American Airlines Responds to Down Syndrome Flier Incident
American Airlines
American Airlines has responded to an incident at Newark Airport on September 3rd where a teen was denied boarding on a flight to Los Angeles by the carrier.
The Vanderhorsts were due to fly from Newark to LAX when the incident took place. The family says their son, 16 year-old Bede Vanderhorst, who has Down Syndrome, was denied boarding because he posed a ‘flight risk’.
The Vanderhorsts claim their son could not board the flight to Los Angeles (LAX) because the airline did not want him sitting in First Class.
American posted the following response on their Facebook page:
‘We appreciate the outpouring of concern for the Vanderhorst family. However, prior to boarding flight 119 from Newark to Los Angeles, our customer service team observed the Vanderhorst teen yelling and running around the gate area – he seemed very agitated. Our team, along with the Captain of the flight, worked with the family for more than 30 minutes to try and calm the teen down. There were times when he was calm, but unfortunately, when it came time to board the flight he became agitated again. We tried to work with the family to come up with alternate solutions, which included an offer to rebook the family on the next flight in order to give the teen time to acclimate to his surroundings. Our customer service team, as well as flight crew, made the difficult decision that it wasn’t best for the teen to travel at that time. We wanted to make sure that the young man, as well as the other passengers onboard, were safe and comfortable during the six-hour flight.
Ultimately, the family chose to fly another airline, and we helped to re-accommodate the Vanderhorsts.
American’s actions and procedures are in full compliance with the Air Carrier Access Act. Asking the Vanderhorst family to take a different flight was a decision that was made with careful consideration and was based solely on the young man’s behavior.’
Category: Airnation
Comments (83)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
I’m relieved to see AA grow a backbone and tell it like it is. Sometimes it’s difficult for a parent to be objective about the circumstances when it involves their children. As I figured; no discrimination, just anothe unruly passenger.
You actually think that American Airline is telling the truth here?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I am unclear as to what you think AA motivation may have been. Would you like to travel with any passenger that was deemed unruly, for what ever reason. Or perhaps travel with the passenger that then became more unruly in flight causing an in flight incident and perhaps diversion to another city than the flight’s destination to have them then removed?
Yes I do!
Sorry but what type of BS is that? Does AA really think we are that dumb?
Have you ever flown with an agitated passenger near you? I guess not.Think people what mess it can create during a flight.. why AA would do such a thing , just to be bad you think?
Yes I have twice. Once the person was just drunk and I asked to be seated on another row but the other time the person had a mental problem and I just said to my self that he could not help him self and I did not say a word.
EI-EBB, why are you so firm on your belief that the “disabled” get to do whatever they want? Passengers are held to certain levels of professionalism. Disabled or not.
Because I’ve seen quite a few people that are affected by Down Syndrome and yes they might be excited and like to touch but I’ve never seen one that would pose a threat for the safety of the flight. This case is very simple a Business Class passenger did not want this poor kid to “annoy” him during the flight so…
Please EI-EBB you need to get a real life and deal with reality.
Since when is being nice, caring and thoughtful bad?
It’s bad when it’s propaganda
When our kids were young we encouraged them to run around the gate area and suggested activity with large motor skills so they would be able to sit for those long flights. Although they were not handicapped, they were much better passengers as a result of the active time pre-flight.
So to wear your kids out yo let them run wild in the waiting area ? The rest of the passengers really appreciate your thoughtfulness .
The response from American Airlines seems to be reasonable. “He seemed very agitated” “There were times when he was calm, but when it came time to board the flight he became agitated again” The customer service team and the flight crew made the correct decision. This was to be a six hour flight. I would not want an agitated teen nor anyone else with behavior problems for that matter flying on the same aircraft with me. Six hours is a long time to expect the flight crew to deal with that type of situation.
American would not have denied boarding without reason they are losing revenue . And if you have been exposed to unruly passengers you would understand .It is bad enough when parents let their wonderful children run wild in the waiting area but in the confined area of the plane it is dangerous. Children who cannot behave have no place on the plane
All options had to be weighed…….the decision was rendered…and I feel it was reasonable on the part of AA. This wasn’t the first time….and feel certain this will not be last by any means.
