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

Overheal

MadsL wrote: »

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.

Thank you Madsl.

Here is the original source for this thread, which I think followed from my thread in another forum:

http://consumerist.com/2012/09/family-booted-from-flight-claim-american-airlines-didnt-want-son-with-down-syndrome-in-first-class.html

Look Benweaver, it's an American consumer news site, and the commenters are indeed outraged. What? You mean Americans are also just as horrified as Europeans about the incident? That can't be, Americans are Inferior to Europeans...

This is why I don't post in AH much these days. Trying to drive sensibility, humulity, and information into skulls that generally don't care to receive it. Either wallow or grow up.

One more thing Benjamin:

This happened in America and is to do with an American DS person travelling inside America with American Airlines.

I got ****ty service from a Flight Attendant on Aer Lingus one time. Should I be just as bigoted and paint that stupid cow's attitude and her whore makeup across the whole of Ireland?

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that was back when Aer Lingus was indeed a State-Owned body.

Biggins

Lelantos wrote: »

They never got near the plane, not even to the boarding dock.

Indeed, they never got to the plane itself:

The couple claim as they waited to board their flight back to their home near Los Angeles they were told by airline staff they were not allowed to take their seats.

So they were waiting just off in the departure area?
Having purchased their tickets where (a) it might have been noted he was a security risk? (b) if he had a record of trouble previously and thus not sold even a ticket?

Lelantos wrote: »

...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.

Again (and this is only an educated guess) videoing might have been requested to stop - not to comply with a cops request - IF - one was also made, is also illegal in some states.
Maybe there is footage we have yet to see - but held back so far for legal reasons also!

PLUS there is this:

Joan Vanderhorst pulled out her cell phone and started recording the incident on Sunday in which Bede is seen quietly playing with his hat and an American Airlines official warns that she was prohibited from filming "in a security-controlled area."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/teen-denied-boarding-american-airlines-flight-syndrome-family-article-1.1151439

Firing Squad

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...

Jesus. Welcome to Germany 1938.

Mod:
Re-reg Banned

dorkacle

Biggins wrote: »

If the family can prove discrimination based around a disability - yes, they have a clear case.

In Ireland yeah, do they have similar legislation in America??

SerialComplaint

GarIT wrote: »

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.

Why would you assume that the other passengers on that flight were regulars? Why would you assume that the family in question were NOT regulars?

Biggins

dorkacle wrote: »

In Ireland yeah, do they have similar legislation in America??

Yes, in a number of ways - but as regards Irish law:

One example: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0004.html#sec4

Another section (3)

3.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, discrimination shall be taken to occur where—

(a) on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as “the discriminatory grounds”) which exists at present or previously existed but no longer exists or may exist in the future, or which is imputed to the person concerned, a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated,

(b) (i) a person who is associated with another person is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated, and

(ii) similar treatment of that person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination,

or

(c) (i) a person is in a category of persons who share a common characteristic by reason of which discrimination may, by virtue of paragraph (a), occur in respect of those persons,

(ii) the person is obliged by the provider of a service (within the meaning of section 4 (6)) to comply with a condition (whether in the nature of a requirement, practice or otherwise) but is unable to do so,

(iii) substantially more people outside the category than within it are able to comply with the condition, and

(iv) the obligation to comply with the condition cannot be justified as being reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

(2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:

(a) that one is male and the other is female (the “gender ground”),

(b) that they are of different marital status (the “marital status ground”),

(c) that one has family status and the other does not or that one has a different family status from the other (the “family status ground”),

(d) that they are of different sexual orientation (the “sexual orientation ground”),

(e) that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not (the “religion ground”),

(f) subject to subsection (3), that they are of different ages (the “age ground”),

(g) that one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability (the “disability ground”),

(h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (the “ground of race”),

(i) that one is a member of the Traveller community and the other is not (the “Traveller community ground”),

(j) that one—

(i) has in good faith applied for any determination or redress provided for in Part II or III,

(ii) has attended as a witness before the Authority, the Director or a court in connection with any inquiry or proceedings under this Act,

(iii) has given evidence in any criminal proceedings under this Act,

(iv) has opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under this Act, or

(v) has given notice of an intention to take any of the actions specified in subparagraphs (i) to (iv),

and the other has not (the “victimisation ground”).

