TOTALLY GEEKED!

huskerbb · Guru

RE: Parents' outrage after their autistic daughter is kicked off flight because she made the pilot 'feel uncomfortable'

JPT · Senior Member

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
JPT wrote:
Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:
I would be BEYOND pissed if a plane I was on made an emergency landing for something so trivial.
She had the snack, was calm, no other passenger felt threatened or bothered by her behavior.
Stupid. And discrimination. Maybe this will teach them some sense.

Yes, she was happy for the moment. What happens at the next demand for something. Maybe something like "I want to ride on the outside! I want to do it right NOW!" (Cue the screaming, kicking, scratching) And the minute a fingernail rakes the face of the poor person in front of them, cue the lawyers and arbitration judges.
But that didn't happen. Like I said we have all the facts. You can't really what if. She ate the meal and settled right down. There was zero indication after that that she was going to have a meltdown. None of the passengers were scared. The article even states the other passengers felt the family was treated unfairly.

There isn't a lot of time between "I'm not happy, and I am not being appeased" and the freak out. I take the side of the pilot who erred on the side of caution. She didn't have a meltdown on the flight because the pilot decided to not give it the opportunity.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

She's a child with a disability. Legally protected by law. But I still think people don't like to deal with disabled people. They would rather not come into contact with them at all. It makes them too uncomfortable. I think a lot of people would love it if we went back to the days where we locked them in institutions and we didn't have to look at them.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

JPT wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
JPT wrote:
Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:
I would be BEYOND pissed if a plane I was on made an emergency landing for something so trivial.
She had the snack, was calm, no other passenger felt threatened or bothered by her behavior.
Stupid. And discrimination. Maybe this will teach them some sense.

Yes, she was happy for the moment. What happens at the next demand for something. Maybe something like "I want to ride on the outside! I want to do it right NOW!" (Cue the screaming, kicking, scratching) And the minute a fingernail rakes the face of the poor person in front of them, cue the lawyers and arbitration judges.
But that didn't happen. Like I said we have all the facts. You can't really what if. She ate the meal and settled right down. There was zero indication after that that she was going to have a meltdown. None of the passengers were scared. The article even states the other passengers felt the family was treated unfairly.
There isn't a lot of time between "I'm not happy, and I am not being appeased" and the freak out. I take the side of the pilot who erred on the side of caution. She didn't have a meltdown on the flight because the pilot decided to not give it the opportunity.

And apparently there WAS a lot of time. She did not "freak out". She was given the meal and then settled down. At that point she wasn't even near "freaking out". None of the passengers were complaining. IF she had another incident where she MIGHT "freak out" then they could deal with it. But you can what if all day long. I deal with what really happened. The facts. And the facts say she was not a threat.

Ohfour · Hooker

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
JPT wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
JPT wrote:
Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:
I would be BEYOND pissed if a plane I was on made an emergency landing for something so trivial.
She had the snack, was calm, no other passenger felt threatened or bothered by her behavior.
Stupid. And discrimination. Maybe this will teach them some sense.

Yes, she was happy for the moment. What happens at the next demand for something. Maybe something like "I want to ride on the outside! I want to do it right NOW!" (Cue the screaming, kicking, scratching) And the minute a fingernail rakes the face of the poor person in front of them, cue the lawyers and arbitration judges.
But that didn't happen. Like I said we have all the facts. You can't really what if. She ate the meal and settled right down. There was zero indication after that that she was going to have a meltdown. None of the passengers were scared. The article even states the other passengers felt the family was treated unfairly.
There isn't a lot of time between "I'm not happy, and I am not being appeased" and the freak out. I take the side of the pilot who erred on the side of caution. She didn't have a meltdown on the flight because the pilot decided to not give it the opportunity.
And apparently there WAS a lot of time. She did not "freak out". She was given the meal and then settled down. At that point she wasn't even near "freaking out". None of the passengers were complaining. IF she had another incident where she MIGHT "freak out" then they could deal with it. But you can what if all day long. I deal with what really happened. The facts. And the facts say she was not a threat.

