refused to fly first class because their son has Down's Syndrome

Princess Peach

Faolchu wrote: »

they flew with a different airline in economy class

Had he truly been a security risk surely he would have been placed on the No Fly list though? Which makes their argument pretty invalid.

JustAThought

JustAThought wrote: »

The ADA Act is very clear. No doubt AA is in trouble . But I agree re the children in first class ; you pay for service , comfort & peace & quiet.Too many fawning parents typically let their children be noisy, disruptive & run amuck. A no u18 's & adult code of behaviour should help resolve that.



I dont think passengers in first class are any better behaved than economy. Thats ridiculous. Amounts to saying that people who cant afford first class are ill mannered People in economy can be quiet and peaceful


The times I flew in first , were because it was long haul and I wanted the leg room, not to be amongst those who I thought where better behaved

people in first class are often the biggest ****s, many a steward would confirm that. They are way more demanding than economy passengers.

frash

Biggins wrote: »

Because I have a brother that is physically and mentally handicapped, I am a member of local branch of a national organisation, called the A.R.C.H.* organisation (of Ireland).
We mind and care for people.
Take them out and see to their moods/needs.

There is a great deal of downs people with Down syndrome in those clubs.
Just from experience there alone, I find that downs children/adults with Down syndrome are actually more placid and content to do whats requested or/and just go with the flow.
ONLY when they are 'disturbed' or put out in any way, do they usually get irate (as any normal people would to be honest) - and thats afterwards... not before.

I suspect someone was just being a bit snobbish over having a downs person with Down syndrome in first class and used 'possible disturbance' as a disgusting excuse.

Shame on them if so.

*Association of Recreational Clubs for the Handicapped.

FYP - I'd have thought that someone who works with people with Down syndrome would know how to refer to them.

Down syndrome is part of who they are - it should not define them.

Sappa

Bluefoam wrote: »

I'm not going to comment on this case. But I know if I paid the huge premium to fly first class, I would expect my fellow passengers to quiet and not moving around much - whether down syndrome or otherwise. The cost of a first class ticket is massive & the reason people choose to fly first class is for ultimate luxury...

The majority of people on first class are on a corporate account with flights paid for by their organisation.
I have flown first class a handful of times through work and there have been new born babies up there,disabled adults and loud couples.
It is never a problem from what I have seen,if ever there was a complaint made the passenger quitend down or tries to hush the baby.
I would take exception to never flying this airline in the future if the family successfully sue United.
We are supposed to be an inclusive society with the celebrations of special olympics and paraolympics it's forward we need to go not backwards when down syndrome kids were shoved into a home for the mentally retarded and never spoken of by the family except for an odd secret visit.

steddyeddy

Princess Peach wrote: »

Had he truly been a security risk surely he would have been placed on the No Fly list though? Which makes their argument pretty invalid.

Well said. The difference seems to be one of snobbery.

BUBBLE WRAP

I find it shocking that the airline didnt let the family into first class. I looks to me that it was discrimination towards the boys disability. I have a very good friend with down syndrom, I find him very enjoyable to hang out with and when ever Im feeling sad, he does his best to try and cheer me up, Its a pleasure to be friends with him. So I hope to god that the airlines are taken to the cleaners. They deserve nothing better IMO.

Faolchu

Princess Peach wrote: »

Had he truly been a security risk surely he would have been placed on the No Fly list though? Which makes their argument pretty invalid.

agree 100% however the airline in qustion coudl simpley claim "not our fault Delta let them fly, we considered him a risk" an opinion I think is complete BS. at the end of the day unless theres a risk of the kid opening the doors at 30K feet then theres no more risk than if he hadnt been a dows child. I think its an open and shut case of discrimination but teh airline would be insane to let this go any further. I'd say their lawyers ar ein major damage limitation mode.

Hell I've had someone in customer service call security in a US airport because I making a complaint and was being "sarcastic" when she made a complete idiot of herself by asking if i had filled out the complaint from i should have recieved whilst on the telephone to someone else in the company half an hour earlier from my hotel room, all i did was ask her how exactly would i get a complaint form whilst i was on the phone from a hotel room, i may had used the words " reach down the phone line and take if from her desk? or just magic it up?" and i was thus escorted out of the airport after she called security who promptly arrived with his hand on the butt of his gone. I complaind recieved a €100 voucher for said airline in compensation for my trouble. i sent it back to them and told them to shove it as i'd never travel with them again and never have.

asherbassad

davet82 wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198317/American-Airlines-refused-family-class-seats-captain-claimed-Downs-syndrome-son-disruptive.html



so can the parents win this case? or was the airline right, that he was a security risk?

The video evidence seems to suggest he was well behaved, I think I'm with the family on this one.

FFS, everything and everyone these days is a fcuking "security risk". Damn ambiguous catch-all meaningless phrase when you can't or won't give a valid reason for your actions.
Ugly, fat, underpaid flight attendant is jealous of a hot chick in a mini-skirt, flip-flops and a plunging neckline with "Sexy" emblazoned across her ample chest......geebag stewardess tells her to coverup or get off the plane as she's "causing offence".