(3) Treating a person who has not attained the age of 18 years less favourably or more favourably than another, whatever that other person's age, shall not be regarded as discrimination on the age ground.

This:

There are two distinct pieces of legislation in place in Ireland which set out important rights for citizens and specifically outlaw discrimination when it occurs. The Employment Equality Act, 1998 and the Equal Status Act, 2000 as amended by the Equality Act 2004 (pdf) outlaw discrimination in employment, vocational training, advertising, collective agreements, the provision of goods and services and other opportunities to which the public generally have access. Specifically, service providers, agencies, and anyone providing opportunities to which the public have access, cannot discriminate against citizens on nine distinct grounds.

These grounds are:

gender
marital status
family status
sexual orientation
religion
age (does not apply to a person under 16)
disability
race
membership of the Traveller community.

http://www.barkeeper.ie/page.asp?menu=0&page=518

Overheal

dorkacle wrote: »

In Ireland yeah, do they have similar legislation in America??

The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Air Carrier Access Act.

They issued a statement to the press that the boy was being a disturbance, etc. basically repeated what they told the family and that they accomodated them on another flight with a different carrier. They also said they refunded the upgrade fee to first class (should have refunded the whole thing for all the outrage they've brought on themselves):

http://consumerist.com/2012/09/family-booted-from-flight-claim-american-airlines-didnt-want-son-with-down-syndrome-in-first-class.html

American Airlines wrote:

The young man was very excitable and running around the gate area prior to boarding. Our pilot noticed and asked a Customer Service Manager to talk to the family to see if we could help him calm down and get better acclimated to the situation. That effort was ultimately unsuccessful, and we made the decision to have the family rebooked on a different flight out of concern for the young man's safety and the safety of other passengers. The family chose not to fly American, so we helped re-accommodate them on another carrier's flight to Los Angeles.
Asking the... family to take a different flight was a decision that was made with careful consideration and was based on the behavior of the teen. Our Newark customer service team worked with the family in an attempt to make Bede as comfortable as possible. Unfortunately, the crew determined he was still agitated, and at that point the [family members] were asked to take an alternate flight...
[W]e will be refunding the upgrade fees.

Aidric

Biggins wrote: »

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

WTF has that got to do with this case? Give it a rest with the posting of non related links to back up your wafer thin arguments.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Overheal wrote: »

Look Benweaver, it's an American consumer news site, and the commenters are indeed outraged. What? You mean Americans are also just as horrified as Europeans about the incident? That can't be, Americans are Inferior to Europeans...

It's Benwavner......by the way. Thanks for paying attention. I was in no way comparing Americans to Europeans so theres no point in you defending an argument you made yourself.

Overheal wrote: »

This is why I don't post in AH much these days. Trying to drive sensibility, humulity, and information into skulls that generally don't care to receive it. Wallow. Wallow.

It's sad that one comment would aid in preventing you to participate in open discussions here. You above statement does not relate to me and my statements. If you think it does, then you need to relax and take a step back from the keyboard.

Overheal wrote: »

One more thing Benjamin:

Surely Benjamin could be construed the same as Princess, are you baiting?

Overheal wrote: »

I got ****ty service from a Flight Attendant on Aer Lingus one time. Should I be just as bigoted and paint that stupid cow's attitude across the whole of Ireland?

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that was back when Aer Lingus was indeed a State-Owned body.

Sure who hasnt? There has no bearing on this American incident.


MadsL and Overheal, you two people need to stop coming up with examples of things in an effort of retalatory anger posts for my comment "Fuppin America again".

You are not going to win this one. My point to the incident is, I am not surprised that this happened in America. It's as simple as that. You are reading too much into it, so lets stop being little children, take a minute and realise that no matter what clever words, examples or links you post.....at the end of the day, it did happen in America. I doubt I am the only one that is surprised that it happened there.

Focus more on the incident instead of trying to defend crazy America.

Biggins

Aidric wrote: »

WTF has that got to do with this case? Give it a rest with the posting of non related links to back up your paperweight arguments.

Calm down and look at previous posts:

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.

...And I posted showing that AA are capable of being found guilty of discrimination - no mater what shape or form it come in!
Or does one only kind that suits one's view, only count?
It appears so!

Gee, talk about looking for something to argue about and nit-pick!

