weero

I much agree. So the two options - if the crew tells the truth - are 1) she lied to the crew to get her way, the daughter is not dangerous, then she deserved to receive a bill for the diversion and some mandatory anger management classes or 2) she spoke the truth and then the crew did the only right thing except that she and her time bomb needed to be put on a no-fly-list for a decade and be accommodated on a competitor's plane.

So for the sake of the daughter, I hope she lied.

Baze

The only relevant thing to the diversion and expulsion is the threat the mother made. Everything else is superfluous. I am sure airlines have protocols for any kind of a threat made even though that threat may not continue to fruition. No amount of other passengers telling police that the daughter posed no threat is relevant, the mother made a statement. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater when there isn't one and not expect consequences. This is a case when blinders would actually be a good thing to block out all the irrelevant stuff to the situation. It is all about the mother making a threat of violence by her daughter against other people. She has to live with the consequences of her statement. But alas, she will probably go through life thinking she did nothing wrong and it is all about UA hating her autistic daughter. I feel sorry for the daughter having to live with a parent like that.

spin88

Thanks for posting, every single, and I mean every single person - including a poster on this thread in row 2 - same place as Hedlund - who has been quoted said one, said UA over reacted.

Hedlund is in row 2, and from the video she would have had at least 5 rows (I can't tell if its a A319 or 320) and a divider between her and the action. She would not have heard anything and her "fear" - a 15 years old in the window was going to open the exit door, is ridiculous. I am not going to put much stock into a woman spouting things that can't happen, and did not see/hear what happened.

I do put stock into what at this point multiple witnesses who were in earshot have said.

No, the mother did not "make a threat" or at least not one that I heard. None of the TV reports have her making a threat. The closest it comes is one print version which says:

“The flight attendant said, ‘there's not anything we can get you,' so I said, ‘well how about we wait for her to have a meltdown, and start crying and she tries to scratch, and then you'll want to help her.'”

I don't see that as a threat, perhaps you do, but not a single passenger has come forward to back up the FA's version, and (see above) numerous passengers who were there heard no threat, and thought UA overreacted. Please cite me to the witnesses (other than Hedland in row 2, who did not/can't have seen what was happening) who say there was a threat.

But not a single poster on this thread has bothered to address the fact that - having interviewed people - UA then put her on a DL flight! No way they would do this if they did not think the FA overracted. Can you image in the bad press/liability if she was a threat, and UA just sent her over? I have seen a few of these in the past (drunk passengers out of IAH, one who I got to sit on while they got the plastic hand cuffs) and I can tell you, the airlines don't pass on dangerous passengers to other airlines.

United's actions speak louder than any words their PR department can invent.

I ask you to think again about what I posted, and reality. Did the pilots assess the situation? Self evidently not, they are locked in the cockpit @:-)

As I said I don't blame the pilots, they have one source of information - the FAs, and I have no criticism of them for diverting. I do blame the FAs for having bad judgment and not dealing with the situation (as reported by every passengers to have seen what happened, expect Hedlund, who has the FTer on this thread in the same row as Hedlund said could not have heard/seen anything.) with the appropriate level of understanding and compassion that was called for.

100% agreed, he just responds to what the FA tells him, whether what he was told was accurate/appropriate, etc is another matter. Again, everyone interviewed by the media - except Hedlund - has backed the mother, not UA. The FTer on the flight (same row as hedlund) backs the mother. If I am wrong, and you know of others who have backed UAs version, please provide a link.

Saying this does not make it so, again, every witnesses except hedlund - who was not in a possition to see/hear what happened - has not backed up UA.

What is relevant is that UA sent them, and the ticket, over to DL. That says as clear as can be, that having assessed what happened, UA decided there was no threat. Ipso facto, the FA made the wrong call. Maybe she felt it was the right call at the time, but in hindsight UA decided it was not the right call.

No offense, but you were not there, a poster on this thread was, I'm going with his judgment, not yours. If you want to address what he said, great, you have not.

