Virgin Australia has been accused of treating male passengers like paedophiles

[TheInsider]

Actually I have both and getting my ASIC was far easier and less painful than a WWC check.

Totally agree with this, although my ASIC was done through the company.

From a check-in perspective, UM's are pre-allocated seats when agents do the 'flight editing' which is normally about 24+ hours out. The seats are usually the last row, or the 2nd last row of the aircraft depending on how many UM's there are on the flight. When this is done, if the seats are free and vacant they will block the seats. If it is a full flight, they will usually pre-seat a female next to the UM.

From my POV it is complete rubbish that they do this, i'm unaware if it is an actual 'policy' as i've never seen it before and have asked to see it. It just seems to be an unwritten rule. But then again this could just be due to the staff that are past their use by date and don't know any better.

A bit off topic, a few days ago the ASU, (i guess) launched an enquiry about UM handling. ASU National Net - Unaccompanied Minors Policy on the agenda

 

[Hvr]

If they started to treat me this way I would take out my little camera and start filming the FA. If they insisted I move to a lesser seat I would insist on disembarking and I don't care how long the flight is delayed.

This is so preventable. Put UMs in the very last rows next to the galley and if it is a full plane make sure that if somebody has to sit next to them it is a woman if you (the airlines) really want to follow a sexist policy.

If the parents don't like it then they can accompany their children.

 

[TheInsider]

If they started to treat me this way I would take out my little camera and start filming the FA. If they insisted I move to a lesser seat I would insist on disembarking and I don't care how long the flight is delayed.

Were you on the QF94 last night?

 

[Hvr]

Were you on the QF94 last night?

No, and yes I would've accepted the J PJs.

 

[RWJ777]

I have no problem with this policy or the fact that DJ asked him to move.
What I have a problem with is how each time he tells his story it gets more sensational and worse for DJ.
My "favourite" part was how he suggested to DJ that men not be allowed to sit next to women because most rapists are men, thereby following DJ's logic.

His flow of logic is fair in my opinion. The DJ policy is clearly discriminatory in effect as it seeks to treat sexes differently based on same circumstances. Moreover it's not based on evidence: most indecent and aggravated sex assaults occur within the home not by strangers.

DJ deserve the reaction they're getting on this. Doubtless their Innuendo and stereotype-based policy will be 'updated' now in line with new evidence (or what it clearly passes for which seems to be hunch).

 

[RWJ777]

i was going to come on here and post a big rant about how this is absolutely sexist and sick policy, but instead I would ask the members here who support this measure to take a good long hard look at themselve in the mirror, and just think "would I like to be labled as potentially 'something' so evil simply because of my gender?"

One of my biggest fears is that when I'm walking down the shopping center with one of my kids, and they decide to throw a tantrum, as kids do, that I am going to have to proove that I am actually the kids father, and that I would need to prove it to some concerned citizen.

So no, I won't just have a beer and get over it.


:evil:

Well said!

 

[drron]

The funny thing to me about all this is that for a period of about 12 months in 08/09 after this policy was in place with both QF and DJ I was seated next to UMs on every occasion.QF on 1 occasion put me in the last row of Y with 2 young boys,3 more across the aisle and 2 girls and a boy in front.
I actually thought it could have been because of the Dr in front of my name.Anyway I have no problems sitting next to kids.With grandchildren 4,3 and 2 I have a lot of practice and there have been a few mothers and FAs who have been thankful for my efforts in calming some of the youngsters.
Really quite a stupid policy IMHO.

 

[anat0l]

Virgin Australia's Facebook page is getting quite a few comments (not as many as you'd think for something like this - a mere 247 as at the timestamp of this post). Also has 190 "likes" on it - not sure if a "like" means they support VA's policy or support VA's comment to review the policy, or just like VA, period.

It is - perhaps not surprisingly - not completely a one-sided commentary. Some people are saying that (whether or not they agree this is good or bad policy / an action by the FA or ground agents) this incident is a blow-up / first world problem. For example, some can't understand what's the big deal in being asked to move seats. Some are saying that VA is simply taking to more cautious option, viz. since VA has a significant duty of care to a UM on board, it will undertake whatever it needs to do in order to ensure it meets that responsibility - interesting but still hatches on the original fallacy pointed out by many. Some others are saying that it is the fault of the FA who handled the situation sloppily and there is nothing wrong with VA, so let's ostracise the FA and the Virgin brand - nothing wrong. Then, some have said that it is actually a policy enacted by many airlines - whether written or not - so this is nothing new.


In the end, despite the sensitivities of the incident, I see this all disintegrating quickly into a "big deal" situation. Sure, it's a hot discussion now, but give it about a week or so and you'd think nothing ever happened. There will be no court battle, VA's reputation will have suffered insignificant damage if even that, and everyone will just remember that it was Friday.

 

[jastel]

On my last QF flight to SYD I was stuck in the midst of a large group of American schoolkids, they were highschoolers but I would have been only too happy to move somewhere else.
Their behaviour wasn't particularly bad just doing what kids do, talking loud and never sitting still, seats in front and behind talking to my row etc.

