They were banned from flying for 24 hours. That part was a bit too much I think. I have no problems getting them off the flight but why not just wait until the parents have the child under control and let them get on a later flight that day?
Also it's interesting that they didn't unload the luggage or child seat despite forcing the passengers off..
Actually the family was offered connections via ATL for flights later that day, which the family refused. Given the child had recent ear surgery, it's probably a good thing they did wait 24 hours for the next non-stop.
It seems there is a lot of conflicting information in the press, much of it coming from the family. (big surprise)
As the family was offered connecting flights and refused - technically I don't believe AirTran even had an obligation to transport them the next day. From a customer service point of view, AirTran did the correct thing allowing them to fly the following day. They could have issued them a refund for the unused portion of the ticket and let them fend for themselves.
Bottom line is the child was not in the seat with seatbelt fasted at pushback time which is why they were deplaned. The carrier had no obligation to take a further delay and unload their luggage.
Any further delay, whether it is unloading luggage or waiting 10 minutes for the family to "console" the child could have resulted in:
* Flight missing take-off opportunity. It's possible ATC flow control could have put BOS onto a ground-stop which would have left the aircraft on the ground waiting for the next window to take-off. Airports in busy northeast airspace are frequently affected by FAA flow control programs (i.e. BOS, EWR, LGA, JFK, etc);
* While waiting APU is likely running, consuming fuel;
* Late arrival means late departure on next flight, especially if the flight ended up having to take an ATC delay because of a late departure;
* Late arrival means pilots/crew could potentially time-out for the return flight or a flight later in the day - this could mean the cancellation of an AirTran flight later in the day.
It's sad the parents are spinning the facts and claiming they were deplaned because of the crying. I have no respect for the parents at all and even question their action of flying with a child after ear surgery.
Regarding the ear surgery, the mother is on record stating the child was an angel on the flight down, behaved perfectly, etc. The mother is also on record saying perhaps the child threw the fit because the child remembered how bad the ear pain was on the way down because of surgery earlier in the month.
It's sad to see AirTran caved in and refunded the family the entire lot (plus gave them free tickets) after a member of the press - a Miss Dianne Williamson - from the Telegram contacted AirTran (see thread in newstand).
Tell me, what are you going to do about it? Beat the child? Put them in a cage? Perhaps you could go to the ticket counter and ask for a later flight - show me one airline that will accomodate your change in plans - voluntarily, on your own terms. That's the problem. The airline can ask us to leave, but we cannot ask the airline to allow us to leave without severe financial penalty. So it's really a catch 22. Again, its not so easy as you make it. That is my point.
If it's really bad, you take your child off the aircraft, resolve the situation and take a later flight. Most airlines will allow you to standby for same day travel.
FWIW, there is always risk when you purchase a non-refundable/restricted ticket. Depending on the circumstances, the carrier might be accomodating - in other circumstances you may just have pay a change fee to get a new ticket. Passengers also have the option of buying refundable/flexible tickets.
AirTran was in the right for deplaning the family because the child would not sit in her seat and fasten her seatbelt.
There will be times that you can't take a flight for one reason or another and have to make a change in plans, whether it is a flight the next day or making a change in plans.
Several years ago (mid 90s) I went diving in the Great Barrier Reef, some water got trapped in my ear and it caused an infection. I was scheduled to fly CNS-BNE-PER two days later. If I would have flown as scheduled, I could have blown my ear-drum and been in a much worse situation.
I changed my plans. I changed my airline tickets and then purchased a ticket on a bus to Townsville and spent a few days exploring the city and when I had the all-clear from a doctor, I then flew TSV-SYD-PER so that I could get over to Western Australia. I lost travel time in WA, but at the same time I got to see Townsville and explore more of Queensland by use of ground transportation. Most importantly, I didn't fly with the ear infection and I didn't blow-out my ear-drum.
