Virgin Australia has been accused of treating male passengers like paedophiles

[harvyk]

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.

How is this a problem limited to only UM's? Everytime I've been on a flight with my kids, regardless of length, they have dropped somethng (usually a crayon, they like colouring books when on planes), and I've needed to pick it up off the floor. I have yet to be arrested for "looking at kids legs" on landing.

The child would need to be making a fuss and saying no for people to notice.

Also the rather inflamatory question of why there are so many males here who want to sit next to UM's? Well as far as I concerned I don't like to be on planes with kids full stop, so I'm not going to put my hand up specifically to sit next to one, however the thought of me been moved for the "childs protection" is personally very offensive. It if nothing else implies at a minimum that I could be one of those sicko's without directly accusing.

Also I asked my wife if she'd have any problems with a male sitting next to any of our kids if they where flying as UM's. Like me, she'd also had no problems with a person of either gender sitting next to our kids (2 girls 2 boys), given we're both of the opinion that the very large majority of people out there do not pose a danger to others.

 

[mannej]

(not sure WHY all these guys WANT to be sitting next to kids....)

Wow - nice way to insinuate there. Not sure the value of that statement, as it just adds to the overall branding that the policy quite obviously does.

I think people here that you are referring to find their seat more important rather then who is sitting next to them.

 

[oz_mark]

Concerns on our policy for children travelling alone

We understand the concerns raised around our policy for children travelling alone, a long standing policy initially based on customer feedback.


In light of recent feedback, we’re now reviewing this policy. Our intention is certainly not to discriminate in any way.

Concerns on our policy for children travelling alone « Virgin Australia Blog



Funny that they say they didn't intend to discriminate, yet the policy was blatantly discriminatory.

 

[maninblack]

The policy is discriminatory, probably in breach of various pieces of state and federal legislation and is also plain insulting to men. The apparent mishandling of the particular incident by someone who is probably not trained to handle such matters is a further and different issue. I am sure that Virgin are reconsidering this policy. Yes Oz_mark the blog comment is nonsense as the primary intention of their policy is to discriminate.

 

[Moody]

The policy is discriminatory, probably in breach of various pieces of state and federal legislation and is also plain insulting to men. The apparent mishandling of the particular incident by someone who is probably not trained to handle such matters is a further and different issue. I am sure that Virgin are reconsidering this policy. Yes Oz_mark the blog comment is nonsense as the primary intention of their policy is to discriminate.

In the context of the act the definition of discrimination is to treat people unfairly on the basis of their sex. What exactly is unfair about asking someone to move to another seat? The T&C's of carriage specifically call out that you may be moved at the airlines' discretion.

 

[anat0l]

In the context of the act the definition of discrimination is to treat people unfairly on the basis of their sex. What exactly is unfair about asking someone to move to another seat? The T&C's of carriage specifically call out that you may be moved at the airlines' discretion.

The T&Cs of carriage also maintain that Virgin Australia may not enforce T&Cs to the extent of which they are in contravention of applicable laws:

2. Conditions Apply Subject to Overriding Laws

2.1 The Booking and the contract for carriage between us and you is subject to these Conditions and (as applicable) the Convention and the applicable Law. These Conditions apply except to the extent of any inconsistencies with any applicable Convention or Law, in which event such convention or laws will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

2.2 If any provision of these Conditions is void, illegal, invalid or unenforceable, the Conditions will be read down to the extent necessary to ensure they are not void, illegal, invalid or unenforceable.

2.3 These Conditions also apply to our employees, agents and representatives, all other carriers used by us to carry you and those carriers’ employees, agents and representatives.

2.4 You may have certain rights under the Australian Consumer Law, which is Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).These include consumer guarantees that the services we provide to you will be carried out by us with due care and skill, will be fit for the purpose disclosed and will be supplied within a reasonable time.

2.5 These Conditions do not exclude or limit these guarantees or any other statutory rights that you may have under applicable Laws (including the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959 (Cth).

2.6 You must comply with all applicable Laws, regulations, orders and notifications in force relating to air transport and all conditions and instructions issued by us.

That all said, of course it is the responsibility of someone to bring action against Virgin Australia to prove that the supposed gender-based discrimination is in contravention of law. Also, suffice to say that the reseating of someone is probably not causing them any harm or damage, so the basis of the suit would be some form of defamation or damage to character.

 

[oz_mark]

That all said, of course it is the responsibility of someone to bring action against Virgin Australia to prove that the supposed gender-based discrimination is in contravention of law. .

Different country, but it has been done in the UK: BBC News - BA compensates man 'humiliated' over child seat policy

 

[Moody]

Different country, but it has been done in the UK: BBC News - BA compensates man 'humiliated' over child seat policy

BA were not found to be breaking the law, but made an out of court settlement on the basis that the man was travelling with his pregnant wife and should not have been subject to the policy of not seating single men next to an UM. BA apologised and paid him 750 quid in damages plus costs, but denied that the policy was discriminatory and AFAIK still retain it (as they should).

