Young girl groped on AA flt.

[eolesen]

UM's have existed for the 30 years I've been in the industry, and this is the only time I can think of where there was an incident like this.

Stopping the practice simply means that thousands of kids each month won't see one of their parents after a divorce or be part of their extended family's lives.

 

[WeAAsles]

UM's have existed for the 30 years I've been in the industry, and this is the only time I can think of where there was an incident like this.Stopping the practice simply means that thousands of kids each month won't see one of their parents after a divorce or be part of their extended family's lives.

Then the parents should sign a waiver that the airline and its staff in no way shape or form bears any responsibility for the welfare of the child. And they stop charging the extra UM fee.

 

[eolesen]

Then the parents should sign a waiver that the airline and its staff in no way shape or form bears any responsibility for the welfare of the child. And they stop charging the extra UM fee.

Because of the 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001% you want to change how things work for everyone else who gets it right?

 

[WeAAsles]

Because of the 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001% you want to change how things work for everyone else who gets it right?

I just see an issue with the airline and especially the FA having to be responsible for someone else's children. The percentage doesn't matter to me. I'd bet if you conducted a survey of all the FA's at AA they would say they would like the policy to end. They have enough work to do becides adding baby sitter (not an easy task) to their duties.

E how would you feel if you were traveling non rev and part of the stipulation for that was if you want to use the benefit you were told you have to monitor any UM's the company may have onboard that aircraft? That actually makes more sense then the FA who has to service 200 plus other customers being responsible. You are in the next seat and can give 100% focus and attention to that child for the possible 8 hour journey.

What do you say?

 

[WeAAsles]

BTW did you know that nearly half the women in the US chose to not have children, and by extension you'd have to assume at least half of us men chose that also. Many people that have children or families seem to think the other half of us who don't have to be inconvenienced when they trot their families out to restaurants, movie theaters, shopping centers and on airline flights.

Personally I can't stand having to trot up 24 high jetbridge stairs carrying those double baby Cadillac strollers that weigh too much and should never have been accepted in the first place. Sometimes I've had to make 3 or 4 trips. And when I bring up the first one I get from behind "Do you have mine" Wow these people think I have 8 arms and 4 legs.

http://time.com/3774620/more-women-not-having-kids/

 

[DallasConehead]

I just see an issue with the airline and especially the FA having to be responsible for someone else's children. The percentage doesn't matter to me. I'd bet if you conducted a survey of all the FA's at AA they would say they would like the policy to end. They have enough work to do becides adding baby sitter (not an easy task) to their duties.

E how would you feel if you were traveling non rev and part of the stipulation for that was if you want to use the benefit you were told you have to monitor any UM's the company may have onboard that aircraft? That actually makes more sense then the FA who has to service 200 plus other customers being responsible. You are in the next seat and can give 100% focus and attention to that child for the possible 8 hour journey.

What do you say?

 
 

BTW did you know that nearly half the women in the US chose to not have children, and by extension you'd have to assume at least half of us men chose that also. Many people that have children or families seem to think the other half of us who don't have to be inconvenienced when they trot their families out to restaurants, movie theaters, shopping centers and on airline flights.

Personally I can't stand having to trot up 24 high jetbridge stairs carrying those double baby Cadillac strollers that weigh too much and should never have been accepted in the first place. Sometimes I've had to make 3 or 4 trips. And when I bring up the first one I get from behind "Do you have mine" Wow these people think I have 8 arms and 4 legs.

http://time.com/3774620/more-women-not-having-kids/

 
I have plenty to say about these 2 comments, but I just don't have it in me to argue with a sign post today. You win David, your ignorance rules the day.  Now, go carry some more strollers up the bridge.

 

[WeAAsles]

I have plenty to say about these 2 comments, but I just don't have it in me to argue with a sign post today. You win David, your ignorance rules the day.  Now, go carry some more strollers up the bridge.

Aw what's the matter? Your thread dead? I have no interest in what you have to say on this topic anyway. You're not too bright actually.

 

[LD3]

 
 
 
 Now, go carry some more strollers up the bridge.

You're are class act...

 

[Kev3188]

I have plenty to say about these 2 comments, but I just don't have it in me to argue with a sign post today. You win David, your ignorance rules the day.  Now, go carry some more strollers up the bridge.

C'mon, man...

 

[DallasConehead]

I just see an issue with the airline and especially the FA having to be responsible for someone else's children. The percentage doesn't matter to me. I'd bet if you conducted a survey of all the FA's at AA they would say they would like the policy to end. They have enough work to do becides adding baby sitter (not an easy task) to their duties.
 
Ok, I'll bite. Pure speculation, he hasn't conducted any "survey". Adding, "they have enough work to do" how does he know?  Has he been a fa? And what does "Baby sitter" have to do with it, UM are by definition have to be older the 11?  That does not qualify as a baby.

