Easy-PC

[Tosh McCaber]

From today's Daily Mail. What would you, or you airline have done in these circumstances?
Quote:
Mother and her children grounded by the PC pilot.
To Ann Jordan and her family, it was simply a kind gesture from a fellow passenger who wanted to help resolve a problem.
But instead of allowing one of her two young children to sit on the lap of another traveller during take off add landing, the airline marched her off the plane.
The reason given, by easyJet had nothing to do with safety on board the short haul flight. It was made, it was explained, because of child protection fears.
And even though Mrs Jordan was sitting next to the woman passenger who had offered to look after her three month old son. Kaleb, she was told it was too much of a risk.
Rather than the airline finding an alternative, the 35 year old mother of two was hauled off the plane in tears and told to find a suitable booster seat before she could fly home.
'It was insulting, not just to me but to the passenger who wanted to help,' she said. 'I was absolutely disgusted. It’s correctness gone mad.
'I was in tears when they took me off the plane, 1 felt humiliated. The captain and the cabin crew just would not see sense and compromise, It was crazy.'
Mrs Jordan was flying from Bristol to Newcastle last week after visiting family in Cardiff when the furore erupted
Although she had arrived at the airport with a booster seat for one year old daughter Azrael, once on board she realised it would not fit the planes seats.
The woman passenger next to her happily offered to hold Kaleb, while Azrael sat with Mrs Jordan. But the captain claimed that because the woman passenger was a stranger it was possible although highly unlikely – that Kaleb could be abused
Other travellers tried to persuade the cabin crew to allow the family to continue their journey home but after a delay they were removed the flight. She and her children waited hours for another flight and were allowed to board only after Mrs Jordan's mother drove 60 miles through blizzards with a new safety seat.
Mrs Jordan, whose husband David, 31, is a computer engineer, said she would not fly easyJet again. 'The captain could have let the baby sit next to me on the lady’s knee, but instead, he left us stranded,' she said.
Mrs Jordan had no trouble flying to Bristol because she had been with her sister, Clare Ash, 27, and each sat with a child on their knee. But her sister was not with her for the return journey.
EasyJet said: 'Under the Child Protection Act, it is not easyJet's policy to allow another passenger to take responsibility for an infant to be seated on their lap for Take off or landing
'These Policies and our result action s were taken to ensure the safety of Mrs Jordan and her children. The safety of our passengers is our top priority.’

[Max Angle]

Rather unfair on the pilot who no doubt (and all too commonly these days) had no choice or discretion in the matter. A pathetic situation to get in to though and a reflection on societies near hysterical, tabloid fuelled paranoia about child safety in general rather than EasyJet who probably feel that they have choice but to enforce such rules. I can't find anything in our manual about it so in the absence of any rules I have to say I would let sense prevail if I could.

[Skylion]

There is also the question of course as to whether a complete stranger, volunteering on the spur of the moment to help out by having someone else's infant on their knee has the remotest idea of the responsibility they are in fact taking on in the event of an emergency , and particularly an evacuation, on takeoff and landing. It is a kind offer to make, but its consequences could be dire. Imagine the Mum then claiming that the helpful stranger didnt do enough to save their child etc etc. It is far from a simple matter and is to do with legal correctness, not political correctness. The Captain did entirely the right thing despite any pressures he might have been under to do the contrary. Good to see Easyjet immediately and unequivocally supporting the decision.

[ChocksAwayUK]

Agreed skylion..that does sound much more likely to be the issue.

Remember that the source here is the Daily Mail.

[172driver]

The woman passenger next to her happily offered to hold Kaleb, while Azrael sat with Mrs Jordan. But the captain claimed that because the woman passenger was a stranger it was possible although highly unlikely – that Kaleb could be abused

Has our society really become this mad :ugh: :yuk: :yuk:

[Ashling]

Sadly I think it has.

The Capt made the only decision he could based on the ops manual. If he'd compromised and there had been an incident the company would have been liable and he would have been on a sticky wicket for disobeying the ops manual.

I've had to offload passengers for a variety of reasons and its the most miserable thing to have to do. Well done to Ezy for suppporting their man.

[BellEndBob]

Yes it has.

The safety reasons are quite right and, I am afraid, the child protection. As has been said, we have become a nation of morons who follow every word of the out of control tabloid press. Add to that a justice system that will go for the easy kill every time and you cannot blame prople for being as cautious as this crew was.

Sad but true.

And we are all responsible. Because we have let it happen.

[Ancient Mariner]

One child on her lap and one child in booster seat would be safer than one child each on a lap. I see.
Per

[Tee Emm]

The Capt made the only decision he could based on the ops manual

Thank goodness Winston Churchill wasn't ruled by The Ops Manual in WW2. There was no such monster as Political Correctness in those dark days, either. :rolleyes:

[Nick NOTOC]

clearly the terms and conditions were not read by the mom in question!

