QANTAS accused of treating male nurse like "kiddie fiddler"

[simongr]

This is not a preventable event. Even if not seated next to them incidents could occur.

 

[The Rok]

It seems as though US Airlines have got it right……

Should male passengers be allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children? - CNN.com

"Airlines are acting as custodians of unaccompanied minors, and therefore have the ability to move them to a different seat if they believe that is in their best interest," a U.S. Department of Transportation spokesman told CNN. "However, DOT has statutes prohibiting airlines from having discriminatory seating policies, including on the basis of gender or age. ... Therefore, airlines cannot have policies forcing a man to move if seated next to an unaccompanied minor, but they can, if they choose, have policies requiring an unaccompanied minor to be moved if he/she is originally seated next to an adult male."

 

[harvyk]

On all the sensible evidence it reduces an admittedly very small risk by a further 90%.

No it doesn't, on all the sensible evidence presented thus far moving a single male away from a UM and then leaving that seat vacant would increase the UM's risk. Furthermore on all evidence presented thus far it has made exactly no difference if the pax sitting next to the UM is male or female. As it currently stands no UM has experienced abuse at the hands of a pax who was assigned a seat next to them (and lets hope it stays that way, that said I doubt it will be due to this discriminatory policy), regardless of the gender of the pax.

 

[casanovawa]

Its a lazy, populist policy as it stands based on pseudo science/stats...

As a father who earlier this year flew up to Bali with just my seven year old and who had to hold a bag to his mouth as he chucked up on the plane, i am well and truly capable of handling most situations i find myself in with my own or with others... I doubt if I had sent him up on on his own either a male or a female stranger would have been feeling all that clucky at that moment, especially one who hadn't had kids and experienced such things...

In a crash situation I would be just as happy to help someone else's kid as my own and think that as long as i survived the crash i could handle it as well or better than most people (with my temperament and extensive history of watching Air Crash Investigators )... I and the ex are the primary carers of our child, if i entrust his safety to any stranger, FA, man or woman of Joe Public i would blame myself primarily if something happened, but I would also have some perspective on the chances that you take in life even stepping out the front door...

Young boys these days must have enough problems with positive role models in an often predominantly female teaching and day care environment, i don't need to stoke any further hysteria about other guys out there and i would actually be more worried about the person next to him, of either gender, being drug affected, carrying a disease of some sort, reading/watching inappropriate material, or swearing or having too many to drink etc than being a rampant, closet child molester just looking for the flight he/she can finally get lucky on... Again if i send him into the big, wide world without me, i have to accept some level of risk and not expect everyone else to be impacted to satisfy my insecurities...

 

[MEL_Traveller]

moody... you need to re-cut your statistics to include the following:

- 90% of child molesters are known to their victim. this includes fathers, uncles etc
- that from the reported cases in the USA, I think all of them involved the male moving from their original seat to sit next to the child.

chances of a stranger, already pre-seated to be an abuser are next to none.

anyways, the DOT policy is a good position. and as others have said, if it satisfies the American public (and their litigious society) the. it should be fine for us.

 

[amaroo]

Its a lazy, populist policy as it stands based on pseudo science/stats...

As a father who earlier this year flew up to Bali with just my seven year old and who had to hold a bag to his mouth as he chucked up on the plane, i am well and truly capable of handling most situations i find myself in with my own or with others... I doubt if I had sent him up on on his own either a male or a female stranger would have been feeling all that clucky at that moment, especially one who hadn't had kids and experienced such things...

In a crash situation I would be just as happy to help someone else's kid as my own and think that as long as i survived the crash i could handle it as well or better than most people (with my temperament and extensive history of watching Air Crash Investigators )... I and the ex are the primary carers of our child, if i entrust his safety to any stranger, FA, man or woman of Joe Public i would blame myself primarily if something happened, but I would also have some perspective on the chances that you take in life even stepping out the front door...

Young boys these days must have enough problems with positive role models in an often predominantly female teaching and day care environment, i don't need to stoke any further hysteria about other guys out there and i would actually be more worried about the person next to him, of either gender, being drug affected, carrying a disease of some sort, reading/watching inappropriate material, or swearing or having too many to drink etc than being a rampant, closet child molester just looking for the flight he/she can finally get lucky on... Again if i send him into the big, wide world without me, i have to accept some level of risk and not expect everyone else to be impacted to satisfy my insecurities...

IMO this is the best post on this thread!

 

[mannej]

IMO this is the best post on this thread!

No arguments there

 

[JohnK]

which part of the policy is good? that adults (in general) don't have to sit next to unaccompanied minors, or that men can't sit next to unaccompanied minors?

That adults in general do not have to sit next to unaccompanied minors with the expectation they baby sit while the crew is busy with errands.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

That adults in general do not have to sit next to unaccompanied minors with the expectation they baby sit while the crew is busy with errands.

yes that indeed is a good policy

 

[JohnK]

3 words - Women only gyms! If those get up, then there is no way this policy is discrimination.

A lot of clubs in SYD have times where women only are allowed in gyms. Not quite the same but close.

But I do get what you are trying to say.

Men only clubs are discrimination

Women only clubs are progress....

 

[lovestotravel]

So no seating allocation should be allowed even though the risks (albeit small) exist and the statistics prove that the risk is far, far less if UM are seated away from single men?

If that is your story then you can really go to town on NRMA and all the other car insurance companies. They discriminate against under 25 males by making them pay far higher premiums and excesses, and for what???? Just because some measly statistics say that they are a far greater risk than their female equivalents.

