VA/Seating of male pax nr unaccompanied minors

[Peter Agatsiotis]

Going through my e-mails and amongst the regular update from Airfleets was an item regarding seating of male passengers next to unaccompanied minors on Virgin Australia.

Not sure if this is a recent decision from VA that male passengers are not to be seated next to unaccompanied minors (assume males travelling on their own) or as a result of an incident.

It appears that some airlines already have this in place as a precaution.

Whatever the reason it does makes sense.

[Wayne D]

As a former police officer, I can attest to there being female sexual predators. As a male, I find this method of thinking highly offensive.

[Rob R]

Qantas has a similar policy.

[Wayne D]

Anyone care to share written confirmation of these policies anonymously?

[Radi K]

No because that would be a breach of confidentiality between the employee and the airline. I think it's innaporiate even to ask that on a public forum.

[Wayne D]

It is an offence to discriminate based upon gender, and a further offence if you conceal such offence, so anyone who has this as a directive from their employer and does nothing about it is committing an offence.

Depending upon the circumstances under which said information was provided, it may not breach the company/employee confidentiality guidelines.

[Rob R]

Looks like Qantas did the same to one of their passengers.

From the Brisbane times

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/nurse-humiliated-by-qantas-policy-20120813-243t4.html

[Adam.S]

No because that would be a breach of confidentiality between the employee and the airline.

Please excuse my ignorance here, however I would have thought such policies are made available to the public?

I believe that is how the topic recently became news and now VA have said they are currently 'reviewing' this particular policy.

[Radi K]

Hi Adam

Not all polices are made available to the public. For example, when persons in lawful custody travel, there are set procedures that cannot be released into the public domain. The same goes for flight deck access. When air marshals travel, again protections, even internally must be strictly adhered to.

Wayne, the airline is not discriminating on gender. The passenger is not denied travel. It is the same for disabled passengers that require specific seating and cannot be placed into an exit row. The passenger is not denied boarding. The terms and conditions of the ticket require the airline to provide passage from a to b regardless of their physical seat on the aircraft. The nature of the policy is not a secret nor asked to be kept that way. To release confidential policies and procedures is however a breach of the confidentiality agreement that the employee and employer enter and would be like revealing financial information without approval.

[Rod Sloan]

........ the airline is not discriminating on gender.

WHAT??? I don't understand. The pax was moved because he was MALE. If the PAX had been female they would have stayed where they are. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....you can't argue it's a Kookaburra.

[Steve S... 2]

The policy is very insulting and discriminatary to males.

[Rowan McKeever]

the airline is not discriminating on gender.

They actually are, as Rod says. This particular policy seems specifically to deal with where a male passenger can and cannot be seated; there is no similarity between this and your example of disabled passengers not being able to be seated in exit rows as that is a clear and obvious safety issue which I'm sure no disabled person would argue against.

In this particular instance I'd suggest the issue is less about the policy itself and more about the handling of the situation by each of the now 2 airlines involved... it seems like their computer systems should be able (even with online and kiosk check-in) to avoid these kinds of events in many cases (obviously if someone's title is Dr or Prof etc it would be difficult) and that the cabin crew could be a lot more discreet at the times when the system gets it wrong?

[Adam.S]

As a possible solution;
Perhaps the airlines should keep things simple by only sitting unaccompanied minors in rows that sit opposite or next to the f/a seats. (are the f/a seats located mid-cabin only positioned at exit rows?)

For example make it common knowledge a child must be seated in the aisle seat of this particular row when they are travelling.
That way in the future, when the adult who already has this seat allocated will be asked to move to a different seat regadless of their gender.

[David Knudsen]

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with being asked to move, so long as it was explained at the time that it was airline policy not to seat male pax next to UM's , rather than just being told "Hey you can't sit near children!" as I imagine that would be slightly embarrasing.

[Matthew Chisholm]

Some of the stories I've read over the last few days would have certainly very embarrasing to the customers who were asked to move, and advised why in front of others.

[Steve S... 2]

Both airlines aught to be ashamed of themselves.

It is an insult to the entire male population of Australia, not just to those who have been unfortunate enough to be caught up in it.

With today's technology it is astounding how the airlines found it easier to humiliate people rather than to have some plan in place for special seating for unaccompanied children "before" the flight.

I would hope those affected would get some sort of compensation.

[Sarah C]

Maybe this is being simple - but why don't they move the child instead of the adult? Surely that would avoid the embarassment etc and the children probably don't care if they are moved anyway.

