Gender Discrimination on Airlines

November 29, 2005 12:00 PM

Is discrimination OK when it's against males in general? Apparently Qantas and Air New Zealand think it is OK to treat all males as potential pedophile. The NZ Children's Commission thinks it is a great move to not seat unaccompanied minors next to males, while the Human Rights Commission tends to disagree. Joe Public can't seem to decide either way.
posted by pivotal (155 comments total)

Generally stupid policy, but I can't imagine getting too upset about it, unless they split up a party (i.e. me and my girlfriend) to do it. It seems like a company policy that would be easy to implement beforehand, rather than once everyone is aboard.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:05 PM on November 29, 2005

I'd be pissed off if I were the woman who got moved to sit next to a kid for a whole fucking flight, just because of my gender.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:08 PM on November 29, 2005

Well it is statistically more true that men turn out to be sexual predators a lot more than women. And abductions on a plane are always a possibility, so you can't blame the airline for being cautious with respect to children. But then again, just to be fair, they could have mandated that nobody take a seat next to a child, woman or man, so that men wouldn't have to feel personally targeted because of their gender. This is turning out to be a case of gender-discrimination, like it or not.
posted by gregb1007 at 12:08 PM on November 29, 2005

i'm definitely gobsmacked by this shizzy. i am usually suspicious of these men who argue male discrimination but this really sounds ridiculous... and i'm surprised australia did it before america!
posted by yonation at 12:09 PM on November 29, 2005

Yeah, can they prohibit women from sitting next to babies? Preferably before the next time I fly?
posted by transona5 at 12:09 PM on November 29, 2005

The policy is still aimed at the idea that having a woman sit next to a minor is better than having a man sit next to them. That is purely discrimination, considering that men and women are equally likely to be pedophiles.

It's not like the guy was a member of the clergy.
posted by mystyk at 12:10 PM on November 29, 2005

The only way to see this as discriminatory is if one would prefer to be seated beside unaccompanied minors. I'd think most males would actually prefer not.
posted by scheptech at 12:11 PM on November 29, 2005

Men and women are not equally likely to be pedophiles. Men are way more likely.

This might actually be a good time to think of the children. Really. Not kidding.
posted by selfmedicating at 12:12 PM on November 29, 2005

Sounds like they want some free nanny services.
posted by leapingsheep at 12:12 PM on November 29, 2005

DUDE! Sotp complaining! If they are going to sit f**king rugrats awayfrom me I really don't CARE why!
posted by BeerGrin at 12:14 PM on November 29, 2005

On preview: pedophiles are inclined to pre-pubescents but need not act on it for the label to be accurate, sexual predators are people who act on sexual impulses regardless of their preferential age. Men are more likely to be predators, independent of pedophilia, but are roughly equally likely to be actually pedophiles. Most people agree that women are more likely to be homosexual than men, although I don't have numbers for it. Should we therefore seat boys next to men and girls next to women? Where are the lines drawn? How convoluted can you make the rules before they become meaningless?
posted by mystyk at 12:14 PM on November 29, 2005

ummm, nevermind the spelling.
posted by BeerGrin at 12:14 PM on November 29, 2005

Men and women are not equally likely to be pedophiles. Men are way more likely.

Take the number of male pedophiles and divide it by the number of men. Take the number of female pedophiles and divide it by the number of women. These will both be tiny, tiny numbers.
posted by grouse at 12:15 PM on November 29, 2005

And abductions on a plane are always a possibility...

Hey! How about a spoiler warning there buddy - I hadn't seen that movie yet!
posted by fairmettle at 12:19 PM on November 29, 2005

Relatives commit 30% of child sexual assaults; acquaintances about 60%; strangers only 10%. Accordingly, in order to maximize their safety, children must not be seated next to relatives or acquaintances - only strangers. It's science!
posted by jellicle at 12:20 PM on November 29, 2005

“Men and women are not equally likely to be pedophiles. Men are way more likely.
This might actually be a good time to think of the children. Really. Not kidding.”
posted by selfmedicating

Men are way more likely to be able to defend the children against terrorists, shepherd the child through an emergancy such as a crash or fire, etc.
Speaking as someone who wouldn’t hesitate to sheild a child in such a situation (call it 'paternal instinct') I’m pretty offended. But every day is “fuck the white* males” day.

Say, isn't the majority of child abuse including abduction, molestation, etc. is committed by family members? So let’s move mom and dad and aunt and uncle away from the child during the flight, eh?

*even white looking, but ethnic types such as myself.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:22 PM on November 29, 2005

jellicle beat me to that point. Drat!
posted by Smedleyman at 12:23 PM on November 29, 2005

grouse writes "Take the number of male pedophiles and divide it by the number of men. Take the number of female pedophiles and divide it by the number of women. These will both be tiny, tiny numbers."

Your statistical prowess renders me speechless in awe, sir. By the same vein, shall I conclude the number of mice and men on Earth is equal?
posted by nkyad at 12:24 PM on November 29, 2005

My first instinct, like most here, was "do you really want to fight for the right to sit next to an unaccompanied minor?" How important is that in the scheme of things? But on reading the article, I'm appalled by the way the airline handled this. They really do have a ban on men sitting next to minors (rather than the other way around) since they made the man change seats (not the child).

I too would be greatly offended if told (essentially) you'll have to change seats because we think you might molest this child during flight.
posted by zanni at 12:24 PM on November 29, 2005

The Air New Zealand spokesperson should have the honesty to admit whether this is based on some form of "risk assessment" - whether it's a perception/argument/proven fact/whatever that men are more likely to be a danger to unaccompanied children or women are likely to better at looking after them if they are sitting next to them during a flight. There is no other rationale for their policy, and their refusal to be drawn on the implications is just plain disingenuous. If it's based on a proper evidence-based risk assessment, then fine, just tell us. Plenty of other organisations, some with legal duties to children, have to base their practice on proper consideration of children's needs. Show us why you have reached your conclusion. If it's a policy that has been made up on the hoof, then that speaks volumes about the airlines' commitment to children - fine on the surface, but not based on anything substantial underneath. I'm very glad that the airlines claim to be taking their responsibility to the children seriously, but really, is this the best way of going about it? Surely there are better ways of discharging your duty to an unaccompanied minor who's a passenger on your flight than this... I note that the preference is to place them next to an empty seat. Surely it's better in an accident to have someone next to them to help them on with oxygen masks or lifejackets, or help them to an exit? This seems like a case of good intentions but bad policies to me.
posted by greycap at 12:24 PM on November 29, 2005

If this worries you, you shoudln't be on a plane at all. It might be hit by lightning, you know, and crash.

Just pure stupidity... "protecting" against an essentially nonexistent threat.
posted by Malor at 12:25 PM on November 29, 2005

This isn't about protecting children. It's about protecting misperceptions.
posted by WolfDaddy at 12:27 PM on November 29, 2005

Your statistical prowess renders me speechless in awe, sir. By the same vein, shall I conclude the number of mice and men on Earth is equal?

Actually, grouse was making a really good point about risk assessment.
posted by vacapinta at 12:27 PM on November 29, 2005

gregb1007 writes "But then again, just to be fair, they could have mandated that nobody take a seat next to a child"

But in this case their political correctness hysteria would actually affect the profits, which is usually not acceptable.
posted by nkyad at 12:27 PM on November 29, 2005

Men and women are not equally likely to be pedophiles. Men are way more likely.

This might actually be a good time to think of the children. Really. Not kidding.

Does your support of gender profiling extend to racial profiling? Because brown people are way more likely to be terrorists, you know...
posted by rocket88 at 12:28 PM on November 29, 2005

As a privileged white male, I don't have a lot of chances to complain about discrimination, so while I have a chance...

It does piss me off that I am thought of as a potential pedophile because I am a man. How could it not? Not that I desire the deplorable pay of a day care worker, but I love kids and wouldn't mind the job otherwise...but I sure would be viewed with a lot of suspicion if I were to apply for the job. Even as a high school teacher, I am always advised to keep the door open at all times if a female is in the room with me. And while we're at it, as the primary childcare provider in my little nuclear family, it gets my goat that almost all parenting advice is directed to "the mother."
posted by kozad at 12:29 PM on November 29, 2005

I call bullshit. If they airlines truly cared about this issue of safety of unaccompanied kids, they'd put them in unused first class seats, where there's less intimacy between the next seat and more supervision.
posted by rolypolyman at 12:29 PM on November 29, 2005

And abductions on a plane are always a possibility, . . .