---

The point was that the airline was/is not infallible.
They make mistakes like others do.
This might be another one - I say MIGHT!

dorkacle

Biggins wrote: »

Yes, in a number of ways - but as regards Irish law:
One example: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0004.html#sec4

I'm aware off that all right, but the article doesn't say they were flying from Ireland? Maybe I missed it, I just skimmed it, their name is 'Vanderhorst' too so I assumed they weren't Irish.

Not so sure the rest of Europe has the same grounds for discrimination, let alone America?

Biggins

dorkacle wrote: »

I'm aware off that all right, but the article doesn't say they were flying from Ireland? Maybe I missed it, I just skimmed it, their name is 'Vanderhorst' too so I assumed they weren't Irish.

Not so sure the rest of Europe has the same grounds for discrimination, let alone America?

Flight was internal in America I think.

EU Discrimination law: http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/DACA17B3-921E-4C7C-A2EE-3CDB68B0133E/0/ENG_FRA_CASE_LAW_HANDBOOK_01.pdf

Section 2.2 and 2.2.1 to begin with.

omega666

The lad must have been obviously agitated or disruptive at so some point before the film shows him. The Airline most likely decided they cant have him acting up in first class which is understandable for business reasons.
They offered to book the family on a later flight when he had calmed down but the family refused and went with another airline.

The security threat reason is obviously just to cover up that they didn't want to piss off thier first class passenger's who've paid huge sums of money if the kid did become disruptive again.

I feel sorry for the family as it is embaressing for them but I don't see much the airline did wrong.

Overheal

benwavner wrote: »

It's Benwavner......by the way

Surely Benjamin could be construed the same as Princess, are you baiting?

If that's baiting, then you're a Pot. But I'm not black.

Sure who hasnt? There has no bearing on this American incident.

It has plenty of bearing though on your completely nonsensical and ignorant remarks on how a company branded as American Airlines is somehow representative of America, or how Americans treat people with disabilities. Quite a lot to do with it in fact.

my comment "Fuppin America again".

I wouldn't really have an issue with such a comment, but that's not what you did (well, not the only thing). Instead of saying "I'm not surprised this happened in America" you instead specifically verified that your comments were about "America as a whole", and then tried to make factual claims like "America is fairly wound up and ****ed up and this type of outlandish, irrational, indefensable behaviour would be more common with America than [any] other nation."

That's the part I take issue with, not your " 'Merica!" tripe. Though I must say:

"Sure isn't that why they have sky marshalls now, huh, to tackle the terrorists and the mentally deficient?"

That's the most disgusting comment I've read on here in a while, especially given the context. I expect better out of the dregs at youtube.

Focus more on the incident instead of trying to defend crazy America.

Again, Pot, you're trying to twist an incident and use it to criticize an entire culture. I suggest you also stick to the matter at hand, in which a private business wrongly denied travel to a boy with Down Syndrome. If you would like to issue a retraction I'll simply pretend all you said was "I'm not surprised" and we'll forget the part where you made some woefully fallacious statements.

Lelantos

Biggins wrote: »

Lelantos wrote: »

They never got near the plane, not even to the boarding dock.

Indeed, they never got to the plane itself:

The couple claim as they waited to board their flight back to their home near Los Angeles they were told by airline staff they were not allowed to take their seats.

So they were waiting just off in the departure area?
Having purchased their tickets where (a) it might have been noted he was a security risk? (b) if he had a record of trouble previously and thus not sold even a ticket?

Lelantos wrote: »

...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.

Again (and this is only an educated guess) videoing might have been requested to stop - not to comply with a cops request - IF - one was also made, is also illegal in some states.
Maybe there is footage we have yet to see - but held back so far for legal reasons also!

PLUS there is this:

Joan Vanderhorst pulled out her cell phone and started recording the incident on Sunday in which Bede is seen quietly playing with his hat and an American Airlines official warns that she was prohibited from filming "in a security-controlled area."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/teen-denied-boarding-american-airlines-flight-syndrome-family-article-1.1151439

Not illegal to video in New Jersey as previously stated, no reason to hold back any video if they have it, and as they said themselves, the tickets had been bought for economy class & upgraded at a kiosk. The staff even arranged to have 2 seats together for a parent & child to sit together. They knew he was Downs, at no stage dud they say he couldnt fly, all they had to do was say, sorry, no first class tickets available now, but they didn't. Something happened afterwards, the family say nothing untoward, the airline claim he was not in control of himself.
You cannot be stopped from filming an incident unless you are interfering with a police officer doing his job, stand 10 feet back & no issues. First amendment rights. If someone challenges you, your have the right to film the incident if you wish to protect yourself, can't be legally stopped

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Overheal wrote: »

If you would like to issue a retraction I'll simply pretend all you said was "I'm not surprised" and we'll forget the part where you made some woefully fallacious statements.

