VA/Seating of male pax nr unaccompanied minors

[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]

Originally Posted by Rob R

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]

Originally Posted by Rowan McKeever

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

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]

Originally Posted by Wayne D

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]

Originally Posted by Craig Murray

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]

Originally Posted by Craig Murray

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?

- 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?