Abductions to where, exactly? I mean where can you go on a plane?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:30 PM on November 29, 2005

As a pedophile, I am for this measure. The last thing I need on a long flight is the temptation of an unaccompanied, sexy little boy sitting next to me.

Actually, I once took a flight where I was seated next to this old guy who was reading (or looking at, anyway) several hardcore porn magazines between trying to convince the little girl in the row ahead of us to talk and sit with him. The little girl was with her parents, but he chatted them up, too, and eventually the little girl came back to our row for a bit (while he hid the magazine under his tray table). They talked and played with her toys. I really, really wanted to sleep more than anything, but stayed awake to keep an eye on the guy. He didn't do anything weird.
posted by notmydesk at 12:31 PM on November 29, 2005

Why don't they just move the kid? That pretty much solves the problem. To prevent it in the future, they can seat the child anywhere they like, so hold unaccompanied minors until after everyone else has boarded, then put him in whatever seat they like. I doubt there will be a long line of childfree patrons demanding to sit next to kids.
posted by headspace at 12:32 PM on November 29, 2005

Can someone explain to me how this has anything to do with political correctness? Some guy in one of the articles said it, and now it's here in this thread.
posted by goatdog at 12:33 PM on November 29, 2005

I'm usually not a fan of "If such-and-such [bad idea] makes sense, then what about so-and-so [more obviously bad idea]" kinds of arguments, but I can't help myself...

So, if it's not discriminatory to move a man sitting next to an unaccompanied child (for the safety of the children), then should women be barred from sitting in the emergency exit row (for the safety of all passengers)? After all, statistically speaking, aren't women going to be less physically able to open the door and help other passengers? Plus, won't they be more likely to lose their cool and start crying if there's an emergency? I mean, 1/4 of them are probably hormonally challenged at any one time, right, and are poised for a breakdown?
posted by tentacle at 12:33 PM on November 29, 2005

vacapinta writes "Actually, grouse was making a really good point about risk assessment."

Good but at least incomplete in the context. The number of men and women in the word is roughly equal - the number of identified male sexual predators is some orders of magnitude larger than the number of female sexual predators. No matter how large the number you divide them by, short of infinity, the results will be orders of magnitude apart. If you are talking about absolute risk, if you keep your children away from churches the risk of a sexual attack is tiny. But what the figures say is that if an attack happens, the attacker is far more likely to be a male than a female.
posted by nkyad at 12:36 PM on November 29, 2005

Unaccompanied kids should not made the unofficial responsibility of adults who would likely be happy not to have to sit next to a strange kid. If airlines are going to take the responsibility of transporting unaccompanied kids, and if those kids are in such danger, the kids should have to sit next to the flight attendants, the flight attendants should be made to watch them, the flight attendants should be thoroughly checked out as if they were working in a school, and their seats should be videotaped (and maybe sent live to a web page parents could check).
posted by pracowity at 12:36 PM on November 29, 2005

For the morally indignated on this one, you're missing a sublety here. For this to be considered discriminatory you have to be denied something generally considered an advantage or privilege. Unless you can make a case for such it's not really functional discrimination. Ok maybe the little tykes take up less elbow room so there's something...
posted by scheptech at 12:38 PM on November 29, 2005

nkyad: ...if an attack happens...

That's the key part. An attack by a stranger on a crowded airplane on a minor in the care of the flight attendants? Very, very, unlikely. I wonder if it has ever happened. Certainly less likely than the plane crashing. Not something to worry about, period.
posted by grouse at 12:41 PM on November 29, 2005

And let it be said that I would rather not sit next to a UM, to be honest.
posted by grouse at 12:42 PM on November 29, 2005

But what the figures say is that if an attack happens, the attacker is far more likely to be a male than a female.

But if the odds of both are almost zero, you shouldn't spend much time worrying about either. Anyone that overprotective of their children should not be shipping them off by themselves on public transport.

For the morally indignated on this one, you're missing a sublety here.

Well, say it was instead that the airline moved children away from blacks because they said blacks are more likely to be the cause of violent crime. Would you say that blacks had nothing to complain about in such a case?
posted by pracowity at 12:44 PM on November 29, 2005

This is a liability problem, pure and simple. I'm sure the airline doesn't care who molests who on it's flights, so long as it doesn't affect the bottom line. Are the guardians of molested children allowed to sue the airline if an unaccompanied child is molested while under the legal care of the company? Yes. Is preventing men from sitting next to said unaccompanied men a cheap way to mitigate some of the risk of being sued? Yes. If it was cost effective to put them in a bubble for the duration of the flight, and seat them next to armed guards would they do it? Yes. Remove their duty of care, and you remove the profiling. Until them, don't blame them for reducing their exposure to risk in any way possible, as ludicrous as it sounds. Of course, if the risk of being sued by irate male passengers grows, this situation will quickly become moot.
posted by loquax at 12:46 PM on November 29, 2005

Women are more likely to rip fetuses out of other pregnant women, so...
posted by iamck at 12:47 PM on November 29, 2005

I If the parents do not provide child care, the airline that accepts unaccompanied minors gets the job. f I were suddenly expected to provide child care, I would expect an hourly rate or at least a comp ticket.
posted by Cranberry at 12:48 PM on November 29, 2005

The whole thing is inane. Stupid policy that I can't see getting upset over.
posted by OmieWise at 12:48 PM on November 29, 2005

grouse writes "That's the key part. An attack by a stranger on a crowded airplane on a minor in the care of the flight attendants? Very, very, unlikely. I wonder if it has ever happened. Certainly less likely than the plane crashing. Not something to worry about, period."

Yes, I agree with this part - so much that my son has been flying unaccompanied since he was 4 years old (and now he is 15 and nothing strange has ever happened on a plane to date). But he would usually be in direct care of the flight attendants, not sitting in some random seat in the plane.

As for it happening, I believe it has happened quite recently. The way some people have quite a difficult time separating fact from fiction, I wonder if the company is not reacting to this specific movie.
posted by nkyad at 12:50 PM on November 29, 2005

Men are more likely to molest children than women. Therefore, men should not be allowed to molest children.

Men are more likely to assault women than women are. Plus, assaulting a woman is much more common than molesting a child. Therefore, men should not be allowed to sit next to women.

Black males in the US commit are more likely to commit violent crimes than white males. Therefore, black males on flights in the US should not be allowed to sit next to anyone.
posted by flarbuse at 12:55 PM on November 29, 2005

The easiest solution is, of course, not allowing unaccompanied children to fly. That's what I would do if I was an airline. Why take the responsibility for a child's wellbeing? If you are going to do it, separating them from any risk of danger, no matter how slight, is the cheapest insurance they have against catastrophic lawsuits.

As for the comments about sitting next to people statistically more likely to commit a crime, the duty of the airline extends only so far as foreseeable events. That's why they screen everyone. You can sue if the airline *should have* known that they were allowing terrorists to board the plane but did nothing about it. You can't sue them if the plane crashes in a storm, through no fault of the company. But their duty of care for children that they've assumed responsibility for is totally different. The screening (as far as I know) does not extend to criminal records involving children, so unless we want to be screened for sex offenses every time we board an airplane, we have to live with this sort of thing.

Therefore, men should not be allowed to sit next to women.

Therefore, black males on flights in the US should not be allowed to sit next to anyone.

No, because the airline is not responsible for the unforeseen criminal actions of another person against you as an adult. Their duty of care doesn't extend that far, as I understand it.
posted by loquax at 1:01 PM on November 29, 2005

Also, if I were an airline, I would not give the child anything but water, I wouldn't let them go to the bathroom unaccompanied, I wouldn't give them anything that they could conceivably choke on, I wouldn't let them undo their safety belt, I wouldn't let them go to the cockpit, and so on and so forth. This is litigiousness at work, not political correctness.
posted by loquax at 1:03 PM on November 29, 2005

An airline is not responsible for unforseeable criminal actions against anyone.
posted by flarbuse at 1:06 PM on November 29, 2005

An airline is not responsible for unforseeable criminal actions against anyone.