Not a chance. I stand by my comments. I am not surprised this happened in America. A nation known for it's outrageousness.

MadsL

benwavner wrote: »

my comment "Fuppin America again".

Again in what sense? Discrimination against Downs people? When did this happen previously?

You are not going to win this one.

Win? Whiff of swagger off you.

My point to the incident is, I am not surprised that this happened in America. It's as simple as that.

Care to explain why you are not suprised?

You are reading too much into it,

Asking you not to slur an entire nation is not reading too much into it.

so lets stop being little children,

Yes, kids tend to take one incident and think it applies to everyone, they learn as they grow up.

take a minute and realise that no matter what clever words, examples or links you post.....at the end of the day, it did happen in America.

No-one is doubting where it happened, Jesus this is hard work.

I doubt I am the only one that is surprised that it happened there.

Yes, I'm suprised given the far more stringent anti-discrimination legislation in America. Did you mean not suprised, if so could you explain why you are 'not surprised'.

Focus more on the incident instead of trying to defend crazy America.

"crazy America"

I'm willing to bet you have never set foot in America.

Overheal

Lelantos wrote: »

Not illegal to video in New Jersey as previously stated, no reason to hold back any video if they have it, and as they said themselves, the tickets had been bought or economy class & upgraded at a kiosk. The staff even arranged to have 2 seats together for a parent & child to sit together. They knew he was Downs, at no stage dud they say he couldnt fly, all they had to do was say, sorry, no first class tickets available now, but they didn't. Something happened afterwards, the family say nothing untoward, the airline claim he was not in control of himself.
You cannot be stopped from filming an incident unless you are interfering with a police officer doing his job, stand 10 feet back & no issues. First amendment rights. If someone challenges you, your have the right to film the incident if you wish to protect yourself, can't be legally stopped

Gets stopped quite a bit still unfortunately. That will likely subside over the years as the dust settles from the explosion of tech that's resulted in every 2nd-3rd person in the country owning a smartphone. Most cops are long out of basic and their departments have clearly failed them (and us) by not keeping them up to date on those laws. 10 years ago most cops would have never been recorded. Hell even 5 years ago. A lot of the time a cop might be getting filmed or recorded for the first time in his life and he's never been trained or done his own research to determine how to handle the situation properly. A big problem and a damn shame, but another topic but pop in US Politics, I love this one and there are a bunch of old threads in there for it.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

MadsL wrote: »

Again in what sense? Discrimination against Downs people? When did this happen previously?

The "again" is not in reference to DS people. Its in reference to something outrageous happening again in America....simple.

MadsL wrote: »

I'm willing to bet you have never set foot in America.

You would lose your bet.

Either way, My opinion that America is a land full of outrageous incidents, carrys on through this latest incident. How are you not understanding it. That is why I am not surprised that this happened in America. I cant make it any clearer than that.

Overheal

benwavner wrote: »

Not a chance. I stand by my comments. I am not surprised this happened in America. A nation known for it's outrageousness.

Then good riddance. If you're really lucky there is someone out there stupid enough to agree with your posts, or luckier still, find you the least bit credible.

flatbackfour

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...

Your not going to comment on the case? You just have.

The boy paid a huge premium too. He deserves his seat.

Or should he deserve to be in the cheap seats if he paid the cheap seat price?

Why should you or me, who paid our share in the cheap seats have to put up with him either?

