Don't take off your shoes on Virgin.

[Blackadder]

Two-year-old booted off jet for losing his shoes | News.com.au

 

[samiam]

I think the title of this thread is a little misleading (in concert with the article).

The passengers were refused boarding, not 'booted' off.

 

[rockyroad]

Two-year-old booted off jet for losing his shoes | News.com.au

I ALWAYS have my shoes on during take-off and landing. Why? Because I can run further and faster over hot / torn metal, broken glass, rough / rocky ground, etc with shoes on than off. In my opinion, VA were correct in what they did.

 

[simongr]

I ALWAYS have my shoes on during take-off and landing. Why? Because I can run further and faster over hot / torn metal, broken glass, rough / rocky ground, etc with shoes on than off. In my opinion, VA were correct in what they did.

If I was in a plane crash with my 2 year old son I can absolutely guarantee that he wouldn't be walking anywhere - he would be tucked under my arm as I can move faster than him with or without shoes over any surface.

Frankly I think this is completely ridiculous. I know of one year olds that can walk - would this rule apply to them?

 

[LiamR]

I'm sorry, but why is this news?

Somebody wasn't complying with the rules, Virgin enforced them. Just because a aircraft is involved doesn't make it any more dramatic.

Where is the news story for this morning when I told somebody they jammed the photocopier, so they can't use it until they clear it.

The difference between the two stories is?

 

[markis10]

If I was in a plane crash with my 2 year old son I can absolutely guarantee that he wouldn't be walking anywhere - he would be tucked under my arm as I can move faster than him with or without shoes over any surface.

Frankly I think this is completely ridiculous. I know of one year olds that can walk - would this rule apply to them?

What if you could not walk and he could, not so ridiculous now, toddlers and infants often have a higher survivability rate in crashes owing to basic inertia laws and their mass! As someone who has been involved in search and rescue in a professional capacity I fully endorse the rule as one that makes sense.

 

[TiredOldFlyer]

Shoes were a must when I learnt to fly - but what about Kiwi Riding Boots (Jandells ? Thongs and such like)
Make sure I have my shoes on for take off and landing but I am a Ludite (And Old and Tired )

 

[thewinchester]

Well there's two sides to this story - The pax claiming denied boarding for their child being sans footwear, and the carrier who's spokesperson stated the pax were late.

So who do we believe?

I agree with the earlier comments in this and other threads regarding pax hygiene and safety. There's some things you shouldn't do on planes, let alone in public, and not wearing shoes (specially when you move about) is top of my list regardless of your age. Nobody needs to smell your feet; and as clean as planes may or may not be, there's no need to put your feet at risk.

 

[oz_mark]

Well there's two sides to this story - The pax claiming denied boarding for their child being sans footwear, and the carrier who's spokesperson stated the pax were late.

So who do we believe?

The story talks about these being two different flights. The first flight they were refused boarding for the missing footwear, then reaccommodated onto a second flight that they were late for.

 

[Justchecking]

Im with Liam was it a particularly slow day in the editorial office? Pax are denied boarding on every airline everyday for the sake of 'rules'. Where are the follow up stories....

Pax denied boarding for arriving at the gate lounge after the flight had closed.
Pax asked to pay 'change fees' on a cheap fare
Pax asked to disembark aircraft after flight

I'm tired of reading 'hard done by' stories as news.

 

[harvyk]

I think more to the point, don't lose your childs shoes, then when told you can't board due to footware regulations and thus a new pair of shoes is found, make sure you actually turn up for your next flight.

As for taking off shoes mid flight, I have no problems with people who want to do so (I've done it several times), provided they don't stink out the cabin doing so...

 

[Blackadder]

They say thongs would be acceptable, but wouldn't they be just as much a risk if not more than a pair of thick socks.

 

[StevePER]

If I was in a plane crash with my 2 year old son I can absolutely guarantee that he wouldn't be walking anywhere - he would be tucked under my arm as I can move faster than him with or without shoes over any surface.

Frankly I think this is completely ridiculous. I know of one year olds that can walk - would this rule apply to them?