[paulc]

Yet she had no trouble flying to Bristol with her sister both of whom had an infant on their knee. Just because there is a family connection between the adults does not eliminate the possiblity of abuse or legal action should something happen. Most adults would, I believe, in that situation put the safety of the child first over their own.

[Curious Pax]

Don't think PC comes into it, although the reasons given to the pax sound a bit daft. From Easyjet's carrier regulations on their website:
If an adult is travelling with more than one infant under the age of two years, but no less than six months, one infant may sit on the accompanying adult's lap and the other infant(s) must occupy separate seats and be seated in a car seat in accordance with the above table.
and
easyJet does not operate an indemnity policy and therefore under no circumstance, under the Child Protection Act, must another passenger be asked to accept responsibility during flight of an unaccompanied minor.
Seems pretty clear for once, especially as the EZY site also defines the acceptable dimensions for a child seat to be used on board.

[kick the tires]

From Bristol they checked in and boarded as a family.

This is somewhat different to being at the gate or in the aircraft and having to ask a complete stranger if they would mind taking responsibility for the baby.

Its no wonder the cabin crew and so the captain sought advice and acted accordingly.

[The Sandman]

The only thing I can add to this sad commentary is a thought which continually recurs to me these days, primarily when operating through the UK : Rules are there for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of ...... What more can you say?

[VSB via OL]

Damned if you - damned if you don't.

" easyJet does not operate an indemnity policy and therefore under no circumstance, under the Child Protection Act, must another passenger be asked to accept responsibility during flight of an unaccompanied minor."

Interestingly, in this case, can the child be classified as "unaccompanied" if mom is there?? Also, if another passenger volunteers through "goodwill", can it be argued that that passenger has been asked?

Regardless, my position would be that the capt has to take into account the presenting information, his understanding of company policy and his esteemed professional judgement to make a decision. He is there - he is responsible for that a/c and I am sure that in any set of similar curveball circumstances different pilots will make different decisions for different reasons and be equally able to justify that decision.

Judgement - for the capt.

[ayrprox]

The country's going to hell in a hand basket.:ugh: :ugh:
When is this pc madness going to stop??.:D :D :=

[haughtney1]

Good on the skipper...............

Two screaming rugrats and a septic mother are not worth a career:ok:

A classic example of the Daily Mail molehill into mountain mentality, I would advise PAX to read the terms and conditions.

PC my arse:D

[pls8xx]

Why does it have to be one or the other?

A successful business does everything it can to accommodate its customers. A boster seat was on hand but didn't fit the seat. Does it fit in a first class seat?

Any management person should forsee this problem and have a booster seat stored at the terminal. No? Odds are somebody at the terminal has one. Borrow one or take $500 out of the till and buy one.

Rule one. Solve the customer's problem. If it costs a few dollars, it's money well spent. And when your work force applies this principle, back em up!

[Marra123]

I was at work at NCL on friday night when this happened. The flight was delayed arriving into BRS an hour late and then delayed a further 45mins whilst the pax was removed. Just as the a/c was due to leave BRS I had the womans husband come up to me in the airport shouting and swearing, being called incompetant and allsorts!

[Kraut]

I love the abreviation availibility used the british language.
What the hell means the abreveation "PC"?
Personal Computer?
Pilot Community?
Pay Cash?
:)

[Logos]

Personally I can't see why the Captain cannot stand up and be counted. To abrogate his command responsibility and make life miserable for this passenger is too crass for words. He is obviously a "yes" man with no sense of leadership in a different situation. Sometimes we need to use Nelsons patch on the stupidity of the rules raher than always protecting our own backside. I would call the behaviour of the crew a disgrace and showing no initiative whatsoever.
We are becoming a nation of idiots. What about the old saying regarding rules being for the "obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men!!"
I know which category the crew of that particular flight belong!!

[Miserlou]

Whatever reason was given, I would not allow a passenger to be inconvenienced by another.
About time people take responsibilty for their own children.

A few years ago, one of my colleagues allowed a passenger to occupy the jumpseat instead of having to wait for the next flight.
Then the company received a complaint from said pax to the effect that the service wasn't good enough and it was uncomfortable. Seemed to have forgotten that the crew were doing HIM a favour.

[dv8]

Kraut
It stands for Political Correctness

[Kraut]

@ LOGOS

Wow, strong words!
Where do you start or end not following written rules and think you can "rule" just because you are a captain?:=

@dv8
thank´s for lighting up my simple mind!:)

[BitMoreRightRudder]

Spot on Kraut.