Biggins

Lelantos wrote: »

Not illegal to video in New Jersey as previously stated, no reason to hold back any video if they have it, and as they said themselves, the tickets had been bought for economy class & upgraded at a kiosk. The staff even arranged to have 2 seats together for a parent & child to sit together. They knew he was Downs, at no stage dud they say he couldnt fly, all they had to do was say, sorry, no first class tickets available now, but they didn't. Something happened afterwards, the family say nothing untoward, the airline claim he was not in control of himself.
You cannot be stopped from filming an incident unless you are interfering with a police officer doing his job, stand 10 feet back & no issues. First amendment rights. If someone challenges you, your have the right to film the incident if you wish to protect yourself, can't be legally stopped

Well if an airline is already intimidating one of your party is trouble, they are saying they are a security risk, they are saying they have the right to get you to stop filming citing regulations, and the cops turn up ...good luck continuing to film.
Unless there is a legal lawyer there present at the time to argue like in court, you don't stand much chance in being able to continue recording.

I suspect the family were surrounded by cops, staff, other people looking on, other anxious to board - a tough situation to be in while you delay everyone and further argue your right to record and still possibly hold the rest up!

Good luck arguing your first amendment rights with a cop while trying to mind a now agitated child.
You must be very good.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Overheal wrote: »

Then good riddance. If you're really lucky there is someone out there stupid enough to agree with your posts, or luckier still, the least bit credible.

Theres no need to get emotional about it! Its just another ridiculously outrageous incident to add to Americas long list of ridiculously outrageous incidents.

I couldnt care less if you or no one else agrees with me. My opinion is simple.

You have every right to defend the country in which you reside but to be blatantly angry because a non US resident finds it typical of an incident to happen in America is laughable.

Anyway, United 93 is on RTE One now, so I will have to politely end this conversation.

mitosis

I dunno. Ten seconds of video with a kid chewing his hat doesn't mean he wasn't otherwise disruptive the other hour. There's a lot of assumptions being made that the airline was guilty of x, y or z, based on a woman saying is it because of x, y, z.

The only mistake proven so far is that the airline allowed itself to be exposed to a litigious person.

Bluefoam

flatbackfour 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...

Your not going to comment on the case? You just have.

The boy paid a huge premium too. He deserves his seat.

Or should he deserve to be in the cheap seats if he paid the cheap seat price?

Why should you or me, who paid our share in the cheap seats have to put up with him either?

I suggest you read the full thread before making I'll informed posts. I have already clarified my point and you are jumping to (wrong) conclusions, I presume because this is such an emotive matter.

flatbackfour

Bluefoam wrote: »

I suggest you read the full thread before making I'll informed posts. I have already clarified my point and you are jumping to (wrong) conclusions, I presume because this is such an emotive matter.

Sorry, you say your not commenting on this case as you dont know the facts.

But you comment on this thread,

Of course none of us would like to disturbed on any fight thats obvious.

But you are saying something more by stating the obvious on a thread about a down syndrome boy disturbing first class.

And I read the full thread

As far as ill informed posts go...............................................

SerialComplaint

omega666 wrote: »

The lad must have been obviously agitated or disruptive at so some point before the film shows him.

Why must he? How did you come to this conclusion?

Lelantos

SerialComplaint wrote: »

omega666 wrote: »

The lad must have been obviously agitated or disruptive at so some point before the film shows him.

Why must he? How did you come to this conclusion?

It's what the airline employees said?

Lelantos

Biggins wrote: »

Lelantos wrote: »

Not illegal to video in New Jersey as previously stated, no reason to hold back any video if they have it, and as they said themselves, the tickets had been bought for economy class & upgraded at a kiosk. The staff even arranged to have 2 seats together for a parent & child to sit together. They knew he was Downs, at no stage dud they say he couldnt fly, all they had to do was say, sorry, no first class tickets available now, but they didn't. Something happened afterwards, the family say nothing untoward, the airline claim he was not in control of himself.
You cannot be stopped from filming an incident unless you are interfering with a police officer doing his job, stand 10 feet back & no issues. First amendment rights. If someone challenges you, your have the right to film the incident if you wish to protect yourself, can't be legally stopped

Well if an airline is already intimidating one of your party is trouble, they are saying they are a security risk, they are saying they have the right to get you to stop filming citing regulations, and the cops turn up ...good luck continuing to film.
Unless there is a legal lawyer there present at the time to argue like in court, you don't stand much chance in being able to continue recording.

I suspect the family were surrounded by cops, staff, other people looking on, other anxious to board - a tough situation to be in while you delay everyone and further argue your right to record and still possibly hold the rest up!

Good luck arguing your first amendment rights with a cop while trying to mind a now agitated child.
You must be very good.