The duty of care for a minor in your care is much higher than for an independent adult. Why risk lawsuits? The first argument in court anyways would be that if you were taking care of children, you should have been screening for sex offenders, just like schools, daycares and so on, because you should have known that there was a risk of molesters being on the plane.
posted by loquax at 1:09 PM on November 29, 2005

Men are more likely to assault women than women are.

Really?
posted by Space Coyote at 1:09 PM on November 29, 2005

Coincidentally, this happens to be one of the major plot points in the movie "Snakes on a Plane". Read into that what you will.
posted by blue_beetle at 1:09 PM on November 29, 2005

For this to be considered discriminatory you have to be denied something generally considered an advantage or privilege.

Being able to keep your assigned seat, and not being asked to change seats after you're already on the plane because they're afraid you might be a pedophile, are things generally considered advantages or privileges.
posted by mendel at 1:14 PM on November 29, 2005

Men are more likely to assault women than women are.

Really?


My experience in the courthouse has been that the alleged assaulters of females are overwhelmingly male. I would estimate that the percentage of offenders who are male is well over ninety percent.
posted by flarbuse at 1:16 PM on November 29, 2005

metafilter: don't let it sit next to you
posted by yonation at 1:17 PM on November 29, 2005

Being able to keep your assigned seat, and not being asked to change seats after you're already on the plane because they're afraid you might be a pedophile, are things generally considered advantages or privileges.

That's why they should apply it across the board, to both men and women, which I'm sure they will shortly. Then it's not discriminatory, as it applies to everyone equally.
posted by loquax at 1:17 PM on November 29, 2005

They could solve this whole problem by not allowing unaccompanied children on flights.
posted by graventy at 1:18 PM on November 29, 2005

They could solve this whole problem by realizing that there is not a problem.
posted by flarbuse at 1:22 PM on November 29, 2005

Well, say it was instead that the airline moved children away from blacks because they said blacks are more likely to be the cause of violent crime. Would you say that blacks had nothing to complain about in such a case?

A hypothetical case which is not actually happening but for the sake of argument: racism is something based on ignorance and hatred (big giant negatives) whereas this airlines policy is at best based on the idea of protecting children (a positive) and at worst on their own butt covering (a neutral imo) so not really comparable.

Being able to keep your assigned seat, and not being asked to change seats after you're already on the plane because they're afraid you might be a pedophile, are things generally considered advantages or privileges.

Agree there, you'd think they could figure it out pre-boarding, or move the child rather than the man to avoid the humiliation factor.
posted by scheptech at 1:25 PM on November 29, 2005

Wow. Busy post. I thought it might create some interesting conversation.

Personally, I'm in the camp of not removing people's freedom to sit where they want due to a miniscule perceived risk. And this is coming from the parent of a 2 year old boy.

Convicted pedophiles can have their balls slowly cut off for all I care, but fucked if I'm going to tolerate being treated as a suspected paedophile by an airline. What comes next? Segregated female-only playgrounds? How about buses? Will I be remembered forever as the male that refused to sit at the back of the bus with the other males, and instead chose to sit with my son and his friends at the front of the bus?
posted by pivotal at 1:26 PM on November 29, 2005

The unaccompanied minor program is one set up by airlines specifically to take care of kids flying alone. It often costs money and is usually mandatory for kids under a certain age (12-15 depending on airline) who are flying alone. The person bringing the kid to the airport has to wait until the plane actually leaves the ground before they can go, and the person picking up the kid meets them at the gate to take over from the flight attendant. If there are changeovers, someone walks the kid from one gate to the next. (I've worked a summer program that had to deal with UMs, and the airlines get quite picky about the details at times.) In other words, yes the airlines are taking on responsibility for the UM during the course of the flight.

That being said, forbidding men from sitting next to a UM is just plain dumb. If they're going to worry about the possibility of a kid getting molested in the middle of a crowded airplane, the airlines should reserve two seats, so there is a gap, or have a flight attendant sit with them. Not only is the policy unfair to men who are forced to move, it doesn't accomplish anything anyhow.
posted by lorimt at 1:29 PM on November 29, 2005

racism is something based on ignorance and hatred (big giant negatives) whereas this airlines policy is at best based on the idea of protecting children (a positive) and at worst on their own butt covering (a neutral imo) so not really comparable.

I would say that, like racism, the practice we are discussing is also based on ignorance.
posted by grouse at 1:30 PM on November 29, 2005

Segregated female-only playgrounds? How about buses? Will I be remembered forever as the male that refused to sit at the back of the bus with the other males, and instead chose to sit with my son and his friends at the front of the bus?

Heh, yup and they'll take you away for reprogramming. Female-only playgrounds? I wouldn't be suprised in the least unfortunately. We live in an time when everything identifiably male is, if not outright bad, at least considered suspect and in need of modification, while everything female is thought probably ok. Good to see MeFi sticking up for the Man.
posted by scheptech at 1:46 PM on November 29, 2005

This makes me fucking livid.
posted by es_de_bah at 2:01 PM on November 29, 2005

They could solve this whole problem by not allowing unaccompanied children on flights.

Or shutting down the Law Schools.

While I think loquax's analysis -- that this is a duty of care issue, not a political correctness one -- is sound, it's weird, because there's not really a culture of litigiousness in NZ (at least compared to the States), probably because there are no real precedents for American-scale damages awards in torts cases.

On the other hand, Air New Zealand upper-management have long had a reputation for being completely insane, and this policy is consistent with their apparent long-held desire to fly the whole business into the ground.
posted by Sonny Jim at 2:15 PM on November 29, 2005

scheptech: racism is something based on ignorance and hatred (big giant negatives) whereas this airlines policy is at best based on the idea of protecting children (a positive) and at worst on their own butt covering (a neutral imo) so not really comparable.

No, I'm saying you could look at crime statistics (something upon which I presume this airline policy is based) and say that black men are more dangerous than white men (statistically more likely to be convicted of violent crime) and therefore that an unaccompanied child should not be seated next to a black man if a seat next to a white man can be found. Such a policy equally would be "based on the idea of protecting children (a positive)" and would be just as valid.
posted by pracowity at 2:19 PM on November 29, 2005

scheptech,
grouse is right. Both you and loquax are employing double standards. If you argue that men are statistically more likely than women to molest children, and thus should not be seated next to unaccompanied children for the sake of liability, you are not saying that men are inherently evil and thus must be treated differently. Similarly, if you say that blacks are statistically more likely to commit violent crime, you are not arguing that blacks are inherently inferior, you're just looking at numbers and thinking about liability as well. Yet you seem to think it's okay in the former case and not okay in the latter. Why? They're the same thing. No, I'm not arguing that what's going on here is anywhere nearly as morally repugnant as racism, but the logic is identical in both cases.
loquax goes much further:
Therefore, black males on flights in the US should not be allowed to sit next to anyone.

No, because the airline is not responsible for the unforeseen criminal actions of another person against you as an adult. Their duty of care doesn't extend that far, as I understand it.
and
An airline is not responsible for unforseeable criminal actions against anyone.

The duty of care for a minor in your care is much higher than for an independent adult. Why risk lawsuits? The first argument in court anyways would be that if you were taking care of children, you should have been screening for sex offenders, just like schools, daycares and so on, because you should have known that there was a risk of molesters being on the plane.
So airlines not responsible for unforeseen criminal actions, yet are responsible for potential molestations that merely have a chance to happen? He also says that the reasoning for this is liability. "The duty of care for a minor in your care is much higher than for an independent adult. Why risk lawsuits? The first argument in court anyways would be that if you were taking care of children, you should have been screening for sex offenders..." True, unaccompanied children require a much higher level of care, but then the argument is the same. Blacks are statistically more likely to commit violent crimes, so if one does occur, couldn't you use the exact same argument that the airlines had access to the statistics and should have known and planned for it? This isn't screening for past offences, this is a blanket decision made purely on statistics, which you seem to support. By that logic, Arabs should be denied entry to plaens, since statistically most hijackings are perpetrated by them. We could screen them for past records, but why bother? We already have the stats.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:25 PM on November 29, 2005

They could solve this whole problem by not allowing unaccompanied children on flights.