El-EBB, what is your interest in posting here other than being a troll? I work in this industry, and have for ten years. This whole scenario sounds likely and reasonable, and it seams YOU are the only person here unable to rationally consider the situation.
I am glad that AA clarified its position in making this difficult decision. The fact that the airline they were rebooked on (United I think) placed them at the back of their plane without any nearby passengers lends credence to AA’s claims that he was unruly at least at times. One airline doesn’t necessarily take another airline’s word that something is wrong. They must base their decision on observation as well as it is now their responsibility to make just call. I have flown on long 6+ hour flights with normal children who were unruly. Trust me, any flight with an unruly individual is long, no matter the actual flying time. AA made the right call.
This is total CYA and reeks of B.S. I really do believe that they didn’t want the child to be in First Class.
Thank you finally somebody agrees with me.
Believe what you want…..YOU were not there for the festivities! Opinions are appreciated.
Listen, what is the airline going to say? Well, we screwed up and against all guidelines and applicable disability protections kept the boy off the flight because our employee was in a panic once they realized that they handed a FC upgrade to the family with the DS teen making funny noises?
All they COULD say was CYA CYA BS. I have a child with autism, I’ve been on the receiving end of “help” from an airline employee. I had a FA just try to grab my stimming childs hands from over my head to “calm” him. I had to whisper yell at the FA “HE HAS AUTISM, PLEASE DON’T!!” I had to explain I would calm him as soon as I had us both buckled in safely and was able to access the bag I had under my seat.
If the child was being disruptive and scary, why are there no other passengers from that flight ANYWHERE in the blogosphere piping up in defense of the flight crew? It seems there are plenty of you willing to defend AA not actually having been there.
You were not there either…….were you??
No, none of us were there. BUT there was some video. The ONLY video released so far supports the family’s story about the child being calm.
These were not first time fliers. They had 35+ flights with this child. They have video of the child sitting calmly while his family is VERY upset.
What does the airport have? A highly paid legal team and a powerful desire to cover their butt.
Mindy,
You have a special needs child, and based on your prior experience you are demonizing AA not having been there. I’m an aviation professional, and have been on the other side of the rope, so I can see it from the other side. I can’t say with certainty that discrimination was not present here, only that the explanation sounds reasonable and situations like this are so emotionally charged its difficult for some people to maintain their rationality or composure.
Phil,
I agree with your evaluation. There is usually 2 sides in certain situations…..sometimes three….4&5…and so on….
These were not first time fliers. I am sure they are well aware what the consequences are of an out of control full grown teen on an airplane? Do you think they want to take an out of control child on a plane? Risk arrest of their son because he cannot be comply with crew demands? What benefit do they have bringing their son on the plane if he is truly a security risk??? What rational human being would take that risk with their DS teen?
I understand the airlines explanation is “reasonable”. It has no other PR option but to be made to sound that way.
The only “proof” of what happened that day is on video. The video is much more in line with what the parents say happened then what the airline said happened.
At a VERY minimum, I think all can admit that this was a MASSIVE customer service FAIL on the part of AA.
Mindy, believe it or not, but airlines follow a very distinct set of rules that may take precedence over those applied outside of the aviation industry. Airlines are bound by Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) which clearly state that passengers MUST be denied boarding if they demonstrate a tangible threat such as being intoxicated, belligerent, uncooperative, etc.
They only follow does rules when they want to. I flew twice on flights where people that where visibly drunk, where allowed to board, and on one of those flights the drunken passenger ran into a bathroom while the plane was taxiing. So don’t give me that BS and just admit that AA did a MASSIVE failure here.
EI-EBB,
Airlines are not required to give a breathalyzer to passengers they suspect to be intoxicated, and they are not required to ask passengers whether or not they have a disability. An airline staff can deny boarding (at their own discretion) to anyone they feel poses a threat, whether they are drunk, merely acting drunk, disabled, or merely acting disabled. Read my last post as i provided the actual literature from the FAR guidelines.
I’m not sure why some of you are having difficulty accepting the fact that AA was following the rules here.
Employees are human. Employees make mistakes. A large majority of the time they follow their rules and everything goes great. I mean, this family has 35+ flights with no problem.
But, be it out of malice or just plain ignorance, sometimes employees don’t follow the rules. They are human. They make mistakes.