[Rowan McKeever]

I thought that this morning Sarah but then I suppose you're still moving a passenger because they or another passenger is an adult male. I assume as well that there are only certain parts of the cabin where UMs are allowed to be seated for safety/evacuation and general supervision reasons?

[Wayne D]

It seems that most of those who have made comment agree with me. I wonder how long it would take for a policy change to be effected if the discrimination were to be against adult women, who were prevented from sitting next to unaccompanied minors?

The first woman to be insulted enough by the presumption that she is a pedophile who went to the media would see this issue painted in a very different light.

Remember, there are female sex offenders as well as males, I don't see how gender is a basis for deciding who is or isn't going to commit the crime.

I would have no issue suing Qantas if this happened to me, and I feel so strongly about it even now, that I will make further enquiries on behalf of all males.

[Craig Murray]

Nothing wrong with existing policies re unaccompanied minors (UM)

The incident referred to was perhaps poorly handled.

As a bloke (with kids) I'm happy with the policy just the way it is.

Good luck to those who jump on the discrimination bandwagon - don't forget the issue here is UM's, ie children and their wellbeing in a vunerable situation, and not human rights and blokes getting their frilly knickers in a knot about being so hard done by in one very specific and unique situation. The policy is not written to discriminate, it is written to protect those who are perhaps too young to protect themself. There should be NO compromise on this. Ever.

Where a spare seat cannot be blocked to allow UM's their own space, the person seated next to them should be female and at the suitability of that person to occupy said seat should be at the sole discretion of the cabin crew.

Back to the main issue at hand, I am sure the said airline(s) will take steps to ensure situations like this are handled more professionally in future.

[Rob R]

We are sounding more and more like the USA everyday with people saying they would have no problems suing the airlines over this.

What's next, are you gong to have a go at the airlines policy for giving extension seat belts out in front of other passengers etc etc. All airlines have polices around who can and cannot sit in exit rows, will those polices be targeted next?

Polices and procedures are in place for the safety and well being of every passenger. The two situations the media have run with we're perhaps handled poorly, but get over it and move on.

[Wayne D]

Lets not confuse policies designed to illicit the safety of an aircraft in flight, such as those regarding who can and cannot occupy an exit row with a policy that blatantly presumes any male onboard is a pedophile.

I agree that children need to be protected, and that must be a paramount focus, however seating any person next to an unaccompanied minor does not provide that assurance. It is my view that UM's should be seated near crew, and alone.

The sad thing I guess is that we seem to have some members here who also hold the presumption males are pedophiles to be true.

[Rowan McKeever]

All airlines have polices around who can and cannot sit in exit rows, will those polices be targeted next?

Those policies are entirely justifiable on safety grounds and are, I would imagine, largely derived from the suite of legislation that governs the carriage of passengers. There's no connection that can be drawn between who can/cannot sit in an exit row and who can/cannot sit next to a UM.

[Craig Murray]

Those policies are entirely justifiable on safety grounds

As are the airlines UM policies - bear in mind these children can be as young as 5 per the following Qantas web page QF Unaccompanied Minor Information (http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/children-travelling-alone/global/en)

Guys these are kids we're talking about. Kids who's parents have very valid reasons for utilising this service offered by our major domestic carriers. To offer this service the airline must make every endeavour to maximise the safety of all UM's on board, which they do. In their care the airline will make decisions on behalf of those children - if this means moving a passenger then the decision is final, accept it not as a personal insult but as a decision made by the staff to make certain that the carriage of UM's on any given flight is safe and secure.

[Wayne D]

With this in mind, would should the policy not be to place UM's away from any adult? That would then ensure nobody will conduct themselves inappropriately seated next to a minor.
Again, whilst children need to be protected, so do the values of presumption of innocence for everyone, including flying males instead of the presumption we are pedophiles.

Lucky the airlines don't run our judicial system, all men would be imprisoned for life on the basis of a belief.

[Craig Murray]

With this in mind, would should the policy not be to place UM's away from any adult?

Indeed, agree entirely. The only time the policy should be required is where there are no spare seats on a flight.

[Rowan McKeever]

As are the airlines UM policies

What I was trying to say is QF, DJ, JQ etc have not applied any requirements for exit row seating that are not absolutely essential to the use of the exit, ie be able to safely open it and leave through it, be able to assist others and not obstruct the path to the exit.