Logos

Do you think the captain in question enjoyed kicking off that women and two young kids? The easy course of action was to tell the senior to close the door and get cracking with the safety demo. The commander took the difficult decision of sticking to the company regulations, however unpleasant and unpopular that decision was. As Kraut alludes to, it isn't the captain's aircraft and it isn't his/her airline.

Call the crew all the names under the sun Logos - fact is you weren't there. It's very easy to armchair quarter back this one; I imagine it is a hell of a lot tougher to stand infront of a plane load of pax and explain to a mother of two that she and her young family aren't travelling because the company regulations reflect the sh*t world we live in. The captain was bound by those regulations whether he liked them or not. :(

[shaky]

Shouldn't this problem have been addressed at the check-in desk or the boarding gate? Why did this situation develop to the extent that the crew had to sort it?

[Marra123]

I also think the captain has made a the right choice and has followed the rules correctly. Why would he want to dealy the flight for 45 mins whislt she was offloaded and her bags were found and whilst the load sheet was changed also. He didnt do it just to make the woman strugle he did it because it wasnt worth him possibly losing his job over. The article says that the entire crew showed no comfort or consideration towards the lady. I suspect that the paper may have went a little over the top on this one yet again.

[Bealzebub]

A parent travelling with two children under the age of 2 needs to plan carefully. It appears that on one flight she took along another family member who took charge of one infant or young child and obviously that was sensible and mitigated any problem. On the second flight she had attempted to solve the problem by utilizing a car seat that unfortunetaly wouldn't fit in the seat.
Although another passsenger offered to assist by taking charge of one of the children, the airline it seems wouldn't permit that to occur.

I can imagine that staff might have (as sometimes happens in these difficult situations), quoted acts such as the Child Protection Act to excuse an action, when in reality they probably have no idea what the act actually states or encompasses ? However parental authority it seems was being given to another adult to act in loco parentis on this occaision thereby giving the necessary permission.

The problem arises because such permission it seems, is contrary to the airlines rules (which presumably are stated in its booking terms and conditions). If that is the case then the passenger implicitly accepted those conditions when booking the flight. The airlines staff were obliged to ensure those rules were executed, and as unfortunate as it was the passengers had to be removed.

It sounds like better planning by all, would have prevented this situation being allowed to develop all the way through to the "onboard stage". I have always believed that child seats (where required ) should only be supplied by the airline as a part of the advance booking procedure. Children under 12 should never be seperated on board from the responsible adult or guardian unless alternative arrangements have been made with the carrier. No more than one infant or child under 2 should be allowed to accompany one responsible adult.

It seems that neither the airline nor its handling agents did a very good job of allowing this situation to develop. However with the best will in the world we all know these type of things sometimes happen. The crew were the last link in the chain and shouldn't be blamed for then having to be the ones who ensured the compliance.

[llondel]

Sometimes the best way to deal with 'silly' rules is to stick to them rigidly and with lots of publicity, exactly as done here. That way the senior management get to review things and either allow a bit of discretion or modify things to work better next time.

Subject to what the lawyers say, provided both the parent and the helper understand the risks and agree to them, the airline should just let them get on with it (they're still safer than they were on the car journey to the airport). After all, had the mother found someone in the departure lounge who would agree to help out, would the airline have been any wiser? Two people boarding together with two children wouldn't have attracted any particular notice

[Marra123]

No more than two infants per accompanying person are allowed. Infants under two weeks of age will not be accepted for travel.

Children aged two years or over must occupy their own seat and pay the same fares as adults.

It is the accompanying person's responsibility to ensure that the minor is adequately secured into the aircraft seat. To this end easyJet will accept a car seat supplied by the accompanying person for any child over six months for whom an airline seat has been purchased, provided that the car seat has a rigid metal or plastic frame, is no wider than 42cm, includes lap, shoulder and crotch straps, and is upright and forward facing. The required restraint device for the age of the infant is detailed below:

The above text is from the Easyjet websites terms and conditions.

Looks as though the seat was wider than 42cm and thats why she was obviously refused travel. Cant really blame anyone I dont think, Obviously the passenger didnt get the tape measure out!

[haughtney1]

After all, had the mother found someone in the departure lounge who would agree to help out, would the airline have been any wiser? Two people boarding together with two children wouldn't have attracted any particular notice

Now llondel, apply that statement to any of your kids (if you have any etc..:ok: ) imagine a situation where an emergency takes place.
Would you be happy to entrust your toddler with someone you meet in a departure lounge?
The next thing that will happen is that the "helper" would get sued for contributing to a toddlers' injuries etc.....

Most rules like this protect an airline from particularly litigious individuals..and you can bet that someone who runs to the Daily Mail over their own ignorant mistake, would be the same type of individual who would run to a "where theres blame theres a claim" legal practice.

Just your average stupid passenger getting upset and trying to blame someone else because of their own lack of intelligence.