Just because a rule exists does not mean that it is always followed as it should be.
I truly believe, and all evidence that the public has actually seen (via video) shows that the child was calm and composed. Just because AA is trying to sell us a “security threat” bill of goods AFTER an improper denied boarding does not mean that a security threat EVER EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Mindy, AA does not need video proof in their favor, and a few second clip of the child being “calm” after the fact does not prove he wasn’t disruptive prior to the taping. The regulations state that any qualified AA gate agent or pilot can deny a passenger boarding at their own discretion if they present threatening behavior before a flight. They are the judge and jury in these situations. It may sound unfair, but this is how the laws work in aviation safety.
I assure you and all who are demonstrating valid and differing concerns that the “few second clip” of video will be a factor in any settlement in or out of Court. As to the airline employees attempting to calm the young man, the special education background, or lack thereof, of those involved in the attempt will also be a factor in the settlement. A brief look at Lexis indicated some precedent decisions.
Here is the exact language from 14 CFR 382.19 with my commentary.
This states that the airline can’t deny boarding of an individual solely on the
basis of the existence of their disability:
(a) As a carrier, you must not refuse to provide transportation to a passenger
with a disability on the basis of his or her disability.
This states that the airline can’t deny boarding of an individual just because
they present behavior that might “annoy” other passengers:
(b) You must not refuse to provide transportation to a passenger with a
disability because the person’s disability results in appearance or involuntary
behavior that may offend, annoy, or inconvenience crewmembers or other
passengers.
This gives the airline the right to deny boarding to a passenger if their
behavior threatens safety:
(c) You may refuse to provide transportation to any passenger on the basis of
safety, as provided in 49 U.S.C. 44902 or 14 CFR 121.533, or to any passenger
whose carriage would violate FAA or TSA requirements or applicable requirements
of a foreign government.
How do the airlines determine un-safe behavior?
(1) You can determine that there is a disability-related safety basis for
refusing to provide transportation to a passenger with a disability if you are
able to demonstrate that the passenger poses a direct threat (see definition in
§ 382.3). In determining whether an individual poses a direct threat, you must
make an individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on
current medical knowledge or on the best available objective evidence, to
ascertain:
(i) The nature, duration, and severity of the risk;
(ii) The probability that the potential harm to the health and safety of others
will actually occur; and
(iii) Whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures
will mitigate the risk.
Well, there you go. It’s written down. Problem solved. I mean, we know everyone does everything by the rules perfectly every single time ever. In fact, let’s dismiss every single ADA lawsuit out there because after all.. there are rules. And if rules against discrimination exist, then no person will EVER DISCRIMINATE EVER AGAIN.
heh. Wish it were that easy.
Mindy, i know your empathy towards this family is preventing you from seeing things clearly, but AA has not violated the child’s rights, and they did not discriminate based on his disability. The fact remains that passengers are held to a certain level of professionalism on an aircraft, and disability or not, passengers cannot be allowed to fly if they demonstrate threatening behavior prior to a flight. Standards for professionalism are different for airline passengers than they are for restaurant patrons, for example. If this child was disruptive in a restaurant, the owner WOULD be violating the child’s right for denying the family service. However, the same behavior cannot be accepted on an aircraft no matter what disability or disposition the child may have. If the child had a disability that required him to have an oxygen tank to breath, sorry but they’re not allowed on aircraft and thus the child would be denied boarding.
As stated in the official report, AA made several attempts to calm the child prior to the “video” recording, and quite honestly, AA does not need video “proof” to argue their side. Gate agents and pilots are given the role of a “judge” and make the call at their own discretion. It may sound unfair, but at present this is how things work in the aviation industry.
I’m not prevented from seeing things clearly. I am perfectly clear.
I can admit that maybe he was a risk. I don’t believe it, from what I have seen (the video, interviews with the parents), but I wasn’t there.
What I can’t stand, is when someone can’t even admit, that there is the any possibility, that AA did wrong.
An airlines statement is proof of nothing. The fact the rules are written is proof of nothing. People don’t always do the right thing.
I guess Chris, this is where will have to agree to disagree.
I agree yet again with you Mindy. I just can’t stand how everybody is saying that AA is in the right here.
