BA compensates man 'humiliated' over child seat policy

[Dave Noble]

BA has compensated a passenger who was "humiliated' over its policy of not allowing single male flyers to sit next to solo child travellers on its planes.

British Airways cabin crew told Mirko Fischer to move after he swapped seats with his wife and ended up sitting next to a boy he did not know.

Mr Fischer, 33, accused staff of harassing him and said the policy contravened the Sex Discrimination Act.

BA apologised to the businessman but denied the policy was discriminatory.

A spokesman told the BBC the policy was now under review

Full article at BBC News - BA compensates man 'humiliated' over child seat policy

 

[Will]

Hopefully they will now get the message that such policies are unlawful and offensive.

 

[harvyk]

Hopefully they will now get the message that such policies are unlawful and offensive.

I wonder if this will have a flow on effect with other airlines, as both QF and AirNZ have this policy as well...

As a male I find the policy highly offensive. As a father if I was to send my kids away on a trip as unaccompanied minors, I would have no problem if they sat next to a male or a female pax.

Infact the only real proviso I have is that they are not seated next to a known serial killer or rapist, and history has proven they can be either male or female.

 

[medhead]

Infact the only real proviso I have is that they are not seated next to a known serial killer or rapist, and history has proven they can be either male or female.

The only problem is that the airline has no way of knowing that type of information. Really this is a no win situation for an airline. Just wait until they get sued for sitting a child next to someone who does something to the kid. Not that I'm making excuses for what happened in this case.

 

[drron]

I wonder if this will have a flow on effect with other airlines, as both QF and AirNZ have this policy as well...

As a male I find the policy highly offensive. As a father if I was to send my kids away on a trip as unaccompanied minors, I would have no problem if they sat next to a male or a female pax.

Infact the only real proviso I have is that they are not seated next to a known serial killer or rapist, and history has proven they can be either male or female.

Although QF have this policy when I travel QF by myself I am usually seated down the back with the unaccompanied kids.:shockJ also do this to me if I dont OLCI.What is on my profile!

 

[nlagalle]

The only problem is that the airline has no way of knowing that type of information. Really this is a no win situation for an airline. Just wait until they get sued for sitting a child next to someone who does something to the kid. Not that I'm making excuses for what happened in this case.

I too agree that it is discrimination. I have a Working with Children Card, which I believe should overrule any policy like that, but such a rule shouldn't exist anyway.

 

[simongr]

The only problem is that the airline has no way of knowing that type of information. Really this is a no win situation for an airline. Just wait until they get sued for sitting a child next to someone who does something to the kid. Not that I'm making excuses for what happened in this case.

I totally agree with you here (surprising I know) - as much as I think it is discrimination and I don't like being labeled a paedophile as a default I think the airlines are onto a loser here... If only we could live in a society where the individual was the issue and not the environment

 

[harvyk]

The only problem is that the airline has no way of knowing that type of information. Really this is a no win situation for an airline. Just wait until they get sued for sitting a child next to someone who does something to the kid. Not that I'm making excuses for what happened in this case.

But what if the woman is a serial killer \ rapist?

Furthermore, what about the danger posed by other kids? I'd be pretty annoyed if my kids came off a flight with a black eye because the child they sat next to was a bully, which I personally think is far more likely than a potential paedophile trying something on in a very full airline cabin.

 

[medhead]

But what if the woman is a serial killer \ rapist?

Furthermore, what about the danger posed by other kids? I'd be pretty annoyed if my kids came off a flight with a black eye because the child they sat next to was a bully, which I personally think is far more likely than a potential paedophile trying something on in a very full airline cabin.

Exactly, regardless of policy the airline can't win, unless they only have single seats. But then watch the families crack up and watch passengers crack up as fares raise by 1/3 to cover the missing seats.

I never said the no males next to kids rule was fair. Such a rule can only work if it isn't publically advertised, it happens in the back room. To confront a customer on a flight is a totally failure.

You raise many situations that highlight why it isn't the total answer. However, I can see that the rule was probably introduced on a risk basis. Perhaps the greatest risk to children is from males (I don't know I don't have the stats). So they have introduced a rule related to the greatest risk. Bottom line is that companies have to try to protect themselves and I support that. But what I'm saying is that there is only pain in this type of thing for airlines, no matter what they do they just open up the opposite risk.

 

[oz_mark]

Although QF have this policy when I travel QF by myself I am usually seated down the back with the unaccompanied kids.:shockJ also do this to me if I dont OLCI.What is on my profile!

The BA policy is also supposed to apply only to males travelling together. Notwithstanding that it is a bad policy, BA acted against their own policy by applying to a male not travelling alone.

 

[serfty]

Certainly, the FA stuffed up, firstly because he assumed the man was travelling alone when in fact he was sitting beside his pregnant wife (The BA policy apples to men travelling alone), secondly, it is doubtful the child was actually travelling as an unaccompanied minor. (UM status compulsory for solo under 12, the child was 12 and was not seated as per UM guidelines).