milehound

There's been a lot of talk recently about flight crews worried about the potential legal consequences seating random, unattached adults next to unaccompanied minors. In the same way that the TSA has the Trusted Traveler program, I propose that the airlines create a program for selected elite frequent-fliers who are willing to sit next to unaccompanied minors in return for DEQMs. The program would be restricted to domestic US flights, and selected members would be required to pass a background check if they want to enroll in the program. Once approved, the elite flyer's status would be flagged in the computer, and the flyer would be notified if a UM would be in the next seat. Maybe the airlines could start out with groups who have already had to undergo a background check (eg public school teachers, members of the American Red Cross). Thoughts?

Science Goy

You're talking about setting up millions of dollars of infrastructure and effort for a nonexistent problem.

wharvey

I agree with Science Goy. If this ever become a real problem, then the only solution if for the UM to travel with a family member or friend they know. In no way, do I believe the airlines should do more in this area. While the recent issues are a problem and a failure of established processes, at some point you get what you pay for. Heck, you pay almost as much for an unaccompianied pet as you do an unaccompanied minor. Something is wrong with that picture.

I know it can be expensive to have to travel with the UM, but I know I would not want to deal with the consequences if something happened just because I was not willing to pay the extra money.

It'sHip2B^2

I think what milehound is suggesting is that he or she is willing to sit next to a UM for some extra DEQM.

I doubt airline will ever go for that.

If airline is really concerned it can always seat UMs next to women, who statistically speaking only molest those minors personally known to them.

emma69

I think it is a ridiculous idea - almost as ridiculous as 'trusted traveller' tbh. 'Previous performance is no guarentee of future actions' and all that - no such thing IMO as 'trusted' when people's view can change, either by indoctrination, by a violent attack, by someone holding your children hostage unless you do X etc. I do, sadly, foresee a 'trusted traveller' committing an atrocity not too far from now, and thent he whole system 'poof' overnight.

belfordrocks

I thought Dr. Phil said that the best indicator of future behaviour is relevant past behaviour!

exbayern

The only report I have read on FT in about a decade from someone molested on an aircraft as a child was from a male reader. His molestor was a stranger, and was











female.

This proposal is absurd, OP. Does the flight go out with an empty seat if nobody passes the criteria you list? Many people who have passed background checks end up molesting children. But more importantly, as others have stated, this is a non-existent problem.

It thrives on message boards populated by overly fearful parents who view every strange male as a molestor.

BadgerBoi

In Australia this past week or so there have been news stories about male passengers being moved away from UMs on Qantas and Virgin.

From memory, the Qantas pax was a registered nurse with clearance to work with children - he was humiliated and made to feel like a child molester. The Virgin pax was similarly embarrassed.

The ensuing uproar has led Virgin Australia to place this notice on its Facebook page:
"We understand the concerns raised around our policy for children travelling alone, a policy initially based on customer feedback. In light of recent feedback, we're now reviewing this policy. Our intention is certainly not to discriminate in any way."

Nice to imply that your valued customers are potential sex-criminals purely based on their gender.

MSPeconomist

Not all women passengers want to sit next to kids. If the airline insists that males cannot side next to UM, by default that airline is making it much more likely that women will be stuck sitting next to other people's children. This is discriminatory and an imposition on certain customers.

DJ Bitterbarn

Hey, it works all the time for the TSA.

But in all seriousness, it's probably irrelevant what's going to work, since[1] far too many people don't care what ACTUALLY works, they care about what they feel is going to work. And if it makes people feel better, I'll take the hit on this one and babysit for a few hours if it means DEQM. It'll be like babysitting my own offspring minus the big responsibility if the kid is disruptive... I didn't raise them. Plus, I'm always travelling with a load of electronics, games, and movies anyway, so what's the difference if I use the tablet to play them or if I set it up to play some movies and play games on my phone instead? Worst case scenario is we end up playing Carcassonne for a few hours and then the kids' parents have to go out and buy a fortune in board games.

I'm not too proud to sit through an in-person interview with the airline once to grab some extra miles, regardless of whether or not the logic behind it is in any way reasonable. Anyway, if I didn't just accept some things because they were stupid I'd never survive in our society.


[1] I made that generalization up, I actually have no statistics to back up what I said.

emma69

Do you not think there is a risk that someone, who wanted to molest a child, would actively seek such a program out 'for the miles'? Background etc. would be perfectly clear if they hadn't been caught before.

emma69

Good lord, Dr. Phil setting TSA rules - perish the thought!!!!!

Science Goy

Zing!

DJ Bitterbarn

I think that someone, with no prior history of molesting anything, would probably not intentionally jump through any hoops for a payoff which is not valuable to the population at large, simply for their only chance to perform the action that the program itself was designed to defeat. It's needlessly complex and requires all kinds of effort and attention paid to the individual when there are much easier ways to achieve your goal elsewhere.

Because, to me, if this would be an attractive avenue for people abusing the system then we should also be cancelling programs like Global Entry/IRIS/Nexus/Trusted Traveller because any first-timer who wants to defeat the system would gravitate toward those systems and while I invite someone to prove me wrong here with statistics (as I have none) the rate of first-time abusers in those systems seems low.

Passmethesickbag

I think a much greater risk would be that people will pay the UM fee, and then earn double EQMs by sitting next to their own child!