Newsstand - Southwest kicks mom, cranky kid off Calif. flight

Kids will be kids, but one cranky 2-year-old was acting too much his age for a Southwest Airlines flight crew who kicked him off a plane getting ready to leave for San Jose.

Pamela Root says she was confident her son Adam's screams of "Go! Plane! Go!" and "I want Daddy!" would subside once the plane took off Monday in Amarillo, Texas.

But she says the plane taxied back to the gate and the pair was escorted off.

http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/2009/10/30/20091030cranky-flyer-ON.html

I think I like Sothwest Airlines :D

I think I like Sothwest Airlines :D
The linked story does not make it likely that other crews will emulate the move.
" A spokesman for Southwest Airlines says the carrier has apologized to a mother who was kicked off a plane along with her unruly 2-year-old earlier this week.

Spokesman Chris Mainz said the airline called Pamela Root on Friday to apologize. He says Root also will receive a refund and a $300 travel voucher."

More context needed. Doesn't seem like "Go! Plane! Go!" and "I want Daddy!" warranted removal.

Spokesman Chris Mainz said the airline called Pamela Root on Friday to apologize. He says Root also will receive a refund and a $300 travel voucher."

Sounds like good customer service, but on the other hand, I'm a firm believer in standing behind a call that a trusted employee makes, even if it costs a customer. I'd rather have a positive work environment and everyone knowing that I've got my employees' backs than kill morale by always second-guessing my employees (at least once they've reached the stage where I can trust them).

It sounds callous and against every mantra of customer service (well, except Dogbert's ;)), but there will always be more customers coming, whereas good employees are not always easy to find.

Sounds like good customer service, but on the other hand, I'm a firm believer in standing behind a call that a trusted employee makes, even if it costs a customer. I'd rather have a positive work environment and everyone knowing that I've got my employees' backs than kill morale by always second-guessing my employees (at least once they've reached the stage where I can trust them).

It sounds callous and against every mantra of customer service (well, except Dogbert's ;)), but there will always be more customers coming, whereas good employees are not always easy to find.

100% true...always take care of your suppliers and your employees and the customers will keep coming !!

More context needed. Doesn't seem like "Go! Plane! Go!" and "I want Daddy!" warranted removal.

I agree. With stories such as this, we aren't getting the full picture. Was the child merely loud, or was he bouncing around on his seat? Was he over tired and hungry and the mother didn't bring anything with her to pacify him?

There are simply too many details missing to really make a judgement as so whether Southwest was correct or not in removing the child and his mother from the plane.

Wirelessly posted (The Roaming Phone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

Sounds like good customer service, but on the other hand, I'm a firm believer in standing behind a call that a trusted employee makes, even if it costs a customer. I'd rather have a positive work environment and everyone knowing that I've got my employees' backs than kill morale by always second-guessing my employees (at least once they've reached the stage where I can trust them).

It sounds callous and against every mantra of customer service (well, except Dogbert's ;)), but there will always be more customers coming, whereas good employees are not always easy to find.

100% true...always take care of your suppliers and your employees and the customers will keep coming !!

Actually, wasn't it Southwest that put forth a policy of "Employees first, customers second, and shareholders last"?

Granted, we're operating without all the facts, here, but the more I think about it, the less I'm liking Southwest's course of action here, especially if the mother was antagonistic to the flight attendant or could clearly not control the son. (That's one thing I most certainly will not put up with—abusive treatment of my employees.) I highly doubt it was just a case of a screaming child—airlines take off with those all the time—and I'd suspect there was more involved to get the captain to pull back to the gate. If that's the case, then shame on Southwest for inverting their company values. :td:

Wirelessly posted (The Roaming Phone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)



Actually, wasn't it Southwest that put forth a policy of "Employees first, customers second, and shareholders last"?