I've had to change tickets on other ocassions too including when I had appendicitis visiting JAX. I had emergency surgery which extended my stay. DL did come around and allow a free change on an airline ticket, but I still had a hotel room that was occupied with my belongings as well as an expensive "sports car" rental vehicle that I had to pay for, even though I was in the hospital. I didn't expect Hertz to comp the extra 3-4 days I had the rental car parked in the hotel parking lot -- I didn't expect the hotel to comp my hotel room.
As the saying goes, "it happens". Sometimes you have to make changes in your travel plans for a wide variety of reasons and it doesn't always come free --- that is a risk that comes with travel.
Programs: Delta, American, USAir, Continental, Northwest, United, AirTran, SouthWest, Midwest
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTravel
Ah, yet someone else who can't respond to substantive arguments, so simply attacks the person making them. I remember you -- I was going to put you on my ignore list, where you'd be the only one.
For your information, when I log on to FlyerTalk, I select "new posts" and read whatever interests me. This topic, which has been all over the national media, is hard to avoid and inherently interesting.
However, keep on attacking me -- eventually, the FT TOS will catch up with you.
You seem to distort observations with attacks. On the other hand, your post below where you start calling WebTraveler names (i.e. "liar"), seem to be an attack.
I also remember that you said I was going to be on your ignore list. You said that, but yet I apparently am not on said list. Some (not me, of course), might think that makes you a liar.
Would AirTran been out of line if they charged these people a change fee for changing their plans?
AirTran should be bad publicity for giving stuff to people who are unable to follow the rules. Otherwise, we all might try to get thrown off and get something for nothing.
Would AirTran been out of line if they charged these people a change fee for changing their plans?
AirTran should be bad publicity for giving stuff to people who are unable to follow the rules. Otherwise, we all might try to get thrown off and get something for nothing.
I honestly don't think this case has set that kind of precedent, given how the press on it has played out.
I would think, however, that as a practical matter, should a case like this occur again, an airline would probably not charge a fee for a flight change, as an act of goodwill. I very much doubt that it would go to the extreme of a ticket refund and 3 add'l tickets.
Programs: UA 250K MM, CO Plat MM, AF/KL Lifetime Plat, BA ex-Gold, IC RA/Plat, et aliae
Posts: 2,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJC ORD LDR
Would AirTran been out of line if they charged these people a change fee for changing their plans?
AirTran should be bad publicity for giving stuff to people who are unable to follow the rules. Otherwise, we all might try to get thrown off and get something for nothing.
Definitely would not have been out of line to charge a change fee.
Or simply to refund the unused portion of the ticket (the difference between their cheap round trip and a one-way fare) and tell these "parents" good riddance and have them find a flight on another carrier.
ATA went well above and beyond with their lavish, exorbitant compensation for these malcontents ... who continue to badmouth ATA to the press. The press of course has gotten its facts wrong (lots of contradictions, distortions and missing information... including the "24 hour ban" and not mentioning the "ear surgery"). Reading the article, they slam ATA unnecessarily and make the parents out to the victims.
It is ATA, the flight attendants and the 100+ other passengers inconvenienced by these "parents" who are the victims here. These "parents" should be thankful that the FAs deboarded the family to give them more time to continue give their kid a lack of discipline. Heck, given the recent surgery, maybe ATA even saved the kid's eardrums. Add to that the largesse of 6 free tickets (3 future and reimbursement of their current trip), and fee-free change of flights, they should be thanking ATA.
There is something truly wrong with the world when parents who don't restrain a child for its own (and others') safety get rewarded with a cornucopia of flight benefits ... while touchy-feely lawmakers on the Left Coast draft legislation which calls for jail time for parents who spank their kids.
Agreed it would be totally out of line for any other parents to try to stage a similar "incident" with the intention of reaping a similar bounty. I only hope the next amateurs who try to pull a stunt like this get deboarded, refunded the difference between their RT and a one-way Y fare (if any), less a $100 cancellation fee, and told that they are no longer welcome on <airline>.