Loada bollocks, these people

GarIT

LizT wrote: »

You do realise that autism and down syndrome are completely different disabilities, right? And just because you know a child with autism and know the way they'd react doesn't mean that you should just assume any child with a disability would or could react similarly.

I do but its the closest I could get. My point is it wouldn't want to sit near any child with a disability because you would be less likely to be disturbed if your not.

Then I want on to say while I wouldn't want to I wouldn't try to do anything about it of it did happen because they have an equal right to be there.

asherbassad

asherbassad wrote: »

FFS, everything and everyone these days is a fcuking "security risk". Damn ambiguous catch-all meaningless phrase when you can't or won't give a valid reason for your actions.
Ugly, fat, underpaid flight attendant is jealous of a hot chick in a mini-skirt, flip-flops and a plunging neckline with "Sexy" emblazoned across her ample chest......geebag stewardess tells her to coverup or get off the plane as she's "causing offence".

Loada bollocks, these people

Nicely put

AnonoBoy

Lelantos wrote: »

You don't think ? How can you possibly make any comment based on a video that was taken after the event? The boy is 16, not a child, maybe the thought of being on a plane frightened him to the point of having a panic attack? Maybe the pilot had to approach the family & calm him down , or maybe its all lies & they are discriminatory & trying to cover their ass. But the point is, we don't know, we can't call bullsht as we don't know. Am very interested to see how this goes though.

The video was taken while they were still sitting in the airport so it was around the same time. I was saying that it shows the child can behave.

Zab wrote: »

They didn't get put in economy. They weren't allowed on the flight at all. They later travelled economy with a different airline.

Ah - that changes things. I thought they'd stuck them back in economy.

GarIT wrote: »

I have to agree with BlueFoam I wouldn't wan't to have to be near children of any kind, on a plane, on a train in a resteraunt or anywhere where I dont want to be disturbed because naturally children are more likely to cause a disturbance.

So you think children shouldn't be allowed in first class at all? That'd be nice alright. I hate kids being noisy.

But the airline sold the kid a ticket so they

I have seen disabled children cause troube before, they sometimes get agressive, I know a child with severe autism that is always very loud and extremely annoying.

I've seen adults cause trouble before. They sometimes get aggressive. What's your point?

Also autism and down's syndrome are not the same thing at all.

Thumby

@ the poster who made the point (sorry can't quote on my phone) that it is easier to physically restrain a 4/5 yr old than a 16 yr old, fair enough. However he didn't need restraining in away at this stage because he was being well behaved. I do take your point though.,but by the sound of it the airlines premise of he would be a physical disturbance was based on a hypothetical, irregardless of him having downs. I'm looking forward to seeing how the airline try and wriggle out of it.

asherbassad

Faolchu wrote: »

they flew with a different airline in economy class

Then AA should be punished and prosecuted and sued for fobbing off a "known security risk" to another airline. If he was such a fcuking security risk then he shouldn't have been allowed on any airline, no?

Right there the whole "security risk" crap is a farce.

Biggins

frash wrote: »

FYP - I'd have thought that someone who works with people with Down syndrome would know how to refer to them.

Down syndrome is part of who they are - it should not define them.

True - which is why I refer to them as actual "persons", not just their unfortunate circumstance.

Example:

Ask oneself this after reading the information currently available...

...Before the person involved got on the plane, was he causing any disturbance or any more of a disturbance than any other person entering first class?

* If not - they were selecting him out for other reasons, they looking likely based around his disability.

* If he was a prior disturbance (and prove it also) to his getting on the plane, the airline might have a case - but then they will have to explain why it was ok to just shift him down further!
Strange in itself!

There's better things to nit-pick with me over I feel!
...Not just over my grammar!

charlietheminxx

This story has really gotten to me.

I have an amazing sister with Down Syndrome. She's one of the coolest people I know, utterly laid back, confident and LOVES travelling. She's been on more long-haul flights than I have (was recently in the States) and has never had a bother. She'll watch films on longhaul or nap, or listen to her ipod. On short flights she's quite content to have a flick through the magazines or look out the window, or wonder what's taking the drinks cart so long. She's just like most of us who fly.

It would break my heart to see her discriminated against because of something she has no control over.

I would never compare her to a child because she isn't. She's in her early 20's and has never been a bother to fly with (first time I remember flying with she must have been about 6 or 7). She's a lot more pleasant to sit near than many passengers on flights I've been on.

This boy's parents must be devastated. It's hard enough accepting limitations that having something like Downs brings, without other people forcing other ones on you.

Shame on the airline, and for anyone that would make assumptions about a person with special needs without knowing them.

Biggins

asherbassad wrote: »

Then AA should be punished and prosecuted and sued for fobbing off a "known security risk" to another airline. If he was such a fcuking security risk then he shouldn't have been allowed on any airline, no?

Right there the whole "security risk" crap is a farce.