Granted, we're operating without all the facts, here, but the more I think about it, the less I'm liking Southwest's course of action here, especially if the mother was antagonistic to the flight attendant or could clearly not control the son. (That's one thing I most certainly will not put up with—abusive treatment of my employees.) I highly doubt it was just a case of a screaming child—airlines take off with those all the time—and I'd suspect there was more involved to get the captain to pull back to the gate. If that's the case, then shame on Southwest for inverting their company values. :td:

Southwest's apology and refund had nothing to do with second guessing an employee (whose action *I* would have supported), and everything to do with a front page story with picture in the San Jose Mercury News. WN needs to mitigate the chance of further media debacle - which is precisely why calling the newspaper and whining when your little snot gets thrown off a flight works :td:

Having sat near some of these cranky kids on flights, I say ^ to Southwest Airlines. Good PR to give mom a phone call, but other passengers didn't have to suffer. I get so tired of kids kicking my seat, crying and screaming and just totally misbehaving.

We may not have all the facts, but I applaud the flight attendant for saying enough was enough for this kid. Been on flights with way too many of them.

After the Merc threw the spotlight on the whole thing to begin with, one of their columnists has weighed in:


Herhold: My kid's screaming? Throw me off the plane (http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_13680021?nclick_check=1)


On their forum, with over 1700 votes in so far, over 80% would have thrown them off the plane.

This story sounds awfully familiar. Didn't something just like this happen in the past year or so?

The story linked to in the OP said, "The crew bounced Root and her son Adam off the San Jose-bound flight because passengers could not hear preflight safety announcements. "

This story sounds awfully familiar. Didn't something just like this happen in the past year or so?

That was about http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/newsstand/1006068-breast-feeding-mother-sues-delta.html ...

That was about http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/newsstand/1006068-breast-feeding-mother-sues-delta.html ...

I'm pretty sure there was another "screaming kid kicked off plane" story. Maybe this one:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/newsstand/838335-mother-autistic-child-removed-flight.html

Sounds like good customer service, but on the other hand, I'm a firm believer in standing behind a call that a trusted employee makes, even if it costs a customer. I'd rather have a positive work environment and everyone knowing that I've got my employees' backs than kill morale by always second-guessing my employees (at least once they've reached the stage where I can trust them).

It sounds callous and against every mantra of customer service (well, except Dogbert's ;)), but there will always be more customers coming, whereas good employees are not always easy to find.

A spokesperson for Southwest Airlines says the air carrier regrets the inconvenience Pamela Root and her son Adam went through after flight attendants removed the pair from the plane before take off in Amarillo, Texas. She added the airline fully backs the flight crew's decision.

The airline says the staff did the best they could to calm the child who was screaming before takeoff. Southwest gave Root a refund plus a 300 dollar voucher to cover her expenses.

http://kliv.com/Southwest-Airlines-apologizes-for-removal-incident/5567489

Good for Southwest (-:

If there is more to this, I imagine SW would have made it public by now. However, I'm amazed that people are just willing to ^ and ^^ SW for what seems to be a very callous act - i.e., throwing out a customer that has the mental capacity and exuberance of a, well two year old. It's not like all of you came flying out of your mother's birth canal age 23, with excellent manners and etiquette.

It's not like all of you came flying out of your mother's birth canal age 23, with excellent manners and etiquette.

Well, no, but my parents didn't just take me everywhere they went and expect everyone else to put up with a small child. I stayed home with a sitter, or whatever, unless I was old enough and able to behave. Many of today's parents think it's okay to drag their kid(s) everywhere they go regardless.

Bad behavior was not tolerated. And my parents would have been extremely embarrased to have a misbehaving child out in public.

According to San Jose Merc, mom purposely did not feed kid so he can be fed on board to ease his ear popping problems. So it was a case of self-indulgent, inconsiderate-to-others mom who would not calm kid knowing that a little immediate feeding would eliminate the screaming.

Having sat near some of these cranky kids on flights, I say ^ to Southwest Airlines. Good PR to give mom a phone call, but other passengers didn't have to suffer. I get so tired of kids kicking my seat, crying and screaming and just totally misbehaving.

We may not have all the facts, but I applaud the flight attendant for saying enough was enough for this kid. Been on flights with way too many of them.

I agree 100%.

Well, no, but my parents didn't just take me everywhere they went and expect everyone else to put up with a small child. I stayed home with a sitter, or whatever, unless I was old enough and able to behave. Many of today's parents think it's okay to drag their kid(s) everywhere they go regardless.

