looks at the offenders, I admit. I want them to shut the hell up. Doesn't mean I don't understand the problem; just means I have a low noise and irritation threshold.

No High Seas, a 16 months old toddler's babbling or even crying
is no reason to turn around a plane. You are blowing this out of proportion,
and cannot distinguish between a truly unruly passenger and a toddler.

CJ you don't understand - saying "Bye bye plane" is classified as being unruly!

Manche Menschen wollen immer argumentieren, obwohl sie keine Ahnung haben.

Yes Linkat, I understand that the kid-friendly fraction is classifying
this as unruly, which comes just a step after being an aspirant for terrorism.

Oh yes High Seas, I can see your copy & paste jobs here,
and I am mighty impressed by your internet knowledge. Kudos!

Qualified? I don't know but she was in a position of power and authority to make it. Is there actually a question of her qualifications?

What possible problem is it that you think the kids behavior made her aware of?

FreeDuck, that's the scary part, that a stewardess might not have the qualifications but the power to classify passengers as unruly and have them thrown off the plane.

If you asked one too many times for a glass of water and the stewardess
in service doesn't like your face, you could be considered as unruly.

CJ has a good point; so many things in life are so subjective, it's almost impossible to qualify "unruly" in this kind of situation.

I'm a licensed pilot. Once a year I have to sit for a test which includes FAA regulations applicable to types of aircraft I'm current for.

What you call "cut and paste" is part and parcel of those exams.

I don't know, but only a non-parent would ask such a question. You need to shut your intellect up.

Thomas.

I think it's worth reviewing some of JPB's posts.

(I remain neutral, with not enough knowledge re the mother's conversation with the attendant, or the attendant's motivations, bitchyness or safety oriented - or even some combination of those.)

p.7 (JPB)
As far as taking sides on this, I'm completely neutral until further info comes out. If the child was disruptive to the point that the flight attendant felt one or more passengers was unable to hear/understand her safety instructions (think about first time fliers who may actually want to hear them) and felt that she needed to repeat those instructions in a quiet environment and the mother and child were preventing the possibility of that environment, then I think she was well within the stated policies of the airline to have them removed from the plane.

p.8 (JPB)
I don't think this is about a kid being on a plane. Chances are this flight attendant has had rambunctious kids on other flights and not had them thrown off the plane. This is about a mother who during the safety instructions enticed her child to look out the window at another plane, the result of which caused the child to distract the attendant from being able to properly complete her instructions. Whether other passengers wanted to hear the instructions or whether they felt the attendant over-reacted is irrelevant. It's her job to complete the instructions for the safety of the passengers on board, even if no one is actually listening. She apparently felt this child was preventing that from happening.

p.9 (JPB)
I wasn't there either. I have no idea if the kid was disruptive or not. If the FA flipped out because she was having a bad day, then she should get over herself (or get a new job). If she flipped out because she perceived that the kid was preventing her from doing her job and preventing those around him from hearing the safety instructions then, she had cause to get him to be quiet.

(I forget what page, sorry)
JPB quoting the original article - (mother) "I said, 'Well, I'm not going to drug my child so you have a pleasant flight,'" Penland said.
The discussion continued and very quickly what started as an unpleasant flight for Penland and Garren became no flight at all.

JPB then wrote -
What's missing is the continuation of the discussion. There are certain buzz words that one does not use on a plane and expect to remain on-board. If Penland said any of those words during the ensuing discussion she was history. Certain buzz words result in an automatic visit before a judge. Most of those start with the letter B. This pre-dates 9/11.

I once observed a situation where a stressed-out adult traveler ran down the jet-way after almost missing his flight. The door was re-opened for him but he proceeded to have a tantrum anyway because someone was sitting in his assigned seat. The FA suggested he take any open seat so that we could push back from the gate. He was uncooperative and spouted something along the lines of wishing he had a B--- so he could B--- up the plane. Again, this was well before 9/11. Never use b-words on a plane! The next thing we knew, the jet-way was brought back to the plane, the door was opened, and two federal marshals came aboard and escorted the man off the plane. The captain explained that he thought this was a case of man having a bad day (and his day was about to get worse as he would spend at least the next 24 hours in jail), but that because the B-word had been uttered, anyone wanting to depart the plane could do so and would be booked on another flight. Three people took him up on the offer, indicating that it simply wasn't worth the risk. Their baggage was pulled from the cargo hold and we eventually pushed back from the gate over an hour later.

I have no idea what Penland said or didn't say during the ensuing discussion. I don't know whether by-standers would consider them threatening. I do know first hand that certain words, once spoken, have a guaranteed outcome. (end of JPB quotes)

I still don't really understand some people's objections to discussion of what is more and less likely to have happened in this situation, complete with reasoning provided for why one thinks it's more or less likely... and no claim to KNOW one way or another.

This isn't an advice thread. Nobody here is directly involved. The fact that we don't know anything for sure at this point is axiomatic, and undisputed. (Has anyone said "I'm certain that the flight attendant acted wrongly and her ass should be fired?" I sure haven't.)

I can see, from what limited information we have, the situation playing out many different ways. At one end of the scenario spectrum, the FA is in the wrong, at another the mother is in the wrong. I think it's LIKELY that each played a part and that it's LIKELY that the FA overreacted. That's all.

I read all of JPB's posts and I guess I just find the safety scenario incredibly unlikely. If an argument ensued because of the toddler's behavior and the mother really did threaten the flight attendant, then I can see the action that was taken. But if that's the case then the situation could have been avoided by the FA not over-reacting to the child in the first place. The article said that she completed her safety instructions, so the kid didn't prevent her from giving them. And if a kid can be a safety threat simply because he's so noisy that people can't hear the flight attendant then we ought to just say no babies on airplanes. But that would be absurd, and so would the idea that the kid presented a danger.

At any rate, we only have the mother's version of events.

And a couple of passengers.

Well, we also have two other passengers' versions (partial)... and we know that the airline is investigating... and we know she wasn't arrested or charged once she was off the plane... and we know that she's willing to make a big deal out of this (which I tend to think she wouldn't if she knew she were in the wrong, but she may be clueless and/or deluded).

But yeah, in terms of details like the fact that the safety presentation was over, that's just the mother's version.

Still no new details -- I thought there would be on Monday, there's so much interest out there. If not the conclusion of the airline's investigation (I'm sure that takes a while), some reporter trying to contact other passengers and get a more complete picture... something. Haven't seen anything yet though, just more opinion pieces that take the same info that we have as their starting point.

not enough facts about this particular situation, but certainly enough arguing...