United MileagePlus (Consolidated) - United loses a 10 year old in ORD

http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2012/08/united-airlines-lost-my-friends-10-year-old-daughter-and-didnt-care.html

Here is the headline: United was flying Phoebe as an unaccompanied minor on June 30th, from San Francisco to Chicago, with a transfer to Grand Rapids. No one showed-up in Chicago to help her transfer, so although her plane made it, she missed the connection. Most crucially, United employees consistently refused to take action to help assist or comfort Phoebe or to help her parents locate her despite their cries for help to numerous United employees.

:mad:

http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2012/08/united-airlines-lost-my-friends-10-year-old-daughter-and-didnt-care.html

Here is the headline: United was flying Phoebe as an unaccompanied minor on June 30th, from San Francisco to Chicago, with a transfer to Grand Rapids. No one showed-up in Chicago to help her transfer, so although her plane made it, she missed the connection. Most crucially, United employees consistently refused to take action to help assist or comfort Phoebe or to help her parents locate her despite their cries for help to numerous United employees.

:mad:

YIKES! I personally would never let my children fly as unaccompanied minor, but that is just me.

I flew unaccompanied when I was 9 years old and also had to transfer. It went fine. But luckily I was on Cathay Pacific.

These parents can afford to fly a child to camp halfway across the country but they're too cheap to spring for a disposal cell phone so she can contact them if there is a problem?

Visit the link and read the letter the parents sent to United.. I didn't bother reading the blog post because it was written by a friend..the letter itself has the info from the parents.

What a horrible ordeal! People pay for this service and there is absolutely no excuse for it to go awry like it did in this situation. United owes them big time.

These parents can afford to fly a child to camp halfway across the country but they're too cheap to spring for a disposal cell phone so she can contact them if there is a problem?

You pay United for the unaccompanied minor service, they're supposed to sort this out for you. And it's not like a phone is ever far away when you're in an airport; I'm shocked that the kid could spend hours wandering around without finding anyone to help her at all though.

I'm curious as to what the kid was actually doing for all these hours though. Can you really wander around ORD as an unaccompanied minor for *hours* without finding someone who'll at least send you to someone who can sort out the whole "where the hell is my unaccompanied minor escort" problem?

They didn't LOSE her, per se; they just caused a passenger to mis-connect as a result of their generic incompetence / indifference, and then also delayed her bags for a while. That's not news, that's another day at United that ends in "y". Only the age of the traveler is different. On that front, I'm just happy to see that the new United does not discriminate in the service it provides on the basis of age.

I'm curious as to what the kid was actually doing for all these hours though. Can you really wander around ORD as an unaccompanied minor for *hours* without finding someone who'll at least send you to someone who can sort out the whole "where the hell is my unaccompanied minor escort" problem?

Yeah I didn't quite get that either...as I recall the FA's on board the flight should have known there was a UM aboard and not allowed them to leave the plane until their escort was there. The kid must have gotten off without anyone noticing. But you'd certainly think that as soon as they approached a UA gate agent the agent should have seen their wrist band and known who to contact. That all seems odd to me.. unless the kid approached other people who were not UA employees. Still the FA's should have told the kid not to leave the plane. I think there were multiple failures in the process.

I am not surprised...it has been a while since I have had to deal with UAs but both times CO could not account for them on the other end.....the kids and those picking them up knew where they were but CO had no clue and they had no answer beyond "sorry"

Let's stick to the topic of what happened with this UM and UA and not on the general issue of unaccompanied minors.

iluv2fly
Moderator, UA

What confuses me the most from the bullet points is this:

When Anne and Perry tried to file a complaint, note the system is so bad that they wouldn't let them write it themselves and the United employee refused their request to have it read back to be fact-checked, plus there are other twists worth repeating:

Granted their email system isn't the greatest, but I don't think I've ever had an issue filing a complaint.

And then:

We asked if the bags being lost for three days and camp having to make 5 trips to the airport vs. one was something we would be compensated for

Why was the camp making trips? Unless something has drastically changed, isn't UA obligated to deliver baggage?

And this part is laughable (at least about B6 and WN):

But perhaps United senior executives ought to at least take a look at what happens at JetBlue, Virgin America, and Southwest. They make mistakes too, it happens, but when they do, I nearly always feel empathy for my situation and that the people are trying to make the situation right.

B6 is the sole reason why legislators decided to enact the DOT3 rule and WN ranks among the worst airlines to help in an irregular operation (read = this isn't towards their customer satisfaction score).

While it will never happen, I would love to hear the information from UAL's side. Always two sides to every story. Children tend to fear reprimand for their actions, so they find something they can blame it on. When I worked for the airlines, I would have an angry parent show up requesting to speak to a supervisor and after listening to the "how could you let my child miss a flight" and "I'm never putting my child on xxx airlines because you (pointing at me) made him/her miss the flight" I would meet the flight that had the child on it, talk to the F/A about the child and come to find out that they were so scared after their initial flight that they didn't want to fly on the next flight, or that the child didn't want to go on this trip because he/she thought it was stupid. As opposed to telling their parent(s), and in return getting reprimanded, it turns into "xxx airlines made me miss my flight!!!".

15+ years in the customer service industry, I have seen, heard, and smelled (bs) it all. If this is true, then shame on UAL for this. But, if there is another story to be heard and the real story comes back on the parent's as opposed to united, shame on the parents. I've seen it both ways. Take every story with a grain of salt until facts are presented, as opposed to a "friend's" one sided sob story.

15+ years in the customer service industry, I have seen, heard, and smelled (bs) it all. If this is true, then shame on UAL for this. But, if there is another story to be heard and the real story comes back on the parent's as opposed to united, shame on the parents. I've seen it both ways. Take every story with a grain of salt until facts are presented, as opposed to a "friend's" one sided sob story.



I'd say this sums it up. If true, shame on UA, and they should pay dearly.


If not? Shame on the family and kid.

They didn't LOSE her, per se; they just caused a passenger to mis-connect as a result of their generic incompetence / indifference, and then also delayed her bags for a while.

Yes they DID lose her. The person that was supposed to pick her up off the flight never showed. That the girl stuck around UA personnel was good for her, but they didn't keep her accompanied and that was the whole point...

If she is not in the company of a handler, she is lost. She was old enough to figure out how to find people who could get her back on track, luckily.

For something like this, I would sue the airline in small claim court in my own town. Let them incur the expenses to send lawyers from headquarters to defend the indefensible before a jury. I would invoke gross negligence and would claim a reimbursement for the cost of the ticket, the cost of the minor accompanying service, and an amount for moral distress and loss of wages, up to the maximum allowed by the small claim court in my jurisdiction. This is fairly simple to do and requires no lawyer.

Yes they DID lose her. The person that was supposed to pick her up off the flight never showed. That the girl stuck around UA personnel was good for her, but they didn't keep her accompanied and that was the whole point...

If she is not in the company of a handler, she is lost. She was old enough to figure out how to find people who could get her back on track, luckily.

I believe UA contracts this job out to a 3rd party. I expect they would push the blame on that 3rd party anyhow.

I thought how the process works is that the FA keeps the UA on the plane with thh paperwork and then gives the paperwork and child over to the 3rd party. The 3rd party takes the UA to the next flight and hands the UA over to a FA along with the paperwork. The question is, where did this process break down?

While there is no excuse for United not meeting her at the plane, there's also no excuse for a ten year old, unless there is more to the story than the blog post, not to e able to make a phone call, find a policeman, security guard, or store clerk to help them call home.

I also don't believe the employee on the phone hung up the phone and fifteen minutes later in Chicago, found a ten year old child. Unless the child was in her office lobby, that's not at all remotely possible.

Yes, somebody should have been there, but there's so many gaping holes in this story it's just hard to believe any of it.

As I read the parents' letter, I don't think that the child wandered the airport. I think that the escort failed to show up, making her miss her flight. That was failure #1. Failure #2 was not notifying her parents and the camp that she had missed her flight. The child was with adults and relied on them to make the calls. They did not. The story told in the parents' letter hangs together pretty well for me.

Okay, I read the whole thing and fail to find anything showing that the little girl was ever lost or left unattended. As far as the FA's go they probably were on the phone looking for someone to get her to her next flight. Just because the little girl did not see them out in the jetway on the phone doesn't mean they were not trying to assist her. Having been a FA, I know how seriously they take UA's. The parents claim no one helped her but somehow she got from the plane to the next gate and reading between the lines it was the employees that must have done that.

These parents can afford to fly a child to camp halfway across the country but they're too cheap to spring for a disposal cell phone so she can contact them if there is a problem?

Kids usually aren't allowed to have cell phones or any other electronics in summer camps.

Yeah I didn't quite get that either...as I recall the FA's on board the flight should have known there was a UM aboard and not allowed them to leave the plane until their escort was there. The kid must have gotten off without anyone noticing. But you'd certainly think that as soon as they approached a UA gate agent the agent should have seen their wrist band and known who to contact. That all seems odd to me.. unless the kid approached other people who were not UA employees. Still the FA's should have told the kid not to leave the plane. I think there were multiple failures in the process.

What do you mean the kid was told not to leave the plane?? I imagine the plane and FAs had to go their own merry ways after everyone deplaned. Nobody showed up to pick the kid up; was she supposed to fly to the plane's next destination?

Okay, I read the whole thing and fail to find anything showing that the little girl was ever lost or left unattended. As far as the FA's go they probably were on the phone looking for someone to get her to her next flight. Just because the little girl did not see them out in the jetway on the phone doesn't mean they were not trying to assist her. Having been a FA, I know how seriously they take UA's. The parents claim no one helped her but somehow she got from the plane to the next gate and reading between the lines it was the employees that must have done that.

What it looks like to me: after nobody showed up to pick the kid up, she was escorted off the plane by the SFO-ORD FA, handed off to GA working the gate and told to sit tight. The GA was busy sending off the next flight and told her to wait, hoping that perhaps UM service would show up. After the flight departed, GA looked at the paperwork - the itinerary is in the packet hanging over UM's neck - and took her to the ORD-GRR UX flight, which has departed by then. She was either handed off to a UX GA, or taken to the UX ORD office, but nobody bothered to call her parents or the camp. Finally, a UA call center employee figured to call UX operations at ORD and found somebody who knew something about the situation, and the kid was put on the next flight to GRR.

This is one side of the story, of course, but it is not full of holes. I too would love to hear UA's side, but I doubt we will.

Was the child ever technically lost? No, she was probably under supervision of a UA/UX employee at all times. Was there a service breakdown? Most certainly. And the most striking part of all this is that it highlights just how difficult it is to get information out of United - or any airline, maybe even any large organization - when things don't go according to plan.

Why was the camp making trips? Unless something has drastically changed, isn't UA obligated to deliver baggage?


Having had some bags lost a few months ago (post Shares switchover) -- UA will deliver baggage, but it was in a very large time window. Effectively you'd have to take off work and sit around for most of the day until they show up (if at all).

The online baggage tracker is useless as well -- Online, it would have no idea where my bags were, but I was able to call in and find out.

While there is no excuse for United not meeting her at the plane, there's also no excuse for a ten year old, unless there is more to the story than the blog post, not to e able to make a phone call, find a policeman, security guard, or store clerk to help them call home.

I also don't believe the employee on the phone hung up the phone and fifteen minutes later in Chicago, found a ten year old child. Unless the child was in her office lobby, that's not at all remotely possible.

Yes, somebody should have been there, but there's so many gaping holes in this story it's just hard to believe any of it.

This seems to assume that the UM was left hopelessly wandering ORD by herself, but that's not what the blog post or the complaint letter indicates. My interpretation is that after the accompanying service failed to pick up the UM, the UM approached UA staff and the UM was essentially told to sit down and shut up. That's what the complaint letter and blog post entail - that the UM service failed, that UA staff failed to be responsive to the UM including failing to get the UM to her connecting flight, and then that UA staff failed to notify the parties responsible for the UM.

It flabbergasts me what else you expect a ten-year-old child to do in this situation. This particular child did everything I would reasonably expect her to do: find UA staff, tell them that she had a connecting flight, inform them that camp staff tasked with responsibility for her well-being were expecting her at the destination, and mention that her parents would also expect her to be arriving at the camp on that flight.

The simple reality: The reason UA staff were able to locate the UM so quickly when the parents finally got through to ORD is that plenty of UA staff knew where the UM was from the beginning. They just decided not to take the initiative to rectify the problem caused by their UM service failure by getting the UM on her connecting flight or to notify any of the other parties responsible for the child's well-being, probably preferring that the problem would just disappear.

Kids usually aren't allowed to have cell phones or any other electronics in summer camps.

What do you mean the kid was told not to leave the plane?? I imagine the plane and FAs had to go their own merry ways after everyone deplaned. Nobody showed up to pick the kid up; was she supposed to fly to the plane's next destination?

It is SOP to tell the child they may not leave the plane and they do not leave any passengers on board unattended. FA's do not leave the plane until they are certain there are no passengers left onboard or a new crew has arrived. The FA's personally hand off the UA to the next employee along with their paperwork which is kept by the crew as soon as the child boards. Obviously the FA's handed over the paperwork and the child to someone or there would be no ticket or boarding pass to her destination. There are a few unexplained pieces to this story.

The real problem here seems it is that 3rd party that accompanies them between gates and a lack of communicating to the parents or camp that she had missed her connecting flight.

Kids may not be allowed to have a cell phone at camp but it doesn't mean the camp won't allow them to travel with one and then keep it for them until they leave.

Traveling is so fraught with complications and irregularities for adults, let alone children.

My four-year-old can practically find her way to the next gate. (Granted, she was a Premier at age 2.) Does a 10-year-old really need that much help?

It is SOP to tell the child they may not leave the plane and they do not leave any passengers on board unattended. FA's do not leave the plane until they are certain there are no passengers left onboard or a new crew has arrived. The FA's personally hand off the UA to the next employee along with their paperwork which is kept by the crew as soon as the child boards. Obviously the FA's handed over the paperwork and the child to someone or there would be no ticket or boarding pass to her destination. There are a few unexplained pieces to this story.


I think that part worked as intended. The child wasn't technically 'lost', as she did not just leave the plane by herself and did not wander around. But as far as her parents were concerned, she was 'lost', because she a) did not get to the destination; b) nobody called them or the destination; and c) nobody at United (seemingly) was willing to make any effort to find her.

For the commitment I have seen from UA in executing on this service, they should raise the price to $250.

$99 is really very little money when they are accepting responsibility for your child...

For the commitment I have seen from UA in executing on this service, they should raise the price to $250.

$99 is really very little money when they are accepting responsibility for your child...



