Austistic teen kicked off plane.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If i knew hot food would help calm my child I would purchase some right before getting on the plane (asking wherever I was ordering it from make it piping hot) and give it to her on the plane. Or I would pony up the cash and buy a first class seat. This isn't rocket science. IF the parent really knew her child she would be prepared. This isn't a special needs issue, it's a stupid parent issue.

Yeah, maybe, but haven't we all made bonehead parenting mistakes. My issue here is the mom's actions when she realized her daughter needed food. She informed the flight crew that her daughter had the potential to become violent, that the triggers for violence were present and that mom could not control her and prevent the violence. The flight crew then had to make decisions. From what I can see, the flight crew made two decisions: to take action to try to prevent the daughter from becoming agitated (or maybe more agitated - can't tell what her state was before the food), which was to give her food and to prevent injury or harm to passengers if the efforts to prevent problems were not successful (which was to divert). In this case, the girl was fine in the end, but once the decision is made to divert, there is no going back.

United was in the position of predicting and did the best they could. They are damned now because the girl was fine, but had they not diverted and the girl become violent, then they would have been damned for that decision. No one has a crystal ball.

Thing is, when the mom had a problem, she really should not have said that her daughter might become violent and she was unable to control/prevent it. We all live in the post 911 era. Given that mom travels a lot, she should know better. Sounds to me like mom was really tired after a trip across country to Disney and acted poorly.

And, I'm not convinced this is a training issue either. If someone tells the flight attendant that their child has the potential for violence, the triggers are present and they cannot prevent nor control their child, what more did the flight attendant need to know?

They need to be aware of the American with Disabilities Act which requires businesses open to the public to make their facilities and services available and usable by people with disabilities. I am aware that they need to balance accommodations with the safety of other passengers, but in this case, the girl was not causing any problems. The mom asked for warm food. That's not a crazy demand. It's a small request.

Kicking the girl off the plane because she *might* become disruptive is a huge violation of the ADA. The airline has a huge problem and is going to get their ass handed to them.

NO they will not and you are absurd. First as much as an airline can accommodate ADA they cannot predict, assume, and or care for someone with violent behavior. Just because an individual has a mental disorder, incapacity, etc,. does not mean that safety rules for ALL will be bent. But go ahead and spin it how you want....you will argue BS until you are blue in the face.

What violent behavior that occurred are you referring to? What was it you were saying about spinning it how you want?

Ha you are too funny! Lets wait and see what the flight attendant has to say....mmmmkay!

No, let's see what the other passengers have to say. Flight attendants will "spin" just as you accuse others of doing, considering they're party to a lawsuit now. But it's curious how everyone is saying "but she was violent! There were threats of violence! Mom couldn't control her kid!" When in fact, by other passengers' accounts, there was no violence, there were no threats of violence, and mom did in fact control her kid. But let's see what these impartial other passengers have to add. Mmmmmmkay?

You cannot read! I did not say she was violent...and no other poster has said that. There was a threat of violence. And guess what....even if the word violence was not used....scratching it violent behavior. But you are dead set and crucifying United and anyone who agrees with them. Maybe you can create an airline where anyone is free to do whatever their little hearts desire. Goodluck!

Oh please. "Threat of violence" "need to protect other passengers from violent behavior," blah blah blah. The kid never was violent, there was no threat of violence. Scratching oneself is not "violence" and no other passengers were at risk. I believe anyone else on that plane other than the employees, and OK, let's say even mom. The passengers were incredulous that they were getting kicked off, per the posted video. That's kind of all I need to see. If you honestly thinking scratching is reason to land a plane, also please feel free to go create your own airline. Pure absurdity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, the mother said that her kid might have a meltdown and scratch herself or others. That's a warning of physical violence that the flight crew needs to take seriously.

Frankly, I don't have any problem with the mother asking for hot food from first class, although its not clear whether she offered to pay for it at the time that she asked, rather than after she received it. But whatever, that's not so out of line. But she basically told the flight attendant that her kid was going to have a meltdown and scratch. It's not a "threat" like threatening to intentionally hurt someone, but it's a statement that her kid is prone to violent fits and that she was at risk for having one. Don't tell the flight attendant that your kid is going to hurt themselves or someone else if you don't want them to believe you.

She did not say her child would meltdown, she said I am sure you will give us the food after she melts down... basically asking why the FA would wait for a meltdown.

She already paid for the chicken sandwich and just asked for it to be nuked. She offered to pay for hot rice.

