Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Air France + British Airways put men under general suspicion

Options
  • 18-08-2009 8:56am
    #1
    Terodil
    Closed Accounts Posts: 809 ✭✭✭


    Just came across this in a German newspaper (http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/0,1518,643279,00.html), to save time I just put it through an automated translation service and took out the worst mistakes :o
    No male passengers beside unaccompanied children: Air France has introduced a new seat order for safety reasons: Men purportedly behaved immoderately.


    Paris - The French airline Air France no longer allows unaccompanied men to sit next to unaccompanied children of less than 12 years. This happens for safety reasons, said a speaker of the airline on Monday in Paris. No further explanations were given by the spokeswoman. The rule does not apply to women. According to the information of the magazine "Le Point" this goes back to a series of complaints in the USA according to which passengers have behaved immoderately when seated next to unaccompanied children. A part of the pilots of air France considers this rule pointless and refuses to apply it, the paper writes.

    British Airways had opted for the same rule in 2006.

    I mean granted that I'll be happy to be rid of crying children intent on spilling their coke over my suit, I still can't believe this open discrimination against and general suspicion of men... what do you think?


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Its a stereotype and a myth that children are more at risk from men than women.The Air France thing is just pc stuff gone wrong.

    My 10 cents worth is that in the general population you dont get guys booking on flights saying seat me next to an unaccompanied child let alone child abusers.

    There is a perception that a child will be more comfortable with a woman and this is probably true. You might also find that a guy would be more open/vulnerable to an accusation of abuse than a woman.

    When I travel I dont like sitting beside or near kids anyway.So yes I might be as capable as a woman with kids but don't sit them near me on a flight beside them.

    There are loads of news stories of women abusers in the states at the moment.Go into any shopping center and you are more likely to see a woman whacking a child then a guy.

    Here is an article I came accross.
    http://sexual-abuse.suite101.com/article.cfm/female_sex_offenders

    There is a lot of work on this in Canada

    http://www.canadiancrc.com/Female_Sex_Offenders-Female_Sexual_Predators_awareness.aspx

    You would hope that Airlines would be vigilant and show proper supervision of unaccompanied children in their care.


  • Options
    #3
    Will
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,183 ✭✭✭✭Will


    Unfortunately most paedophiles are men. Just the way it is :-/

    It wouldn't bother me sitting beside an unaccompanied kid of 12 years old or less. I'd ask to be moved though, the racket off them. What responsible parent would send their kid off unaccompanied anyway?


  • Options
    #4
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Will wrote: »
    Unfortunately most paedophiles are men. Just the way it is :-/

    Studies show that 25% or more are female. Thats not being anti-women as you get deviants in both genders. Thats just the way it is.
    It wouldn't bother me sitting beside an unaccompanied kid of 12 years old or less. I'd ask to be moved though, the racket off them. What responsible parent would send their kid off unaccompanied anyway?

    Agree totally here.


  • Options
    #5
    Will
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,183 ✭✭✭✭Will


    Either way, whether we like it or not children are more at risk from paedophillic behaviour by men compared to women.

    It's a drastic measure by Air France but tbh I would rather know that unaccompanied kids on a plane were safe from any potential horrible situations.


  • Options
    #6
    Terodil
    Closed Accounts Posts: 809 ✭✭✭Terodil


    Yeah, but safety can be achieved by other means rather than putting 49% of the population under general suspicion.

    I personally remember a situation I went through while I was a young teenager still and on a language course in France. The host family had two small girls, who were absolutely lovely and who I liked very much, I felt a little like an elder brother to siblings I have never had. They were going through the same material we were dealing with at school, the fables by Lafontaine. And since I'd just studied them a lot I helped them with learning them by heart etc -- and we had great fun doing it, I was learning a lot of French, they were getting better at school... and we were having a blast.

    One day, one of the parents came into the room while I was going through 'maitre corbeau et le fromage' with them, and YELLED at me to get the f* away from her kids, telling me that she never wanted me talking to either of them again if neither she or her husband was around.

    I was so shocked! They were 4 and 6 fefs, I loved them like little sisters, I would have done anything to prevent harm to them, and they put me into the role of a criminal for spending time with their kids and having fun with them.