I agree with you completely, and I strongly suspect that whether or not one wears shoes has hardly any impact on surviveability in a crash. Especially for a 2 year old. I guess it all helps, but my preference would be for them to highly recommend shoes for a toddler without enforcing it. However if I was being cheeky I would point out it was only this morning someone told me this:

The thing is where do they draw the line? I know my job is a lot about adherence to rules so I am biased but I would rather they strictly apply the rules rather than making it dependent on the staff on the day, the weather or how short someone's skirt is... This makes it fair and clear for everyone.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

If I was in a plane crash with my 2 year old son I can absolutely guarantee that he wouldn't be walking anywhere - he would be tucked under my arm as I can move faster than him with or without shoes over any surface.

Frankly I think this is completely ridiculous. I know of one year olds that can walk - would this rule apply to them?

Infants under two being carried by adults are exempt however once a child is 2 years & thereby occupies a seat on the aircraft they must have shoes.

It's a CASA requirement so Virgin were only enforcing those rules yet some of the comments from readers were still blaming the airline when QF/JQ/TT are also subject to these rules.

I don't know why it was so hard for the mother to buy a pair of thongs at the airport shops?

 

[TiredOldFlyer]

[h=2]Footwear[/h]The most common injuries to feet during accidents or emergencies can be prevented by wearing suitable footwear. Wearing fully enclosed leather low-heeled laced or buckled shoes, boots or tennis shoes is recommended. Avoid sandals and high heeled dress shoes. Keep your footwear on during the flight. In an emergency finding your shoes will probably be one of the last things on your mind. High heeled dress shoes will have to be removed before using the escape slide. Unprotected feet can slow departure from the airplane once outside. Imagine trying to walk through jet fuel, possibly on fire, broken glass, or sharp metal fragments without shoes to protect your feet.


The above from CASA - can't find any regulation re shoes - only an advisory !

 

[simongr]

I agree with you completely, and I strongly suspect that whether or not one wears shoes has hardly any impact on surviveability in a crash. Especially for a 2 year old. I guess it all helps, but my preference would be for them to highly recommend shoes for a toddler without enforcing it. However if I was being cheeky I would point out it was only this morning someone told me this:

Touche - well played!

Although my argument is with the rule itself moreso than the application.

 

[mannej]

People will always blame the airlines for anything. Yesterday QF were warning people about the dangers of scam sites, yet quite a few people saw it fit to label it as a money making scheme from the roo, even though these scam sites are run by criminals.

 

[oz_mark]

The above from CASA - can't find any regulation re shoes - only an advisory !

While they shouldn't have stated that it was a CASA requirement, it is a safety requirement of the airline:

Looking the part
For your own safety and with the consideration of others in mind, Virgin Australia has a list of minimum dress requirements. These are:

• Footwear (thongs are acceptable): all adults and children who are capable of walking must wear suitable footwear.
• Shorts.
• Shirt (singlets are acceptable).
• No clothing displaying offensive language or symbols.

Check in options at the airport | Virgin Australia


(FWIW Qantas has a similar requirement)

Question
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: textcell"]Do I need to wear footwear to fly?
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: subtitle"]Answer
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: textcell"]For your safety, footwear must be worn to board, disembark and during your flight. If you are unable to wear footwear, please notify a member of our airport staff of the reason.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Wearing footware to fly

 

[Noob]

I think it is pretty impressive that the FA was so knowledgeable regarding safety matters down to such a fine detail

 

[markis10]

Footwear

The most common injuries to feet during accidents or emergencies can be prevented by wearing suitable footwear. Wearing fully enclosed leather low-heeled laced or buckled shoes, boots or tennis shoes is recommended. Avoid sandals and high heeled dress shoes. Keep your footwear on during the flight. In an emergency finding your shoes will probably be one of the last things on your mind. High heeled dress shoes will have to be removed before using the escape slide. Unprotected feet can slow departure from the airplane once outside. Imagine trying to walk through jet fuel, possibly on fire, broken glass, or sharp metal fragments without shoes to protect your feet.


The above from CASA - can't find any regulation re shoes - only an advisory !

I think you will find its part of the airlines (and others) AOC, and thereby a CASA requirement. As those on the ATR proving flights would attest, the AOC requirements for adding an aircraft type re procedures do involve arduous details at times.