So now we add intimidation to the mix, will love to see the outcome of this, I'd there is even an ounce of truth to your claims it will not be hushed up, I personally think not, its starting to get a little overcomplicated now.

Overheal

but to be blatantly angry because a non US resident finds it typical of an incident to happen in America is laughable.

No, if you find it typical, thats your own opinion, and I dont give a **** about your opinion clearly. But saying Sky Marshalls beat up the disabled and stating things as facts that aren't are not in your remit.

Overheal

Lelantos wrote: »

So now we add intimidation to the mix, will love to see the outcome of this, I'd there is even an ounce of truth to your claims it will not be hushed up, I personally think not, its starting to get a little overcomplicated now.

Intimidation re: the videotaping, not the rest of it.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Overheal wrote: »

No, if you find it typical, thats your own opinion, and I dont give a **** about your opinion clearly. But saying Sky Marshalls beat up the disabled and stating things as facts that aren't are not in your remit.

You need to buy new batteries for your sarcasm detector!

So that's your problem, a flippant sarcastic remark which losely highlights the touchy nature of plane travel nowadays. Obviously that remark was not a fact, and was not stated as such.

My other "facts" to which i have no remit to comment on are common widely held perceptions about Amerrica, it's policies and it's "shoot now, ask questions later" attitude.

Get over it. Im not the only one, but I may be the only one who will post it.

It is pointless replying to me as it will just go off topic. Just put me on your ignore list and let the matter ly, as in your own words "No, if you find it typical, thats your own opinion, and I dont give a **** about your opinion clearly".

Overheal

Obviously that remark was not a fact, and was not stated as such.

Was that so hard, to retract your BS?

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Overheal wrote: »

Was that so hard, to retract your BS?

LOL, are you serious? We spent the last while, back and forth and thats what you were miffed about? You could have made it clearer and we wouldnt have wasted our time.

It was an obviously sarcastic remark. I do NOT think thats what sky marshals do. Jeez.......louise!

MadsL

benwavner wrote: »

The "again" is not in reference to DS people. Its in reference to something outrageous happening again in America....simple.

As outrageous as a Downs child being denied a flight or an education? Which do you find more outrageous and where did it happen?

What other exclusively American incidents do you find 'outrageous'?

You would lose your bet.

, Surprised you travel there given your dim view of country. Fair enough, thanks for the tourism money, we'll put it towards being more crazy in future.

Either way, My opinion that America is a land full of outrageous incidents, carrys on through this latest incident.

Such as?

How are you not understanding it. That is why I am not surprised that this happened in America. I cant make it any clearer than that.

What exactly makes this more likely to happen in America???

benwavner wrote: »

You need to buy new batteries for your sarcasm detector!

You need to get a smaller brush for your tar.

So that's your problem, a flippant sarcastic remark which losely highlights the touchy nature of plane travel nowadays. Obviously that remark was not a fact, and was not stated as such.

So it was just hate-speech then?

My other "facts" to which i have no remit to comment on are common widely held perceptions about Amerrica, it's policies and it's "shoot now, ask questions later" attitude.

They shot the kid?? Wtf?

Get over it. Im not the only one, but I may be the only one who will post it.

Gee. Such insightful satire. Job on the Daily Show for you.

It is pointless replying to me as it will just go off topic. Just put me on your ignore list and let the matter ly, as in your own words "No, if you find it typical, thats your own opinion, and I dont give a **** about your opinion clearly".

I don't mind opinions, can't bear casual bigotry though.

SerialComplaint

Lelantos wrote: »

It's what the airline employees said?

And you believe everything that a defensive airline employee tells you?

Biggins

Lelantos wrote: »

So now we add intimidation to the mix, will love to see the outcome of this, I'd there is even an ounce of truth to your claims it will not be hushed up, I personally think not, its starting to get a little overcomplicated now.

I do not claim - please don't state I do.
I'm looking at the situation and assessing.

There was airline staff there.
There was cops there.
There was the pilot there.
I assume at it was a departure area, there was other passengers there.
I'm open to be wrong but I believe all the above was there - someone tell me no?

As for things hushed up? I doubt it.
I more doubt we will ever really know as this won't get to court - another educated guess - NOT a claim!

O' and back to this:

Joan Vanderhorst pulled out her cell phone and started recording the incident on Sunday in which Bede is seen quietly playing with his hat and an American Airlines official warns that she was prohibited from filming "in a security-controlled area."