The UM policy being discussed in this thread applies a subjective judgement by the airline that adult males pose a higher risk to the safety and wellbeing than women and should therefore not be seated next to a UM. I personally have no issue with this policy as long as the onboard crew handle it discretely. I suspect, if these two incidents had been handled discretely, we wouldn't have this thread at all as the general public would be blissfully unaware of said policy.

[Mark B]

Guys these are kids we're talking about. Kids who's parents have very valid reasons for utilising this service offered by our major domestic carriers. To offer this service the airline must make every endeavour to maximise the safety of all UM's on board, which they do.

Yes, but they are required to do this in a non discriminatory manner.

[Nathan M]

AFAIK, VA's policy is to seat UM's in the last row of the aircraft first on, last off it also ensures that they are close to the rear galley F/A's I doubt they would be seated up the front in J unless of course they have a paid J-ticket. Also interesting to note is that Persons in custody are usually seated in the last row in the middle seat with their minders on either side (aisle/window) and the same applies as in first on last off, obviously if UM's are travelling on a same flight as PIC then there have to be some contingencies in place but unfortunately I am not aware of these maybe someone in the know like Radi would care to elaborate/correct me.

[D Chan]

a few comments:

- airline policy with regards to unaccompanied minors are intended so that the minors are seated at specific locations close to or near where cabin crew are and where possible with line of sight and away from other passengers, load permitting.

- surely airlines are not stupid and they would not introduce such rules if there were no precedent and history, or some data to support this move. In addition airlines work with relevant regulatory stakeholders on these issues and I highly doubt they would introduce these measures without their support.
It just makes me laugh sometimes that armchair critics out there without any operational knowledge start pointing fingers and accusing airlines of discrimination. In this situation as well as others, maybe they weren't handled as well as they should be, but who is this person to complain when it was done in the best interest and welfare of the minor? can someone give this guy a tissue? :rolleyes:

- the comment regarding how this is discriminatory against males - I don't like quoting wikipedia but:
On the basis of a range of published reports, McConaghy estimates a 10 to 1 ratio of male-to-female child molesters." It is believed that the true number of female pedophiles is underrepresented by available estimates, and that reasons for this may include a "societal tendency to dismiss the negative impact of sexual relationships between young boys and adult women, as well as women’s greater access to very young children who cannot report their abuse", among other explanations
this supports some of the posters comments and I don't dispute that view regarding females at all. But even if it is understated it is nevertheless still 10 to 1 and quite a long way off 1 to 1. What do Australian data say about this?

- why don't we just move the minor instead of the male passenger?
if the aircraft is waiting to depart would it not be easier to move a male passenger and replace the pax with a female which is essentially a 1 to 1 transfer? on a full flight where will the cabin crew seat the minor whilst following airline policy and procedures regarding where minors should be seated and probably in line of sight of cabin crew?

- what's the proportion of female to male staff in the childcare industry?

[Justin L]

This has now made the news here in America, with this USA Today article (http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/story/2012-08-15/Airline-seating-policy-on-unaccompanied-minors-causes-stir/57074948/1?loc=interstitialskip). It also mentions the policies of other US and international airlines.

Southwest Airlines seats children traveling alone close to the front of the plane, says the airline's spokeswoman, Whitney Eichinger.

Spirit Airlines spokeswoman Misty Pinson says the carrier assigns seats to them "in areas where our flight attendants can best assist them throughout the flight."
The airline doesn't allow unaccompanied minors on international flights or domestic itineraries that require a change of aircraft.

Virgin America, which is separately owned from Virgin Australia, has no restrictions on seatmates, spokeswoman Abby Lunardini says.

Delta spokesman Morgan Durrant says the carrier has no restrictions but tries to seat children flying alone next to the galley area where flight attendants work.

British Airways spokeswoman Michele Kropf says that on some flights, the airline creates an "unaccompanied minors zone" near the galley.

And Air France says it seats unaccompanied minors together and without adults in adjacent seats, except when a plane is fully booked.

[Wayne D]

I think that in the USA the airlines would avoid policies such as the discriminatory ones employed here, simply on the basis that many men there would be far more likely to litigate.

This also demonstrates that despite the USA undoubtedly having a higher number of sex offenders from both genders in their society, they don't feel they need to discriminate against all men, and as stated earlier in this thread, they might just recognise that predation by females is largely underrepresented in statistics for the reasons earlier mentioned.

[Craig Murray]

OK Wayne, we get your point..........