But that statement--you will give her the food after she melts down and scratches--is a statement that the child is at imminent risk of becoming violent.

And when was the last time you saw a microwave on an airplane? They can't just "nuke" food. Food is usually heated on the ground, not on the plane.

No. It means if I can't get some hot food my child will cry loudly and annoy the other passengers.

Also, there is hot food, and they always have extra in case they drop one or something happens.

How about this. "I am so sorry, we don't have a microwave to heat food, let me see what else I can figure out." That is customer service. I have seen microwaves on planes many times.

Except she said that the girl would scratch. Not just cry loudly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, the mother said that her kid might have a meltdown and scratch herself or others. That's a warning of physical violence that the flight crew needs to take seriously.

Frankly, I don't have any problem with the mother asking for hot food from first class, although its not clear whether she offered to pay for it at the time that she asked, rather than after she received it. But whatever, that's not so out of line. But she basically told the flight attendant that her kid was going to have a meltdown and scratch. It's not a "threat" like threatening to intentionally hurt someone, but it's a statement that her kid is prone to violent fits and that she was at risk for having one. Don't tell the flight attendant that your kid is going to hurt themselves or someone else if you don't want them to believe you.

She did not say her child would meltdown, she said I am sure you will give us the food after she melts down... basically asking why the FA would wait for a meltdown.

She already paid for the chicken sandwich and just asked for it to be nuked. She offered to pay for hot rice.

But that statement--you will give her the food after she melts down and scratches--is a statement that the child is at imminent risk of becoming violent.

And when was the last time you saw a microwave on an airplane? They can't just "nuke" food. Food is usually heated on the ground, not on the plane.

No. It means if I can't get some hot food my child will cry loudly and annoy the other passengers.

Also, there is hot food, and they always have extra in case they drop one or something happens.

How about this. "I am so sorry, we don't have a microwave to heat food, let me see what else I can figure out." That is customer service. I have seen microwaves on planes many times.

Except she said that the girl would scratch. Not just cry loudly.

Scratch herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:May you all (ok, lots of you) walk a thousand miles in that mom's shoes before you judge.

People aren't really judging her. Things happen, but the mom could have handled things more tactfully. So could the airline. But bringing it to the media and suing the airline are absurd, and FAR more worthy of "mom-judgment" than the original requests/threats/etc.

+ 1. This will follow the daughter and mom for the rest of their lives. Hiring a lawyer is stupid and looks crass and money-grabbing. Also, we also don't know exactly what the mom said to the flight attendant. But once the word "violence" is used, the pilot had ever right to bring the plane down.

Except it wasn't.

From her account: "I again asked if he could make an exception for our daughter who faces autism. He said, no he could not give her the rice from first class. I asked if I could get some chips or something salty for her. He said they had no chips. Juliette was beginning to cry. Frustrated I said, after she has a melt down and tries to scratch in frustration, will you help her then? He said he would see what he could do. He came back scowled at me and gave her a hot meal. I thanked him and offered to pay for it. He did not answer and went back to First Class.

You're telling me THAT was a reason to land a plane and kick them off??? That's the story, right there. Baffling and ignorant and stupid.

Not the airlines problem. Not the flight attendants problem, not the other passengers problem. Poor planning on the family's part should not make an issue for everyone else. "My daughter who faces autism." Gag. Even the phrasing sounds manipulative.

That is not true. It is the airlines responsibilities to help prevent bad situations. If the parent needed orange juice for diabetes she would have been provided orange juice.

Except orange juice is available to everyone. Not just "special" people. Analogy fail.

Except the ADA is at play. Seriously, 25 years later and you don't know that?

Please link to where the ADA says disabled people have an inalienable right to hot food.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, the mother said that her kid might have a meltdown and scratch herself or others. That's a warning of physical violence that the flight crew needs to take seriously.

Frankly, I don't have any problem with the mother asking for hot food from first class, although its not clear whether she offered to pay for it at the time that she asked, rather than after she received it. But whatever, that's not so out of line. But she basically told the flight attendant that her kid was going to have a meltdown and scratch. It's not a "threat" like threatening to intentionally hurt someone, but it's a statement that her kid is prone to violent fits and that she was at risk for having one. Don't tell the flight attendant that your kid is going to hurt themselves or someone else if you don't want them to believe you.

She did not say her child would meltdown, she said I am sure you will give us the food after she melts down... basically asking why the FA would wait for a meltdown.

