blue2002

wrong

diburning

The airline was the unfortunate victim of a slow news day. I'm sure the airline elected to apologize as damage control. If you think about it, if the kid had gotten hurt, that resulted in a larger delay, not only would the kid's parents sue, they'd have to compensate all of the pax on board for the delay, the media fallout, and then the FAA would get involved. I'd guess that apologizing and riding out the fallout from the emotional people who don't fly this airline anyway would cost the airline less.

This is the problem. This is not against you personally, but I find that a lot of parents become so protective of their children that the things they do, and their general attitude as a whole, trumps common sense and common courtesy for other people. I don't blame them. I'm sure it's natural and they don't realize it themselves. It crosses the line into bad parenting when they refuse to realize/admit it and it causes harm to other people (or in this case, the airline). JetBlue's facebook page shows how the airline is getting the fallout from people who put emotions over common sense. Then again, that's our good old American culture, is it not?

This is probably where the FA should have handled the situation differently. The FA should have called into the flight deck, told them of the situation, and perhaps had them hold until the kid was done. This isn't United where there are DYKWIAs in the front of the bus who would complain and moan about other kettles (infrequent fliers and pax with no status) ruining their flight. I'm sure the rest of the pax would have understood.

I was on a flight from BOS-LAX. We were on the runway, the engines were revving up, and a guy threw up a few rows back. They brought us back to the gate, the guy got off, he was evaluated by a medical professional, and the guy was feeling too sick to fly, so he and his friends got off. They brought in a cleaning crew to clean up the vomit (they did a very good job, there was no stain or smell after they were done) and we were on our way, about an hour and a half late. Nobody was angry. They all understood.

Dr. HFH

As far as how the crew handled it, the fact that an off-duty pilot had to get them under control (my words) says it all.

Don't FAA rules require that the pilot stop the aircraft when a passenger is up during taxi? I occasionally listen to ATC and form time to time hear a pilot ask permission to hold in place because a pax is out of his/her seat.

Data Point: A number of years ago I was on AA SJU-BOS in the front (J) cabin. As we were landing, I started feeling sick; by the time we got over the end of the runway, I had to run to the lav. FA looked at me and without breaking my stride, I said "I'm about to be sick." FA said nothing as I hurtled by her. The plane landed while I was sitting in the lav.

ceverett

Given that families with small children usually board first and the extra waiting on the tarmac, it could well have been over an hour before the 3 year old lost it.

If the situation went on long enough that the pilot could make an initial decision to turn back to the gate to offload the offender, and an off-duty pilot could argue them into taking off, then the risk of injury could have been mitigated at the outset and there was enough time to get the kid's business done, with considerably less drama and lost time.

Instead the FA didn't lift a finger to help, a kid just leaked all over a seat, and the pilot chose to deal with the situation by calling the pax "not compliant" and turning back to the gate. Making the mom soak up pee with her own sweater was a sadistic extra touch especially not called for.

Accidents like this happen everyday, and I can't believe that airlines don't have the institutional knowledge to deal with them in ways that don't leave seats soaked in urine and don't humiliate paying passengers.

Make no mistake: the primary moral consideration from the airline's POV here is business profit, and the real choice to be made was between a short wait on the tarmac and the loss of revenue from one or more seats rendered unfit for use until they could be cleaned.

The whole incident was unnecessary. The airline either failed to properly plan for this eventuality, or to properly train the FA in the procedures to follow, or to make sure the FA retained his or her training.

$50 dollars wasn't nearly enough, and the FAA should look into the incident to make sure that JB's procedures and training are up to snuff.

idayvuelta

. No other substantive comment necessary.

gooselee

I love the comment in the news story along the lines of "I fly JetBlue all the time and see people using the bathroom during takeoff, usually first class customers". Because, y'know, there are so many F pax on B6.

First, there are FAA regulations on what must occur after certain lengths of tarmac delays.

Second, if you need an inhaler/medication/etc. you should know to easily keep that at your seat when on a plane. Similarly, all the toddlers I know and have been responsible for have always had a bag with all kinds of stuff on hand at all times. Wet wipes, change of clothes, kleenex, snacks, etc.

Third, I am a relatively young, healthy adult that thankfully does not suffer from IBS, an overactive bladder, or anything similar. However, I once got a bit too adventurous eating abroad and was suffering from horrible diarrhea the day of my return flight, which I could not afford to miss/reschedule (both in terms of time and money). I found a store with adult diapers, bought a pack, put them on before boarding, and packed a change of clothes, plastic bag, and extra diapers in my carry on, just in case. This wasn't something I had to think very hard about - I knew I might need to go at a moment's notice and I was about to be in a situation where that might not possible, and this was what seemed to be the obvious solution.