 

[Blackadder]

Concerns on our policy for children travelling alone « Virgin Australia Blog



Funny that they say they didn't intend to discriminate, yet the policy was blatantly discriminatory.

As I say blatant discrimination against men is deemed acceptable so it seems, heaven fobid if a woman is dicriminated against.

 

[oz_mark]

BA were not found to be breaking the law, but made an out of court settlement on the basis that the man was travelling with his pregnant wife and should not have been subject to the policy of not seating single men next to an UM. BA apologised and paid him 750 quid in damages plus costs, but denied that the policy was discriminatory and AFAIK still retain it (as they should).

BA admitted discrimination in this case, and changed their policy shortly afterwards.

 

[anat0l]

BA admitted discrimination in this case, and changed their policy shortly afterwards.

If you have access to the legal document showing the result, that would help clear things up.

The linked article doesn't make it clear that BA broke the law. The fact that BA settled for costs and some compensation is no indication that they were legally bound to do so, nor does it imply that their settlement outside of court was conducive to avoiding a judgement against their favour with associated damages.

 

[RWJ777]

BA admitted discrimination in this case, and changed their policy shortly afterwards.

I have no doubt that DJ policy will be changed in this matter and so it should: it is not based on evidence, it is discriminatory in effect and it does nothing to curb the behaviours it seeks to prevent. Their in house counsel would have assessed it over the weekend and I am fairly confident will change it.

 

[Moody]

BA admitted discrimination in this case, and changed their policy shortly afterwards.

Yes - they admitted that the policy was not correctly followed and they admitted sexual discrimination in this case. They denied the policy was discrminatory - but why am I having to repeat that important distinction?????

And I can't find any internal BA policy on UM and there is no public information as regards their seating. Have they actually changed policy or simply do a better job of seating allocations? Who knows, but if I was sending my daughter solo on a flight I would be asking for some reassurances from the airline in question.

 

[Globetrotter]

IMO...
It seems the main issue with Virgin, given most airlines appear to have the same policy regarding children travelling alone, is the unprofessional manner in which Virgin crew handled th situation. If check in staff reviewed the seating situation and made appropriate changes discreetly before boarding commenced then everyone would be non the wiser. To humiliate the gentleman on board is unprofessional and unacceptable.

 

[tuapekastar]

I started off reading this thread as outraged as many others that blokes could be discriminated against for just being blokes. And if I had been in Mr McGirr's situation I would have been deeply offended - and that has not changed. At the same time I could understand why DJ (and other airlines) do this.

But after I read the link provided by (I think) drron I have a lot more sympathy for the airlines' way of thinking (though I am not wholly in agreement). But if I ever copped the treatment McGirr got I would be mightily pissed off.

So I think things can/should be managed much better - perhaps in this case DJ were at fault for mismanagement of the situation.

If I ever find myself seated next to a UM, then I am quite comfortable with the airline moving the UM to another seat well away from me. I'm happy to stay put in my selected seat.

 

[oz_mark]

Yes - they admitted that the policy was not correctly followed and they admitted sexual discrimination in this case. They denied the policy was discrminatory - but why am I having to repeat that important distinction?????

It was a consent agreement, and of course they are only going to admit as much as they needed to.

And I can't find any internal BA policy on UM and there is no public information as regards their seating. Have they actually changed policy or simply do a better job of seating allocations? Who knows, but if I was sending my daughter solo on a flight I would be asking for some reassurances from the airline in question.

From what I have found, they removed explicit reference to males sitting next to UM. It may just mean that if it does happen, the cabin crew don't have to resolve it.

But after I read the link provided by (I think) drron I have a lot more sympathy for the airlines' way of thinking (though I am not wholly in agreement). But if I ever copped the treatment McGirr got I would be mightily pissed off.

The question is whether it is unlawfully discriminatory or not. I think it will only ever get resolved if it ever goes to court, rather than getting compensated before then.

 

[JohnK]

Regardless of how you look at it this is discrimination.

I am sure it has been mentioned but if both QF and VA did not allow row 29 and possibly row 28 to be pre-allocated seats (and allocated at check-in) and saved these for Unaccompanied minors then perhaps sensitive situations like this would not happen.

 

[drron]

Regardless of how you look at it this is discrimination.

I am sure it has been mentioned but if both QF and VA did not allow row 29 and possibly row 28 to be pre-allocated seats (and allocated at check-in) and saved these for Unaccompanied minors then perhaps sensitive situations like this would not happen.

But then I would lose my chance to be first off at MCY.Time to throw a hissy fit!
:shock:

 

[JohnK]

But then I would lose my chance to be first off at MCY.Time to throw a hissy fit!

Do unaccompanied minors come off first where flights have both front and rear boarding? I thought they waited until all passengers were off aircraft and then escorted unaccompanied minors to terminal.

 

[anat0l]

Do unaccompanied minors come off first where flights have both front and rear boarding? I thought they waited until all passengers were off aircraft and then escorted unaccompanied minors to terminal.

That still means drron has to walk at least an extra row further to get off the aircraft. He ain't exactly a spring chicken you know. :mrgreen: