Posted on 01/23/2007 10:25:48 AM PST by presidio9
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.
This is something the local media are not reporting. They're saying they were removed because the child was crying, without mentioning that she would not take her seat and the parents apparently couldn't make her.
The airline was correct.
I would say the airline was more then reasonable.
You've never put a recalcitrant child in a car seat? Same technique for an airline seat with a seat belt. Both the child's parents were there. They could have worked together to pick the child up, put her in her seat, buckle the belt and hold the buckle firmly, if necessary, to keep her from unbuckling it. Fifteen minutes of begging, wheedling, cajoling and promising their little princess a Porsche when she turned 16 wasn't going to get the job done. Just a bit of firmness and letting the child know who's boss. Except in this family, we know who the boss is, and it's not either of the parents.
Without firm, consistent discipline this child will be uncontrollable in a few years, and it won't be her fault.
The thing I don't understand is why they let the child sit by herself. When I read the story, it appears the parents were toghether and the daughter was sitting in front of them.
In the story it said the daughter was hitting the "parents" and wouldn't sit in her seat.
The parents were not in control from the beginning. I think the airline was right.
So did you swat your son's bottom for being unruly and being a troublemaker.
Okay, that story is just funny. Your son must have a very believable way, because apparently the attendant believed him.
Or..... people have actually done that before and it was unkind to distress the poor attendant.
What I gathered from the story is the 3 year old was in the seat in front of the parents.
They lost control from the get go.
> Highly unlikely that spanking would have calmed an already worked-up 3 year old....
Done properly a spanking most certainly would have brought the situation under control. But not a slap, or a hit, and never done in anger. It needs to be a memorable event and the parent needs to be in complete control of him/herself. And it should never do damage. Otherwise it doesn't work at all.
Hitting is not tolerated, period, and will inevitably bring down the full wrath of mommy's swift hand. Likewise, when I grew up, I took a countless number of whoopings from my dad that I surely deserved and was all the better for.
My son currently is really good 99% of the time, but he occasionally throws a fit, particularly with teething (back molars coming in) that no amount of discipline can assuage. And it seems like it always happens in public, which is both embarrassing and frustrating, since parents anymore are in a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation, particularly with all the loony liberal types out there looking to sic the law on you. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1394556/posts and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1085000/posts)
Now, at first glance, this current article implies (wrongly) that the child was removed simply for crying, to which I initially reacted. Of course, a more careful reading of it, along with the more-detailed post from Monday (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1771754/posts), makes it clear that the child was behaving extremely badly, and that the airline was justified in removing the family from the flight. But context is important. In fact, here is a similar story from March 2003 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/862951/posts), which happened just before the Brits had a big 2004 Parliament debate about whether or not spanking should be outlawed altogether. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1121099/posts)
HOWEVER, judging from Monday's original story, it seems to me that the airline staff were rude and less than professional in how they handled the situation, and that bears criticism.
Here's the relevant excerpt:
“I was trying to console her and the stewardess came over and said, ‘Did you buy that seat for her?’ remembers Ms. Kulesza, 31, who is four months pregnant. “I said yes, and she told me my daughter needs to sit in it. I told her I was trying.”
Moments later, an AirTran Airways employee armed with a walkie-talkie addressed Mr. Kulesza.
“Sir, you need to get her under control,” she said.
“We’re trying,” Mr. Kulesza noted.
The passengers, meanwhile, were quite understanding and one of them offered the toddler a lollipop, which she rejected. Then the walkie-talkie woman returned to the Kuleszas’ aisle and displayed the raw tact and diplomacy of Donald Trump.
“Sir, you need to get off the plane,” she announced.
“What?” a stunned Mr. Kulesza asked. “Are you serious?”
“Sir, you need to get off the plane now.”
They got off the plane, while their luggage and car seat flew on to Boston. In the terminal they were directed to an AirTran supervisor, who told the couple that the stewardess was uncomfortable “because you have an unruly child who struck a woman on board.”
Mr. Kulesza was incredulous. “That was her mother,” he explained. “She hit her on the arm. Lady, this is a 3-year-old child we’re talking about.”
“Sir, we don’t differentiate between 3 and 33,” the AirTran supervisor replied. Mr. Kulesza said the woman proceeded to lecture him about child discipline, and how she would never tolerate her children behaving in such a manner, at which point Mr. Kulesza said, “You really need to stop talking now.”
The couple were also told that, since they had been ejected from the plane, they were banned from flying with AirTran for 24 hours.