I can't understand why one of you white knights don't sue the discriminatory coughs. No - actually I can. It has something to do with being laughed out of court.

What is it about risk mitigation that you people don't get? Why do most men go 'meh' when asked to move and a minority scream "they think I'm a kiddie fiddler!".

As I have said, it's along the same lines of women's only gyms...

Insurance policies "discriminate" males and those under xx years of age as they make them pay more for insurance.

Heck I am being discriminated against, because my BMW which is the same $$ is more to insure than the Audi.....

 

[JohnPhelan]

We need some psychiatric advice here ....

Couldn't agree more ......

Actually, given the statistics which show 90% of child molestors are known to the victim, should the airlines refuse to allow any family member to sit next to a minor?

It would seem that seating a family member beside a minor is much more of a risk, statistically, than seating them beside a stranger .....

 

[EmilyHoward]

Well, dress nicely as a Lady and you probably won't get moved!

EH

 

[Moody]

Sometimes I don't know why I bother .... the level of common sense on this thread is disappearing up various people's fundament.

I will take this slowly for those amongst you that are blinded by your own brilliance.

Point 1 - most child sexual abuse is perpetrated by a family member or someone else known to the victim. I think we all agree about that, so labour the point all you like if it helps avoid other less palatable truths. But if I was a kiddie fiddler who had designs on my niece or alter boy, I can't think of a stupider place to go about by business than a crowded airplane. The MO of these predators is to get the child alone and vulnerable.

Point 2 - most reported incidents occurred when the perpetrator moved seats beside the UM. This was based on this article :- Predators are free to move about the cabin - Page 1 - News - San Francisco - SF Weekly which admitted its research was perfunctory and the actual number of incidents was likely to be much higher. The seat-switchers are more likely to be caught or at least charged because the authorities view that as suspicious behaviour, but one of the sad truths of the article was the initial reluctance by the airline (and sometimes police) to pursue these matters. It usually took a persistent parent to force the issue, so who knows what the real incidence of child assault is. There was another article http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/business/global/07minors.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all that inferred the rate of incidents was high enough for Air France to change seating policy to reduce risk.

Point 3 - we are talking about a pretty low risk here. How low is conjecture based around some very dodgy stats, but child sexual assault DOES HAPPEN on airplanes and is likely to be under-reported. And in all cases reported but one (where the woman offered a 14-year-old boy alcohol and pills which he wisely declined) the perpetrators are male. This point seems to escape some people. It doesn't mean that all men are peodophiles or all peodophiles are men - it is merely a statement of fact that indicates the relative risk that a UM will experience.

Point 4 - there is probably more physical risk to the child in the taxi ride to the airport than there is of a kiddie-fiddler having a feel. So what? There has never been a proven incident of mobile phones causing a plane to crash, but we are told to turn them off anyway because it is the safer option until we get a definitive answer.

Point 5 - there are a number of ways that airlines can ensure the safe travel for UM's, but providing a personal escort for each child is out of the question and so seating them in a group down the back is the usual compromise. But on a packed plane not only is the crew very busy, but separation of UMs from the other passengers may be impossible. In those circumstances the policy to not place single males beside children is sensible risk-mitigation.

 

[mannej]

I still fail to see how it is sensible risk mitigation?

If the policy was so black and white, why is there evidence from members on here that they have been placed next to UM's?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I still fail to see how it is sensible risk mitigation?

If the policy was so black and white, why is there evidence from members on here that they have been placed next to UM's?

needless to say all males should be banned from flying on overnight flights where they might have a chance to interfere with the poor UM while said UM waits to use the WC (it's pretty dark by the WCs on a 747 for example). obviously sensible risk mitigation no? Heaven forbid if the UM asks a male pax at the snack bar to reach for a chocolate candy. Could be further potential for interference. The risk is far too great to allow male pax on night flights...

 

[mannej]

needless to say all males should be banned from flying on overnight flights where they might have a chance to interfere with the poor UM while said UM waits to use the WC (it's pretty dark by the WCs on a 747 for example). obviously sensible risk mitigation no? Heaven forbid if the UM asks a male pax at the snack bar to reach for a chocolate candy. Could be further potential for interference. The risk is far too great to allow male pax on night flights...

Thanks for the chuckle

 

[Moody]

Thanks for the chuckle

Pity it made no sense whatsoever, but is it really funny? I, for one, fail to see the humour here.

Maybe it is if you think that child sexual assault is an amusing topic that is ripe for ridicule, exaggeration, and parody.

 

[drron]

Air France had a policy to seat UMs by themselves.They changed it when 2 UMs couldn't reach their O2 masks when deployed as is stated in the NYT article quoted.

 

[mannej]

Pity it made no sense whatsoever, but is it really funny? I, for one, fail to see the humour here.

Maybe it is if you think that child sexual assault is an amusing topic that is ripe for ridicule, exaggeration, and parody.

Yes child abuse is a serious subject not worth ridicule or parody. It is the risk mitigation employed that is worth ridicule here, as I am still yet to find any evidence of sensible risk mitigation. You suggest that the cases here are underrepresented by the stats. That may well be true, but as you can't accurately deny or confirm that there may be cases of assault by female's as well.

A lot of the arguments here are based on speculative statistics. In my mind, it is this speculations that make me believe that there is no significant evidence that the risk mitigation is sensible, nor the policy good.