17 replies to this topic

[rudayo]

Toddler's temper ousts family from plane

By JIM ELLIS, Associated Press Writer
Tue Jan 23, 12:54 PM ET

ORLANDO, Fla. - AirTran Airways on Tuesday defended its decision to remove a Massachusetts couple from a flight after their crying 3-year-old daughter refused to take her seat before takeoff.

AirTran officials said they followed Federal Aviation Administration rules that children age 2 and above must have their own seat and be wearing a seat belt upon takeoff.

"The flight was already delayed 15 minutes and in fairness to the other 112 passengers on the plane, the crew made an operational decision to remove the family," AirTran spokeswoman Judy Graham-Weaver said.

Julie and Gerry Kulesza, who were headed home to Boston on Jan. 14 from Fort Myers, said they just needed a little more time to calm their daughter, Elly.

"We weren't given an opportunity to hold her, console her or anything," Julie Kulesza said in a telephone interview Tuesday.

The Kuleszas said they told a flight attendant they had paid for their daughter's seat, but asked whether she could sit in her mother's lap. The request was denied.

She was removed because "she was climbing under the seat and hitting the parents and wouldn't get in her seat" during boarding, Graham-Weaver said.

The Orlando-based carrier reimbursed the family $595.80, the cost of the three tickets, and the Kuleszas flew home the next day.

They also were offered three roundtrip tickets anywhere the airline flies, Graham-Weaver said.

The father said his family would never fly AirTran again.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh Well. I wish there was a rule or law that would allow restaurants to remove families with kids that just cry and cry and cry and scream. Or at least make 'em eat in the Baby Cry room like they had at church.

[Jimmy TKB]

What? No pet checked-baggage stowaway option for the little brat? That would learn her purty good...

[Tracy Jacks]

Next targets: 1. Old people who won't stop talking to you 2. People who cross the armrest line and jab their elbow into your side the whole flight 3. Kids who kick the back of your seat 4. People who don't notice you are 6' 3" and put their seat back the second the plane takes off. 5. People who formally travelled by bus 6. People who play ridiculously bad movies on their portable DVD players that neverless draw your sight. 7. Anyone in the middle seat. 8. Anyone sitting in my row that's not a hot single woman. Really, the list is just about endless.

[Rocks And Blows]

paging Nanny 911

[yancy]

I hope someone on the plane started the slow clap after that brat was ejected.

[crease]

The story doesn't make sense. While being in a plane with an uncooperative, squirmy child is no fun--as the dad of two young children, I speak from an unfortunate wealth of experience--it's absurd to think that the parents literally couldn't control the child. For instance, while our four-year old might get lippy or even hit, if we need him to stay put, then it's pretty simple--we hold him in place. Barring super-human strength or elusiveness, I tend to doubt that these parents were unable to physically restrain their child. So, either they chose not to--which strains credulity when you consider what a complete pain in the ass it is to go through the time/trouble of getting onto the plane (i.e., go to airport, check-in, pass security, wait at gate, queue up, board, stow gear, get kid semi-settled, get self settled, endure delay, etc.)--or AirTran put them on an extremely short leash. My guess is that AirTran, which has a less-than-sterling reputation for customer friendliness, gave them the quick hook. If there was a bona fide safety violation, it also stands to reason that the airline would have been less accomodating about re-booking. Yet, they re-booked them lickety split and threw in a bunch of other goodies for good measure. Verdict: AirTran -- guilty. You guys -- buttmunches.

[yancy]

I lost count of the assumptive leaps there. We have our bias, you have yours.

[WesterMats]

Next targets:
8. Anyone sitting in my row that's not a hot single woman.

Really, the list is just about endless.

That is the number one offense I will not tolerate.

[Bob Loblaw]

Next targets:

1. Old people who won't stop talking to you
2. People who cross the armrest line and jab their elbow into your side the whole flight
3. Kids who kick the back of your seat
4. People who don't notice you are 6' 3" and put their seat back the second the plane takes off.
5. People who formally travelled by bus
6. People who play ridiculously bad movies on their portable DVD players that neverless draw your sight.
7. Anyone in the middle seat.
8. Anyone sitting in my row that's not a hot single woman.

Really, the list is just about endless.

The first thing that came to mind was John Candy in Planes, Trains and Automobiles.

Also add: people who talk loudly on their cell phone until the plane takes off and as soon as it lands.

[crease]

I lost count of the assumptive leaps there. We have our bias, you have yours.

Yes, I greatly admire the economy of your single sweeping 'assumptive leap'--irresponsible parents+devil's spawn = reason enough for summary ejection. No need to base your hunch on anything. That's your bias, after all!

[Nixon]

I flew on a plane once. It was okay. My ears popped.

[yancy]

Yes, I greatly admire the economy of your single sweeping 'assumptive leap'--irresponsible parents+devil's spawn = reason enough for summary ejection. No need to base your hunch on anything. That's your bias, after all!

I didn't assume anything. I'm taking the story at its word: kid's (and/or parents') behavior horrible enough to get ejected, so they were ejected. Feel free to conjure up any number of hypothetical scenarios in which it was unjust. If I was a parent I might get all defensive too.

[rudayo]

If I'm one of the other 112 passengers on the plane, I'm glad they were removed.

[crease]

Yes, I greatly admire the economy of your single sweeping 'assumptive leap'--irresponsible parents+devil's spawn = reason enough for summary ejection. No need to base your hunch on anything. That's your bias, after all!

I didn't assume anything. I'm taking the story at its word: kid's (and/or parents') behavior horrible enough to get ejected, so they were ejected. Feel free to conjure up any number of hypothetical scenarios in which it was unjust. If I was a parent I might get all defensive too.

no, taking the story at its word isn't assuming anything. not at all. and don't give me the defensive parent BS. i didn't take the position that the kid was an innocent victimized by airtran. i said that i didn't buy the story presented in the story--specifically that the kid was such a hell-raiser that the crew had no recourse but to chuck the entire family. you lapped it up. again, we both have our biases.

[yancy]

So, I read an inconsequential news story and assume it to be true unless proven otherwise. You assume it's false based on parental empathy. Got it. Is it really so hard to believe that once, in the history of commerical flight, a family/kid behaved so badly they were asked to leave? You seem to be taking this story as an indictment of parents with small children in general. It's one incident. You're a wonderful parent. Jesus loves you.

[yancy]

I have to argue with everyone on somb at least once. It's in my contract.

[crease]

So, I read an inconsequential news story and assume it to be true unless proven otherwise. You assume it's false based on parental empathy. Got it.

Is it really so hard to believe that once, in the history of commerical flight, a family/kid behaved so badly they were asked to leave? You seem to be taking this story as an indictment of parents with small children in general. It's one incident. You're a wonderful parent. Jesus loves you.

No. That's not hard to believe at all, Yancy. But the circumstances, as described in the piece, make this particular rendition of that story very hard to believe. The 'guilty parent' shtick is also weak. Got knows we find plenty of material on derelict parents/fucked-up children to go around. And it's not as if I flit about the board to gallantly defend these people from you, the childless heavy-concertgoing masses. It was THIS story.

And I'm jewish, though non-practicing.

[Bob Loblaw]

[quote name='crease' date='Jan 24 2007, 09:14 PM' post='297156']
[quote name='yancy' post='297132' date='Jan 24 2007, 07:49 PM']


And I'm jewish, though non-practicing.
[/quote]


Then Jesus hates you for killing him.