There is also the point that if ANYONE has been a 'disturbance' or troublesome on any flight now, a record is oft times attached to their name when bookings are made and/or its noted when booking in.

The person if they had a history of being "security risk" - and remember, for them to get to that status, they previously would have had to been trouble - then they would have been flagged and not allowed book a fight possibly in the first place!

The airline excuse is just full of holes.

Lelantos

Biggins wrote: »

There is also the point that if ANYONE has been a 'disturbance' or troublesome on any flight now, a record is oft times attached to their name when bookings are made and/or its noted when booking in.

The person if they had a history of being "security risk" - and remember, for them to get to that status, they previously would have had to been trouble - then they would have been flagged and not allowed book a fight possibly in the first place!

The airline excuse is just full of holes.

Firstly, the family had not prebooked tickets, they upgraded at a kiosk while waiting at the airport. They rquested that the boy be able to sit with 1 parent, the airline granted that request. The pilot alone made the call, he saw the boy being unruly & decided, that on what he saw, the boy wasn't fit to fly at that time. They took a later flight with the same airline. An airline like AA has had no previous charges of descrimination held against them, can't see why they would start doing so now.

charlietheminxx

Lelantos wrote: »

Firstly, the family had not prebooked tickets, they upgraded at a kiosk while waiting at the airport. They rquested that the boy be able to sit with 1 parent, the airline granted that request. The pilot alone made the call, he saw the boy being unruly & decided, that on what he saw, the boy wasn't fit to fly at that time. They took a later flight with the same airline. An airline like AA has had no previous charges of descrimination held against them, can't see why they would start doing so now.

What difference does that make, they had booked tickets in the first place?

Does that pilot regularly judge minors who are mucking about in the airport and refuse to let them fly, I wonder?

mikom

Had to be done.........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFXYxVrMo8s

Lelantos

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Lelantos wrote: »

Firstly, the family had not prebooked tickets, they upgraded at a kiosk while waiting at the airport. They rquested that the boy be able to sit with 1 parent, the airline granted that request. The pilot alone made the call, he saw the boy being unruly & decided, that on what he saw, the boy wasn't fit to fly at that time. They took a later flight with the same airline. An airline like AA has had no previous charges of descrimination held against them, can't see why they would start doing so now.

What difference does that make, they had booked tickets in the first place?

Does that pilot regularly judge minors who are mucking about in the airport and refuse to let them fly, I wonder?

Oh, let's just say you read the rest of that line & see that the airline accommodated them, not having 3 separate seats, but making sure at that late stage of the day that they could have a parent sitting with him. It doesn't seem like they were trying to chuck the boy out does it?

SerialComplaint

Bluefoam wrote: »

I'm not going to comment on this case. But I know if I paid the huge premium to fly first class, I would expect my fellow passengers to quiet and not moving around much - whether down syndrome or otherwise. The cost of a first class ticket is massive & the reason people choose to fly first class is for ultimate luxury...

I guess you'd better hope that they do mandatory tests for cocaine and other drug tests to all 1st class passengers then? And it definitely wouldn't be a great idea to fill these passengers with as much alcohol as their bodies can bear?

benwavner wrote: »

Cmon, it's obvious that the 1st class passengers were being looked after.

You mean it's obvious that SOME of the 1st class passengers were being looked after, while other 1st class passengers were being treated like something you'd tread in on the streed.

Bluefoam wrote: »

I will clarify my point... I have made no negative response against the child in question. I have not commented as to whether he or any other should be moved from their pre booked seats in any circumstances. My point was solely referring to the expectations of first class passengers. I know allot of people who crew flights and I have personal previous experience. First class passengers are demanding and often selfish. They will make demands to the crew. I do not necessarily agree with them, I'm just stating the facts.

Personally, I am not a first class flyer, nor have I ever been, but I do know many.

Again, some point- you have focused on the assumed expectations of SOME of the 1st class passengers, while ignoring the expectations of others

frash wrote: »

FYP - I'd have thought that someone who works with people with Down syndrome would know how to refer to them.

Down syndrome is part of who they are - it should not define them.

Indeed - and wouldn't you think that the organisation in question would have moved on from terminology like 'handicapped'? It's not the 1970s.

cristoir

This is one of those cases where it's really hard to judge without knowing the circumstances.

Biggins

Lelantos wrote: »

Firstly, the family had not prebooked tickets.

But on the making their way to their plane, at the check-in desk or staff alerted for flagged trouble makers, they would have stopped the person before he got even near the plane.

The point is that he up to then was not such troublemaker/security risk that he to be banned from the flight.

Certainly previously, it seems he was fine on other flights - in regular class of course!

Lelantos wrote: »

An airline like AA has had no previous charges of descrimination held against them, can't see why they would start doing so now.

An airline is only as good as each member of staff.
Why one pilot took it into his head to come to the decision he did, might come out in court.