Actually I think the whole problem can be resolved by doing one, simple thing. It's a minor rule change:

Unaccompanied minors should be checked as baggage and stored accordingly.
posted by Slap Incognito at 2:32 PM on November 29, 2005

er, stored s/b stowed... my bad
posted by Slap Incognito at 2:32 PM on November 29, 2005

How are you going to molest a child on a crowded plane? The flight staff is responsible for the child the ENTIRE time they are on the plane. Is a flight attendant not going to say anything when they see some guy dry humping a 9 year old?

How are you going to abduct a child on a crowded plane? Abduct them to First Class? You simply don't open the hatch until the flight staff has secured the child.

Pretty simple really.

Just absurd no matter how you turn it.
posted by Ynoxas at 2:36 PM on November 29, 2005

Such a policy equally would be "based on the idea of protecting children (a positive)" and would be just as valid.

Well, it would still be based on racism, figuring the black man to be more dangerous than the white man as determined solely by skin color.

The whole thing's a little loopy, my only argument is it's not 'discrimination' in the sense of denying anyone anything normally considered a positive. Assuming they could do this pre-boarding that is.

I'm thinking only a pedophile would see a particular special postive in sitting beside a UM, only they would have a problem with a policy that removes them from the sit-by-a-UM lottery so who cares.

On the sex-abuse isn't going to happen on an airplane point: no obviously not, the point would be to remove the opportunity to form a trust relationship, the gathering of identifiying information, which could later be taken advantage of. This trust relationship thing is much more significant in this sort of crime than in mugging or whatever the "dangerous black male" is supposed to be plotting against adults.
posted by scheptech at 2:40 PM on November 29, 2005

I'm sure that statistically the person most likely to ultimately engage in sexual activity with your 15 year old son is a woman. Okay, he would probably like it but regardless, women should not be seated next to postpubescent underage males because statistics (of convictions of female adults for sex with underage males) illustrate their urges. Therefore all adult females are suspect and should be treated as potential molesters.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 2:40 PM on November 29, 2005

couldn't you use the exact same argument that the airlines had access to the statistics and should have known and planned for it?

Yes. Which in my opinion would be legally sound. Sort of. That's why I said that children in the airline's care should be placed in a tamper-proof bubble for the duration of the flight. Also, I never said that it wasn't discriminatory, only that the basis of the decision probably wasn't discriminatory. They shouldn't single out men. They should move men, women, blacks, arabs, maori, chinese, panda bears, ninjas, and hamsters away from children in their care, eliminating the discrimination problem, mitigating their liability, and satisfying their duty of care. If someone entrusted me with their child, I wouldn't leave them alone for one second, and neither should the airline.
posted by loquax at 2:45 PM on November 29, 2005

I just looked up "gender discrimination" in the dictionary and there were the Air New Zealand and Qantas logos next to the definition.
posted by tranquileye at 2:47 PM on November 29, 2005

To clarify, I think that in lieu of screening every single passenger for any conceivable warning sign of predilection to harming a child (or anyone, for that matter), no passenger should be allowed to sit next to or have any contact with a minor in the airline's care, for liability purposes.
posted by loquax at 2:49 PM on November 29, 2005

If someone entrusted me with their child, I wouldn't leave them alone for one second, and neither should the airline.

Bingo! Bravo, loquax.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 2:50 PM on November 29, 2005

Also, I never said that it wasn't discriminatory, only that the basis of the decision probably wasn't discriminatory.

Someone needs to spend some quality time with a dictionary.
posted by grouse at 2:54 PM on November 29, 2005

Is this new? A couple of years ago on a short haul BA flight (Glasgow to London) I was asked to change my seat with a female colleague so that she was next to a (female) child.

It didn't bother me and I never really thought of it as discimination - although I guess it is. But, hey, haven't you noticed that discimination against men is pretty standard these days? I put it down to women's revenge on men for years of treating them as second class citizens.
posted by bobbyelliott at 2:55 PM on November 29, 2005

If the airlines think moving the kids back two rows will save them those airlines don't know holloway.
posted by holloway at 2:55 PM on November 29, 2005

grouse: Yeah, yeah, replace the second discriminatory with political correctness or some such.
posted by loquax at 2:57 PM on November 29, 2005

If someone entrusted me with their child, I wouldn't leave them alone for one second, and neither should the airline.
loquax
I completely agree.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:00 PM on November 29, 2005

I can't even put together a coherent post this makes me so angry.
How would any woman feel if made to give up her seat in any public place because there was an underlying social fear that she were a child molester?
Honestly... If you are going to post, and say that this is OK, imagine that you are at some public gathering and told to move. Nobody says anything, because in the back of their minds, you just might be a pedofile. Then, when you try to complain about it everyone just says.... well, I kinda see their point. Don't worry about it. It's not discrimination.
I call Bullshit.
posted by TheFeatheredMullet at 3:02 PM on November 29, 2005

I can't even put together a coherent post this makes me so angry.

I'm glad you managed to in the end. You've spelt it out pretty well. I find it strange that I'm finally in the position to feel the fury that a whole heap of races and creeds probably feel every day. Not often I get to feel that way as a white, middle-class male. It's enlightening, if very, very frustrating.
posted by pivotal at 3:14 PM on November 29, 2005

Cute. No significant annoyance factor. Make politicos with pedophilinoia look stupid.

BTW, sitting next to a rugrat isn't a major threat, but being in a section with three crying is big time trouble. Babies need muzzles.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:43 PM on November 29, 2005

I wonder, isn't there a correllation between household income and violence? Therefore, I really would appreciate if they'd lock anyone who makes less than $20k/year in cages in the back, while the rest of us assumed-lawful people sit comfortably in the front. Doing otherwise might result in violence.

I'm a white male, so thanks for the chance to state how stupid this discrimination is. Too often I can't say a thing because it's not politically correct. I'm afraid to volunteer, to talk to kids at all, to help strangers, to do so many things...because I might be accused of some heinous act. I'm utterly sick of it.
posted by Kickstart70 at 3:52 PM on November 29, 2005

spokesman said the airline believed it was what customers wanted.

Air New Zealand spokeswoman Rosie Paul said the airline had a similar policy to that of Qantas'.

"Airlines are temporary guardians of unaccompanied minors so we have preferred seating for them."

Ms Paul said Air New Zealand tried to seat children near a crew area so crew could keep an eye on them and, when possible, children were seated next to an empty seat.

"Sometimes this isn't possible, so the preference is to seat a female passenger next door to an unaccompanied minor."


My 12 year old daughter flew out to see me this summer by herself. It cost $350.00 for her ticket and $150.00 for the "unaccompanied minor" fee.

If I was asked for my preferrence in seating her I would request she be seated next to:

1. All the other unaccompanied minors (there are always a few)
2. A woman
3. A man

So if they are going by what they think parents might prefer, they are guessing right.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:01 PM on November 29, 2005

Well, this is interesting. It wasn't long ago that folks on metafilter were trying to convince me that all men are natural rapists. I presume the mefites from that conversation are completely in favour of keeping men away from vulnerable children on planes.

This story reminds me of that woman who got thrown off a plane for that "meeting the f*ckers" t-shirt.

I think it's a stupid and offensive policy, for the record.
posted by Hildegarde at 4:01 PM on November 29, 2005

I'd move a white male away from a child if he were packing a parachute on a commercial flight. Cause all those sky divers are pedophiles. Ninja too.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:05 PM on November 29, 2005

It wasn't long ago that folks on metafilter were trying to convince me that all men are natural rapists.

Their argument, if I understand it, was that rape gives an evolutionary benefit and is selected for (not agreeing with this, just summarizing). Presumably rape of prepubescent children (possibly of the same sex) does not give any such benefit, since it is unlikely to lead to offspring.
posted by grouse at 4:09 PM on November 29, 2005

"I understand it, was that rape gives an evolutionary benefit..."
NPR was just talking about that. Apparently nice guys finish better.

