andrewwm

Carefully researched? He's just passing along an email an anonymous reader sent him. Not to say he'd post anything he knew to be false, but I doubt the fact checking went any further than just reading the email and posting it.

GBadger

That's not the point -- it's not that I want my kids to be entertained...

It's rather that when you have kids in the 3-10 year old range, it is nearly impossible to make them NOT watch something that is being broadcast through the cabin. Short of holding your hands over their eyes for a 1.5-2 hour movie, they're going to try to watch it -- even more so when you ask them not to...

Always Flyin

We know Fallows only heard one side of the story.

But we also know the pilot didn't come out of the cockpit to deal with this so whatever he was told was relayed by a flight attendant.

I don't know what happened, but Fallows' story sounds too tame to be true. My belief is that the parent turned into a flaming ****, thus making a scene that was worse for the child than letting them watch the movie.

Not if you give them something else to focus on, like a portable DVD player or a tablet.

cyclogenesis

Exactly

And their minds are sponges..

GBadger

Two things here:
1) I don't think anyone is advocating for "children's movies". I agree that there are "happy medium" types of movies that aren't a cartoon and also don't involve a huge amount of violence. I simply don't believe that there have to be guns, blood and torture for a movie to be considered good (and if you read the reviews on Alex Cross, most people don't think this movie is good even with all of those things...)
2) I doubt that there are very many flights where 99% of the plane is over 21. That's less than 2 minors on a 150 seat aircraft.

Andy Big Bear

Yes, I got that. The point is that it's hard to keep kids from inappropriate content, even if it isn't on the big screen. However, on a plane there's no place to go if there's inappropriate content to keep your kids away from it. So really, if you are flying with family, you may be screwed from the word go. Kicking people off the plane when they are looking for any accommodation, is a disproportionate response where the FA's and captain should be showing a little compassion.

787fan

I agree. The whole notion of completely shielding children under 18 would only end up worse for the kid because they're fully exposed at 18, but no one would've explained to them the potential harm.

Absolutely nothing wrong with PG13 movies.

GBadger

Kids will watch what they want to watch, but the odds are good that if you ask them to not watch one thing and instead watch another -- the one that you ask them to not pay attention to is the one that they're going to fixate on.

Can you provide a good reason that a movie with this level of violence needs to be shown on the overhead monitors on an airplane? It seems that there are good reasons not to show it in that setting...

Have you seen Alex Cross?

gobluetwo

I think this is the real crux of the issue, not necessarily the kid issue. Is it possible to raise an individual screen? What about covering the screen, particularly since folks around them didn't seem to mind?

And did the pilot over-react? What we will never know is the veracity of the writer's claim that everyone was calm and having a civil discussion; and what transpired between the FA(s) and the pilot to get to the point of a diversion.

flavorflav

From the first paragraph of the "Alex Cross" review in The New York Times:

"Women are something of an endangered sex in “Alex Cross”: one, half-dressed in black lingerie, dies after all her fingers are methodically snipped off. Another is similarly tortured to death; a third is shot straight through the chest."

Read the withering review in full herehttp://movies.nytimes.com/2012/10/19...detective.html. Though the question isn't whether "Alex Cross" is a crummy movie. The question is whether it's an appropriate movie - even in edited form - to expose to a captive audience including not just little kids but also adults who would rather not see such content in a confined setting.

Having not seen the UA-edited version of "Alex Cross," I suspect that it is not unlike "Law & Order: SVU." 'Clean' enough for broadcast TV but still loaded with violent imagery - women being beaten, children bound and gagged, people begging for their lives at gunpoint. Why someone at UA thought "Alex Cross," edited or not, was a good film to show to a confined space full of people is beyond me. Probably because it was the cheapest film they could buy.

Always Flyin

Good luck finding a happy medium. What you think is a happy medium another parent will claim is going to cause their child autism. When you go down this road you will end-up at the lowest common denominator. And then some people will still complain.

I think we are only concerned here with kids over three and under 13. That is generally going to be a fairly small number unless you are going to Orlando.

Because it is rated PG-13, was probably edited down from that, and you have to have an objective standard.

gobluetwo

I mostly disagree with your previous comments, but agree completely that the best way to handle it is to give the kids something else that will take their attention. Worked beautifully on our most recent trip last week.

dbuckho

I think there are two different issues. The pilot clearly overreacted with the diversion. I hope UA management deals with it appropriately.

As to the film, I imagine procedures prohibited closing the screen. But if all watching that screen were on the same page about the content something else creative could have been done like covering it for the duration of the flight without having to get the FAs/pursur involved.

Even if parents have brought an alternate form of entertainment it can be hard to ignore the screen right in your face.

Beyond the violence in Alex Cross, also surprised that no one has mentioned the greater sin of making everyone on the plane look at a movie with a 12% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes!

andrewwm

I'm not defending Alex Cross in particular (it's a pretty bad movie) but my view is that a parent's job is to deal with situations outside of your control like this.

Of course you may not want your young kid watching violent/sexually suggestive movies at a young age. You can control what they watch in the house, but it's a big world out there and they will be exposed to it.

As a role model, you can either make a huge fuss on the plane demanding that they turn off the movie for the entire plane and get yourself kicked off the plane, or you can do actual parenting and calmly try to help them make sense of it.

[Stuff] happens in the real world. I think catching snippets of a violent movie is hardly the worst thing that can happen to a kid. That said, I'm not going to show my kids hard core R rated movies, but this mentality that they must be protected at all costs is IMHO actually more harmful and makes a worse role model.

Always Flyin

So you want to take a survey on every flight of every person who can view a screen? That sounds like the beginning of a nightmare as people start arguing about whether to have the screen up or down.

And I simply don't believe that every single person with a view of that screen was agreeable to having it raised. That doesn't sound credible at all.