Businessman sues BA 'for treating men like perverts'

Run_to_da_hills

A business man is suing British Airways over their new policy that forbids stranger male passengers from sitting next to children even if their parents are present.

He was promptly asked to change his seat after he sat down beside a child even though he was with his missus and the child was accompanied.

"Mirko Fischer has accused the airline of branding all men as potential sex offenders and says innocent travelers are being publicly humiliated!

He is now taking this to court.

I don't think O'Leary would be interested in following suit looking at the feedback.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243625/Businessman-Mirko-Fischer-sues-British-Airwars-treating-men-like-perverts.html

JONJO THE MISER

The world has gone truly mad, im glad its all over come 2012.

opinion guy

Wait this rule means if i'm unlucky enough to have someone's snot-nosed brat sittign besides me, the kind aircraft folk will find me another seat free from screaming younglings ??? I fail to see the problem.

did not read article

Biggins

As I commented on that story to the mail site, it's just another excuse to not fly BA.
When they are not busy banning folk for wearing a religious cross on their clothing while flying, they come up with more crap like this.
The management and owners of BA have their heads up their arse.

I deliberately totally avoid them when flying abroad. Saudi Arabia airlines can seriously teach them how to operate.

Run_to_da_hills

opinion guy wrote: »

Wait this rule means if i'm unlucky enough to have someone's snot-nosed brat sittign besides me, the kind aircraft folk will find me another seat free from screaming younglings ??? I fail to see the problem.

did not read article

I agree, all screaming kids with smelly nappies should be placed in a designated area at the back of the plane so the rest of us can enjoy the flight in peace.

Coriolanus

I can see it being pretty handy, practically speaking like Opinion Guy pointed out. I'd be against it in principal though.
Sure we're all rapists too, surely we shouldn't be allowed sit beside women either.

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

Run_to_da_hills

Nevore wrote: »

ISure we're all rapists too, surely we shouldn't be allowed sit beside women either.

Or promoting Homosexuality, they shouldn't allow blokes to sit beside each other.

AARRRGH

I find this very offensive actually.

What kind of sick **** would implement a rule like this?

Imagine they did this to women, there would be outrage. But as usual, it's ok to treat men like crap.

Run_to_da_hills

AARRRGH wrote: »

I find this very offensive actually.

What kind of sick **** would implement a rule like this?

Imagine they did this to women, there would be outrage. But as usual, it's ok to treat men like crap.

I would be more concerned if cr*p like this spreads to public transport networks. Could you imagine if you were told that it was an offense to sit beside kids going to school on a train or bus? There are idiots in power that are well capable if implementing stuff like this.

Biggins

One man apparently was with his heavy pregnant wife.
The air stewardess placed a child beside them and told the husband to move to another row altogether.

Now thats fcuking taking the piss!

They arrange the seating on the planes beforehand - what the fcuk is wrong with the idiots of BA that they even fcuk this up - if they are so worried!

Bonito

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A business man is suing British Airways over their new policy that forbids stranger male passengers from sitting next to children even if their parents are present.

He was promptly asked to change his seat after he sat down beside a child even though he was with his missus and the child was accompanied.

"Mirko Fischer has accused the airline of branding all men as potential sex offenders and says innocent travelers are being publicly humiliated!

He is now taking this to court.

I don't think O'Leary would be interested in following suit looking at the feedback.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243625/Businessman-Mirko-Fischer-sues-British-Airwars-treating-men-like-perverts.html

Do BA have a leg to stand on?

Example: A story where a male passenger sexually abused a child/teenager on board a flight? Or stalked them through the airport and then abducted them? If there is, I never heard it :rolleyes:

Biggins

Bonito wrote: »

Do BA have a leg to stand on?

Its B.A. :rolleyes:

Bullschite
Artists!

AARRRGH

Yeah, and the concept of "everyone is a suspect" is a very dangerous road to go down. It's like something from a sci-fi movie.

Ridiculous bull****.

Bonito

Biggins wrote: »

Its B.A. :rolleyes:

Bullschite
Artists!

Bankrupt Arshenholers?

Jesus Wept

Bonito wrote: »

Do BA have a leg to stand on?

Example: A story where a male passenger sexually abused a child/teenager on board a flight? Or stalked them through the airport and then abducted them? If there is, I never heard it :rolleyes:

How would that give them a leg to stand on?

AARRRGH

What's also annoying is BA is run by an Irish man! ****ing tool.

Run_to_da_hills

Bonito wrote: »

Do BA have a leg to stand on?

