Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Assigned Seats? Airlines Face Heat For Discriminatory Seating Policies
A recent example from Qantas airlines illustrates a rare form of what some are calling "reverse discrimination" after a man was told to move seats because he was sitting next to an unaccompanied minor.Qantas and Virgin both have safety policies that require unaccompanied minors to be seated alone or next to women.
Virgin Australia is reviewing its policy after a recent case involving a firefighter who was asked to switch seats after being seated next to two unaccompanied young boys, the country's Sunday Morning Herald reported.
Qantas is now taking heat as well after a weekend incident where a male nurse was asked to move in a similar situation. The passenger in question, a male nurse, told the Sunday Morning Herald that he found his treatment "insulting and discriminatory."
British Airways recently overturned their similar policy after a man sued for sex discrimination.
What do you think? Is it discriminatory to prevent unaccompanied minors from sitting next to adult males during flights?
[Flickr via planegeezer]
Filed under: Australia, Airlines, Consumer Activism, Airline Reviews
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Peter Forster Aug 13th 2012 5:26PM
Well of course the policy is discriminatory and, given that most child abuse is committed by women, it is discrimination with no basis in reality either.
Eager Traveler Aug 13th 2012 9:04PM
The airlines have the information of who is who and where they are sitting. You would think that seats would automatically be blocked when there are minors traveling alone. Expensive mistake otherwise.
PensacolaPete Aug 14th 2012 6:27AM
The question, whether or not this policy is discriminatory is ridiculous. Of course it is. The next time I board a Qantas or Virgin Australia flight, and am seated anywhere near a child, I will demand to be moved, since I don't want to have to listen to the child's misbehavior, feel the child kicking the back of my seat, walking over me every 30 minutes to go to the loo, etc., etc. That is the proper discriminatory policy, to protect passengers who want a peaceful flight from the unaccompanied children.
Aisha Aug 15th 2012 1:41AM
What is so discriminatory? If you guys are so touchy then maybe you should get your own airline. What say? Can you? If the answer is no then hold your horses and don't join the "Oh my God! I have been discriminated" bandwagon. Just relax and move on with life.
Cook Aug 20th 2012 6:05AM
You've just got to be kidding! As a senior male, I buy the seat (and cabin) that I want. If some snot-nosed kid comes along, they are welcome to occupy the seat next to me, but ONLY if well behaved. I've been through this countless times and I can report that the majority of kid ARE extremely wll behaved. However, if there is is an issue, tht airline, fulk airplane or not, had better move the kid. I've paid a small (or extremely large) premium for my specific seat and I find NO NEED to move. Unless I'm offered an instant upgrade (difficult, since I usually fly BC or FC) I will decline until ordered to do so. If the airline does not want to seat a kid near be, so much the better. They have birthdates as a part of the booking process, so don't assign the kid to the seat next to me and damn sure don't leave it up to the poor FAs to sort out. And if it really matters, I do not like 'little girls' or 'little boys.' Accommodating these seating requirements is the airline's responsibility, and damn sure not mine!
One other note: That poor 'Female Passenger," next to whom the at-risk waif should be seated (per policy) is NOT necessarily a toding grandmother with six grandkids of her own. That "Female Passenger," is just a likely to be a drug-crazed broad, speaking obscene words, smelling to high-heaven and dressed like an undressed hooker. She may easlily be none of those, but in today's Coach Class market, the FAs may do some Customer Profiling. Take your choice: The hooker-like woman who smells, or a well-dressed, elderly gentleman who does not enjoy the close presence of over-active children. Which seating arrangement poses the least threat to the waif? Personally, I'd rather see the kid moved to that disgusting female's side, but the remaining ounce of compassion says that I should smile. and all of that applies to the Unaccompanied Minor (UM) passenger.
If the parents and/or other (adult) family aboard the same flight, but did not bother to book contiguous or nearby seats, often at an extra fee, their accommodations is NOT my problem. They had the chance and they declined it. Now, on board the aircraft, I'm supposed to give up the extra seat that I paid for, just to accommodate their lack of planning, or more likely, their lack of payment, in honor of The Family? I don't like to use ugly words, but those families have one more thought coming their way: You lack or planning (or payment) does **not** offset my enjoyment of an extra-fee service that I chose to **PAY** for. In other words, Mr. and Mrs. Cheap, Ain't No Fucking Way! If you can afford to fly your family to wherever, you can also afford to PAY the FEES necessary to secure the contiguous seats that you want and without causing any inconvenience to other passengers. Replying on the "Family Option," is now a PAID extra service. WIthout PAYING the extra fee, you are NOT entitled to displace others, most of which HAVE paid modest additional fees for their seat of choice. Got it? To put it even more bluntly, that you have a few too many children than you can afford to support in the style that you can afford is not, repeat NOT my problem. As a full-fare paying customer who may have bought a seat preference or other perk, I owe absolutely zero accommodation to those who are/were apparently unable to control their breeding habits. Is that a bit strong? Yes, it is. Just the same, if those families flying in-mass whant to sit together, they, like everone else should pay the necessary fees. Expecting me, also with extra fees paid, to accommodate their needs is beyond belief. If my seat could be upgraded, I would do so, but under huge protest to the airline. If a purchased upgrad was not availabe or for very loing flight, I'd gram by bag and walk, more than willing to duke it out with the airline at a later date. There IS a reason for business and first class, even at the excessive prices. One of the best reasons for those curtains is the isolation from screaming, hyper-active children. And yes, I wholly support a ban on kids (age to be determined) from BC and FC cabins.
Why have I said this much? I just suffered through a 'Premium Class' slight from JFK to SFO, in full-fare BC ("J" fare) with THREE miserably behaved children near my seat. The entire flight was hell-on-a-wing and the airline has already heard about is. Superiour classes of airline service ar extremely expensive! When one pays those rates, one has more than plentiful right to expect a QUIET, peaceful flight. It was recent and and airline involved has not yet had ample time to respond. if they don't reposond in what I think is a proper fashion, I will make a full and detailed report here, as well as to DOT. The as yet unnamed Major Airline is investigating. Allowing them a bit of time to do so is only fair. So help me, dspite paying multiple premiums and an exorbitant fare, the recent flight was probably the worst in my ~~40 years of frequent flying! Got it?
Ross Blyth Aug 26th 2012 3:57AM
The airline has a duty of care to all passengers and generating unnecessary stress to any passenger is inexcusable.