See below. In actuality they are required to provide a reasonable accommodation. And the "passenger safety" argument is invalidated by their failure to do so.

This is where UA fails and this is why they were wrong. Taken from http://www.ada.gov/qandaeng.htm

Are you saying that a hot meal qualifies as an auxiliary aid, or that UA should have policies and procedures that accommodate the request for a hot meal?

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I think UA made reasonable accommodations. They provided a hot meal. I'm not sure how they could have reasonably been prepared for that. And it isn't like they left the passengers stranded in a desert. They landed in SLC and put them on a flight to their destination.

You seem to be saying the only reasonable accommodation was to do whatever the parents asked, continue the flight despite a verbal safety threat. I'm struggling a little to understand how UA could have anticipated this without the mother warning them prior to boarding the plane.

I think you may wish to view this page, from the US DOT:

http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/publi...s/horizons.htm

14 CFR Part 382.11 does not require airlines to provide food as a service to passengers with disabilities on an aircraft. United's policy is that special meals require 24 hours notice. If a hot meal was a requirement for safe transportation, then the parents should have requested it in advance with appropriate warning for United to accommodate, asked for a later flight, or taken hot food from the terminal on board the aircraft.

Forgetting all of that, apparently the flight attendant offered a "hot sandwich" that "arrived cold" (or so says the mother) and the daughter continued to throw a tantrum after offering the "hot sandwich".

Then the mother says that the daughter, who is in an agitated state, may scratch (read: assault) other people. The father admits the daughter was still in a tantrum at this point. The mom tried to get dramatic and made the impression upon the FA that the daughter was a threat to her own safety and/or other passengers.

None of what you wrote makes any sense at all.

What if the flight had no hot food whatsoever? Is UA required to carry "emergency" hot food in case there might be a passenger who needs it? I can guarantee that the answer to that is "no."

As a result, being required to carry F class hot food in surplus, simply because a passenger in Y might need it, is not a "reasonable accommodation." This is particularly the case when the issue could have been resolved by the mother carrying hot food.

What if mom had said that her daughter has a meltdown when she gets claustrophobic - would she have been entitled to an F seat with more space? No, of course not, and even Mom would have never asked for that (I would hope).

This has nothing to do with autism sensitivity, and everything to do with poor planning by the parents and mom's litigation-centric entitlement personality.

I'm stunningly sensitive to parents who travel with special needs kids, and flights to/from Orlando (and their connections) are heavily traveled by families with special needs, because the Disney parks are ideally set up for those families. That doesn't mean, however, that parents don't have an obligation to plan appropriately for those trips.

Greg

You are really stretching the requirement to the breaking point and beyond.

And they did provide a hot meal, they took one from F or a crew member. Above the required.

And they only denied them service when it became a threat which happened when the mother said the child would become violent. Are you saying they have to accommodate at the expense of everyones safety when a person of needs becomes violent? They did not divert and have them deplane because the child was autistic, they did it because the mother proclaimed the child would get violent and could hurt someone.

ADA doesn't apply to airlines. They're covered by ACAA.

Scratching doesnt mean violent
 

She most probably meant the kid was going to start scratching herslef. That's what nervous or kids with special compulsions do. They don't go looking for someone else to scratch in other rows. If everyone in charge stopped looking for drama, then they would understand that. as I have said, the mother does seem to be a little bit of an self entitled lady judging by her facebook postings. Still, I keep reading throughout this thread about "threats". Give me a break.

And it seems obvious the FAs were ready to kick them out as they were serving the hot meal. Again, my question to the mother was what if the airline didn't have a hot meal. So I am not letting her off the hook fully. But the way things unfolded, no matter what I think of the mother's behavior, the airline overreacted and wasted a lot of people's time.

EDIT: Looks like they meant scratching others too judging by her scratching of her father. Still, I don't think she would have scratched someone in a different row. If I am sitting in the next row, my preference would be to reach Portland ASAP, not worry about some kid trying to get out of her row to come scratch me.

Anyone else remember the thread a while back when a deaf passenger claimed that the airlines would be in violation of ADA because they wouldn't let him sit in an exit row?

I don't think ordering a special meal in advance would have been an option. First of all, hot isn't a category that one can pick. Secondly, you can't request a special meal for a flight that doesn't have meal service in your confirmed cabin. Finally, AFAIK USA carriers now only offer special meals on especially long, primarily international (and maybe Hawaii? maybe the nonstop transcon p.s. flights?) routes, not on normal domestic flights.

She was quoted as saying in one of the articles the child may scratch someone. That is a direct threat that the child could start hurting someone else. And in the article some people were on the families side and others were on UA's side. I am not going to take sides as I wasn't there and most likely you weren't either.

That may be true, but that's not what she said, according to her own FB post:

You also have to consider the context, based upon the reports of other passengers that she was being disruptive by moaning, etc.