[Riverboat]

Most of us (sadly not all of us) realise that the country is going to the dogs. Not sure who is ultimately responsible for this, but I suppose the last two governments (Conservative and Labour) have a lot to do with it. But clearly there are posters who actually think what happened is perfectly reasonable - not many, thank goodness. But those that do are party to the problem, and I am afraid we are on a runaway train, and whilst they may be in the minority right now, in 10 years time they will be in the majority. We will probably have to have a major world catastrophe with massive mortalitities and starvation before people in this country start to get their values sorted out.

So given this situation, did the Captain make the right or wrong decision? The wrong one, because we should all do whatever we can to arrest this decline of common sense (actually, an elemination of common sense) whenever we can. This takes guts. We should encourage people to DO THE RIGHT THING, and support them when they do.

[llondel]

You say that, but I do remember a case a while back where a mother turned up with too many underage children and a man (even more scary, according to today's media) offered (in the presence of cabin crew) to have one on his lap even though he was wearing his suit at the time. His comment was that he had kids of his own and understood the mother's dilemma having no way of getting home with all the children. The family was allowed to fly on that occasion. I've just done a quick search for it but haven't found a relevant article yet. However, I don't think it was on easyJet.

I make no comment on whether it's a good idea or not, merely that (a) it has happened in the past and (b) it can happen even if the crew know nothing of it. I only have one kid so I hope it wouldn't apply to me, and he's old enough for his own seat now :)

[Luke SkyToddler]

The fact that this thread has even gotten to 2 pages in length indicates that pprune is now pretty much ruled by enthusiasts and armchair experts ... and muppets that actually believe what they read in the daily mail.

The airline pays us a great deal of money to operate their aircraft in accordance with the rules outlined in the law and in the ops manuals. End of story. Except in certain well defined emergency cases we do NOT have carte blanche to operate outside the rules - and even then, if we do we had better be prepared to provide a damn good reason for it afterwards.

The daily mail's basic reason for existence is to cook up 50 pages a day of manufactured 'political correctness' outrages because the British Public love to be outraged by stories of political correctness gone mad. Looks to me like the truth here is a lot more mundane, some punter has pitched up with two kids and a car seat that won't fit in the seat. She's in clear breach of the conditions of boarding but expects to be accommodated nevertheless even though that means the crew have to go outside the clearly defined parameters of the rules - which have nothing whatsoever to do with child molesting and everything to do with pax safety in the event of an evacuation. In accordance with SOP, the passenger is duly denied boarding. Well woop de doo, I'm sorry but where's the story in that?

[Bealzebub]

Riverboat wrote :
"So given this situation, did the Captain make the right or wrong decision? The wrong one, because we should all do whatever we can to arrest this decline of common sense (actually, an elemination of common sense) whenever we can. This takes guts. We should encourage people to DO THE RIGHT THING, and support them when they do."

The Captain made a decision and in that situation the Captain is the final arbiter. In any event that decision was correct because it was in accordance with the companies rules which the Captain is charged with ensuring are, in all normal situations, complied with. There was nothing extraordinary about this womans situation. The Captain is in any event charged with ensuring the safety of everybody on board. Safety is not enhanced by a woman struggling with two infants / young children who she cannot adequately secure without enlisting the help of other passengers. In an emergency those same volunteers or willing conscriptees may not be able to ensure the safety of the young child or infant and may therefore compromise the safety of other people around them. In fact common sense would actually be to remove the passengers. Of course natural human compassion would wish for a better outcome or resolution, but that is another matter and when it comes down to hard facts, as ultimately it must, irrelevant.

The woman was not complying with the conditions of carriage. It is very likely that as a result of an unfortunate set of circumstances she found herself in that situation, but nevertheless that is where the fault lies, like it or not.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

When travelling with small children, I've found that sometimes airlines and airports are prepared to provide staff to help cope with them ...

... but the one thing the parent actually wants to the staff to do is hang onto the child and stop it from escaping, whilst the (lone) parent does something else exciting, like collect the baggage or go to the loo ...


... and the one thing that the airline or aiport staff will absolutely refuse to do is ...

... touch the child:confused: :confused: :confused: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

So why offer to help if they're not, in practice, actually going to be prepared to do anything useful????:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[TimV]

I agree with shaky on this one - why wasn't this issue spotted and dealt with at check-in? I've sat at Edinburgh as pax on an Easyjet flight for over 2 hours whilst a replacement child seat was sought for a passenger carrying two infants. Timewasted for ops and passengers alike.

[DILLIGAFF]

The thing that surprises me most about this story is that the Daily Mail is running a negative (in their eyes) story about an airline other than BA.
D

[Nov71]

Up to now, no-one appears to have quoted the Conditions of Carriage correctly. The key Condition is "An adult with two or more infants aged six months or less cannot be accepted for travel."
This should have been caught at check-in

EasyJet Reg's do not allow child car seats for infants under 6 months.