I thought it was $250. Did they lower the price recently?

For the commitment I have seen from UA in executing on this service, they should raise the price to $250.

$99 is really very little money when they are accepting responsibility for your child...


Given what child care workers make, $99 would buy several hours of time from a dedicated child care worker.

The UM service gives the child nowhere near $99 worth of staff time, let alone $250.

I thought it was $250. Did they lower the price recently?

http://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/specialneeds/minors/fees.aspx?Mobile=1

Children traveling unaccompanied pay a full adult fare.

An additional service charge is collected to cover extra handling required when an unaccompanied child travels. Please confirm this charge when placing your reservation.

There is a $99.00 service fee required for all unaccompanied children traveling alone on all flights to any destination.

The unaccompanied minor service charge may be paid at the time of reservation, or prior to departure at a United check-in counter. Travel agents may also collect the unaccompanied minor service charges.

Given what child care workers make, $99 would buy several hours of time from a dedicated child care worker.

The UM service gives the child nowhere near $99 worth of staff time, let alone $250.

You may not think your children are priceless channa, but others might not share that opinion.

unconscionable!

This is horrendous. I feel for both the parents and the little girl -- how horrible! UACO is going to have to do some pretty quick tapdancing because, if the parents are so inclined, I suspect they have a fairly good action against the airline, depending on the jurisdiction in which it is brought. When you think about how badly things could have turned out, it makes you shiver. How in the hell could the airline just leave a 10 year old girl to fend for herself like that?

For the commitment I have seen from UA in executing on this service, they should raise the price to $250.

$99 is really very little money when they are accepting responsibility for your child...

Let's say they did raise the price to $250 and this happened, what are the consequences? What changes here except that UA makes more money.

This is horrendous. I feel for both the parents and the little girl -- how horrible! UACO is going to have to do some pretty quick tapdancing because, if the parents are so inclined, I suspect they have a fairly good action against the airline, depending on the jurisdiction in which it is brought. When you think about how badly things could have turned out, it makes you shiver. How in the hell could the airline just leave a 10 year old girl to fend for herself like that?

She was never left to fend for herself. The title of the article and this post are misleading. What happened was she didn't get picked up by the 3rd party agent that takes them to the next gate and they failed to notify the parents and camp she misconnected.

She was never left to fend for herself. The title of the article and this post are misleading. What happened was she didn't get picked up by the 3rd party agent that takes them to the next gate and they failed to notify the parents and camp she misconnected.Yes, but she asked for help from UA personnel, including a GA, and was, essentially, pushed away. As far as it being a 3rd-party agent, that is irrelevant, both ethically and legally. UA had charge of the little girl, was acting in loco parentis, and was solely responsible for her welfare. It is no defense to say, "these people we hired to do our job for us failed to show up." The doctrine is called respondeat superior, i.e. the principal is responsible for the omissions of its agent. I remember my friend's little girl when she was 10. This would have been a terrifying experience for her, and we would have been out of our minds with worry.

Let's say they did raise the price to $250 and this happened, what are the consequences? What changes here except that UA makes more money.

Agreed, if raising the price did not incent UA to put that money in to the UM system, then no benefit whatsoever.

It just seems to me they are taking on a lot of responsibility, and exposing themselves to significant liability, in exchange for $99.00.

Agreed, if raising the price did not incent UA to put that money in to the UM system, then no benefit whatsoever.

It just seems to me they are taking on a lot of responsibility, and exposing themselves to significant liability, in exchange for $99.00.

I have not seen the new UA cares anybody so far, rather their money.

She was never left to fend for herself. The title of the article and this post are misleading. What happened was she didn't get picked up by the 3rd party agent that takes them to the next gate and they failed to notify the parents and camp she misconnected.

Yep. It's misleading alright. United has done nothing wrong. Every United employee has followed SOP to the letter - I suppose SOP doesn't require them to call anyone, try to locate an unaccompanied minor who hasn't made it to her destination, or just in general show compassion - all they have to do is hand the child off to a third party and make sure paperwork goes along.

Instead of compensation or trying to make amends with parents, United should sue the blogger for malicious misrepresentation of facts.

I mean, the child is alive, right? What's the big fuss about? :rolleyes:

Yes, but she asked for help from UA personnel, including a GA, and was, essentially, pushed away. As far as it being a 3rd-party agent, that is irrelevant, both ethically and legally. UA had charge of the little girl, was acting in loco parentis, and was solely responsible for her welfare. It is no defense to say, "these people we hired to do our job for us failed to show up." The doctrine is called respondeat superior, i.e. the principal is responsible for the omissions of its agent. I remember my friend's little girl when she was 10. This would have been a terrifying experience for her, and we would have been out of our minds with worry.

Would you please copy and paste the part of the letter that states the bolded part above as I can not find it in either the article or the letter.

I flew as a UA all the way to Hawaii at the same age without a hitch but it was when flying was not the chaotic, erratic affair it is now. Knowing how difficult flying is for an adult currently, I wouldn't trust my child flying as an UA. That said I seriously doubt the child was terrified as she was never abandoned, however I am sure the parents of this child were.

I don't absolve UA because a 3rd party was involved but trying to make it sound like this child was lost and abandoned is not accurate.

Yep. It's misleading alright. United has done nothing wrong. Every United employee has followed SOP to the letter - I suppose SOP doesn't require them to call anyone, try to locate an unaccompanied minor who hasn't made it to her destination, or just in general show compassion - all they have to do is hand the child off to a third party and make sure paperwork goes along.

Instead of compensation or trying to make amends with parents, United should sue the blogger for malicious misrepresentation of facts.

I mean, the child is alive, right? What's the big fuss about? :rolleyes:

Oh please, get serious. I never said they should be absolved for not calling the parents and the stress and worry they endured but making it sound like the child was ignored and completely lost by those who personally handled her wasn't truthful.

Oh please, get serious. I never said they should be absolved for not calling the parents and the stress and worry they endured but making it sound like the child was ignored and completely lost by those who personally handled her wasn't truthful.

I am serious. The child was ignored, because her pleas to call parents and/or camp were ignored. The quote, I believe, is "She told them she had a flight to catch to camp and they told her to wait. She asked three times to use a phone to call us and they told her to wait. When she missed the flight she asked if someone had called camp to make sure they knew and they told her “yes—we will take care of it”. No one did. She was sad and scared and no one helped."

And as far as parents were concerned, she was lost. They had no idea where she was, and could not find anyone at United who would lift a finger to find her until basically shamed into doing that.

This isn't or shouldn't be about whether most children make it safely to their destination or whether most United employees do their job well. I'm sure both statements are true. This is about an apparent failure to take responsibility and go beyond SOP, plus an apparent failure to realize that a really bad mistake has been made and failing to address the situation before it was made public.

And I won't give them any points for responding now, after a public complaint has been made. It's like saying "I'm sorry" after being caught. Makes you wonder if they're sorry about doing something wrong or just sorry being caught.

These parents can afford to fly a child to camp halfway across the country but they're too cheap to spring for a disposal cell phone so she can contact them if there is a problem?

This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

I pay UA for my 9 and now ten year old to be monitored during his travel. Saying I need to pay the fee which is intended to maintain him and then pay for a throwaway phone is ridiculous. If you are going to charge me for the unaccompanied minor, take care of them like you say.

I have done this multiple times and never had anything but stellar srecvixe with pmUA. SD at San Diego and G'S agents at ORD have always been fantastic with him. He is now wondering why he flys AA with 400k miles on UA.

Given what child care workers make, $99 would buy several hours of time from a dedicated child care worker.

The UM service gives the child nowhere near $99 worth of staff time, let alone $250.

Agreed. It shouldn't cost them anything like that to provide other than in IIROPS situations.

This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

I pay UA for my 9 and now ten year old to be monitored during his travel. Saying I need to pay the fee which is intended to maintain him and then pay for a throwaway phone is ridiculous. If you are going to charge me for the unaccompanied minor, take care of them like you say.


What's absurd is sending your child halfway across the country with no backup plan and no easy way to get in touch with you if something goes wrong, just so you can say you got your $99 worth.

I feel very sorry for the little girl. UA screwed up big time. But the parents sound like dolts.

What's absurd is sending your child halfway across the country with no backup plan and no easy way to get in touch with you if something goes wrong, just so you can say you got your $99 worth.

I feel very sorry for the little girl. UA screwed up big time. But the parents sound like dolts.

It's simple to me. If you are going to charge the UM fee, do what you say. Otherwise, don't charge me the fee and I will get the phone and not pay the fee.

I just asked my 10 year old and he said that if no one met him on the connection he would look at his ticket and then look at the monitors and figure out where he need to go. I am happy that he knows how to do this but many UM's don't .:) (that was his emoticon)

If UA is going to charge, they should deliver. They seemingly didnt in this case. That isn't acceptable if the story is correct.

You pay United for the unaccompanied minor service, they're supposed to sort this out for you. And it's not like a phone is ever far away when you're in an airport; I'm shocked that the kid could spend hours wandering around without finding anyone to help her at all though.

I'm curious as to what the kid was actually doing for all these hours though. Can you really wander around ORD as an unaccompanied minor for *hours* without finding someone who'll at least send you to someone who can sort out the whole "where the hell is my unaccompanied minor escort" problem?

Probably tagged along with some pilots...

http://wickedmonkeys.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/airplane-movie-joey.jpg

Perhaps kids are like checked luggage on United - they are not considered lost, merely delayed, until missing for 21 days.

It flabbergasts me what else you expect a ten-year-old child to do in this situation. This particular child did everything I would reasonably expect her to do: find UA staff, tell them that she had a connecting flight, inform them that camp staff tasked with responsibility for her well-being were expecting her at the destination, and mention that her parents would also expect her to be arriving at the camp on that flight.
Exactly. I flew UM at age 9 and my aircraft had an emergency landing en route, ultimately resulting in 6 hour delay. I did what I thought was right... told the FA that someone should call my mother. And that was the last I thought of it, and that any child should have to think of it. Turns out no one ever did, and when I did not arrive at my ultimate destination 6 hours later and frantic phone calls ensued, I was safely ensconced in the airline office in LAX. But to expect a child to do more than a one-time notification of a responsible adult providing the UM service is crazy.

I think that part worked as intended. The child wasn't technically 'lost', as she did not just leave the plane by herself and did not wander around. But as far as her parents were concerned, she was 'lost', because she a) did not get to the destination; b) nobody called them or the destination; and c) nobody at United (seemingly) was willing to make any effort to find her.
And that's the key point here. Employees think that if they see the child "safe" they're keeping up their end of the bargain, but do not understand that any deviation from the "plan" ought to involve a notification of at least the responsible party for "pick up" if not others. This is a systematic failure in the procedures and should be fixed. To prevent the next lawsuit.

While there is no excuse for United not meeting her at the plane, there's also no excuse for a ten year old, unless there is more to the story than the blog post, not to e able to make a phone call, find a policeman, security guard, or store clerk to help them call home.

I also don't believe the employee on the phone hung up the phone and fifteen minutes later in Chicago, found a ten year old child. Unless the child was in her office lobby, that's not at all remotely possible.

Yes, somebody should have been there, but there's so many gaping holes in this story it's just hard to believe any of it.

:rolleyes:

http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2012/08/united-airlines-lost-my-friends-10-year-old-daughter-and-didnt-care.html

Here is the headline: United was flying Phoebe as an unaccompanied minor on June 30th, from San Francisco to Chicago, with a transfer to Grand Rapids. No one showed-up in Chicago to help her transfer, so although her plane made it, she missed the connection. Most crucially, United employees consistently refused to take action to help assist or comfort Phoebe or to help her parents locate her despite their cries for help to numerous United employees.

:mad:

The events are inexcusable (if they occurred as described in the letter of complaint).

To the OP: your title is inaccurate and hyperbolic. UA did not lose a child. They caused a missed connection.

What confuses me the most from the bullet points is this:



Granted their email system isn't the greatest, but I don't think I've ever had an issue filing a complaint.


Why was the camp making trips? Unless something has drastically changed, isn't UA obligated to deliver baggage?

As OP clearly told us, at that station they DO NOT deliver bags till the next day

And this part is laughable (at least about B6 and WN):



B6 is the sole reason why legislators decided to enact the DOT3 rule and WN ranks among the worst airlines to help in an irregular operation (read = this isn't towards their customer satisfaction score).

While it will never happen, I would love to hear the information from UAL's side. Always two sides to every story. Children tend to fear reprimand for their actions, so they find something they can blame it on. When I worked for the airlines, I would have an angry parent show up requesting to speak to a supervisor and after listening to the "how could you let my child miss a flight" and "I'm never putting my child on xxx airlines because you (pointing at me) made him/her miss the flight" I would meet the flight that had the child on it, talk to the F/A about the child and come to find out that they were so scared after their initial flight that they didn't want to fly on the next flight, or that the child didn't want to go on this trip because he/she thought it was stupid. As opposed to telling their parent(s), and in return getting reprimanded, it turns into "xxx airlines made me miss my flight!!!".

15+ years in the customer service industry, I have seen, heard, and smelled (bs) it all. If this is true, then shame on UAL for this. But, if there is another story to be heard and the real story comes back on the parent's as opposed to united, shame on the parents. I've seen it both ways. Take every story with a grain of salt until facts are presented, as opposed to a "friend's" one sided sob story.

Every once in a blue moon, there is no OTHER SIDE. Pets & Children fall under this catagory. UA took the money for the UM service. They were responsible for watching her & getting her to her flight. Sure things happen but someone should have called the parents. UA knew someone was meeting the flight

As for the baggage, that's a seperate story but there is no doubt that the new was COdbaUA deals w baggage does not work. The few $ they save has made them the worst when it comes to lost bags. In 18 years of flying UA I have NEVER lost a bag.....the last 3 months they have lost my bags twice

It's simple to me. If you are going to charge the UM fee, do what you say. Otherwise, don't charge me the fee and I will get the phone and not pay the fee.

I just asked my 10 year old and he said that if no one met him on the connection he would look at his ticket and then look at the monitors and figure out where he need to go. I am happy that he knows how to do this but many UM's don't .:) (that was his emoticon)

If UA is going to charge, they should deliver. They seemingly didnt in this case. That isn't acceptable if the story is correct.

I 100% agree that United is responsible for delivering on their commitment and the fact that they did not is inexcusable. They should not charge a fee or agree to do something if they are not going to do it.

But I 100% disagree that it's a good idea to go blithely forward assuming that because you paid a fee nothing bad can possibly happen. Are the parents correct on principle? Absolutely. Were they dumb to not have a contingency plan in place in case the airline did not follow through? I say yes.