I looked at the posts that actually had information in them, and I read the media reports, which again only have one witnesses for UA, and a bunch who were in a position to see what actually happen (since they were in Coach and closer). There is a lot of posting on this thread about how the mother should be fried, the airline should ban her, and lots of hateful thoughts. I have no wish to dwell on the negative.

Bottom line, the captain did not have a change to assess the situation (post 9/11 he has to take the FAs word for it) and no one backs up the FA except Hedlund, who a FT in the same row says is wrong and not in the position to see anything anyway. There is a lot of could-a-would-a on the part of the parents. Faced with a difficult situation (maybe of their own creation, maybe not, I don't have the information to judge and you don't either) they asked for help, and got told no by the FA. FA then relents and brings a hot meal, and then when the meal fixed the situation, the FA diverted the plane. That was a bad call and has resulted in a lot of bad PR for UA (including in papers like the NYT, WP, WSJ). These type of events keep happening with UA, and it is helping to cement United's reputation as an airline to be avoided.

Please post a link for this, I didn't see this in any report, and unfortunately there has already been a lot of totally false and unsupported assertions made on this thread already.

It appears (citing one of the multitude of angry links on UAs facebook page right now) that you are wrong, this did not happen: http://blog.theautismsite.com/united...=united-flight

Martina70

I politely ask that you read my first ever post on this forum, in regards to this issue.

Absolutely, an actual threat was made . Inasmuch as that it's touching that folks are sympathetic and want to lend support to children and families dealing with autism; giving it to those who are in the wrong is also not beneficial.

A desperate/frustrated/exploitive/manipulative (pick your own adjective) mother on no uncertain terms told flight crew that unless her child was given an item from the first class menu, that she might hurt someone.

It WAS a threat...in an arena that there are no take backs.

It doesn't matter if the mother offered to BUY a first class offering.
Not for sale means ....not for sale...

Someone can ring my doorbell and say, "Hi, I really like your house, I want to buy it"...and I can say "Sorry, but it's not for sale". If they then decide to break into my house and squat there, despite the fact that I am living there, they don't have a legal defense by saying 'But I offered to buy it'

I don't think that anyone including myself is getting any real sense of satisfaction that FA didn't break the rules and relent by giving this girl a first class meal offering.

We aren't "Soup Nazi's" ala Seinfeld.

If I was on the plane, I would also want the FA just to cave in and give the girl the 'bowl of rice'. Because if the girl is howling and screaming, for my own selfish reasons..I would just want it to stop and I wouldn't care if someone if someone else had to break protocol to make it happen.

Having said that, it doesn't mean that the carrier is obliged or required to do so; and such indulgences create a dangerous precedent and a slippery slope. The FA was put in a vicarious and difficult position by parent who failed to make the appropriate provisions for their own child.

Someone in coach wanting a first class meal (for whatever reason) isn't the like the Bad News Bears, wanting to play that extra inning where random spectators chanting "Let them play"...makes it happen.

If a hot meal was so essential to their child's well being, then it's up to the parents figure out how to provide it, even it means forking out the extra money for a first class ticket.


These folks being bounced from Untied but rebooked on another carrier, isn't proof that a that a threat wasn't issued. It means that they weren't immediately put on a no fly list and therefore eligible for travel on another carrier.

Martina70

Most folks on a aircraft don't want to be diverted and inconvenienced, that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone; and that some of them might project those frustrations on to the airline.

I also a suspect that many of them were lead to believe that the diversion was caused a 'howling' teen who only saw flight crew interact with the family in the commotion, but otherwise were completely unaware of the dialog involved.

pruss2ny

i really appreciate the detail u've gone to, but don't think u've read much of this thread...your contention that "not a single poster has bothered to address the fact...that UA then put her on a DL flight" is simply wrong.

as many posters have pointed out...its slc/pdx....other airlines (including UA) don't fly that route...putting them on a delta flight wasn't an admission of mistake, it was simply the only expedient option available.

and as for the opinion of other people on the flight who don't support UA (except for those that do), as other posters have pointed out: once the mom made the threat that her girl might start scratching and potentially assaulting others, it was game over. it doesn't matter if other passengers heard the threat or not. it was a statement, that the mother acknowledged she made, that threatened the girl might harm herself or others.

greg99

Cognitive dissonance much?