Anyway the seat should have shoulder, lap & crotch straps and be forward facing.
Their requirement is in excess of an EU approved child car seat Cat 0 so I doubt many would be permissable

Business sense suggests EasyJet should provide an approved seat at booking/check-in for a nominal fee (if any) since they will charge for the extra a/c seat reqd (with tax)

Rules may be rules, and I don't criticise the crew, but silly rules can be changed, as BA and Ryanair have found to their cost. (crosses and wheelchairs) Single parents with 2+ kids, no car or immediate family cannot fly?

[Bobbsy]

I think Nov71 speaks some sense here.

As a piece of SLF, even I can see that the Captain had little choice but to enforce the rules. I can also see that putting this down to simple political correctness was, as usual, journalistic licence. The Captain in no way deserves to be criticised or villified for enforcing the rule.

However, as Nov71 says, that doesn't mean people shouldn't be critical of the rather unfair and inconsistant rule itself. I would agree that a far better way of handling this (and ensuring any child seats used are up to standard) would be for the airline to provide them at an appropriate charge.

Bobbsy

[atmosphere]

A child was abused onboard an Easyjet aircraft today. A mother flying with her two children asked another passenger to help out, the passenger agreed and took control of the infant on his lap! Subsequently, the child was abused. Although rules in Easyjets operational manual and conditions of carriage state that this shouldn't happen, EasyJet ignored this rule, leading to this horrible attack.

The mother is now in legal proceedings, and is thought to be claiming for £10million in damages.

Although untrue, Imagine reading that in a newspaper, Easyjet have RULES to protect themselves, Crew, and Passengers!! If they are going to break one rule, why not break them all!!!??

Good on easyjet and the crew for enforcing this rule, and making what must of been a horrible decision for all involved!

[SirToppamHat]

PC = Political Correctness.

STH

[Red Comet]

It might help future situations if airlines provided suitable booster seats......

[Saintsman]

Lots of oppinions regarding the crew doing the right thing and carrying out the rules. I wonder, however, if it is true that said crew always carry out every rule in the book to the letter?

Quite right that Easyjet has backed them up but you should expect the oposite if the rules are broken. You can't pick and choose.

A common sense approach is what's really needed.


BTW, I flew Easyjet yesterday and a pleasant experience it was, with what appeared the whole crew fully enjoying their job. Excellent.

[Marra123]

This has been in the Daily Mail and has been in North East papers and T.V for the last two days,and has also managed 3pages on here!!

The passenger was offloaded I think it was around 7.45pm on friday evening, the a/c departed to NCL ten a little later, It then returned to BRS with the same crew approx 2hrs later and the passenger was accepted with two infants as her mother had brought a soutable car seat to carry the baby. At the end of the day she was in the wrong regarding the t and c's and was not left stranded, she was accepted on the next flight by the same captain two hours later! and arrived at her destination 3 hours late.

[mini]

We live in a world gone mad.

Mother reads the T & C.

Mother hands over the child to next seat pax. - mothers decision, had option of otherwise buying a seat for mentioned sprog, where's the airline liability?

Mother hands over child to CC - airline see's no potential liability...

Jeez.

[llondel]

I think part of the problem is: how many people ever read the Ts & Cs? Ask yourself when you last checked out the small print before getting on a train or a bus or an aircraft (as paying pax!). Apart from the rules about what can be taken through security (not read/understood by many, based on the pile of confiscated items) I doubt if many people think of more than (pay for ticket) = (transport to destination).

[Curious Pax]

If the return flight was booked as an adult and 2 infants you would have thought that the confirmation e-mail would emphasise the restrictions in such cases - never having been in that position it could be that it does of course.

Like others I don't see this as PC gone mad, but a failure in the system that allowed the problem to get any further than the check in desk. It is fairly well known that not all car seats are suitable for use on an aircraft seat, so a quick check at the check in desk (or bag drop if they did it online) to ensure compliance would have saved the trouble, and depending on when they checked in may even have given them chance to get a different seat before the original flight left.

[Globaliser]

Mother hands over the child to next seat pax. - mothers decision, had option of otherwise buying a seat for mentioned sprog, where's the airline liability?You're forgetting the difference between the truth and the litigation that might be necessary to try to establish the truth. There are few bounds to the ingenuity and persistence of lawyers trying to establish liability. In such a situation, it could cost EZY many tens of thousands of pounds just to prove that it was not liable. Many companies and insurers give up and pay out substantial sums of money as nuisance value settlements, even though they weren't to blame - just to avoid the costs of being right.

