AirTran Airways last week EJECTED a family who had a crying child. I am not clear how long this occured but I myself have had a crying 2 year old and it is life that sooner or later we all have to deal with. Could be a popping ear drum or who knows what.
Would you join me in a boycott of AirTran Airways for this cold act?
2007-01-29 03:49:36 · 18 answers · asked by DanjoHart 2 in Travel ➔ Air Travel
I've heard conflicting comments on this flight, and the reason for the 15 minute delay. Was the original delay due to the child, or other factors which made them then have no patients for teh child.
I cant say that under no circumstances should a family not be removed from a flight. But I do think that the way the adttendants handle a situation can have a big impact. The attitude of the attendants can also influence the aggravation level of the parents and affect the childs behavior.
Some are sticklers and want the child seated before taxiing, others have told me I can hold them until "flight attendants prepare for takeoff" is heard. That might have given this family time to calm the child. If not, they could have just buckled her in at that point. Held the belt shut and dealt with the fit just during takeoff.
I've seen a number of children have meltdowns on a flight. Usually temporary and not a severe problem. I've been fortunate to not face a total meltdown, and cant imagine a fit great enough to eject a family.
2007-01-29 04:05:13 · answer #1 · answered by G's Random Thoughts 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I wasn't there obviously, but from what I read, the child apparenly refused to get up (she was lying on the floor) and sit in her seat. The airline can't legally take off unless ALL passengers are seated, even if you're 3 years old. And if an adult had been acting this way, not only would the airline have removed them, but they would have been arrested by federal agents. At least the airline put the family on another flight and gave them more free travel. So this isn't only a matter of the comfort of other passengers.... I understand a family isn't going to stop traveling completely when they have children... but it was also a safety issue. I fly a lot and always feel bad for the parents of a screaming baby (at least I can put on my headphones and ignore it). But if a child is acting SO bad that they're lying on the floor, I would be upset because that's a safety issue as well as a nuisance.
Also, the plane was held up 15 minutes by the time the family was kicked off, which could have meant that other passengers would risk missing their connections and it also could have caused other problems with the airline's operations (like the gate that the plane was sitting at.. they might have needed that gate for another arriving flight). Again, I do feel bad for the family, but the airline DOES have a business to run...
2007-01-29 06:05:34 · answer #2 · answered by Mike R 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would not join you in the boycott because AirTran did nothing wrong!!! The flight was delayed 15-20 mins which is adequate time to get a child buckled into their seat. It wasn't a popping eardrum because they were still on the ground. It cost airlines a lot of money for every minute a plane is delayed so 20mins is enough. They shouldn't have travelled with the small kid or learn to control him. AirTran only had safety in mind but enough is enough. The airline made the best choice and I support them completely!
2007-01-29 05:31:20 · answer #3 · answered by jasongoriah 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
From what I've read, yes. The child would not cooperate with the parents(crawling under the seat and fighting not to get out from under), and the flight was already delayed 15 minutes because of the child. Airtran got them a later flight and also gave them free roundtrip airfare to be used at their discretion. The airline has a responsibility to all the passengers and to be fair to them I think they acted accordingly under the circumstances. I think if you dwelve a little deeper in this news story you'll get more of the facts. I would not boycott Airtran Airways. And yes, I have a child so I do understand some of the fits they can throw.
2007-01-29 04:10:58 · answer #4 · answered by Xam 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The kid had been running around, raising heck, and being a total pain for 15 minutes. The parents were obviously unwilling to do anything about it, so they got the boot. The airline can't move the plane unless ALL the passengers are buckled in, including the two year olds. The parents had 15 minutes to get the brat buckled in, crying and screaming, or not. They hadn't taken off, were still at the gate, so no popping or ruptured ears. I fault the idiot parents, not the airline. If they want to let their kid fun around and raise a ruckus while traveling, they should take the train!
2007-01-29 03:58:56 · answer #5 · answered by fishing66833 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
My understanding is that the child was uncontrollable, and that she would not get in her seat. FAA regulations require everyone be in their seat with their seatbelt fastened before takeoff. She was also over 2 years old which means she could not travel as a lap child. If the parents would not take appropriate measures to make sure the child was safe and buckled in for the takeoff, they definitely needed to be ejected. It is not fair for one family to delay 120 other passengers just because they cannot discipline their child, and there is no excuse whatsoever for allowing a child to travel in an airplane without being seated and secured with a seatbelt.
If ATA flew to more places, they would be my new favorite airline. This has nothing to do with the child crying--- it has to do with passengers refusing to follow safety regulations. Period.
2007-01-29 07:48:28 · answer #6 · answered by dcgirl 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I am ambivalent about this. Was the plane delayed due to the child? Or was the delay due to something else?
On one hand, the parents should have been able to make the child sit in her seat. There are other passengers as well who have paid to get somewhere by a certain time.
On the other hand, we are becoming an impatient society that is not concerned with the well being of a child and her parents but concerned with only our need and wants. The airline thought of the majority.
The main concern here is the precedent it set.
2007-01-29 04:13:07 · answer #7 · answered by Developing Minds 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Before jumping the gun, get the facts, all of them. Were you on this plane? If not, then you don't know the whole story. If you do get the entire story and there weren't any other extenuating circumstances than the crying child, then I would write a "poison pen" letter to the airlines. You may even have a "consumer" reporter at your local paper or tv station who'll be willing to look into it.
2007-01-29 03:59:38 · answer #8 · answered by Mickey 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
that wasn't the problem. the problem was the screaming brat not sitting in the seat and throwing a tantrum prior to pushback. all passengers must be seated and buckled for take-off (an obvious safety issue). the flight was delayed 15-20 minutes to allow the parents the opportunity, but at some point they had to be removed so the plane could depart and not inconvenience the other 175 PAYING passengers any longer.
do i support it? absolutely. if i pay for travel, i want to get there.
2007-01-29 03:57:21 · answer #9 · answered by dwalkercpa 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The article in the paper said the child would not get buckled in, which is required before moving the aircraft. Aircraft do have accidents while taxiing to and from the runway.
The parents were given the opportunity to calm the child and try another flight.
It sounds drastic, but I don't think it was unreasonable.
2007-01-29 09:40:46 · answer #10 · answered by frequent flyer 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