I was just thinking - it's still a somewhat common practice in some retail stores to follow people of color around disproportionately.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:18 PM on November 29, 2005

I'm thinking only a pedophile would see a particular special postive in sitting beside a UM, only they would have a problem with a policy that removes them from the sit-by-a-UM lottery so who cares.

You'd rather sit next to Haystack Calhoun than somebody's ten-year-old? I wouldn't. I like having room. Also, lots of normal, non-pedophile men like children and find them entertaining. So I'd say you're wrong on all counts.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:20 PM on November 29, 2005

So if they are going by what they think parents might prefer, they are guessing right.

Child-rearers are so pathetic. Do you really think little Johnny is going to get molested at 30,000 ft., with nowhere for the perp to run when the kid cries out for help? Grow a brain.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:21 PM on November 29, 2005

I wish I could self-link the discussion on my blog, but agreeing with the last post, I'll copy-paste my comment:

It’s a fundamental ethical question. There’s no correct answer, but in my case I’m prepared to risk the 0.00001% chance that my son gets molested (fucking horrible thought that it is), rather than remove small freedoms from 100% of 49% of the population. Society will always have scumbags, but you have to believe that me and you and that dude over there are good guys, and we’ll all do our best to educate our kids and recognise the scumbags for what they are (and let the justice system deal with it).

Otherwise our society is fucked either way. We start going all George Bush and nuking the buggery out of anyone that even looks like a pedophile (which is you and me apparently).
posted by pivotal at 4:24 PM on November 29, 2005

For this to be considered discriminatory you have to be denied something generally considered an advantage or privilege.

It deeply disturbs me that the world in general seems to be getting the idea that men who enjoy the presence of children (who aren't their kids) are almost certainly pedophiles. That society is trying to put as many boundaries as possible between children and childless men seems repulsive to me. I've always liked kids. I probably won't have any of my own for many years. I believe strongly in the whole "it takes a village to raise a child" deal. Childless men are PART of that village, and not the soulless part that wears a tie and keeps the economy going so that everyone else can engage children emotionally.

This may sound like a strange complaint, but let me give you a scenario: A young boy (3-5) is wandering around a store alone. Imagine a conservatively dressed woman in her early 20s crouches down and says, "Hey buddy. Are you lost? Do you know where your parents are?" Now imagine a conservatively dressed guy in his early 20s doing this. I can tell you from experience that the guy will get a lot of dirty, worried looks.

Are more sexual predators male? Probably. Is that a good reason to sever two parts of society off from each other? If you say "yes" I'd have to call you a sexist pig. This airplane business may be a small offence, but it's part of a growing trend in western culture. A trend that can be fought, in this case, on legal grounds. I hope someone sues the hell out of the airline. I hope people get turned off by the discriminatory policy and don't use that particular airline.

And before you write it off, this is the same type of seemingly insignificant thing feminists are always complaining about. It is valid for the same reason: small bits of institutional discrimination add up to a culture that diminishes and segments its people based on sex and gender. And that is wrong.

I consider it a privilege to come into contact with children from time to time. To have some passing relationship with a member of the next generation. To have a silly little chat with the kid on the bus next to me about Transformers, which were on lunchboxes when I was a kid, too.
posted by es_de_bah at 4:36 PM on November 29, 2005

Adding an additional comment since the anger hasn't left me.

I'll be a father for the first time in June 2006. I will fucking kill anyone who makes an attempt at molesting my child. I likely wouldn't put them on a plane by themselves anyway, but I would not think twice about them being seated beside a male and would not request that they be seated by a female.

I'm looking forward to being a parent, so that it won't seem so strange that I'd talk to a kid, and so I can volunteer on my child's events without people assuming I'm a pervert.
posted by Kickstart70 at 4:39 PM on November 29, 2005

but I would not think twice about them being seated beside a male and would not request that they be seated by a female.

You wouldn't think twice about leaving your unsupervised child beside a total stranger for hours, while they slept even? Even I'm hestitant to sleep beside some of the people I've sat beside, and I'd be extremely hesitant to put my kid on a plane without a long list of assurances from the airline. And I don't want grown men or women chatting with my ten-year old (assuming I had one, which I don't) without me very near by. This is why strangers aren't allowed on school grounds, why there are school buses instead of relying on public transit, why we tell kids never to talk to adults they don't know. The catastrophic risk is simply not worth whatever benefits can be gained from unsupervised stranger-child contact.
posted by loquax at 4:49 PM on November 29, 2005

You wouldn't think twice about leaving your unsupervised child beside a total stranger for hours

No more than I would putting them on a plane alone in any case. That's really the point; I wouldn't feel comfortable putting them on a plane, but if I did, it would make no difference to me whether the person next to them was male or female. In either case I'd need some damned good assurances from the airline about my kid's safety.
posted by Kickstart70 at 4:59 PM on November 29, 2005

Well, it's unarguably sexist and therefore wrong. However I'd be happy to fly these airlines since they've reduced the chance of me having to sit next to a goddamned brat.
posted by Decani at 5:02 PM on November 29, 2005

loquax, I think you need to buy a ThudGuard for your child too. Better safe than sorry.
posted by pivotal at 5:02 PM on November 29, 2005

I was on a plane and they asked me to give up my seat so I wasn't next to an unaccompanied minor. I told them that I was tired and didn't want to move. I was really just drunk.
posted by stet at 5:03 PM on November 29, 2005

So if they are going by what they think parents might prefer, they are guessing right.

Child-rearers are so pathetic. Do you really think little Johnny is going to get molested at 30,000 ft., with nowhere for the perp to run when the kid cries out for help? Grow a brain.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:21 PM EST on November 29

This actually made me laugh it was such a knee-jerk response. But perhaps that is what you were going for?

My 12 year old daughter is extremely beautiful and while she is very bright, she is also very sociable. I don't think it would be too hard for a 20 year old man to chat her up and get her cell phone number and email address ("so I can send you that information about Harry Potter.") I can tell her over and over that she needs to be careful with strangers, but, alas...I was 12 myself once and remember all too well that I felt completely grown-up and in charge of my life and sexuality.

So again, if the airline asked me my preference, it would be to seat her next to other kids. That said, I have no power to force the airline to do anything. And if American Airlines chooses to follow this procedure, I would be very surprised.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:04 PM on November 29, 2005

Pivotal: Agreed! Seems like a great invention. But that's the point, what you and I do in caring for our children is, for the most part, our business. The airline doesn't have the luxury of taking basic precautions and hoping for the best. That's not good enough in a court of law, and that's not what parents expect. The more I read about this, the more amazed I am that they even allow unaccompanied children aboard at all. The potential for liability is endless. My gym doesn't even let anyone under the age of 18 inside.
posted by loquax at 5:06 PM on November 29, 2005

This actually made me laugh it was such a knee-jerk response.

I know, I'm sorry I couldn't resist. I understand where you're going with the implications of a chatty 12 year-old sitting next to a stranger on a plane for several hours. But really, if you're that concerned, why not fly with them? It's one thing to be an overly concerned parent, but those in favor of this preposterous action are asking the airlines to parent for them. (strawman alert) This is a group of idiots that couldn't tie their own shoelaces without a $12 billion grant from the government.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:28 PM on November 29, 2005

We aren't in a village anymore. Your reputation as a nice guy who is safe around children never reaches my ears because we don't even know each other. And, paranoid that I am, I know lots of sexual predators have been thought to be nice guys around kids before they were caught, so I'd never be satisfied having my kid alone with you anyway.

My sense of risk when dealing with my daughter is not rational. I am not willing to have her risk enduring an "incident" just so someone isn't put out on a plane. But then I can't see myself or her father ever allowing her to fly unaccompanied.

This is a sick world we live in. There are tons of convicted sex offenders in my neighborhood. I've looked at the websites, seen the ages of the victims (so I know it's not a case of 18yo boyfriend and 16yo girlfriend). If there is any way for me to avoid putting her at risk of molestation, I will avoid that risk. It's my duty as a parent.

Look, I realize it must not feel good not to be trusted, but there is no going back to a world of default trust. We just can't turn back time. We know too much about just how many predators are out there. Our collective innocence is gone.