Example: A story where a male passenger sexually abused a child/teenager on board a flight? Or stalked them through the airport and then abducted them? If there is, I never heard it :rolleyes:

BA have designated seating, the possibilities of someone stalking a child in the airport lounge and then sitting beside them is probably zilch.

I would be more concerned about this on a Ryanair flight with the open seating option and at that it would be slim.

If anyone was going to make a move at any child the possibilities of that person getting a fist or beating would be great despite any security regulations.

Bonito

The-Rigger wrote: »

How would that give them a leg to stand on?

That's exactly my point. That'd be their only defence.

"Eh your honour last year a man followed a girl to the toilet and walked in on her 15 minutes later before she had a chance to lock the door. Those locks are tricky your honour and she was clearly a first time flyer. Also the male happened to be seated beside the young lady. Coincidence? The defense believe not"

Ridicule at the highest IMO. :rolleyes:

Elessar

I hope BA are forced to payout millions and go ****ing bust as a result.

The level of paranoia surrounding children in modern society is completely disgusting.

seclachi

Somebody think of the children !!

Biggins

seclachi wrote: »

Somebody think of the children !!

Thats just the problem. It seems like someone in B.A. is thinking TOO much of them.
Its those fools I'd be worried about.

Jesus Wept

Elessar wrote: »

The level of paranoia surrounding children in modern society is completely disgusting.

I'm not promoting paranoia. Sexual abuse is very common.

However, the level of paranoia surrounding strangers is the most ridiculous, the majority of sexually abused children are abused by someone they already know.
Perhaps BA's seating plan should dictate that children are not permitted to be seated beside any of their own relatives (excluding their parents) or any person that their parents know.

Stercus Accidit

http://izismile.com/img/img2/20090901/kids_in_cage_00.jpg

Only solution

Bonito

Biggins wrote: »

Thats just the problem. It seems like someone in B.A. is thinking TOO much of them.
Its those fools I'd be worried about.

Maybe someone in BA has a guilty conscience :rolleyes:

ejmaztec

At least the guy didn't have to sit next to a dead passenger, like the BA case a couple of years ago. BA obviously prefers necrophiles to paedophiles.

LeBash

I think they were right. Only a crazy man would want to sit next to someone elses child on a plane.

This screams of Mrs Lovejoy from the Simpsons "Think of the children!!!"

bonerm

Don't know what he's complaining about? I'd probably pay extra to get a 10metre exclusion zone from the little monsters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q3U9xZQf4w

therecklessone

Does anyone else find it ironic that it's the hysteria generated by the likes of the Daily Mail surrounding sexual offences that feeds these sort of nonsense rules?

ejmaztec

Do all of the priests have to sit at the back in hand-cuffs like the passengers on Con-Air?

HollyB

Why not move the child if they were so worried, instead of demanding that Mr Fischer and his wife, who booked seats next to one another, should sit apart? Or designate certain rows as seating for unaccompanied children, so that the cabin crew can keep an eye on them? Or refuse to accept unaccompanied children as passengers altogether?

Bazzy

I suppose I Wouldnt complain if there was no seats left in standard class and they had to bump me into first class!

m@cc@

But it's the Daily Mail, how reliable is the story?

Tomorrows story: Scientists discover disease only present in foreigners which causes house prices to fall.

inforfun

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I agree, all screaming kids with smelly nappies should be placed in a designated area at the back of the plane so the rest of us can enjoy the flight in peace.

Not far away enough.
As more and more people travel with hand luggage only, there should be lots of space left in the cargo holds.

Biggins

m@cc@ wrote: »

But it's the Daily Mail, how reliable is the story?

Regardless of the Mail, the man is still taking them to court for the stated reasons.
Thats on official record.

By the way, they have being doing this for four years now as reported in 2006: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-414550/Revealed-How-BA-bans-men-sitting-children-dont-know.html

m@cc@

Biggins wrote: »

Regardless of the Mail, the man is still taking them to court for the stated reasons.
Thats on official record.

Yeah, but it's sounds dubious even in itself. Until he wins the case, I wouldn't pay it much attention.

Biggins

m@cc@ wrote: »

Yeah, but it's sounds dubious even in itself. Until he wins the case, I wouldn't pay it much attention.

Well they had 4 years to deny - and so far they haven't.