    Something is seriously wrong in our society these days if any man who sits on a bench at a playground (for example as a single father) needs to defend himself against flocks of enraged mother-hens that fall just short of lynching him as a pedo. :mad:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    donutheadhomer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭donutheadhomer


    Will wrote: »
    Unfortunately most paedophiles are men. Just the way it is :-/

    It wouldn't bother me sitting beside an unaccompanied kid of 12 years old or less. I'd ask to be moved though, the racket off them. What responsible parent would send their kid off unaccompanied anyway?

    Most pilots are male too - maybe the kids shouldn't be allowed fly on planes with male pilots. Air France would feel much safer this way


  • Options
    #8
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Will wrote: »
    Either way, whether we like it or not children are more at risk from paedophillic behaviour by men compared to women.

    It's a drastic measure by Air France but tbh I would rather know that unaccompanied kids on a plane were safe from any potential horrible situations.


    Anything which decreases risk to children is good. No problems there.

    My comment would be that it is not best practice to ignore the risks that women pose.I would expect that the airlines would have a proper policy and place kids near the stewards/stewardesses station ie front seats or rear seats so they can be monitored at all times.

    From a practical point of view a woman stewardess would be better placed to handle a woman. So I can get it from that point of view.

    What I cant get is that it ignores that the ratio of male to female child abusers is 3:1 which is highly significant and that ignoring this risk no matter how well intentioned it is not best practice to be less vigilant of women passengers.

    That the pilots object is probably from a practical point of view that there is no evidence or cases of abuse on planes thus far so the issue is a "non-issue" in so far as it does not affect planes getting from A to B and any incidents are highly unlikely to occur during a flight.

    I would like to see evidence of the US incidents they are citing here.
    Woman Convicted of Terrorism under Patriot Act for Spanking Children on Airplane

    By Mike Adams, January 20, 2009 | Key concepts: Patriot Act, Terrorism and Air travel

    Bookmark and Share Read Comments | Post Comments
    One sign of a police state is the imprisonment of ordinary citizens for committing annoying acts. In America, over 200 people have been sent to prison for raising their voices on commercial airline flights, convicted of felonies under the laws of the Patriot Act.

    One of those 200 people is Tamera Freeman, who spent three months in prison and was convicted of a felony for spanking her misbehaved children and raising her voice to a flight attendant. When the plane landed, she was arrested as a terrorist and eventually forced to plead guilty to felony crimes under the Patriot Act.

    In another case, the LA Times reports, "a couple was arrested after an argument with a flight attendant, who claimed the couple was engaged in overt sexual activity. An FBI affidavit said the two were "embracing, kissing and acting in a manner that made other passengers uncomfortable.""

    Kissing in public is an act of terrorism? Wow. It's sort of difficult to call America the "land of the free" if you can be arrested for kissing in public, isn't it?

    Sure, screaming babies and couples sharing saliva may be annoying to everybody else, but are they acts of terrorism? "Making other passengers uncomfortable" isn't a felony crime, is it? Apparently it is. In fact, in America today just wearing a turban on your head is enough to make some people feel uncomfortable.


  • Options
    #9
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    I find this very offensive. If I was ask to move, I'd refuse and tell them to move the child if they had such an issue. If pressed, I suppose it would come down to me demanding that they either accuse me of being a pedophile, or admit that I'm not and that there is no problem with me sitting beside a child.


  • Options
    #10
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    I find this very offensive. If I was ask to move, I'd refuse and tell them to move the child if they had such an issue. If pressed, I suppose it would come down to me demanding that they either accuse me of being a pedophile, or admit that I'm not and that there is no problem with me sitting beside a child.

    In the context its been printed it does come across as "an all men are paedophiles" policy.

    I wonder if we could have a thread called that and name and shame the airlines?


  • Options
    #11
    Kournikova
    Registered Users Posts: 243 ✭✭Kournikova


    I wonder how many children have been molested by men during these flights full of passengers.

    It doesn't seem like the kind of place where a sex offender would strike.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Terodil wrote: »
    Yeah, but safety can be achieved by other means rather than putting 49% of the population under general suspicion.