I think loquax's analysis in terms of liability is spot-on. You have to think about how this would play in front of a jury. Personally I think the airlines should take that extra fee they charge and hire a fully-vetted and criminal-record-checked babysitter to sit next to the child.
posted by beth at 5:32 PM on November 29, 2005

We just can't turn back time. ... Our collective innocence is gone.

So Rosa should have just shut up and sat at the back of the bus after all. Thanks for clearing that up.
posted by pivotal at 5:41 PM on November 29, 2005

there is no going back to a world of default trust

Because the world is so much more dangerous nowadays? Is it, or is that just what you believe because the media and government scaremongers tell you so?

Men are not perverts. Perverts might be men. I'm sick of being assumed to be a pervert just because I enjoy speaking with kids.
posted by Kickstart70 at 5:53 PM on November 29, 2005

As a father of a 2 year old, who does everything he can to support and nuture my favourite little guy, imagine how gut-wrenchinly heartbreaking it is to feel guilty and self concious when I smile and talk to his friends at the playground.

Imagine it.

This policy and people like you, beth, make me feel like I have to fucking apologise when I help your kid up the steps at the playground.
posted by pivotal at 6:03 PM on November 29, 2005

Because the world is so much more dangerous nowadays? Is it, or is that just what you believe because the media and government scaremongers tell you so?

Look, to me, there are an unacceptable number of known, convicted sex offenders in my daughter's neighborhood. And there are, of course, those who are not counted because they haven't been caught. Pretending like this is a faraway thing that never happens to normal people isn't going to make the problem go away. It happens all the time. I will take what measures I can to reduce the risk to as close to zero for my child as I can make it.
posted by beth at 6:15 PM on November 29, 2005

Then you'd best divorce your husband (if you have one) and keep her away from any male friends and relatives.
posted by pivotal at 6:18 PM on November 29, 2005

And let me clarify - I don't freak out about my daughter talking to adult males while I am present, or when she is at school, or at her gymnastics gym. It's the concept of her sitting next to a complete stranger for hours that bugs me, in a situation where I am not there to intervene and supervise.
posted by beth at 6:19 PM on November 29, 2005

I am confused. You are willing to see a huge percentage of the population discomforted to prevent your daughter's "enduring an incident," but you live in a neighborhood where there "are tons of convicted sex offenders"? What's wrong with this picture?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:22 PM on November 29, 2005

My daughter isn't alone with any male except her father. I trust him, because I have to. Trust me, I am well aware of the danger of a male in the household having unsupervised access to children.
posted by beth at 6:23 PM on November 29, 2005

but you live in a neighborhood where there "are tons of convicted sex offenders"

Show me a neighborhood without them. Please. I live in Austin, TX. I haven't been able to find one.
posted by beth at 6:25 PM on November 29, 2005

I don't know anything about Austin, Texas, but I am sure that what you describe is not typical of most neighborhoods in the U.S.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:30 PM on November 29, 2005

What a world, huh? All the conveniences and destinations and goods across the globe are available to so many people, now, and possibly never again 20 years hence, and here we are, choosing to live in fear.

I can't imagine growing up as a kid these days. I'd probably wind up being twice as terrified of other people as I already am, and we are not talking about an insignificant base quantity here.

And ya know, if somebody is gonna grope your kid, they're gonna do it in the fucking security line of the O'Hare International Airport! ...Seriously. That place is a nightmare. Visions of bread lines in Soviet Russia continue to dance in my head.
posted by furiousthought at 6:31 PM on November 29, 2005

why limit the ban to just airlines? why not extend it to include public transportation, like buses and trains? we all know the slippery slope. total rubbish!
posted by brandz at 6:38 PM on November 29, 2005

So, to clarify: Man + child + privacy = molestation. Good thing we cleared that up.
posted by fandango_matt at 9:39 PM EST

I would hazard a guess that Beth suffered from unsupervised male access to the household, just as I did. I was raped for years starting at age 5. By someone my parents completely trusted. It does tend to make you leary of "unsupervised males."
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:56 PM on November 29, 2005

in a situation where I am not there to intervene and supervise

So don't put your kid in harm's way by letting them fly halfway across the globe on an airplane by themselves.

Simple.

It does tend to make you leary of "unsupervised males."

Doesn't make the assumption any less stupid. (i.e., Just because the government is out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid.)
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:04 PM on November 29, 2005

Can't we just compromise and sit all the unaccompanied minors next to female pedophiles?
posted by aaronetc at 7:05 PM on November 29, 2005

So, to clarify: Man + child + privacy = molestation. Good thing we cleared that up.

I didn't say that. I just said I was well aware of the danger. Meaning I know what can happen. It didn't happen to me, but it did happen to someone I am quite close to. That's all I was getting at.
posted by beth at 7:06 PM on November 29, 2005

Also, it seems odd that none of the defenders of this policy have addressed the fact that molesters are much more likely to be known figures (i.e., family and friends of family) than strangers (e.g., random air travelers).
posted by aaronetc at 7:07 PM on November 29, 2005

loquax writes "The potential for liability is endless."

Alas, such is life.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:18 PM on November 29, 2005

aaronetc writes "Also, it seems odd that none of the defenders of this policy have addressed the fact that molesters are much more likely to be known figures (i.e., family and friends of family) than strangers (e.g., random air travelers)."

I think the new policy should be that children on flights should be separared from anyone who knows them. It honestly would be easier just to strap the little snot factories to the wing and be done with it. Plenty more entertaining, too.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:21 PM on November 29, 2005

Secret Life of Gravy writes "I would hazard a guess that Beth suffered from unsupervised male access to the household, just as I did. I was raped for years starting at age 5. By someone my parents completely trusted. It does tend to make you leary of 'unsupervised males.'"

I was once mugged by a couple of black guys.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:29 PM on November 29, 2005

Alas, such is life.

True, but it is isn't a stretch to say that our society, and civilization itself (to a certain extent) is based on the duty of care that we all owe each other (to varying degrees), which directly translates into corporate liability mitigation. If the airlines can't properly care for kids, they shouldn't accept them into their care. Which is also why I shouldn't give legal advice, for that matter.

Also, it seems odd that none of the defenders of this policy have addressed the fact that molesters are much more likely to be known figures (i.e., family and friends of family) than strangers (e.g., random air travelers).

Irrelevant. Stranger-molestors are the only kind that the airlines (or anybody caring for children in this context) have a modicum of control over.

why limit the ban to just airlines? why not extend it to include public transportation, like buses and trains?

It should be extended (for both men and women) to any agency, person, or company that agrees to take legal responsibility for a minor, if they wish to limit their exposure in a cost-effective to legal risk in the rare case of a problem with molestation. It's up to them to determine whether or not the risk justifies the cure.
posted by loquax at 7:29 PM on November 29, 2005

loquax writes "Stranger-molestors are the only kind that the airlines (or anybody caring for children in this context) have a modicum of control over. "

Nonsense. It would be trivial for the airline to separate the child from his or her father.
posted by mr_roboto at 7:31 PM on November 29, 2005

Not irrelevant at all. We're hearing how, no really, it's totally reasonable to be suspicious of men around kids, because the statistics bear it out. But in fact, what those statistics bear out regards primarily non-stranger men. This is either a false generalization or an example of the environmental fallacy (I can't remember which, sad to say) on a level beyond that on which the policy itself is a problem.
posted by aaronetc at 7:34 PM on November 29, 2005

No no, we're (well, at least I'm) only talking about when the airline (or whoever) has specific legal custody of a child. The airline has no duty towards the child when he's accompanied by his father, or anyone else that hasn't given the airline responsibility.

aaronetc: I agreed that targeting men was a generalization and discrimination. That's why I suggested separating them from everyone but a thoroughly vetted airline employee, not for the child's safety, but the airline's.
posted by loquax at 7:49 PM on November 29, 2005

loquax writes "why limit the ban to just airlines? why not extend it to include public transportation, like buses and trains?

"It should be extended (for both men and women) to any agency, person, or company that agrees to take legal responsibility for a minor, if they wish to limit their exposure in a cost-effective to legal risk in the rare case of a problem with molestation."

Really? So, how should a bus driver handle this situation then? How about a restaurant? What about a public park?