Yeah, neither is the guy quietly praying Allah Akbar... confuse

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Ohfour wrote:

Yeah, neither is the guy quietly praying Allah Akbar...

So now she's a terrorist? Please explain to me how she was going to "take a plane down". That's just ridiculous.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

And besides that she's a child with a disability protected by law. A terrorist who wants to blow up a plane does not have special rights that protect him. The comparison is beyond ludicrous.

Ohfour · Hooker

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Ohfour wrote:

Yeah, neither is the guy quietly praying Allah Akbar...
So now she's a terrorist? Please explain to me how she was going to "take a plane down". That's just ridiculous.

Her mother said that she was capable of injuring people if she didn't get her way (her meal). She was a threat and her mother said so. Off the pane with you...

huskerbb · Guru

Yes, you can go by what if. If you wait until something happens, it's too late. As far as your disabled child goes, not my problem, nor should it be.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Yes, you can go by what if. If you wait until something happens, it's too late. As far as your disabled child goes, not my problem, nor should it be.

Well, that logic could apply to absolutely ANYONE on the plane.

Ohfour · Hooker

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Yes, you can go by what if. If you wait until something happens, it's too late. As far as your disabled child goes, not my problem, nor should it be.
Well, that logic could apply to absolutely ANYONE on the plane.

Her parents said that she might hurt someone. They offered that information. At that point, it becomes a credible threat. She should have been removed.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Yes, you can go by what if. If you wait until something happens, it's too late. As far as your disabled child goes, not my problem, nor should it be.
Well, that logic could apply to absolutely ANYONE on the plane.
Her parents said that she might hurt someone. They offered that information. At that point, it becomes a credible threat. She should have been removed.

SCRATCH someone. That's not going to maim them.

FNW · Guru

It's been awhile since law school, but I'm pretty sure scratching is a battery, assault if you see them do it. And that's just the criminal side.

Don't know about anyone else, but I would not want someone on my flight who started wigging out scratching people. Disabled or not.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

So others should be subjected to her scratching them?

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Next time I go on a plane I'm going to complain that the person next to me appears to be a threat. That they COULD and MIGHT do something to harm me.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Go ahead. Then u can sit in the airport for hours.

Ohfour · Hooker

Lawyerlady wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Yes, you can go by what if. If you wait until something happens, it's too late. As far as your disabled child goes, not my problem, nor should it be.
Well, that logic could apply to absolutely ANYONE on the plane.
Her parents said that she might hurt someone. They offered that information. At that point, it becomes a credible threat. She should have been removed.
SCRATCH someone. That's not going to maim them.

I don't care. If she cannot be controlled, she does not need to be on a plane.

Ohfour · Hooker

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Next time I go on a plane I'm going to complain that the person next to me appears to be a threat. That they COULD and MIGHT do something to harm me.

That's not the case here. Her mother said she was a threat. It wasn't that she appeared to be one. She WAS one...

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Yes. Mom said so.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Mom did handle it poorly. Mom should have not said a y thing about the scratching, and if mom kept daughters nails trimmed, that wouldn't be an issue either.

You know. I know there are those who are more severe than others. But at the same time I wonder if certain behavior takes place because it is allowed to take place.

You teach kids not to bite, scatch and other things. And it may be harder, most autistic kids can learn to control a good bit of these behaviors.

Anyway. Mom shouldn't have said daughter might scratch anyone. And daughter could have been put next to the window or between the parents. Limit contact with others.

The whole thing was handled poorly. By evetyone.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Yes, you can go by what if. If you wait until something happens, it's too late. As far as your disabled child goes, not my problem, nor should it be.
Well, that logic could apply to absolutely ANYONE on the plane.

BS. Her own mother said she might have a melt down and scratch other people. That applied to NO ONE else on that plane.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Yes, you can go by what if. If you wait until something happens, it's too late. As far as your disabled child goes, not my problem, nor should it be.
Well, that logic could apply to absolutely ANYONE on the plane.
Her parents said that she might hurt someone. They offered that information. At that point, it becomes a credible threat. She should have been removed.
SCRATCH someone. That's not going to maim them.