A google search by way in regard to A.A. and discrimination, does indeed show up previous possible cases!
Example: http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/consumer/a/americanair.htm

They have even been found guilty of discrimination against staff: http://www.legalmomentum.org/news-room/press-releases/eeoc-finds-american-airlines.html

I'm also left wondering how a pilot saw the person?
In all the flights I have taken at home and abroad, I have never seen the pilot passing through the passenger area prior to take-off (its a security risk alone) to get to their flight cabin, nor have I ever seen them under their own steam, emerge prior to take-off from their cabin (again, a security risk - and lord knows the Americans are somewhat hyper about their security now!).

The point is that I suspect a flight attendant brought the subject of the person to the attention of the pilot, who THEN has final say.
If so, that might provide for the airline, an escape-goat for them to try getting off.

MadsL

I see that After Hours is keeping up its America bashing quota.

benwavner wrote: »

Fuppin America again.

Sorry? Has there been a history of the US as a nation denying disabled people travelling first class? This is the first case I have heard of.

Nothing surprises me anymore.....especially when it has anything to do with 'Merica!

If this had happened in France would you be having a similar rant about the French?

EnterNow wrote: »

Ah America. The child was probably more able than most of the people on board, despite his disability.

That post says a hell of a lot more about your own ignorance than any supposed mental disability on the part of the American population. The US has far better legal protections for the disabled than Ireland. For example, Ireland has signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities but has so far utterly failed to ratify this Convention and is now having to figure out how to comply with EU legislation.

http://www.oireachtasbrief.ie/people/ministers-state/convention-on-the-rights-of-people-with-disabilities/

Ireland is also struggling to provide services to the disabled;

“The report itself highlights a significant and continuing failure of Government and the HSE to address deficiencies in the planning, monitoring and delivery of services to people with a disability and raises major questions whether the capacity to deliver on this latest report exists”.
URL="http://www.inclusionireland.ie/content/media/920/disability-report-launched-minister-kathleen-lynch-td-highlights-continuing"]source[/URL

The US on the other hand has had long-standing disability legislation, the Americans with Disabilities Act and has long been regarded as a front runner in disability legislation. Ratification was held up by some loopy Senators but is now underway and should be finalised in the next administration.

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/07/26/senate-committee-backs-treaty-regarding-disabilities/OCJjqyHRQXT1Uw3UJnE0cL/story.html

Now, tell me again about how stupid America is, given that the majority of Americans can tell the difference between one airline employee and an entire nation. You seem to be struggling with understanding that difference.

Lelantos

Biggins wrote: »

But on the making their way to their plane, at the check-in desk or staff alerted for flagged trouble makers, they would have stopped the person before he got even near the plane.

The point is that he up to then was not such troublemaker/security risk that he to be banned from the flight.

Certainly previously, it seems he was fine on other flights - in regular class of course!



An airline is only as good as each member of staff.
Why one pilot took it into his head to come to the decision he did, might come out in court.

A google search by way in regard to A.A. and discrimination, does indeed show up previous possible cases!
Example: http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/consumer/a/americanair.htm

They have even been found guilty of discrimination against staff: http://www.legalmomentum.org/news-room/press-releases/eeoc-finds-american-airlines.html

I'm also left wondering how a pilot saw the person?
In all the flights I have taken at home and abroad, I have never seen the pilot passing through the passenger area prior to take-off (its a security risk alone) to get to their flight cabin, nor have I ever seen them under their own steam, emerge prior to take-off from their cabin (again, a security risk - and lord knows the Americans are somewhat hyper about their security now!).

The point is that I suspect a flight attendant brought the subject of the person to the attention of the pilot, who THEN has final say.
If so, that might provide for the airline, an escape-goat for them to try getting off.

You should have quoted the whole sentence, they upgraded at a kiosk at the airport! The staff even made sure they could have 2 seats together to accomodate a parent & the boy.
The descrimination link you posted, well, lets face it, every American airline is going to be wary of muslim passengers, so its not at all relevant.
Perhaps, just perhaps the pilot is telling the truth!? In his opinion he deemed the boy unfit to fly, also, airport police were called, by the airline, didnt see the parents mention that at any stage did you?

Praetorian Saighdiuir

MadsL wrote: »

I see that After Hours is keeping up its America bashing quota.

Sorry? Has there been a history of the US as a nation denying disabled people travelling first class? This is the first case I have heard of.

If this had happened in France would you be having a similar rant about the French?

Nice rant there, but no need to be sorry. My comment was about America as a whole, you cannot deny that America is fairly wound up and ****ed up and this type of outlandish, irrational, indefensable behaviour would be more common with America than other nation.

Lets stick to FACTS then , since you are sensitive. This happened in America and is to do with an American DS person travelling inside America with American Airlines.

If it happened in France, I doubt I would have made the same comment, but that is a hypothetical answer, because this incident was in America.

I cannot be accused of being ignorant, but American Airlines can, so stop trying to change the subject.