You rail against people citing sources who weren't on the plane and then cite to an article that is a complete rehash of somebody's facebook post, and has no independent information?

Anyway...

To my mind, the issues are two:

(1) The parents of a child who, unfortunately, is afflicted with autism, a horrible disorder, were not adequately prepared for their child's reasonably foreseeable needs on the plane.

(2) In an attempt to remedy the problem caused by #1, the parents requested something to which they were not *entitled,* (as the family was seated in Y) a hot meal from first class. When the F/A refused to provide a hot meal, Mom, in frustration while trying to get the hot meal to which she was not *entitled* warned the F/A that if the child didn't get a hot meal, the child would have a meltdown and "try to scratch in frustration" (quoting from mom's account of the event). According to mom's account, she apparently didn't specify who she would scratch.

*Could* UA have handled the situation differently? Certainly.

Were they *obliged* to do so? I believe not.

First, nowhere in the 27 pages of this thread has anybody shown that an air carrier has an obligation to provide hot food to a passenger with autism.

Second, mom warned the F/A that her daughter was about to be disruptive. UA has no obligation to transport a disruptive passenger, regardless of any medical condition, particularly when if the potential for disruptive behavior was not disclosed to UA in advance.

Third, the parents could have picked up hot food at IAH for their daughter to bring on the plane and failed to do so. I've done it myself many times. For a self-proclaimed >75K mi/year UA flyer to not know that UA doesn't always have warm food available in Y defies belief.

The one person who is blameless in this situation is the daughter. It was clearly a horrible experience for her, and I'm saddened by the thought that she went through what was an incredibly uncomfortable experience.

That being said, the parents and what seems to be a substantial portion of the Autism community are claiming that this was somehow a situation that was entirely of UA's making (see., e.g., from Mom's FB post):
They are choosing to completely disregard any possibility of comparative negligence on the part of the parents for the situation that ultimately led to the diversion.

This is the part of the situation that troubles me.

*All* of us on this board (at least any of us who actually fly UA on a regular basis) know that UA customer service can be atrocious and that there are offensive UA employees whose primary skill seems to be taking a bad situation and making it worse. It's entirely possible (perhaps even likely) that this is the case here.

BUT - to disregard the parents' clear responsibility (at least in part) for what happened on that flight on the basis of some imagined conspiracy against people with a medical condition is offensive.

Greg

NewportGuy

I don't recall the network (NBC, ABC, or CBS) but I did see several people interviewed supporting the FA and the flight crew. And until you happen to see the sworn statements from passengers, I'm not sure anyone can say in absolute terms that EVERY passenger did or did not support United or the Mother. I only know that I DID see an interview with other passengers who did support United.

Martina70

:-:

And that is really the crux of the issue.

If the story was just about an autistic teen who making loud and disruptive sounds, and that FA just accused her of being a nuisance because of it; i think for most of us..it would be a different conversation.

But a parent telling a FA that their child poses a physical threat to others, is not only facepalm worthy - but a reasonable cause for a diversion.

spin88

If she was a danger or made a threat, she is removed, and finds her own way home. We all know that, lots of examples of this. Hell, the guy who claimed he could hack UAs systems had his tickets cancelled. It is very clear that United put her on a DL flight, signed over her ticket. They could only do that if they decided she was not a threat. I seriously doubt that if United had concluded she was a threat that they could legally just dump her on DL.

p.s. this being FT, home of the pedantic, AS also flies it....

A claim was made that she had scratched her dad by a poster. I have not seen that in a single news report, and the Mom denies that (which is what I linked to, quoting her side of the story). Absent someone saying scratching occurred, and a link to it, I linked to the something that said its not true. No, I don't take the mom on faith, but I will be willing to bet that if she was scratching at people, hurt or hit someone, there would be a report on it.