Dumbest post ever. So any behavior is ok as long as no one is "maimed"??? Absurd. No one else would be allowed to do that.

huskerbb · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Yes, you can go by what if. If you wait until something happens, it's too late. As far as your disabled child goes, not my problem, nor should it be.
Well, that logic could apply to absolutely ANYONE on the plane.
Her parents said that she might hurt someone. They offered that information. At that point, it becomes a credible threat. She should have been removed.
SCRATCH someone. That's not going to maim them.
I don't care. If she cannot be controlled, she does not need to be on a plane.

Exactly. Why do these entitled nitwits think their problems automatically become everyone else's.

Blankie · Guru

Her mother said to the crew after they wouldn't give her a hot meal from first class: "well just wait until she has a meltdown then." That's a credible threat that someone will be out of control. And that's all that crew needed to hear.

I would have done the same if I were the crew or pilot. The pilot has to think of ALL the passengers, not just one family.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Please. It's a child. Children have meltdowns. If that's a threat - you may as well ban all children. It was a stupid over-reaction.

Blankie · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Please. It's a child. Children have meltdowns. If that's a threat - you may as well ban all children. It was a stupid over-reaction.

No, the one who was stupid was the mother for mentioning it. If she had just kept her mouth shut, it probably would have been fine.

Ohfour · Hooker

Lawyerlady wrote:
Please. It's a child. Children have meltdowns. If that's a threat - you may as well ban all children. It was a stupid over-reaction.

I would NEVER sway to someone, "unless you do as I say, my child will have a meltdown and hurt someone". REALLY???

Dona Worry Be Happy · Vette's SS!!

Um, yes, we DO have to deal with disabled people. They are PEOPLE .
Thankfully, we no longer lock them away and pretend they don't exist.
She fussed because she was hungry, she was given a snack and calmed down, just as her mother predicted.
The airline was in the wrong.

Ohfour · Hooker

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:
Um, yes, we DO have to deal with disabled people. They are PEOPLE .
Thankfully, we no longer lock them away and pretend they don't exist.
She fussed because she was hungry, she was given a snack and calmed down, just as her mother predicted.
The airline was in the wrong.

And if they are a threat, then they should be dealt with. By removing them from the situation. Get her buttoff the plane. Period.

cadiver · Senior Member

Most of the articles I have seen the quote is she may scratch, other people is not part of the quote.

The pilot does have final say and would not take diverting and costing the company money lightly. I do wonder if see was such a threat if United when booking her next flight informed the told the other carrier "We think she may be violent so we are sending her over to you".

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I still say that it would make great sense to train people who deal with the public to have a greater understanding of mental and behavioral health issues. ANd, I am sure kids have meltdowns on planes. Yeah it's annoying but not the end of the world. I think the problem was mom indicating that she might scratch someone. And, in the mind of the flight attendant or pilot that could mean reaching out for one scratch or going beserk. They didn't want to take a chance. On the other hand, if the flight attendant can easily quell the situation and a hot meal would have done it, then you would think that would be very simple. But, it isn't because there are soooo many sleazy, greedy gimmie a handout types in the world now, that if they used their common sense and gave her a meal, then soon there would be a parade of jerks feeling entitled. That is the world we now live in. They can't use common sense even if they want too.

Blankie · Guru

Well hold on, you can't discriminate. If the crew and pilot need to learn about autism, then they have to learn about all behavioral issues.

Depression, bipolar, borderline personality disorder, anxiety disorders, dissociative disorders. Psychopaths and sociopaths. And on and on. Ad nauseum.

I don't think so.

A pilot's job is to fly a plane safely. A pilot is not a psychiatrist or therapist. Same for the crew.