Many of you here are either completely illogical or is ridiculous.
Sometimes things happen and you have to roll with the punches. If sounds like this whole event corrected itself in 15 minutes with the parents and child being deplaned. Somehow this whole dialogue has been a bash on the parents and child as well as parents and children in general.
Most of the time if the child is unhappy it resolves itself fairly quickly, like just a few minutes, and life goes on. Children do cry. Under some of your scenarios at the first sight of a cry the parents should head straight to the ticket counter and re-book tomorrow. Step back and read what you all are suggesting. Get real.
And the folks that suggest that this is a safety issue, my goodness. Yes, if the child is not in her seat for takeoff it is a problem. I hardly feel that this is the same safety issue as a terrorist or something on board. This is a situation in which can be dealt with very quickly. Hardly a safety issue.
And the folks that suggest that this is a safety issue, my goodness. Yes, if the child is not in her seat for takeoff it is a problem. I hardly feel that this is the same safety issue as a terrorist or something on board. This is a situation in which can be dealt with very quickly. Hardly a safety issue.
Yes, it is a safety issue when a passenger is not in their seat with their seatbelt fastened at pushback time. It's an FAA reg and for good reason.
Please don't play the 'terror' card - you're mixing apples with oranges.
Have you ever been on an aircraft with an aborted take-off followed by heavy braking to bring the aircraft to a halt? I have and it's not the most pleasant of experiences. FWIW, a fellow FTer was on an aircraft with an aborted take-off about a week ago and the aircraft overran the runway.
What do you think would happen to the child - or any other passenger for that matter - who was not in their seat with seatbelt fasted? If that's not a real safety issue, I don't know what is.
Yes, it is a safety issue when a passenger is not in their seat with their seatbelt fastened at pushback time. It's an FAA reg and for good reason.
Please don't play the 'terror' card - you're mixing apples with oranges.
Have you ever been on an aircraft with an aborted take-off followed by heavy braking to bring the aircraft to a halt? I have and it's not the most pleasant of experiences. FWIW, a fellow FTer was on an aircraft with an aborted take-off about a week ago and the aircraft overran the runway.
What do you think would happen to the child - or any other passenger for that matter - who was not in their seat with seatbelt fasted? If that's not a real safety issue, I don't know what is.
It is you mixing apples with oranges. To my knowledge the child didn't get up as the plane was taxing. The child wouldn't get in her seat. That's completely different. The pilot wouldn't leave the gate if all passengers are not in their seat. There was no incident of a 3-year old getting up while the plane was riding down the runways. My goodness how you have an imagination.
But she is a three year old. When you were three, I bet you had your moments as well. Roll with it and suck it up and just be happy your life is so wonderful and in control that you can judge everyone else's life. Its really apparent that you are perfect and never made a mistake - ever. Great for you! You know, you and PTravel ought to spend some time together. You both have a "sky is falling" outlook on life.
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA (Recently of San Francisco)
Programs: UA-1P,SPG-Gold,Marriott-Silver
Posts: 10,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by WebTraveler
But she is a three year old. When you were three, I bet you had your moments as well. Roll with it and suck it up and just be happy your life is so wonderful and in control that you can judge everyone else's life. Its really apparent that you are perfect and never made a mistake - ever. Great for you! You know, you and PTravel ought to spend some time together. You both have a "sky is falling" outlook on life.
Of course, you have yet to respond to any of the substantive points raised:
1. FARs prohibit push back unless everyone is in their seat.
2. Flights are assigned departure slots by ATC -- miss the slot and you go to the back of the line, having to wait for another one. At a busy airport, this can add an hour or more delay.
3. Delayed flights mean crews can go overtime, resulting in cancellation.
4. Delayed flights mean passengers miss connections.
5. Delayed flights mean equipment isn't where it needs to be, causing a ripple effect all through the system.
Instead of gratuitous insults and sanctimonious and hollow philosophizing, you'd have a lot more credibility if you responded to the substance of posts.