    I personally remember a situation I went through while I was a young teenager still and on a language course in France. The host family had two small girls, who were absolutely lovely and who I liked very much, I felt a little like an elder brother to siblings I have never had. They were going through the same material we were dealing with at school, the fables by Lafontaine. And since I'd just studied them a lot I helped them with learning them by heart etc -- and we had great fun doing it, I was learning a lot of French, they were getting better at school... and we were having a blast.

    One day, one of the parents came into the room while I was going through 'maitre corbeau et le fromage' with them, and YELLED at me to get the f* away from her kids, telling me that she never wanted me talking to either of them again if neither she or her husband was around.

    I was so shocked! They were 4 and 6 fefs, I loved them like little sisters, I would have done anything to prevent harm to them, and they put me into the role of a criminal for spending time with their kids and having fun with them.

    Something is seriously wrong in our society these days if any man who sits on a bench at a playground (for example as a single father) needs to defend himself against flocks of enraged mother-hens that fall just short of lynching him as a pedo. :mad:

    She may have had a previous experience that was making her over cautious.

    My mother had left me and my small brother with a 14 year old boy babysitting us. My brother was about 3, I was 7. The boy stripped my brother down and tied him to a chair. I was confused about what was going on but I knew it wasnt right, this isnt what babysitters do, so I threw him out of the house.

    We found out later that the same thing had happened to the 14 year old when he was a child, just before he was raped.

    Could you blame either me or my mother for not wanting to leave our children with boys or men we don't already know and trust very well?


  • Options
    #13
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    I checked up the US and here is what they say about the US -most airlines wont take unaccompanied minors.


    Important information regarding travel to the United States:
    Due to recent interline policy changes in the US by many US and other airlines, we are not able to accept bookings for Unaccompanied Minors when the itinerary includes a connection to/from another airline in the United States, including codeshare and oneworld partners. These airlines will not accept Unaccompanied Minors from Qantas nor will they transfer Unaccompanied Minors to Qantas flights.
    All Unaccompanied Minors travelling to/from the US require:
    • a parent/guardian to drop them off at the Qantas departure port; and
    • a parent/guardian to pick them up at the Qantas arrival port

    This is also an issue in New Zealand with Qantas and is causing a bit of a stir -here is a piece from todays New Zealand Herald

    Ban on men sitting next to children

    5:00AM Tuesday Nov 29, 2005
    By Ainsley Thomson 28worsley.JPG
    Mark Worsley was asked to change seats on a Qantas flight after he was seated next to an unaccompanied child. Picture / Greg Bowker


    Air New Zealand and Qantas have banned men from sitting next to unaccompanied children on flights, sparking accusations of discrimination.

    The airlines have come under fire for the policy that critics say is political correctness gone mad after a man revealed he was ordered to change seats during a Qantas flight because he was sitting next to a young boy travelling alone.

    Auckland man Mark Worsley says an air steward approached him after take-off on the Christchurch to Auckland flight and told him to change seats with a women sitting two rows in front. The steward said it was the airline's policy that only women were allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children.

    "At the time I was so gobsmacked that I moved. I was so embarrassed and just stewed on it for the entire flight."

    The 37-year-old shipping manager, who has 2-year-old twins, followed the incident up with the airline and was told Qantas wanted to err on the side of caution.

    "I felt that it was totally discriminatory. Besides the point of what the hell was I going to do on a crowded flight."

    The incident, which happened a year ago, irked Mr Worsley so much that he recently contacted National Party political correctness eradicator Wayne Mapp.

    Dr Mapp told the Herald the airlines' policy was an example of political correctness that had got out of hand.

    "I think this is a gross over-reaction by the airlines. What do they think men are going to do that women won't? It is the same as saying men shouldn't sit beside children on a bus."

    A Qantas spokesman confirmed the Australian airline, which operates domestic flights in New Zealand, does not allow unaccompanied children to sit next to men. The spokesman said the airline believed it was what customers wanted.

    Air New Zealand spokeswoman Rosie Paul said the airline had a similar policy to that of Qantas'.

    "Airlines are temporary guardians of unaccompanied minors so we have preferred seating for them."

    Ms Paul said Air New Zealand tried to seat children near a crew area so crew could keep an eye on them and, when possible, children were seated next to an empty seat.

    "Sometimes this isn't possible, so the preference is to seat a female passenger next door to an unaccompanied minor."

    When the Herald asked her if the airline considered male passengers to be dangerous to children, Ms Paul replied: "That's not what I said."

