I said why - it's because they are like children not drunk adults. Do the airline ban children with their parents from first class if their child is noisy and exciteable in the check-in area? Probably not, in almost all cases.
Of course they will.
They'll ban or relocate anybody who they think might be disruptive.
The whole thing with "1st class" is really a bit of a red-herring.
The issue is simply that the pilots sit right in front of 1st-class so a wailing baby or an unruly kid or a drunken adult has the potential to distract the pilots.
I suppose it might be for the best if the planes were redesigned with 1st class at the back in order to avoid these sort of allegations but it'd be much simpler for people to just use a bit of common sense instead.
Of course they will.
They'll ban or relocate anybody who they think might be disruptive.
The whole thing with "1st class" is really a bit of a red-herring.
The issue is simply that the pilots sit right in front of 1st-class so a wailing baby or an unruly kid or a drunken adult has the potential to distract the pilots.
Even a wailing baby? Oh come on! And why haven't they said that then? There are a lot of assumptions being made here...
The whole thing with "1st class" is really a bit of a red-herring.
The issue is simply that the pilots sit right in front of 1st-class so a wailing baby or an unruly kid or a drunken adult has the potential to distract the pilots.
.
Ah, but you can't bring wailing babies into the equation. Babies are not banned from first class (though few parents take them there) and it is in the nature of babies to wail. And it's not as if anyone has access to the pilot's area these days; since 9-11 no one can get in there at all.
No, you THINK the airline appears to think like that.
Unless you're a rep' for AA, you're posting your personal opinion.
did you miss my use of appears.
And I used the word said because you were trying to claim otherwise. I was pointing out to you what I said. English is a great language
Of course they will.
They'll ban or relocate anybody who they think might be disruptive.
The whole thing with "1st class" is really a bit of a red-herring.
The issue is simply that the pilots sit right in front of 1st-class so a wailing baby or an unruly kid or a drunken adult has the potential to distract the pilots.
I suppose it might be for the best if the planes were redesigned with 1st class at the back in order to avoid these sort of allegations but it'd be much simpler for people to just use a bit of common sense instead.
Even a wailing baby? Oh come on! And why haven't they said that then? There are a lot of assumptions being made here...
Yeah, that's a bit silly. I'm not sure that a baby would be able to cry so loudly that an emergency landing was needed and I've had three babies. I'm pretty sure it's more to do with banging on the cockpit doors and what not.
Even a wailing baby? Oh come on! And why haven't they said that then? There are a lot of assumptions being made here...
But they have said that.
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.
Trouble is, of course, that if somebody said "Look, you can go and sit in the back if you like" it'd only reinforce the fallacy that it's part of some grand scheme to keep the riff-raff out of 1st class when that's not the case.
It's simply about avoiding distractions to the pilots.... who happen to be seated just in front of 1st class.
Anyone with an aversion to DM links can view a KTLA news report here
AA are with their rights to refuse to carry any disruptive passenger be it a child or adult with or without disabilities, people pay extra for 1st class for a reason
Trouble is, of course, that if somebody said "Look, you can go and sit in the back if you like" it'd only reinforce the fallacy that it's part of some grand scheme to keep the riff-raff out of 1st class when that's not the case.
It's simply about avoiding distractions to the pilots.... who happen to be seated just in front of 1st class.
I think it is EXACTLY that, though I would never describe someone with a learning disability as "riff-raff! because they aren't. The distraction to the pilot thing smacks of an excuse to cover up a misjudgement - nice try American Airlines but nope.
And where are the reports of adults with noisy babies or other young children being refused seats in first class? Where are they?
AA are with their rights to refuse to carry any disruptive passenger be it a child or adult with or without disabilities, people pay extra for 1st class for a reason
Which is?
I have a friend who flies nothing but first class with her child because her family can afford it. Children are not banned from first class flights.
You should read the whole thing . they had upgraded to 1st class. It seems that children wth Downs are not welcome in 1st class. Probably worried that he would put people off their champagne
You keep making these claims but interestingly, I have not yet seen you post any evidence of it.
I'm not making any claims at all, other than claiming that disruptive passengers won't be allowed to sit near the pilots.
You're the one who seems to have built this tower of suspicion based entirely on the fallacy that there's some kind of prejudice at work.
