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

SerialComplaint

Lelantos wrote: »

This whole case is about him being downs. If it was an ordinary kid acting the maggot & he was not allowed fly, would there be this much uproar?

He is not 'being downs'. He has Downs Syndrome. That's a big difference.

SerialComplaint

SerialComplaint wrote: »

He's not a 'downs syndrome kid'. He's a kid with downs syndrome. Don't define him by his disability. Maybe you'd like to focus on his abilities instead - such as his ability (as demonstrated in the video) to be calm and relaxed.

But instead, you choose to focus on the unsubstantiated bit of the story - I wonder why?

Because the whole case is about his down syndrome.. It's not a footnote. And what's wrong with saying "down syndrome kid"? The parents are defining him by his disability by suing on the basis of it.

What exactly were you thinking when you said "I wonder why?".. You think I discriminate because I can think logically and actually look past his disability? I'm saying that it's got nothing to do with his disability and you're bringing it all back to it. I think I come off better to be honest.

charlietheminxx

Deleted User wrote: »

Because the whole case is about his down syndrome.. It's not a footnote. And what's wrong with saying "down syndrome kid"? The parents are defining him by his disability by suing on the basis of it.

What exactly were you thinking when you said "I wonder why?".. You think I discriminate because I can think logically and actually look past his disability? I'm saying that it's got nothing to do with his disability and you're bringing it all back to it. I think I come off better to be honest.

Actually, you really are coming across as quite an ignorant person here.

His parents are standing up for him, as many parents do when they feel their child has been treated quite unfairly.

Lelantos

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Because the whole case is about his down syndrome.. It's not a footnote. And what's wrong with saying "down syndrome kid"? The parents are defining him by his disability by suing on the basis of it.

What exactly were you thinking when you said "I wonder why?".. You think I discriminate because I can think logically and actually look past his disability? I'm saying that it's got nothing to do with his disability and you're bringing it all back to it. I think I come off better to be honest.

Actually, you really are coming across as quite an ignorant person here.

His parents are standing up for him, as many parents do when they feel their child has been treated quite unfairly.

Or maybe they see easy money to be made from a big company?

AnonoBoy

Lelantos wrote: »

This whole case is about him being downs. If it was an ordinary kid acting the maggot & he was not allowed fly, would there be this much uproar?

Well the parents are saying he wasn't misbehaving at all so that's the case.

charlietheminxx

Lelantos wrote: »

Or maybe they see easy money to be made from a big company?

If it happened to me with my sister, I wouldn't give a damn about the money. I would just be furious and so upset on her behalf. I would do exactly what this boy's parents are doing.

They may be money-diggers, but that is pure speculation.

Lelantos

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Lelantos wrote: »

Or maybe they see easy money to be made from a big company?

If it happened to me with my sister, I wouldn't give a damn about the money. I would just be furious and so upset on her behalf. I would do exactly what this boy's parents are doing.

They may be money-diggers, but that is pure speculation.

And so is the fact that the boy wasn't acting up. The parents only video is of the boy being calm after the incident.

davet82

after they got rid of the so-called 'securtiy risk' from first class the airline offered to book them on another flight? no doubt an economy seat. its discrimination. the airlines arguement was that he was excited (most kids do be on a flight) and that for some reason he could force an emergency landing if he forced his way into the cockpit, which is ridiculous for so many reasons...

Hopefully if they get justice and i'm sure an apology and for their child to be vindicated of the accusations they made would be worth more than the money to them (after all they dont seem short a few bob if they're flying first class themselves)

Lelantos

davet82 wrote: »

after they got rid of the so-called 'securtiy risk' from first class the airline offered to book them on another flight? no doubt an economy seat. its discrimination. the airlines arguement was that he was excited (most kids do be on a flight) and that for some reason he could force an emergency landing if he forced his way into the cockpit, which is ridiculous for so many reasons...

Hopefully if they get justice and i'm sure an apology and for their child to be vindicated of the accusations they made would be worth more than the money to them (after all they dont seem short a few bob if they're flying first class themselves)

Wish people would read the facts of the case before climbing atop their high horse

Lelantos

billybudd wrote: »

Lelantos wrote: »

This whole case is about him being downs. If it was an ordinary kid acting the maggot & he was not allowed fly, would there be this much uproar?

It is about knowing facts before spewing aspersions about people.