[And p.s. in the news reports the mom said "when she begins to scratch." From context, plus my limited understanding of autism that probably means herself, not someone else. I'll let someone with training in this area add anything further, but IMHO many on this board are reading too much into the comment, as the FA may (or may not) have.]

I agree with the bolded part, which I think is an underlying truth, which makes it hard for me to understand everyone jumping to UAs defense is such a one sided way here. Any of us who have flown enough have seen the power tripping FA/GA (and not just on UA) and that just so rings true here. Again I'm not blaming the pilots, but IMHO the decision by the FA appears to have been an overreaction.

As to "comparative fault" very well may be true. I don't know, and I don't see anything in any article that lets me even guess at such fault. I am Not saying it does not exist, but evidently this girl (if the parents are to be believed) has flown a lot, and made it PDX-IAH-MCO-IAH uneventfully. This says the parents can't be totally out to lunch.

P.s. I think if folks read this: http://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-claim...ry?id=30926832 (which may or may not be true, just saying'n) it puts the mom's actions in a very different light, and its hard for me to see what the mom did wrong.

I heard several people saying UA did the right thing, but it was not clear if they were even on the plane, and I did not hear anyone on the plane other than Heglund quoted, and certainly no one who from context heard/saw the interaction as it was going on. Several people (I count 5 so far) have come forward to back the Mom, who were right there and heard/saw it all.

Again, if I missed something, and someone knows of an article/tv interview with someone who actually saw what happened who backs up UA, please provide a link. I've not found it.

p.s. Here is what the NYT says, having waited a few days and looked at the various reports:

"In videos taken during the incident and in subsequent news reports, fellow passengers have defended the family and criticized the flight attendant, pilot and airline for being insensitive to the girl’s needs and for overreacting to behavior that is not uncommon."

Again if anyone knows of a report of someone who was actually on the plane and heard/saw a threat, it would add to the conversation to have a link to it.

I respectfully disagree that what we have seen quoted (actually in quotes) was a threat. Several people who were there, on the plane, and heard/saw what happens said it was not a threat. Context and tone matters, and neither you or I were there.

If you have a news article that quotes anyone who was there and saw/heard what happens and said it was a threat, please provide it.

Finally, as noted above, I respectfully think you and others are misreading what was said as a threat to harm others, I don't read it/understand it that way. Again, those who were there are the ones that matter, and we have the FA on one side, and so far several people (not counting the mom) on the other.

I think this piece sums up my view of what likely happened, and puts it in the context of both ignorance and overreaction:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...autistic-child

Martina70

Hello Spin, the mother's own account , either given on facebook or to a news source (.she has given plenty of interviews so it's couched a little differently each time) said "If she reaches melt down mode and starts to scratch someone, will you help then?".

Even if she said, "she will start to scratch" the mother still left it open to interpretation.

Let's say that this was a FA on a power trip ( I'm not saying it, but I will humor it for arguments sake) and they got into a pissing competition with this mother. She gave him a pretty big clip of ammo, when she said what she said- and it was enough to get the plane diverted.

This situation was created when the mother (parents) failed to plan and make the provisions needed in order for their daughter to have a successful journey.

The plane was diverted because the mother issued a threat, in order to get the FA to remedy what ultimately was her problem and issue to deal with.

greg99

Sure they can - after figuring out what happened on the plane and determining (undoubtedly in consultation with DL) whether or not it was likely to happen again, they very easily could determine that any sort of concern about disruptive behavior had passed, and that it was safe for the family to travel.


You're selectively ignoring Mom's own words. The relevant issue (as she wrote in her own post) is that she told the F/A that if she didn't get hot food, she was going to have a meltdown and scratch. That's disruptive behavior, and disruptive behavior can get a flight diverted.

Which decision? The decision to follow airline policy and not serve a first class meal to an economy class passenger? The decision to tell the captain that the parent of a child had warned the F/A that her child might become disruptive?