Where's the sense in that? Far better to avoid the problem to start off with.

(And this is a view from a lawyer.)

[zon3]

Hi all. How could the mother+ infant#1 be seated next to a stranger+ infant #2, and then another person in a 3-seat row? Surely that would mean a requirement for 3+2=5 oxygen masks... How many masks per 3-seat row is that aircraft fitted with?

[NiteKos]

Seen it written several times on this thread.
An old saying
" Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools."
Get real after 40 years in the business
A new saying.
" Rules are for the obedience of wise men and the guidance of fools."
We have moved on for better or worse and have to live with it.
NK

[The Trappist]

I'm sure I was told that the 'Rule Book' was something to sit on, so you could see better out of the cockpit window...

[merlinxx]

I use Easy often and can commend the service. CC & F/D are a good bunch. I've been in the industry many years and have spent a lot of my life positioning as SLF and welcomed Easy, it's made European travel much more cost effective for many of us, don't break a good thing not just for joe public, bit also for us in the industry that have to travel a heck of alot.

PS. I'm not Easy staff, just a happy user

[bolkow]

I cant help thinking all of this is self made by the travelling public who are all to eager to sue given the slightest opportunity, we are simply witnessing the results of our own greed.

[Permafrost_ATPL]

The country's going to hell in a hand basket.
When is this pc madness going to stop???

Put the Daily Mail down... Slooooowly. There. Breathe in. Relax. Try not picking up the Mail for a whole week. Read other papers. Take long walks in the woods.

Now, not too fast, start using your brain a little. Have you or your relatives been mugged recently? No. Do you live next door to a pedophile? No. Do you have a good salary? Yes. Would you pay more taxes in France, Germany, Belgium,etc? Yes.

See? Better. Smile

:ok:

P

[poorwanderingwun]

Simple answer to this one... should be no children allowed on flights who are under 5 years of age... flying today is more than uncomfortable enough without the addition of screaming infants... ( incoming )
While at it... when it comes to Brit pax... no adults under the age of 5 years either.

[RAT 5]

easyJet does not operate an indemnity policy and therefore under no circumstance, under the Child Protection Act, must another passenger be asked to accept responsibility during flight of an unaccompanied minor.

Am I missing something here? I interpret this a meaning the airline can not ask a fare paying pax to take care of an unaccompanied minor. The minor was not unaccompanied, and the airline did not ask a fare paying pax to look after them.

This would seem to be a misinterpretation of the rule quoted.

What right does any transport carrier of any type have to overrule a parent in this way? What would have happened if the mother had used the booster seat and carried her baby and then wanted to use the toilet? Would it have been allowed by the captain for the parent to give consent to a neighbouring volunteering pax to oversee 2 children for 5 minutes. Or would she have had to cross her legs for 2 hours.

Easy jet were quoted as saying that the safety of the passengers is their top priority. Correct. That means don't bend the a/c on takeoff or landing, and if they do, make sure all pax are best prepared to survive same said oopse daisy. That is where it stops. If all pax are strapped in and briefed, and all children are also secured in a booster seat or on a lap in a lap strap, then they have fulfilled their end of the bargain. (I don'tt want to get inot the discussion about abusive agressive pax. That is another mattere entirely.)

Regarding the question about whether a stanger would offer due care to the child in an evacuation is a matter for the parent and not the carrier. In the past, any minor had to have an accompanying adult. One parent + 2 young children might not have been allowed. Imagine one parent blocking an evac struggling with 2 screaming kids. Better to give one to another sane adult and risk fire and damnation from the crew, than not do so and go into the real fires, with a good many others, still stuck on board.

What's more, from posts above, it seems the crew were the only ones who wanted to do this. The pax supported the mother. Democracy did not rule on that day, neither did common sense.

[BOAC]

This happened to me on a BA flight a few years back. I sought 'guidance' from on high.On my flight the 'other passenger' was female - and the decision was absolutely definite - no!

No business can risk the cash-hungry lawyers seizing on every piece of small print. 'Atmosphere' (#41) has said it all. I also commend the post by 'Permafrost_ATPL' (#55):)

[Max Angle]

Would it have been allowed by the captain for the parent to give consent to a neighbouring volunteering pax to oversee 2 children for 5 minutes. Or would she have had to cross her legs for 2 hours. A female friend of mine did just this for a woman on flight a year or two ago. Mother and toddler went to the loo and she volunteered to look after the baby which promptly puked up all over her. Perhaps Easy have a point after all:)

[cwatters]

Would have been nice of Easy to have provided a suitable booster seat or at least checked her seat was suitable at checkin.
I've travelled with twins under 1 year old and the biggest problem is predicting what the rules will be and what will/won't be available on the day... Do you struggle to the gate with a pair of cots and hope there is room on the floor somewhere or rely on the airline providing one that fits to a bulkhead? Will you even be able to get a seat at a bulkhead. Will the cot you requested/booked be on the plane? Given the right conditions our two slept right through a 10 hour flight.

