FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Southwest Airlines | Rapid Rewards (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/southwest-airlines-rapid-rewards-501/)
-   -   Press reports "Southwest Airlines kicks father and his toddler daughter off flight (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/southwest-airlines-rapid-rewards/1899213-press-reports-southwest-airlines-kicks-father-his-toddler-daughter-off-flight.html)

rubystone Mar 17, 2018 7:00 am
Press reports "Southwest Airlines kicks father and his toddler daughter off flight
 
https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/financ...154859297.html

#southwest #shame #on #you #southwest #airlines kicked a man off the plane with his two year old daughter because she was afraid and not sitting in her own seat.. he asked the lady for a minute to calm her down she walked away and called people to remove him. The baby was already calm by now and sitting in her own seat. Captain then came over intercom to say we will be going back to the gate to handle a customer service issue. They then told me stop filming and this issue did not involve me, and that me and another woman who spoke up will be the next off he plane. The flight attendant then came to tell me be quiet stop talking ( to the person next to me ) no one around me wants to hear about the situation. #Flight1683 #MDW to #ATL ABC 7 Chicago NBC Chicago Southwest Airlines #Michelle was the flight attendant

rubystone Mar 17, 2018 7:04 am

LegalTender Mar 17, 2018 8:06 am
Once a crew member decides, no change in circumstance will dissuade. Flexibility torpedoes control.

Lost Mar 17, 2018 11:24 am
Anyone 2 or older has to be belted in their own seat. If the FA doesn't believe the toddler will stay there or the father may put the child back on his lap after the FAs are buckled in, then I have to side with the airline on returning to the gate on this one.

LegalTender Mar 17, 2018 11:44 am
Originally Posted by Lost (Post 29536114)
Anyone 2 or older has to be belted in their own seat. If the FA doesn't believe the toddler will stay there or the father may put the child back on his lap after the FAs are buckled in, then I have to side with the airline on returning to the gate on this one.
The child was safely belted in and quiet, as the video indicates. If the FA had reason to believe the toddler wouldn't stay there, you're right. But my guess is the FA requesting the captain return to the gate sealed the deal. What else beside removal could have been justified in paperwork?

Lost Mar 17, 2018 11:59 am
Originally Posted by LegalTender (Post 29536181)
The child was safely belted in and quiet, as the video indicates. If the FA had reason to believe the toddler wouldn't stay there, you're right. But my guess is the FA requesting the captain return to the gate sealed the deal. What else beside removal could have been justified in paperwork?
I'm having trouble with the sound. Am I right that the video starts after the airplane has returned to the gate?

LegalTender Mar 17, 2018 12:12 pm
Originally Posted by Lost (Post 29536224)
I'm having trouble with the sound. Am I right that the video starts after the airplane has returned to the gate?
It appears so. Pax who took the video says the child was "calm" and belted in before the return.

"She was afraid and not sitting in her own seat.. he asked the lady for a minute to calm her down she walked away and called people to remove him. The baby was already calm by now and sitting in her own seat. Captain then came over intercom to say we will be going back to the gate to handle a customer service issue." - Alexis Armstrong

theddo Mar 17, 2018 12:22 pm
Originally Posted by LegalTender (Post 29536261)
It appears so. Pax who took the video says the child was "calm" and belted in before the return.
Then the father obviously could've kept the child calm and belted before that, too, but elected not to. Once the decision to deplane someone has been made it will not be changed - and "sorry I just need a few minutes" will not fly when you are preparing for take-off.

LegalTender Mar 17, 2018 12:37 pm
Originally Posted by theddo (Post 29536304)
Then the father obviously could've kept the child calm and belted before that, too, but elected not to. Once the decision to deplane someone has been made it will not be changed - and "sorry I just need a few minutes" will not fly when you are preparing for take-off.
"Elected not to" is bogus. Those nearby say FA escalated, child then secured and calm, Catch 22 when gate return ordered.

Often1 Mar 17, 2018 12:42 pm
WN was correct here and crew followed their training. Passengers are required to be in their seats and belted from the time the aircraft door was closed throughout all ground operations. Thus, there was already a problem. It's great that the father and child eventually complied, but it was too late.

OP's suggestion that this was "shameful" is simply wrong and ignores basic safety procedures which have existed for 50+ years. Would OP have criticized WN had the aircraft stopped short while taxiing, the child been thrown and injured?

This was 100% on the father.

tusphotog Mar 17, 2018 12:53 pm
Originally Posted by rubystone (Post 29535374)
#southwest #shame #on #you #southwest #airlines [...] #Flight1683 #MDW to #ATL ABC 7 Chicago NBC Chicago Southwest Airlines #Michelle was the flight attendant
Please use more hashtags in your post next time.

Lost Mar 17, 2018 12:54 pm
Originally Posted by LegalTender (Post 29536261)
It appears so. Pax who took the video says the child was "calm" and belted in before the return.
So what exactly happened before the video starts?

Somehow I have suspicion that the OP is leaving a few key details out...

