0
   

Mom and Chatty Toddler Removed From Flight

 
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 03:31 pm
We have no idea what the flight attendant could or couldn't do, what the mother said or didn't say in the ensuing discussion, or whether the flight attendant felt the safety of the passengers was at risk or if she was simply being a bitch.

The mother and child were not removed from the plane because the child was fussy. They were removed from the plane because the flight attendant told the pilot that they should be removed from the plane. What, precisely, precipitated her thought process is a complete mystery to us at this point.

She may have been having a bad day,
she may have felt she was unable to give her safety presentation effectively,
she may have heard the mother say something that crosses the line of acceptance on an aircraft,
she may not like rambunctious boys,
she may not like mouthy mothers,
??? we have no idea what her thoughts were because we haven't heard them.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 03:35 pm
old europe wrote:


oe, have you read the entire thread?

All of this has been discussed.

1)It is standard procedure to have federal marshals escort evicted passengers off from airplanes.

2)Listening to the safety instructions is optional. Preventing others from listening to them is not.

3)I'm fairly sure kicky was being a smart-ass.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 03:38 pm
JPB wrote:
She may have been having a bad day,
she may have felt she was unable to give her safety presentation effectively,
she may have heard the mother say something that crosses the line of acceptance on an aircraft,
she may not like rambunctious boys,
she may not like mouthy mothers,
??? we have no idea what her thoughts were because we haven't heard them.


I am sorry, as a flight attendend you're a step above a waitress and
your foremost concern should be the welfare of all passengers, and not
being a cowardy little bitch who sees this a payback to a mother with child
who just sat through a 11 hour delay caused by the airlines.

That's of course my opinion and not a fact (yet) Laughing
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 03:47 pm
CalamityJane wrote:
I am sorry, as a flight attendend you're a step above a waitress


That thought is precisely why they tend to get miffed when they perceive (rightly or wrongly) that they are being prevented from performing that portion of their job that does not pertain to the 'waitress' aspect.

I'm not defending her or indicting her. I'm simply saying that there are plausible explanations where she would have been justified in insisting that the mother find a way to calm (stiffle?) her son. There are other plausible explanations where the mother may have said something defined as threatening without intending to threaten. It's also equally plausible that she over-reacted and was out of line. We simply don't know.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 03:49 pm
CalamityJane wrote:
JPB wrote:
She may have been having a bad day,
she may have felt she was unable to give her safety presentation effectively,
she may have heard the mother say something that crosses the line of acceptance on an aircraft,
she may not like rambunctious boys,
she may not like mouthy mothers,
??? we have no idea what her thoughts were because we haven't heard them.


I am sorry, as a flight attendend you're a step above a waitress and
your foremost concern should be the welfare of all passengers, and not
being a cowardy little bitch who sees this a payback to a mother with child
who just sat through a 11 hour delay caused by the airlines.

That's of course my opinion and not a fact (yet) Laughing


Wrong - the main job of the flight crew is to keep the plane safe and that can't happen if passengers become unruly. Nobody cares how old the passengers are: commotion in the passenger cabin is sufficient grounds for the pilot to make an emergency landing or refuse to take off until and unless peace and order is restored.

FAA regulations, look them up.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 03:53 pm
JPB wrote:
oe, have you read the entire thread?


Yes, I have. Have been following it the whole time, but decided to say something now as the level of the kid's fussiness became the only focus of this thread. I mean, if we all agree that that's not what got them kicked off the plane - then why discuss it at all?


JPB wrote:
All of this has been discussed.

1)It is standard procedure to have federal marshals escort evicted passengers off from airplanes.


Don't really know the hierarchy or responsibilities on the US. The threat the flight attendant made just kind of bothers me. Also bothers me if that's how quickly you can get in conflict with the law.


JPB wrote:
2)Listening to the safety instructions is optional. Preventing others from listening to them is not.


So fiddling with my extra large newspaper (because I happen to read, say, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, which is really extraordinarily large, compared to, say, the Wall Street Journal, and clearly not built for the limited space in an air plane) and thereby preventing you from following the safety instructions in their entirety can get me kicked off the plane? Bloody hell.


JPB wrote:
3)I'm fairly sure kicky was being a smart-ass.


Yes, I'm fairly sure he was. Wasn't that obvious from my response?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 03:55 pm
old europe wrote:
kickycan wrote:
old europe wrote:
So let's assume the kid was acting like on the plane. Or that he was acting at least as fussy as that on the plane. Would that alone have been a sufficient reason to kick mother and child off the plane?


Of course! Well, maybe not the mother, but the least they could do is strap the kid to the wing or something.


Pffft. Nonsense.


I agree completely.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 03:57 pm
kickycan wrote:
old europe wrote:
kickycan wrote:
old europe wrote:
So let's assume the kid was acting like on the plane. Or that he was acting at least as fussy as that on the plane. Would that alone have been a sufficient reason to kick mother and child off the plane?


Of course! Well, maybe not the mother, but the least they could do is strap the kid to the wing or something.


Pffft. Nonsense.


I agree completely.


Ah! Finally somebody to have a reasonable discussion with!

You, and Setanta for proposing to shoot someone...
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 04:01 pm
old europe wrote:
JPB wrote:
oe, have you read the entire thread?


Yes, I have. Have been following it the whole time, but decided to say something now as the level of the kid's fussiness became the only focus of this thread. I mean, if we all agree that that's not what got them kicked off the plane - then why discuss it at all?
It's the nature of the beast.

old europe wrote:
JPB wrote:
2)Listening to the safety instructions is optional. Preventing others from listening to them is not.