As I said ages ago, if AA were operating some policy of keeping disabled people out of 1st class, you'd think THAT might have come to light before now as well but there's no evidence to support that either.
I'm not making any claims at all, other than claiming that disruptive passengers won't be allowed to sit near the pilots.
You're the one who seems to have built this tower of suspicion based entirely on the fallacy that there's some kind of prejudice at work.
As I said ages ago, if AA were operating some policy of keeping disabled people out of 1st class, you'd think THAT might have come to light before now as well but there's no evidence to support that either.
I have not said there's any disability prejudice at work, merely that based on what we know, the airline probably made a misjudgement but won't (yet) admit it. That's all.
As I already said, ask a stupid question and you'll get a stupid answer.
Try asking a sensible question and see how it works out.
I find it strange that you did not know we were talking about commercial passenger planes , as that is what the thread is about. You were just being deliberatly obtuse:D
Comments
Of course they will.
They'll ban or relocate anybody who they think might be disruptive.
The whole thing with "1st class" is really a bit of a red-herring.
The issue is simply that the pilots sit right in front of 1st-class so a wailing baby or an unruly kid or a drunken adult has the potential to distract the pilots.
I suppose it might be for the best if the planes were redesigned with 1st class at the back in order to avoid these sort of allegations but it'd be much simpler for people to just use a bit of common sense instead.
Even a wailing baby? Oh come on! And why haven't they said that then? There are a lot of assumptions being made here...
Ah, but you can't bring wailing babies into the equation. Babies are not banned from first class (though few parents take them there) and it is in the nature of babies to wail. And it's not as if anyone has access to the pilot's area these days; since 9-11 no one can get in there at all.
did you miss my use of appears.
And I used the word said because you were trying to claim otherwise. I was pointing out to you what I said. English is a great language
How many planes have open cockpits?
Yeah, that's a bit silly. I'm not sure that a baby would be able to cry so loudly that an emergency landing was needed and I've had three babies. I'm pretty sure it's more to do with banging on the cockpit doors and what not.
But they have said that.
Trouble is, of course, that if somebody said "Look, you can go and sit in the back if you like" it'd only reinforce the fallacy that it's part of some grand scheme to keep the riff-raff out of 1st class when that's not the case.
It's simply about avoiding distractions to the pilots.... who happen to be seated just in front of 1st class.
Absolutely. Downs' Syndrome kids are really strong. One I know loves to pick me up every time I see him.
Edit: To clarify. I mean physically pick me up, not collect me in his car. He hasn't got a driving licence.
Last time I checked, millions.
An AA flight certainly wouldn't though.
AA are with their rights to refuse to carry any disruptive passenger be it a child or adult with or without disabilities, people pay extra for 1st class for a reason
You know what they say; "Ask a stupid question..."
I think it is EXACTLY that, though I would never describe someone with a learning disability as "riff-raff! because they aren't. The distraction to the pilot thing smacks of an excuse to cover up a misjudgement - nice try American Airlines but nope.
And where are the reports of adults with noisy babies or other young children being refused seats in first class? Where are they?
Which is?
I have a friend who flies nothing but first class with her child because her family can afford it. Children are not banned from first class flights.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant
So commercial passenger airlines have open cockpits, as per this thread:D
Point taken sir!
LOL:D
Maybe the parents of noisy babies don't whine about the way they're dealt with?
Or ask a stupid person:D
As I already said, ask a stupid question and you'll get a stupid answer.
Try asking a sensible question and see how it works out.
You keep making these claims but interestingly, I have not yet seen you post any evidence of it.
I'm not making any claims at all, other than claiming that disruptive passengers won't be allowed to sit near the pilots.
You're the one who seems to have built this tower of suspicion based entirely on the fallacy that there's some kind of prejudice at work.
As I said ages ago, if AA were operating some policy of keeping disabled people out of 1st class, you'd think THAT might have come to light before now as well but there's no evidence to support that either.
I have not said there's any disability prejudice at work, merely that based on what we know, the airline probably made a misjudgement but won't (yet) admit it. That's all.
I find it strange that you did not know we were talking about commercial passenger planes , as that is what the thread is about. You were just being deliberatly obtuse:D