[old,not bold]

If the rule has been correctly quoted as:

"easyJet does not operate an indemnity policy and therefore under no circumstance, under the Child Protection Act, must another passenger be asked to accept responsibility during flight of an unaccompanied minor."

I'm with all those who have pointed that the crew misapplied it, in what was certainly a genuine misunderstanding.

What the rule is intended to achieve , quite rightly, is that no ground staff member, or aircrew, should ask a passenger to look after an unaccompanied minor during a flight, for many good reasons including the danger of sexual abuse. We all know what an unaccompanied minor is; a young child travelling without parent or guardian, known to the trade as an UM, labelled as such and positively handed over at each stage of its jpourney until returned to a named parent or guardian.

The rule has little or nothing to do with the case on Easyjet, and had the Captain known this I am confident he/she would have acted with common-sense..

[RAT 5]

People seem to be supporting ej because they can not risk being sued by a parent in case something goes wrong. That is a red herring. The parent gave consent to a prefectly acceptable solution. I still can not see how ej can overrule a parent acting lawfully. If the child pukes that is a risk taken and accepted by the volunteer. If they took umbrage at that it would be with the parent and not ej.

Regarding suing. If it could be shown that the crew acted outside their jurisdiction and mis-interpreted the Ops manual so that this lady and chldren suffered considerable discomfort and financial loss, it is perhaps she who has a case to pursue against ej?

[Skylion]

Sue for discomfort or financial loss after a delay of around 3 hours in a nice warm terminal building due to a situation she herself had created? You must be a lawyer.

[RAT 5]

Skylion:

I am not a lawyer. When you re-read my sentance you will note that it started with IF....... Should the answer be YES, there might be a case; should the answer ne NO, there will be no case.

In any case, this thread is rapidly whirling down the plug hole and so might I suggest 'case closed'.

[CargoOne]

For those who think EZY crew did it right...
You wouldn't be then surprised to read in news "firefighters left small child in burning house because they considered other action may compromise Child Protection Act specifically in the article of not allowing strangers to take child on hands..."

[FlapsOne]

Cargo One

What nonsense! you are equating a scheduled passenger transport flight with a burning building.

I am a Captain with EZ and there is no doubt in my mind that this 'rule' was incorrectly applied in this case. The rule is there to stop crew/ground staff attempting to ask others to care for a child during a flight. If a parent does it, that's now the parent's issue and no longer the concern of the airline.

If I had been asked to rule on the circumstances on that day, having clarified that the parent was happy - close doors and go!

Not worth 4 pages of PPrune though...........

[Right Way Up]

Cargoone...............not even close to being relevant!

[Permafrost_ATPL]

For those who think EZY crew did it right...
You wouldn't be then surprised to read in news "firefighters left small child in burning house because they considered other action may compromise Child Protection Act specifically in the article of not allowing strangers to take child on hands..."

Wow, this is cool! The President of the Oxford Union is a member of PPRuNE. Who would have thought...

P

[CargoOne]

FlapsOne
No, this is not a nonsense. It is just a matter of time and PC progress in EU. 30 years ago no one would even think that helping mother with her child may be considered as possible child abuse. Now that's what we have.
Wait for another 10 years and one day you realize my words were not that far from the truth. Another 15 years and you would be required to sign a release of liability to any emergency service before they will start helping you.

[V1]

Complete nonsense!

A Captain is employed to use his professional judgement. That's what we get paid a reasonable (let's not get side-tracked on that one!) salary for. Day after day this involves making judgements about acceptable risks.

This usually means taking the most sensible course of action AND taking responsibility for it. It is impossible to cover all situations with an Ops Manual, and sometimes real life comes up with situations that were never envisaged when drafting such documents.

As the child in question was sat next to the mother (and was being looked after by another woman) - the risk of child abuse was so small as to be completely negligible.

The chances of an accident from which the child would be injured was also exceedingly small - and if there had been such an accident the chances of a Judge convicting someone of not looking after that child after the parent had accepted their offer of help, is again incredibly small.

Factored together I think the Captain in this situation make a poor assessment of the possible risks.

Too often the "unintended consequences of well mean legislation" bugs our lives and it can only be balanced by good professional judgement.

The paranoid will always try and hide behind the "just in case I get sued" caveat. In this case I suspect it may have been a very junior Captain not used to shouldering the responsibilities involved.

When these sorts of situations crop up you have to take a deep breath, then take a balanced look at the risks involved and use a grown up, professional, responsible, and often common sense, decision.