She already paid for the chicken sandwich and just asked for it to be nuked. She offered to pay for hot rice.

But that statement--you will give her the food after she melts down and scratches--is a statement that the child is at imminent risk of becoming violent.

And when was the last time you saw a microwave on an airplane? They can't just "nuke" food. Food is usually heated on the ground, not on the plane.

No. It means if I can't get some hot food my child will cry loudly and annoy the other passengers.

Also, there is hot food, and they always have extra in case they drop one or something happens.

How about this. "I am so sorry, we don't have a microwave to heat food, let me see what else I can figure out." That is customer service. I have seen microwaves on planes many times.

Except she said that the girl would scratch. Not just cry loudly.

Scratch herself.

She's a passenger, too. Her safety is important, and if she cannot be kept from harming herself, then that's a reason to get her off the plane.

[Anonymous]

This is not about the ADA. No one was denied access to facilities because of a disability. Airline crew have a lot of leeway to assess threats and respond accordingly - at least we all should hope that they do. The pilots and crew acted on the basis of what they believed to be a safety threat. That is not discrimination or a violation of ADA. You may believe they overreacted; none of us were in the plane, so none of us can say with absolute certainty if that is true or not. But even if it was, an overreaction to a stated threat is not discrimination (not legally, not morally either.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:May you all (ok, lots of you) walk a thousand miles in that mom's shoes before you judge.

People aren't really judging her. Things happen, but the mom could have handled things more tactfully. So could the airline. But bringing it to the media and suing the airline are absurd, and FAR more worthy of "mom-judgment" than the original requests/threats/etc.

+ 1. This will follow the daughter and mom for the rest of their lives. Hiring a lawyer is stupid and looks crass and money-grabbing. Also, we also don't know exactly what the mom said to the flight attendant. But once the word "violence" is used, the pilot had ever right to bring the plane down.

Except it wasn't.

From her account: "I again asked if he could make an exception for our daughter who faces autism. He said, no he could not give her the rice from first class. I asked if I could get some chips or something salty for her. He said they had no chips. Juliette was beginning to cry. Frustrated I said, after she has a melt down and tries to scratch in frustration, will you help her then? He said he would see what he could do. He came back scowled at me and gave her a hot meal. I thanked him and offered to pay for it. He did not answer and went back to First Class.

You're telling me THAT was a reason to land a plane and kick them off??? That's the story, right there. Baffling and ignorant and stupid.

Not the airlines problem. Not the flight attendants problem, not the other passengers problem. Poor planning on the family's part should not make an issue for everyone else. "My daughter who faces autism." Gag. Even the phrasing sounds manipulative.

That is not true. It is the airlines responsibilities to help prevent bad situations. If the parent needed orange juice for diabetes she would have been provided orange juice.

Except orange juice is available to everyone. Not just "special" people. Analogy fail.

Except the ADA is at play. Seriously, 25 years later and you don't know that?

Please link to where the ADA says disabled people have an inalienable right to hot food.

FAA rules for people with disabilities.

....Airlines are required to provide assis­tance with boarding, deplaning and making connections. Assistance within the cabin is also required....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is not about the ADA. No one was denied access to facilities because of a disability. Airline crew have a lot of leeway to assess threats and respond accordingly - at least we all should hope that they do. The pilots and crew acted on the basis of what they believed to be a safety threat. That is not discrimination or a violation of ADA. You may believe they overreacted; none of us were in the plane, so none of us can say with absolute certainty if that is true or not. But even if it was, an overreaction to a stated threat is not discrimination (not legally, not morally either.)

Yes. This is an ADA case. The girl was not given proper accommodations and she was denied access to her flight solely based on the fact that she is autistic.

I also think this was a lack of training, not an overreaction. Airlines are required to train their staff on dealing with people with disabilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:May you all (ok, lots of you) walk a thousand miles in that mom's shoes before you judge.

People aren't really judging her. Things happen, but the mom could have handled things more tactfully. So could the airline. But bringing it to the media and suing the airline are absurd, and FAR more worthy of "mom-judgment" than the original requests/threats/etc.

+ 1. This will follow the daughter and mom for the rest of their lives. Hiring a lawyer is stupid and looks crass and money-grabbing. Also, we also don't know exactly what the mom said to the flight attendant. But once the word "violence" is used, the pilot had ever right to bring the plane down.

Except it wasn't.