Allow me to break this down:

(A) Mom wrote in her FB post: "Juliette will not eat cold food and had refused her dinner prior to the flight"

(B) Warm food was available at IAH to take on the plane.

(C) Mom acknowledged in her FB post that she did not pack warm food for her daughter for the flight.


It doesn't take Aristotle to figure out from Mom's own words that the parents could have prevented this situation with a modicum of planning prior to boarding the plane.

I already cited in my previous post the language from Mom's own FB post: According to Mom's words (which I'm prepared to accept as persuasive evidence of what she said on board), she didn't identify who her daughter would scratch. In the absence of such identification, it's reasonable for a F/A to assume that the daughter *might* scratch someone other than herself, and communicate that to the captain.

You comment that it's hard for you to understand why people jump to UA's defense here.

I think it's because I have kids myself with some complicated situations (I don't want to go into details), and because we travel with them all over the world, but go to enormous lengths to prepare for those trips and carry all of the supplies we might foreseeably need on board.

As a result, I have *no* sympathy for a parent who tries to publicly blame and shame UA for not providing her daughter with something to which she was not entitled, but which Mom foreseeably could and should have provided for her daughter herself.

That's why I jump to UA's defense in this case. I don't care how badly UA may or may not have behaved, it doesn't excuse Mom's poor behavior.

Greg

Tchiowa

The mother admitted to it. Read her FB page.


The mother.

The mother made the threat based on the daughter not eating. She got something to eat on the ground and the mother apparently retracted the threat.

Nope. UA has backed the FA all the way. It was the right call. In fact it was the only call the FA could make.

In our litigious society "zero tolerance" is the name of the game on airplanes. Imagine if the FA had brushed it off and the girl had gone ballistic and injured someone. Millions of dollars of lawsuits plus FT would be full of posts about why UA didn't take the threat seriously.
^^

spin88

Lots of what I might call sloppy reporting, the reports that actually quote her don't add "someone", at least not that I have seen. I've not read the exact words she wrote on her facebook post, but I believe the NYT and ABC would quote her correctly, and they did not use these words.

The ABC peice (which directly quotes the mom, puts what she said in quotes) is very clear that any comment came at the end, as the mom was trying to prevent a problem.

I strongly disagree that there is any evidence in the ABC piece or otherwise that the mom did a bad job of prepairing. I'll let this piece speak for my view, it says it better than I could: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...autistic-child

Yes, the police and paramedics AND UA personnel talked to folks and then UA put this girl on a DL flight. That is a clear as can be, there was no issue that required a divert. If the ABC piece is correct, the police and paramedics were going to leave her on the UA plane!

I ask you to read the Psch Today piece and ask is what that author talks about is partially driving your views.

I don't read it that way, and so far no one on this thread (the mob crying for the scalp of Dr. Beagle ) has been able to link to a single witnesses who was there and saw/heard what was said and viewed it as a threat. As the NYT summarized it:

"In videos taken during the incident and in subsequent news reports, fellow passengers have defended the family and criticized the flight attendant, pilot and airline for being insensitive to the girl’s needs and for overreacting to behavior that is not uncommon."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/tr...tic-child.html

Sorry I'm taking the grey ladies summary over yours.

Martina70

This mother really offends me for a couple of reasons...that even if she was given 'bad service' (and no. I don't think being refused the availability of first class offerings as bad service)

a) she has taken the position that it was because her child is autistic, they were denied service -despite that no one else in coach was given the 'privilege' of which she was denied

b) that she should have been given this opportunity to order from first class because her child is autistic

c) that eccomy passengers being refused first class service is a crime against poverty

d) the poverty activist had no issues of pulling the DYKWIA card and informing the FA of her platinum status in the hope that it would get them to yield to her demand for first class amenities

e) the poverty activist who just took her family on what has to be a costly excursion to Disneyworld and claims that her and her daughter are well travelled is also claiming systematic discrimination and classism.