Are you a lawyer by any chance? Anyone who uses the phrase, "limit their exposure in a cost-effective to legal risk" has to be, and one which practices in the US. The rest of the world isn't so litigious.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:59 PM on November 29, 2005

My 12-year old nephew says he wants to be sat next to her on a flight. No probs there, right?
posted by Decani at 8:02 PM on November 29, 2005

Really? So, how should a bus driver handle this situation then? How about a restaurant? What about a public park?

There's a world of difference between the duty of a casual observer and the duty of a child's temporary legal guardian. Ask yourself what the difference between the duty of a ice cream truck driver and a teacher (for example) is. They're worlds apart. The nature of the legal relationship to the child makes the duty different.

I'm not a lawyer, and don't worry, the rest of the world is fast catching up to the US when it comes to litigiousness. Which in my opinion, isn't an altogether bad thing. Shouldn't the airline be held responsible for the safety of a child in their care? How can you hold them responsible if you can't (or don't) sue them for all they're worth when they screw up?
posted by loquax at 8:07 PM on November 29, 2005

loquax writes "There's a world of difference between the duty of a casual observer and the duty of a child's temporary legal guardian."

How is a bus driver with an unaccompanied child on the bus any different than an attendant on an airline with the same child? A plane is nothing more than a bus with wheels and bad food.

I'm not a lawyer, and don't worry, the rest of the world is fast catching up to the US when it comes to litigiousness. Which in my opinion, isn't an altogether bad thing. Shouldn't the airline be held responsible for the safety of a child in their care? How can you hold them responsible if you can't (or don't) sue them for all they're worth when they screw up?

Surely that's the best way. How did we manage without threats of lawsuits? I know it keeps me in line.

*Puts money on insurance stock*
posted by krinklyfig at 8:19 PM on November 29, 2005

krinklyfig writes "A plane is nothing more than a bus with wheels"

Wings, actually.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:20 PM on November 29, 2005

How is a bus driver with an unaccompanied child on the bus any different than an attendant on an airline with the same child? A plane is nothing more than a bus with wheels and bad food.

Because the airline has agreed in writing to take legal responsibility for the child before they got on board. A bus driver (or the city) does no such thing when a child climbs aboard, meaning the duty of care is far less prominent.

Surely that's the best way. How did we manage without threats of lawsuits? I know it keeps me in line.

We used to manage under the threat of death at the hands of those who took exception to our actions, be they petty theft or trespassing. Remember dueling? Now we get along because we'll get sued. Remove lawsuits from the equation and you'll be cheated on every phone bill, every home renovation, and every fancy new "unscratched" iPod you buy. Not to mention the poison you'll consume on a daily basis from the corporations that have done away with costly "quality control".
posted by loquax at 8:32 PM on November 29, 2005

Hey, isn't Air New Zealand the one advertising in-plane beds?
posted by breath at 8:44 PM on November 29, 2005

sees new zealand fall off the list of great places to live.
posted by brandz at 9:01 PM on November 29, 2005

loquax writes "the airline has agreed in writing to take legal responsibility for the child before they got on board. A bus driver (or the city) does no such thing when a child climbs aboard, meaning the duty of care is far less prominent."

So, why has the airline agreed in writing to take this responsibility while the bus has not? I'm not being flip. There has to be a legal reason. Is there no liability on a bus?

"We used to manage under the threat of death at the hands of those who took exception to our actions, be they petty theft or trespassing. Remember dueling? Now we get along because we'll get sued. Remove lawsuits from the equation and you'll be cheated on every phone bill, every home renovation, and every fancy new 'unscratched' iPod you buy. Not to mention the poison you'll consume on a daily basis from the corporations that have done away with costly 'quality control'."

But this litigious nature is American. The rest of the world doesn't duel to solve their problems, yet they have managed without the phalanxes of attorneys. Are you seriously suggesting that lawsuits or death are the only methods to solve everyday problems?
posted by krinklyfig at 9:12 PM on November 29, 2005

Passengers should be stratified.

That way I can sit beside quiet, polite, middle-class, non-violent, educated, middle-aged men and read the Autobiography of Jean-Paul Satre in peace.

You mean, that's First Class?
posted by bobbyelliott at 2:56 AM on November 30, 2005

Yeah, it is, unless there's a football team on the plane.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:52 AM on November 30, 2005

I like kids, I have three.
People like Beth are making life tougher for the rest of us by inflating risks and fears.
I want my kids to grow up trusting people because most people are trustworthy. Constantly reinforcing risks and threats won't make them better people and decays this basic trust.
Only sitting them next to women on flights is dumb and offensive to men, and I suspect the comment questioning whether any such molestation had ever happened is on the money.
Don't pollute my world, and my kid's, with your stinking world view and its timid and pathetic excuse for sheltering where every man is a potential molester. That sort of paranoia is evidence of your own issues not the wider world's.
posted by bystander at 4:11 AM on November 30, 2005

So, why has the airline agreed in writing to take this responsibility while the bus has not? I'm not being flip. There has to be a legal reason. Is there no liability on a bus?

No, the difference between the plane and the bus the legal relationship that the child enters into. Why don't parents legally sign their kids over to the city for 20 minute bus rides? That's a good question. They're probably at more risk from various things on a daily bus ride than a once-in-a-long-while flight. There is no legal reason why it's not necessary on a bus and is on a plane, it depends on the parties involved. Of course, most parents probably wouldn't care enough to demand assurances, and the city would probably not accept the liability of taking responsibility for children.

I suppose it could be argued that the general duty of care is greater on a plane than on a bus (because of the unusual nature of the travel, the attention of the staff, the risk of any problems), therefore the standard of care is higher, therefore the liability is greater, and that's why you sign a serious and comprehensive contract before boarding a plane (especially parents of children). You barely agree to any conditions riding a bus or train compared to taking a flight.
posted by loquax at 5:53 AM on November 30, 2005

Well, I think the solution to the problem is that if the current measures for safeguarding UMs on flights pose too much risk of liability, (and I don't see how you totally mitigate the risk by just the seating arangement), the solution is to not permit UMs at all. Either the child flies with a trusted adult companion who assumes liability, or the child does not fly at all.

But I think there is a real tension here between saying that it is a problem that men are not involved in the lives of children, and saying that men shouldn't be involved in the lives of children because they are all potential child molesters. I know that I find the situation and the risks to make me much more cautious about doing anything in a K-12 education context.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:40 AM on November 30, 2005

I will also say that while I understand the paranoia bordering on outright prejudice that surrounds me, and even take steps to reduce the possibility that I will be perceived as a threat, it is too much to expect for honest and non-violent men to not feel anger about being treated as guilty until proven innocent. In interpersonal interactions it's understandable. As part of institutional policy it's horrible.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:57 AM on November 30, 2005

I suppose it could be argued that the general duty of care is greater on a plane than on a bus (because of the unusual nature of the travel, the attention of the staff, the risk of any problems), therefore the standard of care is higher, therefore the liability is greater, and that's why you sign a serious and comprehensive contract before boarding a plane (especially parents of children). You barely agree to any conditions riding a bus or train compared to taking a flight.

But these are assumed risks. You are jumping through hoops to make your point without any evidence to back your assumptions. I very much doubt that there has been a risk assessment backed with research dealing with unaccompanied children on a plane sitting next to men. I would be willing to bet money that this risk is more of a misperception than a reality.

Children are more likely to be molested by their own father than a stranger. Therefore, we should prevent children from sitting next to their fathers. As SLoG mentioned, she was molested by an unsupervised male. I wonder what sort of supervision should be required for fathers to be with their children, considering the risk exists and it can be proven.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:49 AM on November 30, 2005

You really have to look and see -- has this EVER happened? In a world of 6 billion people, has it happened enough to make its probability relevant?

We've already agreed it's more likely to die in a plane crash than to be sexually assaulted as a result of a plane flight.

It's also more likely that a kid will die in a car crash than a plane crash.

But we don't stop driving cars.