But I 100% disagree that it's a good idea to go blithely forward assuming that because you paid a fee nothing bad can possibly happen. Are the parents correct on principle? Absolutely. Were they dumb to not have a contingency plan in place in case the airline did not follow through? I say yes.

How can you have a contingency plan when you are at the mercy of the airline? The only thing they could have done was to give a 10yo a cell phone.

Personally I will not provide my 10yo with a cell phone. Also, there is no way I would allow my child under the age of 14 to travel without an adult.

Here we go again - another overentitled passenger category - sheesh, those 10-year-olds think they are so special!

How can you have a contingency plan when you are at the mercy of the airline? The only thing they could have done was to give a 10yo a cell phone.

Personally I will not provide my 10yo with a cell phone. Also, there is no way I would allow my child under the age of 14 to travel without an adult.

Then you'd have no need for the contingency plan in the first place, would you?

Exactly. I flew UM at age 9 and my aircraft had an emergency landing en route, ultimately resulting in 6 hour delay. I did what I thought was right... told the FA that someone should call my mother. And that was the last I thought of it, and that any child should have to think of it. Turns out no one ever did, and when I did not arrive at my ultimate destination 6 hours later and frantic phone calls ensued, I was safely ensconced in the airline office in LAX. But to expect a child to do more than a one-time notification of a responsible adult providing the UM service is crazy.


And that's the key point here. Employees think that if they see the child "safe" they're keeping up their end of the bargain, but do not understand that any deviation from the "plan" ought to involve a notification of at least the responsible party for "pick up" if not others. This is a systematic failure in the procedures and should be fixed. To prevent the next lawsuit.

There absolutely should be notification but it is not the fault of the employees but management's lack of planning. Delays, misconnections, weather and mechanical issues are part of the daily business and it is a major failure to not have it covered. Parents shouldn't rely on an industry known for mess ups to keep them informed either and plan accordingly.

For the commitment I have seen from UA in executing on this service, they should raise the price to $250.

$99 is really very little money when they are accepting responsibility for your child...

But it's a ton of money when they don't do their job.

wow, whats the big deal so they lose a few kids? :D they deliver 99.9% of them.

wow, whats the big deal so they lose a few kids? :D they deliver 99.9% of them.

LOL.. this whole story made me think of a slogan from the comedy movie "Crazy People"..the slogan was for John Hancock life insurance... "We know you love him, but if he dies we'll give you two Mercedes and a summer home. Wouldn't that be nice too?"

Obviously, United screwed up big time. But I can't imagine why a parent would hand a ten-year-old off to an airline without working out some way for the kid to reach the parents JUST IN CASE. Even if you're anti cell phone, just teach the kid how to call collect from a pay phone. Even if your kid isn't the brightest, last I checked, all you have to do is press 0.

Obviously, United screwed up big time. But I can't imagine why a parent would hand a ten-year-old off to an airline without working out some way for the kid to reach the parents JUST IN CASE. Even if you're anti cell phone, just teach the kid how to call collect from a pay phone. Even if your kid isn't the brightest, last I checked, all you have to do is press 0.

In this case I would have told my child to go to a UA Rep and ask them to call my parents. There has to be a rip cord somehow.

In this case I would have told my child to go to a UA Rep and ask them to call my parents. There has to be a rip cord somehow.

It is best to not rely on an airline except to eventually get you there. Too many things go wrong and as you can see this child did ask them to call the parents and the camp and it didn't happen.

In this case I would have told my child to go to a UA Rep and ask them to call my parents. There has to be a rip cord somehow.

Right, and if that fails? JMHO, but a 10-year-old should be told how to take things into his or her own hands if needed -- even if that just means using a payphone. It's really not that complicated.

For something like this, I would sue the airline in small claim court in my own town. Let them incur the expenses to send lawyers from headquarters to defend the indefensible before a jury.

Lawyers from headquarters? Juries in small-claims court? Sorry, this isn't generally how the U.S. legal system works....

In this case I would have told my child to go to a UA Rep and ask them to call my parents. There has to be a rip cord somehow.
According to the letter, the child asked the flight attendants three times if she could use a phone to call her parents, and she was told to wait.

Right, and if that fails? JMHO, but a 10-year-old should be told how to take things into his or her own hands if needed -- even if that just means using a payphone. It's really not that complicated.
Maybe it's because I'm not looking for them, but I don't remember the last time I saw a pay phone in an airport. Even if they are there, I don't think it would be advisable for a 10-year old to wander through an airport looking for them.

According to the letter, the child asked the flight attendants three times if she could use a phone to call her parents, and she was told to wait.


Maybe it's because I'm not looking for them, but I don't remember the last time I saw a pay phone in an airport. Even if they are there, I don't think it would be advisable for a 10-year old to wander through an airport looking for them.

A UM would not be able to go looking for one so it is a moot point.

Maybe it's because I'm not looking for them, but I don't remember the last time I saw a pay phone in an airport. Even if they are there, I don't think it would be advisable for a 10-year old to wander through an airport looking for them.

I think payphones are around. I suppose it depends on the kid, but I think most 10-year-olds would be capable of finding the nearest one. Anyway, the point was training the child to handle any issues in the off chance something goes wrong.

I think payphones are around. I suppose it depends on the kid, but I think most 10-year-olds would be capable of finding the nearest one. Anyway, the point was training the child to handle any issues in the off chance something goes wrong.

The problem with the pay phone idea is that the child has to stay with an employee who is usually an FA or GA so they will not be able to go looking for one. At least if the child has a cell phone he/she can make a call no matter where they are. There are prepaid phones without contracts available now.

The problem with the pay phone idea is that the child has to stay with an employee who is usually an FA or GA so they will not be able to go looking for one. At least if the child has a cell phone he/she can make a call no matter where they are. There are prepaid phones without contracts available now.

Most summer camps do not allow mobile phones. Although it is now common for 10 year olds to have phones, you are told to have your child leave there's at home. A lot of I would have done this or he should have done that but truthfully, who really believes an airline is going to screw up like this with your kid. It's not common

Most summer camps do not allow mobile phones. Although it is now common for 10 year olds to have phones, you are told to have your child leave there's at home. A lot of I would have done this or he should have done that but truthfully, who really believes an airline is going to screw up like this with your kid. It's not common

Then have the kid throw out the phone when he gets there if the camp won't hold it. It just isn't worth the worry on the chance that something does go wrong.

I'm going to post the same comment here I put on the article and on Facebook.

Why did the parents not give the child a cell phone? Even a pre-paid one with only a few minutes on it?

I am not absolving United of blame here, it would seem mistakes were made. But anyone with half a brain (especially if one person is a Premier member) knows flight delays happen. Why make it harder for the child to get in touch with the parents in case anything goes wrong? They were relying on third parties to inform them of their child's progress and that sounds like bad parenting to me.

Story currently on nbc.com's web site (http://overheadbin.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/14/13278851-10-year-old-girl-flying-alone-on-united-left-stranded-at-chicago-airport?lite).

I'm going to post the same comment here I put on the article and on Facebook.

Why did the parents not give the child a cell phone? Even a pre-paid one with only a few minutes on it?

I am not absolving United of blame here, it would seem mistakes were made. But anyone with half a brain (especially if one person is a Premier member) knows flight delays happen. Why make it harder for the child to get in touch with the parents in case anything goes wrong? They were relying on third parties to inform them of their child's progress and that sounds like bad parenting to me.

That was my point exactly.

But anyone with half a brain (especially if one person is a Premier member) knows flight delays happen.

The problem here wasn't a flight delay.

Then have the kid throw out the phone when he gets there if the camp won't hold it. It just isn't worth the worry on the chance that something does go wrong.

So what phone do you recommend for the return flight?

Story currently on nbc.com's web site (http://overheadbin.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/14/13278851-10-year-old-girl-flying-alone-on-united-left-stranded-at-chicago-airport?lite).

A United spokesperson told NBC News on Tuesday that they have reached out to the Klebahns to apologize, and the airline is redepositing the miles used to purchase the ticket into Perry Klebahn's frequent flier account. The airline is also refunding the $99 unaccompanied minor charge.

"What the Klebahns describe is not the service we aim to deliver to our customers," United spokesperson Joe Micucci said in a statement.

The last time I saw a kid get tragically separated in an airport, he mistakenly ended up on a plane to NYC, where he stayed at the Park Plaza hotel and foiled the Sticky Bandits robbery attempt at Christmas!


Couldn't help myself. :p

So what phone do you recommend for the return flight?

Maybe airlines should provide the kids with a phone if there is a refundable deposit when it is turned in.

the kid will just grow stronger because of this. When I was 10 I knew my way through airports and refused UM help the minute I was allowed to (at age 12). What dont kill you will make you stronger.

Maybe airlines should provide the kids with a phone if there is a refundable deposit when it is turned in.

I don't think that would inspire much confidence in the capability of the airline in handling the UM!

Refunding the ticket and UM fee - only after getting bad PR of course.

Story currently on nbc.com's web site (http://overheadbin.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/14/13278851-10-year-old-girl-flying-alone-on-united-left-stranded-at-chicago-airport?lite).

Sad part is that it took a story on nbc.com to get United to take any action.

Sad part is that it took a story on nbc.com to get United to take any action.

Hard to say. Given United's current turnaround time on customer care responses, this is just about when I would expect a reply regarding a complaint lodged on July 13.

I was flying as an UM years ago on a ** flight to Moscow. Plane was diverted to Helsinki due to poor weather in Moscow and no staff were able/willing to look after me for the 3-4 hour wait, so a female passenger offered to make sure that I got on the replacement plane to Moscow (Aeroflot) and she did. Don't see that happening today!!

A United spokesperson told NBC News on Tuesday that they have reached out to the Klebahns to apologize, and the airline is redepositing the miles used to purchase the ticket into Perry Klebahn's frequent flier account. The airline is also refunding the $99 unaccompanied minor charge.

I'm going to post the same comment here I put on the article and on Facebook.

Why did the parents not give the child a cell phone? Even a pre-paid one with only a few minutes on it?

I am not absolving United of blame here, it would seem mistakes were made. But anyone with half a brain (especially if one person is a Premier member) knows flight delays happen. Why make it harder for the child to get in touch with the parents in case anything goes wrong? They were relying on third parties to inform them of their child's progress and that sounds like bad parenting to me.

But you kind of are. The point of this is that United failed in its job, which the parents paid extra ($99USD) for. Regardless of whether the girl had a cell phone or not, United still failed in its job. So why bother pointing out parental responsibility, blah blah? This isn't the parenting forum - it's the United forum. People can address whether they are bad parents or not in another forum. To me that is irrelevant.

the kid will just grow stronger because of this. When I was 10 I knew my way through airports and refused UM help the minute I was allowed to (at age 12). What dont kill you will make you stronger.

What does this have to do with United at all??? I've been flying alone since I was 9 years old. Still doesn't excuse United's failure to do its job.

But you kind of are. The point of this is that United failed in its job, which the parents paid extra ($99USD) for. Regardless of whether the girl had a cell phone or not, United still failed in its job. So why bother pointing out parental responsibility, blah blah? This isn't the parenting forum - it's the United forum. People can address whether they are bad parents or not in another forum. To me that is irrelevant.


Let's not forget we only know one side of the story, we have only heard from the parents as filtered through the media on this one. And I still think you should always question the source. It's the kind of question I would ask the parents and I don't find it irrelevant here.

that a camp far enough away to have a 10 year old fly there to attend, would not understand that the parents wanted the child to have a cell phone in case of emergency. I still think UA screwed up big time - UM is an UM and someone needed to take responsibility AT THE AIRPORT - but I would also make sure m child had a cell phone, camp rule or no camp rule. I have 2 old phones lying around, slap a pay as you go card in and give it to my kid (if I had one)

A United spokesperson told NBC News on Tuesday that they have reached out to the Klebahns to apologize, and the airline is redepositing the miles used to purchase the ticket into Perry Klebahn's frequent flier account. The airline is also refunding the $99 unaccompanied minor charge.

They don't even refund the taxes... classy!

It's simple to me. If you are going to charge the UM fee, do what you say. Otherwise, don't charge me the fee and I will get the phone and not pay the fee.

I just asked my 10 year old and he said that if no one met him on the connection he would look at his ticket and then look at the monitors and figure out where he need to go. I am happy that he knows how to do this but many UM's don't .:) (that was his emoticon)

If UA is going to charge, they should deliver. They seemingly didnt in this case. That isn't acceptable if the story is correct.

I totally agree....I have seen UA handle children in transit frequently and they are never let off the plane until someone from the airline is there so the hand-off can happen with paperwork and child. Just more example of how COdbaUA could care less about the customer. They are outsourcing everything so it just gets murkier and murkier for the customer on how or who you hold accountable for deteriorating levels of customer service.

Let's not forget we only know one side of the story, we have only heard from the parents as filtered through the media on this one. And I still think you should always question the source. It's the kind of question I would ask the parents and I don't find it irrelevant here.

Makes no difference. The child should never have been unattended by airline company personnel. Any other excuse is a mute point IMHO.

They don't even refund the taxes... classy!

Are you sure of this?

Let's not forget we only know one side of the story, we have only heard from the parents as filtered through the media on this one. And I still think you should always question the source. It's the kind of question I would ask the parents and I don't find it irrelevant here.

While you are right, there is no way to find out "the other side" since unless the woman who found the girl shows up in this forum, we're not gonna get any more info. And by refunding the parents, United basically has basically owned up to it. So to me it's clear that the verdict has been reached - I just hope that United learns a lesson from this (I doubt it).There's no point in dwelling on hypothetical situations of what the parents did or didn't do - the case is closed. United has admitted that it's in the wrong.

I was flying as an UM years ago on a ** flight to Moscow. Plane was diverted to Helsinki due to poor weather in Moscow and no staff were able/willing to look after me for the 3-4 hour wait, so a female passenger offered to make sure that I got on the replacement plane to Moscow (Aeroflot) and she did. Don't see that happening today!!

Back in the day, that was the norm. Today, United should be thanking some deity that a pedophile didn't scoop her up and take off with her. As someone in LE, this is inexcusable. I see kids snatched on a regular basis and it upsets me that the child they were paid to watch was less of a priority than boarding a plane. Is this not why manager's were created? It should have been someone's priority to get her to the right gate.