You know, I have. I have acknowledged that every one of these things can happen. What more do you want me to say? I have acknowlged it. You simply refuse to accept that I have said that. Go ahead and look back. It's there. Let's not repeat this cycle again. We've been through it, over and over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTravel
Of course, you have yet to respond to any of the substantive points raised:
1. FARs prohibit push back unless everyone is in their seat.
2. Flights are assigned departure slots by ATC -- miss the slot and you go to the back of the line, having to wait for another one. At a busy airport, this can add an hour or more delay.
3. Delayed flights mean crews can go overtime, resulting in cancellation.
4. Delayed flights mean passengers miss connections.
5. Delayed flights mean equipment isn't where it needs to be, causing a ripple effect all through the system.
Instead of gratuitous insults and sanctimonious and hollow philosophizing, you'd have a lot more credibility if you responded to the substance of posts.
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA (Recently of San Francisco)
Programs: UA-1P,SPG-Gold,Marriott-Silver
Posts: 10,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by WebTraveler
You know, I have. I have acknowledged that every one of these things can happen. What more do you want me to say? I have acknowlged it. You simply refuse to accept that I have said that. Go ahead and look back. It's there. Let's not repeat this cycle again. We've been through it, over and over again.
Sorry, you opened the door. You don't get to take cheap shots and then say, "oh, I've acknowledged that." All of these things that you've "acknowledged" represent hundreds and even thousands of people being inconvenienced. That doesn't get handled by saying, "When you were three, I bet you had your moments as well. Roll with it and suck it up and just be happy your life is so wonderful and in control that you can judge everyone else's life."
It's beyond unreasonable to say, "roll with it and suck it up." Get the damn kid off the plane.
What do you think would happen to the child - or any other passenger for that matter - who was not in their seat with seatbelt fasted? If that's not a real safety issue, I don't know what is.
and you can bet your last dollar that exactly those idiot parents, who were unable to get their brat in check, would have taken the airline to court for crazy money if anything like this would have happened.
come on gooddoers, get a life!
__________________ > "THOSE WHO LIVE BY THE SWORD GET SHOT BY THOSE WHO DON'T"<
Sorry, you opened the door. You don't get to take cheap shots and then say, "oh, I've acknowledged that." All of these things that you've "acknowledged" represent hundreds and even thousands of people being inconvenienced. That doesn't get handled by saying, "When you were three, I bet you had your moments as well. Roll with it and suck it up and just be happy your life is so wonderful and in control that you can judge everyone else's life."
It's beyond unreasonable to say, "roll with it and suck it up." Get the damn kid off the plane.
Get real. These things, or other things that delay a flight for a few minutes happen every day. If it is not this it is something else. You expect perfection in life and no one to get in your own way. You are also so perfect that its easy for you to judge everyone else by your own standards.
The child was removed from the plane, your desire, so are you going to still argue that point? You are so ridiculous, and despite your happy claim across this board to be childless and spouseless, I know the real reason why.
Get real. These things, or other things that delay a flight for a few minutes happen every day. If it is not this it is something else. You expect perfection in life and no one to get in your own way. You are also so perfect that its easy for you to judge everyone else by your own standards.
The child was removed from the plane, your desire, so are you going to still argue that point? You are so ridiculous, and despite your happy claim across this board to be childless and spouseless, I know the real reason why.
What is your point? I have read and re-read the thousands of words you have contributed to this thread, and I still can't figure out what it is you are trying to say.
You claim you have not and do not defend the parents in this case, yet you attack anybody who suggests the airline did the right thing.
So a passenger disrupted a flight and was removed. Big deal.Why are you so upset?
May I respectfully suggest you take your own advice and just "suck it up" and move on?
__________________ fight intellectual poverty- give an OmniLib a clue!