    When it was put to her that that was the implication of the policy, she repeated: "No, that's not what I said."


  • Options
    #14
    Lemming
    Registered Users Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Will wrote: »
    Either way, whether we like it or not children are more at risk from paedophillic behaviour by men compared to women.

    Sorry Will, and I know I'm being anal about your choice of phrasing here, but a child is equally at risk from paedophillic behaviour from a man OR woman who is that way inclined. Just because it's a woman with paedophillic tendencies doesn't make any less of a danger ...


  • Options
    #15
    kmick
    Registered Users Posts: 3,375 ✭✭✭kmick


    I for one think it would be a good opportunity to scream discrimination and demand an upgrade to first class. Anyway what kind of parent sends their kid alone on a flight - they are the ones who should be under fire.


  • Options
    #16
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    I think thats the point. The airlines seem to be demonising men as a marketing ploy " Fly Air France -Your kids will be safer" when there is no evidence of any risk.

    There could be another motive and thats that Air France are using women as unpaid babysitters on flights and that is stereotyping women. What if a woman is preparing for a business meeting she wont want to spend her flight amusing a child and bringing him/her to the bathroom.

    So I wonder how Air France male flight attendants think about this?They have to ask women passengers to do their job looking after kids. What next will they be asking women to serve meals. In fact, they should be worried at the increased risk of false allegations that such paranoia will bring.

    Its like Terodil and the paranoid french mother. She would take his money for a french exchange but wouldn't leave him alone with her kids. Her behavior was like child abuse itself and I hope he made a complaint.

    Its like on flights I hate sitting near kids but tolerate it having flown with my own kids. Next time I am sitting near someone elses noisy brat I will probably ask to be moved.


  • Options
    #17
    994
    Closed Accounts Posts: 911 ✭✭✭994


    I hope they also bring in a rule preventing black men from sitting next to white women - after all, you know what they're like!

    (note: irony)


  • Options
    #18
    kaimera
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,396 ✭✭✭✭kaimera


    British Airways had opted for the same rule in 2006.
    ?

    first insurance, now seating arrangements.

    what next :/

    anyway, why less than <12 years?

    Yet again in the last couple of weeks I find myself wishing I had tits. **** discrimination. equality my hole.


  • Options
    #19
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    kaimera wrote: »
    ?

    Yet again in the last couple of weeks I find myself wishing I had tits. **** discrimination. equality my hole.

    Check out the Moobs thread -just drink loads of beer and eat lots of rice and chipper food.At least thats what you give up to get rid of 'em.

    Im not an expert but I think this thread covers the subject:D

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055548181


  • Options
    #20
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    I think most kids would feel more comfortable sitting beside a woman. Think the airline should have put that spin on it.

    Most paedos are men.

    CDfm look at they type of victims female sex offenders go for shown by that article.
    What Type of Woman Sexually Abuses?

    According to Anne C. Salter, a psychologist who wrote “Predators, Rapists and Other Sex Offenders”, female sex offenders fall into three categories.

    The first group often victimizes their own biological children, mostly under the age of six.
    The second group is the “teacher/lover” group. They have sex with children in the groups in which they are involved, are usually around 30 years old, and have sex with males about 15 years old.
    The third group are coerced into sexual encounters with children by an abusive male partner.

    The only one applicable on a plane is the one in bold, and whilst that may be sexual assault if there's full intercourse, it is not paedophelia, and I don't think the rules would apply to a 15 year old either.


  • Options
    #21
    Terodil
    Closed Accounts Posts: 809 ✭✭✭Terodil


    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    Most paedos are men.
    Yes, so?

    This is exactly the kind of attitude that I'm criticising. While that statement itself is true, the reverse (most men are paedos) is not. And for the topic at hand, THAT statement, if you're a paedo or not, matters, not if paedos are male, have red noses, or blonde hair.

    Your statement grossly overestimates the percentage of paedo offenders and tars all men with the 'possible paedo' brush. Is a 0.01%, 1% or even 5% quota (I don't know the actual figure, sorry) enough to discriminate against 95%+ totally innocent people?

    Edit: It's a bit like saying:
    - When it comes to murder by poisoned food, women represent the vast majority of culprits.
    - Therefore we are banning women from any sites where food is processed.