Bad behavior was not tolerated. And my parents would have been extremely embarrased to have a misbehaving child out in public.


Parents cannot control childen all of the time, sometimes it does not matter what you do, a child will just not settle.

From what I understand, the reason behind them being taken off the aircraft is that no-one could here the safety announcements therefore it became a safety issue rather than just an unruly 2 year old.

If that is the case then fine, as safety is of course what comes first. :)

I agree with the actions and the outcome, if not the original article (talk about short on facts). But I'm wondering, is this an IDB situation? I would guess not and that the passenger is question is not entitled to any compensation b/c it's a safety-related denial.

my parents didn't just take me everywhere they went and expect everyone else to put up with a small child. I stayed home with a sitter, or whatever, unless I was old enough and able to behave. Many of today's parents think it's okay to drag their kid(s) everywhere they go regardless.



Yeah, heaven forbid a mother taking her child to grandma and grandpa's house. Jeez. You make it sound like the mom was dragging her 2-year-old to the symphony. It's pretty hilarious that you suggest that a small child stay home with a sitter so the mommy can go visit the grandparents by herself. :rolleyes:


According to San Jose Merc, mom purposely did not feed kid so he can be fed on board to ease his ear popping problems. So it was a case of self-indulgent, inconsiderate-to-others mom who would not calm kid knowing that a little immediate feeding would eliminate the screaming.

So many parenting experts here. You're saying that some food would stop the child from saying "Go, plane, go"? Do you know this for sure or are you just guessing? Because you sound pretty confident. Alternatively, you're suggesting that a mother should deliberately subject her small child to painful ear popping? I'm not saying this mother did the right thing, because I don't have all the details. But I do know that it's easy to criticize from afar. :(

Yeah, heaven forbid a mother taking her child to grandma and grandpa's house. Jeez. You make it sound like the mom was dragging her 2-year-old to the symphony. It's pretty hilarious that you suggest that a small child stay home with a sitter so the mommy can go visit the grandparents by herself. :rolleyes:And you make it sound like travel with children that scream uncontrollably is perfectly acceptable.

So many parenting experts here. You're saying that some food would stop the child from saying "Go, plane, go"? Do you know this for sure or are you just guessing? Because you sound pretty confident. Alternatively, you're suggesting that a mother should deliberately subject her small child to painful ear popping? I'm not saying this mother did the right thing, because I don't have all the details. But I do know that it's easy to criticize from afar. :(I don't criticize this mother for poor parenting. As you note, what do I know about parenting? I criticize her for her selfish disregard for others around her.

If there is more to this, I imagine SW would have made it public by now. However, I'm amazed that people are just willing to ^ and ^^ SW for what seems to be a very callous act - i.e., throwing out a customer that has the mental capacity and exuberance of a, well two year old. It's not like all of you came flying out of your mother's birth canal age 23, with excellent manners and etiquette.

We flew with a 4 year old, 2+ and a 1 year old and they did not disrupt the flight and in fact were very well behaved. So why should passengers be disturbed by an unruly child. What if child did not settle down and misbehaved the whole flight? Obviously it was the captain that made the final decision to return. More to the story than just what has posted I suspect.

If there is more to this, I imagine SW would have made it public by now. However, I'm amazed that people are just willing to ^ and ^^ SW for what seems to be a very callous act - i.e., throwing out a customer that has the mental capacity and exuberance of a, well two year old. It's not like all of you came flying out of your mother's birth canal age 23, with excellent manners and etiquette.
It's not the child who is at fault for acting like a child, but the mother, for her blatant disregard of other passengers. If the kid can't avoid being a nuisance, don't bring the kid on-board.

It's not the child who is at fault for acting like a child, but the mother, for her blatant disregard of other passengers. If the kid can't avoid being a nuisance, don't bring the kid on-board.

My problem is that people are cheering the decision to remove the child as if they've won some sort of major victory... against the two year old. However, I agree that the parent(s) need to do all they can to keep the child occupied, which may or may not have happened in this case.

