I don't want my kids sitting next to a man on a plane

[Ausbt]

Indeed children are more at risk of abuse from their parents and people known to them.

Ergo, Tracey please answer this question: are your children more at risk from your husband and other male relatives than they are from you?

 

[Moody]

Ok, lets pick a hole in the Risk Mitigation you talk of



As quoted by Tracey Spicer herself. That alone shows that by your logic, a child should never sit next to a family member or someone known to the family.

As I have said, where do you draw the line?



Lets not forget that there have been a number of female teachers who have committed indecent acts against students.

I think you need to revisit the definition of an Unaccompanied Minor and then come back with a credible argument against this seating policy.

 

[Moody]

Ergo, Tracey please answer this question: are your children more at risk from your husband and other male relatives than they are from you?

I think I can safely say "Yes" on Tracey's behalf, but how is this relevant to the topic of unaccompanied minors on an aeroplane?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I think you need to revisit the definition of an Unaccompanied Minor and then come back with a credible argument against this seating policy.

I'm not opposed to the airline having a specific seating policy for UMs... BA used to (still does?) reserve a row of seats for UMs*.

But in the event that policy goes pear shaped for whatever reason (for example IRROPS), and if the UM is seated on a random basis beside a random male passenger, I am opposed to that male passenger being made to suffer the shame and indignity of being moved.

There are precautions and downright paranoia.


*I found this out at LHR one day when I missed connection and was put in a middle seat in economy... but the lounge said 'we have a row of seats (DEF) free for any UMs... if none turn up I can put you there and block them off for you'

 

[ozbeachbabe]

I'd be interested in knowing how the pre-seating would work. If a passenger is named Kelly, or Jean, or Ali how would the staff know to seat the UM next to or not?

They would generally start out by seating all UM's they knew about in advance in the last row of the a/c as it's close to the galley & the F/A's can keep an eye on them as some kids can get a bit wild. If there were four UM's allocate them all together in the last row & block off the other two seats which could then be unblocked if required on the day ie if the flight was full & every seat had to be used. If the flight isn't full the seats obviously could remain blocked.

They wouldn't necessarily micro-manage pre-seating to the extent where you allocate someone to sit next to a UM, but if you did want to you could look for a family with kids or a couple booked as Mr & Mrs perhaps.

 

[mannej]

I think you need to revisit the definition of an Unaccompanied Minor and then come back with a credible argument against this seating policy.

I am fully aware of what an UM is. I am just using your logic as to Risk Mitigation. To be fair, a much better Risk Mitigation Strategy would be to have a dedicated UM section in the plane with a dedicated Chaperone/Flight Attendent looking after the children rather than placing random pax next to an UM.

 

[harvyk]

Ergo, Tracey please answer this question: are your children more at risk from your husband and other male relatives than they are from you?

Well statistically yes... Of course I'm pretty sure that Tracey Spicer has no problems leaving her kids in her husbands care without giving it a second thought, and there in is the problem with statistics.
We have a very nasty habit of looking at statistics and cherry picking which ones we'll pay attention to. Furthermore we often don't look at the context behind the numbers.

For example, lets say there is 1% of the population that you really don't want your kids to be seated next to. How many people in that 1% actually have the ability to fly? (So in other words not in jail and have no restrictions on their movements) keeping in mind that been convicted for a sex crime does tend to limit your ability to get visa's and / or cross boarders at will. All of a sudden our statistics using just the general population are no longer valid, since the context involves the ability to fly without restrictions.

Ok, so lets just say that it's a dom flight, and the wrong person was able to sit themselves next to a UM, the question then becomes what is the likelihood that the person will attempt something. I would still hazard a guess that it's not likely (and the fact that the last reported incident was back in 2001 on a foreign airline says something), since an airline seat is not exactly a place where you can attempt something and then make your quick escape. If you try something, it'll be reported to the FA, and they will ensure that are is police to greet you are the arrival airport. It's not exactly like you can leave the plane before it lands. There is a reason why we tend to see news reports when it happens against adults on flights even in foreign countries, it's because it is such a rare thing.

So before you start sending out statistics to prove your point, make sure you have the right statistics and they are in the context which they where gathered.

Edit: Sorry, just re-reading this post, it looks like I'm being critical of Ausbt, no I'm agreeing with him, and my final comment was directed at Tracey Spicer (despite the fact she'll probably never read it)

 

[harvyk]

I think I can safely say "Yes" on Tracey's behalf, but how is this relevant to the topic of unaccompanied minors on an aeroplane?

So how is your argument about statistics out in the general population exactly relevant to UM's on an plane?

 

[drron]

Ozbeachbabe do the airlines note things like pax that are OK with kids.Prior to the introduction of this rule I guess but until 5 years ago I was regularly assigned a seat next to UMs on both QF and DJ as it was then.Once on QF even in the last row as SG when a colleague with no status was about row 9.
Since then I have been seated next to children usually travelling with one parent.It just seems to happen more than being just by chance.