The problem was when we arrived the teacher a few rows in front said all kids stay and let other passengers off the plane, a nice thought, but trapped by the window meant I couldn't leave.
The teacher then started telling the kids what to do in the terminal etc, eventually I yelled "excuse me" and she made the kids next to me let me out and apologised.

Not a big deal but a bit of forethought by the crew could have prevented this.

 

[seanpodge]

Given that most studies have show that the strong majority of child sex abuse victims are abused by someone they know, surely the logical thing for Vrigin and other airlines to do would be to separate children and their guardians while on board. Doubt we'll see that happening though.

It's clearly a poorly thought out policy by Virgin, made all the worse by the fact that they implemented it on board rather than somewhere more discreet. Basically suggesting, without any evidence, that a man can't be left in the company of children in a public place for a few hours without sexually abusing them should not be considered acceptable conduct by anyone, particularly a major company that regularly deals with the public. Certainly if I was in this situation, I'd be considering very strongly the need to travel with this airline in the future, starting with the flight that I had already boarded.

 

[mella2007]

Just from my own personal experience

VA stuffed a huge booking for my company a few months ago involving 100 people. Everyone was on exactly the same PNR including children of various ages from babies through to teens.
On arrival at check in the system had separated most of the group and we had individual children scattered all over the plane. They told us to fix it on the plane.
For a 14 hour flight this was unacceptable and a worrying thought for the parents and myself. No one wants to separated from their children, or one child 30 rows the difference, and this was the case (but literally all over the plane)
The poor FA's couldn't understand why it had occurred in the first place, and there was many tense words exchanged, crying children, friends and upset parents.
There is absolutely no way, whether the person was the Pope, a Nun or the PM I would have wanted any of these children separated from their families or friends during this very long trip due to VA's stuff up. Many of them had never flown before.
Other PAX's had to be moved to move the majority of the group together where they should have been seated.
I had a duty of care (as did my team, all of whom have WWC) to ensure everyone was safe.
When you deal with children on a daily basis of a variety of ages and personal issues (and I'm not talking about people that have their own) and you see first hand the problems that do go on in situations you would never even think of being possible, you go over and beyond to make sure these types of things don't happen.

 

[Alanslegal]

In my opinion, VA and various airlines UM policy of not allowing men to sit adjacent to UM is sexual discrimination at best, and highly inflammatory at worst. To stereotype men being the most likely to do 'bad' things is clearly unsupported, and the truth is that most abuses occur within family members or where a person involves some position of power/trust/support relative to the victim. These policies, well are three decades behind the times though.

However that said, personally I would never want to sit next to an UM anyway, purely because I would be concerned of potential allegations that can brought up no matter how false or frivolous they can be. The last thing I would want is me being arrested in a foreign country where there is no presumption of innocence, no rule of law purely because of an UM wanting attention or whatever reason, passed an untruthful comment to a flight attendant, then lead to a snowball effect and so on.

 

[Blackadder]

Sorry, but in this day and age of sex discrimination, the policy is archaeic. I am aware that most airlines do have a similar policy, still doesn't make it right.

It is a double standard, considering the fact that you do hear about females (there are some in positions of power [i.e teachers]) commit similar crimes.

His analogy may be over the top, but the point is there. If the airlines were serious about a policy such as this, why did it get to the stage where it had to be changed on the plane, and how can it be handled better should the seating allocation software fail. Being discrete is the key here, and obviously big fail here.

What tops it off is the fact that there are some airlines who enforce it inconsistantly. There is anecdoctal evidence on here that some male members on here don't get asked to move by the crew.

Sadly sex discrimination only seems to go against the Male.

 

[Moody]

Sadly sex discrimination only seems to go against the Male.

Sadly sexual abuse is predominantly perpetrated by males. Maybe when we stop doing it the airlines will have no need of this policy.

I can't believe the tripe that is being put up as arguments against this policy. Somewhere between a quarter to a third of all children will be subject to sexual abuse before adulthood, with the range of offences including non-contact abuse. Yes - most of these occur in the home or other private dwellings and most of them are perpetrated by a person known to the child, but certainly not all. An airline that promises a parent/guardian that they will minimise the risks for unaccompanied minors is behaving responsibly IMHO. If my 11-year-old daughter was travelling alone I would certainly want this policy enforced.

As for male passenger being asked to move on-board .... it is possibly inconvenient and annoying (particularly if the replacement seat is inferior in the eyes of the passenger), but a reason to sue the airline or never fly with it again????? My reaction to this is that I would have serious, serious concerns about that sort of person. To repeat a common mis-quote :- "Methinks thou dost protest too much".

 

[here2go]

Sadly sexual abuse is predominantly perpetrated by males. Maybe when we stop doing it the airlines will have no need of this policy.

I can't believe the tripe that is being put up as arguments against this policy. Somewhere between a quarter to a third of all children will be subject to sexual abuse before adulthood, with the range of offences including non-contact abuse. Yes - most of these occur in the home or other private dwellings and most of them are perpetrated by a person known to the child, but certainly not all. An airline that promises a parent/guardian that they will minimise the risks for unaccompanied minors is behaving responsibly IMHO. If my 11-year-old daughter was travelling alone I would certainly want this policy enforced.