I think one paragraph in Mom's FB post is really telling:

This incident seems to have much less to do with UA and much more to do with Mom and her interest in making particular quasi-political statements.

Greg

Somewhere I saw a statement that the kid had scratched her father, who was sitting next to her, on the flight. I don't know whether this supposedly happened before or after the kid got the hot FC meal.

correction on scratching
 

OK, I need to expand the scratching to include the family around her. I still doubt she would have been seeking people outside her immediate vicinity to make physical contact with. She probably considers her and her parents to be of the same "space".

EDIT: I just saw the video. Looks like she did scratch her dad.

And the FA should reasonably assume what you're suggesting to be the case? How in the heck, after scratching her father, and the mother making threats about it, would the FA not at least inform the captain of the situation?

That's what happened. The captain then made a decision to divert. In the world of air travel, when there's any potential of danger to passengers, you err on the side of caution.

The fact that you feel the child probably wouldn't have scratched others is totally irrelevant. If the FA or captain did, they need to act.

Link
Link 2
So in different articles the Mom says she indicated the daughter would self-injure via scratching or would scratch others (unprovoked physical contact that causes pain/wounds, however superficial, is considered assault + battery & could leave UA liable to claims from other passengers) if her tantrum continued.

Even if the kid just injures herself, it could become a medical emergency if sufficiently severe.

This is exactly the point many people seem to be missing. Most of us weren't on this flight. But many people are commenting on how they're sure the FA overreacted or they're sure the kid wouldn't have hurt anyone.

The mother herself, in the links you provided, isn't clear. In an unclear situation, you can either a) ignore it and wait for clarity, or b) take the most cautious approach to avoid an escalation.

As a customer, I always want United to take the cautious approach in safety situations. Sometimes that means you upset a few people.

The ADA statutory language exempts air transportation.

Yes, any flight up to 24h later, subject to availability.

Would UA even cater a meal on request on a non-meal flight (for the passengers ticketed cabin)?

There's no special meal for "hot meal" listed on their website, so I'm not sure UA could even provide one.

Yes, this.

The Mom keeps finessing her story. Can you imagine if they did not divert and for whatever reason the teen had another scratching incident, this time of the passenger in the seat in front of her, what the liability for UA would be? It would be huge since they had already been warned by the Mom that the teen could go ballistic and start scratching.

The Mom did everything wrong and continues to do so. UA was correct. The more I read about the woman the more I feel sorry for her family.

Actually both apply.

http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/ACAAcomplaint.htm

Doesn't ADA just apply for ground facilities?

ADA applies to airport facilities...such as having an entrance ramp.

What section of either ACAA or ADA states either:
1. Hot meals must be provisioned and provided upon request (or a general passage that would cover this)?

2. Any request by a care giver must be satisfied?

I'll admit I didn't read the 20 pages of comments, but in my view, by diverting the plane both parties lost. UA lost money (extra fuel, misconnects etc), and the pax lost by having to take another flight etc.

Situation could've easily been avoided. Some common sense on either side could've avoided this whole thing.

I myself blame mostly UA, bc seems like the situation was already under control when the kid was given his hot meal. I'd be upset with UA if I was on that plane and had to misconnect bc of this.

Not saying parents aren't without fault here. But UAs actions made everyone lose.

Agreed. She couldn't have ordered it but her parents certainly could have put hot food in an insulated bag.

Doubt that would have worked. It stated in the article the child would only eat it if it was steaming hot, with steam rising off the food. Warm food would not work. No insulated bag I have ever seen will keep food that hot for anywhere near long enough.

Actually one could argue that the family won by being rebooked from UA to DL, but other DL passengers could have lost big time if the kid had continued to howl and decided to scratch some strangers.

Until the doctor mom's next offer/demand/threat.

I really doubt many (any?) were connecting from PDX onward.

I'll agree to disagree on this point.

Proper training is how instinctual reactions are overcome in stressful situations to get good outcomes.

No teenager working retail would survive more than a week without the capacity to grin and bear the difficult customers. This is achieved through training. Frankly, I hold airlines and FAs to a higher standard here.

Recognize that I'm failing UA's training as being unable to overcome the human instincts for both sides of the conversation. UA cannot expect its customers to be trained on how to handle their staff.

Don't get me wrong; it takes two to tango, but the FA is the professional when it comes to customer service and safety. This needlessly escalated beyond what should have been possible.

I would also assume that the many thousands of autistic passengers who fly daily, with and without caregivers, receive good service and appropriate accomodations on UA and other airlines. It is probably safe to assume that FA's training is generally appropriate for most cases. But, unless I conclude the FA here went completely rogue, I do think training failed them in this instance.

Less seriously, I might suggest that, as seasoned UA passengers, forum participants have become well trained at handling difficult customer service professionals and therefore feel a greater duty should be placed on passengers. I'm sure some of us have wanted to let loose with tirades that would get us tossed from a plane. So much better we know to save it for flyertalk.

If she's that particular, then she should not be flying on scheduled passenger aircraft. There are lots of times (turbulence, takeoff, landing, taxiing) when the flight attendants are not available to provide meals to passengers, and no handy-dandy microwave to make things ultra hot in a hurry. For that matter, I can't think of any of the first class meals I've had that came out piping hot. Ever.

Ditto if some other person with autism expects a hot fudge sundae at whatever moment he wants it.

Inside a metal tube at 30,000 feet is not the time to expect "have it your way" food service.

This is correct. The Mother won by getting free publicity for her cause, and by getting her way after making threats about a "meltdown" and "scratching." She now has a soapbox to promote herself, her organization, and her causes. It is horrific that news organizations don't challenge the falsehoods put forth by this contemptible woman.

The passengers and United lost.

Not sure the reason for the insult, but if you would reread my post, I mentioned the "special" needs of her daughter, not the societal accommodations you mentioned. It is NOT out of line to expect the Mother to have requested this hot meal (hardly something a flight attendant could anticipate) while on the ground, or she should have brought a hot meal aboard with her. The Mother created the difficult situation, introduced the possibility of her daughter turning violent, and is now crying "bigotry and hate". That IS out of line.

I wasn't insulting you personally, merely stating that I found your post to be very largely factually incorrect. My apologies if my comment came across differently.

I think you need to read your first sentence again and think about if it is insulting or not. Then read the last sentence again and think about that one. The person you made the comments to took it as an insult and that is how I read it too.

Actually, I think we can simply agree on this particular point. While the human element comes into play, your point is valid that proper training can help.

I don't think that changes the situation much, since I'm not entirely sure the FA didn't handle it well. We don't have all the facts regarding the interactions between FA and passengers. We have very little information on what happened before the request for a hot meal.

Regardless of how the situation escalated, I still believe the FA was obligated to inform the captain. UA's captains have kept me safe for many years, and I'm not about to start questioning their decisions based on this incident.

We may then get total agreement.

I hope I've been careful to not unfairly judge the FA or Captain. It's entirely possible, even probable, that their reactions are wholly consistent with the limits of their training and that they therefore handled it well.

My argument is that more robust training (and accompanying empowerment) in accomodating disabilities (and difficult parents) could have prevented a costly diversion, angry/humiliated passengers and a PR nightmare.

Think if we go back to the root of the problem and where it all started, one has to question the mother and the FA (eyes rolling/attitude problem)....I don't want to pick on UA cabin crew but...you can get some of the worst characters in the aviation industry on UA and Delta who create unneccessary problems that potentially on other airlines are solved with listening to the passenger and getting the problem solved with a smile and a 'sure, let me do that for you.'

I don't think the Flight Crew can afford just assume that everything will turn out fine when deciding whether or not a passenger or situation involves risk to passengers or plane. They've got to be risk-averse when evaluating potential threats. Whether or not individual customers would have preferred to have taken the risk themselves. It's Flight Crew who are trained and empowered to take decisions concerning the safety of passengers and the plane, not passengers themselves. Your edit already shows that the bulk of your post was over-optimistic, and I can't see the reason for your optimism.

As for customer service, there are hundreds of passengers on the plane. The level of customer service of the airline isn't just how the family at the centre of this were handled, but the overall service level for all passengers on the plane. And IMHO keeping passengers safe is a higher priority than keeping them happy.

Given that United booked the family onto another flight, allowing time for appropriate preparations to be made, I do think that United went the extra mile on this.

The airline did say that they tried to work with the family. Despite the frantic wish of some people to paint the airline as a villain in this story, I don't see the evidence that they actually did fail in this instance. And I repeat my above comment that passenger safety is a higher priority than passenger satisfaction.

My belief is that there was never any chance that the teenager would act up on the DL flight. As if she had done so, then the mother would have been utterly unable to consider suing United or playing the victim in the press. Note: this is just a guess on my part. I'm not suggesting that any airline could have relied on this when making actual decisions.

Since this incident involved a passenger with a medical condition and the possibility of a diversion, it is likely that the crew consulted with MedLink prior to making their decision. The MedLink doctor would advise the Captain on the passenger's condition and give medical advice regarding whether or not a diversion was needed. In a case like this I would expect to receive guidance on how to manage a disruption from an autistic passenger and what kind of behavior might be expected from them.

In a case where there is an illness or injury on board the decision to divert (from a medical perspective) is made by the MedLink doctor. They will even advise on where to divert to based on the medical services that the passenger requires.

http://www.medaire.com/solutions/air...rvices-medlink

I do not think the captain or FA thought of this as a medical issue. It was an issue with the mother's and daughter's behavior.

There was no medical emergency.

Searching the MedAire site for "autism" or "autistic" delivers 0 results.