    @Metrovelvet: I'm very sorry for what happened to you and your brother. But it's still ridiculous to assume that because it happened once, and in this case by a male teenager, every male teenager is like that. You could easily watch a little and see where it's going, or, maybe :shock: TALK with your kids and see what they have to say about it. Good grief. Caution is all good and well, but there is such a thing as going ridiculously over the top. I had done NOTHING wrong, I was an innocent what? 14 yo guy, there's no need to get yelled at and thrown out because I was playing with the kids! That's hysteria!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    I think most kids would feel more comfortable sitting beside a woman. Think the airline should have put that spin on it.

    Most paedos are men.

    CDfm look at they type of victims female sex offenders go for shown by that article

    I dont know if all kids would feel more comfortable with a woman especially boys. Say a 10 to 12 year old boy???

    I can't see the risk on a plane really myself.

    Child escorted to plane by airline employee -handed over to stewardess -sat on front seat near trolley dolly bay in full view of staff- taken off by staff- escorted to ground staff and handed over to whoever is meeting them.

    Now if an airline can't do that they shouldn't be in the business of taking on unaccompanied children. If they take the money they should have the facilities to do the job. In my book it makes them look like amateurs at what they have been doing all along.

    I would have thought it would have been better to sit a child with other kids closer to the their own age and gender if possible or with a family. Airlines are in the hospitality business and they should know how to handle this stuff.If they can't the shouldn't be taking unaccompanied minors.

    25% of convictions for paedophilia are women and the reason I am saying that is not to demonise women but to say its not risk free.Any parent will tell you its about individuals. My 16 yo daughter has a 19 yo female friend who is a disaster zone.

    What I am saying is this is not best practice for lots of reasons and anyone who is trying to persuade us that it is best practice has a screw loose.


  • Options
    #23
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Terodil wrote: »
    Yes, so?

    Your statement grossly overestimates the percentage of paedo offenders and tars all men with the 'possible paedo' brush. Is a 0.01%, 1% or even 5% quota (I don't know the actual figure, sorry) enough to discriminate against 95%+ totally innocent people?
    25% are women - what next a ban on male school teachers and doctors.

    MY fear would be that an airline should be equally vigilant with a woman and I would like to see them be more. I don't know if the female passengers would be happy to have their behavior monitored. Will these females be allowed to drink?

    So what monitoring is in place.


  • Options
    #24
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    OK, some good points raised in response to my post. There clearly is some risk with female abusers and that can't be denied.

    The rules apply to unaccompanied children, I still do think a child of any age would be more comfortable sitting beside a women. Well certainly any child up to the age of around 13. I'm not sure the rule applies to anyone under 18 or just pre-teens.

    One other thing, the article refers to men acting "immoderately" I'm not sure if this is a mis-translation, but could it just mean men are louder, or get drunk more-often than women on planes? rather than actually imply they're paedos

    I don't have issue with the rule in general. I think it would suit most kids who feel a bit nervous on a plane better.

    Regards metrovelvet's post. I agree its unfair on men but I do just think that if I had kids I'd feel more comfortable with a teenage girl minding them than a teenage boy. I'm a man myself and I've never been a victim of sexual abuse, so I don't think I'd be bigotted about it.


  • Options
    #25
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    I can see what cdfm is saying though I can also see what the airline is saying too and I would feel more comfortable with a female babysitter even though I know males who I would also trust.

    When my 2 year old son was in the hospital we had to share a room with a 14 year old boy. Now I found this highly inappropriate on a number of levels I wont go into here, but I was also aware that if I were a man [or the father was staying with him] and it was a 14 year old girl in the room, I sincerely doubt they would have allowed that.


  • Options
    #26
    Terodil
    Closed Accounts Posts: 809 ✭✭✭Terodil


    Fair enough, 'feeling comfortable' and making individual choices is one thing though, introducing discriminatory rules or laws is quite another!

    I think we've done the right thing in leaving the old 'women can get babies so they're not worth as much in the workplace' behind. Yet the same reasoning is coming back now with men and molesting children even though the probability is oh so much lower and we're talking about criminal and unethical behaviour?

    Look, you cannot condemn or treat people worse for a chance that they might do something. You can condemn people only for what they do, it's at the base of our judicial system!

