MiamiAirport Formerly NY George

At some point I have to laugh at people. The other night I streamed a documentary about Ryanair on Youtube. Good lord just looking at the seats in that airplane would be enough for me to say no. Paxs have to contend with a cart of junk in the aisle and non stop solicitation. Yet the airline has higher load factors than BA and is growing faster than BA. Bottom line is people are willing to subject themselves to just about anything for a cheap fare. I'd never trust my unaccompanied 8 year old (and a special needs one at that) to any airline-or in reality an underpaid, overworked contract worker that is being forced to hustle from gate to gate and can't take time to do much more than drag a kid from gate to gate. This same scenario could have just as easily occurred on UA, DL, WN, Spirit, etc.

And just like UA, DL, WN, Spirit, et al. the response would have been some nicely crafted wording but you can bet your bottom dollar the airline would continue to contract out to the lowest bidder. This is not an excuse for AA's (or any other airline practice), this should be a parent facing reality and making better decisions based upon that reality.

Rbt001

I've read all the comments posted so far, and I agree with GUWonder.

Normally I'm one to blame lazy parents who don't watch after their children or let children behave poorly. HOWEVER, this is one time that I don't think any of the parent bashing comments hold merit.

"Special Needs" Children are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act. They are entitled to fly just as other children are permitted. The UAM fee is not a "cargo fee" or "excess baggage fee"; that the airline specifies the conditions when the fee is mandatory and further outlines the rules for departure gate and arrive gate procedures for parents, one should expect the airline to professionally handle the parts in between. This includes connecting flights (which the airline permits for a particular age group, while also limiting the service to direct flights for the youngest children,) and presumably for IRROPS-- which the airline very well knows can happen!

Who wants to bet that the parent bashing posters are the ones that scream the loudest for meal and hotel vouchers when they experience an IRROP?

AA didn't discount the children's base fare for travel --their parents paid a published fare any adult would pay-- so why didn't they get vouchers like an adult in the same situation? To be more clear, an adult would have been provided funds for a decent place to sleep and funds for their choice of meals. Granted, as UAM's I'm not suggesting AA should have issued vouchers and let them on their own. But if AA was truly CONCERNED about the well-being of these minors UNDER THEIR CARE, then they would have provided something more than just the AA Press Release quote of "snacks." It seems undisputed that AA did NOT notify the parents, as is outlined and promised in AA guidelines for the program. So I guess it would be unfathomable for AA staff to review the mis-connect itinerary to see how long each child has been at an airport, perhaps ask the children how they are feeling, and if they are hungry? CLT most likely had plenty of food options in the terminal. Given the situation, I bet more than one would have provided a more substantive offering than the "snacks" AA provided, and accepted AA's voucher. "Snacks," according to a quote in the article were "crackers and soda."

AA probably thought it was more cost-effective to sub-contract this work out to a third party as someone posted. Perhaps it's time to reconsider taking this work back in-house and establishing better contingency plans. Unlike DL, AA further limits the UAM connecting flights to it's hubs, where there is more infrastructure, perfect for handling an UAM "lounge/playroom" than can occasionally become a supervised dorm room(s), if necessary. [IIRC, Delta had a similar situation at ATL --albiet not so negative-- where they did take the UAM's to a hotel.]

Finally, to the comment: "I have to think there are"camp" opportunities within driving distance."
Sarcastically said: That's right, there's a handful of camps "specifically for children with neurofibromatosis, a genetic disorder that causes tumors to grow on nerve tissue," in EVERY neighborhood, it's just that the parents of these 9 special needs children have nothing better to do than fly their children across country to attend this one camp.
(I would go on, but why put exponentially more thought into a reply than what went into the original comment?)
I would go on, but why put exponentially more thought into a reply than what went into the original comment?

dls25

In this case, I think the parents should be careful what they wish for. UM's are not a profit center for the airline and if AA made changes the parents would end up required to have that chaperone that they probably should have had to begin with (especially for a bunch of special needs children)

GUWonder

Rbt001

I haven't mastered the multi-quote, otherwise I would have included your YouTube RyanAir remarks.