The last time I saw a kid get tragically separated in an airport, he mistakenly ended up on a plane to NYC, where he stayed at the Park Plaza hotel and foiled the Sticky Bandits robbery attempt at Christmas!I remember seeing that documentary. That was a very capable kid!

too busy taking care of smi/j, their other "unaccompanied minor"

didn't read all the posts, but when my kids were younger (used to be under 15), i was forced to pay a fee (100 or 150..can't remember) for an underage flyer and they had someone accompany them to the gate and sit with them...kids used to HATE it when they were 13/14....and someone was there to get them as well...had to "sign" for them when they brought them to the baggage area for pickup.

I remember seeing that documentary. That was a very capable kid!

I think that this belongs in the AA thread :).

When I read this story and these comments I was frankly too livid to post any of my own. But now here on the 7th page of stupidly off-point comments mixed in with genuine outrage I have to make an observation.

This is just the HouCrew's United.


This is the United Airlines that will outsource any formerly well-run service regardless of the quality the customer sees
This is the United Airlines that hates its employees so much that they have stripped them of any power to do the right thing. In fact, so much so that the parents here had to remind the agents that they were also parents before they would even consider waking-up and breaking out of the Craptinantal customer service mode.
This is the United Airlines that would rather do ANYTHING than help a customer. Some of us aren’t 10 year old girls and will push back at surly and indifferent GAs and FAs when they ignore us.
This is the United Airlines that just doesn't give a damn about any of its passengers. They'll just as soon strand them in a foreign country for days or shirk their contracted responsibility to act as their temporary guardian
This is the United Airlines that is quick to sell you an additional service for a fee (UM, Insurance, Codeshare, etc.) but then doesn't take ANY responsibility for it once they’ve collected their fee (“you have to call the people fulfilling the service, not us”)
This is the United Airlines being run by lawyers and bean counters instead of people who understand the airline industry, running a business or customer service in general.
This is the United Airlines that short sighted, ignorant, greedy, lying Continental management created.


Smisek and his cronies should be punished for what they have done to the workers and customers of this company. Frankly, for this incident they should be jailed. If it were my child I’d press charges of fraud. It's no different than any local day-care worker promising supervision and failing to deliver it, putting my child in danger. They should not be permitted to offer the service again - lose their license. In this context, it should mean being barred from running an airline that flies live people.

One summer during college i worked for United as a Um runner. Yep, my job was to pick up the unacompanied minors from one flight and take them to their connection. The Purser on the flight was responsible for handing off the paperwork, tickets whatever to the runner and then the rinner will pass them on to the purser of the next flight. But what i remember mosr, is that um used to be given a nice red and white pin, that identified them as ums.

Misconnects happened, but both ends were usually called to be told their would be a delay. Worse case, sometimes kids would have to overnight, then a gate agent would have to stay with them at a hotel.

One summer during college i worked for United as a Um runner. Yep, my job was to pick up the unacompanied minors from one flight and take them to their connection. The Purser on the flight was responsible for handing off the paperwork, tickets whatever to the runner and then the rinner will pass them on to the purser of the next flight. But what i remember mosr, is that um used to be given a nice red and white pin, that identified them as ums.

Misconnects happened, but both ends were usually called to be told their would be a delay. Worse case, sometimes kids would have to overnight, then a gate agent would have to stay with them at a hotel.

I have seen this process many times (kids are seated in first row in coach) and expereinced it as a kid. Everyone is taught that the kid has to be signed for, and the names/numbers are arround their necks.

Any kid wandering off is a major breach of protocol. I am just stunned that - AS UA AMITTED - they outsourced this. The potential for bad things are so great, I can't believe they don't have someone whose job it is at each hub to deal with these type of issues. Hell they have an office at SFO (its next to gate 81) for these things.

i'm just shaking my head.

But my real question... was it a UA crew or a CO crew who let her wander off? :0

But my real question... was it a UA crew or a CO crew who let her wander off? :0

She didn't wander off. Sounds like she stayed at the gate w/ United personnel who could not find the time to help her get from terminal B/C to E or call her parents or the camp.

I have a nine year old that has flown unaccompanied on UA(CO) for several years, including several times to and from BOG. Also some domestic flights in the US and Colombia.

HOWEVER... we don't do connections. We always fly her nonstop, which means if she's going to or from BOG, we drive to IAH (3+ hours) and back each time.

We've never had a problem and always thought that the drive, and the inconvenience of restricting ourselves to nonstops, is a small price to pay to avoid potential panic like these parents experienced.

Not saying it's the parents' fault... just saying that there are some common sense things you can do to try to avoid this possible eventuality.

Anybody who defends or excuses United Continental Holdings and their United Airlines subsidiary and the employees of sUA and/or sCO in any manner whatsoever, has zero right to even be around a child. Including their own.

United screwed up horrifically and exhibited gross violations of their own policies and standards for how UMs are handled. End of story.

Kid should have had a cell phone, spoken up, parents are dolts, no backup plan... all that utter horror inhuman junk posters have spewed upthread? Unforgivable when it regards a child.

The parents had a backup plan - they PAID the World's Largest Airline for their Professional Unaccompanied Minor Service, which includes guarantees that the child will be accompanied, cared for in case of IRROPs, escorted through connections, given special treatment.

From United.com (https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/specialneeds/minors/faq.aspx):
How will my child’s connection/arrival be handled?
An airline representative will meet your child upon landing and escort your child to his or her connecting gate, if applicable, or to the arrivals area to meet the person designated to pick up your child. Explain to your child in advance the importance of waiting for a uniformed airline representative to escort him or her between connecting gates and/or to the arrivals area. Older children may feel capable of navigating through an airport alone, but failure to follow United’s unaccompanied minor policies can cause unnecessary anxiety for both the child and those responsible for the child and may place your child at risk.

What if my child’s travel is affected by delays, cancellations or other problems?
It can be very stressful when flights do not operate as planned, especially for unaccompanied children. In the case of weather or other delays and cancellations, United will contact you or the person designated to meet your child at his or her final destination. You can also track the status of the flight on united.com. Advise your child to remain with a United representative at all times. Consider giving your child a calling card or teaching him or her how to make collect calls so he or she can reach you. My Emphasis.

Yes, United recommends that the child have a calling card or know how to make a collect call (we'll ignore how that advice is so 1990s). But United promises that they will contact the parents if there is a problem. United promises that they will meet and escort the child to make sure she makes her connection (when of course it is physically possible.) United even insists that you tell the child to wait where she's told until she's taken to her connection, and not to try to make her flight.

United is 100% wrong, there is zero justification, and they should be shamed, shunned, and investigated by whatever the jurisdiction's Child Protective Services agency is as well. And thoroughly penalized. Including civil and criminal charges against the negligent employees and supervisors.

We've never had a problem and always thought that the drive, and the inconvenience of restricting ourselves to nonstops, is a small price to pay to avoid potential panic like these parents experienced.

Not saying it's the parents' fault... just saying that there are some common sense things you can do to try to avoid this possible eventuality.

I seriously doubt that there is a non-stop from the Bay Area to Traverse City. In fact, I know there's not.


Yes, United recommends that the child have a calling card or know how to make a collect call (we'll ignore how that advice is so 1990s). But United promises that they will contact the parents if there is a problem. United promises that they will meet and escort the child to make sure she makes her connection (when of course it is physically possible.) United even insists that you tell the child to wait where she's told until she's taken to her connection, and not to try to make her flight.

And that calling card is unlikely to help if the child follows directions and stays with United personnel who refuse to give her or take her to a phone.

United is 100% wrong, there is zero justification, and they should be shamed, shunned, and investigated by whatever the jurisdiction's Child Protective Services agency is as well. And thoroughly penalized. Including civil and criminal charges against the negligent employees and supervisors.

This is, however, over the top. I'm sure that CPS has much more pressing and dangerous situations to investigate. United was, most likely, negligent not to have an effective procedure in place to deal with service glitches like this. Its behavior certainly doesn't rise to the level of criminality. I guess the family could bring a civil suit, but I seriously doubt that the damages that they might receive would justify the time spent in doing so.

I have to agree that those people who are saying "the parents should have done X" or "the kid should have done Y" are totally missing the point. That does not alter the fact that UA royally screwed up. It appears that UA personnel made at least two insanely bad decisions:

(1) Someone allowed the kid to get off the plane without a chaperone. This is insane (it's like knowingly allowing a kid to wander away from an elementary school during the school day).

(2) The kid then made a GA aware of the situation, but the GA remained focused on his/her normal duties. I suppose that if the GA made sure that the kid sat in the boarding area and the GA was watching the whole time, this could be excused, but I just don't think it's possible to get a plane out and chaperone a child at the same time. It'd just take a minute for someone with bad intentions to convince the kid to come along ("I'm from the airline and I was sent to get you"). And I think that many or even most kids would be susceptible to a predator in such a situation (alone in an airport and trying to get someone from the airline to listen).

Not UA's proudest moment.

Edited to add: OK, reading over the posts again it seems a bit unclear what exactly happened after the child got off the plane. But it still seems that whatever UA employee was made aware of the situation by the child should have basically dropped everything until he/she was sure that the kid was safe and under adequate supervision.

Someone allowed the kid to get off the plane without a chaperone. This is insane (it's like knowingly allowing a kid to wander away from an elementary school during the school day).

I don't think that's what happened. I think that the flight attendants from the first leg probably handed the child off to a gate agent when the person who was supposed to show up failed to appear. As a (much) earlier poster noted, the plane cannot sit around for hours waiting for the child to deplane.

Anybody who defends or excuses United Continental Holdings and their United Airlines subsidiary and the employees of sUA and/or sCO in any manner whatsoever, has zero right to even be around a child. Including their own.

United screwed up horrifically... United is 100% wrong.

Correct. And United is being flayed alive in the mainstream media over this episode, and properly so. It's a perfect expression of what the company has degenerated to this year: indifferent, incompetent, hazardous for amateurs. It fits the master storyline. Hopefully this will cost them some more business.

Much of the commentary in this thread, picking apart the actions of the child and parents and looking for some way to hold them accountable instead of the airline that took their money, simply beggars belief. A sociologist would have a field day analyzing the impulse to let United off the hook for anything and everything... despite the gathering evidence that it is currently the worst major airline in the world, and one of the worst customer service providers of any type in the United States.

This was the subject of a segment on the TODAY Show this morning. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/48687364/ns/today-travel/t/mom-airline-failed-track-daughter-flying-alone/

Beyond the obvious issue of misplacing the child, two other astounding things:

1) The time it took customer service to respoind to the complaint (I think she said six weeks),
2) The innane statement from UA.

“What the Klebahns describe is not the service we aim to deliver to our customers,” United said in a statement. “We are redepositing the miles used to purchase the ticket back into Mr. Klebahn's account in addition to refunding the unaccompanied minor charge. We certainly appreciate their business and would like the opportunity to provide them a better travel experience in the future.”

FYI: The kid returned on a different airline. Another UA defection

but every day ends in "y" :D

They didn't LOSE her, per se; they just caused a passenger to mis-connect as a result of their generic incompetence / indifference, and then also delayed her bags for a while. That's not news, that's another day at United that ends in "y". Only the age of the traveler is different. On that front, I'm just happy to see that the new United does not discriminate in the service it provides on the basis of age.

This is, however, over the top. I'm sure that CPS has much more pressing and dangerous situations to investigate. United was, most likely, negligent not to have an effective procedure in place to deal with service glitches like this. Its behavior certainly doesn't rise to the level of criminality. I guess the family could bring a civil suit, but I seriously doubt that the damages that they might receive would justify the time spent in doing so.

I am curious.....can you name an effective procedure COdbaUA has in place because I have yet to experience anything effective having to do with COdbaUA these days...surly CSR agents, scrum boarding, illogical check-in service, long time to get anything done by phone with agents , lazy FA's....the list goes on....the parents are lucky that nothing serious happened to their child but this does not excuse COdbaUA's
incredible ineptitude at many different levels. :td:

Looks like the story might get national attention as an Associated Press article:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/United-Airlines-loses-girl-on-solo-trip-to-camp-3790772.php

United still refuses to name the company that they outsourced the unaccompanied minor service to.

Anybody who defends or excuses United Continental Holdings and their United Airlines subsidiary and the employees of sUA and/or sCO in any manner whatsoever, has zero right to even be around a child. Including their own.

United screwed up horrifically and exhibited gross violations of their own policies and standards for how UMs are handled. End of story.

Kid should have had a cell phone, spoken up, parents are dolts, no backup plan... all that utter horror inhuman junk posters have spewed upthread? Unforgivable when it regards a child.


Totally confused by your post.

I think those who have said the parents could have done more, including myself, would agree that the first responsibility was on United, and United failed miserably. If anyone has said to the contrary, they are in the vast minority here.

Contrary to your assertion, I do not see anyone here "defending" United. Rather, certain folks are saying that the parents could have avoided this insanity by having a simple back-up plan for the off chance that something goes wrong and United does not or cannot help the kid.

In fact, you speak of having the "right" to be around one's own child. I would submit that having a basic contingency plan in place when one gives up control of his or her child to an airline -- on an itinerary with a connection, no less -- is indicative of good parenting. But I suppose in your world, United is the world's best daycare and nothing could ever go wrong with any of their or their contractors' employees. :rolleyes:


The parents had a backup plan - they PAID the World's Largest Airline for their Professional Unaccompanied Minor Service, which includes guarantees that the child will be accompanied, cared for in case of IRROPs, escorted through connections, given special treatment.

From United.com (https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/specialneeds/minors/faq.aspx):
My Emphasis.


I think you may have a skewed definition of "backup plan."

Totally confused by your post.

I think those who have said the parents could have done more, including myself, would agree that the first responsibility was on United, and United failed miserably. If anyone has said to the contrary, they are in the vast minority here.

Contrary to your assertion, I do not see anyone here "defending" United. Rather, certain folks are saying that the parents could have avoided this insanity by having a simple back-up plan for the off chance that something goes wrong and United does not or cannot help the kid.

In fact, you speak of having the "right" to be around one's own child. I would submit that having a basic contingency plan in place when one gives up control of his or her child to an airline -- on an itinerary with a connection, no less -- is indicative of good parenting. But I suppose in your world, United is the world's best daycare and nothing could ever go wrong with any of their or their contractors' employees. :rolleyes:

I think you may have a skewed definition of "backup plan."

+1.^

NO ONE is defending United. No one. But being able to say "It was United's fault" is cold comfort if something truly terrible happens.

Looks like the story might get national attention as an Associated Press article:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/United-Airlines-loses-girl-on-solo-trip-to-camp-3790772.php

United still refuses to name the company that they outsourced the unaccompanied minor service to.

It was probably Prospect (http://www.chicagoreporter.com/news/2012/01/grounded-tips). At SFO, the UM office mentioned upthread is run by Airserv (similar outfit, pre-TDC BP checkers and wheelchair pushers making minimum wage).

