|
Baby on board
This appeared in one of my feeds (no pun intended). Being picked up by the English language media too, so KLM can expect some escalation. https://www.parool.nl/nederland/klm-...ding~be4fcbaa/ |
Praise the Lord if the news is widely spread and all families with babies choose to fly other airlines. That would definitely increase my willingness to fly KLM if it guarantees me red-eye flights without babies.
|
Originally Posted by Victor88
(Post 31313413)
This appeared in one of my feeds (no pun intended). Being picked up by the English language media too, so KLM can expect some escalation. https://www.parool.nl/nederland/klm-...ding~be4fcbaa/ The following was posted by the passenger in question to KLM's Facebook (which, apparently, flyertalk won't allow me to post a link to - do a "quote" on my post if you want to see the URL right here: Here's a warning to all breastfeeding moms: do NOT fly with KLM! A month ago, I was flying with my one year old on a KLM flight from San Francisco to Amsterdam. It was the third flight I'd been on with her. I breastfeed her. It calms her and helps her sleep and makes her comfortable. She's also a busy toddler who doesn't like to be covered. I do my best to be discreet, but sometimes some skin shows. Before we even took off, I was approached by a flight attendant carrying a blanket. She told me (and I quote) "if you want to continue doing the breastfeeding, you need to cover yourself." I told her no, my daughter doesn't like to be covered up. That would upset her almost as much as not breastfeeding her at all. She then warned me that if anyone complained, it would be my issue to deal with (no one complained. On any of the flights I took with my daughter. Actually, no one has ever complained to me about breastfeeding in public. Except this flight attendant). The rest of this flight, that flight attendant would not so much as look me in the eyes. I felt extremely uncomfortable and disrespected. When we arrived home, I issued a complaint to KLM. I was told that I needed to be respectful of people of other cultures and that this flight attendant's response was in line with company policy. So instead of standing up for and protecting breastfeeding mothers and our children, already under the duress faced by flying with our young children, KLM would rather hold up antiquated values that shame women's bodies. It took me a long time to write this, because I've never received such a negative response to taking care of my child. I hope that everyone considering a flight with their breastfed child can choose an airline that will respect bodily autonomy and a right to take care of our children the best way we know how. |
If you don't like crying babies on board... it's not good news for you. Shaming and humiliating mothers is not going to help the baby feel calm.
The story was also covered on the guardian, here: https://www.theguardian.com/business...xpect-cover-up The airline's statement: We would like to emphasise that breastfeeding is permitted on KLM flights. However, we strive to ensure that all of our passengers of all backgrounds feel comfortable onboard. Backwards, spineless, and sure to backfire. Not what I expect from Dutch social standards. My favorite part of the article: One doctor tweeted: “I find it uncomfortable and offensive when people chew with their mouths open, infinitely more so than breastfeeding. Can you cover up the heads of passengers who do so with a blanket? Thanks!” |
Originally Posted by Maestro Ramen
(Post 31313850)
If you don't like crying babies on board... it's not good news for you.
|
Nobody :p
Hence why this is not a great tactical move from the airline, imho! |
KLM should become a baby free airline after this. :D I read the story and think it is a typical social media over hyped thing the world in the end does not need more off... |
Originally Posted by Meneer Guggenheimer
(Post 31314570)
KLM should become a baby free airline after this. I read the story and think it is a typical social media over hyped thing the world in the end does not need more off... |
Originally Posted by Meneer Guggenheimer
(Post 31314570)
KLM should become a baby free airline after this. Or else just leave 'm in their strollers and gate check them. That way they won't cause embarrassment to anybody. Johan |
It's more than likely that someone complained to the FA. Hard place for the crew to be in. Yet another storm in a social media teacup.
|
KLM thinks people of other cultures have a "right" to be offended by breastfeeding and that that "right" supersedes the right of a baby to nutrition? Utterly derisible. Another step in the PC direction that goes too far.
|
Originally Posted by DragonSoul
(Post 31315944)
KLM thinks people of other cultures have a "right" to be offended by breastfeeding and that that "right" supersedes the right of a baby to nutrition?