Biggins

Lelantos wrote: »

You should have quoted the whole sentence, they upgraded at a kiosk at the airport! The staff even made sure they could have 2 seats together to accomodate a parent & the boy.
The descrimination link you posted, well, lets face it, every American airline is going to be wary of muslim passengers, so its not at all relevant.
Perhaps, just perhaps the pilot is telling the truth!? In his opinion he deemed the boy unfit to fly, also, airport police were called, by the airline, didnt see the parents mention that at any stage did you?

1. If was such a security risk, they should have kopped it for a number of reasons at any desk, be it check-in or upgrade.

2. The descrimination link I posted was a simple example - there are many others - it was a rebuttal to you posting:

Originally Posted by Lelantos
An airline like AA has had no previous charges of descrimination held against them...

but seeing as you want to knit-pick about that one, that discrimination case is about visual characteristics is used to discriminate it might be assessed.

3. Again, how did the matter come to the attention of the pilot, thats all I'm wondering!

GarIT

AnonoBoy wrote: »

So you think children shouldn't be allowed in first class at all? That'd be nice alright. I hate kids being noisy.

But the airline sold the kid a ticket so they



I've seen adults cause trouble before. They sometimes get aggressive. What's your point?

Also autism and down's syndrome are not the same thing at all.

No, if you read what I said you will see that I said I would prefer them not to be there but they obvious have just as much right as anyone else.

My point is that children are more likely to be noisy, asking questions, talking out loud and that sort of thing. My point is there are people that wouldn't want to be around children and I would guess thats why the airline didn't let them on because they felt they were trying to look after their regular first class passengers.

I know there not, its just an example, I don't know anyone with down's syndrome so I used an example I do know of someone with a disability because I was talking about why they may have not let the child on.

Biggins

GarIT wrote: »

No, if you read what I said you will see that I said I would prefer them not to be there but they obvious have just as much right as anyone else.

My point is that children are more likely to be noisy, asking questions, talking out loud and that sort of thing. My point is there are people that wouldn't want to be around children and I would guess thats why the airline didn't let them on because they felt they were trying to look after their regular first class passengers.

I know there not, its just an example, I don't know anyone with down's syndrome so I used an example I do know of someone with a disability because I was talking about why they may have not let the child on.

I would just make the point that ALL paid first class passengers are entitled to take their seats, be they regular ones or not.
The law as far as I know, does not differentiate between regular ones and less frequent ones.

All children are more likely to be noisy, asking questions (Out too loud?), talking out loud and that sort of thing - true to some extent - but then when purchasing the ticket, the seller has then the option to refuse based upon age if they wish to chance it!
...Not on the plane which is unfair - or more unfair even?

Lelantos

Biggins wrote: »

Lelantos wrote: »

You should have quoted the whole sentence, they upgraded at a kiosk at the airport! The staff even made sure they could have 2 seats together to accomodate a parent & the boy.
The descrimination link you posted, well, lets face it, every American airline is going to be wary of muslim passengers, so its not at all relevant.
Perhaps, just perhaps the pilot is telling the truth!? In his opinion he deemed the boy unfit to fly, also, airport police were called, by the airline, didnt see the parents mention that at any stage did you?

1. If was such a security risk, they should have kopped it for a number of reasons at any desk, be it check-in or upgrade.

2. The descrimination link I posted was a simple example - there are many others - it was a rebuttal to you posting:

Originally Posted by Lelantos
An airline like AA has had no previous charges of descrimination held against them...

but seeing as you want to knit-pick about that one, that discrimination case is about visual characteristics is used to discriminate it might be assessed.

3. Again, how did the matter come to the attention of the pilot, thats all I'm wondering!

Nowhere in your rebuttal does it state anything about discrimination about disability, so it is not relevant. The pilot saw the boy being boisterous & unruly & took the decision based in what he saw. Now you can arguethe toss, but if it is not uncommon for aircabincrew, to use the same walkways as us mere mortals. The pilot made a judgement call on what he saw, that's it, you can believe it or not, I could care less.

FionnK86

Bluefoam wrote: »

I'm not going to comment on this case. But I know if I paid the huge premium to fly first class, I would expect my fellow passengers to quiet and not moving around much - whether down syndrome or otherwise. The cost of a first class ticket is massive & the reason people choose to fly first class is for ultimate luxury...

That's an idiotic comment!That's similar to saying for example "so if you don't have full use of your legs you don't get special treatment for a wheelchair elevator for the plane", "if you don't have perfect vision and wear glasses you don't get to watch the inflight movie". Sure we should all get treated equally, but when you have a disability you immediately lose some functions that others possess, and need some extra care just to be nearly as equally treated.

:mad: I don't want to love on this planet anymore:(

Grimebox

I learned 2 things about people with Downs Syndrome in my life.

1. They are surprisingly strong
2. They don't appreciate you throwing fruit pastilles at them when you're bored and sitting face to face to them on a train

Biggins

Lelantos wrote: »

Nowhere in your rebuttal does it state anything about discrimination about disability, so it is not relevant. The pilot saw the boy being boisterous & unruly & took the decision based in what he saw. Now you can arguethe toss, but if it is not uncommon for aircabincrew, to use the same walkways as us mere mortals. The pilot made a judgement call on what he saw, that's it, you can believe it or not, I could care less.

