TOTALLY GEEKED!

Ohfour wrote:

---

I asked YOU for a solution that meets all 3 conditions I have listed.

What solution do you have for the mother? How can she bring hot food on the plane that her daughter will eat, ensure that it stays hot until needed, AND still be compliant with TSA rules? Instead of turning a blind eye to the mother's situation and issuing a sarcastic ffs, offer a solution.

 I will list the solutions:

1. Buy Hot Food. Put it in a thermal bag (like pizza delivery) and take it on the plane
2. Put it in the bag mentioned above. There are no TSA rules about bringing hot food, that has been purchased at the airport, on board
3. How did she know that her daughter would eat what they happened to be serving that day? If she's THAT picky, there is no way to tell if the food they served wouldn't have resulted in a meltdown.

The mother should have been prepared.

-- Edited by Ohfour on Wednesday 13th of May 2015 04:22:41 PM

---

Good point, and I agree.

 

FNW wrote:

---

Sure, why not? Stick one in your carry-on. As long as it's not containing liquid.

---

Why not? Beats me. A lot of TSA rules make no sense to me. Hence why I don't fly often. I prefer to not deal with their rules. 

chef wrote:

---

FNW wrote:

---

Sure, why not? Stick one in your carry-on. As long as it's not containing liquid.

---

Why not? Beats me. A lot of TSA rules make no sense to me. Hence why I don't fly often. I prefer to not deal with their rules. 

---

Buy one at the airport.  I'm quite sure they could afford the $4 to insure their daughter didn't have a meltdown... 

chef wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

chef wrote:

---

FNW wrote:

---

chef wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

chef wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

She could have been prepared and not expect someone to break the rules for her child. She could have brought hot food. I've done it many times...

---

How do you keep it hot AND still comply with TSA guidelines?

Also, coach or first class?

---

WHAT?  You buy it right before you get on the plane.   

-- Edited by Ohfour on Wednesday 13th of May 2015 04:08:41 PM

---

Yes. Now, how do you KEEP it hot? Food doesn't stay hot forever. 

---

 They make these little insulated bags you can whip out and put the hot food in to keep them hot.  

---

Are those bags 1) TSA complaint and 2) readily available?

Would those bags be allowed to go through security? 

---

You can buy them at the airport.  They are about $4.  They don't have to go through security, but my guess is that they would... 

---

Does every airport have these bags? 

---

Everyone that I've been in.  You get them in the little shop with the magazines and the travel pillows... 

Ohfour wrote:

---

chef wrote:

---

FNW wrote:

---

Sure, why not? Stick one in your carry-on. As long as it's not containing liquid.

---

Why not? Beats me. A lot of TSA rules make no sense to me. Hence why I don't fly often. I prefer to not deal with their rules. 

---

Buy one at the airport.  I'm quite sure they could afford the $4 to insure their daughter didn't have a meltdown... 

---

If the airport they're in has those bags and they know about those bags, sure. They may not know about those bags. I sure wouldn't - simply because I don't bother to check out the shops when I fly.

chef wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

chef wrote:

---

FNW wrote:

---

Sure, why not? Stick one in your carry-on. As long as it's not containing liquid.

---

Why not? Beats me. A lot of TSA rules make no sense to me. Hence why I don't fly often. I prefer to not deal with their rules. 

---

Buy one at the airport.  I'm quite sure they could afford the $4 to insure their daughter didn't have a meltdown... 

---

If the airport they're in has those bags and they know about those bags, sure. They may not know about those bags. I sure wouldn't - simply because I don't bother to check out the shops when I fly.

---

Again, if her daughter is prone to violent meltdowns if she does not get hot food, then she should have been prepared... 

Ohfour wrote:

---

chef wrote:

---

FNW wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

I asked YOU for a solution that meets all 3 conditions I have listed.

What solution do you have for the mother? How can she bring hot food on the plane that her daughter will eat, ensure that it stays hot until needed, AND still be compliant with TSA rules? Instead of turning a blind eye to the mother's situation and issuing a sarcastic ffs, offer a solution.

 I will list the solutions:

1. Buy Hot Food. Put it in a thermal bag (like pizza delivery) and take it on the plane
2. Put it in the bag mentioned above. There are no TSA rules about bringing hot food, that has been purchased at the airport, on board
3. How did she know that her daughter would eat what they happened to be serving that day? If she's THAT picky, there is no way to tell if the food they served wouldn't have resulted in a meltdown.

The mother should have been prepared.