|
Originally Posted by irishguy28
(Post 31315993)
At no point did KLM indicate the baby could not be fed.
|
Originally Posted by DragonSoul
(Post 31316010)
For all the FA knew, the baby could have been EBF. That would mean the baby could not be fed. Not all women who breastfeed carry a breast pump.
|
Originally Posted by caliform
(Post 31315823)
It's more than likely that someone complained to the FA. Hard place for the crew to be in. Yet another storm in a social media teacup.
|
Originally Posted by DragonSoul
(Post 31315944)
KLM thinks people of other cultures have a "right" to be offended by breastfeeding and that that "right" supersedes the right of a baby to nutrition? Utterly derisible. Another step in the PC direction that goes too far.
|
Originally Posted by roberino
(Post 31316058)
Australian comedian, Steve Hughes, once said: "So what? Be offended! Nothing happens! Be a grown up, deal with it."
https://youtu.be/ceS_jkKjIgo |
Originally Posted by roberino
(Post 31316043)
So instead of having a bit of backbone and dealing with the complainant the FA is passing it on to a breastfeeding mother? Terrible attitude.
I don't think the request was unreasonable, if there was an actual complaint about it. |
Originally Posted by Ditto
(Post 31316069)
You can never make everyone happy, why does a breastfeeding mom have more rights than someone who might be offended by it due to, say, his religious beliefs?
I don't think the request was unreasonable, if there was an actual complaint about it. In any case, the complainant does have the right to be offended, but not the right to have anyone else care. |
That brings to mind those ultra-orthodox Jews who cause delays on (mostly) El-Al flights when they refuse to sit beside a woman!!!
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/el-a...ext-women.html https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/el-a...-tel-aviv.html Passengers Cause Chaos by Refusing to Sit Next to Women on Easyjet Flight |
Originally Posted by irishguy28
(Post 31316088)
That brings to mind those ultra-orthodox Jews who cause delays on (mostly) El-Al flights when they refuse to sit beside a woman!!!
https://www.flyertalk.com/articles/e...hodox-men.html |
Originally Posted by roberino
(Post 31316086)
You find me one single passage in any religious book that says that it is sinful for a person to witness breastfeeding. People develop their own opinions on things and then tenuously hang them on their religious beliefs and demand "rights" as a result.
In any case, the complainant does have the right to be offended, but not the right to have anyone else care.
Originally Posted by irishguy28
(Post 31316088)
That brings to mind those ultra-orthodox Jews who cause delays on (mostly) El-Al flights when they refuse to sit beside a woman!!!
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/el-a...ext-women.html https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/el-a...-tel-aviv.html |
Originally Posted by Ditto
(Post 31316096)
And the breastfeeding mom has exactly the same right, yet she chose to create a storm out of it ;)
Let's just say, for argument's sake, that everyone does have the right to have their personal offence taken seriously and acted upon. The vegetarians can now have the ominvores banned from eating meat; the vegans can have the vegetarians banned from eating cheese and egg; Jewish people can now force anyone to cover up their tattoos; the Christians can now have any LGBT offloaded; thin people can now have fat people ordered to a different seat; liberals can tell anyone in a MAGA hat to take it off; and I can have any footballers offloaded because I am a rugby fan and I think they're preening overpaid examples of how too much money and an insular lifestyle turns people into human garbage. We live in a free world, and if you expect 100% of other people to meet 100% of your principles and standards then you are going to very offended, most of the time. |
3 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by roberino
(Post 31316118)
Let's just say, for argument's sake, that everyone does have the right to have their personal offence taken seriously and acted upon. The vegetarians can now have the ominvores banned from eating meat; the vegans can have the vegetarians banned from eating cheese and egg;
No-one was "banned" from doing anything. The mother wasn't asked NOT to feed - she was asked to "cover up" while feeding. So, your analogy should be: "The vegetarians can now have the omnivores required to eat meat under a blanket; the vegans can have the vegetarians required to eat cheese and egg under a blanket" - a bit like the accepted protocol for eating ortolan - an act so shameful and decadent that it must be shielded from the eyes of God :D :D :D NY Times: Chefs fight for songbird |
Originally Posted by roberino
(Post 31316118)
Not quite ;) The breastfeeding mum has the right to breastfeed publicly. She also has the right to be offended but that wasn't the right she was trying to defend.
|
Originally Posted by irishguy28
(Post 31316138)
But those analogies are imperfect, as most analogies usually are.