And you don't know the facts, so perhaps you should aspire! to be more knowledgeable about the subject you're commenting on?

billybudd

Lelantos wrote: »

Wish people would read the facts of the case before climbing atop their high horse

What facts? its all hearsay at the moment, unless you witnessed it first hand then perhaps you can enlighten us to these facts you speak off.

davet82

Lelantos wrote: »

Wish people would read the facts of the case before climbing atop their high horse

i did, you obviously didnt. :pac:

Lelantos

davet82 wrote: »

Lelantos wrote: »

Wish people would read the facts of the case before climbing atop their high horse

i did, you obviously didnt. :pac:

Ok, what the parents neglected to tell people after their first interview was that they hadn't prebooked 1st class tickets. No biggie in itself, they decided to upgrade at the kiosk while at the airport. They asked, the staff said yes, the boys disability was explained to them & asked could a parent sit with him. The staff arranged this, even at this late stage & were happy to do so. This doesn't sound like the act of an uncaring & discriminatory airline does it?

Lelantos

billybudd wrote: »

Lelantos wrote: »

Wish people would read the facts of the case before climbing atop their high horse

What facts? its all hearsay at the moment, unless you witnessed it first hand then perhaps you can enlighten us to these facts you speak off.

There are some pertinent facts if you bothered to look.

billybudd

Lelantos wrote: »

There are some pertinent facts if you bothered to look.

There are no facts at this moment in time, one party claims one thing and the other counter claims, until it reaches a court of law and facts are established then thats all it will be.

Frankly you do not have a clue what you are talking about.

Lelantos

billybudd wrote: »

Lelantos wrote: »

There are some pertinent facts if you bothered to look.

There are no facts at this moment in time, one party claims one thing and the other counter claims, until it reaches a court of law and facts are established then thats all it will be.

Frankly you do not have a clue what you are talking about.

Pity you are so close minded, but anyway, enjoy your day in cloud cuckoo land.

billybudd

Lelantos wrote: »

Ok, what the parents neglected to tell people after their first interview was that they hadn't prebooked 1st class tickets. No biggie in itself, they decided to upgrade at the kiosk while at the airport. They asked, the staff said yes, the boys disability was explained to them & asked could a parent sit with him. The staff arranged this, even at this late stage & were happy to do so. This doesn't sound like the act of an uncaring & discriminatory airline does it?

It sounds like a airline who have no clear line of procedure when dealing with mental impairment which would explain why they seated them close to the cockpit, the same cockpit they would later claim was to close and could force a emergency landing.

Again this is all hearsay and facts will have to be established before one should pass judgement on either party.

billybudd

Lelantos wrote: »

Pity you are so close minded, but anyway, enjoy your day in cloud cuckoo land.

I am quite open minded and the fact that you have to use such a silly and common jibe to get out of an argument is quite indicitive of your personality.

Lelantos

billybudd wrote: »

I am quite open minded and the fact that you have to use such a silly and common jibe to get out of an argument is quite indicitive of your personality.

I provide you with the facts that are not disputed by either party, which was not hearsay, you chose not to believe it which says more about you than it does about me, please do not respond anymore as you will be put on ignore

billybudd

Lelantos wrote: »

I provide you with the facts that are not disputed by either party, which was not hearsay, you chose not to believe it which says more about you than it does about me, please do not respond anymore as you will be put on ignore

Its a discussion forum, relax! arguments are meant to be argued and a few sly digs are par for course.

Anyway both sides have given their choice of events and thus so far there would be no need for disputed versions yet until it becomes a court case then it will just be hearsay.

davet82

Lelantos wrote: »

Ok, what the parents neglected to tell people after their first interview was that they hadn't prebooked 1st class tickets. No biggie in itself, they decided to upgrade at the kiosk while at the airport. They asked, the staff said yes, the boys disability was explained to them & asked could a parent sit with him. The staff arranged this, even at this late stage & were happy to do so. This doesn't sound like the act of an uncaring & discriminatory airline does it?

It sounds to me that the person that booked them in didnt have a problem but the crew certainly did possibly other first class passengers too maybe (speculation on my part)

Lelantos

davet82 wrote: »

Lelantos wrote: »

Ok, what the parents neglected to tell people after their first interview was that they hadn't prebooked 1st class tickets. No biggie in itself, they decided to upgrade at the kiosk while at the airport. They asked, the staff said yes, the boys disability was explained to them & asked could a parent sit with him. The staff arranged this, even at this late stage & were happy to do so. This doesn't sound like the act of an uncaring & discriminatory airline does it?