And adding insult to injury:

British Airways adds a "fly next to your children" fee
British Airways has broken new exciting new ground in the race to make flying as awful as possible: they have announced a fee (ranging from £10-60 per passenger) for advance seat selection, explaining that this will be the only way that families and other groups travelling together can be assured that they'll be sitting next to each other. I wonder what happens if you don't pay it while flying with a two-year-old in her own seat; do they seat her at the other end of the plane from you and explain to the strangers on either side of her that they're responsible for her well-being for the duration?

Source: http://www.boingboing.net/2009/09/25/british-airways-adds.html

alexlyons

what happened to innocent until proven guilty??

m@cc@

Biggins wrote: »

Source: http://www.boingboing.net/2009/09/25/british-airways-adds.html

That's just more gutter journalism. I've never flown with BA but they're far from the only airline to charge for seat selection and the rest of the paragraph is about a 'what if' scenario that is highly unlikely to ever happen since two seats booked together are more than likely to be seated together unless the flight is fully booked at the time after they book.

Biggins

m@cc@ wrote: »

That's just more gutter journalism. I've never flown with BA but they're far from the only airline to charge for seat selection and the rest of the paragraph is about a 'what if' scenario that is highly unlikely to ever happen since two seats booked together are more than likely to be seated together unless the flight is fully booked at the time after they book.

True again, but the charges still applies.
As in both cases, especially the first, the underlying body of the case resides uncontested by the airline and the policy still applies even after 4+ years of doing it.

The current person suing has a hell of a case.
I'm just amazed he's the first.

Its one thing or another with B.A.
They keep screwing up. Anyone remember the farce over a staff member wearing a tiny cross?

m@cc@

Biggins wrote: »

True again, but the charges still applies.

Which you know about before you book.

Biggins

m@cc@ wrote: »

Which you know about before you book.

Aye, but they don't tell you your going to be shifted on the plane if also your sitting besides someone else's child!
Its case of "listen mate, move your arse or else..."

m@cc@

Biggins wrote: »

Aye, but they don't tell you your going to be shifted on the plane if also your sitting besides someone else's child!
Its case of "listen mate, move your arse or else..."

True enough.

On another note, it is unfortunate that a guy suing for being treated for being a pervert should be photographed standing with his hand in his pocket like that.

bnt

I've been sat next to kids on BA before, and when I flew to the USA last August I moved twice before takeoff to accommodate other passengers. I ended up next to a 17-yo American girl flying by herself, we had a nice chat, and ... that's all.

Craziest case was a flight from Lyon to Amsterdam a few years ago: window seat with a toddler and his dad. The toddler really wanted to see out the window, so I ended up holding him steady as he trampled all over my lap. Ow.

PS: if you volunteer to move for other passengers, and the flight attendant notices, they appreciate it. I got a glass of champagne, and it may have helped me get the upgrade on the way back from the USA.

phasers

Does this mean women don't get moved?

Unfair.

Children should be banned from flying imo, or at least be kept in carriers like pets

Samba

ejmaztec wrote: »

Do all of the priests have to sit at the back in hand-cuffs like the passengers on Con-Air?

Nahhh.

They just have to wear chastity belts.

opinion guy

Well see once on a flight sombody's snot-nosed drooling teenage brat felt free to keep falling asleep on my shoulder (with his dad on the other side of me saying nothing). it took several well timed shoulder bumps to learn him it wasn't ok and he should use his dad's shoulder instead (i mean you'd think once was clue enough no ?). this would not have arisen under BA's new rule.

So yeah some part of me feels its sexist and discrimantory.....but it just can't help seeing how practical it is for me too avoiding situations like above.

OutlawPete

AARRRGH wrote: »

What's also annoying is BA is run by an Irish man! ****ing tool.

I would have said that he was more of a donkey tw*t boy than a tool.

How a brainless baboon like him can be given such an important job is beyond me.

I wouldn't leave him in charge of a f**king toaster to be fair.

WindSock

AARRRGH wrote: »

I find this very offensive actually.

What kind of sick **** would implement a rule like this?

Imagine they did this to women, there would be outrage. But as usual, it's ok to treat men like crap.

Oh shut up ffs. They DO do it to women.

Women have to sit beside the little brats. Because women are all ever so caring and good with kids. There have been complaints from women before over this but you obviously haven't heard about it. So less of you IF crap, please.

GLUEY

therecklessone wrote: »

Does anyone else find it ironic that it's the hysteria generated by the likes of the Daily Mail surrounding sexual offences that feeds these sort of nonsense rules?

True. I can not stand tabloids. Broadsheets are bad enough but tabloids are generally just for brain deads.

Captain_Generic

All the kids should just be thrown in a ball pit in the bowels of the plane, then they can supervise themselves and cry all they want