New idea for a DOT regulation: UMs must be handled by the airline's own employees. Failure to properly handle UMs would not only result in stiff fines but also referrals to the state CPS and local DA as MarkXS suggested. These lapses in minimum-wage-structured service should not be able to be paid away in fines as the cost of doing business (like UPS parking anywhere and eating the tickets as needed). Criminal liability by negligent airline agents/managers should absolutely be on the table in cases like this.

Poor service from United and their contractors, but the outrage seems overblown.

The parents had a backup plan - they PAID the World's Largest Airline for their Professional Unaccompanied Minor Service, which includes guarantees that the child will be accompanied, cared for in case of IRROPs, escorted through connections, given special treatment.

That's not a backup plan, that's their prime plan.

New idea for a DOT regulation: UMs must be handled by the airline's own employees. Failure to properly handle UMs would not only result in stiff fines but also referrals to the state CPS and local DA as MarkXS suggested. These lapses in minimum-wage-structured service should not be able to be paid away in fines as the cost of doing business (like UPS parking anywhere and eating the tickets as needed). Criminal liability by negligent airline agents/managers should absolutely be on the table in cases like this.

I think the airlines would end their UM programs, leaving parents with the other options they have now: kids not flying, or flying with their kids.

Regarding your last sentence, I'm skeptical of a negligence claim here. It's poor service, but the kid wasn't abandoned to wander ORD.

I don't know what their current policy is but when I was a crew member for UA, losing a UM meant the entire crew could be fired. We once had an incident where we had an older UM who took off his UM ID and ignored our directions to come forward and wait with us in the galley until everyone deplaned. He slipped off and we immediately took off searching for him. He was at his destination and his Dad was meeting him at baggage claim and that is where we found him. After that incident, I would go to the child and ask for their IPOD or games before landing to ensure they had to go to a crew member before leaving and wouldn't just slip off. I never had a problem after that with the older ones. The younger ones are very good about just staying in their seat until everyone is gone and waiting for crew to come and get them.

That said, I can't understand why they are still using these outside companies for passenger assistance.

It's always amazing in threads like this how people just plain make stuff up.

The girl was not wandering alone in the airport at any time according to the girl and her mother. She did not have a cell phone because of Camp. She was never "lost", she was always with other people.

I know, facts no longer have any place around here.

“They called for accompany, um, – and no one came. They called several more times and told me to wait at front seat. When no one came after a while they told me to go out and wait by the lady who scans your tickets,” Phoebe said.

She waited and waited, until she missed her connecting flight. Then she says someone from United escorted her to a room for unaccompanied minor and she asked to call her parents to let them know she had missed the connecting flight.

“What did they say when you asked to call?” “They said we are busy – not now, wait a minute. And I kept waiting and asking – but never had time to call,” Phoebe said.

Phoebe didn’t have a cell phone, according to her mom, because she wasn’t supposed to be alone. She was supposed to be in the care of United Airlines.

The more details that come out, the less of a story this is other than United didn't meet her at the plane.

Imagine that, a unaccompanied minor was found in a room they take unaccompanied minors to.

I don't know what their current policy is but when I was a crew member for UA, losing a UM meant the entire crew could be fired. We once had an incident where we had an older UM who took off his UM ID and ignored our directions to come forward and wait with us in the galley until everyone deplaned. He slipped off and we immediately took off searching for him. He was at his destination and his Dad was meeting him at baggage claim and that is where we found him. After that incident, I would go to the child and ask for their IPOD or games before landing to ensure they had to go to a crew member before leaving and wouldn't just slip off. I never had a problem after that with the older ones. The younger ones are very good about just staying in their seat until everyone is gone and waiting for crew to come and get them.

That said, I can't understand why they are still using these outside companies for passenger assistance.

It probably costs ($$) them less money, the same with regard to those who push the wheelchairs, dont know why they havent axed the curb side Skycaps either and replace them with UA employees, at least Id expect then to put my own bags on the scale and not expect an outstrecthed hand awaiting a tip for doing Nothing, OK they put the tag on the bag

It's always amazing in threads like this how people just plain make stuff up.

The girl was not wandering alone in the airport at any time according to the girl and her mother. She did not have a cell phone because of Camp. She was never "lost", she was always with other people.

I know, facts no longer have any place around here.

“They called for accompany, um, – and no one came. They called several more times and told me to wait at front seat. When no one came after a while they told me to go out and wait by the lady who scans your tickets,” Phoebe said.

She waited and waited, until she missed her connecting flight. Then she says someone from United escorted her to a room for unaccompanied minor and she asked to call her parents to let them know she had missed the connecting flight.

“What did they say when you asked to call?” “They said we are busy – not now, wait a minute. And I kept waiting and asking – but never had time to call,” Phoebe said.

Phoebe didn’t have a cell phone, according to her mom, because she wasn’t supposed to be alone. She was supposed to be in the care of United Airlines.

The more details that come out, the less of a story this is other than United didn't meet her at the plane.

That is what happens when a title isn't accurate and people just skim over the article itself. It kind of proves how the media can manipulate our perception of events and people with their misleading sound byte headlines.

New idea for a DOT regulation: UMs must be handled by the airline's own employees. Failure to properly handle UMs would not only result in stiff fines but also referrals to the state CPS and local DA as MarkXS suggested. These lapses in minimum-wage-structured service should not be able to be paid away in fines as the cost of doing business (like UPS parking anywhere and eating the tickets as needed). Criminal liability by negligent airline agents/managers should absolutely be on the table in cases like this.

It is a really really bad idea to criminalize simple mistakes with no resulting harm. Well technically, the missed connection was the (only) harm here. If we criminalizes that, there would be no employees left unjailed to run the airline!

Normally, I am the last person to defend United, but viterol directed their way is over-the-top.

It was probably Prospect (http://www.chicagoreporter.com/news/2012/01/grounded-tips). At SFO, the UM office mentioned upthread is run by Airserv (similar outfit, pre-TDC BP checkers and wheelchair pushers making minimum wage).

New idea for a DOT regulation: UMs must be handled by the airline's own employees. Failure to properly handle UMs would not only result in stiff fines but also referrals to the state CPS and local DA as MarkXS suggested. These lapses in minimum-wage-structured service should not be able to be paid away in fines as the cost of doing business (like UPS parking anywhere and eating the tickets as needed). Criminal liability by negligent airline agents/managers should absolutely be on the table in cases like this.

She missed a flight. Why would that be referrable to the CPS and DA? If missing a flight because of employee's actions becomes a criminal thing, there would be no airline employees left in a few months.

What on earth is the criminal liability for somebody missing a flight?

Contrary to your assertion, I do not see anyone here "defending" United. Rather, certain folks are saying that the parents could have avoided this insanity by having a simple back-up plan for the off chance that something goes wrong and United does not or cannot help the kid.

Had the child had a cell phone the parents would at least have been notified but there still would have been a misconnect as the parents weren't in the connecting city to take the kid to the second flight.

She missed a flight. Why would that be referrable to the CPS and DA? If missing a flight because of employee's actions becomes a criminal thing, there would be no airline employees left in a few months.

What on earth is the criminal liability for somebody missing a flight?

It's the custody issue. UA was acting in loco parentis and obviously dropped the ball. So please don't assume that folks here are outraged based on unreported speculation or anything having to do with unrelated airline issues. The girl had to go out of her way to stand next to the GA even after she rebuffed her, which to me sounds a lot like UA relinquished custody in a negligent manner.

Not to go down the road of "bad HKG 4-mile" analogies, but what if your kid's teacher took the class on a field trip and abandoned your kid to fend for themselves in public? How is this different? :confused:

It was probably Prospect (http://www.chicagoreporter.com/news/2012/01/grounded-tips). At SFO, the UM office mentioned upthread is run by Airserv (similar outfit, pre-TDC BP checkers and wheelchair pushers making minimum wage).

New idea for a DOT regulation: UMs must be handled by the airline's own employees. Failure to properly handle UMs would not only result in stiff fines but also referrals to the state CPS and local DA as MarkXS suggested. These lapses in minimum-wage-structured service should not be able to be paid away in fines as the cost of doing business (like UPS parking anywhere and eating the tickets as needed). Criminal liability by negligent airline agents/managers should absolutely be on the table in cases like this.

I see no reason to prohibit outsourcing. It might be more efficient to have one company handle all the UMs in an airport rather than each airline making provisions.

What's needed is statutory damages for a UM handling mistake, like we have for IDBs.

The issue of being able to simply get out of it by paying fines isn't a problem other than if it's too common that means the fines are too low. Set the fines high enough the company actually makes a good effort to avoid the situation.

(Which is why I say the IDB fines are too low--again and again there are reports of inadequate attempts to get volunteers.)

The more details that come out, the less of a story this is other than United didn't meet her at the plane.

Imagine that, a unaccompanied minor was found in a room they take unaccompanied minors to.

You're missing the point. I do agree the child was not lost, the problem was United couldn't be bothered to get her to her flight.

Agree that the parents could have done more for the child regarding communication device.

The main thing is how bad UA looks in the NBC headline and related story today (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/48687364/ns/today-travel/#.UC1kp6lxK9c). Media paints a clear picture of UA employees dropping the ball while the company outsources the care of your kid to some third party company that does not return phone calls, while UA happily collects your $99 for the service.

Not good.

This is, however, over the top. I'm sure that CPS has much more pressing and dangerous situations to investigate. United was, most likely, negligent not to have an effective procedure in place to deal with service glitches like this. Its behavior certainly doesn't rise to the level of criminality. I guess the family could bring a civil suit, but I seriously doubt that the damages that they might receive would justify the time spent in doing so.

See another poster's later comment about in loco parentis. If a daycare worker or a school bus driver "lost a kid", which has happened on occasion, there certainly would be authorities investigating. Not just the school or the bus company. And deservedly so.


I think you may have a skewed definition of "backup plan." Deliberate but perhaps undercommunicated irony here. Putting a kid on a flight alone on some airline that might take a 10year old, or other arrangement, is no backup plan. Paying for the service that includes guarantees of of accompanied service at all times, escorts between gates, proactive contact to the parents on delays, is in essence paying the airline itself for services above and beyond mere transportation. The airline is in essence saying "we'll make sure we get your child where she is going safely no matter what." That in itself is the airline backing its basic service up with contingency planning - and in this case being a dismal failure.

Poor service from United and their contractors, but the outrage seems overblown. Yeah? How about if it was your kid?

It's the custody issue. UA was acting in loco parentis and obviously dropped the ball. So please don't assume that folks here are outraged based on unreported speculation or anything having to do with unrelated airline issues. The girl had to go out of her way to stand next to the GA even after she rebuffed her, which to me sounds a lot like UA relinquished custody in a negligent manner.

Not to go down the road of "bad HKG 4-mile" analogies, but what if your kid's teacher took the class on a field trip and abandoned your kid to fend for themselves in public? How is this different? :confused: BINGO! Somebody gets it.

I see no reason to prohibit outsourcing. It might be more efficient to have one company handle all the UMs in an airport rather than each airline making provisions.

What's needed is statutory damages for a UM handling mistake, like we have for IDBs.

The issue of being able to simply get out of it by paying fines isn't a problem other than if it's too common that means the fines are too low. Set the fines high enough the company actually makes a good effort to avoid the situation. Excellent points.

This whole incident stinks, and is far more serious than cold warm nuts, TODs instead of UDUs and GPUs clearing, "changes you'll like", SHARES, and anything else we complain about on this board. This was United abandoning its responsibility of legal custody of a child, compounded by a We Don't Care attitude across the board. Serious, authorities should dig into whether or not United mishandling unaccompanied minors is endemic, and crack down wicked hard to make them take this seriously. Before something worse happens.

I wonder if this all could have been avoided if the 10 YO had just accepted the TOD offer..... :D

Not quite as sensationalistic as the blogger neighbor wrote, although not a "success" either. Amazing what a little spin from someone with an axe to grind can do to a story.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11666850/1/united-we-did-not-lose-anybody.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO

It's the custody issue. UA was acting in loco parentis and obviously dropped the ball. So please don't assume that folks here are outraged based on unreported speculation or anything having to do with unrelated airline issues. The girl had to go out of her way to stand next to the GA even after she rebuffed her, which to me sounds a lot like UA relinquished custody in a negligent manner.

Not to go down the road of "bad HKG 4-mile" analogies, but what if your kid's teacher took the class on a field trip and abandoned your kid to fend for themselves in public? How is this different? :confused:

The perception of the handling of UM's has become very confused and distorted in this thread.

The girl did not have to go out of her way to stand next to a GA. That is where she was supposed to be. as in with a United employee. Would you prefer they told her to go with a an unknown passenger? The GA did not rebuff the child and she never had to fend for herself either. When the escort didn't show up they sent her to the room where UM's are under supervision. In that room they have games, toys, food and someone who watches over them. They never relinquished custody of the little girl.

Not quite as sensationalistic as the blogger neighbor wrote, although not a "success" either. Amazing what a little spin from someone with an axe to grind can do to a story.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11666850/1/united-we-did-not-lose-anybody.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO



I figured it was something like this. So the shame on UA is much less as the only thing they did wrong was not tell the parents.


But there is a heck of a lot of shame on the parents for creating an amazing adventure, that wasn't entirely true.


So that's the lesson: don't use hyperboles kids!

Luggage issue aside, the real problem here is a failure of communication. Connections get missed. It would be hard for a gate agent to take the time (probably a thirty minute RT) to walk the child from B/C to E to connect with her next flight. That's not the problem. The kid was supervised. That's not the problem. The problem was that for a couple of frightening hours the parents had no idea where their child was, and if she was okay. The problem was that the child was frustrated in her attempts to contact her parents. The problem was that United's phone system, frustrating at the best of times, would be maddening to a parent who does not know where his/her child is. You want to throw the phone out of the window when it takes you an hour+ to get an upgrade processed; imagine how it would feel if you were trying to find your child. This problem could, however, be solved quite simply.

1)United should have a priority dedicated phone line for enquiries regarding UMs in transit. This number should be given to parents when they pay the UM fee. United does not need to staff a special "UM crisis desk." It simply needs to have a phone number that jumps the caller to the top of the queue (almost any time on hold is too long when parents learn that their child did not arrive at his/her destination) and routes the caller to whatever department it wants to put in charge of these incidents. This would mean that phone calls from worried parents would be answered promptly by staff who were trained in how to deal with this issue. Dealing with missing UMs would not be their only job, but these phone agents would at least have access to phone contact information for the correct people to speak with at each United station.