As to UMs I remember in Darwin a few years ago several UMs getting of the incoming flight and only 1 had a parent waiting.At least 2 were still waiting when we boarded.

 

[burmans]

Well statistically yes... Of course I'm pretty sure that Tracey Spicer has no problems leaving her kids in her husbands care without giving it a second thought, and there in is the problem with statistics.
We have a very nasty habit of looking at statistics and cherry picking which ones we'll pay attention to. Furthermore we often don't look at the context behind the numbers.

For example, lets say there is 1% of the population that you really don't want your kids to be seated next to. How many people in that 1% actually have the ability to fly? (So in other words not in jail and have no restrictions on their movements) keeping in mind that been convicted for a sex crime does tend to limit your ability to get visa's and / or cross boarders at will. All of a sudden our statistics using just the general population are no longer valid, since the context involves the ability to fly without restrictions.

Ok, so lets just say that it's a dom flight, and the wrong person was able to sit themselves next to a UM, the question then becomes what is the likelihood that the person will attempt something. I would still hazard a guess that it's not likely (and the fact that the last reported incident was back in 2001 on a foreign airline says something), since an airline seat is not exactly a place where you can attempt something and then make your quick escape. If you try something, it'll be reported to the FA, and they will ensure that are is police to greet you are the arrival airport. It's not exactly like you can leave the plane before it lands. There is a reason why we tend to see news reports when it happens against adults on flights even in foreign countries, it's because it is such a rare thing.

So before you start sending out statistics to prove your point, make sure you have the right statistics and they are in the context which they where gathered.

I'm not sure of the relevance of statistics here in the context of known parties vs unknown. Tracey knows her partner and male friends/relatives and hence would have been able to make an assessment of whether they are a paedophile (acknowledging that its not always obvious so she may not make the corect assessment).

Risk assessment takes into account both risk likelihood and impact, in the situation of the unknown party you really have no way of knowing if the person your UM will sit next too is a pervert or not. People typically overweight the risk of the unknown but in this case suggesting they dont sit next to a male is about the only risk mitigation technque available.

PS. I'm slightly offended by the whole article myself (mainly the presumption of guilt over innocence), but under the mooted new laws I think we'll all need to get a little more used to being offended sometimes.

 

[mannej]

Risk assessment takes into account both risk likelihood and impact, in the situation of the unknown party you really have no way of knowing if the person your UM will sit next too is a pervert or not. People typically overweight the risk of the unknown but in this case suggesting they dont sit next to a male is about the only risk mitigation technque available.

No, it is not the only Risk Mitigation technique available.

 

[Happy Trails]

You can be certain that that your UMs will not be receiving any unwanted attention from me.
I'm not making any promises about your unaccompanied grandmothers though.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I'm not sure of the relevance of statistics here in the context of known parties vs unknown. Tracey knows her partner and male friends/relatives and hence would have been able to make an assessment of whether they are a paedophile (acknowledging that its not always obvious so she may not make the corect assessment).

say what?

not 'always obvious'? that's a crazy statement. you think spouses actually know when their other half is out abusing children?? they have no idea. it's not 'obvious' ... that's the whole point.

your statement sounds a bit like some religious institution's excuse 'oh, they don't seem like an abuser therefore they're not'.

please pray tell... if they're 'not always' obvious, that implies they are obvious most of the time. if that's the case... what do they look like?

 

[harvyk]

I'm not sure of the relevance of statistics here in the context of known parties vs unknown. Tracey knows her partner and male friends/relatives and hence would have been able to make an assessment of whether they are a paedophile (acknowledging that its not always obvious so she may not make the corect assessment).

Risk assessment takes into account both risk likelihood and impact, in the situation of the unknown party you really have no way of knowing if the person your UM will sit next too is a pervert or not. People typically overweight the risk of the unknown but in this case suggesting they dont sit next to a male is about the only risk mitigation technque available.

PS. I'm slightly offended by the whole article myself (mainly the presumption of guilt over innocence), but under the mooted new laws I think we'll all need to get a little more used to being offended sometimes.

Since we’re getting into the risk management domain, let’s look at this through a risk management process. I’m using the Risk Matrix adapted from ISO 31000:2009
First of all, the impact for such an event would be moderate to major. At this level it’s fair to say serious injury causing hospitalization or multiple medical treatment cases, depending on your definition long term, this could also be considered life threatening due to suicide (thus pushing the risk to the major category). The highest level is catastrophic that would involve the death of the child on the plane.
Now we move onto the probability, the lowest level it goes to is 1 in 10,000 – 100,000. So assuming a 31 million flights a year (according to a 10 second google search), and the last recorded instance was back in 2001, that would put the likelihood around the 1 in 403 million mark. Let’s assume than only 50% of all flights actually carry a UM so that puts us in the 1 in 201 million. Let’s also assume that out of those 50% of flights carry both a UM and a sex offender, so in our worst case scenario, where 25% of all flights have the right conditions for the risk to happen, that still only has a 1 in 100 million chance when all the conditions are fore filled.