FNW · Guru

I for one would like the asylums brought back. Not for disabled, but for the certifiable.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Yes, a pilot's job is to fly the plane. The fact he was ever bothered about this was dumb.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Blankie wrote:
Well hold on, you can't discriminate. If the crew and pilot need to learn about autism, then they have to learn about all behavioral issues.
Depression, bipolar, borderline personality disorder, anxiety disorders, dissociative disorders. Psychopaths and sociopaths. And on and on. Ad nauseum.
I don't think so.
A pilot's job is to fly a plane safely. A pilot is not a psychiatrist or therapist. Same for the crew.

Um i didnt ask them to be therapists. Try reading. Pilots need knowledge to assess threats. More knowledge gives more ability to assess.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Well, even the pilot and crew never used the word threat or fear. It was always uncomfortable. They said the passengers weren't comfortable around the girl either. They never said they felt threatened or afraid. Just uncomfortable. And the passengers said they had no problem with the girl but the crew is claiming the passengers did.

Blankie · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Well, even the pilot and crew never used the word threat or fear. It was always uncomfortable. They said the passengers weren't comfortable around the girl either. They never said they felt threatened or afraid. Just uncomfortable. And the passengers said they had no problem with the girl but the crew is claiming the passengers did.

I have a feeling "comfortable" or "uncomfortable" was a euphemism. They probably chose their words carefully. It wouldn't have sounded good to say "we think your daughter is a threat to other passengers."

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Blankie wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Well, even the pilot and crew never used the word threat or fear. It was always uncomfortable. They said the passengers weren't comfortable around the girl either. They never said they felt threatened or afraid. Just uncomfortable. And the passengers said they had no problem with the girl but the crew is claiming the passengers did.
I have a feeling "comfortable" or "uncomfortable" was a euphemism. They probably chose their words carefully. It wouldn't have sounded good to say "we think your daughter is a threat to other passengers."

It wouldn't have sounded good to the other passengers who were appalled that they kicked her off the plane? The passengers weren't even complaining. They were upset when the plane asked her to leave. The passengers felt so threatened that they couldn't even express their fears? Yeah, not buying this.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

We do need to look at what someone is doing versus what they Might do.

huskerbb · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Blankie wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Well, even the pilot and crew never used the word threat or fear. It was always uncomfortable. They said the passengers weren't comfortable around the girl either. They never said they felt threatened or afraid. Just uncomfortable. And the passengers said they had no problem with the girl but the crew is claiming the passengers did.
I have a feeling "comfortable" or "uncomfortable" was a euphemism. They probably chose their words carefully. It wouldn't have sounded good to say "we think your daughter is a threat to other passengers."
It wouldn't have sounded good to the other passengers who were appalled that they kicked her off the plane? The passengers weren't even complaining. They were upset when the plane asked her to leave. The passengers felt so threatened that they couldn't even express their fears? Yeah, not buying this.

It's not up to the passengers. They may not have felt threatened--but they probably also didn't have the information about a possible "melt down" that the flight crew did. At any rate, the passengers' "feelings" are irrelevant.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Yes, a pilot's job is to fly the plane. The fact he was ever bothered about this was dumb.

No, you are dead wrong. His job is NOT just to "fly the plane". He is responsible for everything that occurs, or might occur, during a flight. Passenger safety is his number one priority.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Please. It's a child. Children have meltdowns. If that's a threat - you may as well ban all children. It was a stupid over-reaction.

My kids didn't--certainly not at age 15 and certainly not on a plane.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

I think the pilot blew it on this one. Sorry. The pilot has every right to feel like someone is a threat. And his job is to get everyone to safety. BUT, he simply cannot be so stupid that he didn't foresee saying he felt "uncomfortable" around the autistic kid as setting off a firestorm. Really? If he felt like she was going to cause trouble he should have left the autistic part out of it and just said, "For the safety of the other passengers we are asking that you deboard so that we can continue with our flight with no interruptions." He was utterly stupid to throw in the "The autistic kid makes me uncomfortable." He screwed himself over with that.

huskerbb · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
I think the pilot blew it on this one. Sorry. The pilot has every right to feel like someone is a threat. And his job is to get everyone to safety. BUT, he simply cannot be so stupid that he didn't foresee saying he felt "uncomfortable" around the autistic kid as setting off a firestorm. Really? If he felt like she was going to cause trouble he should have left the autistic part out of it and just said, "For the safety of the other passengers we are asking that you deboard so that we can continue with our flight with no interruptions." He was utterly stupid to throw in the "The autistic kid makes me uncomfortable." He screwed himself over with that.