2)Track UMs en route. Have United employees log the location of any UM in their care. I'm sure they could build a fancy system to do this, but it really wouldn't require more than a shared google.doc. Heck, if they assigned each UM a code (rather than using their name), they could make the document public. Shouldn't use the name on a public document due to concerns re: kidnapping by non-custodial parents, etc. (this is why schools often do not use full names of students on-line).

3)Encourage United employees to be flexible and creative in dealing with situations like this. If it had occurred to anyone to simply loan this child their personal cell phone, much needless frustration and worry could have been averted.


But there is a heck of a lot of shame on the parents for creating an amazing adventure, that wasn't entirely true.


I think that the parents' letter, linked in the blog post, accurately described the incident. Perhaps I read it with more care than many, but I never thought that the child wandered ORD without a chaperone. The parents' letter was highly charged, given their frightening experience, but it was "true."

I think that the parents' letter, linked in the blog post, accurately described the incident. Perhaps I read it with more care than many, but I never thought that the child wandered ORD without a chaperone. The parents' letter was highly charged, given their frightening experience, but it was "true."

Really? I don't consider this part true

United neglected to care for and keep safe the unaccompanied minor that they took into their care

When was the child not cared for or not safe?

It's always amazing in threads like this how people just plain make stuff up.

The girl was not wandering alone in the airport at any time according to the girl and her mother. She did not have a cell phone because of Camp. She was never "lost", she was always with other people.

I know, facts no longer have any place around here.

“They called for accompany, um, – and no one came. They called several more times and told me to wait at front seat. When no one came after a while they told me to go out and wait by the lady who scans your tickets,” Phoebe said.

She waited and waited, until she missed her connecting flight. Then she says someone from United escorted her to a room for unaccompanied minor and she asked to call her parents to let them know she had missed the connecting flight.

“What did they say when you asked to call?” “They said we are busy – not now, wait a minute. And I kept waiting and asking – but never had time to call,” Phoebe said.

Phoebe didn’t have a cell phone, according to her mom, because she wasn’t supposed to be alone. She was supposed to be in the care of United Airlines.

The more details that come out, the less of a story this is other than United didn't meet her at the plane.

Imagine that, a unaccompanied minor was found in a room they take unaccompanied minors to.

Your post is accurate and on point. Many here will therefore ignore it.

UA did not lose anyone.

The person who was supposed to accompany the UM did not show up. The FAs therefore delivered the UM to the GA(s). The GAs were busy and did not immediately take care of getting the UM to the next flight which caused her to miss the connection but it looks like she was with UA personnel or in the UM room the entire time she was in the airport.

Was this bad service? Clearly, yes. Both while this was taking place and in UA's slow response to the complaint after the fact. Was UA grossly negligent and/or did they endanger the UM? Just as clearly, no. Much of the reaction here is way overblown.

Maybe the parents/blogger/ news wires are the descendants of William Randolph Hearst, and we're just carrying on their family tradition. No one will read the truth, yellow journalism incites people and gets noticed.

Last time I flew United was 1987. Long haul business class. enough said.

Some of you people either aren't parents or are so stuck in apologizing for anything the airline does that you seem to think it's OK for the airline to get away with doing this.

Take away the airline for a minute. Replace it with - let’s say a police officer from a fictional precinct that accepts a fee to escort children. A parent gives her 10 year old daughter to a police officer with a payment to escort her to school. The police officer accepts the payment and the child, but fails to deliver her to the school. The school and the parent franticly call the precinct to find the lost girl. After a few hours the officer shows-up saying, “sorry, there was a mix-up and I got busy dealing with other things. What are you upset about, calm down, your daughter was constantly supervised by me.” Later, when you speak to the girl, you find out she made repeated attempts to contact you with an update but was brushed-off and ignored.

I sue the officer for kidnapping, for breach of contract, and I make sure that that precinct is no longer allowed to supervise kids.

That’s what any parent does.

Take a look at another example, this time not fictional but real-world from yesterday:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/08/16/li-day-care-center-has-license-suspended-revoked-after-girl-allegedly-left-behind-on-beach/

Girl left behind, license revoked. THAT is what should happen to the HouCrew here. Their license to operate should be revoked. Period.

The major screwup here was not the fact that no one came to pick up the kid. Ferry around enough kids and there will be a miscommunication and this will happen. I can't fault UA (or its contractors) if this happens once or twice a year out of many thousands of children.

But having a child miss a connection is different from allowing the child out of UA's custody, even for a second. The real screwup came if (as reported) the FA just had the child walk out of the plane unaccompanied to find the GA. At that point, the child was totally out of UA's control. Had the child not followed the FA's directions, or had something even worse happened, it is possible that no one at UA would have ever been aware that they had lost a child. That was an exceedingly bad decision on the part of the FA, and that (IMHO) is where UA's main culpability lies.

I think one can also fault UA for not being in contact with the child's parents, letting them know what happened. This is somewhat inexplicable, actually.

Some of you people either aren't parents or are so stuck in apologizing for anything the airline does that you seem to think it's OK for the airline to get away with doing this.

Take away the airline for a minute. Replace it with - let’s say a police officer from a precinct that accepts a fee to escort children. A parent gives her 10 year old daughter to a police officer with a payment to escort her to school. The police officer accepts the payment and the child, but fails to deliver her to the school. The school and the parent franticly call the precinct to find the lost girl. After a few hours the officer shows-up saying, “sorry, there was a mix-up and I got busy dealing with other things. What are you upset about, calm down, your daughter was constantly supervised by me.” Later, when you speak to the girl, you find out she made repeated attempts to contact you with an update but was brushed-off and ignored.

I sue the officer for kidnapping, for breach of contract, and I make sure that that precinct is no longer allowed to supervise kids.

That’s what any parent does.

Take a look at another real-world example here.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/08/16/li-day-care-center-has-license-suspended-revoked-after-girl-allegedly-left-behind-on-beach/

Girl left behind, license revoked. THAT is what should happen to the HouCrew here. Their license to operate should be revoked. Period.

Comparing this incident with the girl left on the beach does not make sense. The UM was never left alone. Demanding they put the company out of business is a bit of an over reaction.

Comparing this incident with the girl left on the beach does not make sense. The UM was never left alone. Demanding they put the company out of business is a bit of an over reaction.

In who's opinion was the girl never left alone. I'm sure that's the airline's position, just as it's the officer's in my fictional example.

When a parent can't locacate their child for hours and their child is not where she should be than that child is lost and alone. When they call to ask for information and are lied to and brushed off then it confirms their child is lost. The parents' emotions and experience are no different.

When a child begs to call her parents and she is brushed off and ignored. When she knows she has to be on a flight that just left and she is not permitted to go there - well that child is lost and alone, and probably thinks she's been kidnapped. The child's emotions and experience are no different.

Saying that the child was never alone is the opinion of the criminal in this account, the people who felt it was "ok and no big deal" to shirk their contracted guardianship responsibilities and cause severe emotional harm.

Just because the girl was lucky enough not to have been physically harmed dosen't make the crime any less serious.

In who's opinion was the girl never left alone. I'm sure that's the airline's position, just as it's the officer's in my fictional example.

When a parent can't locacate their child for hours and their child is not where she should be than that child is lost and alone. When they call to ask for information and are lied to and brushed off then it confirms their child is lost. The parents' emotions and experience are no different.

When a child begs to call her parents and she is brushed off and ignored. When she knows she has to be on a flight that just left and she is not permitted to go there - well that child is lost and alone, and probably thinks she's been kidnapped. The child's emotions and experience are no different.

Saying that the child was never alone is the opinion of the criminal in this account, the people who felt it was "ok and no big deal" to shirk their contracted guardianship responsibilities and cause severe emotional harm.

There is no evidence that she was left alone and having been an FA for UA I understand the procedure. It would be typical in this situation for the FA to walk the child down the jetway to the GA who would be waiting for her if the GA could not come down to get her. Some have jumped to conclusions that she was abandoned when the FA told her to go wait by the GA perhaps imagining this instruction took place on the plane and they sent her off on her own. That would never happen and is an assumption by those that do not know or understand the process.

Was there a break down when they didn't notify the camp and the parents right away? Yes there was but kidnapped and causing severe emotional harm is beyond the pale.

You really don't know the employees side of this story and are making all of these assumptions based on a highly charged and not completely accurate re-accounting by the parents. Most of us understand and appreciate their concern but the story has been blown way out of proportion over a child who was never abandoned as the parents claim.

When a parent can't locacate their child for hours and their child is not where she should be than that child is lost and alone.

That's silly. I often don't know exactly where my kids are. That's true for everyone unless you attach a tracking device, That doesn't make them lost.

Alone? She was with UA people at all times (according to the information we have).

When a child begs to call her parents and she is brushed off and ignored. When she knows she has to be on a flight that just left and she is not permitted to go there - well that child is lost and alone, and probably thinks she's been kidnapped. The child's emotions and experience are no different.

Begs? Where did you get that? Hyperbole much?

Thought she was kidnapped? Where did you get that?

Saying that the child was never alone is the opinion of the criminal in this account, the people who felt it was "ok and no big deal" to shirk their contracted guardianship responsibilities and cause severe emotional harm.

Criminal? Good grief. If this is severe emotional harm, the human race is doomed.

Just because the girl was lucky enough not to have been physically harmed dosen't make the crime any less serious.

What is the crime? It's criminal to provide bad service?

At first I thought this post was an Onion kind of thing, but I think you're actually serious. Wow.

When a parent can't locacate their child for hours and their child is not where she should be than that child is lost and alone. When they call to ask for information and are lied to and brushed off then it confirms their child is lost. The parents' emotions and experience are no different.

The child was never lost.

The child was never alone.

Exactly what lies were the parents told?

You really believe a ten year old child sitting next to a gate agent and then later bring moved into a supervised room with other kids is the same as leaving a two year old on a beach alone and everybody leaving?

Really?

Really? I don't consider this part true

United neglected to care for and keep safe the unaccompanied minor that they took into their care

When was the child not cared for or not safe?

I read "care for and keep safe" as a compound. The parents felt that they contracted with United to "care for and keep safe" their daughter. United failed in this duty. I would classify both the non-appearance of the transfer chaperone and the refusal of the child's requests to to contact her parents as failures to "care for" her. No, I do not think that the child's safety was put at risk.

As an analogy, say that I contracted with a university to provide "room and board" for my son, but my son was refused service in the cafeteria. Though my son was provided with a room, I might write that the university, "failed to provide room and board for my son." This statement does not necessarily mean that the university failed to provide both room and board. If it failed to provide either, it failed to provide "room and board."

I do agree that their letter was strongly phrased and very emotional. I would expect this given the frightening experience they had just endured. The letter reflects their experience and state of mind, but I don't think it's a lie. I actually think we're mostly in agreement. Many people are overreacting to this story, as well as misreading the parents' letter. I do not think that the child was in danger. I do think that the parents were reasonable in believing that she was in danger, and I think that United should have better procedures to keep this sort of miscommunication (or total lack of communication) from happening in the future.

You really don't know the employees side of this story and are making all of these assumptions based on a highly charged and not completely accurate re-accounting by the parents. Most of us understand an appreciate their concern but the story has been blown way out of proportion over a child who was never abandoned as the parents claim.

I'm sorry, we're not going to agree here. The parents' account of what happened to them and their daughter in their experience is the only story I'm interested in. There is no "other-side" that undoes the damage to them. Maybe if the parents' were acting nuts and the daughter said "XXX was with me the whole time and helped me" You might have a point. But I can just imagine the experience of that poor girl at the hands of the employees of this airline in this environment. I'm 50 and a 1K and I cringe at being ignored, having to ask for things multiple times, begging to get the things I know I'm rightfully entitled too. She was probabably devistated at the inhuman treatment of the agents that couldn't and wouldn't stop whatever they were doing to help a lost and worried 10 year old girl call her parents after multiple requests. That's kidnapping, plain and simple.

Comparing this incident with the girl left on the beach does not make sense. The UM was never left alone. Demanding they put the company out of business is a bit of an over reaction.

But that's the thing, the child was "left alone". As far as I can tell from the limited info available, the FA told the child to go find the GA. At that point, the child was out of UA's custody. The kid could have exited the plan and kept walking. Or if the GA was busy, and a "helpful stranger" struck up a conversation while the kid was waiting... you get the idea. If the GA was not expecting the child (presumably the case, or else the GA likely would have made the short walk down the ramp), and if something had happened, it could have been hours before anyone knew the kid was missing. Now all of that is low probability, but it does not excuse UA.

I don't think that UA should be prosecuted or should pay any fines here... that seems over the top. But at least one UA employee made a very poor decision.

But at least one UA employee made a very poor decision.

What decision was that? I sincerely doubt the FA sent the kid up the jetway by herself. Nothing in the story supports that. The more likely scenario, and the one supported by the limited facts is that she walked her up and handed her over to the GA ("told her to stand by the GA"). Occam's Razor applies.

Some have jumped to conclusions that she was abandoned when the FA told her to go wait by the GA perhaps imagining this instruction took place on the plane and they sent her off on her own.

Doesn't it seem like this is exactly what happened?

“They called for accompany, um, – and no one came. They called several more times and told me to wait at front seat. When no one came after a while they told me to go out and wait by the lady who scans your tickets,” Phoebe said.

That would never happen and is an assumption by those that do not know or understand the process.

And people don't ever fail to follow protocol?

Look, I don't fault United for a little mixup that meant that no one met the plane. I fault them for clearly screwing up how they handled this---at the very least, we can all agree that not letting the kid call nor contacting the parents on the child's behalf was terrible---then ignoring the complaint for 6 weeks until it made the news. This is the sort of behavior many people have come to think of as defining the new UA.

But that's the thing, the child was "left alone". As far as I can tell from the limited info available, the FA told the child to go find the GA. At that point, the child was out of UA's custody. The kid could have exited the plan and kept walking. Or if the GA was busy, and a "helpful stranger" struck up a conversation while the kid was waiting... you get the idea. If the GA was not expecting the child (presumably the case, or else the GA likely would have made the short walk down the ramp), and if something had happened, it could have been hours before anyone knew the kid was missing. Now all of that is low probability, but it does not excuse UA.

I don't think that UA should be prosecuted or should pay any fines here... that seems over the top. But at least one UA employee made a very poor decision.

You are assuming when the FA told her to go wait by the GA that the FA told her this on the plane and sent her off. There is no way that happened. Obviously the GA was unable to come down and get the UM off the plane. In this case the FA walks the child down the jetway to the GA who would be expecting her and this is when the FA told the UM to wait by the GA. The crew and agents take the responsibility of UM's quite seriously.