Now at the original definition of rare, with the max at 1 in 100,000 cases, Moderate to Major comes in a Medium risk. This means that it is managements responsibility to properly mitigate the risk, however since the risk is so low that it’s off the bottom end of the scale, it’s probably fair to say that it is a low risk, which means managed by routine procedures.
Now you may have an argument that by moving males away from UM is routine procedures, however since the risk is so low it does not make an appreciable difference compared to having a female sitting next to the UM. In both cases the actual risk of the UM been harmed by the adult is statistically unlikely regardless of the gender of the pax sitting next to the UM.

This brings us to the next point, since it is unlikely that an adult poses a risk to a UM, what about the risk of an adult simply sitting down in an empty seat next to a UM whilst “waiting for the loo”? Again, using our risk model, it’s highly unlikely that such an event would happen and be a risk for the child, that said it is not unheard of that people have sat in vacant seats next to others and sexually assaulted the pax. Since we are using some pretty out there numbers to justify the risk mitigation of placing a male next to a UM, any other risk to the UM no matter how remote should be included.

There is of course a risk to the UM from other UM’s. I don’t know how what others childhoods where like, but in mine, not every other kid I knew was friendly towards me. As such I had exactly 100% higher chance of been involved in a fist fight with another kid than with an adult. Whilst it’s unlikely that two kids are going to get into a punching match (remember that we are looking at mitigating every risk, regardless of how small), it’s not unforeseeable (or unheard of) that one UM might try emotional scaring via teasing or taunts, or actual physical scaring by way of a violent act such as biting, scratching or other act.

So until the airlines can prove that they take all these above risks towards a UM as seriously as the “all men are dangerous to kids” risk by actual management intervention (as technically required by the risk matrix), I will continue to argue against any “we need to mitigate the risk at all costs, provided that mitigation is simply labeling men as potential pedophiles".

 

[DrA]

the 'Mr' (or Ms, Miss, Mrs) might be a giveaway.

more complicated if they are a doctor.

Just as an aside, I wish they could put something in my profile about this. My employer mandates that I travel as Dr A and not Ms A for work travel, which I have no problem with. Since I got my PhD, I have been asked a number of times if I was a medical doctor or an academic upon check in. I'm an academic, not a medical doctor. I still get asked this with some regularity, sometimes at check in, sometimes on board. And in one case in the middle of a LAN flight between AKL and SCL there was a mid-air medical drama (as I understand it, someone who was heavily pregnant has a miscarriage), and they came and asked me for help because I was down as Dr A and there was nowhere to divert the flight to. I felt terrible for saying I couldn't - I mean I have had some fairly comprehensive first aid training, but that's it.

If you do have to travel as Dr (or some other gender non-specific title) rather than Mr/Mrs/Ms, can the airlines not just add an extra check button for male/female on the booking form? And if you do happen to select Dr as your title, have an additional question about whether you're a medical doctor or not?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

There is of course a risk to the UM from other UM’s.

the Bulger case

 

[burmans]

say what?

not 'always obvious'? that's a crazy statement. you think spouses actually know when their other half is out abusing children?? they have no idea. it's not 'obvious' ... that's the whole point.

your statement sounds a bit like some religious institution's excuse 'oh, they don't seem like an abuser therefore they're not'.

please pray tell... if they're 'not always' obvious, that implies they are obvious most of the time. if that's the case... what do they look like?

You seem to be ignoring the fact I said its not always obvious. But on the other question, well there are plenty of documented examples where spouses have ignored signs, even children telling them its happening and then choosing to ignore this. So, yes, sometimes I think it is obvious.

There also have been plenty of examples where relatives have stated (after the event) they had suspicions but choose not to say anything or in some cases have said something but the spouse "trusted" their husband. "trust" and not knowing are not the same thing!

So, personally I would have to suggest the line it's not obvious can also be easily questioned. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isnt.

However this all sort of ignore my point which is about perception, people think their spouses and relatives are a known quantity wheras strangers aren't. Whether this is true is somewhat moot, humans are emotional being and much of what we do is based on perception rather than reality.

 

[marki]

I have to say, Im not that excited about sitting next to a child (Unaccomanied or not) on a plane, had this thrust upon me a few times, frankly NOT a fan.
its right up there with being told I need to move (and seperate from my spouse/travelling companion) to accomodate a family that can't get their act together with bookings and planning and need my carefully planned and organised seat .

Unless they upgrade you to J/F then heck ok

 

[Himeno]

can the airlines not just add an extra check button for male/female on the booking form?

Gender and Sex are NOT binary.

 

[harvyk]

<snip>Can the airlines not just add an extra check button for male/female on the booking form? <snip>

Why should the gender of the pax matter? What can the airline actually do with that information apart from enforce sexist policies?
My personal belief is the only time gender truly matters is when talking about medical matters. Beyond that IMHO it is irrelevant, and can only be used to stereotype.