E how would you feel if you were traveling non rev and part of the stipulation for that was if you want to use the benefit you were told you have to monitor any UM's the company may have onboard that aircraft? That actually makes more sense then the FA who has to service 200 plus other customers being responsible. You are in the next seat and can give 100% focus and attention to that child for the possible 8 hour journey.
 
Completely ridiculous. Pass travelers should have to watch the child? They might be on vacation and drinking, not to mention the liability issues that come up .  Also, not all cabins are completely full and 200 + people is out of line with reality considering that and the fact that there are several other fa's in the cabin and not every cabin holds more then 200.  He makes it sound like there's one fa doing meals and drinks to 200+ people and that its going to be an international flight in excess of 8 hrs.

What do you say?
 
I say c'mon man.

 
 

BTW did you know that nearly half the women in the US chose to not have children, and by extension you'd have to assume at least half of us men chose that also. Many people that have children or families seem to think the other half of us who don't have to be inconvenienced when they trot their families out to restaurants, movie theaters, shopping centers and on airline flights.
 
Now, in this post we are to believe that those of us with kids should keep them at home and not take them anywhere so he wont be inconvenienced since he has decided not to have kids.  Does this rule apply to people with disabilities too?  Or possibly other groups he's not a part of.

Personally I can't stand having to trot up 24 high jetbridge stairs carrying those double baby Cadillac strollers that weigh too much and should never have been accepted in the first place. Sometimes I've had to make 3 or 4 trips. And when I bring up the first one I get from behind "Do you have mine" Wow these people think I have 8 arms and 4 legs.
 
Finally , pure whining here, he shouldn't have to carry the stroller up, its too big, basically saying kids should be able to walk when they are born.  And then complaining about the people standing there roasting in the bridge with a screaming baby or 2 asking for their stroller. They have to move a family with equipment to the next flight which they might be late for and they're up there waiting and this guy has to complain about the job? Empathy, man, where is it?
 
I say c'mon man.
 
So kids should not travel alone, with the costs of tickets going up all the time, not all families can afford to fly everyone , work schedules might not permit it. Maybe the kid is going to see a sick grandparent, getting interviewed for a special school, going for medical care, you have no idea why the kid is flying, where's the empathy?

http://time.com/3774620/more-women-not-having-kids/

 
Now, I have responded in a way that is not childish or insulting, and have replied to each point, lets see if you guys can hold it together, I doubt it.

 

[WeAAsles]

Now, I have responded in a way that is not childish or insulting, and have replied to each point, lets see if you guys can hold it together, I doubt it.

I'll make it simple. I agree with you. Of course your perspective is as a parent and mine is not.

Maybe the FA's should try to negotiate that they no longer want to be responsible for the care of a child that maybe shouldn't be their responsibility?

I mean we do work for an Airline, not a day care center.

I say let the FA's make the call.

 

[cubs_in_2012]

My dad still tells the story every Christmas about when I was flying Ozark as an 8 year old from Rockford IL to Springfield IL and I made it all the way into the terminal in Peoria before someone reeled me back onto the plane!

**

I've talked to my wife (31yr FA) a lot about this incident.  With 4 kids between us she is very much in favor of the UM program, although we have never used it.  If it were her though she would put them all in the back row(s) and/or seat them all together whenever possible.

 

[Kev3188]

I'll make it simple. I agree with you. Of course your perspective is as a parent and mine is not.

Maybe the FA's should try to negotiate that they no longer want to be responsible for the care of a child that maybe shouldn't be their responsibility?

I mean we do work for an Airline, not a day care center.

I say let the FA's make the call.

And those airlines are in the business of making money. He ancillary revenue from UM programs must be worth it, or they would've been scrapped years ago.

 

[WeAAsles]

And those airlines are in the business of making money. He ancillary revenue from UM programs must be worth it, or they would've been scrapped years ago.

Of course they're in the business of making money. Do you really think they have a massive interest in the welfare of the UM? Doesn't seem to me like they make any real tangible extra effort to make sure the child is secure.

And the FA said on this thread good luck trying to get that child away from the window seat. Very difficult to monitor the child when you can't even see him/her unless you walk down the aisle to take a peek.

Take it however you want but as a single person I don't want the child sitting next to me and I especially hate when the rambunctious teens and toddlers are next to me screaming as well. (Particularly if I PAID for that flight)

Non rev I shouldn't have a say.

 

[IORFA]

Now, I have responded in a way that is not childish or insulting, and have replied to each point, lets see if you guys can hold it together, I doubt it.

Um, you're a little off on your UM age. Per AA it is age 5-14. Not 11 and up.