Doesn't it seem like this is exactly what happened?

“They called for accompany, um, – and no one came. They called several more times and told me to wait at front seat. When no one came after a while they told me to go out and wait by the lady who scans your tickets,” Phoebe said.


I don't in this statement where it states definitively whether or not the FA walked the UM from the seat on the plane to the GA.

It may suggest or infer it, but it may just as well have happened that the FA's at first told the UM to stay on the plane until it became clear that no one was coming to get her. Then the FA's may have told her to "go stand by the lady who scans tickets", but the actual physical action of the UM walking from the plane to the GA may or may not have been accompanied by the FA. I don't think you can tell from the statement.

I don't in this statement where it states definitively whether or not the FA walked the UM from the seat on the plane to the GA.

It may suggest or infer it, but it may just as well have happened that the FA's at first told the UM to stay on the plane until it became clear that no one was coming to get her. Then the FA's may have told her to "go stand by the lady who scans tickets", but the actual physical action of the UM walking from the plane to the GA may or may not have been accompanied by the FA. I don't think you can tell from the statement.

Where in the agreement to have a service supervise a child does it say the unaccompanied minor will "go wait by the lady who scan's the tickets" until someone feels like doing something about it.

Look at what happened from the perspective of the parent or the child. What if there was a pervert or criminal or someone hanging around to grab the child in the guise of telling her "come, your parents want to chat with you"? Could the "lady scanning the tickets" who was not paying enough attention to her to be able to stop for a moment to let her call her parents have reacted fast enough to stop a kidnapping? Would "the lady scanning the tickets" have even noticed?

Come on now, we all spend lots of time in the airports. When was the last time a GA looked up and made eye contact with anyone they weren't directly serving. Like they routinely look around for passengers with distressed looks to offer assistance....what planet do you fly from? On mine 9 times out of 10 the answer is "this is not my flight" or "I'm not open yet" if you even bother to ask anything.

None of what happened is a substitute for the service the parents purchased and the airline didn't deliver. None of what happened is any different from "leaving the child alone."

But that's the thing, the child was "left alone". As far as I can tell from the limited info available, the FA told the child to go find the GA. At that point, the child was out of UA's custody. The kid could have exited the plan and kept walking. Or if the GA was busy, and a "helpful stranger" struck up a conversation while the kid was waiting... you get the idea. If the GA was not expecting the child (presumably the case, or else the GA likely would have made the short walk down the ramp), and if something had happened, it could have been hours before anyone knew the kid was missing. Now all of that is low probability, but it does not excuse UA.

I don't think that UA should be prosecuted or should pay any fines here... that seems over the top. But at least one UA employee made a very poor decision.

I hope COdbaUA gets hit with a big law suit by the parents and I hope they win big. Their is no excuse for the corporate behavior of "child neglect and endangerment." Also, the fact that COdbaUA waited six months to even acknowledge wrong doing tells you how much they really care about the customer or their families. :td::td:

I don't really get all the posters who think this is not an egrecious episode, or that the episode is being significantly exaggerated.

It seems the following clearly happened;

The parents paid $99 for an unaccompanied minor fee. This fee is supposed to assure that United gets the child to the connecting flight safely.

The child arrives at ORD on time, yet the person who is supposed to get the child to her connecting flight does not show up.

No United employee takes it upon themselves to get the child to the next flight.

The child misses her connection. No United employee bothers to call the parents to explain what has happened. No one tells them of the plans to put her on a later flight.

This is truly egregious, outrageous, and inexcusable. Regardless of whether the child was alone or not, United's management of this episode was irresponsible, and nothing but a no excuses apology is acceptable.

Yes, the press sometimes unfairly bashes airlines, but in this case, United is absolutely getting the thrashing it deserves.

It seems the following clearly happened;

The child arrives at ORD on time, yet the person who is supposed to get the child to her connecting flight does not show up.

No United employee takes it upon themselves to get the child to the next flight.

Late to the game, but those seem to be the facts in dispute.

The child misses her connection. No United employee bothers to call the parents to explain what has happened. No one tells them of the plans to put her on a later flight.

I don't know if this is a "promised" part of the UM program. In fact the FAQ's say:
Consider giving your child a calling card or teaching him or her how to make collect calls so he or she can reach you.

I think lexdevil is 100% correct, communication was the problem here.... Even if it costs the parents more money, but ADD communication to the system (maybe a phone call at connection points? [when time permits], tracking/text at landing?).

Luggage issue aside, the real problem here is a failure of communication. Connections get missed. It would be hard for a gate agent to take the time (probably a thirty minute RT) to walk the child from B/C to E to connect with her next flight. That's not the problem. The kid was supervised. That's not the problem.

While I agree the GA couldn't take the child to the next flight UA certainly should have been able to find someone to do it. They didn't try--the person who was supposed to do it didn't show and they just left here there.


I don't think the parents should be blamed for the lack of a backup plan--this sounds like a competent child, she knew to call when things went south, it's just they were prohibited from doing so. To me the blame falls on the GA.

I think lexdevil is 100% correct, communication was the problem here.... Even if it costs the parents more money, but ADD communication to the system (maybe a phone call at connection points? [when time permits], tracking/text at landing?).

This is not a communications problem. This is the complete and total dis-empowerment of all airline employees by an utterly disconnected and failed management. The people who interacted with this girl were mindless drones, not thinking like caring human beings, much less the empowered and helpful employees that United used to have before being assimilated by the HouCrew empire.

I don’t know if I more feel sorry for them because of what their management and circumstances has turned them into or feel angry at them for lacking the basic human compassion to help an obviously distressed child asking repeatedly to call her parents. In any case it is shameful behavior and management all the way to the top is clearly criminally liable. I hope the family finds a really good lawyer.

Again, the fact that nothing worse happened is irrelevant. The fact that this girl was not closely supervised and protected by a service designed to do so, and could potentially have been a victim of a horrendous crime that the service was designed to prevent is the point. Only by sheer chance did she stay safe as “the lady who scans the tickets” - who didn’t have the time or enough compassion to let her call home - became her de-facto guardian.

This is not a communications problem. This is the complete and total dis-empowerment of all airline employees by an utterly disconnected and failed management. The people who interacted with this girl were mindless drones, not thinking like caring human beings, much less the empowered and helpful employees that United used to have before being assimilated by the HouCrew empire.

I don’t know if I more feel sorry for them because of what their management and circumstances has turned them into or feel angry at them for lacking the basic human compassion to help an obviously distressed child asking repeatedly to call her parents. In any case it is shameful behavior and management all the way to the top is clearly criminally liable. I hope the family finds a really good lawyer.

Again, the fact that nothing worse happened is irrelevant. The fact that this girl was not closely supervised and protected by a service designed to do so, and could potentially have been a victim of a horrendous crime that the service was designed to prevent is the point. Only by sheer chance did she stay safe as “the lady who scans the tickets” - who didn’t have the time or enough compassion to let her call home - became her de-facto guardian.




Did you read the truth? She was closely supervised by the GAs (who are very busy), and then was transported to the UM lounge area, where she was obviously closly supervised.

I don't really get all the posters who think this is not an egrecious episode, or that the episode is being significantly exaggerated.

It seems the following clearly happened;

The parents paid $99 for an unaccompanied minor fee. This fee is supposed to assure that United gets the child to the connecting flight safely.

The child arrives at ORD on time, yet the person who is supposed to get the child to her connecting flight does not show up.

No United employee takes it upon themselves to get the child to the next flight.

The child misses her connection. No United employee bothers to call the parents to explain what has happened. No one tells them of the plans to put her on a later flight.

This is truly egregious, outrageous, and inexcusable. Regardless of whether the child was alone or not, United's management of this episode was irresponsible, and nothing but a no excuses apology is acceptable.

Yes, the press sometimes unfairly bashes airlines, but in this case, United is absolutely getting the thrashing it deserves.

I don't think anyone is saying United is not at fault. What I and a couple of others have said is that statements about UA endangering the child, being criminally neglegent, having lost the child, etc. are innacurate and overblown.

United did a poor job of managing this child's trip and caused her to miss her connection. Someone made a mistake (either the person managing the escorts or the escort). Was it serious? Yes. Was it outrageous and inexcusable? I think that's hyperbolic.

There were likely additional mistakes made such as the delay in getting the girl in touch with her parents and not finding some other way to get her to the connecting gate on time, but I dont really know the details and I don't think anyone else on this forum really does either. Regardless, even if the GA and everyone else was inept or insensitive, those things don't rise to the level of egregious, outrageous, and inexcusable either.

Bad service? Yes. Outrageous or egregious? Not so much.

In any case it is shameful behavior and management all the way to the top is clearly criminally liable. I hope the family finds a really good lawyer.

I'm totally baffled by why people think this is a criminal case. What, after all, was the crime? Some have said really nutty things like kidnapping, which makes no sense, and is especially funny in light of all the comments from folks who think that United failed to adequately supervise or control this child. United cannot "kidnap" a child if it does not have her in its custody. And given that United did maintain custody of the child, I still fail to see how this is kidnapping when the parents paid United to take custody of their child.

The other, more plausible, possibility is child endangerment, but this is still a stretch. If the child was never in danger, how could United be guilty of child endangerment? The parents worried that their child was in danger because United failed to communicate her whereabouts to them, not because she was actually in danger.

For those who think that the subcontractor's failure to show up on time to pick up the child is an example of criminal child endangerment, I wonder if you also think there should be criminal penalties when parents fail to pick up their children on time after daycare. Is it a crime when your babysitter forgets to show up and you miss a chance to go out without your kids? Were this the case, our prisons would be filled with parents who got caught in traffic on the way home from work, and teenagers who forgot to check their calendars. F-up, certainly; crime, not by a long shot.

I'm also baffled by the connection you imply between criminal liability and the family finding a good lawyer. If it is a criminal offense, the family does not need a lawyer; the state brings the suit. My guess is that your hope that the family finds a good lawyer means that you really understand that this is a civil, and not a criminal, matter. There is a possible tort claim for negligence. If the family won their suit they would receive damages in an amount commensurate with the harm that they suffered. I'm really not sure of the monetary value of a couple of hours of stress and panic, but I expect that a "really good lawyer" would counsel them that the damages would not be great enough to justify the time and effort spent chasing them. The family would probably do best taking whatever United has offered to make amends.

Did you read the truth?

No, we did not read the truth. Nobody on this forum knows the truth. We've read different accounts of what happened, which is not the same is knowing the truth.

She was closely supervised by the GAs (who are very busy), and then was transported to the UM lounge area, where she was obviously closly supervised.

There is a contradiction in the above statement. Either the GAs closely supervised the child or they were very busy. Can't have it both ways. My guess is that the GAs were very busy boarding and closing off the next departure, and for that reason did not bother to call the girl's parents and relied instead on her just hanging around for about an hour.

So three strikes against UA: relying on unreliable contractor, not communicating the situation to parents and not providing any means of tracking UMs, and (apparently) not making any attempts to rectify the situation until this incident became public. One strike against the parents and the blogger who originally reported the story: using the word 'lost' to describe what happened.

I'm totally baffled by why people think this is a criminal case. What, after all, was the crime? Some have said really nutty things like kidnapping, which makes no sense, and is especially funny in light of all the comments from folks who think that United failed to adequately supervise or control this child. United cannot "kidnap" a child if it does not have her in its custody. And given that United did maintain custody of the child, I still fail to see how this is kidnapping when the parents paid United to take custody of their child.

The other, more plausible, possibility is child endangerment, but this is still a stretch. If the child was never in danger, how could United be guilty of child endangerment? The parents worried that their child was in danger because United failed to communicate her whereabouts to them, not because she was actually in danger.

For those who think that the subcontractor's failure to show up on time to pick up the child is an example of criminal child endangerment, I wonder if you also think there should be criminal penalties when parents fail to pick up their children on time after daycare. Is it a crime when your babysitter forgets to show up and you miss a chance to go out without your kids? Were this the case, our prisons would be filled with parents who got caught in traffic on the way home from work, and teenagers who forgot to check their calendars. F-up, certainly; crime, not by a long shot.

I'm also baffled by the connection you imply between criminal liability and the family finding a good lawyer. If it is a criminal offense, the family does not need a lawyer; the state brings the suit. My guess is that your hope that the family finds a good lawyer means that you really understand that this is a civil, and not a criminal, matter. There is a possible tort claim for negligence. If the family won their suit they would receive damages in an amount commensurate with the harm that they suffered. I'm really not sure of the monetary vale of a couple of hours of stress and panic, but I expect that a "really good lawyer" would counsel them that the damages would not be great enough to justify the time and effort spent chasing them. The family would probably do best taking whatever United has offered to make amends.

Excellent summary. ^

I'm totally baffled by why people think this is a criminal case. What, after all, was the crime? Some have said really nutty things like kidnapping, which makes no sense, and is especially funny in light of all the comments from folks who think that United failed to adequately supervise or control this child. United cannot "kidnap" a child if it does not have her in its custody. And given that United did maintain custody of the child, I still fail to see how this is kidnapping when the parents paid United to take custody of their child.

The other, more plausible, possibility is child endangerment, but this is still a stretch. If the child was never in danger, how could United be guilty of child endangerment? The parents worried that their child was in danger because United failed to communicate her whereabouts to them, not because she was actually in danger.

For those who think that the subcontractor's failure to show up on time to pick up the child is an example of criminal child endangerment, I wonder if you also think there should be criminal penalties when parents fail to pick up their children on time after daycare. Is it a crime when your babysitter forgets to show up and you miss a chance to go out without your kids? Were this the case, our prisons would be filled with parents who got caught in traffic on the way home from work, and teenagers who forgot to check their calendars. F-up, certainly; crime, not by a long shot.

I'm also baffled by the connection you imply between criminal liability and the family finding a good lawyer. If it is a criminal offense, the family does not need a lawyer; the state brings the suit. My guess is that your hope that the family finds a good lawyer means that you really understand that this is a civil, and not a criminal, matter. There is a possible tort claim for negligence. If the family won their suit they would receive damages in an amount commensurate with the harm that they suffered. I'm really not sure of the monetary vale of a couple of hours of stress and panic, but I expect that a "really good lawyer" would counsel them that the damages would not be great enough to justify the time and effort spent chasing them. The family would probably do best taking whatever United has offered to make amends.

Those of you who can't see the crime either don't have children or are questionable parents IMHO.

Subistitute any other profession that offers child supervisory services and this isn't even a debate. Office day care center, Pre-school, school, anything.