My problem is that people are cheering the decision to remove the child as if they've won some sort of major victory... against the two year old. However, I agree that the parent(s) need to do all they can to keep the child occupied, which may or may not have happened in this case.I don't know that people are necessarily cheering for removal of the child. The way I look at it is this: If you, as a passenger, bring on-board a source of nuisance, whether it is an obnoxious pet, a boom box, or screaming child, you are the source of the imposition, not what you brought on board with you. I don't buy the, "well, he's just a child!" excuse. If a child is too young to control and represents a potential nuisance to other passengers, don't bring him on board 'til he's older. That's what my parents did and, as best as I can tell, that's what most parents of my generation did. This mother was wrong for bringing a child that was too young on board in the first place. I cheeer for her removal.

I don't know that people are necessarily cheering for removal of the child. The way I look at it is this: If you, as a passenger, bring on-board a source of nuisance, whether it is an obnoxious pet, a boom box, or screaming child, you are the source of the imposition, not what you brought on board with you. I don't buy the, "well, he's just a child!" excuse. If a child is too young to control and represents a potential nuisance to other passengers, don't bring him on board 'til he's older. That's what my parents did and, as best as I can tell, that's what most parents of my generation did. This mother was wrong for bringing a child that was too young on board in the first place. I cheeer for her removal.

I am very uncomfortable with this position. I know it's about the right to be comfortable. However, there is also a right to travel, and children, as members of society have this right. Parents can do all that is humanly possible to keep a 2 year old occupied, and frankly I consider myself a master at this (just look at how my posts keep some Omni posters occupied for days on other threads :D - j/k), but if there is something going on with the child its' going to be difficult. If we are all living in a society, it's one of those things one has to put up with, like drunk people walking past your house singing at 2:00 in the morning, or noise from a party down the street, some pratt letting fireworks off every night between July 5th and when he runs out.

Only thing that mom had to do was spend 50 cents to buy him a sucker.

I am very uncomfortable with this position. I know it's about the right to be comfortable. However, there is also a right to travel, and children, as members of society have this right.My position has nothing to do with rights, but with simple courtesy. Imposing on others is rude. If traveling with children means imposing on others, then that is rude.

Parents can do all that is humanly possible to keep a 2 year old occupied, and frankly I consider myself a master at this (just look at how my posts keep some Omni posters occupied for days on other threads :D - j/k), True. ;)

but if there is something going on with the child its' going to be difficult. If we are all living in a society, it's one of those things one has to put up with, like drunk people walking past your house singing at 2:00 in the morning, or noise from a party down the street, some pratt letting fireworks off every night between July 5th and when he runs out.The other things that you describe are rude as well. First, I should be clear: as a practical matter, the parent who does everything in their power to control their child is far less less culpable than the one who does not, and I'm sure that you're one who does the best he can to minimize any imposition. As a general proposition, however, I do not agree that children belong everywhere in an adult society. Very young children, i.e. those who lack volitional control of their conduct, don't belong in fine restaurants, at theaters, etc. Their presence is at odds with the purpose of the activity, and they are brought along, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of their parents. I believe the same rationale applies to flying. There are, of course, exceptions -- times when children have to fly for the benefit of the children, e.g. seeking medical care, re-locating, etc. However, these are the exceptions. As someone else noted, when I was a child, family vacations consisted of car trips. When I was old enough to control my behavior (I think I was 25 or 26 ;)), the scope of our vacations were expanded to include air travel. My parents would have been mortified if I carried on in a plane the way the kid on the Southwest flight did -- it simply wouldn't have occurred to them to inflict that kind of imposition on a planeload of strangers.

My position has nothing to do with rights, but with simple courtesy. Imposing on others is rude. If traveling with children means imposing on others, then that is rude.

