13 yo Girl Assaulted on Flight

[vonfirmath]

An UM should be in a row alone if the plane isn't full or with a woman if the plane is. Sad but statistics are in my favor.

 

But to have a policy doing so would be discrimination that would get the company into trouble.

[TXBeth]

But to have a policy doing so would be discrimination that would get the company into trouble.

I really don't think this is true. What rights of the man are being infringed by not seating an unaccompanied child next to him? If they forced the man to move into a less desirable seat, maybe, but there is no reason they would need to do it that way. Just move the kid, shuffle people around between equally desirable seats, or give someone a free upgrade. It wouldn't be that difficult. Every flight I've ever been on, the seat wasn't guaranteed anyway. The flight attendants could move anyone to another seat in the same class for whatever reason. I've actually had them move someone to give my non-ticketed infant her own seat next to me (they moved her into business class).

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I really don't think this is true. What rights of the man are being infringed by not seating an unaccompanied child next to him? If they forced the man to move into a less desirable seat, maybe, but there is no reason they would need to do it that way. Just move the kid, shuffle people around between equally desirable seats, or give someone a free upgrade. It wouldn't be that difficult. Every flight I've ever been on, the seat wasn't guaranteed anyway. The flight attendants could move anyone to another seat in the same class for whatever reason. I've actually had them move someone to give my non-ticketed infant her own seat next to me (they moved her into business class).

 

Anytime you starting moving people based on sex/gender you are opening yourself up to issues.

 

Regarding this case, the girl is not at fault.  The airline is not at fault.  The predator is 100% at fault.

[SKL]

I don't blame the airline for not watching the whole time, but this makes me wonder if unaccompanied minors should be given aisle seats or some other arrangement that enables them to get away or get someone's attention immediately.

 

I remember an article about a guy protesting an airline's policy against seating men next to unaccompanied minors.  (They forced some guy to move, and he was offended.)  The comments went both ways, predictably.

 

Hopefully they come up with a workable solution, short of making unaccompanied minor service inaccessible / unaffordable in the future.

[goldberry]

Really? We're finding faults with how a child behaves while being groped?

 

That was not my intention at all when starting this thread.  I was specifically thinking about the airlines responsibility in the matter.  

[goldberry]

As a parent, I would assume that paying to have my child flown as a UM would mean some care was taken with their seating. This plane couldn't have been full or the people across the aisle would have noticed. Why was she sat next to a man? And a man who got on the plane drunk?? I'd sue if I were the parent.

 

When DD flew UA minor, she was placed in rows that were most visible to the flight attendant. In my head I'm thinking an aisle seat is best, but if DD was asked, she would have asked for a window seat.   It seems the location of the row had more to do with it than if a man or woman was sitting there.

[goldberry]

When I first read about this, I read something about a flight attendant noticing the man sitting next to her before they took off and asking him to move which he didn't do. This alone might make the airline more liable. I can see an attorney saying, "So you were concerned enough to ask him to move, but then didn't enforce it and didn't follow up on the situation until 30 minutes had passed?" Oops.

 

 

 

I didn't see that any where, I will look further.  That definitely changes things.

[goldberry]

I'm not trying to get off topic, but this very thing is what terrifies me when airlines do not to seat families together.  I was that child/teenager on the bus in middle school.  My parents did a great job raising me, IMO, but I was still a quiet, shy child and I never told anyone despite the fact that this went on NUMEROUS times and I could not get away from my abuser on the bus.  

 

I have one daughter who I also know would not speak up until just recently due to her personality and one that likely would.  

 

That is a very valid point!  Airlines are now using this as a way to make extra money, if you don't pay the extra money to sit together, you can get separated.  

 

If something happened due to that process, I could see that going to court...

[StephanieZ]

Know what I think? I think that no airline should place an unaccompanied minor next to a man. PERIOD. Why? Because the vast majority of gropers are men. So, you'd reduce the risk by at least 99% by doing that! You pay a pretty penny for unaccompanied minors. Personally, I think they should be seated next to flight attendants and/or only females. Period. I'm sorry, but that the airlines hadn't already figured that out is insane. Any one will tell you that it's safer, statistically. 

 

Know what else? I think that no airline should place an unaccompanied minor in any seat except the aisle! Only exception being if the child is with a sibling and the sibling is in the next (window or middle) seat. Again, just because this would make it easier for the minor not to become intimidated or secretly groped, and it would also make it easy for busy attendants to see and chat with the child. 

 

Know what else? I think that the airline should require verbal and visual contact at least every 20 minutes for the duration of the flight to make sure the child is OK and can get help if needed. 

