Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My point is secure the child and fly the plane. Why is this not apparent? Why would SWA refuse to enforce it's policies and secure the chlld so that everyone could get where they are going. Again. SWA made a series of decisions which 1) forced the return of an outbound aircraft there by increasing risks 2) delayed everyone and finally 3) forced the family and the child to leave the plane over objections by other passengers.
That is pure SWA. It was a four year old.
I'm sure as a parent you would just love to see a flight attendant forcibly secure your child in a seat. Given that you think the entire world revolves around one child, I can't see that happening. Besides, the flight attendants have other things to do - like, THEIR JOBS. It is not the job of the flight attendant to secure the child. They're not the parents. It was the job of the PARENT to secure his child, and he didn't. Besides, the flight attendants have other idiots they need to attend to who are also probably being recalcitrant about doing what they're told to do.
And Southwest did enforce their policies. One policy is everyone must be secured in a seat with a seatbelt or they aren't flying. One small passenger refused to comply, and they didn't get to fly. Sounds like they enforced policy to me.
Also, my question to you is where does the plane wait while the child is secured?
There are only so many runways a plane can take off on. If they're waiting on the runway, there are planes backed up behind them. There are planes coming in for a landing. God forbid you should be on a plane that's trying to land with a real emergency and they can't, because some other plane is sitting on the tarmac while some parent is still trying to calm his child down so it can take off.
You're contradictory. First you say the the plane returning delayed other passengers. Well, what do you think waiting to take off would do? In that case, you don't just inconvenience the passengers on your flights, but the passengers on the flights trying to take off behind you and the passengers on the flights landing as well.
There is as much risk sitting on the runway, wasting fuel that might be needed if the plane has an emergency, as there is in returning. As a matter of fact, I think in the future it might be a good idea to start charging the passenger who caused a plane to turn around the cost of the fuel that was used for that little maneuver.
And think about this: if the plane had been deiced and was waiting to take off, and then it needed to wait on the runway for who knows how long, it might have to be deiced again, which is more time and more money thrown down the drain.
And another question to you is, how many times do you expect the plane to turn around? Once? Twice? Three times? You think the passengers on the plane were upset when the plane turned around once, how about if it returned three times?
If this child were having a meltdown before they went on the plane and everybody else was seated and ready to go, do you really think they would have held the flight for that family? And if so, how long do you expect them to do that? And please, I want to hear exactly how long. Don't tell me they should sit there until the child is calm. I want to know from you exactly how long, in minutes or hours, you think the plane should have waited.
Last edited by rodentraiser; 03-26-2018 at 01:54 PM..
I'm sure as a parent you would just love to see a flight attendant forcibly secure your child in a seat. Given that you think the entire world revolves around one child, I can't see that happening. Besides, the flight attendants have other things to do - like, THEIR JOBS. It is not the job of the flight attendant to secure the child. They're not the parents. It was the job of the PARENT to secure his child, and he didn't. Besides, the flight attendants have other idiots they need to attend to who are also probably being recalcitrant about doing what they're told to do.
And Southwest did enforce their policies. One policy is everyone must be secured in a seat with a seatbelt or they aren't flying. One small passenger refused to comply, and they didn't get to fly. Sounds like they enforced policy to me.
Also, my question to you is where does the plane wait while the child is secured?
There are only so many runways a plane can take off on. If they're waiting on the runway, there are planes backed up behind them. There are planes coming in for a landing. God forbid you should be on a plane that's trying to land with a real emergency and they can't, because some other plane is sitting on the tarmac while some parent is still trying to calm his child down so it can take off.
You're contradictory. First you say the the plane returning delayed other passengers. Well, what do you think waiting to take off would do? In that case, you don't just inconvenience the passengers on your flights, but the passengers on the flights trying to take off behind you and the passengers on the flights landing as well.
There is as much risk sitting on the runway, wasting fuel that might be needed if the plane has an emergency, as there is in returning. As a matter of fact, I think in the future it might be a good idea to start charging the passenger who caused a plane to turn around the cost of the fuel that was used for that little maneuver.
