Don't you think it's likely that if AA were deliberately banning disabled people from 1st class (in order to avoid putting the fat-cats off their champagne) it might have been noticed before now?
Or are we to assume this is the first time in 80 years that such a person has had the audacity to attempt to fly 1st class?
So the answer is no as they had upgraded for this flight. Funny how they were refused when they upgraded to 1st class
Well, I personally can't see a big company like American Airlines having a policy in place that excludes people with Downs Syndrome from flying first class.
I think the far likelier scenario is that the lad had a wobbler before this flight and that's why he was refused permission to board.
You're determined to believe it's all about his Downs though, so I'm sure I won't be able to convince you otherwise.
So the answer is no as they had upgraded for this flight. Funny how they were refused when they upgraded to 1st class
Have you read the bit where AA explained they did a lot to calm the boy down before deciding to offer them a different flight? Is it safe to presume that they could still fly first class on the different flight, if they wanted to?
Witnesses, how many can the family get hold of, guess the airline wont release any of there names, but I think the parents should either take out an advert in the paper, or go on tv, and ask for witnesses to come forward, prove the airline wrong
Would like to see how the captain get out of this one, 300 witness say, captain never went to speak to the boy, and you would think the airline would have to sack the captain, and maybe the crew staff
Have you read the bit where AA explained they did a lot to calm the boy down before deciding to offer them a different flight? Is it safe to presume that they could still fly first class on the different flight, if they wanted to?
Well, I personally can't see a big company like American Airlines having a policy in place that excludes people with Downs Syndrome from flying first class.
I think the far likelier scenario is that the lad had a wobbler before this flight and that's why he was refused permission to board.
Or he was excited and singing . Or running to get a comic. Or speaking loudly in an excited voice. Or doing things that kids do at airports.
Witnesses, how many can the family get hold of, guess the airline wont release any of there names, but I think the parents should either take out an advert in the paper, or go on tv, and ask for witnesses to come forward, prove the airline wrong
Would like to see how the captain get out of this one, 300 witness say, captain never went to speak to the boy, and you would think the airline would have to sack the captain, and maybe the crew staff
Proves nothing, just because a certain few people did not see him, it did not mean it did not hapen.
In a country as litigation happy as the States I can not see an airline pulling a stunt like this in a hurry. I fear there may be more to it than the parents suggest.
Witnesses, how many can the family get hold of, guess the airline wont release any of there names, but I think the parents should either take out an advert in the paper, or go on tv, and ask for witnesses to come forward, prove the airline wrong
Would like to see how the captain get out of this one, 300 witness say, captain never went to speak to the boy, and you would think the airline would have to sack the captain, and maybe the crew staff
Oooh the Airline lied, fancy them trying to get out of this by lying. Why would they do that if it was all above board?
I'll tell you if you like. Playing the disabled card here seems ridiculous and an airline wouldn't dream of preventing someone from flying first-class unless they had a very good reason to do so.
If this was any other kid, the rabid anti-child movement on this forum would be dancing with glee that the "offspring" of two "breeders" had been thrown off, and falling over themselves to regale us with tales of their own ruined flight "experience"
Bur American Airlines claims Bede was 'excitable, running around, and not acclimated to the environment'.
...
'My son is no different from a 4 or 5 year-old as far as behavior,' he insisted.
Apart from the fact that he just happens to have the size, weight and strength of a 16 year old.
I imagine the scene there is no way an airline should that child be taken on board ever !
The parents are to be blamed they certainly would have known the child would have aincident while on board or boarding the aircraft and the airline should have notice this before they boarded.
If they had spoken to mediclal services before boarding its likely they would have given the child an injection to keep him from distrupting the passengers. there is no doubt the airline would have allowed them on the plane under medical supervision (with luck the child would have been asleep all through the journey and no one the wiser and it would have been better for the child too.
sounds to me the child didnot want to fly anyway and extremley frightened ..
The parents are to be blmaed for the incident
What??? :eek::eek: There is no reason on earth why this clearly highly experienced flyer should be forcibly sedated because on ONE occasion, before boarding, he allegedly looked excited and ran about. What was he frightened of, do you suppose? The big soft seats he might face in first class?
In any case I can see no defence in the world to the fact that he was bumped to economy and no refund was made to the parents.
Mr Vanderhorst says the family was warned their son's behavior was a concern because their first class seat was too close to the cockpit and a distraction to the pilot could cause a mid-flight emergency landing
I thought these days it was all computerised and automated and the pilot was only there for if something malfunctioned and he needed to take control of the flight manually?
If he was being loud etc then it's only right that he shouldn't be allowed to fly. The disruption might cause people not to fully understand the safety procedures etc putting everyones lives at risk.
Mr Vanderhorst says the family was warned their son's behavior was a concern because their first class seat was too close to the cockpit and a distraction to the pilot could cause a mid-flight emergency landing
I thought these days it was all computerised and automated and the pilot was only there for if something malfunctioned and he needed to take control of the flight manually?
Mr Vanderhorst says the family was warned their son's behavior was a concern because their first class seat was too close to the cockpit and a distraction to the pilot could cause a mid-flight emergency landing
I thought these days it was all computerised and automated and the pilot was only there for if something malfunctioned and he needed to take control of the flight manually?