 

Airlines now charge around $150/segment for this service. They can build in 20-30 min of time for one of the employees to check on the child if they are offering the service at all. 

Edited July 11, 2016 by StephanieZ

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Know what I think? I think that no airline should place an unaccompanied minor next to a man. PERIOD. Why? Because the vast majority of gropers are men. So, you'd reduce the risk by at least 99% by doing that! You pay a pretty penny for unaccompanied minors. Personally, I think they should be seated next to flight attendants and/or only females. Period. I'm sorry, but that the airlines hadn't already figured that out is insane. Any one will tell you that it's safer, statistically. 

 

Statistically safer, but logistically more difficult.

 

In reality, the likelihood of a child being sexually assaulted on a flight is so low that it would be difficult to construct a legitimate claim of negligence against them for not doing so.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

Airlines now charge around $150/segment for this service. They can build in 20-30 min of time for one of the employees to check on the child if they are offering the service at all. 

 

Not always at landing and take off.  In addition, if a flight has multiples UAs this would be asking a lot of a relatively small staff.  The most likely result would be airlines refusing to allow UAs.

 

[StephanieZ]

Statistically safer, but logistically more difficult.

 

In reality, the likelihood of a child being sexually assaulted on a flight is so low that it would be difficult to construct a legitimate claim of negligence against them for not doing so.

 

I'm not concerned by the legal liabilities. However, I think there is a moral imperative to make the safer choice at virtual no cost/harm to anyone. No vets have gotten rabies in the last many years from their patients, nonetheless, the small risk of contacting rabies via your work exposure to animals makes it worth the cost to every veterinarian to spend thousands of dollars and many hours of discomfort over decades to ensure they are rabies vaccinated. Some costs are worth it, even if the risk is very slight. In the case of the minor inconvenience of finding a seat next to a female for the very occasional child traveler? Huh. I don't see it. 

[marbel]

I'm not concerned by the legal liabilities. However, I think there is a moral imperative to make the safer choice at virtual no cost/harm to anyone. No vets have gotten rabies in the last many years from their patients, nonetheless, the small risk of contacting rabies via your work exposure to animals makes it worth the cost to every veterinarian to spend thousands of dollars and many hours of discomfort over decades to ensure they are rabies vaccinated. Some costs are worth it, even if the risk is very slight. In the case of the minor inconvenience of finding a seat next to a female for the very occasional child traveler? Huh. I don't see it. 

 

Is it "very occasional," though?  It's been a few years since I've flown but I used to quite a bit, multiple times a year for several years.  It was quite common to see UMs on flights - noticeable because they were escorted by FA.   I've known a few kids who flew 2 - 3 times a year unaccompanied. 

Edited July 11, 2016 by marbel

[Tita Gidge]

I'm not concerned by the legal liabilities. However, I think there is a moral imperative to make the safer choice at virtual no cost/harm to anyone. No vets have gotten rabies in the last many years from their patients, nonetheless, the small risk of contacting rabies via your work exposure to animals makes it worth the cost to every veterinarian to spend thousands of dollars and many hours of discomfort over decades to ensure they are rabies vaccinated. Some costs are worth it, even if the risk is very slight. In the case of the minor inconvenience of finding a seat next to a female for the very occasional child traveler? Huh. I don't see it. 

 

I understand why you feel the way you do. I agree with you, to an extent - that when and where possible, it's preferable to "profile" a fellow passenger when seating a UM. But it's not always possible at "no cost" to the airline or at "no harm" to that fellow passenger. And there's an entire legal department at each airline that is concerned by legal liabilities, so this moral imperative must be exercised at the airline employee's personal level - discreetly - and not at the corporate level. The cost an airline has to weigh is a lawsuit by a profiled passenger (more likely) - or worse, a "trial by social media" (highly likely) versus a lawsuit by an assaulted passenger (less likely, statistically).

 

I think yours is a justifiably angry, but naïve, perspective - not only in the writing off of legal liabilities but also in understanding how the airline operation runs. In terms of assigning seats, many are self-selected by passengers. In some cases they pay a fee per segment, too, for the convenience of selecting their own seats (not unlike the fee per segment for the convenience of sending a minor unaccompanied). And, some flight attendants are male. Some crews are all male. Does the airline screen for that, too?

 

It also neglects to account for the primary responsibilities of and the (time, manning) limitations faced by airline employees. From the outside it may seem to be a minor inconvenience, but it could be one of many facing an employee in that moment. Possibly, it gets relegated to the "if there's time" list, where it may - or may not ever - be addressed, depending on the employees' other, perhaps more pressing, duties.

