QANTAS accused of treating male nurse like "kiddie fiddler"

[codash1099]

So by your logic and reasoning, all adult male pax must fly F class... Now it wouldn't be fair to charge them any more than any other gender or aged pax, so if we extrapolate your theory out to it's full conclusion, it all adult male pax must fly F class (or J if F is already full), and can only be charge no more than a discount Y ticket in price...

I like your thinking...

and by extension, there's a definite probability that all male pax flying F class are closet child molesters.

 

[simongr]

So the bottom line is, if you're male, sit as far forward as you can, because the back of the bus is reserved for UM's and females.

Hey, it's not my policy!




And the real downside to this policy is that I am more likely to be sat next to a balding middle aged man than a perky blond...

 

[The Rok]

Why not move the child? Why does the adult have to be moved….

 

[casanovawa]

After thinking about it a bit more I was going to say something similar to Rok, but hadn't gotten around to posting it...

The adult male has probably paid the full fare, and may have selected that exact seat, while the UM is probably getting on at a discount child rate and couldn't tell one seat from another...

On buses and trains etc there are usually signs that students paying a discounted fare are expected to stand for adults, not the other way around... So it would be relatively simple to move the kid, but I guess the males are the easy targets eh...

 

[clifford]

So it would be relatively simple to move the kid, but I guess the males are the easy targets eh...

Well they've allowed themselves to be dominated in this way. They've only got themselves to blame.

 

[Moody]

Why not move the child? Why does the adult have to be moved….

Possibly because of the extra assistance they require, so when the FA is out in the position of having to move someone they pick the easiest option.

In the recent Virgin beat-up ("they asked me to move so everyone on the plane must think I'm a child-molester") there were 2 kids so much easier to leave them where they were.

And I must once again point out that the level of indignation displayed by the complainants and their supporters over these non-events makes me worry that there are a lot of repressed peodophiles out there.

 

[JohnPhelan]

And I must once again point out that the level of indignation displayed by the complainants and their supporters over these non-events makes me worry that there are a lot of repressed peodophiles out there.

What an utterly ridiculous and insulting statement - "you disagree with me therefore you must be a paedophile".

 

[MEL_Traveller]

seems we are NOT the reason you fly Qantas...

...not so it seems if you are a male passenger sitting beside an unaccompanied minor.

Can Red Roo please explain the reasoning behind this policy?

We know most child abuse occurs by people known to the child - father, uncle, other relation or 'trusted' family friend.

Why then are all men considered unsafe by Qantas to sit next to children?

This abhorrent policy may be shared by some other airlines, but that in itself does not make it correct or best practice. British Airways has changed its policy after being fined for the same behaviour. I truly believed QF would have moved with the times.

This is not a debate on whether anyone wants to sit next to an unaccompanied minor, or whether there are indirect benefits of being moved... its about the implication of treating an entire class of people as potential criminals.

This cannot be a risk mitigation strategy, otherwise fathers couldn't sit with their own children. So what drives it? If Qantas is doing this 'in response to passenger (parent) demand' why not educate ignorant parents rather than smear the innocent passenger?

For me its gut wrenching, and disappointing.

 

[drron]

And I must once again point out that the level of indignation displayed by the complainants and their supporters over these non-events makes me worry that there are a lot of repressed peodophiles out there.

Like JohnPhelan I am disturbed with this comment.
And surely those who have repressed tendencies overemphasise the opposite to that behaviour they have repressed?

 

[simongr]

Re: seems we are NOT the reason you fly Qantas...

Umm - duplicate thread (which I have reported) and a lot of righteous indignation there...

For the record QF didn't smear the passenger by announcing over the PA that "Joe Blow in 26B has been moved to 47Q because he was sat next to an unaccompanied minor and y'know what men like him are like "

 

[yohy?!]

Re: seems we are NOT the reason you fly Qantas...

airlines reserve the right to seat people wherever they wish for operational reasons.

had they prevented the man from flying, that would be discrimination...