You stated:

Originally Posted by Lelantos
An airline like AA has had no previous charges of descrimination held against them, can't see why they would start doing so now.

Quite simply, thats incorrect.

You can further him and haw over an example I post to get around this matter but the fact is that A.A. can be found to have charges against them.
End of story.

Lelantos wrote: »

Nowhere in your rebuttal does it state anything about discrimination about disability, so it is not relevant.

IF its a case of discrimination, because the person has Downs - visual characteristics would have been VERY likely to make this disability obvious and thus used to be selective.
I though THAT and the case I exampled would have been obvious to most here - obviously not to you then!

From what I've read the boy became upset after the possible discrimination began - thats very bloody understandable if so!
...Or when someone decides to throw you off a plane are you not allowed not to get upset?

I still would like to know how the pilot got dragged into the matter - I suspect the cabin crew brought the presence of the person to him for confirmation to remove him.

Lelantos

Biggins wrote: »

Lelantos wrote: »

Nowhere in your rebuttal does it state anything about discrimination about disability, so it is not relevant. The pilot saw the boy being boisterous & unruly & took the decision based in what he saw. Now you can arguethe toss, but if it is not uncommon for aircabincrew, to use the same walkways as us mere mortals. The pilot made a judgement call on what he saw, that's it, you can believe it or not, I could care less.

You stated:

Originally Posted by Lelantos
An airline like AA has had no previous charges of descrimination held against them, can't see why they would start doing so now.

Quite simply, thats incorrect.

You can further him and haw over an example I post to get around this matter but the fact is that A.A. can be found to have charges against them.
End of story.

From what I've read the boy became upset after the possible discrimination began - thats very bloody understandable if so!
...Or when someone decides to throw you off a plane are you not allowed not to get upset?

I still would like to know how the pilot got dragged into the matter - I suspect the cabin crew brought the presence of the person to him for confirmation to remove him.

Your rebuttal was about a Complaint! Not a charge,no charges ever filed!
Still no answer as to why the police had to be called? Anyone?

Bluefoam

FionnK86 wrote: »

Bluefoam wrote: »

I'm not going to comment on this case. But I know if I paid the huge premium to fly first class, I would expect my fellow passengers to quiet and not moving around much - whether down syndrome or otherwise. The cost of a first class ticket is massive & the reason people choose to fly first class is for ultimate luxury...

That's an idiotic comment!That's similar to saying for example "so if you don't have full use of your legs you don't get special treatment for a wheelchair elevator for the plane", "if you don't have perfect vision and wear glasses you don't get to watch the inflight movie". Sure we should all get treated equally, but when you have a disability you immediately lose some functions that others possess, and need some extra care just to be nearly as equally treated.

:mad: I don't want to love on this planet anymore:(

Its not similar to saying those things at all.

Biggins

Lelantos wrote: »

Your rebuttal was about a Complaint! Not a charge, no charges ever filed!

Dear gawd, use google if you can't understand the second link I posted - but then even that, I suppose you'd find something to bicker about!

Lelantos

Biggins wrote: »

Lelantos wrote: »

Your rebuttal was about a Complaint! Not a charge, no charges ever filed!

Dear gawd, use google if you can't understand the second link I posted - but then even that, I suppose you'd find something to bicker about!

No, you're looking for square pegs to fit in round holes. If you find cases of charges being brought against AA for discriminating against disability, fine, share them. But until then, forgive me if I don't hang them out to dry on the basis of your "evidence"

MadsL

benwavner wrote: »

Nice rant there Princess but no need to be sorry.

Princess? wtf? You flirting now?

My comment was about America as a whole,

And I'm wondering why? Since this was one airline employee?

you cannot deny that America is fairly wound up and ****ed up

I cannot deny you see it that way. Maybe you should visit and actually find out what it is really like.

and this type of outlandish, irrational, indefensable behaviour would be more common with America than other nation.

Where are you pulling this from? America is the world's most outlandish, irrational and indefensable nation. Really? All of this from one airline employee?

North Korea called, they want their championship title back, Myanmar are pretty hot on their heels too. You might have also noticed Syria making a late run.

Lets stick to FACTS then , since you are sensitive.

No, nothing to do with me being 'sensitive', but I do prefer facts over prejudice.

This happened in America

Yes, correct

and is to do with an American DS person travelling inside America

Yes, correct.

with American Airlines.

A private company. American Airlines is owned by a (bankrupt) company based out of Fort Worth, Texas. Now unless you think Michael O'Leary speaks on behalf of the Irish people, then extrapolating American opinions from the actions of one AA employee is absurd.

If it happened in France, I doubt I would have made the same comment, but that is a hypothetical answer, because this incident was in America.

And here is a case of a Irish child being denied entry to a school never mind a flight: http://www.myspecialneeds.ie/blog/index.php/tag/down-syndrome/
Excuse me while I go posting about "fuppin Ireland again" because of one incident with a school principal.

