Autistic child ¨discriminated against¨ by Qantas - NOT!!

[medhead]

The problem is that I did not say that pilot made a wrong call in this case. So much is clear in context. You certainly have misunderstood my post. I've explained this a number of times. If you can't accept that, there is no need to call me a hypocrite or the not sexy comment. You've misunderstood my post, you've jumped on one sentence and ignored the rest of the post that qualifies the meaning of that sentence. (The context). There is nothing more to say about it.

 

[juddles]

......We can also presume that the pilot made the wrong determination....

Sorry, this is what lead me astray. Through your repeated denials of the sentiment in this, I understand now you did not mean to say this.

 

[juddles]

Maybe you could clarify your post so that people like me can understand if you think the pilot made a bad call?

 

[serfty]

I tend to give little credit to many of those types of articles ... the writers rarely are neutral ... bias can show in the way facts (or the lack thereof) are presented.

For example, it would have been useful to get a clearer picture of the circumstances surrounding the article's genesis to cite the Qantas terms ... but no ... I wonder why (rhetorically) ...

 

[juddles]

Serfty, as per my initial post, the article is the usual cough, what made me post about it is my frustration that QF panders to these people that attack them. I completely agree that the piece of journalism contained is woeful.

 

[drron]

Reading the article linked by the OP it seems the mother did not follow the QF procedure even though she says she has done it before.As well the pilot made the call after getting medical advice.So no discrimination here.

However, a spokesman for Qantas said the paperwork Ms Laurente presented at the time of boarding was normally presented when booking the tickets or a few days ahead of travel.
“The health and safety of our passengers is our foremost concern at all times,” the spokesperson said.
“In this case, the crew sought professional medical advice and took the decision not to allow travel until further information about the condition could be gathered.

 

[seanpodge]

Firstly, Qantas, like all Australian commercial airlines and airports, are required to follow the Disability Discrimination Act. Like all entities that have to follow the act, they are allowed to apply for exceptions, but they have to be for genuine reasons and not just because they eat into Alan Joyce's caviar allowance. Also, just because Qantas has a policy, doesn't mean that the policy itself is perfect or not discriminatory.

Finally, the information in the article is a bit incomplete, but it is a Murdoch rag, so we can't expect much better. That said:

* It seems from the article that while the child was booked as an unaccompanied minor, but the extra medical paperwork required for minors with disabilities was only presented at boarding. This extra paperwork should have been provided earlier.

* However, it does appear that the medical certificate was from a genuine doctor (certainly nothing in the article suggests that anyone, including Qantas, is calling into question its legitimacy or the correctness of its advice) who was aware of the situation and gave appropriate medical advice to accommodate the circumstances. I'm certainly concerned by the possibility that a pilot/manager at Qantas thinks that they know better than a doctor on medical matters.

* On that, I'd just note that on this forum, the Ask the Pilot thread has rather comprehensively debunked the idea that anyone who has played MS Flight Sim can somehow fly a 380. So I find the comments on the NT News page that second guess the child's doctor based on watching the House MD DVD box set pretty poor. That's before we get to the comments about the mother, some of which are disgusting.

* The other part that this seems to hinge on is the ability to medicate. Given that the child was given extra medication beforehand in order to prevent him having to medicate before being picked up at the other end, I'm not sure how strong Qantas' case is on this point. The mother and doctor have taken reasonable steps to prevent issues arising during flight. Also, the boy is six years old. I'm not saying that violence from a six year old is acceptable, but if they can plan for violence from fully grown men, then surely they can handle a six year old. Either we just ban anyone with autism (or mental illness or indeed violent criminal records, for that matter) from flying or we take other steps to prevent violent outbursts on board and therefore see breathalyzers at all boarding gates. Should help free up some space in the lounges, from what I've observed.

Of course, the article won't have a full analysis of the situation, that's the role of a proper investigation either by Qantas or Human Rights Commission, if the mother wishes to make a complaint. But we know that there isn't a single form of autism. So I'm inclined to trust the child's doctor who is likely to know the particular situation well and be able to give appropriate advice. Also, I don't want to criticise the pilot or other Qantas staff if they are merely following policy. What any investigation should look at is if the policy is appropriate and if it could be changed to make things easier for families with children with disabilities.

 

[juddles]

....What any investigation should look at is if the policy is appropriate and if it could be changed to make things easier for families with children with disabilities.

I think they have it well planned. But if the parent wishes (through ignorance or otherwise) to disregard the policy, it is hard to throw blame on the airline!!

 

[serfty]

... I'm certainly concerned by the possibility that a pilot/manager at Qantas thinks that they know better than a doctor on medical matters.
...

But that did not happen ... even the article which I have disparaged quotes Qantas:

...
“In this case, the crew sought professional medical advice and took the decision not to allow travel until further information about the condition could be gathered. ..."

Now the following is conjecture, but I am thinking that if the mother had followed Qantas' procedure and submitted the paperwork upon booking, there would have been more time for Qantas to review the circumstances as far as the suitability of the arrangements for travel.

By presenting the documentation only upon check-in, she gave little time for that, ending with a reasonably predictable result.

 

[seanpodge]

I think they have it well planned. But if the parent wishes (through ignorance or otherwise) to disregard the policy, it is hard to throw blame on the airline!!

The policy isn't infallible. If there is an investigation, it should look at the policy and whether it needs to be changed. I think that much of the case seems to hinge on the self medicate issue. But since that has been considered and acted upon by the family doctor, it's quite possible that the child presented no more issues to Qantas than a neurotypical passenger. Perhaps a review could find that extra training for staff on passengers with disabilities is needed. Perhaps the need to provide paperwork early is excessive.