As for male passenger being asked to move on-board .... it is possibly inconvenient and annoying (particularly if the replacement seat is inferior in the eyes of the passenger), but a reason to sue the airline or never fly with it again????? My reaction to this is that I would have serious, serious concerns about that sort of person. To repeat a common mis-quote :- "Methinks thou dost protest too much".

I agree with this. I expect my children will be travelling unaccompanied when they get older, and my preference is that they be placed near families or women. Not that men shouldn't be trusted (I'm one myself), but placing a male passenger next to children is putting them in a position of trust - and as a group, men are less trustworthy. While the statistical risk of indecency occurring is small, it is greater than that with females. Hence, the airline would not want to place itself in the position of escalating that risk.

Should Navitaire have prevented this in the first place - most definitely. Can it prevent it? With seating choice, it is difficult.

 

[mannej]

Sadly sexual abuse is predominantly perpetrated by males. Maybe when we stop doing it the airlines will have no need of this policy.

I can't believe the tripe that is being put up as arguments against this policy. Somewhere between a quarter to a third of all children will be subject to sexual abuse before adulthood, with the range of offences including non-contact abuse. Yes - most of these occur in the home or other private dwellings and most of them are perpetrated by a person known to the child, but certainly not all. An airline that promises a parent/guardian that they will minimise the risks for unaccompanied minors is behaving responsibly IMHO. If my 11-year-old daughter was travelling alone I would certainly want this policy enforced.

As for male passenger being asked to move on-board .... it is possibly inconvenient and annoying (particularly if the replacement seat is inferior in the eyes of the passenger), but a reason to sue the airline or never fly with it again????? My reaction to this is that I would have serious, serious concerns about that sort of person. To repeat a common mis-quote :- "Methinks thou dost protest too much".

Sorry Moody, but the policy is discriminatory and wrong in this day and age. The views against the policy are certainly not tripe.

 

[VHOEJ]

While you can argue the policy is wrong, it is easy for airlines to organise. They know the passengers travelling, thier DOB and sex. If the check in crew didn't allow it to happen, the whole situation would have been avoided.

 

[TheInsider]

Should Navitaire have prevented this in the first place - most definitely. Can it prevent it? With seating choice, it is difficult.

It's not the system though, even QF's system allows UM's to be seated anywhere technically. It's the issue of the check-in agent and the gate agent.

 

[dougieboy]

Maybe they should have a blue and white sign at the boarding gate similar to the intervention signs on aboriginal communities in the NT "no coughography or alcohol permitted". "All males are forbidden to sit next to women and children". What would be your immediate thought? You are labelling people or tainting community with the wrong brush, and reaching the conclusion that there is something wrong with men. No one appreciates being singled out in the negative. So when kids ask why men are not allowed to sit next to them, explain to them as well that discrimination is alive and well, not only towards men but the Indigenous peoples of this country too. Some people live in too insular an environment, they need to consider the bigger picture. Learn to view other people as to what they can offer as wonderful human beings, the best in humanity, not as a threat assessment.

 

[samh004]

I find this particularly amusing, yet know many other airlines have the same policy. seems like it was handled very badly by Virgin Australia in this instance and if the FA had asked him to move, loudly, without explaining to the rest of the cabin I'd be seeking compensation, as all it makes people think is the wrong thing. It's atrocious service.

I know Australia doesn't have a national blue card system (that's a QLD term) but perhaps if they did, if you've passed the checks and can show the card then that would be enough. That said, not sure firefighters have "working with children checks".

On some recent flights I was surrounded by UM's. I had a comfort seat on a Q400 towards the rear of the plane and the seats opposite, behind and in front were all occupied by UM's, though admittedly I was not sat 'next to' a UM. For the most part they were well behaved.

I can't believe the tripe that is being put up as arguments against this policy. Somewhere between a quarter to a third of all children will be subject to sexual abuse before adulthood, with the range of offences including non-contact abuse. Yes - most of these occur in the home or other private dwellings and most of them are perpetrated by a person known to the child, but certainly not all. An airline that promises a parent/guardian that they will minimise the risks for unaccompanied minors is behaving responsibly IMHO. If my 11-year-old daughter was travelling alone I would certainly want this policy enforced.

If you were flying alone, and somehow found an 11-year old girl in the seat next to yours, after having preselected your seat months out, or however length of time, and an FA then came up to you after everyone else had boarded and was also sitting down and announced rather loudly that you weren't allowed to sit next to this girl, without explaining why, would you be happy with the airline?

You might accept that the girls parents wouldn't want you sat next to her, and be happy to move, but would you be so happy to be branded so publicly as a deviant, by the cabin crew? Would you just suck it up and continue to fly them as if they hadn't labeled you, in front of a whole bunch of strangers, with no recourse?

The policy might be fair (though I'm sure it'll be called into question eventually when a woman does something), but the way an airline handles the situation can be improved such that they don't embarrass, label or otherwise accuse you of something that's not true.

I'm not a fan of suing everyone for everything like America, but to me a label like that, without clarification to the rest of the cabin, seems to ride close to defamation, slander, libel. You wouldn't let that stand anywhere else!