EI-EBB,
What evidence do you have that would suggest that AA did something inconsistent with their policies and those placed upon them by the FAR?
The word of the parents, a short video released to the public, and REALLY suspicious timing for a denied boarding.
What proof do you have? Oh wait.. you don’t NEED proof do you? You just accept whatever is dished out because….why exactly?
The word of the parents doesn’t mean anything, as an airline cannot accept “Oh, he won’t bite” as a promise that behavior won’t be an issue. The FAR give gate agents and pilots the authority to make the decision, not the passengers themselves.
Like i said earlier, the video only shows the boy “after” the incident, which quite frankly doesn’t prove anything. Drunks can exhibit the same “roller-coaster” behavior- one second being irate and the next promising they’ll behave. As in the first case, the gate agents and pilots are the only entities given authority to deny boarding. If the CEO of the airline was present at the time and told the pilot to allow the boy on board, by the laws of the FAR (keep in mind these are rules even the airline must follow) the boy would remain denied. As i stated earlier, the gate agents and pilot in command are the ONLY entities given the authority to deny boarding by the federal aviation regulations (FAR). This is NOT an airline policy.
Viewers of this case are having a lot of difficulty accepting the fact that this boy was denied boarding because of his behavior, not because of his disability. The ONLY way AA could be in the wrong, is if the boy was in fact not agitated, and if the agents and pilots did not spend 30 minutes talking to the boy and family. The issue here is NOT about violating the boy’s rights, as he was treated as any other child or adult would have been if they presented the same behavior. There is no agent of authority above the FAR in the aviation community.
Mindy, why do you keep bringing up the irrelevant short video clip that the mother posted after the event? That video didn’t show the incident; it merely showed the aftermath. The airline made their decision based on his behavior prior to the video, and this was never caught on film.
The biggest misconception here is the idea that the airline needs to “back-up” their observations of the boy acting inappropriately with video surveillance and/or witness statements, etc. This is simply not true. Gate agents and pilots are given the authority to deny boarding to anyone they believe to be a threat at-their-own-discretion. This is also true for police officers who pull people over and issue tickets for “reckless driving”- they do not need video surveillance to prove it. If such a case were to go to court, the officer’s testimony would be considered sufficient proof based on the authority given to an officer to make that type of call. In the case of AA, airlines are given the authority to make these types of decisions.
As in any case, any doubts concerning the evidence will be favor of the defendant, AA. And unfortunately for the family, the authority to deny boarding of a passenger is at the discretion of the crew, and no other entity.
Whether AA was right or wrong, there’s really no need for discussion as AA has been given the authority to deny boarding to anyone they feel to be a threat. The FAR guidelines provide behavioral indicators, and the agents/pilots are allowed to make judgements based on their interpretations.
Remember, there’s a big difference between something being “morally” wrong and “legally” wrong. In this case, AA may have done something morally wrong, but legally they are given the discretion and authority to deny boarding as they see fit.
Yet, driving while black is still a problem in this nation. Just because they can pull out an excuse to CYA does not make it right.
If we start excusing moral trespasses in this nation, excuse them because they party committing the sin is given broad legal authority, then we give up too much.
They are truly Bjorn given authority to deny boarding “as they see fit”. They can deny boarding only for health and safety reasons. Saying your concerned the black man may mug you, or the Downs boy might hug the business man in 3A mid flight, does not give you the right to deny boarding. Both are stereotype fallacies.
It comes down to, who is lying? The family or the airline? Was he agitated or not? The story from the airline seems contrived and rings very untrue. (The pilot tried to calm him?.., the team worked with the family?? Bullpucky..)
They are morally and legally wrong if they lied about the agitation. I think they did.
As i said earlier, the FAR guidelines specify certain behaviors that are unacceptable, and AA cited the boys agitation and inability to listen to instructions as causes for denied boarding. These are not related to race, annoyance of other passengers, any upgrades to 1st class, and not because of the PRESENCE of his disability. His denied boarding came as a result of his behavior which is NOT an excuse for his disability.