[Wingswinger]

When these sorts of situations crop up you have to take a deep breath, then take a balanced look at the risks involved and use a grown up, professional, responsible, and often common sense, decision.

Sadly, as those of us who were raised in earlier, happier, non-PC times retire and die out this will be less and less likely.

[PPRuNeUser0205]

The easyJet ops manual states the following on this subject:
"easyJet does not operate an indemnity policy and therefore under no
circumstances, under the Child Protection Act, must another passenger be asked
to accept responsibility during flight of an unaccompanied minor. In addition, it
is not easyJet's policy to allow another passenger to take responsibility for an
infant to be seated on their lap for take-off or landing."
The captain involved complied with a black and white company rule. This rule has been created by senior management in consultation with lawyers who can reasonably be expected to know an awful lot more about the legal aspects of the situation than a line captain. There was absolutely no excuse for the captain to override this particular rule, and he would have been completely out of his mind to do so.
Feel free to condemn the management, the legal system or even the government if you disagree with the rule. Do not condemn someone for doing their job right.

[RAT 5]

Cargo One.

Oh dear I was hoping common sense would have prevailed and this would have died a timely death. However, the nonsense continues.
Considering the firefighters' dilema.....
What about the mother with 2 screaming children who is on the sinking ferry. "All to the boats" is the cry. She can't make it in time, unless she lets someone else take one of her children, possibly even in another boat. If she doesn't, all 3 drown. What should she do? She agrees, but the captain notices and refuses her permission! What next?

No, this is not a nonsense. It is just a matter of time and PC progress in EU.

Progress my aunt-fanny. Why should we lie down and let this process degrade our society into a case for 'One flew over the cukoo's nest'? Show common sense and be damned.

Stangely, the most common sense thing more airlines could do is to carry a disclaimer form. Why do they not? It was always the case, especially in the case of ill pax who did not have a Dr's certificate for travel and needed to get home for treatment at the last minute. Alolwed it plenty of times. If ej stopped trying to re-invent the wheel and followed commonsense SOP this form would have solved an dilema.

[Nov71]

EJ Conditions of Carriage
"An adult with two or more infants aged six months or less cannot be accepted for travel."
Issue of boarding pass at check in suggests Co waiver of this rule

"A child under 6mo of age cannot be placed in a booster seat"
Yet the pax later flew with 'spare' infant in 'acceptable' booster seat having paid for additional cabin seat

T&C at booking did not provide specific acceptable dimensions of suitable booster seat nor indicate that EU specs for car seat for appropriate age was not acceptable. Unfair contract T&Cs

If a parent was accompanig the 'surplus' infant a simple waiver signed by parent and surrogate prior to departure should exonerate the airline of liablity

This case suggests EJ wanted to sell an additional seat to an exempt infant in spite of its T&C

[llondel]

We looked into the booster seat option when we had a child of relevant age, and gave up because British airlines don't seem to comprehend their use and don't publish dimensions anywhere. Similarly, seats aren't sold as being airline-friendly. However, we do get those nice organge lap belts, which US airlines don't supply, but of course you do need a suitable adult lap for the child to sit on, which brings us back to the original problem of one adult, two small children.

[Paranoid Parrot]

Quote from V1:

"As the child in question was sat next to the mother (and was being looked after by another woman) - the risk of child abuse was so small as to be completely negligible.

The chances of an accident from which the child would be injured was also exceedingly small - and if there had been such an accident the chances of a Judge convicting someone of not looking after that child after the parent had accepted their offer of help, is again incredibly small.

Factored together I think the Captain in this situation make a poor assessment of the possible risks.

Too often the "unintended consequences of well mean legislation" bugs our lives and it can only be balanced by good professional judgement."

Agreed.

It brings to mind the saying:
"Rules were made for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools".

How often as a captain have I had First Officers pointing out trivial things when they have overlooked the big picture.

[Boneman]

Ya get what ya pay for.

[Jambo Buana]

I wouldnt be suprised if the CSD informed the captain of the discrepancy and of his/her concern for contravening the OPS manual. This then puts any captain in an awkward position, as he should back his CSD, even though it is not a democracy! So going through his mind is 'what if this old/young trout throws me to the dogs when we get back?' And by all accounts, having already shown no common sense, the CSD will probably let you down, so why risk it for a biscuit?

What is interesting is there is the pilot on this website that follows the book to the comma, and those that are willing to take responsibility for unusual scenarios and make allowances. Provided these pilots are willing, if they end up in gaol, to say they did their level best and were pragmatic in their approach and that they used their discretion and judgement when making their decision then thats fine! But dont moan when the company cannot support you because the book says you messed up.

I come from the Al Haynes and Eric Moody school of flying and I bet 100% that I can guess what they would have done in this scenario!!

Lets not forget, common sense is not very common any more!