When people trusted to care for children as a primary responsibility fail (yes, making it an afterthought for a busy GA to "keep an eye on her" is failing miserably) they are either charged by the prevailing authorities with child endangerement (as they should be) or if that doesn't happen, the parents involved alert the media (done here) and/or hire a good lawyer (who can shame the authorities into acting, or failing that persue the matter civilly.)

And "taking what the airline gives you, shutting up and going away" is NEVER the right thing to do - in any circumstance. Only an airline employee or an apologist would suggest such.

If someone has guardianship responsibility of a child, doesn't pay attention to her safety as their primary responsibility (beacuse the agent was really busy) and refuses multiple requests to let her call her parents, what crime would you call it - because there's no way that isn't a crime.

Those of you who can't see the crime either don't have children or are questionable parents IMHO.

That's really insulting.


Subistitute any other profession that offers child supervisory services and this isn't even a debate. Office day care center, Pre-school, school, anything.

Actually, you have that just about exactly backwards. Schools, day cares, and the like are never criminally prosecuted for mistakes like this. Kid gets off the bus at the wrong stop and is missing for a few hours and you don't see bus driver getting frog-marched out of the courthouse on the evening news. They save that for, you know, criminal acts like molestation, physical abuse, etc.



Serenity now, serenity now...

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/08/16/li-day-care-center-has-license-suspended-revoked-after-girl-allegedly-left-behind-on-beach/

http://missoulian.com/news/local/state-to-revoke-license-of-missoula-day-care-center-after/article_0cecf362-e4a2-11e1-86e1-0019bb2963f4.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP120ae8db5357473c80ae297b292a43aa.html

http://thelensnola.org/2012/08/06/operation-reach-daycare-revocation/. Which raises another point about a lack of background checks on these random GAs, FAs and outsourced firm supposedly supervising UMs

http://nebraskaradionetwork.com/2012/08/13/state-strips-child-care-licenses-from-lincoln-and-sidney-centers/

http://www.ktvq.com/news/daycare-cited-for-allegedly-leaving-boy-unattended-in-car/


That was one search....there are hundreds more cases of action being taken because children did not get adequate supervision in circumstances where the parents were assured they would.

And before anyone says " these are not the same " no two cases are the same, but each of these have the same panic for the family and risk the same potential catastrophe for a child. The "lady scanning the tickets" who was "too busy to let a child call home" after repeated requests was an inadequate supervisor for this girl, and only by sheer luck did a catastrophe not happen. Same crime.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/08/16/li-day-care-center-has-license-suspended-revoked-after-girl-allegedly-left-behind-on-beach/

http://missoulian.com/news/local/state-to-revoke-license-of-missoula-day-care-center-after/article_0cecf362-e4a2-11e1-86e1-0019bb2963f4.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP120ae8db5357473c80ae297b292a43aa.html

http://thelensnola.org/2012/08/06/operation-reach-daycare-revocation/. Which raises another point about a lack of background checks on these random GAs, FAs and outsourced firm supposedly supervising UMs

http://nebraskaradionetwork.com/2012/08/13/state-strips-child-care-licenses-from-lincoln-and-sidney-centers/

http://www.ktvq.com/news/daycare-cited-for-allegedly-leaving-boy-unattended-in-car/


That was one search....there are hundreds more cases of action being taken because children did not get adequate supervision in circumstances where the parents were assured they would.

And before anyone says " these are not the same " no two cases are the same, but each of these have the same panic for the family and risk the same potential catastrophe for a child. The "lady scanning the tickets" who was "too busy to let a child call home" after repeated requests was an inadequate supervisor for this girl, and only by sheer luck did a catastrophe not happen. Same crime.

Those cases are not remotey similar to this one.

Those of you who can't see the crime either don't have children or are questionable parents IMHO.

Subistitute any other profession that offers child supervisory services and this isn't even a debate. Office day care center, Pre-school, school, anything.

When people trusted to care for children as a primary responsibility fail (yes, making it an afterthought for a busy GA to "keep an eye on her" is failing miserably) they are either charged by the prevailing authorities with child endangerement (as they should be) or if that doesn't happen, the parents involved alert the media (done here) and/or hire a good lawyer (who can shame the authorities into acting, or failing that persue the matter civilly.)

And "taking what the airline gives you, shutting up and going away" is NEVER the right thing to do - in any circumstance. Only an airline employee or an apologist would suggest such.

If someone has guardianship responsibility of a child, doesn't pay attention to her safety as their primary responsibility (because the agent was really busy) and refuses multiple requests to let her call her parents, what crime would you call it - because there's no way that isn't a crime.

I guess that I am both a questionable parent and a criminal, given that I have a child and I am a teacher who supervises student travel for a living. While I do not travel with ten year olds (and have not since my son was that age), I travel with groups of students who are between 13 and 18 years of age. All of my charges are old enough to avoid the UM fee on United, but many would be required to pay it on Delta (where the age cut off is 15).

When we arrive at an airport, I gather my students for a short meeting in which I tell them what time they must be at the gate. I ask them to repeat the gate number and time. I tell them to check the monitors for changes in gate number and time. I tell them that they must stay in groups and not go places on their own. I then let them find something to eat, go to the newsstand/bathroom, etc. This is how they learn to handle their business when they travel. When we are sitting at the gate, I do work on my laptop and read. I do not hover over my students and observe their every move.

The idea that a guardian is required by law to do nothing but observe and stand by the side of a child is bizarre. If I hire a babysitter, I don't think that he or she is a criminal for going to the bathroom when the need arises. I do not think that parents are criminals for allowing their children to sleep in their own rooms unobserved. When a kidnapper comes through the window during the night and takes the child, I do not think that the parents are criminals for sleeping in their own room instead of observing their child.

The amount of care and close observation required of a guardian depends on the age and vulnerability of the child, and on the setting. Clearly, if we are at a beach or by a backyard pool and the child is young, the duty to observe is much greater because the risk is so high. In this situation, even a bathroom break for the guardian is not reasonable. Airports are, however, pretty safe places, and ten year olds are generally mature enough to stay where they are asked and kick up a fuss if a stranger attempts to interfere with them. It's okay for a parent to read a book while waiting for a flight, rather than staring intently at his or her ten year old child who is playing a video game a few seats away. Similarly, it is okay for a gate agent to seat a child near the kiosk, instruct her to wait there, and then continue his or her work (while looking up every so often to see that the child is okay).

Nothing in the parents' letter indicates that their child was unsupervised or that whoever was caring for her failed to monitor her adequately. The parents state that their child's repeated requests for help in communicating with them and her camp were rebuffed. This fact alone implies that she was adequately supervised. She was with people who she knew had an obligation to care for her (hence her ability to ask them to make a call).

I agree that the communication failure was egregious. Families who a child in the care of others are asking not only that their child be kept safe, but also that they have the peace of mind of knowing that their child is safe. This is why communication is key, and it is why I agree that United screwed up big time in this case. As a parent, I know that I would have been at my wit's end with worry had I been in their shoes. This is why, when I travel with teens, I remind them to call home every day.

United's failure was a failure to communicate. It was stupid, thoughtless, and cruel. United employees should have known that panic would ensue when the child did not arrive on her scheduled flight, and they should have made every effort to prevent that from happening by communicating with the child's family. This is, however, a tort and not a crime. The family was harmed and it can ask for damages. I simply think that the extent of the damages they would receive from a court would not justify the amount of effort they would have to put into suing. We do not know the full extent of the compensation United offered this family, but I expect that it was decent. If the family is still unhappy with the offer, it can use the court of public opinion (aka social media) to pressure United to do more. This is probably an easier and more cost beneficial method of getting satisfaction from United than taking legal action, and it is precisely the option that the family chose.

Those cases are not remotey similar to this one.

Maybe in your opinion. Fine. But not in the opinion of the parent or the child.

Maybe in your opinion. Fine. But not in the opinion of the parent or the child.

Which parent and which child? The parents in this case sent a letter to United rather than contacting the DA and insisting that criminal charges be brought. I see no evidence that they think that United is guilty of a crime.

Maybe in your opinion. Fine. But not in the opinion of the parent or the child.

Again

Yes, a ten year old missing a flight, and being under supervision in a play room at an airport is exactly the same as day care workers leaving a two year old on the beach unsupervised for hours without realizing it.

Exactly the same.

I can't believe anybody here actually thinks they are even remotely connected other than they contain the word child in them.

But hey, what do facts matter if you have a point to prove?

Again

Yes, a ten year old missing a flight, and being under supervision in a play room at an airport is exactly the same as day care workers leaving a two year old on the beach unsupervised for hours without realizing it.

Exactly the same.

I can't believe anybody here actually thinks they are even remotely connected other than they contain the word child in them.

But hey, what do facts matter if you have a point to prove?

I'm sure the playroom is safe. I'm also sure that quite a bit of unsupervised time passed before she got there.

I can't believe anybody here wants to absolve the people that broke their promise ( and contract) to supervise this child just because she was lucky enough not to have had a disaster while the GA wasn't paying attention.

Hey, what does the crime matter when we've already decided to absolve the criminals?

http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2012/08/united-airlines-lost-my-friends-10-year-old-daughter-and-didnt-care.html

Here is the headline: United was flying Phoebe as an unaccompanied minor on June 30th, from San Francisco to Chicago, with a transfer to Grand Rapids. No one showed-up in Chicago to help her transfer, so although her plane made it, she missed the connection. Most crucially, United employees consistently refused to take action to help assist or comfort Phoebe or to help her parents locate her despite their cries for help to numerous United employees.

:mad:

I was an unaccompanied minor at 9 years old and nobody met me at the connecting airport on the outbound trip. One flight was even cancelled. I did not get lost. :)

These parents can afford to fly a child to camp halfway across the country but they're too cheap to spring for a disposal cell phone so she can contact them if there is a problem?

IMO it should be SOP for the company to make an immediate phone call to the parent/guardian in the event of a UM's misconnect.

Did UA do that? I haven't read every post.

IMO it should be SOP for the company to make an immediate phone call to the parent/guardian in the event of a UM's misconnect.

Did UA do that? I haven't read every post.

No. The UA people with her refused her repeated requests to let her call home.

The India call center first lied to the parents and said she arrived at her final destination, then put them on hold for nearly an hour in total. They finally reached someone at ORD on the premier line, who also refused to help until the parents were able to appeal to the agent as a mother.

Inexcusable across the board.

I'm sure the playroom is safe. I'm also sure that quite a bit of unsupervised time passed before she got there.

I can't believe anybody here wants to absolve the people that broke their promise ( and contract) to supervise this child just because she was lucky enough not to have had a disaster while the GA wasn't paying attention.

Hey, what does the crime matter when we've already decided to absolve the criminals?
How can you possibly be "sure that quite a bit of time passed..."? There is no credible basis for that statement.

Nobody wants to absolve anyone of anything. UA is responsible for failing to perform the service they were contracted to perform. They therefore refunded the payment they receieved to perform that service. That's probably the extent of their legal obligation, but the parents are free to seek other compensation for the harm they and their daughter suffered. That can negotiate that directly with UA or seek redress through the civil courts. That's how it works. UA would probably be well advised to make a strong gesture of goodwill, but that's between them and the parents/child.

UA did not commit a criminal act (judging from the publically known facts). It's as simple as that.

I'm sure the playroom is safe. I'm also sure that quite a bit of unsupervised time passed before she got there.

I can't believe anybody here wants to absolve the people that broke their promise ( and contract) to supervise this child just because she was lucky enough not to have had a disaster while the GA wasn't paying attention.

Hey, what does the crime matter when we've already decided to absolve the criminals?

Why are you sure that quite a bit of unsupervised time passed before she got to the UM room?

There is no evidence that she was ever left unsupervised or out of the sight of a United employee. Even the parents have since stated that she was never left unattended.

IMO it should be SOP for the company to make an immediate phone call to the parent/guardian in the event of a UM's misconnect.

Did UA do that? I haven't read every post.

No. The UA people with her refused her repeated requests to let her call home.

The India call center first lied to the parents and said she arrived at her final destination, then put them on hold for nearly an hour in total. They finally reached someone at ORD on the premier line, who also refused to help until the parents were able to appeal to the agent as a mother.

Inexcusable across the board.

I see it is part of UA's SOP (https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/specialneeds/minors/faq.aspx):


What if my child’s travel is affected by delays, cancellations or other problems?

It can be very stressful when flights do not operate as planned, especially for unaccompanied children. In the case of weather or other delays and cancellations, United will contact you or the person designated to meet your child at his or her final destination. You can also track the status of the flight on united.com. Advise your child to remain with a United representative at all times. Consider giving your child a calling card or teaching him or her how to make collect calls so he or she can reach you.


Pretty simple IMO - if that didn't happen, it most certainly is inexcusable. :td:

We've never had a problem and always thought that the drive, and the inconvenience of restricting ourselves to nonstops, is a small price to pay to avoid potential panic like these parents experienced.

Not saying it's the parents' fault... just saying that there are some common sense things you can do to try to avoid this possible eventuality.

I seriously doubt that there is a non-stop from the Bay Area to Traverse City. In fact, I know there's not.

Right, which is pretty much on-point for what I'm saying.

Again, not blaming the parents, but speaking as a parent, the common sense solution here would have been to avoid the solo connection.

This could be done, for example, by flying a parent with her. Or choosing a different camp.

Yeah, I read UA's pledges too, and I send my kid solo too... I'm just saying that the parents here had some common sense options to avoid this that they didn't avail themselves of.

Right, which is pretty much on-point for what I'm saying.

Again, not blaming the parents, but speaking as a parent, the common sense solution here would have been to avoid the solo connection.

This could be done, for example, by flying a parent with her. Or choosing a different camp.

Yeah, I read UA's pledges too, and I send my kid solo too... I'm just saying that the parents here had some common sense options to avoid this that they didn't avail themselves of.

B6 requires UM's to fly only non-stops.

Obviously, If a family is sending their daughter from the Bay Area to Traverse City, no airline will fly it non-stop...

My kids have often flown as UM's, including internationally.

I have my share of issues and glitches, but my kids--thankfully--were always taken care by airline personnel.

The biggest issue I had was when I arrived at JFK and the ticket agent told me I wasn't the person listed as the one greeting the children.

After discussing it with customer service for over 45 minutes, the flight landed and the airline employee escorting my children called me...

I was, in fact, the adult listed, as it turned out the ticket agent was looking at the wrong flight segment, the outbound, when the kids' grandma was picking them up...

In my experience, the airline that treats UM's the best is Air France. Not only are they very careful with the kids, but they are also very kind and have plenty of "kid goodies" available for them, including children's meals, and games and toys.