DCP2016 Mar 17, 2018 1:10 pm
I always have to laugh at the WN FA's telling passengers not to film, not going to happen in this day and age where everyone has a camera phone sweetie.

rickg523 Mar 17, 2018 1:14 pm
A recent hire from United Express?
:(

Kevin AA Mar 17, 2018 1:22 pm
Since when do measly flight attendants get to be pretend federal judges who step all over the 1st Amendment? Sad to see WN catching the same disease afflicting UA the worst. :mad:

Allan38103 Mar 17, 2018 1:26 pm
I agree 100% with OP's statement that This Does Not Look Right. It would look more right if we had all the relevant facts (which of course we don't). Hearsay, rumors, and opinions from those who weren't even there are useless.

From what I can tell, a passenger was not complying with proper instructions. Passenger was taken off the flight and put on the next one. Some other passengers were also on the plane and one had a camera but didn't catch the whole thing. Oh yes, passenger in question was a child traveling with at least one parent

Is there the remotest possibility that there is more information out there that is relevant, or have we already seen enough to form an intelligent opinion?

beachmouse Mar 17, 2018 1:39 pm
Originally Posted by Kevin AA (Post 29536553)
Since when do measly flight attendants get to be pretend federal judges who step all over the 1st Amendment? Sad to see WN catching the same disease afflicting UA the worst. :mad:
In some circumstances, any time they want. The First Amendment is about government infringement and Southwest is a private organization that is legally free to limit speech in many cases under US law.

ursine1 Mar 17, 2018 1:43 pm
Regardless of the FAs correctness, opinion is running almost universally against Southwest in the press and social media regarding this event. For what that's worth.

LegalTender Mar 17, 2018 1:47 pm
Originally Posted by Allan38103 (Post 29536572)
Is there the remotest possibility that there is more information out there that is relevant, or have we already seen enough to form an intelligent opinion?
Yes. The captain declares "we have a belligerent passenger" on requesting a return to gate. Could be the magic threshold for such.

Insulator-King Mar 17, 2018 3:08 pm
Saw article on DailyMail
Southwest Airlines kicks father and his toddler daughter off flight | Daily Mail Online.

I can understand a 3 year old being scared at first trip in plane, but staying in your seat buckled in is a must once the plane starts pushing back from the gate.

Is the child used to sitting in parents lap while riding in a car?

Sounds like the Captain made the decision, and that was it.

Grog Mar 17, 2018 3:13 pm
Originally Posted by Lost (Post 29536114)
Anyone 2 or older has to be belted in their own seat. If the FA doesn't believe the toddler will stay there or the father may put the child back on his lap after the FAs are buckled in, then I have to side with the airline on returning to the gate on this one.
But it does beg the question why WN then believed the toddler would stay there on the later flight.

Originally Posted by Often1 (Post 29536387)
OP's suggestion that this was "shameful" is simply wrong and ignores basic safety procedures which have existed for 50+ years. Would OP have criticized WN had the aircraft stopped short while taxiing, the child been thrown and injured?

This was 100% on the father.
Not sure about "100% on the father" statement. Sometimes toddlers are just being toddlers. I think there isn't enough solid info here to go on.

kb9522 Mar 17, 2018 3:19 pm
Originally Posted by ursine1 (Post 29536625)
Regardless of the FAs correctness, opinion is running almost universally against Southwest in the press and social media regarding this event. For what that's worth.
Which is a shame and speaks to the larger issue these days... And that is the facts and objective analysis are taking a backseat to emotion, faux outrage, and the SJW agenda.

LegalTender Mar 17, 2018 3:39 pm
Originally Posted by Grog (Post 29536877)
But it does beg the question why WN then believed the toddler would stay there on the later flight.
The captain declares the father "belligerent" and the airline responds,"We look forward to welcoming them onboard again soon."

One doesn't follow the other without a video.

Grog Mar 17, 2018 4:29 pm
Originally Posted by LegalTender (Post 29536947)
The captain declares the father "belligerent" and the airline responds,"We look forward to welcoming them onboard again soon."

One doesn't follow the other without a video.
Is it clear the father was declared belligerent rather than the toddler being declared belligerent?

ursine1 Mar 17, 2018 5:34 pm
Originally Posted by kb9522 (Post 29536896)
Which is a shame and speaks to the larger issue these days... And that is the facts and objective analysis are taking a backseat to emotion, faux outrage, and the SJW agenda.
I think it's a shame that anyone who wasn't on the plane thinks they have enough facts to claim the high ground here.

nsx Mar 17, 2018 6:16 pm
Clickbait thread title changed to describe the discussion. FT rules require informative thread titles to avoid wasting members' time.

LegalTender Mar 17, 2018 8:25 pm
"Press reports" is like a fast-acting weed killer. Nice.

justhere Mar 18, 2018 10:57 am
Originally Posted by Kevin AA (Post 29536553)
Since when do measly flight attendants get to be pretend federal judges who step all over the 1st Amendment? Sad to see WN catching the same disease afflicting UA the worst. :mad:
How is that even relevant to this situation? What does the 1st amendment have to do with any of this?

justhere Mar 18, 2018 11:02 am
Originally Posted by Lost (Post 29536114)
Anyone 2 or older has to be belted in their own seat. If the FA doesn't believe the toddler will stay there or the father may put the child back on his lap after the FAs are buckled in, then I have to side with the airline on returning to the gate on this one.
maybe i missed it but does it say how old the child was? If she is under 2 then just because he has a seat for her doesn't mean she has to be in it. I'm assuming she is over 2 but didn't see that stated anywhere to confirm.