I cannot be accused of being ignorant,

Ya think? I'd beg to differ, Princess.

but American Airlines can, so stop trying to change the subject.

I'm not - I'm just trying (painfully) to get across to you that the actions of one private company do not define a nation of 300 million people. Americans will (generally speaking) be horrified at this incident.

Biggins

Lelantos wrote: »

No, you're looking for square pegs to fit in round holes. If you find cases of charges being brought against AA for discriminating against disability, fine, share them. But until then, forgive me if I don't hang them out to dry on the basis of your "evidence"

Google my friend.
If you seriously think AA (or any other airline) has not done so, you should be nominating them for sainthood.
They must be perfect!
...Surprisingly, a web search engine says diffrent - go figure!

Also note that a lot of cases are settled out of court (a) because its bad publicity for them (b) it goes down on record for other cases later (c) its used to decide if an airline is deserving of a operating flight licence or a re-newel of one.
..And that off the top of my head.

As I said earlier:

I've no doubts the case will be settled out of court, the airline is on a non-winner publicity-wise here alone and a jury would be hard-pressed to find the airline innocent.
...And the Airline will know it!

If that's the case - it don't make A.A. any less culpable of doing the deed!

Praetorian Saighdiuir

MadsL wrote: »

Princess? wtf? You flirting now?



And I'm wondering why? Since this was one airline employee?


I cannot deny you see it that way. Maybe you should visit and actually find out what it is really like.


Where are you pulling this from? America is the world's most outlandish, irrational and indefensable nation. Really? All of this from one airline employee?

North Korea called, they want their championship title back, Myanmar are pretty hot on their heels too. You might have also noticed Syria making a late run.


No, nothing to do with me being 'sensitive', but I do prefer facts over prejudice.


Yes, correct


Yes, correct.


A private company. American Airlines is owned by a (bankrupt) company based out of Fort Worth, Texas. Now unless you think Michael O'Leary speaks on behalf of the Irish people, then extrapolating American opinions from the actions of one AA employee is absurd.


And here is a case of a Irish child being denied entry to a school never mind a flight: http://www.myspecialneeds.ie/blog/index.php/tag/down-syndrome/
Excuse me while I go posting about "fuppin Ireland again" because of one incident with a school principal.


Ya think? I'd beg to differ, Princess.


I'm not - I'm just trying (painfully) to get across to you that the actions of one private company do not define a nation of 300 million people. Americans will (generally speaking) be horrified at this incident.

Tl ; DR :P

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

And yes "Fuppin Ireland" is a statement that unfortunately can be used a lot here.

I will however agree that my sumation of the whole of America does not rest with this incident.

Lelantos

Biggins wrote: »

Lelantos wrote: »

No, you're looking for square pegs to fit in round holes. If you find cases of charges being brought against AA for discriminating against disability, fine, share them. But until then, forgive me if I don't hang them out to dry on the basis of your "evidence"

Google my friend.
If you seriously think AA (or any other airline) has not done so, you should be nominating them for sainthood.
They must be perfect!
...Surprisingly, a web search engine says diffrent - go figure!

Also note that a lot of cases are settled out of court (a) because its bad publicity for them (b) it goes down on record for other cases later (c) its used to decide if an airline is deserving of a operating flight licence or a re-newel of one.
..And that off the top of my head.

As I said earlier:

I've no doubts the case will be settled out of court, the airline is on a non-winner publicity-wise here alone and a jury would be hard-pressed to find the airline innocent.
...And the Airline will know it!

If that's the case - it don't make A.A. any less culpable of doing the deed!

We all know cases are settled to stop resulting bad publicity, whether a company is right or not, settling is sometimes the lesser of 2 evils.
I googled this story & American papers have a slightly different stance, they provide more info etc. The Daily Fail has never been impartial in the stories they print, right wing sensationalism at the best of times. I stated earlier that maybe AA is covering up, that they are discriminating against the boy, but everyone seems to be taking the parents story as gospel, and in my experience, people who run to the media before the proper authorities aren't always kosher. And again, I have nobody answering as to why the police were called, did the parents not get that on camera?

GarIT

Biggins wrote: »

I would just make the point that ALL paid first class passengers are entitled to take their seats, be they regular ones or not.
The law as far as I know, does not differentiate between regular ones and less frequent ones.

All children are more likely to be noisy, asking questions (Out too loud?), talking out loud and that sort of thing - true to some extent - but then when purchasing the ticket, the seller has then the option to refuse based upon age if they wish to chance it!
...Not on the plane which is unfair - or more unfair even?

I agree all passengers are entitled to the seats they paid for. When I said about the regular first class passengers I meant the airlines often try to look after their regular first class passengers more than the others to keep them happy. Of course the law doesn't but airlines are known to give better service to regular customers, there was an issue recently in America where regular first class passengers had their own express metal detector thing so that they didnt have to que at security.