So fiddling with my extra large newspaper (because I happen to read, say, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, which is really extraordinarily large, compared to, say, the Wall Street Journal, and clearly not built for the limited space in an air plane) and thereby preventing you from following the safety instructions in their entirety can get me kicked off the plane? Bloody hell.
Your ass would be toast if the flight attendant asks you to put your paper down during the safety announcement and you refuse.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 04:06 pm
Order in the court! We don't have enough information/evidence to arrive at a responsible conclusion, so I call this a mistrial.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 04:09 pm
Personally, I think this whole discussion could most easily be avoided if kids were transported in cages in the cargo section of the plane, similarly to how we now transport cats and dogs. Think of all the trouble that would spare us! No more crying marathons at three in the morning. No more chain reactions where one crying toddler makes another one grumpy and cry too. No more kicking into the back of my seat. Heaven!

Of course, just like Joe, I am not a parent -- but deep inside your mushy parent hearts, you all know I'm right. Good night! Smile
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 04:11 pm
Actually, there are some parents who want exactly that (they call it special sections, though).
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 04:37 pm
I wouldn't mind a special section in planes for children and parents,
it could ease a lot of tension between other passengers and be less stressful
for parents as well. All this provided, there is a flight attendant who is
trained to react calm under duress.

The same is true for the FAA regulations concerning flight attendants,
High Seas.

Quote:
Airlines prefer to hire poised, tactful, and resourceful people who can interact comfortably with strangers and remain calm under duress. Applicants usually must be at least 18 to 21 years old, although some carriers may have higher minimum-age requirements.


Quote:
Trainees learn emergency procedures such as evacuating an airplane, operating emergency systems and equipment, administering first aid, and surviving in the water. In addition, trainees are taught how to deal with disruptive passengers and with hijacking and terrorist situations.


Quote:
Before the plane takes off, flight attendants instruct all passengers in the use of emergency equipment and check to see that seatbelts are fastened, seat backs are in upright positions, and all carry-on items are properly stowed. In the air, helping passengers in the event of an emergency is the most important responsibility of a flight attendant. Safety-related actions may range from reassuring passengers during rough weather to directing passengers who must evacuate a plane following an emergency landing. Flight attendants also answer questions about the flight; distribute reading material, pillows, and blankets; and help small children, elderly or disabled persons, and any others needing assistance. They may administer first aid to passengers who become ill. Flight attendants generally serve beverages and other refreshments and, on many flights, heat and distribute precooked meals or snacks. Prior to landing, flight attendants take inventory of headsets, alcoholic beverages, and moneys collected. They also report any medical problems passengers may have had, the condition of cabin equipment, and lost and found articles.


Our stewardess in question was not exactly calm under duress and
she did not know how to deal with disruptive passengers either. First
she wanted to drug the baby and then she run to the pilot claiming
personal threat (not proven she said/she said). So according to the FAA
guidelines, this flight attendant failed in every instance.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 04:42 pm
CalamityJane wrote:
I am sorry, as a flight attendend you're a step above a waitress


They are flight crew, responsible for passenger safety. Any kind of "courtesy" activity is secondary.

Their primary training is in the area of health and safety, not in table service.

~~~

We don't know what happened in the interaction between the mother and the flight attendant, though I suspect neither of them was in peak form following the initial flight delay.

In any case, flight safety comes first.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 04:58 pm
I'm with oe... it disturbs me to see how easily one can be thrown off a plane esp with no recourse, ie. a hearing. That is manifestly unfair. The least the pilot or Chief Flight Attendant could do was get a consensus from those sitting nearest the woman and child as to what really went on. Throwing someone off the plane is severe. This could be an abuse of power on the flight attendant's part. I fail to see how a conversation about a fussy child could be perceived by anyone as a threat, unless, of course, it WAS a threat, as in "Shut up about my kid or I'll clock you one".
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 05:07 pm
Thomas wrote:
Personally, I think this whole discussion could most easily be avoided if kids were transported in cages in the cargo section of the plane, similarly to how we now transport cats and dogs. Think of all the trouble that would spare us! No more crying marathons at three in the morning. No more chain reactions where one crying toddler makes another one grumpy and cry too. No more kicking into the back of my seat. Heaven!

Of course, just like Joe, I am not a parent -- but deep inside your mushy parent hearts, you all know I'm right. Good night! Smile


Great minds...
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 05:13 pm
I have a feeling that this whole thing started because two women got into a catfight. There are many women, as we all know, who wouldn't think twice about inconveniencing a whole plane-load of people in order to get even. Especially when it's another woman who has pissed them off.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 05:16 pm
ehBeth wrote:
it seems to be more about the parent/parents' interaction with the attendant than anything to do directly with the child


cat fight/interaction - a minor detail of language Cool
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 05:17 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
The implication isn't that only parents understand, it's that if you clearly don't understand then you probably don't have small children or don't spend a lot of time with them. That's really it.



I don't have children, and I understand that. So, what does that say about me?

You say probably, not definately don't have children or spend a lot of time with them.

Spending a lot of time with children isn't the same as having children....

I really don't know what you're saying here.

Actually, I think there's very, very few people that think they can turn off a child like a switch.




I leave for a few hours, and look what's happened to this topic.

I'm dizzy.

I think we should all take this opportunity though, to call nimh snotty. Razz

Snotty Nimh.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 05:22 pm
nimh deserves to be snotty at least once. he he he...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/15/2025 at 12:45:01