Virgin Australia has been accused of treating male passengers like paedophiles

[dnoze]

Fair point. That all said, "asking the kid" is an easier said than done remark. (I know it's the only real way to find out, but it's practically very difficult and not fair on the kid either).

I'm surprised they didn't ask other witnesses (i.e. pax seated around) where the incident occurred. That said, the airline seems to acknowledge that the incident did happen (well, then again, they can't go all face out and say that the incident didn't happen, i.e. the man is a liar).

It could well be blown out of proportion, and some variances in the reporting have been noticed as the story has been going from media outlet to media outlet. The core argument about the policy is very much the same.

Totally agree, though no one will know any other side to the story until any other pax come forward in the media. And yes you are right, depending on the outlet, it would appear that some journos have taken the opportunity to flame the situation! (that poll was so poorly worded!)

 

[YQY]

Would I want my unaccompanied daughters to sit next to an unknown male on a flight? No.

Would I want to be discriminated on the basis of my sex, especially being asked to move without offering an explanation other passengers? No - i wouldn't.

Tough call....

 

[RWJ777]

This is really getting ridiculous. There is a plethora of evidence that most sexual abusers are male and there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary. If you are not going to accept these facts then [self redacted to prevent the whole post being removed by the thought police]. If you read my post carefully I neither say that ALL sexual predators are male or that ALL males are sexual predators. That interpretation is something for you and your analyst to work on.And if this policy is going to offend you then I am not sure how you will even make the plane. I mean how DARE they accuse you of being a terrorist by x-raying your carry-on and making you dump your liquids. I bet you don't even have a beard or fly under the name Ahmed. Go and sue the airlines for this defamation - it will make my day!

With respect, your own statement has revealed the illogic in your argument: the DJ policy applies selectively to some passengers (single men) and not to others (couples and single females), whereas airport screening policies apply to ALL passengers.

 

[dnoze]

Would I want my unaccompanied daughters to sit next to an unknown male on a flight? No.

Would I want to be discriminated on the basis of my sex, especially being asked to move without offering an explanation other passengers? No - i wouldn't.

Tough call....

Do you put yourself first or others..... i know what i'd do.

 

[RWJ777]

Virgin haven't labelled anyone anything. It's their plane, and they simply don't want you to sit in that particular seat.I do find it interesting that society has jumped onto the bandwagon of a fireman who got upset, rather than think about the child's comfort level at flying alone.But the problem was with the fact the seating of the UM hadn't been sorted prior to boarding.

There was no suggestion that the children were discomforted. In fact, had you read the article, you would have seen that the fireman surrendered his assigned seat to the kids so they could look out the window. He has been nothing but dignified and reasonable in the face of what is most certainly unlawful behaviour under the Anti Discrimination Act and the subsequent voicing of innuendo-based speculation about "WHY" men would want to sit near children.

 

[Moody]

You're fighting a losing argument moody ... and clearly your opinions that men generally do bad deeds are clearly outdated and way behind our modern times. I will now go find myself a rusty butter knife and poke them into my thighs, clearly that would be less painful than reading your stereotype on men.

It is not an opinion that most sexual (and physical) abusers are male, it is a fact. It is absolutely ridiculous and quite frankly unbelievably stupid to say otherwise. In fact I will give you one million dollars if you can prove otherwise, as long as you stop telling these lies when you can't.

So we can move on from that point I hope.

What the (now previous?) policy is about is risk mitigation. Do I have to explain that to anyone here?

And finally a bit of conjecture. The plane is full and the FA is told to check on the unaccompanied minors to ensure that company policy is being followed. He/she goes up the back of the plane and sees that not only is a male passenger sitting beside them, but they have moved themselves to the aisle seat and now effectively "traps" the children against the window. No reason to panic as such, but if I was the FA I would be quite firm that company policy was adhered to and would view any reluctance to comply with suspicion.

 

[dnoze]

There was no suggestion that the children were discomforted. In fact, had you read the article, you would have seen that the fireman surrendered his assigned seat to the kids so they could look out the window. He has been nothing but dignified and reasonable in the face of what is most certainly unlawful behaviour under the Anti Discrimination Act and the subsequent voicing of innuendo-based speculation about "WHY" men would want to sit near children.

I meant that he got upset when asked to move.

 

[samh004]

Well, like another person who has been discussed quite a bit on this forum, you could offload yourself and suggest to the pilot to tell everyone the reason for the delay.