I think people are mis understanding me, maybe I'm saying things badly. I agree the airline are probably (because we don't know all the circumstances) wrong. I'm just pointing out why I think they did it. They wanted to keep the regular first class passengers happy.

Micky Dolenz

benwavner wrote: »

Nice rant there Princess but no need to be sorry. .

Mod

Please refrain for baiting. It only cheapens your point.

Biggins

GarIT wrote: »

...I think people are mis understanding me, maybe I'm saying things badly. I agree the airline are probably (because we don't know all the circumstances) wrong. I'm just pointing out why I think they did it. They wanted to keep the regular first class passengers happy.

I take you point and understand it. There's sound thinking behind it.
Sadly though, you and I know at the end of the day, to be fair to all paid passengers, its wrong somewhat.

Biggins

Lelantos wrote: »

We all know cases are settled to stop resulting bad publicity, whether a company is right or not, settling is sometimes the lesser of 2 evils.
I googled this story & American papers have a slightly different stance, they provide more info etc. The Daily Fail has never been impartial in the stories they print, right wing sensationalism at the best of times. I stated earlier that maybe AA is covering up, that they are discriminating against the boy, but everyone seems to be taking the parents story as gospel, and in my experience, people who run to the media before the proper authorities aren't always kosher. And again, I have nobody answering as to why the police were called, did the parents not get that on camera?

Well moving on... and guessing on your question above, I suspect that the father or mother got maybe very angry and as a precaution the cops based* there, were called over?
Just a guess.

O' and the law was changed in America, its now illegal to film cops in some states while they are in the duty of their work.
Maybe that applies also.
They might have told them to turn any cameras off.



* I say "based there..." because most international and major airport have a police base near by and/or keep a constant number on site.

Lelantos

Biggins wrote: »

Lelantos wrote: »

We all know cases are settled to stop resulting bad publicity, whether a company is right or not, settling is sometimes the lesser of 2 evils.
I googled this story & American papers have a slightly different stance, they provide more info etc. The Daily Fail has never been impartial in the stories they print, right wing sensationalism at the best of times. I stated earlier that maybe AA is covering up, that they are discriminating against the boy, but everyone seems to be taking the parents story as gospel, and in my experience, people who run to the media before the proper authorities aren't always kosher. And again, I have nobody answering as to why the police were called, did the parents not get that on camera?

Well moving on... and guessing on your question above, I suspect that the father or mother got maybe very angry and as a precaution the cops based* there, were called over?
Just a guess.

O' and the law was changed in America, its now illegal to film cops in some states while they are in the duty of their work.
Maybe that applies also.
They might have told them to turn any cameras off.



* I say "based there..." because most international and major airport have a police base near by and/or keep a constant number on site.

It's possible they were angry, its possible they were abusive? Just seems that they are being portrayed by the media as poor distraught parents, can't see why the police would have to be called, its too one sided a story is my point. Btw, no such law in place in New jersey, you can film away.

Biggins

Lelantos wrote: »

It's possible they were angry, its possible they were abusive? Just seems that they are being portrayed by the media as poor distraught parents, can't see why the police would have to be called, its too one sided a story is my point. Btw, no such law in place in New jersey, you can film away.

Well IF it gets to court (which I doubt), airport video footage v's their family footage will expose the truth.

Speaking for myself, if I thought my child was being 'picked on' unfairly, I would argue strongly too - others might see that as an excuse to call in the cops (maybe to further their side of the case) but I'd be surprised if any parent just acted meekly.

A late thought: If the person was trouble IN THE AIRPORT - how did he even get as far as the plane then, for a pilot to kick him off?

Something smells not right!

BigBrownBear

I'll just say one thing.
If it was Posh 'n' Becks kid,or anyone of such ilk, they wouldn't have moved/kicked them off.
DS or not

Overheal

davet82 wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198317/American-Airlines-refused-family-class-seats-captain-claimed-Downs-syndrome-son-disruptive.html



so can the parents win this case? or was the airline right, that he was a security risk?

The video evidence seems to suggest he was well behaved, I think I'm with the family on this one.

How dare you steal my R&R Rant!

Lelantos

Biggins wrote: »

Lelantos wrote: »

It's possible they were angry, its possible they were abusive? Just seems that they are being portrayed by the media as poor distraught parents, can't see why the police would have to be called, its too one sided a story is my point. Btw, no such law in place in New jersey, you can film away.

Well IF it gets to court (which I doubt), airport video footage v's their family footage will expose the truth.

Speaking for myself, if I thought my child was being 'picked on' unfairly, I would argue strongly too - others might see that as an excuse to call in the cops (maybe to further their side of the case) but I'd be surprised if any parent just acted meekly.

A late thought: If the person was trouble IN THE AIRPORT - how did he even get as far as the plane then, for a pilot to kick him off?

Something smells not right!

They never got near the plane, not even to the boarding dock.
Seems you are giving AA a lot of credit for preparing their defense even as the drama was unfolding. Pity the parents didn't keep videoing this police brutality as it happened, would have strengthened their case.