It sounds to me that the person that booked them in didnt have a problem but the crew certainly did possibly other first class passengers too maybe (speculation on my part)

Now that's acceptable, its guesswork, but a possibility. The pilot saw the boy being a boy, excited or whatever, and perhaps made a decision in haste. Normally when a decision to stop someone flying is made, there are numerous people consulted, its not just the pilots call. Other than that, I'm only surmising what happened like everybody else

davet82

Lelantos wrote: »

Now that's acceptable, its guesswork, but a possibility. The pilot saw the boy being a boy, excited or whatever, and perhaps made a decision in haste. Normally when a decision to stop someone flying is made, there are numerous people consulted, its not just the pilots call. Other than that, I'm only surmising what happened like everybody else

i'd love to hear from witnesses on the plane but we'll just have to wait and see

i think the pilot made a bad call most likely he'll be the pawn sacrificed in this anyways rightly or wrongly

anyways it will make an interesting case!

SerialComplaint

Lelantos wrote: »

Ok, what the parents neglected to tell people after their first interview was that they hadn't prebooked 1st class tickets. No biggie in itself, they decided to upgrade at the kiosk while at the airport. They asked, the staff said yes, the boys disability was explained to them & asked could a parent sit with him. The staff arranged this, even at this late stage & were happy to do so. This doesn't sound like the act of an uncaring & discriminatory airline does it?

I don't get your point. Are you suggesting that the airline did them some kind of big favour by letting them buy a 1st class upgrade? Having two people sit together would be a very standard requirement for any family and many other travellers.

Lelantos wrote: »

And so is the fact that the boy wasn't acting up. The parents only video is of the boy being calm after the incident.

Ah, now I get your point. He's guilty until proven innocent. There is no video of him being calm beforehand, so you assume that he wasn't calm.

Deleted User wrote: »

Because the whole case is about his down syndrome.. It's not a footnote. And what's wrong with saying "down syndrome kid"? The parents are defining him by his disability by suing on the basis of it.

What exactly were you thinking when you said "I wonder why?".. You think I discriminate because I can think logically and actually look past his disability? I'm saying that it's got nothing to do with his disability and you're bringing it all back to it. I think I come off better to be honest.

The whole case isn't about his Downs Syndrome. The case is about the airline staff reaction to a paying customer with Down Syndrome. When you call him a Downs Syndrome kid, you completely fail to look past his disability. He's probably a student, or maybe he's a cook or a gardener. He's a son, and maybe he's a brother. He's a rock fan. Maybe he likes motorbikes. But the only thing that you can see is his disability.

TheChizler

There was never any suggestion that the boy might break into the cockpit and cause an emergency landing. You regularly hear of planes turning around just because of drunk passengers yelling or fighting, there's never any question of the safety of the pilots, just other passengers and crew.

davet82

TheChizler wrote: »

There was never any suggestion that the boy might break into the cockpit and cause an emergency landing. You regularly hear of planes turning around just because of drunk passengers yelling or fighting, there's never any question of the safety of the pilots, just other passengers and crew.

there's the suggestion...

Mr Vanderhorst says the family was warned their son's behavior was a concern because their first class seat was too close to the cockpit and a distraction to the pilot could cause a mid-flight emergency landing

Lelantos

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Lelantos wrote: »

Ok, what the parents neglected to tell people after their first interview was that they hadn't prebooked 1st class tickets. No biggie in itself, they decided to upgrade at the kiosk while at the airport. They asked, the staff said yes, the boys disability was explained to them & asked could a parent sit with him. The staff arranged this, even at this late stage & were happy to do so. This doesn't sound like the act of an uncaring & discriminatory airline does it?

I don't get your point. Are you suggesting that the airline did them some kind of big favour by letting them buy a 1st class upgrade? Having two people sit together would be a very standard requirement for any family and many other travellers.

Lelantos wrote: »

And so is the fact that the boy wasn't acting up. The parents only video is of the boy being calm after the incident.

Ah, now I get your point. He's guilty until proven innocent. There is no video of him being calm beforehand, so you assume that he wasn't calm.

Deleted User wrote: »

Because the whole case is about his down syndrome.. It's not a footnote. And what's wrong with saying "down syndrome kid"? The parents are defining him by his disability by suing on the basis of it.