Lost Mar 18, 2018 2:05 pm
Originally Posted by justhere (Post 29539180)
maybe i missed it but does it say how old the child was? If she is under 2 then just because he has a seat for her doesn't mean she has to be in it. I'm assuming she is over 2 but didn't see that stated anywhere to confirm.
Family kicked off Southwest flight at Midway in viral video abc7chicago.com

First paragraph. I was reading a few different news sites about this story and didn't know it wasn't in the story the OP posted.

ursine1 Mar 18, 2018 3:28 pm
Originally Posted by justhere (Post 29539162)
How is that even relevant to this situation? What does the 1st amendment have to do with any of this?
It doesn't. But I believe the (misguided) comment was in regards to the WN FA telling other passengers not to record anything, not to the actual incident itself.

azepine00 Mar 18, 2018 4:20 pm
Unusual to see rhis on WN - fa tend to have common sense and rational approach to things there..
a stupid and completely unnecessary outcome..

rsteinmetz70112 Mar 18, 2018 8:59 pm
Originally Posted by ursine1 (Post 29540019)
It doesn't. But I believe the (misguided) comment was in regards to the WN FA telling other passengers not to record anything, not to the actual incident itself.
While the "optics" may be bad, Southwest is entirely within it's legal rights to prohibit video recording in it's aircraft.
Also the person who recorded the incident also advocated for the parent, which could easily be construed as interfering with the flight crew.

ursine1 Mar 18, 2018 9:34 pm
Within their rights to enforce their policies, yes. Wasting their time even attempting to do so? Also yes. (I think this was DCP2016's original point.)

Optics win on this one.

Not sure how viable it is, but there's currently a petition in front of the Department of Transportation that calls for the DOT to “reject airlines’ improper attempts to prohibit recordings by passengers of events on-board common carriage aircraft and their interactions with staff."

LegalTender Mar 18, 2018 10:00 pm
Originally Posted by rsteinmetz70112 (Post 29540877)
While the "optics" may be bad, Southwest is entirely within it's legal rights to prohibit video recording in it's aircraft.
Also the person who recorded the incident also advocated for the parent, which could easily be construed as interfering with the flight crew.
Partly true. There is no law against taking photos or video on an airplane, and it is unlikely that anyone would face legal jeopardy for taking pictures of an altercation on a plane or their own peaceful dispute with an airline employee. The airline is within its rights to throw you off the aircraft if you continue filming, however.

A recording made with the plane at the gate and the boarding door open is not a safety issue. The FA would have more to answer for in any court. She might argue the cockpit door was open and feared passengers were staging a terror "dry run" for intelligence. But that's not supported by anything known here.

rsteinmetz70112 Mar 19, 2018 2:19 pm
Originally Posted by LegalTender (Post 29540992)
Partly true. There is no law against taking photos or video on an airplane, and it is unlikely that anyone would face legal jeopardy for taking pictures of an altercation on a plane or their own peaceful dispute with an airline employee. The airline is within its rights to throw you off the aircraft if you continue filming, however.

A recording made with the plane at the gate and the boarding door open is not a safety issue. The FA would have more to answer for in any court. She might argue the cockpit door was open and feared passengers were staging a terror "dry run" for intelligence. But that's not supported by anything known here.
In this case the person filming also interjected themselves into the interaction between the crew and another passenger by arguing againte the FA. That is what I was referring to as interfering with a flight crew.

LegalTender Mar 19, 2018 2:54 pm
Originally Posted by rsteinmetz70112 (Post 29543705)
In this case the person filming also interjected themselves into the interaction between the crew and another passenger by arguing againte the FA. That is what I was referring to as interfering with a flight crew.
I got that. Same answer.

Read Judge Thomas Dickerson's "Travel Law." Worst that happens, she's on a later fight.

exwannabe Mar 19, 2018 4:23 pm
Originally Posted by LegalTender (Post 29543817)
I got that. Same answer.

Read Judge Thomas Dickerson's "Travel Law." Worst that happens, she's on a later fight.
No argument. But I also STRONGLY agree with airline prohibiting it (as is their right).

I do not want people taking picts and videos of me while I am sleeping.

Grog Mar 19, 2018 7:11 pm
Originally Posted by rsteinmetz70112 (Post 29540877)
While the "optics" may be bad, Southwest is entirely within it's legal rights to prohibit video recording in it's aircraft.
Also the person who recorded the incident also advocated for the parent, which could easily be construed as interfering with the flight crew.
For interference to come into play, a passenger would have to have assaulted or intimidated a flight crew member. Advocating for (at least in the form that we saw in the video) is neither assault nor intimidation (in the legal sense of the word).


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:33 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.