There is no reason that the parent of a small child should not similarly be able to prepare for an event where they know they might not have easy access to a toilet at the exact moment that they need one. Yes, the FA could have been nicer. No, we don't (at least from the linked story) know how long they'd been on the plane or exactly what stage of taxi/takeoff they were in. But none of that would have mattered if this parent had been prepared enough to not get into a situation that is not that difficult to anticipate and solution for ahead of time.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, comparing a modern commercial airplane cabin, on any carrier or class of service, to an element of the Holocaust is simply out of line. Please stop. </omni>

CBear

Was the plane moving? Where they still boarding? "On the tarmac" can be many things.

Bad parenting. Seriously.

I'm going to send you guys my 3 year old. Let's see how good you are in controlling his bladder.

dah123321

There are some many things that could have been done differently, but to me the most insane part of this article is the captain announcing they had a non compliant passenger. For all of you who want to bash this woman as the worse parent of the year, you need to gain some perspective. Could she have been a little more prepared, maybe, but to play arm chair parent when all she wanted was a little consideration or even help after her child had her accident, is just ridiculous. There is a very easy way for a FA to say she's sorry, everyone needs to be seated and after the accident she could have said she would help as soon as the plane is underway. Instead they want to sick security on her. If this isn't overreaction, I don't know what is.

travelerscott

So why the apology? The crew was following FAA rules. The only way this would have been a legitimate story is if they had let her go.

diburning

The FA probably just told the pilot that a pax refuses to sit down. The pilot probably was not aware of the entire situation.

And my response would be...

Just because you may be right doesn't mean that stupid people won't hurt your business!

janetdoe

I can't point to the regulation, but my understanding is that FAs (and GAs) can be fined up to $10,000 personally for not enforcing a regulation. For example, this quote:Even if the regulation is not there or is misinterpreted, I have seen several people who claim to be FAs post on FT that they are personally subject to fines up to $10,000 for failing to enforce regulations, so there are at least some FAs who might be afraid of this.

Traveling with a 3-year-old, it is not unforseen (or even vaguely unusual) that you may need a pull-up or a change of clothes in the event of an "accident". I'm not even a parent and I know this from my limited experiences of babysitting my nieces. Anyone who gets on a plane with a child without a properly stocked carryon or diaper bag to keep the child fed, entertained, and deal with any potential toileting issues over a period the expected flight plus several hours IS irresponsible, period.

Could the FA have handled it differently or better? Absolutely. Does any of that absolve the parent of not putting a pull-up on her recently/partially potty-trained toddler before the flight? No. On any flight, you will likely have a period of at least 30 minutes where you are not allowed to leave your seat for safety reasons. And I have never met a 3-year old who can "hold it" for 30 minutes after they realize they need to go.

Whoever

The level of outrage had me thinking that a child had been sacrificed to the god Tlaloc in front of the lav or something. I see it was simply some hurt feelings and a pee accident.

I've never had kids, but it seems they're always peeing on themselves (I certainly remember doing that a time or two). Well, since none of us were there and none of us know what really happened, I say we stick with sacrifice story....it's much more interesting.

Janus777

I agree with whoever! The child was sacrificed to Tlaloc, fortunately that is less painful than posting on the Delta forum...

SpaceCoastBill

I get that they are afraid, but I think the context of that is "fail to enforce". The FA did enforce it, she told the woman to stay seated. If the kid made a run to the lav rather than pee on the seat and make a big biohazard mess, the FA still did her job. Keeping bags away from bulkheads and kids out of exit rows are more appropriate fineable offenses for lack of enforcement.

A sudden, urgent, biological need is one of those exceptions that Im sure would be allowed.

If there were any FAA "fine" (with apparently a $10,000 maximum) then there is also the right to due process and your day before a Judge to decide if that fine was warranted. I dont think you would find a single Judge to uphold any fine in this situation. Im sure it is a reasonable person standard. What would a reasonable person have done in a similar situation? I would have sent my kid to the lav.

Luckily, 5 out of 10 times even the TSA would have caught the sacrificial knives at the checkpoint so you guys would be out of luck there!

WebTraveler

Betcha most of the rude responses about the mother come from folks that do not have kids or blow off their own parenting for their spouse to deal with.

Many have no idea the mother didn't take the child to the bathroom before the flight, yet pipe off anyway.

Yes, there is a FAA rule about sitting on the tarmac. No doubt. Seem it violated a LOT in my experience in my lifetime.

Catch 22, you are darned if you do, and darned if you don't. There is no easy answer to any of this.

My take? Jet Blue over-reacted. The Flight Attendant reporting the passenger for non-compliant behavior and to start a turn around to remove her from the plane?

But here's the real kicker, an off duty Jet Blue pilot intervened after watching the whole event....gosh, that right there shows the real kicker to all of this - he sat, quiet to himself, until he saw a situation going out of control, then he intervened. That's telling, really.

Anyone who is a parent knows its not always so easy and things do not always go according to plan. Get over it people. Be glad you were not in that situation.