Yeah, we’re so far apart on this, i don’t think further discussion is likely to be productive…
AA may be morally wrong in the eyes of those ignorant of airline regulations, but legally AA did nothing wrong. This type of event occurs VERY often (most often to young children and drunks), and the only reason this case is appearing in the news is because the boy has a “disability” and the media is aware of the public’s sensitivity on the subject. But the truth remains, disability or not, if a crew makes the observation that a passenger is agitated, they will be denied boarding and be asked to take a later flight. Having a disability is NO excuse.
Mindy,
Nothing is really easy for either side. I am sure it was not a pleasant experience for either side……..except maybe for Lawyers….who I am sure were salivating at the mouth to tackle this one. Heck, guess who made all the “rules” in the first place. They are not in it for the justice….it’s the money. The Airline was only providing transportation to the paying public. The ticket does not guarantee you a seat every time. It is called denied boarding. It happens quite often…the Airline has to deal with an unpleasant situation. I really feel that they made the correct decision. They did rebook them. So there you have it. Let’s all be happy! :)
I guess it’s easy for you to be happy Phil, you don’t have a nagging fear every time you fly that this could happen to you. You don’t fear that your child will be wailing “bye bye plane” and stimming and you will be booted of your flight.
You don’t fear that someone will think your child is weird and you’ll be asked to sit in economy instead of First Class.
You don’t fear that your child will rock and look different and scare some boarding gate agent unnecessarily and you’ll be trying to figure out how else to get your family to visit Grandma across the country this Christmas.
Yeah, it’s easy to believe that AA followed the rules, when you’ve never been at the end of a funny look, eye roll, or worried whisper that that child might sit next to YOU.
SO sorry, I do see discrimination, I do see how this could happen. I do see how a gate agent who does the “right thing” day in and day out for 99.9% of his career can be scared of something different and boot a child from FC unnecessarily. If you guys want to hide your head in the sand and pretend you live in a world where what the “airline says must’ve really happened exactly that way” then go ahead. I hope you never learn differently from first hand experience.
I completely agree with you Mindy.
Mindy, whether the airline’s statements were true or not does not change the fact that they’re given the authority to deny boarding to anyone they feel may pose a threat. They do not need third party witnesses, they do not need to be educated in disabilities- they are mere enforcers of the rules placed upon them. The fact that the boy had a disability did not change the outcome of this incident, as disruptive behavior (disability or not) is not acceptable. Misbehaving children (and adults) are denied boarding VERY frequently. This is a very, very common event. I know it’s not “politically correct”, but the boy’s disability cannot serve as an excuse to ignore the rules of airline safety.
The airline has absolutely NO obligation to discuss with the family of the child his condition, and the airline cannot “trust” a parent’s word that the child will calm down. Airlines are liable for the security of their passengers, and i’m not sure if you’re aware of this or not, but AA and UA are currently being sued for allowing terrorists aboard their planes 11 years ago. Like that one?
Since is a Down Syndrome teen a terrorist or any other type of menace to the safety of the flight??????????????
EI-EBB,
I think you’re having difficulty differentiating between the “disability” and the “dispositions” resulting from it. AA did NOT deny boarding to the child “because” of the presence of his disability. AA was very clear as to the specific reasons for denying him boarding, which include the boy’s behavior prior to the flight. If you read the FAR guidelines that i outlined above in an earlier post, you will note that gate agents and pilots are given the authority to deny boarding to any passenger who can be seen as a threat. AA is claiming that the boy was agitated and had difficulty sitting still and following instructions. NO WHERE did AA mention that they denied him boarding because of his disability. ANY passenger exhibiting these inappropriate behaviors will be denied boarding.
It’s very unfortunate that the boy has a disability, but his disability cannot serve as an excuse to threaten airline safety. The FAR guidelines indicate that inappropriate behavior (agitation, inability to follow instructions) are defined as a threat to airline safety. Heck, bringing a bottle of water on an aircraft is also considered a threat to airline safety. But rules are rules and the boys disability (outside of being unfortunate) does not change them.
>> Mindy, whether the airline’s statements were true or not does not change the fact that they’re given the authority to deny boarding to anyone they feel may pose a threat.<<
That is blatantly false. The truth of their statement is very much in question and central to their ability to deny boarding. They must have a reason "other than the disability" to deny boarding.