Kudos to Qantas for allowing the family to rebook at least. Accommodations for passengers with disabilities shouldn't be used find loopholes to punish with.

But that did not happen ... even the article which I have disparaged quotes Qantas:Now the following is conjecture, but I am thinking that if the mother had followed Qantas' procedure and submitted the paperwork upon booking, there would have been more time for Qantas to review the circumstances as far as the suitability of the arrangements for travel. By presenting the documentation upon check-in she gave little time for that.

True, however the child's own doctor is naturally going to know the situation better than any expert that only has a few minutes to make a decision. The issue would then be if there was enough justification for them to deny boarding.

 

[moa999]

As always there is procedure in many of these cases for a reason.

That said the fact that a child, traveling by themselves has been given a higher than normal dose of a medication appalls me.

 

[Justinf]

I find something inherently wrong about drugging up a young autistic boy and sending him off, alone on a plane.
That poor kid.

 

[N860CR]

Ultimately the Captain decides who does and doesn't travel on his/her flight. They are responsible for every other person onboard the aeroplane and there have been countless occasions where an individual has put everybody else at risk as they were not fit for travel.

The airline is accepting responsibility for looking after the child as an unaccompanied minor. In order for them to do this, certain criteria must be met including provision of documents if required. If the procedure hasn't been followed, I doubt any captain would accept the passenger for travel (and nor should they, as if something went wrong then I guarantee the parent in question would be blaming Qantas for accepting the child when they shouldn't have)

 

[Princess Fiona]

I don't know or pretend to know the details of this case but speaking from personal experience here there is no way in the world that I would book an autistic 6 year old requiring medication for behaviour as an unaccompanied minor on a flight.
IMO QF is actually very welcoming of passengers with disabilities and their carers, in fact they have a carer concession card for exactly this type of situation.
http://nican.com.au/about/qantas-carer-concession

 

[seanpodge]

I don't know or pretend to know the details of this case but speaking from personal experience here there is no way in the world that I would book an autistic 6 year old requiring medication for behaviour as an unaccompanied minor on a flight.
IMO QF is actually very welcoming of passengers with disabilities and their carers, in fact they have a carer concession card for exactly this type of situation.
Qantas Carer Concession | Nican

It's not ideal, of course. According to the article, it seems that the boy was going to visit his father in another state and his mother couldn't afford two tickets, let alone other costs. She went to a doctor, got advice and followed it. I find it pretty hard to blame her. This may have just been the least bad approach.

In Victoria, there's the Companion's card which allows companions of people with significant, permanent disabilities to accompany them without having to buy a second ticket for things like public transport, cinemas, AFL, swimming pools, gyms, et cetera. Whilst it may not have been useful in this case (not sure if high spectrum autism would qualify), given that money is often an issue for carers and this wouldn't cost much in lost sales (how many flights are 100% sold in Y?), maybe Qantas (and Virgin et al, for that matter) could look at joining such a program.

 

[Princess Fiona]

It's not ideal, of course. According to the article, it seems that the boy was going to visit his father in another state and his mother couldn't afford two tickets, let alone other costs. She went to a doctor, got advice and followed it. I find it pretty hard to blame her. This may have just been the least bad approach.

In Victoria, there's the Companion's card which allows companions of people with significant, permanent disabilities to accompany them without having to buy a second ticket for things like public transport, cinemas, AFL, swimming pools, gyms, et cetera. Whilst it may not have been useful in this case (not sure if high spectrum autism would qualify), given that money is often an issue for carers and this wouldn't cost much in lost sales (how many flights are 100% sold in Y?), maybe Qantas (and Virgin et al, for that matter) could look at joining such a program.

It could have been the least bad approach but like I say from personal experience and also from the experience of the many parents and carers I know with children who have a disability there are many facets of this story which ring a few alarm bells and don't really add up.
It could be that the journalist is misrepresenting the facts, I don't really know but I think it's too simplistic to think that this is a case of a well researched and carefully planned trip of a disabled child and QF have somehow been at fault or discriminated against him.

 

[N860CR]

That's another point. I'd never in a million years allow my young, disabled child to travel alone on an aircraft. I could never fob thay responsibility off onto somebody else.

 

[seanpodge]

That's another point. I'd never in a million years allow my young, disabled child to travel alone on an aircraft. I could never fob thay responsibility off onto somebody else.

There'd be plenty of parents who wouldn't dream of letting their able bodied child travel alone either. Qantas, among others, however do offer this unaccompanied minor service so there must be a need for it. Each disabled child's disability is different and the best people to judge that are the parents with the help of doctors and other relevant experts.

 

[AVC]

It could be that the journalist is misrepresenting the facts.

Do you think? Really?

I think the reality is, they were both right. And both wrong.
But hey, the squeaky wheel gets the oil. Especially in the health system. Someone writes to the Minister or talks to Ray Hadley and the entire system goes into a feeding frenzy. Or an @$$ kicking frenzy.

They let guide dogs (and in one case seen on media, a guide minature horse). Why not an over-medicated paed? Hell, I know Doctors who medicate themselves to fly.

At the end of the day, was he presenting a danger to the flight, or did QF misunderstand or was ignorant of his condition?

We will never know.

He probably would have been less trouble than some non-unaccompanied minors I've had on flights. (yes, that's a deliberate double negative)

 

[serfty]

... Each disabled child's disability is different and the best people to judge that are the parents with the help of doctors and other relevant experts.

I would suggest that the othet relevant experts would include those retained by the airlines.

Also consider Qantas' policy has likely been formulated in conjunction with these relevant experts; and is apparent that it has been done to ensure that taking the passengers' own doctors views into account is very much part of it.