UA Pilot Diverts to Remove Autistic Child From Plane for Safety Reasons
#122
Join Date: Nov 2013
Programs: UA Gold
Posts: 43
If the child needed a hot meal why didn't they book a first class ticket that would provide that? Even if only for the daughter and mother.
If the child always needs hot food that family needs to travel with a Dominos Pizza Bag or more realistically a thermos type lunch box. Those will keep food warm for hours.
To me the family seems extremely unprepared.
If the child always needs hot food that family needs to travel with a Dominos Pizza Bag or more realistically a thermos type lunch box. Those will keep food warm for hours.
To me the family seems extremely unprepared.
#123
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bangkok or San Francisco
Programs: United 1k, Marriott Lifetime PE, Former DL Gold, Former SQ Solitaire, HH Gold
Posts: 11,886
I agree. But the media is presenting this as solely a "United discriminates against autistic children" story and ignoring the mother's behavior.
#124
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: ORD
Programs: UA Silver, Marriott Platinum/LT Platinum, Hilton Gold
Posts: 5,594
The problem now is that UA can't really create good publicity. If they reach out to do something nice for the family, it looks like an admission of guilt. If, after they win the lawsuit, they issue a press release, it looks extremely insensitive. And it's unlikely any media outlet will carry the story when the lawsuit is tossed out, it's not sensational enough.
It's really a no-win situation for UA. UA has terrible customer service, and that's well known. On the surface, many people will read only the headline and think UA is just being UA. The best thing UA can do is try to deal with it quietly.
#125
Join Date: Dec 2014
Programs: DL Diamond and MM, UA 1K, Marriott LTT
Posts: 133
I think it's more bad PR right now. The articles I've read seem to be slightly more slanted in the family's favor. But I honestly clicked on the link and read the story with an open mind, and my first thought was that UA did the right thing.
The problem now is that UA can't really create good publicity. If they reach out to do something nice for the family, it looks like an admission of guilt. If, after they win the lawsuit, they issue a press release, it looks extremely insensitive. And it's unlikely any media outlet will carry the story when the lawsuit is tossed out, it's not sensational enough.
It's really a no-win situation for UA. UA has terrible customer service, and that's well known. On the surface, many people will read only the headline and think UA is just being UA. The best thing UA can do is try to deal with it quietly.
The problem now is that UA can't really create good publicity. If they reach out to do something nice for the family, it looks like an admission of guilt. If, after they win the lawsuit, they issue a press release, it looks extremely insensitive. And it's unlikely any media outlet will carry the story when the lawsuit is tossed out, it's not sensational enough.
It's really a no-win situation for UA. UA has terrible customer service, and that's well known. On the surface, many people will read only the headline and think UA is just being UA. The best thing UA can do is try to deal with it quietly.
UA should go on a pro safety campaign, although they have had some mechanical incidents recently.
I think UA should ban the mother for life and give the daughter enough miles to be able to travel without her mother when she turns 18. The best thing for the daughter is to get some distance from the mother.
Last edited by goalie; May 11, 2015 at 3:06 pm Reason: removed system generated censoring of a certain word
#126
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Northern Calif./Eastern Ida.
Programs: Amethyst Premier Plutonium Medallion
Posts: 20,642
Mother needs to pay a visit to channa's "VP of Entitlement Control"
Not enough info to judge about daughter's behavior and UA's decision to divert
Don't care if UA did or did not give her food from F
Find it marginally hilarious that UA pawned this group off onto DL to become "their problem"
Not enough info to judge about daughter's behavior and UA's decision to divert
Don't care if UA did or did not give her food from F
Find it marginally hilarious that UA pawned this group off onto DL to become "their problem"
#127
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: Fallen Plats, ex-WN CP, DYKWIW; still a Hilton Diamond & Club Cholula™ R.I.P. Super Plats
Posts: 25,415
It's 1196 miles for IAH-SLC, another 629 on to PDX.
So after 2.5 hours with the kid on board & no damage to the aircraft (2/3 there), they diverted 75 minutes short of PDX.
Don't blame the pilot, he relied on his cabin crew for info, but they should fire a few of these idiot flight attendants who cause these diversions. If they don't have the people skills to finesse these situations, they need to find a new line of work.