Meh,
Frankly, until somebody declares that pilots are completely redundant, I'd rather they weren't distracted at all, regardless of what automated systems are in operation.
But seat belts are worn during take off and landing so the child would be strapped in... mid flight I am not sure how he would cause a mid flight emergency landing?
I'm pretty sure any such policy would have already been exposed.
I also think that only a person with a huge chip on their shoulder would think this is anything to do with the family travelling first class.
My my drop the insults please and stop trying to bait, it is unbecoming of you.
It is about how the disabled are treated , by the able and nothing to do with travelling first class
Mr Vanderhorst says the family was warned their son's behavior was a concern because their first class seat was too close to the cockpit and a distraction to the pilot could cause a mid-flight emergency landing
I thought these days it was all computerised and automated and the pilot was only there for if something malfunctioned and he needed to take control of the flight manually?
More to the point is, do they apply the same logic to children who are actually 5 years old and who are behaving disruptively? Remembering that pilots are locked off from passengers these days.
That is the real point here, and it doesn't seem to be covered at all in the newspaper story. So we don't have all the main facts - poor journalism and reporting and annoyingly, we have to guess. My guess is that the airline handled this as if the lad was a disruptive adult passenger and not as if he was a disruptive child, which was probably a mistake in this particular case.
Based on the limited facts we have, I think the parents are more likely to be right than the airline in this case but I don't see it as necessarily a case of overt disability prejudice. There is room for two valid points of view on this - but the airline need urgently to clarify their policy in this area - the whole episode was handled badly by them IMO. The parents should probably get an apology and a refund, of the fare differential at the very least..
Comments
You tell me?
Well, I personally can't see a big company like American Airlines having a policy in place that excludes people with Downs Syndrome from flying first class.
I think the far likelier scenario is that the lad had a wobbler before this flight and that's why he was refused permission to board.
You're determined to believe it's all about his Downs though, so I'm sure I won't be able to convince you otherwise.
Have you read the bit where AA explained they did a lot to calm the boy down before deciding to offer them a different flight? Is it safe to presume that they could still fly first class on the different flight, if they wanted to?
Would like to see how the captain get out of this one, 300 witness say, captain never went to speak to the boy, and you would think the airline would have to sack the captain, and maybe the crew staff
Probably wouldnt be in 1st class
Or he was excited and singing . Or running to get a comic. Or speaking loudly in an excited voice. Or doing things that kids do at airports.
...if they wanted to is the important bit here.
Proves nothing, just because a certain few people did not see him, it did not mean it did not hapen.
In a country as litigation happy as the States I can not see an airline pulling a stunt like this in a hurry. I fear there may be more to it than the parents suggest.
I'm pretty sure any such policy would have already been exposed.
I also think that only a person with a huge chip on their shoulder would think this is anything to do with the family travelling first class.
Oooh the Airline lied, fancy them trying to get out of this by lying. Why would they do that if it was all above board?
I'll tell you if you like. Playing the disabled card here seems ridiculous and an airline wouldn't dream of preventing someone from flying first-class unless they had a very good reason to do so.
Are you reading things properly? The post was effectively saying "what if...?".
Apart from the fact that he just happens to have the size, weight and strength of a 16 year old.
What??? :eek::eek: There is no reason on earth why this clearly highly experienced flyer should be forcibly sedated because on ONE occasion, before boarding, he allegedly looked excited and ran about. What was he frightened of, do you suppose? The big soft seats he might face in first class?
In any case I can see no defence in the world to the fact that he was bumped to economy and no refund was made to the parents.
Mr Vanderhorst says the family was warned their son's behavior was a concern because their first class seat was too close to the cockpit and a distraction to the pilot could cause a mid-flight emergency landing
I thought these days it was all computerised and automated and the pilot was only there for if something malfunctioned and he needed to take control of the flight manually?
No, they don't take off and land themselves yet.
Meh,
Frankly, until somebody declares that pilots are completely redundant, I'd rather they weren't distracted at all, regardless of what automated systems are in operation.
But seat belts are worn during take off and landing so the child would be strapped in... mid flight I am not sure how he would cause a mid flight emergency landing?
My my drop the insults please and stop trying to bait, it is unbecoming of you.
It is about how the disabled are treated , by the able and nothing to do with travelling first class
More to the point is, do they apply the same logic to children who are actually 5 years old and who are behaving disruptively? Remembering that pilots are locked off from passengers these days.
That is the real point here, and it doesn't seem to be covered at all in the newspaper story. So we don't have all the main facts - poor journalism and reporting and annoyingly, we have to guess. My guess is that the airline handled this as if the lad was a disruptive adult passenger and not as if he was a disruptive child, which was probably a mistake in this particular case.
Based on the limited facts we have, I think the parents are more likely to be right than the airline in this case but I don't see it as necessarily a case of overt disability prejudice. There is room for two valid points of view on this - but the airline need urgently to clarify their policy in this area - the whole episode was handled badly by them IMO. The parents should probably get an apology and a refund, of the fare differential at the very least..