-- Edited by Ohfour on Wednesday 13th of May 2015 04:22:41 PM

---

Good point, and I agree.

 

---

I agree with that point too but it didn't happen that way, thankfully. Perhaps the daughter isn't picky about the food itself, just the temperature of said food. 

---

Then the mother should have never booked them anywhere but first class.  She thought her daughter would be OK with a cold snack.  Doesn;t seem like a temperature issue to me...

 

---

 Maybe the mother can't afford first class but CAN afford a meal. Maybe the daughter has been ok with a cold snack on previous flights. Maybe whether food temperature matter is situational. You don't know.

You're coming off as you expect the mother to be perfect and able to predict every possible situation and plan for every possible outcome. If you fly a lot as you say, you would know that you're limited as to what and how much you can bring on the plane. I'm sure the mother did the best she could with what she had.

In any case, as I very clearly stated. My problem is with how the flight attendant was stubborn until being told of what could happen. There was no need for the flight attendant to be so stubborn. I was also very clear in stating that I do not have a problem with them being removed from the plane.

chef wrote:

---

In any case, as I very clearly stated. My problem is with how the flight attendant was stubborn until being told of what could happen. There was no need for the flight attendant to be so stubborn. I was also very clear in stating that I do not have a problem with them being removed from the plane.

---

The flight attendant was doing her JOB.  Her job is to not sell food to passengers outside of first class. She was threated with physical harm, so she complied. 

Well, here's the law (excerpts from the Air Carrier Access Act):

 

"In 1986 Congress passed the Air Carrier Access Act, requiring the Department of Transportation (DOT) to develop new regulations which ensure that persons with disabilities will be treated without discrimination in a way consistent with the safe carriage of all passengers. These regulations were published in March 1990.

The Air Carrier Access rules sweep aside many restrictions that formerly discriminated against passengers with disabilities:

* A carrier may not refuse transportation to a passenger solely on the basis of a disability.

* Air carriers may not limit the number of individuals with disabilities on a particular flight.

* All trip information that is made available to other passengers also must be made available to passengers with disabilities.

* Carriers must provide passage to an individual who has a disability that may affect his or her appearance or involuntary behavior, even if this disability may offend, annoy, or be an inconvenience to crew-members or other passengers. "

"Exceptions to this rule

* The carrier may refuse transportation if the individual with a disability would endanger the health or safety of other passengers, or transporting the person would be a violation of FAA safety rules."

Ohfour wrote:

---

chef wrote:

---

In any case, as I very clearly stated. My problem is with how the flight attendant was stubborn until being told of what could happen. There was no need for the flight attendant to be so stubborn. I was also very clear in stating that I do not have a problem with them being removed from the plane.

---

The flight attendant was doing her JOB.  Her job is to not sell food to passengers outside of first class. She was threated with physical harm, so she complied. 

---

 I wasn't aware you were privy to the flight attendant's job description.

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

---

ADA=American Disability Act It protects the disabled from being discriminated against.

---

She wasn't being discriminated against.  NO ONE outside of First Class got a hot meal.  There was no discrimination... 

Ohfour wrote:

---

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

---

ADA=American Disability Act It protects the disabled from being discriminated against.

---

She wasn't being discriminated against.  NO ONE outside of First Class got a hot meal.  There was no discrimination... 

---

Yes.  Stop trying to turn this into "discrimination".  It's not. 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

There is NOTHING here that violates the ADA. Nothing. The Pilot has sole discretion. Harm was threatened. Be it a scratch or whatever. The Pilot has the discretion to abort the flight.

---

Amen!

flan 

chef wrote:

---

In any case, as I very clearly stated. My problem is with how the flight attendant was stubborn until being told of what could happen. There was no need for the flight attendant to be so stubborn. I was also very clear in stating that I do not have a problem with them being removed from the plane.

---

I wonder how stubborn any one of us might become if someone outside of our profession threatened us if we didn't do something that violated our job rules.

chef wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

chef wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

Oh good grief. This has gone way overboard for ONE person with a handicap.

I know expect to see all parents of special needs kids making all kinds of demands.. 

---

I agree - it has gone way overboard.

I do have a question for you though - Do you agree with the ADA? 

---

I missed what ADA is and what they stated. Please point me in the right direction. Thanks.

I do agree with the pilot if that's what you are asking. 

---

ADA is the Americans with Disabilities Act. I don't know if they chimed in on the situation.

I wasn't asking if you agree with the pilot. I wanted to know if you agree with the ADA in general. Your statement about expecting parents of special needs kids to make demands made me wonder if you didn't agree with the ADA. 

