Should single men be able to sit next to unaccompanied kids on planes ?

I think they should and will not fly Virgin again until they review this policy (or have a great deal i cant refuse). Sad that society has come to this and any single male is assumed to be a paedo. Leave the bathroom door open if youre a male and bathe your kids and dont take photos at child sporting events or you could be labelled something unsavoury.

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/seat-swap-outcry-moves-virgin-to-think-again-20120810-23y7q.html

Earlier today Fairfax Media reported the story of Johnny McGirr, 33, who said he was flying home from Brisbane in April when he took his seat next to two boys he estimated to be aged between eight and 10.

He was assigned the window seat but sat in the aisle seat so the two boys could look out the window.

However, a flight attendant approached him just as passengers were asked to put on their seatbelts, asking him to move.

Mr McGirr said when he asked why, he was told, "Well you can't sit next to two unaccompanied minors."

"She said it was the policy and I said, 'Well, that's pretty sexist and discriminatory. You can't just say because I'm a man I can't sit there,' and she just apologised and said that was the policy.

"By this stage everyone around me had started looking."

Mr McGirr said the attendant then asked a fellow female passenger, "Can you please sit in this seat because he is not allowed to sit next to minors."

"After that I got really embarrassed because she didn't even explain. I just got up and shook my head a little, trying to get some dignity out of the situation," he said.

"And that was it. I pretty much sat through the flight getting angrier."

Mr McGirr pointed out that he works as a fireman in Newtown in Sydney and was trusted in his job to look out for the welfare of children.

"[The attitude of the airline] is 'we respect you but as soon as you board a Virgin airline you are a potential paedophile', and that strips away all the good that any male does regardless of his standing in society, his profession or his moral attitudes," he said.
 
I think they should and will not fly Virgin again until they review this policy (or have a great deal i cant refuse). Sad that society has come to this and any single male is assumed to be a paedo. Leave the bathroom door open if youre a male and bathe your kids and dont take photos at child sporting events or you could be labelled something unsavoury.

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/seat-swap-outcry-moves-virgin-to-think-again-20120810-23y7q.html

The reality is that if you dont have a BLUE card, no sensible organisational policy will allow the obvious preventable.

Personally, I understand and respect the idea, I see your point too,but it is what it is.

In that situation, the organisational policy DOES need to assume that all males have issues, since they arent qualified to weed out the ones that are

ta

rolf
 
The reality is that if you dont have a BLUE card, no sensible organisational policy will allow the obvious preventable.

Personally, I understand and respect the idea, I see your point too,but it is what it is.

In that situation, the organisational policy DOES need to assume that all males have issues, since they arent qualified to weed out the ones that are

ta

rolf

Yeah i can see that point of view too but i wonder what they did in the days before BLUE cards were issued to determine who was a paedo.

If i had kids i dont think id let them fly solo but think theyd be ok on a short flight. Maybe a different story like in a cinema where its dark.
 
The organisational policy DOES need to assume that all males have issues, since they arent qualified to weed out the ones that are
They can also assume all females have issues.
There have been many cases of women interfering with minors so to be safe perhaps they shouldnt let anyone sit next to unaccompanied kids.
 
In that situation, the organisational policy DOES need to assume that all males have issues, since they arent qualified to weed out the ones that are

Yes, but shouldn't the organisation also assume that a fellow female could potentially be a paedofile?

Personally I wouldn't send my kids on a flight solo at such a young age, but it's unfair to assume that a male could pose a risk but a female can't.
 
This happened to Boris Johnson, now Mayor of London, some years ago. A BA (IIRC) cabin crew told him that he would have to change seats because he couldn't be seated next to a small boy. BoJo then explained that said boy was his son ....
 
yes, but statistically, if you cant leave a seat empty.................................and you have to sit someone there.

ta

rolf

Then they should've ensured at check in the boys were seated next to a female passenger and not have made the poor man look like a paedofile. They should have a procedure in place, rather than approach it in such a manner.

I'd be mighty offended if I were him..
 
Then they should've ensured at check in the boys were seated next to a female passenger and not have made the poor man look like a paedofile. They should have a procedure in place, rather than approach it in such a manner.

I'd be mighty offended if I were him..

used to happen to me lots, no big deal, but others may feel VERY different.

I actually like an aisle seat in row 28 or 29 on a 737 8, and usually they will bung the UMs into row 30

Just a fact of life, but what you say makes such simple sense,write to them !

ta
rolf
 
They can also assume all females have issues.
There have been many cases of women interfering with minors so to be safe perhaps they shouldnt let anyone sit next to unaccompanied kids.

Personally I wouldn't send my kids on a flight solo at such a young age, but it's unfair to assume that a male could pose a risk but a female can't.

At first glance, the natural reaction is to cry "unfair", "unjust", "no equality". It seems that way, but logic trumps this instinct.