[Mick F]

Where's the Like function on this board? Thanks Murray

[Andrew P]

I would love to ask an actuary to work the likelihood of an unaccompanied child on a flight being seated next to a person with paedophilic feelings. I expect the answer is so close to zero, that the real answer is probably zero. It would take the person with paedophilic feelings to book the last row, on the off chance of getting an unaccompanied child next to him/her. Being honest not place to pick up children; we don’t separate children on the train/bus to school, a more likely scenario.

That person will not be convicted paedophile; as such person will have travel restrictions etc. under the Sex Offenders Registrar.

Now this letter from an abused victim in today’s SMH, says it all, The airlines policy has nothing to do with children and everything to do with adults (http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/pressured-britain-discards-morality-20120817-24e9y.html)

My 2 older kids have travelled the world unaccompanied, (their mother lives in London), and have never had a problem. In fact knowing my son if something went wrong his voice would be loud enough to wake up all passengers on the plane.

Andrew

[Ray P.]

Perhaps we shouldn't let males teach kids as well. It's a sad reflection of our society when we have policies that are developed to fix a perception. In this instance (and many others), people are so paranoid for the safety of their children when in reality, the parents themselves are more likely to harm their children in an accident whilst driving them to the airport in the first place.

I recently heard a child protection investigator saying that even after investigating some of the most heinous acts performed against children, he still lets his own young kids walk a reasonable distance to school, unaccompanied. He said that he won't be sucked in by the unjustified paranoia that seems to exist in todays society and he would much prefer that his kids participate in society and not be mollycoddled. The overprotection of some parents often does greater harm in the long term.

[Ash W]

Ray your right about unjustified paranoia, there are many many examples of this. Airline security in general being one.

The media play a large part in this. For example last night I was in Sydney watching the footy whilst my wife was in the CBD "All alone". When I got back and asked what she had been up to she told me she went back to the hotel about 6:30pm because the streets of Sydney were so dangerous. Now whilst yes there have been issues in Sydney recently, the simple fact is most of that crime is targeted or could happen anywhere. But because of the way the media hypes it she thought it was true.

The same goes with these policies and the general fear that drives them.

[Gareth Forwood]

I thought I might as well throw my two cents into the mix here... I have two points to make - one is about the policy itself and the other is about its execution on the aircraft.

The Policy
What Virgin and Qantas are doing here is basic risk management based on the fact that men are statistically more likely to commit a sexual crime than women. They are also considering the possible consequences of failing to act.

There are essentially four possible scenarios based on whether or not the "no males" policy is in place, and whether or not a child molester is, God forbid, seated next to a child.


Scenario 1: No policy, no molester --> no problem
Scenario 2: Policy in place, no molester --> assuming the male passenger is notified in a courteous and appropriate manner, the consequence to the male passenger is a rather minor inconvenience.
Scenario 3: Policy in place, child molester seated next to child --> the passenger is moved, thereby removing (or at least significantly reducing) the threat.
Scenario 4: No policy, child molester seated next to child - I am sure you can all understand the seriousness of this situation and the potential outcomes. Physical and emotional impacts aside, from a purely financial standpoint, it is in the airlines' interests to enforce this policy to avoid a potentially massive lawsuit of scenario 4 does eventuate.

Now I understand that the likelyhood of scenarios 3 and 4 occurring are very low, but as long as the situation is handled appropriately, I am happy to suffer a minor inconvenience to improve the safety of children.


Policy Implementation
I think most people here would agree that the situations were handled poorly by staff (assuming the media reports are accurate). And this is the key reason that the airlines have come under such public criticism. It would be more prudent for the airlines to ensure that males are never seated next to children (I'm sure they're seat allocation system would be capable of this...). Additionally, to say "this man cannot sit next to children" was an absurdly stupid thing to say, and I think it is this that could open the airline to litigation.

Some people here and in the media have inferred that the next step society is likely to take is to not let males teach or have any career involving children. Males and females in those professions are required by law to undergo regular checks to ensure they do not pose a risk to children. I don't yet have any children, but if I did I would have no problem whatsoever if they had a male teacher, knowing that that teacher had undergone a background check.

[Ash W]

You could add a few more scenarios to the list too.

How about child molester (male) sits next to child and nothing happens, simply because an aircraft for the most part is a very public place with very little time to groom the kid and commit the offence and for it to go unnoticed.

Or heaven forbid child sits next to female molester and something happens. Though again even this one is very remote for the reason above.