---

The ADA is a piece of legislation, not an entity. As far as the ADA "chiming in" on this, according to the Disability Law Handbook, it's not the ADA that addresses air carrier travel. The legislation that addresses airline travel is the Air Carrier Access Act (see my previous post if you'd like to see that).

chef wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

chef wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

Oh good grief. This has gone way overboard for ONE person with a handicap.

I know expect to see all parents of special needs kids making all kinds of demands.. 

---

I agree - it has gone way overboard.

I do have a question for you though - Do you agree with the ADA? 

---

I missed what ADA is and what they stated. Please point me in the right direction. Thanks.

I do agree with the pilot if that's what you are asking. 

---

ADA is the Americans with Disabilities Act. I don't know if they chimed in on the situation.

I wasn't asking if you agree with the pilot. I wanted to know if you agree with the ADA in general. Your statement about expecting parents of special needs kids to make demands made me wonder if you didn't agree with the ADA. 

---

I must be misreading ADA then, because IMHO, the girl was treated the same as any other passenger that would/could be a problem/danger to others. She does not get extra special treatment for being autistic, anymore then a 15 year old with spina bifida. She had a seat in couch, NOT first class. She shouldn't get special treatment just because she's autistic.

She was not denied the right to fly, just the right to fly on that flight because of her possible violence implied by her mother.

I wouldn't want to sit next to a violent drunk or a violent autistic child. Airlines refuse flights to drunks all the time. They change their flight so they can get sober. The parents could have changed their flight to a time when they knew the girl would not be violent and/or provided what she needed to keep her calm. That's what parents generally do for their kids in the first place. 

just Czech wrote:

---

chef wrote:

I wouldn't want to sit next to a violent drunk or a violent autistic child. Airlines refuse flights to drunks all the time. They change their flight so they can get sober.

---

Should I enthrall you all (or bore you all) with my experience with a drunk on a coast to coast American Airlines flight? 

 

ed11563 wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

chef wrote:

I wouldn't want to sit next to a violent drunk or a violent autistic child. Airlines refuse flights to drunks all the time. They change their flight so they can get sober.

---

Should I enthrall you all (or bore you all) with my experience with a drunk on a coast to coast American Airlines flight? 

 

---

Go ahead. But I bet it happened before Sept 2001. 

Tignanello wrote:

---

chef wrote:

---

FNW wrote:

---

chef wrote:

---

What's standing out to me is that the flight attendant only wanted to help after the mother indicated her daughter might scratch someone if she didn't get a hot meal. It seems to me that the flight attendant was all but forcing the mother to say something 'bad' just to get the hot meal.

---

 I don't think that matters.  The flight attendant was under no obligation to give first class meals to coach passengers.    If I sat there with my two boys asking for them to bring either of them a hot meal, they'd laugh in my face.   That is probably what happened, so the mother flipped out, possibly embellished the situation just to scare the flight attendant into giving her food, and it backfired.

---

Whether it's an obligation or not would depend on the ADA. That, however, doesn't factor into for me. What's the harm in providing a hot meal that the mother offered to pay for? The flight attendant strikes me as needlessly stubborn.

And truly, are coach passengers so low on the totem pole that they're undeserving of a hot meal just because they can't afford first class airfare? I could understand if the mother was insisting on a free meal but she wasn't.

I don't object to the captain removing the family. I do object to how stubborn the flight attendant was.

---

 technically, we only have the MOTHERS word that the flight attendant was stubborn/rude/whatever, and we only have the MOTHERS word that other passengers agreed.  No other passenger has come forward, identifying themselves by name in regards to supporting this mother.  My guess is that the flight attendant did his/her job and mom is now embelleshing the reaction the same way she embelleshed in the first place.   Its all about getting what she wants.

---

 No, we actually have articles where other passengers were interviewed.  I posted one of them pages ago. 

 

 

Another passenger on the flight maintained that officials overreacted to the situation:

Another traveler, Jodi Smith, who was sitting three rows behind Juliette, said she heard the entire conversation with the first-class flight attendant.

“He was being totally ridiculous,” Smith said.

“Then the medics came on, then the police. They went right straight to Dr. Beegle. You could hear them saying their daughter was perceived as a threat,” Smith [said]. “I stood up and said, ‘Absolutely positively not.’

“This was just ridiculous. She was calm, she had done nothing. I’ve been on flights where kids have screamed for 4 hours and they’ve never diverted a flight.”