True. ;)

The other things that you describe are rude as well. First, I should be clear: as a practical matter, the parent who does everything in their power to control their child is far less less culpable than the one who does not, and I'm sure that you're one who does the best he can to minimize any imposition. As a general proposition, however, I do not agree that children belong everywhere in an adult society. Very young children, i.e. those who lack volitional control of their conduct, don't belong in fine restaurants, at theaters, etc. Their presence is at odds with the purpose of the activity, and they are brought along, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of their parents. I believe the same rationale applies to flying. There are, of course, exceptions -- times when children have to fly for the benefit of the children, e.g. seeking medical care, re-locating, etc. However, these are the exceptions. As someone else noted, when I was a child, family vacations consisted of car trips. When I was old enough to control my behavior (I think I was 25 or 26 ;)), the scope of our vacations were expanded to include air travel. My parents would have been mortified if I carried on in a plane the way the kid on the Southwest flight did -- it simply wouldn't have occurred to them to inflict that kind of imposition on a planeload of strangers.


I agree fully with the rationale you use for children in dining establishments, theatre's, etc. However, I think air travel is an area that participants in a modern society rely on almost to the same degree as they rely on healthcare facilities. It is an imposition on the sensibilities of one's fellow passengers if a child doesn't behave and I think it's perfectly acceptable for passengers to ask the parent to do more to help the kid become more comfortable. Perhaps apply a penalty for disturbing the peace in extreme circumstances?

Just to add, if being able to be in complete control of ones self was a requirement for boarding an aircraft, I might never be allowed to fly!

However, I think air travel is an area that participants in a modern society rely on almost to the same degree as they rely on healthcare facilities.

People in modern society probably rely more on Starbucks than health care. I still don't consider it a human rights issue. Some would disagree ;)

I also am from the camp that grew up taking nothing but car trips until I was 9, when I was allowed to go on a train. Didn't fly until I was 18. And that wasn't that long ago (cough) ;)

Good for Southwest (-: ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

My problem is that people are cheering the decision to remove the child as if they've won some sort of major victory... against the two year old. However, I agree that the parent(s) need to do all they can to keep the child occupied, which may or may not have happened in this case.

It's not against the 2 year old, it's against the uncaring parents.

It's not against the 2 year old, it's against the uncaring parents.

Right, because obviously the mother "didn't care". :rolleyes: If only she had bothered to consult all of the childcare experts here on FT before getting on the plane. Shame on her.

The story linked to in the OP said, "The crew bounced Root and her son Adam off the San Jose-bound flight because passengers could not hear preflight safety announcements. "

Ummm. this kid was making a LOT of noise then... And based on Mom's reaction I bet the words "NO" aren't used a lot with this kid.


Honestly if I had embarrassed my parents to the point of getting thrown off a plane I have a feeling the newspaper would have been reporting my death.. not the fact that the airline was "mean to me" ;)

Ummm. this kid was making a LOT of noise then... And based on Mom's reaction I bet the words "NO" aren't used a lot with this kid.


Honestly if I had embarrassed my parents to the point of getting thrown off a plane I have a feeling the newspaper would have been reporting my death.. not the fact that the airline was "mean to me" ;)

I see that much these days--parents "enabling" their kids to do whatever they want. You guys traveling most of the year complaining about this kid aren't off the hook either--you just weren't around while your wife was dealing with a howling child.

Both groups I pity.

Right, because obviously the mother "didn't care". :rolleyes: If only she had bothered to consult all of the childcare experts here on FT before getting on the plane. Shame on her.

You might have said it "tongue in cheek" but in fact that is not that silly a notion.

Right, because obviously the mother "didn't care". :rolleyes: If only she had bothered to consult all of the childcare experts here on FT before getting on the plane. Shame on her.

Watch what happens with the problem children. Never once have I seen a parent trying to deal with one more than haphazardly.

The other things that you describe are rude as well. First, I should be clear: as a practical matter, the parent who does everything in their power to control their child is far less less culpable than the one who does not, and I'm sure that you're one who does the best he can to minimize any imposition. As a general proposition, however, I do not agree that children belong everywhere in an adult society. Very young children, i.e. those who lack volitional control of their conduct, don't belong in fine restaurants, at theaters, etc. Their presence is at odds with the purpose of the activity, and they are brought along, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of their parents. I believe the same rationale applies to flying. There are, of course, exceptions -- times when children have to fly for the benefit of the children, e.g. seeking medical care, re-locating, etc. However, these are the exceptions. As someone else noted, when I was a child, family vacations consisted of car trips. When I was old enough to control my behavior (I think I was 25 or 26 ;)), the scope of our vacations were expanded to include air travel. My parents would have been mortified if I carried on in a plane the way the kid on the Southwest flight did -- it simply wouldn't have occurred to them to inflict that kind of imposition on a planeload of strangers.