Was the child a security threat? He seemed calm on the video, is a seasoned traveler, we've been told by his family he was not agitated. He IMMEDIATELY was booked on another flight with a different airline and caused NO problems.
Look at the facts and see *who has the bigger incentive to lie?* an airline who possibly denied an irritating disabled child first class seating..and now faces a possible PR sh*tstorm? Or a family who went to the media immediately demanding an apology and a refund of their upgrade fees?
They cannot deny boarding because he is noisy, or looks funny, or talks to others and annoys passengers. He must actually pose a threat. I find it telling that he is not, and has never been identified as a threat, until he got a FC upgrade. Interesting timing, no??
The gate agents and pilots identified him as a threat. They are the only entities who can do that, and in this case they did. It’s their prerogative and they cited their observations of him being agitated as cause for denied boarding. It’s as simple as that.
They said.. they said.. they said..
Well, I guess we can just conclude that you feel it is impossible for a human being employed by an airline to lie.
I’m gonna go with EI-EBB on this one. I’m DONE.
Mindy, when did i say it’s impossible for an agent or pilot to lie? Are you suggesting that the gate agents (who initially observed the boy’s behavior) who contacted their supervisor, who asked the pilot to talk to the boy and the family… that they’re all making it up?
Either way, as the law reads, the gate agents and pilot have the authority to deny boarding to anyone as long as they cite any of the behaviors outlines in the FAR. If the boy did as little as jump on a seat and fail to stop when asked, the crew has cause for denied boarding.
YOU GUYS (expect for Mindy) MAKE ME WANNA PUKE!!!!!
“Puking” would also result in a passenger to be denied boarding. If a passenger appears ill before a flight, even if they “swear” they will be fine, the airline is required to deny them boarding.
Do you get where i’m going?
Why do we try? Some people just cannot FATHOM that someone might I dunno, lie? Tell an untruth? Not follow the rules exactly as written? Has anyone been through a TSA checkpoint lately?
SO DONE. Apparently no disabled person has the right to fly First Class. We must all ride in the back of the bu..airplane.
If a person with a disability presents behavior deemed inappropriate by the rules outlined in the Federal Aviation Regulation manual, yes, they will be denied boarding. Why are you having trouble accepting this? It sounds like you think it’s permissible for a person with a disability to do anything they want just because they’re “disabled”. Do you realize how crazy that sounds?
So are we to believe that the gate agents their supervisor and the Pilot all conspired to frame this poor disabled child and deny him first class ? I am sure this decision was not made abscent some very troubling behavior by the child. Thew fact that he later was video taped acting calmly is not proof that he wasnt acting differently earlier . Mindy is not objective and EI-EEB obviously has an issue with this airline. The fact that the family was seated all alone in the rear of the united flight speaks volumes .
>>So are we to believe that the gate agents their supervisor and the Pilot all conspired to frame this poor disabled child and deny him first class ? <>The fact that the family was seated all alone in the rear of the united flight speaks volumes .<<
Actually, no, it really does not. The other airline was passed a customer, sight unseen who was deemed a "security risk". To seat them in the back (where there is more likely to be open seating) with a buffer would make sense. Then again, those gate agents saw NO agitation or problem with putting him on a flight. Couldn't be that risky now could he??? Oh..wait.. he was in the BACK not in First Class… starting to sense a theme here?
Mindy, after AA denied the child boarding on the assigned flight, they offered to place him and his family on a later flight. Airlines don’t just label a passenger a “permanent” flight risk- they evaluate a passenger’s behavior prior to the flight they will be allowed to fly on. The family chose to fly with another airline and thus “legally” AA does not even have to issue a refund.
And i don’t know why you think United’s decision to allow the child to fly has ANYTHING to do with AA’s decision earlier in the day to deny him boarding. If a passenger is denied boarding of a 6am flight because he is drunk, if he is able to sober up in the airport, he will be able to fly later in the day. I can’t stress this enough: an airline has the authority to deny boarding to anyone they evaluate as being unfit for travel based on their behavior PRIOR to a flight. The boy became agitated prior to boarding the original flight, so he was denied. He calmed down through the day and was able to fly on a later flight. I don’t understand what you’re misinterpreting here.
EI-EBB,
I’m sure your comment will be edited by the moderator team once they evaluate your language as inappropriate, but until they do i’d like to interject and respond.