 

[medhead]

Ok, I've looked at this in more detail. Specifically the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (commonwealth) as it seems as good a standard as any. It says:

Sex discrimination

(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person (in this subsection referred to as the discriminator ) discriminates against another person (in this subsection referred to as theaggrieved person ) on the ground of the sex of the aggrieved person if, by reason of:
(a) the sex of the aggrieved person;
(b) a characteristic that appertains generally to persons of the sex of the aggrieved person; or
(c) a characteristic that is generally imputed to persons of the sex of the aggrieved person;
the discriminator treats the aggrieved person less favourably than, in circumstances that are the same or are not materially different, the discriminator treats or would treat a person of the opposite sex.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, a person (the discriminator ) discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person ) on the ground of the sex of the aggrieved person if the discriminator imposes, or proposes to impose, a condition, requirement or practice that has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging persons of the same sex as the aggrieved person.

Reading that I agree it is discrimination. Discrimination against women. By making a woman sit next to a child they are being treated less favourably than a man. It is also likely to disadvantage the woman in terms of having their own time on the aircraft to sleep, or do work or whatever, due to the implicit expectation that they will "watch" the child. Men on the other hand will suffer none of those disadvantages.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: seems we are NOT the reason you fly Qantas...

oh sorry - didn't see the other thread!! please merge then... where IS the other thread??

 

[JessicaTam]

<snip>
Reading that I agree it is discrimination. Discrimination against women. By making a woman sit next to a child they are being treated less favourably than a man. It is also likely to disadvantage the woman in terms of having their own time on the aircraft to sleep, or do work or whatever, due to the implicit expectation that they will "watch" the child. Men on the other hand will suffer none of those disadvantages.

Yay, thank you medhead, at last somebody gets it. Why should I be asked to sit next to a UM ostensibly to "supervise" them. Do I get a discount? Nope. Perhaps if I get asked to move I should request extra alcohol.

 

[samh004]

Yay, thank you medhead, at last somebody gets it. Why should I be asked to sit next to a UM ostensibly to "supervise" them. Do I get a discount? Nope. Perhaps if I get asked to move I should request extra alcohol.

You could always suggest you're a repressed paedophile like moody has pointed out and I'm sure they'll reconsider the invitation/request/order.




 

[oz_mark]

And I must once again point out that the level of indignation displayed by the complainants and their supporters over these non-events makes me worry that there are a lot of repressed peodophiles out there.

What a disgraceful statement. I am utterly appalled by what you are insinuating.

 

[simongr]

Reading that I agree it is discrimination. Discrimination against women. By making a woman sit next to a child they are being treated less favourably than a man. It is also likely to disadvantage the woman in terms of having their own time on the aircraft to sleep, or do work or whatever, due to the implicit expectation that they will "watch" the child. Men on the other hand will suffer none of those disadvantages.

Actually - no. Women are not asked to sit next to a UM to supervise them - they are asked to sit next to a UM to avoid the UM being abused by an alleged pedophile.

Frankly I couldn't give a frak as the UM ain't going to be in row 4 or 23 on my flights.

It is a risk manage,ent policy where no one wins - the airline, the pax or even the UM because th FA leading them through the airport is as likely to be a pedophile as joe blow in 43D...

 

[cove]

Fortunately agencies dealing with young children require staff and board members to have police clearances.
With airlines they don't have this opportunity as they are dealing with the general public and unfortunately there are folks of either sex that should be kept away from unaccompanied minors not just male passengers.

 

[oz_mark]

It is a risk manage,ent policy where no one wins - the airline, the pax or even the UM because th FA leading them through the airport is as likely to be a pedophile as joe blow in 43D...

I think you'll find that they always use a female FA for the task of leading them through the airport.

 

[lovestotravel]

So this nurse was humiliated.. ?

Maybe a few other passengers heard that he was asked to swap seats and no-one would have even thought/wondered why...

But now Daniel McCluskie has his name all over the news and papers

Must have been humiliating to want to make it such a public matter....