I know you’re joking, but if it happened flight after flight, you’d never get to your destination, so somewhere, there’s a better solution.

What happens when an airline follows this policy and the minor is assualted by a female? Do they just say well we took a duty of care because most incidents are by males.

It would be wrong to say I await that headline!

And if this policy is going to offend you then I am not sure how you will even make the plane. I mean how DARE they accuse you of being a terrorist by x-raying your carry-on and making you dump your liquids. I bet you don't even have a beard or fly under the name Ahmed. Go and sue the airlines for this defamation - it will make my day!

The airlines don’t control screening, that’s the government and a whole different ball game… plus what others have said about it applying to everyone, not just one sex. And lets not even get started on the TSA feeling up kids in LOTFAP you don’t even need to board the plane to be molested

 

[oz_mark]

Finally, can you actually point to any real statistics that UM are infact at a significantly higher risk whilst sitting on a plane, can you point to any actual cases where a UM has actually been assulted on a plane? Because unless you can actually show me some stats, I will refuse to believe that a child is in any more danger by sitting next to an adult male.

The answer is that molestation of UMs has occurred on aircraft, however the number of occurrences is quite low. The problem with those cases versus this policy is that in most cases the passenger that did the molesting typically moved into a free seat next to the UM. They weren't typically assigned there. I'd argue that an empty seat next to a UM is more of a risk, as potentially anyone on the plane could sit there.

Children are at more risk walking home from school....

 

[ash.1111]

With respect, your own statement has revealed the illogic in your argument: the DJ policy applies selectively to some passengers (single men) and not to others (couples and single females), whereas airport screening policies apply to ALL passengers.

DJ policy is not to seat a male passenger out of uniform in the same half-row as a UM. Nothing about "single men".

 

[coyote25]

Moody you keep going for the males are the ones who molest stat and appear to be getting upset (sorry if misreading your mood).

Let's get closer to reality of this environment, what is the stat of men who molest children in a public place in which they can not escape and their name is known? That's the relevant stat if you are profiling.

If it has ever happened what is the number? And is it higher than the known relative figure? That is the only stat that matters when singling out a group for different treatment.

If it was as high has 1% of traveling public I'll yield to the policy but condemn the (non) ability of DJ not to solve this before boarding.

People who support this seem to be doing it on likelihood so give us the numbers for happening in this situation. And if necessary lets extend it to cinemas (dark place and they don't know the mans name) and other such places.

I understand parents preferences and fears even if unfounded in fact (men on planes molesting not more men than females in general which is correct). I also prefer to sit with other adults, preferably good looking females although they don't prefer me

In the sixties some people didn't want to sit with other races either because they commit crimes etc.

But let's be careful when singling out one group of society unless there is good reason in the circumstances (witnesses, short flight, name known, no escape if caught).

Please tell me this is based on something other than .01% of men who are strangers who might do something if no one is watching and unknown (ie car parks, parks).

The only stats I've heard so far say families should be separated to protect the children which would be ridiculous.

As for no one said the guy was a bad person people don't seen to see it from the victims views (yes victim if he is called out in public).

The policy doesn't seem to be based on fact (if it is I'm sorry) and seems to give in to misunderstanding of these issues.

Educate parents to worry about family members behind closed doors not men in plain sight who have no escape if they do something.

Having said all this convicted and registered sex offenders would be a higher risk and deserve different treatment. Make it a requirement they must inform the airlines of their status like when moving into a new area.

Throw these scrum in jail if they don't comply with the law (if this became a law).

Profiling by governments and private companies has to be justified. Profiling takes away options for a group so let's make sure it is necessary and right.

 

[anat0l]

What the (now previous?) policy is about is risk mitigation. Do I have to explain that to anyone here?

Risk mitigation (or elimination) is only effective in as so far as it reduces what is (the initially uncontrolled) unacceptable risk to what is then an acceptable (residual) risk.

You cannot have zero risk unless you eliminate it (i.e. offload the male from the aircraft; in fact, offload all males from the aircraft, including the crew if applicable).

Risk mitigation for the sake of risk mitigation is meaningless and counterproductive. Risk mitigation of an uncontrolled yet acceptable risk is also similarly ridiculous. Also, Virgin cannot defend itself by simply saying it was mitigating a risk, unless it can prove comprehensively that the male sitting next to that child was a situation that presented unacceptable risk. Furthermore, it would then need to, as a corollary, present its good faith analysis that such situations frequently present themselves as unacceptable risk such that it must be drafted into standard policy.