I understand that you and Mindy appear to be very empathetic to the boy and his family, and though your cases may present moral deficiencies in the airline industry, AA did not do anything wrong according to the rules placed upon all airlines by the Federal Aviation Regulation guidelines.
All of your “theories” and “feelings” presented on here have absolutely no merit as “theories” and “feelings” do not carry weight in the airline industry. Rules are created on a federal level, and airlines and passengers must obey them.
For example, i was on a flight yesterday and the flight attendant asked me to turn off my CALCULATOR as it is considered an “electronic” device. We all know a 3v low current calculator presents to “threat” to an airplane, but rules are rules and thus i had to do my work at home. Rules are developed and airline staff are required to enforce them, whether we agree or disagree.
So yes, you and Mindy are misinterpreting the facts we are presenting to you.
Your calculator story is condescending and irrelevant. We’re not stupid. This is their SON.
I see the facts. I have the same story as you. You don’t know any more or any better than I do.
You just have a different opinion.
Yours: The airline didn’t lie.
Mine: The airline did lie.
See, pretty simple. One of us is wrong. None of us have proof. This is a very big he said she said. You don’t KNOW they didn’t do wrong. I don’t KNOW that they did. We just have our opinions based on our prior prejudices.
So please, don’t treat me like I’m an idiot. I’m not.
Mindy Yes hours later there was no agitation or problem .You obviously have an agenda that keeps you from being objective . Do you really believe that the agents and the pilot conspired against this family and lied about the issues that they saw at that specific time ? You are not being reasonable .At the time of the incident there was an issue otherwise the family would have been allowed to board I can assure you the pilot did not mke this decision without a lot of thought about the possible repercussions ie bad media and lawsuits . So answer the question posed do you think that these people conspired together to lie and deny these people passage onto the plane ?
Allan, i think you nailed it. Readers who are ignorant of the workings within the airline industry have a difficult time accepting the rules and regulations posed on airlines and their passengers. Often, these misguided readers have difficulty differentiating between what’s morally right with what’s legally right, and their emotions can often fog their reality.
I find it funny how you all are bending over backwards to pat yourselves on the back as “insiders” and accusing me of having an “agenda”. An agenda? What would that be? To believe that discrimination can exist? To believe the story of parents over that of an airline.
Over and over again, I’m told that discrimination could NOT have been the case here. That it is not possible for a company to close ranks and over up. After all, there are RULES. People follow RULES. It’s written down. There is no way that the motivation behind declaring the boy as “agitated” was a lie.
Then, I find articles like this:
http://airnation.net/2012/08/07/american-possible-fine-faa/
Hey.. WAIT. Aren’t there RULES? Why would someone lie to benefit the bottom line over customer safety? WHAT? How could that POSSIBLY HAPPEN???
Ummm.. folks, it does. Not always, not even often. But it does. So when a very plausible, very coherent, normal looking family steps forward without a huge cash settlement possible at the end of it .. maybe, just maybe, they might be telling the truth.
If believing that discrimination exists and defending a family that says they’ve experienced it is an “AGENDA” then so be it.
My Dear mindy I am not an insider . Just a frequent flyer .My occupation is that of a Fire Lieutenant / Paramedic . And I agree that discrimination exists .But you still haven’t addressed the Question Do you really believe that these people conspired and colluded to deny this family passage on that flight? That would be the only explanation other than it was appropriate to deny them .I think that you see discrimination where there actually is none.
“I think that you see discrimination where there actually is none.” And I think you guys see a “”menace to flight safety”" where there is none.
EI-EBB,
You were NOT there!! You are starting to sound a bit uneducated on the subject at hand!
I have a friend at the ICAO so I no full well these rules.
The ICAO? You do realize this incident took place on United States soil, on a United States operated aircraft, and under the authority of the Federal Aviation Regulation system? The entity that provides US airlines with rules and regulations for denying passengers boarding is uninfluenced by the ICAO.
And clearly you are NOT educated on the rules (which keep in mind i POSTED HERE a while ago) because even after listing them here for you to read, you’ve been either unwilling or unable to comprehend them. Your feelings are not collinear with the rules of aviation safety.
