Originally Posted by GUWonder
There's the "etc." proposals too, going from the simple to the complicated -- including (amongst other things) the UM program requiring payment for an additional empty seat; or a sort of paid babysitter+seat program, etc.
The question would then arise if such "proposals" effectively price out the UM program from existence or transform it into being just a more exclusive, smaller program. Effectively size-ing down the UM programs by having it incorporate more (at additional expense) doesn't necessarily strike me as absurd although it will price a good number out of the market.
All of your "proposals" would effectively spell the end of the UM programme, as they would all be prohibitively expensive. And you seriously propose, do you, rather than arguing for argument's sake, that this is the clearly better option than the simple policy that is in place at the moment, which no-one even knew about until recent press articles, and seems to have worked well for a number of years? And all to save the sensibilities of some male pax?
Originally Posted by GUWonder
The absurdity of this whole situation is the presumption that (in the absence of such a policy) an UM would probably be seated next to male pedophiles on planes who will act on their perversions in flight against a previously unknown child on a plane with dozens upon dozens of others around to potentially witness or intervene.
Until you get a foolproof molester-detector, BA has to work in the realms of what is possible. Statistically, it is far more likley that a male pax is a paedophile than a female pax. Simple as that.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Applying BA-logic in conjunction with an understanding of real patterns of sexual molestation of children, minors shouldn't be seated next to any male passenger with whom they've previously spent more than 12 hours -- including their fathers and siblings.
That's the
loco parentis point again. We are only dealing with the threat to UMs, who by definition are (a) unaccompanied (b) vulnerable (c) in the care of BA.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Personally, I don't much care what BA does in this regard as long as BA's somewhat absurd practice doesn't cause inconvenience, discomfort, or unease to the people BA is more explicitly "prejudiced against" in these circumstances.
As far as I can detect, your arguments have done nothing to demonstrate that BA's policy on this is "absurd". Indeed, the only absurdities are the unworkable alternatives you have suggested to a policy that (absent the rantings of the
Hate Mail) has been working well for years.