An American Airlines official warns...

You seem to know the particular airports rules and regulations better than apparently this American Airlines official does - are you qualified to know this or can back it up that the an American Airlines official was wrong about the rules within their own airport?

EoghanIRL

Biggins wrote: »

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.

If the family can prove discrimination based around a disability - yes, they have a clear case.

Wrong , airlines can refuse you boarding without prior notice due to contagious illness/disability, because they would be held liable if anything happened

SerialComplaint

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Wrong , airlines can refuse you boarding without prior notice due to contagious illness/disability, because they would be held liable if anything happened

Disabilities aren't contagious.

Motorist

I had to sit beside a Down's Syndrome man on a bus last month. He kept clapping his hands and talking about an apple he had in his lunch box. It was okay for a short bus journey, but I would find it difficult to sleep on an 8 hour flight.

Biggins

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Wrong , airlines can refuse you boarding without prior notice due to contagious illness/disability, because they would be held liable if anything happened

Right/wrong - They can refuse a person under Legal Duty of Care if a person is considered a security risk.

The person was NOT infectious and NEVER was consider so!
That don't come into the equation in this event so please don't interject it.

To refuse a person just because their are disabled, you can land yourself as a person and a business is VERY serious hot water!
With this airline we might guess that A.A. has flown Downs persons before.
To refuse - there HAS to be justification.
The airlines say in this case it was of risk - fair enough IF true.
...But JUST because they were disabled? Absolute rubbish when we can assume they have flown similar before!

I don't know the America law exactly on this but I assume they have the same nearly as Irish?

The Irish law states - JUST for the record:

Indirect discrimination occurs when practices or policies that do not appear to discriminate against one group more than another actually have a discriminatory impact. It can also happen where a requirement that may appear non-discriminatory adversely affects a particular group or class of persons.

http://www.barkeeper.ie/page.asp?menu=0&page=518

And:

15.—(1) For greater certainty, nothing in this Act prohibiting discrimination shall be construed as requiring a person to dispose of goods or premises, or to provide services or accommodation or services and amenities related to accommodation, to another person (“the customer”) in circumstances which would lead a reasonable individual having the responsibility, knowledge and experience of the person to the belief, on grounds other than discriminatory grounds, that the disposal of the goods or premises or the provision of the services or accommodation or the services and amenities related to accommodation, as the case may be, to the customer would produce a substantial risk of criminal or disorderly conduct or behaviour or damage to property at or in the vicinity of the place in which the goods or services are sought or the premises or accommodation are located.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0015.html#sec15

Now in the land of USA where it appears there are more lawyers than doctors at times, I sure this is covered in some fashion by their own legal expressions also.

Any business might ban a person if on a previous occasion, such was their behaviour that they were disruptive to staff or others visiting, causing a disturbance with might have lead to a breach of the peace or did/said something that effected them in such a way that it would be detrimental to their "Legal Duty of Care" to their other patrons.
Because of the then previous occasion - they THEN have justification!

Yes, I have studied law for two years full time in Ireland.

Overheal

SerialComplaint wrote: »

And you believe everything that a defensive airline employee tells you?

I think the point is it hasn't been refuted yet, except by the family. Currently it's He Said They Said, with legally speaking no clear and concise answer, though popular opinion sways against the Airline.

I haven't heard about corroboration though: if this happened in a boarding area who else is speaking out against the airline, if anyone?

Praetorian Saighdiuir

MadsL wrote: »

As outrageous as a Downs child being denied a flight or an education? Which do you find more outrageous and where did it happen?

I find anyone being denied something legitimate for no good reason outrageous.

MadsL wrote: »

What other exclusively American incidents do you find 'outrageous'?

I am not suggesting that this is an "exclusive American incident" so dont put words in my mouth or make up your own stories, you are losing the run of yourself. Also, are you kidding me? If I was to list a load of "exclusive American incidents" we would be here all week. I will just leave the words "random school / cinema shootings" here.......not excluisive to the US of course, but you are the only one suggesting that.

MadsL wrote: »

Surprised you travel there given your dim view of country. Fair enough, thanks for the tourism money, we'll put it towards being more crazy in future.

I dont actually have a dim view of the country, I am just not surprised when an incident like this occurs there....simple. I wont nit pic of your word choice "surprised", you cant seen to comprehend my use of the word.