What exactly were you thinking when you said "I wonder why?".. You think I discriminate because I can think logically and actually look past his disability? I'm saying that it's got nothing to do with his disability and you're bringing it all back to it. I think I come off better to be honest.

The whole case isn't about his Downs Syndrome. The case is about the airline staff reaction to a paying customer with Down Syndrome. When you call him a Downs Syndrome kid, you completely fail to look past his disability. He's probably a student, or maybe he's a cook or a gardener. He's a son, and maybe he's a brother. He's a rock fan. Maybe he likes motorbikes. But the only thing that you can see is his disability.

Do you need to be led by the hand? The Tickets were upgraded at a kiosk just before flight, there weren't seats together, so staff rejigged & had 2 seats together,they accommodated the family, tried to be helpful, is that clear enough?
As for guilty until proven innocent, well, everyone here says the airline is guilty, im proposing that maybe they are innocent until proven guilty, and so far I have seen nothing to prove their guilt

CruelCoin

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Ah, now I get your point. He's guilty until proven innocent. There is no video of him being calm beforehand, so you assume that he wasn't calm.

Now, i'm no legal expert, but isn't it the way that the accuser has to prove his/her case?

The airline is not obliged to disprove the case.

If i axe-murder someone and then make a video of myself sitting in a deep armchair, pipe in mouth, chuckling softly over a witty crossword pun, does that make me any less of an axe-murderer? No.

A calm-child-video is not proof of calmness before or during any alleged incident.

General General

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...

Hear, hear, one pays a little extra so that one doesn't have to deal with the inconvenience of others who aren't just like oneself.

CruelCoin

General General wrote: »

Hear, hear, one pays a little extra so that one doesn't have to deal with the inconvenience of others who aren't just like oneself.

Thousands extra for a flight like that can't be called "a little extra".

First class tickets are purchased for the better ambiance/food/seat/toilets etc.
A bed that folds flat is entirely useless if noise/disturbances prevent sleep...

davet82

CruelCoin wrote: »

Thousands extra for a flight like that can't be called "a little extra".

First class tickets are purchased for the better ambiance/food/seat/toilets etc.
A bed that folds flat is entirely useless if noise/disturbances prevent sleep...

i'm an adult who pays for a first class ticket, i'm loud and i'm obnoxious and i dont give a flyin fcuk about other peoples ambiance as i've paid for my ticket just as they have but thats ok because i'm not a child with a disability so therefore as long as i'm just being a noisy prick without breaking any rules...

thats what i dont get about the 'i paid for first class ticket i dont want to listen to children (disabitlity or not)' arguement

Lelantos

davet82 wrote: »

CruelCoin wrote: »

Thousands extra for a flight like that can't be called "a little extra".

First class tickets are purchased for the better ambiance/food/seat/toilets etc.
A bed that folds flat is entirely useless if noise/disturbances prevent sleep...

i'm an adult who pays for a first class ticket, i'm loud and i'm obnoxious and i dont give a flyin fcuk about other peoples ambiance as i've paid for my ticket just as they have but thats ok because i'm not a child with a disability so therefore as long as i'm just being a noisy prick without breaking any rules...

thats what i dont get about the 'i paid for first class ticket i dont want to listen to children (disabitlity or not)' arguement

Or maybe, if you're being a loud obnoxious plick, people will have no trouble whatsoever telling you shut up or tazering you
But if someone has an intellectual disability, then it gets that much harder for people to tell that person to shut it for fear of being labelled a bully, or discriminatory?

davet82

Lelantos wrote: »

But if someone has an intellectual disability, then it gets that much harder for people to tell that person to shut it for fear of being labelled a bully, or discriminatory?

so fcuking them off the plane is the solution??? :pac:

c'mon you gotta meet me half way on this, its suspect to say the least what happened here!

Lelantos

davet82 wrote: »

so fcuking them off the plane is the solution??? :pac:

c'mon you gotta meet me half way on this, its suspect to say the least what happened here!

It stinks to fckin high heaven! But i see so many loophoes in both sides that i think neither side is whiter than white.
Now, as for meeting you halfway, grand, but im not flying by AA :pac::pac:

TheChizler

davet82 wrote: »

there's the suggestion...

That's a suggestion that he might cause a distraction, not actually break into the cockpit.