No way. A normal 15 year old isn't going to have a melt down and scratch other people on a plane. It wouldn't even be a consideration or be brought up.

They wouldn't demand hot food or other such nonsense, either.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

huskerbb wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
I think the pilot blew it on this one. Sorry. The pilot has every right to feel like someone is a threat. And his job is to get everyone to safety. BUT, he simply cannot be so stupid that he didn't foresee saying he felt "uncomfortable" around the autistic kid as setting off a firestorm. Really? If he felt like she was going to cause trouble he should have left the autistic part out of it and just said, "For the safety of the other passengers we are asking that you deboard so that we can continue with our flight with no interruptions." He was utterly stupid to throw in the "The autistic kid makes me uncomfortable." He screwed himself over with that.
No way. A normal 15 year old isn't going to have a melt down and scratch other people on a plane. It wouldn't even be a consideration or be brought up.

They wouldn't demand hot food or other such nonsense, either.

Did you even read the article? SHE'S AUTISTIC!

huskerbb · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
I think the pilot blew it on this one. Sorry. The pilot has every right to feel like someone is a threat. And his job is to get everyone to safety. BUT, he simply cannot be so stupid that he didn't foresee saying he felt "uncomfortable" around the autistic kid as setting off a firestorm. Really? If he felt like she was going to cause trouble he should have left the autistic part out of it and just said, "For the safety of the other passengers we are asking that you deboard so that we can continue with our flight with no interruptions." He was utterly stupid to throw in the "The autistic kid makes me uncomfortable." He screwed himself over with that.
No way. A normal 15 year old isn't going to have a melt down and scratch other people on a plane. It wouldn't even be a consideration or be brought up.

They wouldn't demand hot food or other such nonsense, either.
Did you even read the article? SHE'S AUTISTIC!

Duh. I know--yet you want the pilot to ignore that and not even mention it--when it is the core reason that there was even an issue.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

She's not a "normal" 15 year old. She's an autistic 15 year old. There is a world of difference between them.

huskerbb · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
She's not a "normal" 15 year old. She's an autistic 15 year old. There is a world of difference between them.

Again, I know--but again, you wanted the pilot to completely ignore that fact. You JUST SAID THAT he should have left that part out--and now when challenged, you want it to be important. You can't have it both ways.

Plus, your autistic kid isn't my problem. That's the problem with these entitled parents. They think they get to inflict their kid on everyone else.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Autistic kids tend to be very OCD. Things that don't, won't, or shouldn't bother normal people bother Autistic kids. And the things that bother them tend to be weird. And it is NOT about bad parenting. There was a waitress here in town that made the news because a lady brought in her Autistic niece. They ordered hamburgers and when the waitress brought the burgers out the little girl's burger was cut in half. The girl wouldn't eat it because it was "broken". The little girl started crying and wouldn't calm down because her burger was "broken". The aunt told the waitress that she would pay for a new burger. When the waitress brought the new burger out she told the lady that they were comping her meal. The aunt never asked for that. She didn't throw a fit. She didn't blame it on anyone else. She didn't threaten. And the meltdown was not caused by bad parenting like so many here want to believe. I think the aunt wrote a thank you letter to the restaurant and forwarded a copy to the news. Then the waitress was in the news and the restaurant got a lot of really good free publicity.

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

So, an autistic 15 year old MAY have a meltdown, either medicate or stay off the plane. Parenting fail, IMHO.

Yes, there are lots of special needs children who fly every single day. The difference is, the parents make sure the special needs child is under their strict control at all times. We have never heard anything about those children. Why? Because they are controlled by their parent(s).

Autism should not be an excuse.