MadsL wrote: »

Such as?

The one we are talking about...duh.

MadsL wrote: »

What exactly makes this more likely to happen in America???

There you are again, making stuff up. Its not "more likely to happen", I am just not surprised it did.

MadsL wrote: »

You need to get a smaller brush for your tar.

Not really

MadsL wrote: »

So it was just hate-speech then?

I hold no hate against America or Americans. People can form an opinion without hatred.

MadsL wrote: »

They shot the kid?? Wtf?

More makey up stories.....try reading and decyphering sentances better. Where did I say they shot a kid? I think its passed your bedtime.

MadsL wrote: »

Gee. Such insightful satire. Job on the Daily Show for you.

SNL for you

Lelantos

Biggins wrote: »

Lelantos wrote: »

So now we add intimidation to the mix, will love to see the outcome of this, I'd there is even an ounce of truth to your claims it will not be hushed up, I personally think not, its starting to get a little overcomplicated now.

I do not claim - please don't state I do.
I'm looking at the situation and assessing.

There was airline staff there.
There was cops there.
There was the pilot there.
I assume at it was a departure area, there was other passengers there.
I'm open to be wrong but I believe all the above was there - someone tell me no?

As for things hushed up? I doubt it.
I more doubt we will ever really know as this won't get to court - another educated guess - NOT a claim!

O' and back to this:

Joan Vanderhorst pulled out her cell phone and started recording the incident on Sunday in which Bede is seen quietly playing with his hat and an American Airlines official warns that she was prohibited from filming "in a security-controlled area."

An American Airlines official warns...

You seem to know the particular airports rules and regulations better than apparently this American Airlines official does - are you qualified to know this or can back it up that the an American Airlines official was wrong about the rules within their own airport?

It's the law, posted earlier, look it up if you wish, some have denied people's right to film & courts uphold the individuals rights to do so. Rodney King situation not to be allowed ever again
As for police & airline staff being there, yes, if theres any evidence or intimidation or wrong doing on their behalf, it will go to court, criminal proceedings have nothing to do with the airline, if a complaint is made, its followed upon. So far, only complaints have been made to the media, maybe tomorrow more of this story will break.

Overheal

If I was to list a load of "exclusive American incidents" we would be here all week.

...I'm game. F*ck it.

Lelantos

SerialComplaint wrote: »

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Wrong , airlines can refuse you boarding without prior notice due to contagious illness/disability, because they would be held liable if anything happened

Disabilities aren't contagious.

I dunno, a lot of people on here seem to be able to catch stupid, may be in the water?

Lelantos

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Lelantos wrote: »

It's what the airline employees said?

And you believe everything that a defensive airline employee tells you?

You believe everything a mommy says about her darling boy?

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Overheal wrote: »

...I'm game. F*ck it.

That's not what this thread is about and I wont pander to the other posters assumptions that I think this is an exclusive American incident.

So, I suggest you get MadsL to arrange such a list as he/she has brought up the subject.........im sure it would be long as feck though.

GarIT

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Why would you assume that the other passengers on that flight were regulars? Why would you assume that the family in question were NOT regulars?

Thousands of business people fly around America each day, a good few probably fly first class, all airlines take much better care of there repeat business, some even have things like 1st class frequent flyer lounges in larger airports.

I didn't assume anything. They said it was their 1st time flying 1st class.

Biggins

Lelantos wrote: »

It's the law, posted earlier, look it up if you wish, some have denied people's right to film & courts uphold the individuals rights to do so. Rodney King situation not to be allowed ever again
As for police & airline staff being there, yes, if theres any evidence or intimidation or wrong doing on their behalf, it will go to court, criminal proceedings have nothing to do with the airline, if a complaint is made, its followed upon. So far, only complaints have been made to the media, maybe tomorrow more of this story will break.

State America airline regulations in regards to security are constantly changing - partly due to their somewhat (over?) hyper-sensitivity in the area of security since 9/11 sadly.

I'm taking the assumption that the Airline official quoting the rules to the family on the day, knew the current rules pertaining to recording, better than all those that later on seem to know some broader rules which might apply still outside high security areas as such.

The Airline official could have been right - or wrong but backed up by cops and maybe even a pilot?
Good luck arguing with them on the day.
You would be a better person than most to over come them!