    On a sidenote:
    metrovelvet wrote: »
    but I was also aware that if I were a man [or the father was staying with him] and it was a 14 year old girl in the room, I sincerely doubt they would have allowed that.
    Sorry what? who staying with who? Father of the 2 yo in the room and a sick 14 yo girl in another bed? What's the problem?

    I mean honestly, do you expect your run-of-the-mill-father-of-a-2-yo-son to suddenly lose all inhibitions, rip off the blanket and jump a sick 14 yo? You've seen too many horror movies.

    It was the kids' section, parents always come to visit... I honestly cannot see what could possibly be wrong there.


  • Options
    #27
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    ^ No. What I'm saying is that they would not have allowed a grown man to share a room with a 14 year old girl in a hospital. If you have ever been in hospital, you would know that a lot of "exposing" things happen in a hospital room, such as being nude in a gown, suppositories being inserted, bathing, changing, etc.


  • Options
    #28
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    ^ No. What I'm saying is that they would not have allowed a grown man to share a room with a 14 year old girl in a hospital. If you have ever been in hospital, you would know that a lot of "exposing" things happen in a hospital room, such as being nude in a gown, suppositories being inserted, bathing, changing, etc.

    This is not a hospital its public transport - ffs - if you are taking that view you should apply it across the board and apply it to trains and buses where children might be really vulnerable.If they are really vulnerable on an Air France plane then Air France should not take unaccompanied children at all.

    But this situation is definately OTT and I certainly question best practice of Air France - its right we dont have the expertise or facilities for unaccompanied kids but we will sit them anywhere in a plane as long as its beside a woman and it will be fine.Have there been incidents they don't disclose.

    You would apply it to male doctors etc and situations where you have same gender patients -the possibilities are endless. Where do you draw the line.

    In fact the more I think of it the more uneasy I am. It says to me that kids flying Air France are more at risk then on buses or trains.

    EDIT - here is RYANAIRS Policy

    What is Ryanair's policy on the carriage of unaccompanied minors?

    This information is only applicable to customers who booked flights prior to the 20th May 2009 with travel occurring up to the 1st October 2009

    Ryanair does not carry unaccompanied minors (under 14 years). Escort and special facilities are NOT available.

    Ryanair will carry unaccompanied minors aged 14 or 15 years ONLY upon completion and signature of a form of indemnity at check-in of EACH departure airport, by a parent or guardian. Children under the age of 14 years must always be accompanied on the same reservation by a passenger over 16 years. PLEASE NOTE FOR TRAVEL FROM THE 1st OCTOBER 2009 ALL CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 16 YEARS MUST TRAVEL ACCOMPANIED BY AN ADULT (OVER 16 YEARS) BOOKED ON THE SAME RESERVATION.

    Unaccompanied minors aged 14 -15 years travelling must present their valid travel document at check-in. The parent or guardian of the unaccompanied minor, are required to remain in the airport until the flight has departed.

    PLEASE NOTE - no new bookings for unaccompanied minors will be accepted from the 20th May onwards and Ryanair will NO LONGER accept unaccompanied minors under the age of 16 for travel on Ryanair flights from the 1st October 2009 onwards.

    So that proves it is possible to have a policy.

    EDIT:So lets reappraise it because of paranoia etc based on no real events we have a situation where unaccompanied children and teens can't travel on planes. Nice one PC brigade.


  • Options
    #29
    Jesus Wept
    Registered Users Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    The majority of victims of sexual abuse are abused by a relative or someone they know.
    Perhaps we should consider seating all children with strangers.


  • Options
    #30
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    Ye it's sexist but why get all hot and bothered over it...Like I dont think it wud be worth the hassle


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Its not really the practice itself but the culture it espouses and precedent it sets.

    We have not seen any evidence of children between 12-16 etc travelling unaccompanied or under the care of an Airline being at risk -there is no evidence.

    The other issue is how it impacts on everyday life - being singled out to move seat if you are seated by a child would be embarressing.

    What if you put the same restriction into childcare professions and nursing and teaching or divorced and seperated fathers only allowed supervised access to their children.

    So thats why its wrong -if you don't protest at the erosion of little rights and freedoms it becomes easier and more acceptable to take bigger rights and freedoms away.


Advertisement