“This was the epitome of discrimination,” Smith said. “I have never in all my years of flying seen anything like this.”

And the passengers that FILMED it said it was ridiculous.  So, NO, we are not just going off what Mom said.

-- Edited by Lawyerlady on Thursday 14th of May 2015 04:40:36 AM

Ohfour wrote:

---

chef wrote:

---

FNW wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

I asked YOU for a solution that meets all 3 conditions I have listed.

What solution do you have for the mother? How can she bring hot food on the plane that her daughter will eat, ensure that it stays hot until needed, AND still be compliant with TSA rules? Instead of turning a blind eye to the mother's situation and issuing a sarcastic ffs, offer a solution.

 I will list the solutions:

1. Buy Hot Food. Put it in a thermal bag (like pizza delivery) and take it on the plane
2. Put it in the bag mentioned above. There are no TSA rules about bringing hot food, that has been purchased at the airport, on board
3. How did she know that her daughter would eat what they happened to be serving that day? If she's THAT picky, there is no way to tell if the food they served wouldn't have resulted in a meltdown.

The mother should have been prepared.

-- Edited by Ohfour on Wednesday 13th of May 2015 04:22:41 PM

---

Good point, and I agree.

 

---

I agree with that point too but it didn't happen that way, thankfully. Perhaps the daughter isn't picky about the food itself, just the temperature of said food. 

---

Then the mother should have never booked them anywhere but first class.  She thought her daughter would be OK with a cold snack.  Doesn;t seem like a temperature issue to me...

 

---

 People need to quit saying that.  First class is cost prohibitive for most of the population on a personal trip.

I would also point out that this girl never made ANY type of threat of any kind. Her mother said she MIGHT scratch someone. But, what, now we can have someone kicked off a plane based on what someone else says might happen.

"My wife is getting mad at your failure to bring her a drink. You need to bring her a drink or she might go crazy."

"That passenger is really mad, he looks like he might hit someone."


Kick everyone off the plane!

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Blankie wrote:

---

Well, here's the law (excerpts from the Air Carrier Access Act):

 

"In 1986 Congress passed the Air Carrier Access Act, requiring the Department of Transportation (DOT) to develop new regulations which ensure that persons with disabilities will be treated without discrimination in a way consistent with the safe carriage of all passengers. These regulations were published in March 1990.

The Air Carrier Access rules sweep aside many restrictions that formerly discriminated against passengers with disabilities:

* A carrier may not refuse transportation to a passenger solely on the basis of a disability.

* Air carriers may not limit the number of individuals with disabilities on a particular flight.

* All trip information that is made available to other passengers also must be made available to passengers with disabilities.

* Carriers must provide passage to an individual who has a disability that may affect his or her appearance or involuntary behavior, even if this disability may offend, annoy, or be an inconvenience to crew-members or other passengers. "

"Exceptions to this rule

* The carrier may refuse transportation if the individual with a disability would endanger the health or safety of other passengers, or transporting the person would be a violation of FAA safety rules."

---

 That girl was not a danger.  And Mom only said what she said b/c the flight attendant was not taking her needs seriously.  The flight attendant was a complete jerk and should never have even involved the captain. 

This is a disabled little girl. 

I have had issue with some of the people's "empathy and compassion" arguments before because they want it to apply to the strangest situations, but now - don't even bother EVER trying to use that argument again.

 

If that flight attendant had simply made a reasonable accommodation by letting that mother buy a meal instead of arguing with her and being a jerk - NONE of this would be an issue.

---

That could be.  But, if she went back to the Pilot and told him she threatened to scratch (aka harm) people, then the Pilot made a decision based on that.  And, the pilot has that discretion.  Doesn't really matter if anyone likes that decision or not.  The Pilot is granted the authority to make that decision. 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

chillepeppa wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

I would also point out that this girl never made ANY type of threat of any kind. Her mother said she MIGHT scratch someone. But, what, now we can have someone kicked off a plane based on what someone else says might happen.

"My wife is getting mad at your failure to bring her a drink. You need to bring her a drink or she might go crazy."

"That passenger is really mad, he looks like he might hit someone."


Kick everyone off the plane!

---

Unfortunately post 9/11, that seems to be the default...

---

Well, what would be your Default position if there was any sniff of a problem whatsoever at 30,000 feet?  Most passengers want them to always err on the side of Caution.  And, yeah, if they do, sometimes that will be overkill.  So what?  Everyone got to the ground safely.  End of story. 

---

That is what I said. Any sign of even would-be-trouble is cause for action.