 

IMO $150/segment isn't very much for a convenience fee to ensure a minor child is supervised from gate to gate or signed over to an approved recipient, rather than left to find her way to the curb to be picked up by someone, anyone. The fee is for supervision, not caretaking, and it wouldn't begin to cover the staffing needed for that level of involvement. The parent is responsible for funding, or self-providing, that level of care should it be desired.

 

I have flown twice in the past two weeks. There were multiple UMs on each flight - six alone on our return flight - which is common for summer (and also for winter holidays). It's not an "occasional" thing for the airline, however occasional it may be for the UM.

[vonfirmath]

I have flown twice in the past two weeks. There were multiple UMs on each flight - six alone on our return flight - which is common for summer (and also for winter holidays). It's not an "occasional" thing for the airline, however occasional it may be for the UM.

 

I wonder if it would make sense to seat UMs together on a flight, when there are multiples?  Though of course kids can bug other kids as well.

[Tita Gidge]

I wonder if it would make sense to seat UMs together on a flight, when there are multiples?  Though of course kids can bug other kids as well.

 

I've noticed that they do that at my home airport, which is a larger airport that sees a lot of connecting traffic - especially when the kids are of similar age. I think it's nice for the kids and also helps the flight crew. Win-win!

 

I'm curious if this would be acceptable to people like StephanieZ.

 

If we're basing our seating preferences off of abuse statistics, are we just as cautious about seating a younger UM next to an unrelated 10-15 year old boy who is also a UM? Is the older UM also assumed to be a potential predator?

[SKL]

I would think they could figure out the seating of the UM way before everyone else's seat is decided.  And just hold that seat for them.

 

While I can understand there is a legal issue with not allowing men to sit by UMs, what if they ask the UM or the UM's parent whether they have a preference of whether they sit next to male or female?  My kids have the option in various situations to choose all-girl or co-ed or to choose their roommate / tentmate whatever, so why not allow a preference for a UM?  Then that would not be the airline discriminating against particular passengers.

 

My kids have had to sit next to strangers on the same flight with me.  On our last flight from Warsaw to Chicago (so a pretty long flight), they shared a row with a person who had physical disabilities and could not get up on her own when my kids had to go to the toilet.  (And they didn't speak the same language either.)  It got a bit dicey.  At least I was there (in the next row up) to help figure it out.  I think an aisle seat for an UM is a great idea.  :)

Edited July 11, 2016 by SKL

[amsunshine]

From the stories about this case, it sounds as if the girl was in the window seat and the perpetrator was in the middle seat.   Does this mean there was an empty aisle seat, I wonder?  

 

Just thinking out loud here, but it seems to me that it might be a good idea to generally seat UMs in aisle seats, so there is a better chance of being seen and observed by those around them, including flight attendants.  Being hidden in a window seat with a larger adult blocking the view might not be the best place to seat them.  I always advise my daughters to take aisle seats, or I personally buy them an aisle seat if they fly as UMs, but only because I'd rather have it be easier for them to get in and out of their seat to go to the restroom.  This case gives me an additional reason to put them in an aisle seat, I think.  

[Murphy101]

I'm baffled by why they sat her next to a man. When my ds flew unaccompanied, they always asked a woman and/or woman with kids if he could be seated next to them. Poor girl. :(

Other than the sick presumption that all men are sex offenders...

 

The men pay for their ticket same as anyone else and it's flat out discrimination to suggest all men move to accommodate women and children.

 

And also, if a parent needs someone to supervise their child - they need to pay someone to do it for them or do it themselves. Just because a person is female and or has children with them does NOT mean they appreciate being planted next an UM to watch them too.

 

I don't think any of this is the airlines fault.

[Tita Gidge]

I would think they could figure out the seating of the UM way before everyone else's seat is decided.  And just hold that seat for them.

 

 

So let's say at booking, the airline holds seat 21A (window seat) for the UM. Two hours before departure, John Doe checks in at the kiosk. It offers him a map to self-select his seat. He chooses 21C (aisle, with an empty middle next to 21A). What has been solved?

 

If anything, it may be better to assign the UM's seat LAST.

 

When the gate agent is assigning seats, the seat map that they are shown in the computer has asterisks and letters. These are codes for seats taken, seats available and at what fare level. The agent has to manually go in and search by seat number to pull up the personal information for a given passenger in a specific seat.  So if (s)he wants to check row 21 before assigning seat 21A to the UM, (s)he would need to enter specific codes for seats 21B and 21C to pull up those passengers' PNR to determine their gender.