While it's true there are female predators about, it is phenomenally more common among those with a Y chromosome and from the airline's point of view, they're simply trying to mitigate as much risk as possible which means placing minors next to the statistically lower risk gender.

I don't believe they're assuming there is zero risk with females. They've just looked at the facts and decided they want to minimise potential problems with a rational policy. Again, exercising logic, it is a reasonable proposition, despite our instinctive reaction to cry foul.

Here's some food for thought.

Males are something like* 14 times as likely to sexually assault someone.
Males are something like* 10 times as likely to murder someone assault someone.
Males comprise over 96% of people on death row in US prisons last I checked.

* these numbers are recollections of recent figures but I believe they were mentioned in THIS video, on the illusion of free will: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g

If you had the option of letting your child fly in a make of plane with the highest rate of fatal crashes in recorded history (having crashed 10 times more often than any other make of plane EVER), or booking them to them fly in another make of plane which has has at least 10 times few crashes on average, would you cry for equality in which plane they board or chose to book them on a flight on a plane that is statistically at least 10 times safer (but still not 100% risk free)?
 
Most airlines have this policy so it is unfair to single out virgin.

The issue is how it was poorly dealt with on the flight.

ETA. A kid is statistically less likely to be abused by a stranger than a family member, friend or trusted acquaintance.
 
Policies like this exist in many organizations where children and vulnerable persons are, ie. schools, hospitals, prisons, sporting facilities, etc. mostly because they protect ALL parties, although in the case of the airline it's to protect the children against paedophiles.

Most people are totally unaware of it.

Many of the above situations also require police checks to work with/coach/care OR even have casual contact with children/vulnerable persons (ie. to attend school excursions, work in a school canteen).

I must admit it's the first time I've come across any argument against this sort of thing (I and others around me who abide by these types of policies on a day to day basis fully support them).
 
Most airlines have this policy so it is unfair to single out virgin.

The issue is how it was poorly dealt with on the flight.

ETA. A kid is statistically less likely to be abused by a stranger than a family member, friend or trusted acquaintance.

But strangers exposing themselves, trying to touch the other person, saying innapropriate sexual things is very common.

I've had these things happen to me on 3 occassions as a child and young teen (by men), but never by family members.

It's common and imo under reported - these things have happened to many of my female friends, as well as my son at the local park.
 
While yes it may be slightly discriminatory & the airline would be better to try and be discrete; I'm 100% for it.

Yes you and I may not be an issue, but imagine if this policy saves 1 in ever 100,000 kids flying alone from having to go through something like that? I mean its not really anything more than an inconvienance to the passenger (unless they're a **** and make a fuss), but there may be one kid out there who has avoided having their entire life shattered by this policy - surely its worthwhile?

For the record, I don't have kids!

Oh and its been said by someone else, but I'll reliterate it - all of the airlines have the same policy.

Edit: Beaten by the swearing censor for what I thought was a rather harmless word!
 
Who on earth would want to sit next to some UA's.

I couldn't think of anything worse = not a relaxing flight and certainly no chance of an interesting conversation.

By all means move me ----- but to the pointy end of the plane with a larger seat and a nice chardy. Oh hang on, we are talking Virgin.

Cheers
 
I wasn't aware of this rule at all.

How on earth could anyone interfere with a child on a plane. There's people all around you, not to mention the flight attendants walking up and down. Don't pedo's normally groom kids over the long term or go about their business slyly and in a concealed manner? You're hardly hidden from view on a plane. And even when kids travel unaccompanied the attendants are aware and have to keep an eye on them don't they? Surely seating them next to anyone, male or female, should be OK if they've told the kids that if for any reason they're not happy sitting where they've been put to let them know and changes can be made. Am I being too naive?

On another note and to do with the general thinking about men being alone with kids......
my father (aged 90) swims laps at the pool in the morning along with about another 10 people - all retirees, aged 50+ and a mix of men and women. If any of the men are still in the change rooms when school kids arrive they get out quick smart even if they're not dressed properly or showered because they're afraid of "a man wearing only a towel talked to me in the shower room" scenarios.

Another time my Dad was driving back from the local shops and saw a young lad walking home in the pouring rain. Dad didn't know him personally but knew where he lived as he'd seen him come and go to a particular house. He said he really wanted to offer the kid a lift home but didn't dare because of how people think nowadays, but then felt awfully guilty for not giving him a lift as well and making the kid walk in the rain.

The neighbours kids (boy & girl aged about 12 - 14) treat my Dad like a grandfather and often call in on him, on their own and with their parents. The girl (on her own) in an excited moment a few months back went to hug my father and kiss him on the cheek and he nearly had a fit and told her never to do that again. It was a bit upsetting for both of them even after he'd explained why he said what he said.

What a sad state of affairs. Like everything else in the world the minority has ruined things for the majority.
 
Back
Top