Virgin Australia has been accused of treating male passengers like paedophiles

[mannej]

Understand the policy -- it is simple risk minimisation.

But the implementation sucks.
I would also be offended if ask to move publicly.
If the UM seats are manually allocated then crew should be able to see where there are vacant seats next to a female and allocate that way, or at worse force a change so pax get red beeped and recarded "operational reasons" on boarding.
Too do it on board is poor.

Exactly what I am getting it - it shouldn't happen on board.

 

[whatmeworry]

Virgin has just done a back flip on their policy. Plus love the pic.

In a backflip issued via Twitter, the airline said: "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."

​

 

[RWJ777]

I am deeply angry about this policy. It is most certaintly discriminatory at law -- unless there is a specific exemption in the Anti-Discrimination Act and I don't bleieve there to be -- and worse still is based on innuendo and steretype. It is not evidence-based.Most sex and indecent assaultof minors occurs within the family. This policy essentially takes newspaper headlines and seeks to convert it into a pollicy rationale; it ignores crimes stats.Moreover, it's insulting to men, presupposing them to be inclined to committing indecent assaultif presented them with opportunity (which is surely limited on a plane surrounded by people anyway!). I recently came back to VA with their new premium traveller service. But there is no way I am going to travel with them now. I find it grossly insulting.Mr Bourgetti, please take notice of this. It's simply not on. If you want to attract the premium business flyer, you better fix this quick smart as we won't be insulted by this nonsense.

 

[mannej]

I am deeply angry about this policy. It is most certaintly discriminatory at law -- unless there is a specific exemption in the Anti-Discrimination Act and I don't bleieve there to be -- and worse still is based on innuendo and steretype. It is not evidence-based.Most sex and indecent assaultof minors occurs within the family. This policy essentially takes newspaper headlines and seeks to convert it into a pollicy rationale; it ignores crimes stats.Moreover, it's insulting to men, presupposing them to be inclined to committing indecent assaultif presented them with opportunity (which is surely limited on a plane surrounded by people anyway!). I recently came back to VA with their new premium traveller service. But there is no way I am going to travel with them now. I find it grossly insulting.Mr Bourgetti, please take notice of this. It's simply not on. If you want to attract the premium business flyer, you better fix this quick smart as we won't be insulted by this nonsense.

That limits you to TT and JQ in Australia, as they don't take on UM's
QF has the same policy, as do a number of other airlines.

It shouldn't get to the stage where a passenger is being moved on board due to the fact that they are sitting next to an UM

 

[wingspan]

I think this is just a symptom of a bigger social problem. We (as social humans) have binarised sex and gender for so long, that consequences like this are bound to happen. I don't see why any company needs to know if I am man or woman or male or female as those things all seem arbitrary to me. Very interesting reading people's comments about this on this forum as it is one of the most gender/sex normative places I spend time in.

Regardless, I think it's good that these sorts of policies are brought out into the public eye so that they can be squashed sooner rather than later.

 

[wingspan]

That limits you to TT and JQ in Australia, as they don't take on UM's
QF has the same policy, as do a number of other airlines.

It shouldn't get to the stage where a passenger is being moved on board due to the fact that they are sitting next to an UM

QF don't have this policy anymore. Or, at least, haven't had it/enforced itwhen I've flown.

 

[harvyk]

i was going to come on here and post a big rant about how this is absolutely sexist and sick policy, but instead I would ask the members here who support this measure to take a good long hard look at themselve in the mirror, and just think "would I like to be labled as potentially 'something' so evil simply because of my gender?"

One of my biggest fears is that when I'm walking down the shopping center with one of my kids, and they decide to throw a tantrum, as kids do, that I am going to have to proove that I am actually the kids father, and that I would need to prove it to some concerned citizen.

So no, I won't just have a beer and get over it.


:evil:

 

[yohy?!]

it's really not that big a deal, seems like it must be a slow news day....