So after 2.5 hours with the kid on board & no damage to the aircraft (2/3 there), they diverted 75 minutes short of PDX.
Don't blame the pilot, he relied on his cabin crew for info, but they should fire a few of these idiot flight attendants who cause these diversions. If they don't have the people skills to finesse these situations, they need to find a new line of work.
#128
Join Date: Dec 2014
Programs: DL Diamond and MM, UA 1K, Marriott LTT
Posts: 133
It's 1196 miles for IAH-SLC, another 629 on to PDX.
So after 2.5 hours with the kid on board & no damage to the aircraft (2/3 there), they diverted 75 minutes short of PDX.
Don't blame the pilot, he relied on his cabin crew for info, but they should fire a few of these idiot flight attendants who cause these diversions. If they don't have the people skills to finesse these situations, they need to find a new line of work.
So after 2.5 hours with the kid on board & no damage to the aircraft (2/3 there), they diverted 75 minutes short of PDX.
Don't blame the pilot, he relied on his cabin crew for info, but they should fire a few of these idiot flight attendants who cause these diversions. If they don't have the people skills to finesse these situations, they need to find a new line of work.
If not for the mother's threats, the outcome may have been avoided.
#129
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: Fallen Plats, ex-WN CP, DYKWIW; still a Hilton Diamond & Club Cholula™ R.I.P. Super Plats
Posts: 25,415
There's just not a heck of a lot a 15-year-old autistic girl can do that would actually endanger anyone.
#130
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MRY - CNX - TXL
Programs: UA 1K / *G / Marriott PE / Expedia Gold+ / Hertz PC
Posts: 7,058
What about the lawsuit to UA and the Mom from the passenger she scratched after UA was negligent in preventing it after the mother made the threat on behalf of the daughter?
#131
Join Date: Dec 2014
Programs: DL Diamond and MM, UA 1K, Marriott LTT
Posts: 133
End of story. Again, safety trumps all.
Again, if not for the mother's threats....
The mother should learn to keep her pie hole shut and learn better parenting skills for the sake of her child.
#132
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,877
Piss poor preparation and handling of the situation on the part of the mom. Sorry.
Did she expect anything positive to come out of the, "How about we wait for her to have a meltdown" comment? Autistic meltdowns can be serious.
Did she expect anything positive to come out of the, "How about we wait for her to have a meltdown" comment? Autistic meltdowns can be serious.
Last edited by DelrayChris; May 11, 2015 at 4:22 pm
#133
Join Date: Jun 2012
Programs: UA Platinum
Posts: 252
The comments on this point have become progressively more insane (but more entertaining!).
I'm sure the next poster will propose burning the mother at the stake to kickoff the additional IAD-CDG route this summer.
For all those angrily and absolutely defending UA, I'm curious about something: Suppose the family had been thoroughly prepared with a hot meal in an insulated bag, and some terrible thief had surreptitiously stolen it from them prior to boarding. If all the other facts alleged by Mom were the same (i.e. family notices no meal, panics, asks to buy hot meal, gets cold sandwich, asks to buy hot F meal, gets rejected, then tells FA daughter might scratch if doesn't get hot meal, gets meal, everyone is calm and happy, plane diverts to SLC), would UA still be justified in diverting?
Diversions aren't supposed to be morality plays. If you think that a mother telling the FA her perceived consequences of what happens when her disabled child cannot eat hot food constitutes a threat (akin to a terrorist demanding something under the threat of violence to those in the aircraft) sufficiently grave to require the pilot to land IMMEDIATELY, then I suppose your perception of risk must substantially differ from mine (and the other passengers aboard the aircraft).
It seems sympathy for UA here has more to do with enthusiasm for punishing a perceived parental failing as it does with identifying a problem the diversion solved.
I'm sure the next poster will propose burning the mother at the stake to kickoff the additional IAD-CDG route this summer.