And think about this: if the plane had been deiced and was waiting to take off, and then it needed to wait on the runway for who knows how long, it might have to be deiced again, which is more time and more money thrown down the drain.
And another question to you is, how many times do you expect the plane to turn around? Once? Twice? Three times? You think the passengers on the plane were upset when the plane turned around once, how about if it returned three times?
If this child were having a meltdown before they went on the plane and everybody else was seated and ready to go, do you really think they would have held the flight for that family? And if so, how long do you expect them to do that? And please, I want to hear exactly how long. Don't tell me they should sit there until the child is calm. I want to know from you exactly how long, in minutes or hours, you think the plane should have waited.
And you specified where the plane should wait? And for how long? Well, just for fun, answer it again. I must have missed it the first time and I really, really, really don't want to reread 11 pages of this thread.
Did anyone else see if AADad set a numbered amount of minutes or whatever here? If so and you remember them, can you please humor me and post that? Thanks!
I don't recall reading AADad post any recommendations on how long a plane should be held for a passenger unwilling to fasten their seat belt.
Or where the plane should sit during this waiting time.
Perhaps AADad posted it on another thread by accident.
Perhaps he could repost it here.
Will keep checking back.
Apparently a couple minutes of patience is all that we need. That's cool, nobody really needs to get to their destination on time, or catch connecting flights, and nobody else's plane needs that gate.
And you specified where the plane should wait? And for how long? Well, just for fun, answer it again. I must have missed it the first time and I really, really, really don't want to reread 11 pages of this thread.
Did anyone else see if AADad set a numbered amount of minutes or whatever here? If so and you remember them, can you please humor me and post that? Thanks!
Now before you turn on the flames remember (try) that people in this country get to express their own opinions freely and without criticism. if you don't think so try another country.....I hear Iran this time of year is nice.
Uhm, you CAN express your opinion, however, so can I and everyone else and that includes calling you a d..a.. If you wish to express an opinion, expect others to express theirs in a critical manner and tell you that you are flat out wrong. Of course, you can also criticize my opinion and tell me I'm wrong. That is America!
Did you even watch the video? The little girl was completely calm and quiet by the time they came and made them get off the plane. THAT is why the other passengers were protesting the disembarkment, too. The parents DID take charge.
People on these boards just love to blame passengers whenever anything happens on a plane. Get dragged down an aisle for not giving up the seat you paid for? Too bad, your fault, you should have complied with authority!! Decide to comply and your puppy dies in an overhead bin? Too bad, you shouldn't have complied, your fault!!.
On the puppy board I theorized that if the woman had fought the FA and gotten arrested(which many posters there are saying and blaming the woman alone) the same people would then be bashing her for not complying.
Companies and big business are always in the right! My fellow men are always wrong!!
They were already turned around at that point. They had to go back to the gate as they told the controllers that is what they were doing. Once that was done, it cannot be changed. This isn't like backing your car out of the driveway. Each airline, before they taxi back from the gate gets clearance and positioning to take off , once they relinquish that positioning they have to wait until the air traffic control can get them new positioning. If they stopped where they were there was no guarantee that the child wouldn't have another meltdown when they got the new orders and began taxiing again, therefore the decision was made to remove them from the flight and continue on their way. On the next flight the child sat and remained calm so no problems occured (or else the parents didn't coddle her and told her to sit still).
This reminds me of the story of a cop who shot and killed a deaf man. Everyone was up and arms that this "innocent" deaf man just didn't hear the cop and therefore didn't stop and the cop shot him as he was exiting his car in his driveway. The real story was that the deaf man was driving speeds up to 100 mph. Several times the cop made maneuvers to stop the vehicle and even hit it, but the deaf man backed up, attempted to run over the cop and took off on rims! He then pulled into a neighborhood and parked on the street, exited the vehicle with a tire iron or some like object in his hand and came at the cop, the cop backed up until the guy was almost on top of him before he shot. Oh, but the cop was the bad guy because this man was deaf; who cares about facts.
The facts of the matter in this case of the child and parents being removed is that the decision was already made BEFORE the parents were told and the child was sitting and at that point, so sorry, it is far too late to go back.
No, companies are not always right and often are wrong, but they aren't always wrong either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