We take MAJOR risks every day because not doing so would be an inconvenience to us, but when there's an astronomically tiny risk that you think you can avoid by incoveniencing someone else, that's perefectly fine?
posted by dagnyscott at 8:56 AM on November 30, 2005

But these are assumed risks. You are jumping through hoops to make your point without any evidence to back your assumptions. I very much doubt that there has been a risk assessment backed with research dealing with unaccompanied children on a plane sitting next to men. I would be willing to bet money that this risk is more of a misperception than a reality.

No no, I wasn't talking there about actual stats or risks, just what the duty of care and standard of care would be on an airplane, not just in terms of molestation, but in terms of everything relating to any person's safety. Duty of Care and Standard of Care are legal terms used to define legal obligations that one party has towards another. All I was saying is that a court would likely hold an airline to a higher standard of both due to the nature of the relationship between air travellers and an airline as opposed to bus passengers and a public transportation system.

As for men vs. women, I already said that that was discriminatory, and that if the airline wanted to minimize liability, they should separate children in their care from everyone and supervise them at all times. Anything less leaves them open to a lawsuit. This won't totally prevent liability, as there are a host of other dangers that can affect a child on a plane, but being molested by a stranger in the next seat is theoretically "legally" foreseeable, and as such should be mitigated as much as possible. Also, it's far more cost effective than many other options that would further mititgate dangers to the child.
posted by loquax at 9:21 AM on November 30, 2005

One protest:

Meanwhile, a treetop demonstration is being staged by a man near Nelson who is unhappy at the airlines' stance.

Kevin Gill has gone up a tree in Richmond, in protest at the policy by Qantas and Air New Zealand.

He says it was a struggle for him, as he is a double amputee and has a fear of heights.

He says he will not come down until the airlines agree to review their policies.

Great. That's what a kid alone on a plane journey needs, to be sat next to a double-amputee tree-climbing political activist who insists on the right to sit next to the kid and who's freaking out the whole way because he's afraid of heights.

"I want my mommy!"

But I'm with the amputee in the tree: the policy is obnoxious, and anyone who imagines herself or himself at the wrong end of a similar policy due entirely to their sex or race or religion will completely agree that it's got to go.

loquax: Duty of Care and Standard of Care are legal terms used to define legal obligations that one party has towards another.

The definitions linked here call for reasonable care. Is there a court somewhere that would say it is reasonable to require an airline to enact an embarrassing and discriminatory policy against one half of its clients in order to prevent an event that has essentially zero chance of occurring?

I'm afraid these airlines soon will be forced to adopt a more sensible if more expensive policy such as seating UMs with flight crew or next to empty seats. If they had real sense, they would have made it a benefit by seating all the screamers (and their parents, if they're accompanied) starting on one end of the plane and seating all the childless travelers starting on the other end of the plane, and put a series of sound and sight barriers somewhere in the middle.
posted by pracowity at 11:20 AM on November 30, 2005

Men are way more likely to be able to defend the children against terrorists, shepherd the child through an emergancy such as a crash or fire, etc.

I think a lot of mamas would disagree with you. I think any parent defending their cubs would fight as hard as possible in those situations, with either one likely to be successful.
posted by agregoli at 11:23 AM on November 30, 2005

Cubs? You mean all this time we've been talking about bears on planes?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:35 AM on November 30, 2005

> I think a lot of mamas would disagree with you.

And a lot of mamas would be wrong. Stories about mothers discovering super-strength to lift cars off their children and so on are myths.

Anyway, an unaccompanied minor (and that's what we're talking about) is by definition not traveling with mom, but is sitting next to a strange woman or a strange man. If there's trouble that requires physical assistance, Junior is probably safer sitting next to the guy.
posted by pracowity at 11:52 AM on November 30, 2005

Stories about mothers discovering super-strength to lift cars off their children and so on are myths.

Huh? Who said anything about finding super strength? Not to mention that the phenomenon in question is NOT a myth?

You don't need super strength in the situations mentioned. Your point about unaccompanied minors is, however, well taken.

Regardless, a lot of people will go way out of their way and will easily risk their lives for a child. Men AND women.
posted by agregoli at 1:12 PM on November 30, 2005

Not to mention that the phenomenon in question is NOT a myth?

Can you point to a verifiable story about a mother picking a car up to rescue a trapped baby? I of course can't disprove the negative (or whatever the term is for such an impossibility), but I can point to other places that call the story into question.

And I brought it up because that's the sort of thing you seemed to imply by saying mothers and fathers defending their children are "likely to be successful" against big bad terrorists and so on -- that they can pull off extraordinary feats to rescue the kids. Which, of course, isn't true, particularly in the circumstances we're talking about. Terrorists on a plane are likely to have the advantage of weapons and surprise and experience and hostages and a greater tolerance for risk than a mommy clutching her child or trying to get it back. When the bad guys lose, it's always because the cops have even colder, meaner guys and lots more guns, not because mom's fight-or-flight response was in high gear.

And in an accident, assuming there is anything that can be done (airline accident pretty much = death for all if they're in the air), I'd rather have a larger and stronger person fighting for my kid, and generally that's of course a man.

Not that all of this means much to the original argument, but I'd hate to let it go uncorrected.
posted by pracowity at 2:40 PM on November 30, 2005

Exactly. Pedophile paratrooper terrorists who will kill the crew and then leap to safety and leave the passengers wondering "Does anyone knows how to fly this thing... "
posted by pracowity at 12:31 AM on December 1, 2005

When the bad guys lose, it's always because the cops have even colder, meaner guys and lots more guns, not because mom's fight-or-flight response was in high gear.


Always? No. That's my only point.
posted by agregoli at 10:05 AM on December 1, 2005

“I'd rather have a larger and stronger person fighting for my kid, and generally that's of course a man” - posted by pracowity

Here’s the thing. I am so fantastically dangerous you wouldn’t want to sit next to me on a flight if you knew what I was capable of. And I’m always armed.(I have an inferiority complex *smirk*) Typically several polycarbonite knives, garrotte, and other non-metallic weapons that can be either quickly assembled or loaded. And I train with them. I stopped carrying a bandanna and a pool ball because it’s not as effective as I thought in tight quarters. And I kill faster with my bare hands. I’m fairly well armed now and I’m sitting in a comfortable office. Everyone within a short walking distance of me here is alive only because I do not wish to kill them. Most people next to me on a plane wouldn’t stand a chance. Killing a child? Pfft. Child’s play. The only thing anyone has to rely on for me not to kill them is the chance that I won’t flip out for some reason. Skillwise, I’m the worst case scenario. So how do we then determine intent?
What are the odds on that? How do you mitigate those statistics? Point a gun at my head the whole trip?(if someone else is pointing a gun at me I tend to think I am going to aquire a new gun - situation depending of course) So - make me ride outside? Never allow me to travel any form of public transportation? Does the morality and honor with which I was raised and trained factor in curving the odds? (I’d love to talk to an actuary about death before dishonor as a mathematical statement)
If I save a childs life does that mitigate the odds or prove that I have a perverse interest in them?
And do I have to save your kid from terrorists or whatever simply because I can? Why should I? You might sue me for doing it wrong. Perhaps the kid gets wounded. You don’t trust me not to molest the kid, why should I trust that you won’t hold me responsibile for interfering?

At some level trust must override the cold numbers because we either choose to live in a society with trust or, we don’t.
And the world is what we make it.

(As I understand it, basic “Prisoners Dilemma” game theory tends to favor trust in the long run anyway.)
posted by Smedleyman at 12:58 PM on December 1, 2005

“...fucking security line of the O'Hare International Airport! ...Visions of bread lines in Soviet Russia continue to dance in my head.” -posted by furiousthought
First thing I thought of too! Funny. I’m putting my shoes in the scanner and singing: “Soy'ooz neroosh'imi resp'ooblik svob'odnikh...*”,  my wife is chuckling and looking embarrassed, I think because no one else was getting it (or if they are they’re stoically - characteristically, bearing it), which makes me sing louder and my wife giggle more, and the guard with the wand has no clue WTF is so funny.

*phonetic - here’s the tune: http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/sounds/lyrics/anthem.htm
posted by Smedleyman at 1:11 PM on December 1, 2005

Look, to me, there are an unacceptable number of known, convicted sex offenders in my daughter's neighborhood.

Then you need to move.
posted by Ynoxas at 10:28 AM on December 2, 2005