No-one was "banned" from doing anything. The mother wasn't asked NOT to feed - she was asked to "cover up" while feeding. So, your analogy should be: "The vegetarians can now have the omnivores required to eat meat under a blanket; the vegans can have the vegetarians required to eat cheese and egg under a blanket" - a bit like the accepted protocol for eating ortolan - an act so shameful and decadent that it must be shielded from the eyes of God :D :D :D [I'm having a good chuckle about this now, BTW] |
Originally Posted by Ditto
(Post 31316069)
You can never make everyone happy, why does a breastfeeding mom have more rights than someone who might be offended by it due to, say, his religious beliefs?
I don't think the request was unreasonable, if there was an actual complaint about it. |
Rather than anyone taking offence at the breastfeeding, I'd be far more concerned about a seatmate taking an unwarranted interest in the mom's partial disrobement during feeding.
|
Yawn. Another single-data-point rant. I think every airline has had this book thrown at them at least once. Is there anyone left to fly?
|
Given that is seems KLM is trying to discourage people from flying at the moment, by making conference calls or taking the train, maybe this is part of their strategy? Or maybe the absence of babies on board will cause an avalanche of bookings from people wanting to avoid babies!
|
Originally Posted by JamesKidd
(Post 31316191)
The only one who could be "offended" by it would be someone sitting right next to her. Everyone sitting in front would have to turn their heads around to be "offended". Everyone sitting behind her would also have to make an effort to be "offended". Also, people on the same row as her would have to turn their heads towards her to be "offended". So that's quite an effort to be "offended". If someone did complain to the FA and wasn't sitting right next to her, the FA could have explained to the passenger the amount of effort it would take them to be "offended".
|
Originally Posted by irishguy28
(Post 31316219)
Rather than anyone taking offence at the breastfeeding, I'd be far more concerned about a seatmate taking an unwarranted interest in the mom's partial disrobement during feeding.
|
The reason why blankets are provided has now made clear! :eek:
|
Aren’t many mothers encouraged to BF during takeoff and landing because it helps equalize pressure in the infant’s ears and reduces the amount of baby screaming in the cabin? |
Originally Posted by beachmouse
(Post 31317084)
Aren’t many mothers encouraged to BF during takeoff and landing because it helps equalize pressure in the infant’s ears and reduces the amount of baby screaming in the cabin? https://www.independent.co.uk/travel...-a8932931.html |
Originally Posted by Ditto
(Post 31316069)
his religious beliefs?
To quote Stephen Fry: It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so ....ing what. |
Originally Posted by mfkne
(Post 31319541)
Religion is about the worst argument for just about anything. It's someone's choice to believe certain things, and then others are supposed to adjust their life based on that person's choice? Where do you draw the line? In the past people believed (and to date many still do) that people of colour are second or third-rate citizens that were supposed to drink from separate water fountains or sit at the back of the bus - it's just the same BS as religion.
|
This is all academic. The FA most likely just wanted to keep the peace. That's their number one concern. She probably figured it wouldn't be a big deal to ask the mother and then everyone would be happy. Instead, this caused a roiling 'controversy' (where there really isn't one). 'KLM' didn't do anything, this was just a moment in which no doubt several US pax got all bothered by seeing a nipple, loudly complained, and the FA hoped a small request to the mother would shut them up and let her focus on important tasks. Instead, it blew up in her face.
Should she have told whoever complained to shove it? Sure. But that's not the kind of de-escalating behavior that FAs will typically use. This is still just a minute issue blown out of proportion. In the end, the baby was fed, the pax delivered safely, and some feelings hurt. The world moves on, |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:41 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.