EI-EBB,
Care to explain your statement, “I think you guys see a “”menace to flight safety”” where there is none.”?
I was not there- none of us were there. The only parties involved were the AA crew members, the boy, and his family. As stated 6.02×10^23 times already in our earlier postings, the FAR guidelines grant ONLY airline gate agents and pilots to determine who is a “risk” and who is not. Never did i state that the boy is/was a flight risk- American airlines did! And that’s their prerogative!
What is driving your enthusiasm to keep posting on this subject? You appear incredibly ignorant of the authority that airlines are provided by the United States Federal Aviation Regulation system (I’m not sure who your friend is at “ICAO” but that organization has no influence here) and the “thesis” of your arguments is very inconsistent.
I’m very sorry for treating you of jerks I was pissed off and I loss control of my emotions.
Remember people…we’re likely to ‘agree to disagree’ on occasion. :)
Having said that, this has been a great discussion! :)
Mindy. No one is calling you an idiot .I agree that you have an extreme bias towards the other abled of society .And you are not objective .Sometimes hard decisions have to be made.The captain with the consultation of the gate crew made it .The family doesn’t like it ,you don’t like it ….But discrimination in this case is a non starter .Unless they all conspired to get this boy and his family ejected for some nefarious reason
“other-abled”?? Really?? If I were to roll my eyes any harder I’d be staring at my brain.
I don’t have an extreme bias. If I was black and this were a case of racial discrimination would you say I had an “extreme bias”?? Good Lord, the condescending attitudes on this board are amazing.
You have NO FACTS. In fact, I might say that you are not objective. See you cannot seem to admit that you have no facts either. We have parent statement, a short video and airline press release. THAT IS ALL.
You have NO idea if the discrimination case is a “non starter”. You were not there. Funny, I can admit that maybe I am wrong, after all, I wasn’t there. But very few of you can do the same. Closed mindedness and abject subjugation of corporate authority is what allows discrimination to exist. **I do think they lied about his agitation in order to get him out of First Class.**
Is it even possible in that closed minded brain of yours to admit that it is even a possibility? That you really DON’T KNOW FOR SURE. Doubtful.
Mindy is it possible ? Yes . Likely ? No ….It would have to be a conspiracy of several people and that’s just not likely…..roll your eyes all you want I doubt you will find any brain . Should i use reatard. Mongoloid .downs syndrome .you still haven’t answered the question .have they all conspired to discriminate against this family ? Yes you are extremely biased and quite irrational .the airline has nothing to gain by denieing passage .And the family has much to gain by raising a stink.
Wow. Retard? Mongoloid? Phew. Doesn’t take much to get to your biases now does it?
How about disabled? Person with a disability? Boy with Down’s Syndrome, Child with a handicap?
The fact that you would label him an “other” — then, when someone rolls their eyes, you bust out with some nasty language.. oh my.
Yes, I think it very possible one or two people discriminated against this family and the rest fell in line. I do think that even if one employee thought “WHAT is going ON here?” they couldn’t question the pilot or supervisor. I think that sometimes people are silent when they fear for their jobs in a bad economy.
I think you may want to question YOUR motives in fighting SO hard to not admit that you really just don’t know. That either scenario, parents lied or airline lied may have occurred.
My biases ? I said other abled ,guess I should have sai differently abled . But really ? Hadicapped and disabled both imply inferiority .i was trying to be as sensitive to the “handicapped” as possible . You can call me what you want but I actually have some experience with making hard decisions and I can only place myself in the pilots position and see it from his/her side .and then put myself in families position and see it from teir side , Then objectively decide the motivation they would have .on the pilots side I can’t find any .On the families side I see a lot to gain from a lawsuit or settlement from the airline. I don’t have a horse in this race . But unlike you mindy I don’t always see discrimination behind every corporate decision. You must have had some very bad experience with corporate structures in the past . It just appears to me that you reflexively take tha families side because of your “feelings ”
I have been in first class and coach seated next to differently abled people and have not seen any issue . I have also seen numerous people with an alcohol problem become a huge problem in flight . You just can’t put yourself in the shoes the authority making the decision .Your past experience and feelings won’t allow it
Having said that. I’m out
Enjoy your next flight
I think this is a good time to close this thread and move on.:)