I too am amazed by what RyanAir and Spirit passengers subject themselves to during flight. And while customer complaint levels are higher than the norm, they fill all their seats! I'd NEVER fly either airline.

But on the subject of UAM, we are talking about children, little human beings that cannot care for themselves. Substandard treatment of minors by any airline is never acceptable.

As a point of interest, Ryanair does NOT allow UAM's under 16 at all: smart move on their part.

Spirit is in the game: $100 includes a free drink and snack. Though I MIGHT be inclined to parent bash a friend if I heard they were sending an UAM on Spirit.

deeruck

Better for all if they are clear that "in the case of IRROPS that causes an overnight delay at the connection airport, we will not contact the parents, nor will we necessarily provide food or beds for the unaccompanied minor", then the parents could make a more informed choice.

AA clearly tries to avoid this situation, by specifying that they won't accept UAMs on "The last flight of the day from the final connection city, unless it’s the only scheduled flight offered". Perhaps they need to take another swing at their contigency plans for when things go wrong.

fastflyer

In this case, there is only one CLT_PDX flight, and it is an evening flight. This apparently was last Friday's flight, which took off at something like 8am on Saturday -- so a 12-hour delay which happens to have been an overnight delay.

I'm not sure if AA could have done anything that would have fully satisfied those here who demand baby-sitting levels of service (no way would AA administer medicine for example). The children apparently were always being "accompanied" aka monitored by an agent, and that is what the contract of carriage stipulates. AA did fail to make the next-of-kin phone calls, but perhaps because the flight was not canceled, but "delayed."

flyerCO

Neither is a babysitter a parent. The AA terms even say they will Chaperone the children while on the ground. In the air is the only time they dont guarentee to be with the child all the time.

Great they got transported from A to B. They paid for that. Or is AA not responsible for providing that also? They also paid to have AA chaperone the children on the ground. Instead AA neglected by not feeding the children and preventing them from getting food. Plus taking away their medications and refusing to give them back! How hard is that to understand?

flyerCO

However when something goes wrong at WM they don't tell the customer oh well, not our problem. They try to make it right..I can fault WM for a lot of things, but unlike AA they don't screw the customer when they mess up. To say AA provides WM level customer service is almost verging IMO on libel.

J S

They missed three straight meals according to the account I read. Most children have dietary needs...such as eating.

If AA does not want responsibility, they should not offer a paid service in which they take responsibility.

Statman

The customer service department at your Walmart must be a heck of a lot better than the one at my location. I don't even bother with them anymore and just chalk any issues as a sunk cost.

refox3488

While i personally would not book a disabled child to fly as an unaccompanied minor. AA is clearly to blame for failing to provide meals to these children during their stay and not allowing them to buy anything in the terminal. These should be standard services provided in the case of IRROPS, just as vouchers and hotels are provided to adults.

I flew multiple times as an unaccompanied minor in my pre-teen years with united and the ground staff always ask me if i wanted to get anything to eat during my layovers, which were at CLT, several times they even got me cinnabuns for free rather than letting me pay for them. At a minimum the kids should have been taken to buy their own food for dinner and breakfast, when AA agreed to look after the kids as unaccompanied minors they agreed to take care of their basic needs, which includes eating and using the restroom.

HGH

Every adult involved bears responsibility in this. Period. AA should have kept the kids fed and in touch with their parents. Parents should never have let their kids fly on a connection. Parents should have prepared the kids with what to do in different situations. The Camp should have arranged transportation directly to Charlotte or flown an adult with them for at least that leg. The Camp should have loaded them up with snacks for their journey.

Kids do not have the experence to navigate stressful things in new situations. Every single adult in this chain that failed to say or do anything is to blame.

no1cub17

How do you know? NF is a relatively rare condition; it's extremely unlikely that there are enough camp-aged children in most areas to have them all together in any meaningful numbers. A national summer camp for kids with this condition makes perfect sense to me.

deeruck

CBS also reporting the story: