Well, I might as well weigh in here too...

Airline: Public OK With Decision To Bump Disruptive Child.

Long story short: Apparently this family got on board the plane on Jan 14. Their three-year-old daughter threw a screaming fit, wouldn't get in her seat, etc. Federal regulations require that everyone over the age of two be in a seat and strapped in before the plane takes off, and there are very good reasons for this. Finally, the airline booted the family off the plane. They didn't get to go home until the next day, and the husband missed a shift at work because of this.

Cue the family, a week later, going to a local newspaper columnist and boo-hooing all over her desk. The columnist wrote a sympathetic editorial about the situation. Cue the family, apparently thinking they'd get sympathy everywhere, going to GMA, Inside Edition, and other media outlets.

Cue the backlash. Because, face it. No one wants to be on an airplane for two and a half hours with a screaming child. The latest story I've seen lays the blame for the plane being fifteen minutes late taking off squarely on this kid's refusal to get in the seat. And the airline could prove this by the simple expedient of publishing the timestamps. They know what time the plane was scheduled to take off, what time they started boarding, and--through the magic of barcode scanning--what time this particular family got on the plane. And what time the plane finally took off. It doesn't behoove the airline to lie about this, because the timestamps would tell the whole story.

Taking into account the fact that families with small children get to pre-board, and that they generally start boarding the plane about twenty minutes before takeoff (*flexes Frequent Flier Married to an Airline Pilot muscles*)...this kid threw a half-hour temper tantrum. The family's whining about "not getting a chance to calm her down" rings hollow as all hell when you realize that they had a half an hour to do so--and didn't, or couldn't. How long were the other 112 passengers supposed to wait while these people got control of their child? How many of them had connections in Boston to make? How many of them missed their connections anyway?

And why in the world couldn't two grown adults wrestle a three-year-old into a seat, hold her down, and strap her in? Duct tape over her mouth would have been a bonus.

AirTran refunded the family's tickets, gave them a free flight home, and offered them free round-trip tickets anywhere the airline flies--which the family, in a huff, has refused. What the airline should have done, if there was any justice in the world, was charged them for the inconvenience their inability to control their child caused to the other passengers and crew of the plane.

For the record, had this happened to us, and the Hubby had to be at work the next day? I would have gotten off the plane with Da Boy, and he would have stayed on the plane and gone home so he could work--because we are practical people and realize that the universe does not revolve around us and our problems.

Yeah, I got no sympathy here. "Parents" like this are the reason we have communities like cf_hardcore, and why people cringe when they see children in restaurants and movie theaters. While my own child isn't always a perfect angel in public, he knows when he's crossed a line, and he generally behaves himself. This is because the Hubby and I actually think that the word "parent" is a verb.

Well, I might as well weigh in here too...

Airline: Public OK With Decision To Bump Disruptive Child.

Long story short: Apparently this family got on board the plane on Jan 14. Their three-year-old daughter threw a screaming fit, wouldn't get in her seat, etc. Federal regulations require that everyone over the age of two be in a seat and strapped in before the plane takes off, and there are very good reasons for this. Finally, the airline booted the family off the plane. They didn't get to go home until the next day, and the husband missed a shift at work because of this.

Cue the family, a week later, going to a local newspaper columnist and boo-hooing all over her desk. The columnist wrote a sympathetic editorial about the situation. Cue the family, apparently thinking they'd get sympathy everywhere, going to GMA, Inside Edition, and other media outlets.

Cue the backlash. Because, face it. No one wants to be on an airplane for two and a half hours with a screaming child. The latest story I've seen lays the blame for the plane being fifteen minutes late taking off squarely on this kid's refusal to get in the seat. And the airline could prove this by the simple expedient of publishing the timestamps. They know what time the plane was scheduled to take off, what time they started boarding, and--through the magic of barcode scanning--what time this particular family got on the plane. And what time the plane finally took off. It doesn't behoove the airline to lie about this, because the timestamps would tell the whole story.

Taking into account the fact that families with small children get to pre-board, and that they generally start boarding the plane about twenty minutes before takeoff (*flexes Frequent Flier Married to an Airline Pilot muscles*)...this kid threw a half-hour temper tantrum. The family's whining about "not getting a chance to calm her down" rings hollow as all hell when you realize that they had a half an hour to do so--and didn't, or couldn't. How long were the other 112 passengers supposed to wait while these people got control of their child? How many of them had connections in Boston to make? How many of them missed their connections anyway?

And why in the world couldn't two grown adults wrestle a three-year-old into a seat, hold her down, and strap her in? Duct tape over her mouth would have been a bonus.

AirTran refunded the family's tickets, gave them a free flight home, and offered them free round-trip tickets anywhere the airline flies--which the family, in a huff, has refused. What the airline should have done, if there was any justice in the world, was charged them for the inconvenience their inability to control their child caused to the other passengers and crew of the plane.

For the record, had this happened to us, and the Hubby had to be at work the next day? I would have gotten off the plane with Da Boy, and he would have stayed on the plane and gone home so he could work--because we are practical people and realize that the universe does not revolve around us and our problems.

Yeah, I got no sympathy here. "Parents" like this are the reason we have communities like cf_hardcore, and why people cringe when they see children in restaurants and movie theaters. While my own child isn't always a perfect angel in public, he knows when he's crossed a line, and he generally behaves himself. This is because the Hubby and I actually think that the word "parent" is a verb.