 

Sometimes there is time to do this, especially if this is a (personal) priority action for the gate agent. Many times there is not time to do this, or it is not a personal priority action for the gate agent. (S)he does have a number of other passengers to factor in, and other people to be in contact with (the tower, the crew, the wheelchair aides, the ramp, etc.) to get the plane out on time. Until very recently, the gate agents at AA were non-union. It was a fire-able offense to have more than three delays on their record, whether this was three delays in three weeks, three years, or thirty years. (Delays within their control, not due to weather, etc.) Rare would be the agent who took a delay to re-accommodate a UM, perhaps especially one as old as 13.

[Tita Gidge]

 

While I can understand there is a legal issue with not allowing men to sit by UMs, what if they ask the UM or the UM's parent whether they have a preference of whether they sit next to male or female?  My kids have the option in various situations to choose all-girl or co-ed or to choose their roommate / tentmate whatever, so why not allow a preference for a UM?  Then that would not be the airline discriminating against particular passengers.

 

 

The discriminating action isn't that anyone has a preference (be it the UM, the UM's family, or even a pro-active gate agent).

 

The discriminating action is requiring a passenger to relinquish an existing seat assignment to accommodate another passenger. 

 

This is true even outside of UMs. I once had a guy prefer to sit next to my then-3 year old than to switch with me. My son and I both had window seats, one row behind the other. The airplane had two seats per side. But this guy's preference was for an aisle seat and by golly, he was not going to be removed from the one had planned and paid for! People are protective of their preferred seats.

 

We flew on a flight where the child had a nut allergy. The airline could request that the passengers in the surrounding rows not consume nut products, but they couldn't require it. Nor could they require anyone to switch seats with the jackass one row over who insisted allergies were exaggerated and he was going to eat his sandwiches if he felt like it. (Someone volunteered to switch.)

 

People are protective of their preferences in general, I guess LOL. Who's to say whose preference takes priority? Does the UM's because the parents paid a $150 convenience fee for the segment? Does the full fare passenger who booked his aisle seat months in advance? Hard to say unless you work in the revenue department! I'm pretty sure the side with the full-fare passenger!

[Tita Gidge]

From the stories about this case, it sounds as if the girl was in the window seat and the perpetrator was in the middle seat.   Does this mean there was an empty aisle seat, I wonder?  

 

Just thinking out loud here, but it seems to me that it might be a good idea to generally seat UMs in aisle seats, so there is a better chance of being seen and observed by those around them, including flight attendants.  Being hidden in a window seat with a larger adult blocking the view might not be the best place to seat them.  I always advise my daughters to take aisle seats, or I personally buy them an aisle seat if they fly as UMs, but only because I'd rather have it be easier for them to get in and out of their seat to go to the restroom.  This case gives me an additional reason to put them in an aisle seat, I think.  

 

amsunshine, that's what I heard also. Here's one possibility that may have happened.

The man pre-reserved a middle seat, hoping to get an entire row to himself. Not a bad strategy. People are less likely to pick the window or aisle seats next to him because most passengers have picked a window or an aisle (leaving an empty middle and an equally desirable seat still available).

 

The agent asks the girl if she prefers a window or an aisle. The girl, being like most kids, prefers a window. The computer assigns the window closest to the front of the cabin; perhaps the last available window seat. (Though I doubt this because that would mean other passengers were within a few feet of her while she was being abused. Unless this guy was really discreet, ... :sad: )

 

OR the girl selects the window seat herself when she checks in, figuring the person who pre-selected the middle seat will move over (leaving an empty middle). It's a reasonable assumption, right?

[marbel]

I would think they could figure out the seating of the UM way before everyone else's seat is decided.  And just hold that seat for them.

 

While I can understand there is a legal issue with not allowing men to sit by UMs, what if they ask the UM or the UM's parent whether they have a preference of whether they sit next to male or female?  My kids have the option in various situations to choose all-girl or co-ed or to choose their roommate / tentmate whatever, so why not allow a preference for a UM?  Then that would not be the airline discriminating against particular passengers.

 

My kids have had to sit next to strangers on the same flight with me.  On our last flight from Warsaw to Chicago (so a pretty long flight), they shared a row with a person who had physical disabilities and could not get up on her own when my kids had to go to the toilet.  (And they didn't speak the same language either.)  It got a bit dicey.  At least I was there (in the next row up) to help figure it out.  I think an aisle seat for an UM is a great idea.  :)

 

I think that would be really hard to manage.  Peoples' preferences can quickly become needs (in their own minds) and what the reservation agents says they will try to do becomes what the reservation agent said they would do and now must do.

 

And, what if they organize it so that the UM is sitting next to a female (their preference) but that person cancels and a man on standby takes her place?  Then they have to juggle people to get the UM her preferred type of seat partner.  And there is always the possibility that the man on standby is a nice guy who has no intention of harming the UM at all and is content to give her a smile as he sits down and then leave her alone the rest of the flight.