For all those angrily and absolutely defending UA, I'm curious about something: Suppose the family had been thoroughly prepared with a hot meal in an insulated bag, and some terrible thief had surreptitiously stolen it from them prior to boarding. If all the other facts alleged by Mom were the same (i.e. family notices no meal, panics, asks to buy hot meal, gets cold sandwich, asks to buy hot F meal, gets rejected, then tells FA daughter might scratch if doesn't get hot meal, gets meal, everyone is calm and happy, plane diverts to SLC), would UA still be justified in diverting?
Diversions aren't supposed to be morality plays. If you think that a mother telling the FA her perceived consequences of what happens when her disabled child cannot eat hot food constitutes a threat (akin to a terrorist demanding something under the threat of violence to those in the aircraft) sufficiently grave to require the pilot to land IMMEDIATELY, then I suppose your perception of risk must substantially differ from mine (and the other passengers aboard the aircraft).
It seems sympathy for UA here has more to do with enthusiasm for punishing a perceived parental failing as it does with identifying a problem the diversion solved.
#134
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: LAX, LGB, SNA
Programs: AA EXP OWE, DL DM ST+, AS MVPG, UA, BA, WN CP, Hyatt E, Ritz Plat, HH GM
Posts: 3,185
Just read the article and the lady saying "what if she opened an exit door at 36,000 feet" that part made me laugh so hard. I don't think she understands how air pressure works.
If the parents basically made a quiet threat of scratching, then that girl needed to get off. If she scratched another pax, this would've been a whole different story.
If the parents basically made a quiet threat of scratching, then that girl needed to get off. If she scratched another pax, this would've been a whole different story.
#135
Join Date: Dec 2014
Programs: DL Diamond and MM, UA 1K, Marriott LTT
Posts: 133
The comments on this point have become progressively more insane (but more entertaining!).
I'm sure the next poster will propose burning the mother at the stake to kickoff the additional IAD-CDG route this summer.
For all those angrily and absolutely defending UA, I'm curious about something: Suppose the family had been thoroughly prepared with a hot meal in an insulated bag, and some terrible thief had surreptitiously stolen it from them prior to boarding. If all the other facts alleged by Mom were the same (i.e. family notices no meal, panics, asks to buy hot meal, gets cold sandwich, asks to buy hot F meal, gets rejected, then tells FA daughter might scratch if doesn't get hot meal, gets meal, everyone is calm and happy, plane diverts to SLC), would UA still be justified in diverting?
Diversions aren't supposed to be morality plays. If you think that a mother telling the FA her perceived consequences of what happens when her disabled child cannot eat hot food constitutes a threat (akin to a terrorist demanding something under the threat of violence to those in the aircraft) sufficiently grave to require the pilot to land IMMEDIATELY, then I suppose your perception of risk must substantially differ from mine (and the other passengers aboard the aircraft).
It seems sympathy for UA here has more to do with enthusiasm for punishing a perceived parental failing as it does with identifying a problem the diversion solved.
I'm sure the next poster will propose burning the mother at the stake to kickoff the additional IAD-CDG route this summer.
For all those angrily and absolutely defending UA, I'm curious about something: Suppose the family had been thoroughly prepared with a hot meal in an insulated bag, and some terrible thief had surreptitiously stolen it from them prior to boarding. If all the other facts alleged by Mom were the same (i.e. family notices no meal, panics, asks to buy hot meal, gets cold sandwich, asks to buy hot F meal, gets rejected, then tells FA daughter might scratch if doesn't get hot meal, gets meal, everyone is calm and happy, plane diverts to SLC), would UA still be justified in diverting?
Diversions aren't supposed to be morality plays. If you think that a mother telling the FA her perceived consequences of what happens when her disabled child cannot eat hot food constitutes a threat (akin to a terrorist demanding something under the threat of violence to those in the aircraft) sufficiently grave to require the pilot to land IMMEDIATELY, then I suppose your perception of risk must substantially differ from mine (and the other passengers aboard the aircraft).
It seems sympathy for UA here has more to do with enthusiasm for punishing a perceived parental failing as it does with identifying a problem the diversion solved.
The diversion was for the sake of safety, not morality. I applaud safe operations and deplore parents that lack skills and feel it is everyone else's fault for their short comings.
Had the mother properly prepared for the trip or kept her threats to herself and tried to find solutions with the FA's, the outcome may have been different.
The mother's actions are the cause of the incident.