In proving that the risk is unacceptable, I do not think that the single, statistically-based, binary fact (yes, it is a fact) that it is more likely for a child to be assaulted by a male rather than a female is enough evidence by itself to prove that the risk is significantly unacceptable.

 

[Alanslegal]

It is not an opinion that most sexual (and physical) abusers are male, it is a fact. It is absolutely ridiculous and quite frankly unbelievably stupid to say otherwise. In fact I will give you one million dollars if you can prove otherwise, as long as you stop telling these lies when you can't.

So we can move on from that point I hope.

I am now poking my left thigh with my rusty but very trusty butter knife.

 

[here2go]

Could the airlines that have this policy be protecting male passengers from false accusations too?

 

[samh004]

Could the airlines that have this policy be protecting male passengers from false accusations too?

Now there's a good take on the situation, they're discriminating against women again!

See what I did there?




 

[harvyk]

Could the airlines that have this policy be protecting male passengers from false accusations too?

It's an interesting suggestion, but I highly doubt that a child would decide within a max of 20 hours (say a Syd-lhr which would be the longest time tha a UM and pax would be sitting next to each other) that they are going to make false accusations against a stranger that they'd never met before.

 

[drron]

Well I googled child molestation on planes.came up with 1 article from the Good ole USA from 2009.They had found 10 instances of child molestation on planes in 2 decades.In 2008 Southwest carried 436,738 UMs.Yes all the molestors were men.But most moved to be next to the UM,most occurred on overnight flights.
So it would seem that the chances of an UM being molested on a short daylight flight by a male sitting next to them are about 1 in a million at the most.
Predators are free to move about the cabin - Page 1 - News - San Francisco - SF Weekly

 

[Cynicor]

Ok, so if I'm reading everyone's opinion correctly, we will all be happy if seating allocation is based upon race and gender, so white males are all grouped in area A, black females in area B and so on. UMs would be in area C, between 2 femal groups.

This way the males are all free to molest and murder each other but no one else (my last few flights I couldn't sleep for all the molesting going on TBH), and all the anti-discrimination folk are happy because the policy applies to everyone.

Next we need a rota system so that everyone can get windows and preferred front row seats occasionally.

 

[TheEmu]

Ok, so if I'm reading everyone's opinion correctly, we will all be happy if seating allocation is based upon race and gender, so white males are all grouped in area A, black females in area B and so on. UMs would be in area C, between 2 femal groups.

This way the males are all free to molest and murder each other but no one else (my last few flights I couldn't sleep for all the molesting going on TBH), and all the anti-discrimination folk are happy because the policy applies to everyone.


Next we need a rota system so that everyone can get windows and preferred front row seats occasionally.

Very droll, Cynicor .
Actually this rota system sounds ok if J and F seats are included...haven't had an op-up in several lifetimes.
Plus there'll be plenty of spare seats as soon as the male pax have finished murdering each other...which is when I'll climb out of the overhead locker where I've been hiding...and you can get some sleep!

 

[Alanslegal]

Could the airlines that have this policy be protecting male passengers from false accusations too?

I hope they are thinking about it but I believe no airline will ever admit this in public.

....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.

It's an interesting suggestion, but I highly doubt that a child would decide within a max of 20 hours (say a Syd-lhr which would be the longest time tha a UM and pax would be sitting next to each other) that they are going to make false accusations against a stranger that they'd never met before.

It is unlikely it will happen but the chances are not zero. Furthermore, a fellow passenger (whilst half asleep, drunk or drugged) may "see" something and interpret that as "bad" eg. let's say you drop your pen and reach down to pick it up, and then report you to the flight staff "for looking at that UM's legs", then they could report it to ground staff and then you could be frog marched off the plane by the police, security or army (wherever you land I guess) wearing a new set of handcuffs. Its possible that you get named in the media and that you were allegedly caught looking at a UM's legs. You do not have the privilege to have your name withheld/censored until your criminal matter is heard, and regardless of your innocence, your name is tarnished forever. Plus I will be sure fellow passengers have access to smartphones, cameras, video cameras who will no doubt be recording you being frog-marched off in handcuffs and you will be on Youtube minutes later.