 

[harvyk]

it's really not that big a deal, seems like it must be a slow news day....

It's a slippery slope my friend...

 

[nlagalle]

I have no problem with this policy or the fact that DJ asked him to move.
What I have a problem with is how each time he tells his story it gets more sensational and worse for DJ.
My "favourite" part was how he suggested to DJ that men not be allowed to sit next to women because most rapists are men, thereby following DJ's logic.

I have every problem with both.. There is absolutely no valid justification to do this. Do we ban men from sitting next to children on trains and buses? No. So why should planes be different. I'd be highly offended if i was told to move - I work with children on a weekly basis and hold a valid WWC card.

The least they could have done is moved him to J for the embarrassment they caused him.

 

[nlagalle]

wait til it happens to you, then it may become a big deal...

 

[AVC]

Here's a scenario.

What if you were a doctor?

THEN, what if they asked you to move (as in this situation).

THEN, one of the kids required medical attention? Would they put out a page for female doctors? Doubtful.

It's outright gender discrimination, and should be outlawed.

 

[tehuringa]

Sadly indicative of the world we live in ..... the policy is discriminatory that is beyond doubt but the fact that it wasn't dealt with at check-in is a major stuff up on the part of virgin.

 

[dougieboy]

That poor guy, he just wanted to fly from A to B but instead was openly discussed to people unknown to him that "he is not allowed to sit next to minors". Disgusting behaviour - I hope the guy sues, that's a loaded supposition if ever there was one. An apology will never be good enough in this instance. I won't be flying with Virgin.

 

[casanovawa]

If they moved me to a better seat (J hello) then i could live with it and they could cram their policy, but if I had picked a seat specifically for some good point about it, or they moved me from a window which i always choose, to an interior seat, then you better believe I would have a big problem with it...

 

[antycbr]

There's some classic comments in the SMH forum on this:

* Do cabin crew have a "working with children check" - an ASIC was a tad tougher than a working with children check
* I'm not going to fly with Virgin until they abolish the policy - looks like they're going to be flying TT or JQ
* Why are young kids on the plane by themselves in the first place - ever heard of visiting grandparents, separated parents etc.

Most of us are up the front of the plane anyway (who deliberately chooses row 20+ on a 737. Anytime I've seen UMs they're in the LAST row of Economy and any empty seats are near the UM.

Sounds like a cabin crew member not being tactful when stuck with a 100% load factor and under pressure for on time departure.

Virgin make $20 per UM per domestic sector. Is it worth it when you have 800+ comments of heated anger? If I was VA I wouldn't be surprised if they say stuff it - no UMs.

 

[yogi]

Poor guy. How demeaning.

I get it, the airlines don't want to be sued and accused, I get it; but it's a pretty unjustifiable policy - assuming that a random single male is more likely to harm a child than a female. Or that a child will be harmed at all. Most child assaults are actually caused by someone the child knows.

I've read many of the justifications of support for this and all the reasons are kinda pathetic, weak and discriminatory. There's no other way to put it.

Stand up for a just cause because it's the right thing to do, not because it might be perceived as popular or the way things have always been done.

Perhaps they want the women to be more of a motherly / babysitting / calming influence.

 

[nlagalle]

There's some classic comments in the SMH forum on this:

* Do cabin crew have a "working with children check" - an ASIC was a tad tougher than a working with children check

Actually I have both and getting my ASIC was far easier and less painful than a WWC check.

 

[Austman]

I've had a (sort of) reverse experience to all of this. And in Sweden of all places, who pride themselves on how they handle child welfare but also discrimination.

Unaccompanied Minors - FlyerTalk Forums

 

[Mattg]

I seem to recall the same thing happening a few years back on a QF flight in NZ.

What's the basis for this policy? Has a UM ever actually had any problems as a result of sitting next to a man?

I can understand the reasoning, but it still seems like an unnecessary policy which ended up really embarrassing that poor guy who'd done nothing wrong.