From her account: "I again asked if he could make an exception for our daughter who faces autism. He said, no he could not give her the rice from first class. I asked if I could get some chips or something salty for her. He said they had no chips. Juliette was beginning to cry. Frustrated I said, after she has a melt down and tries to scratch in frustration, will you help her then? He said he would see what he could do. He came back scowled at me and gave her a hot meal. I thanked him and offered to pay for it. He did not answer and went back to First Class.

You're telling me THAT was a reason to land a plane and kick them off??? That's the story, right there. Baffling and ignorant and stupid.

Not the airlines problem. Not the flight attendants problem, not the other passengers problem. Poor planning on the family's part should not make an issue for everyone else. "My daughter who faces autism." Gag. Even the phrasing sounds manipulative.

That is not true. It is the airlines responsibilities to help prevent bad situations. If the parent needed orange juice for diabetes she would have been provided orange juice.

Except orange juice is available to everyone. Not just "special" people. Analogy fail.

Except the ADA is at play. Seriously, 25 years later and you don't know that?

Please link to where the ADA says disabled people have an inalienable right to hot food.

Airlines in coach do not provide food anymore. Some have a limited supply for sale, but very few. I have a picky eater who does not eat meat. I would not expect sitting in coach for them to serve my child from first class as he refuses anything in coach or our food. I expect him to sit and behave and either eat what we have or wait. If he acts up, he will not get on a plane again. (and yes, we couldn't travel for a few years. It sucked, but that's life). So, if child wanted ice cream, they are supposed to provide it? Or, a specific candy? No, eat what is provided, parents bring food or don't fly. If your child is prone to violent behavior or disruptive behavior and cannot be controlled, the only time it would be ok to fly is to medical appointments or other emergencies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not about the ADA. No one was denied access to facilities because of a disability. Airline crew have a lot of leeway to assess threats and respond accordingly - at least we all should hope that they do. The pilots and crew acted on the basis of what they believed to be a safety threat. That is not discrimination or a violation of ADA. You may believe they overreacted; none of us were in the plane, so none of us can say with absolute certainty if that is true or not. But even if it was, an overreaction to a stated threat is not discrimination (not legally, not morally either.)

Yes. This is an ADA case. The girl was not given proper accommodations and she was denied access to her flight solely based on the fact that she is autistic.

I also think this was a lack of training, not an overreaction. Airlines are required to train their staff on dealing with people with disabilities.

She was given proper accommodation -- yes, grudgingly, but the flight attendant did get her jambalaya which was acceptably got. It's arguable that she was denied access to her flight solely on the fact that she is autistic. Alternatively, she and her family were kicked off the flight for being unruly, disruptive, or otherwise a threat or problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look, the mother said that her kid might have a meltdown and scratch herself or others. That's a warning of physical violence that the flight crew needs to take seriously.

Frankly, I don't have any problem with the mother asking for hot food from first class, although its not clear whether she offered to pay for it at the time that she asked, rather than after she received it. But whatever, that's not so out of line. But she basically told the flight attendant that her kid was going to have a meltdown and scratch. It's not a "threat" like threatening to intentionally hurt someone, but it's a statement that her kid is prone to violent fits and that she was at risk for having one. Don't tell the flight attendant that your kid is going to hurt themselves or someone else if you don't want them to believe you.

Its ok to ask but if you are declined, then you respect that. You don't go demanding it till it is being given. Flight attendant could not be sure that the threat, which the child is prone to would lead to attacking others. She was in a no win situation. If she didn't report it and they take it seriously, and something happened, it could end very badly. Mom wanted a reaction and attention and she got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not about the ADA. No one was denied access to facilities because of a disability. Airline crew have a lot of leeway to assess threats and respond accordingly - at least we all should hope that they do. The pilots and crew acted on the basis of what they believed to be a safety threat. That is not discrimination or a violation of ADA. You may believe they overreacted; none of us were in the plane, so none of us can say with absolute certainty if that is true or not. But even if it was, an overreaction to a stated threat is not discrimination (not legally, not morally either.)

Yes. This is an ADA case. The girl was not given proper accommodations and she was denied access to her flight solely based on the fact that she is autistic.

I also think this was a lack of training, not an overreaction. Airlines are required to train their staff on dealing with people with disabilities.

FALSE! Its incredible what I am reading on this thread. Just incredible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:May you all (ok, lots of you) walk a thousand miles in that mom's shoes before you judge.

People aren't really judging her. Things happen, but the mom could have handled things more tactfully. So could the airline. But bringing it to the media and suing the airline are absurd, and FAR more worthy of "mom-judgment" than the original requests/threats/etc.

+ 1. This will follow the daughter and mom for the rest of their lives. Hiring a lawyer is stupid and looks crass and money-grabbing. Also, we also don't know exactly what the mom said to the flight attendant. But once the word "violence" is used, the pilot had ever right to bring the plane down.

Except it wasn't.

From her account: "I again asked if he could make an exception for our daughter who faces autism. He said, no he could not give her the rice from first class. I asked if I could get some chips or something salty for her. He said they had no chips. Juliette was beginning to cry. Frustrated I said, after she has a melt down and tries to scratch in frustration, will you help her then? He said he would see what he could do. He came back scowled at me and gave her a hot meal. I thanked him and offered to pay for it. He did not answer and went back to First Class.

You're telling me THAT was a reason to land a plane and kick them off??? That's the story, right there. Baffling and ignorant and stupid.

Not the airlines problem. Not the flight attendants problem, not the other passengers problem. Poor planning on the family's part should not make an issue for everyone else. "My daughter who faces autism." Gag. Even the phrasing sounds manipulative.

That is not true. It is the airlines responsibilities to help prevent bad situations. If the parent needed orange juice for diabetes she would have been provided orange juice.

Except orange juice is available to everyone. Not just "special" people. Analogy fail.

Except the ADA is at play. Seriously, 25 years later and you don't know that?

Please link to where the ADA says disabled people have an inalienable right to hot food.

Airlines in coach do not provide food anymore. Some have a limited supply for sale, but very few. I have a picky eater who does not eat meat. I would not expect sitting in coach for them to serve my child from first class as he refuses anything in coach or our food. I expect him to sit and behave and either eat what we have or wait. If he acts up, he will not get on a plane again. (and yes, we couldn't travel for a few years. It sucked, but that's life). So, if child wanted ice cream, they are supposed to provide it? Or, a specific candy? No, eat what is provided, parents bring food or don't fly. If your child is prone to violent behavior or disruptive behavior and cannot be controlled, the only time it would be ok to fly is to medical appointments or other emergencies.

OMG! You are so clueless. This is why Autism Speak is so important, they really need to educate the public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not about the ADA. No one was denied access to facilities because of a disability. Airline crew have a lot of leeway to assess threats and respond accordingly - at least we all should hope that they do. The pilots and crew acted on the basis of what they believed to be a safety threat. That is not discrimination or a violation of ADA. You may believe they overreacted; none of us were in the plane, so none of us can say with absolute certainty if that is true or not. But even if it was, an overreaction to a stated threat is not discrimination (not legally, not morally either.)

Yes. This is an ADA case. The girl was not given proper accommodations and she was denied access to her flight solely based on the fact that she is autistic.

I also think this was a lack of training, not an overreaction. Airlines are required to train their staff on dealing with people with disabilities.

She was given proper accommodation -- yes, grudgingly, but the flight attendant did get her jambalaya which was acceptably got. It's arguable that she was denied access to her flight solely on the fact that she is autistic. Alternatively, she and her family were kicked off the flight for being unruly, disruptive, or otherwise a threat or problem.

It is not reasonable that a proper accommodation was for the airline to provide food. If mom knew food was in first class and she needed the benefits of first class, she should have paid for first class. This is another activist mom looking to get fame through her cause, one of which happens to be via her child. I am so tired of people using their kids for this kind of stuff. Plenty of us fly with kids and adults with disabilities and its been fine. If we know they cannot handle it, you find another way. Many of us have had to do that. We had to move someone cross country and it wasn't safe to fly with them. It was a very difficult trip but we did it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not about the ADA. No one was denied access to facilities because of a disability. Airline crew have a lot of leeway to assess threats and respond accordingly - at least we all should hope that they do. The pilots and crew acted on the basis of what they believed to be a safety threat. That is not discrimination or a violation of ADA. You may believe they overreacted; none of us were in the plane, so none of us can say with absolute certainty if that is true or not. But even if it was, an overreaction to a stated threat is not discrimination (not legally, not morally either.)

Yes. This is an ADA case. The girl was not given proper accommodations and she was denied access to her flight solely based on the fact that she is autistic.

I also think this was a lack of training, not an overreaction. Airlines are required to train their staff on dealing with people with disabilities.

FALSE! Its incredible what I am reading on this thread. Just incredible.

No it is True! She was only asked to leave because she was autistic.