Now, rather than throwing gas on the fire, the flight attendant probably should have been a bit more sympathetic and helpful in trying to calm the girl rather than accusatory, and the AirTran supervisor should have just kept her opinions to herself, and helped arrange seats on the next available flight for the family rather than making them stay another 24 hours. That's just my opinion, and obviously there are plenty of other folks here who disagree, and that's fine.
But are the ad hominem attacks, slurs, and prejudgments that are typically more characteristic of the DUmmies really necessary here on this thread or is everyone just in a bad mood today? Just curious...
You can't have it both ways -- you can spank, and have disciplined children, or you can spare the rod, and have beasts. They're not little adults, who can fully control themselves at all times.
Frankly, I've seen adult passengers act just as abominably as a three-year-old, with less excuse.
If I have to sit next to a screaming kid, can I at least have a smoke to calm me down?
The pilot did the right thing. No question.
If a person cannot control their children they should stay home. If you don't control them when they are small, they may end up shooting their classmates or robbing 7-11's. That may be their way of getting what THEY want! We teach our kids many things but we should always teach them manners. We did and now I have two grown sons who turned out very nicely. They also got their butts spanked too. Now they say it will be against the law to spank them. GIVE ME A BREAK!
How helpful should the flight attendant have been? A lollipop didn't work. Should the flight attendant have tried to pick the girl up and put her in the seat? Can you say, "big, fat honkin' lawsuit?"
We're getting one side of the story in the excerpt, the parents' side. I imagine the whole truth is a bit different. I don't see where anyone but the parents acted poorly. The airline personnel may have been businesslike, but there is nothing to indicate they were rude or unprofessional. As for the Air Tran supervisor lecturing the father on childrearing, we have only his word. If she did it, she should apologize because it wasn't her place. But we have only his word for what happened after they left the plane.
Airliners sitting loaded at the gate are burning dollar bills. Again, how long should they have waited? Another fifteen minutes? All day? A business decision was called for and made.
As for slurs, in your parlance, I don't see any here. I have made no attacks on you. I have called the child a brat and the parents bad parents, and I stand by both. They are statements of fact. Any child that hits her mother and gets away with it is a brat. Any parent that allows a child to hit him or her is a bad parent. That the father admitted to DEFENDING the girl's reprehensible behavior to the Air Tran supervisor tells me all I need to know about his parenting. That the parents were angry because they were not allowed to inconvenience a hundred people for an indefinite period of time tells me all I need to know about the kind of "me, me, me, it's-all-about-ME" people these are. Those are opinions based on the facts as presented, not prejudgments.
And the fact that the parents chose to publicize the situation by running to the press just confirms by opinion of them. If my child had held up an entire airliner full of people due to her bad behavior and my unwillingness to parent, I would have slunk away in shame, not run to the nearest reporter to put my ineptitude on display.
But are the ad hominem attacks, slurs, and prejudgments that are typically more characteristic of the DUmmies really necessary here on this thread or is everyone just in a bad mood today? Just curious...
Wait, weren't you the one who dismissed another poster with a snide "Listen bub, come back and talk to me when you have your first child, and we'll see if you've had a change of heart" (ignoring the fact that many of us defending the airline do have children)?
If you want to accuse others of ad hominem attacks and prejudgments you really ought to avoid them yourself. Makes the moral high ground rather tough to capture. Have people said personal things they probably shouldn't have?
Sure, but you're among them.
Yeah, right after he told me to control my "brat" (See post #52). If he had been standing in front of me at that time then we would have had to go outside and talk about his nasty comment at a different level since he knows neither me nor my son.
Regardless, today is another day, and I say let this thread die so that we can get back to the real business of bashing DUmmies rather than each other.
Reminds me of an incident of "child in your face" in a college cafeteria that I witnessed many years ago (when I was in grad school). There were a number of us eating lunch when a woman came in with a crying small child. She placed it on a table and changed the diaper (#2) right there whicle everyone was eating. Talk about a disgusting display and the smirk that she had on her face the whole time made you want to punch it off her. I complained to the cafeteria manager (another student) and was told that she was a faculty member's wife and there wasn't anything he could do other than ask her to leave, which she did after completing her mission which was apparently to gross out the rest of us and show that somewere someone had the poor taste to have productive sex with her.
brat / –noun a child, esp. an annoying, spoiled, or impolite child
I agree. If only you hadn't tried to take a parting shot on the way out the door, we could have done just that. ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.