Well actually there are restaurants that encourage young children for fine dining, try http://www.manoir.com/web/olem/packages/4_126970.jsp

for instance.

But that's a digression the purpose of flying is a means of transportation, exactly the same as the school bus, your car, etc. It is not in any way analagous to a performance of La Boheme.

And a lot of parents end up taking their kids to Disney World or similar anyway - not done for the parents' benefit.

Well actually there are restaurants that encourage young children for fine dining, try http://www.manoir.com/web/olem/packages/4_126970.jsp

for instance.Thanks for the info. I'll be sure to avoid it at all costs.

But that's a digression the purpose of flying is a means of transportation, exactly the same as the school bus, your car, etc. It is not in any way analagous to a performance of La Boheme.And I disagree. Your screaming child is not allowed in my car. School buses are intended for screaming children. Public buses allow me to get off at the next stop if your child screams. Airplanes, on the other hand, are locked aluminum tubes in which all pax are captive audiences. Screaming children are an imposition on other passengers and parents who bring them on board are simply rude.

And a lot of parents end up taking their kids to Disney World or similar anyway - not done for the parents' benefit.So all those kids flying between SFO and JFK are on their way to Disney World? As I said earlier, when I was growing up, a family vacation was a car trip. It wasn't until I was old enough that my parents could count on my not being a nuisance to anyone that we flew.

And I disagree. Your screaming child is not allowed in my car. School buses are intended for screaming children. Public buses allow me to get off at the next stop if your child screams. Airplanes, on the other hand, are locked aluminum tubes in which all pax are captive audiences. Screaming children are an imposition on other passengers and parents who bring them on board are simply rude.

If you don't want to fly, you can certainly take the bus from New York to Miami or wherever. I can't imagine it being very convenient to get off in Georgia because you didn't care for the other pax. And the bus is not necessarily a cheaper option either.

Honestly if I had embarrassed my parents to the point of getting thrown off a plane I have a feeling the newspaper would have been reporting my death.. not the fact that the airline was "mean to me" ;)

Ditto for me. :D

You guys traveling most of the year complaining about this kid aren't off the hook either--you just weren't around while your wife was dealing with a howling child.

Both groups I pity.

I pity those who tend to use sweeping generalizations to describe others.

Only thing that mom had to do was spend 50 cents to buy him a sucker

Bingo. I've never failed at attempts to "bribe" my children.

FWIW, I've traveled with 2 kids, aged 17 months apart, from SF to Asia twice a year since they were 6 months old for 12 years; and it was back in the days when they didn't have nonstop flights. Screaming and crying on board? Never happened !

If you don't want to fly, you can certainly take the bus from New York to Miami or wherever. I can't imagine it being very convenient to get off in Georgia because you didn't care for the other pax. And the bus is not necessarily a cheaper option either.I was referring to city buses. As I said in my previous post:

"As I said earlier, when I was growing up, a family vacation was a car trip. It wasn't until I was old enough that my parents could count on my not being a nuisance to anyone that we flew."

These threads are, as usual, useless. I'm still going to have 2 year old Jasmine in a seat up front with me, and you are still going to have to deal with it.

:D

These threads are, as usual, useless. I'm still going to have 2 year old Jasmine in a seat up front with me, and you are still going to have to deal with it. :D

I agree and I like your attitude. I sat six across on the bench row of an inter-city bus for hours across Yunnan, China, next to a tribal minority woman and her lap child across both our laps. Child and I played the "hello" game, and the child was totally happy the whole time. I am sure your kid is a sweetie, too.

If a child is too young to control and represents a potential nuisance to other passengers, don't bring him on board 'til he's older.
Too young to control? As in you think they get easier to controll as they get older? Have you ever met a teenager? :D

Too young to control? As in you think they get easier to controll as they get older? Have you ever met a teenager? :D

hahah, at least with teenagers they can listen to some emo music and be quiet =]