Travelling with children

[kirstyoz]

Let's not get into the risk management rubbish again.

Sorry, obviously I've missed a previous conversation. Risk management is how we make the community safer. It's not about making individuals upset at an inconvenience or privilleging someone over someone else, it's about the community standing together to protect our most vulnerable and everyone coming together to be on board with that. Like I said, I can appreciate how it could potentially be upsetting for blokes but there's more at stake than an individual being offended. I'm a woman and I'd move in a heartbeat for a family to sit together or for the benefit of an UM. And have done. My husband is the same. It just seems to be the courteous thing to do, and I know if I'm asked to move it isn't about me personally.

 

[mannej]

The policy of moving pax based on Gender does not eliminate the risk, as females are just as capable of committing such acts (this may be against what the stats say but how accurate are the stats?).

You would think there are other strategies that don't discriminate but also reduce the risk at the same time.

I wonder how these policies work in line with the anti discrimination act.

 

[ronone69]

Been doing this for years - but had at least one older kid with them - started when the oldest was 12. QF / SQ / CX / TG no problem

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Sorry, obviously I've missed a previous conversation. Risk management is how we make the community safer. It's not about making individuals upset at an inconvenience or privilleging someone over someone else, it's about the community standing together to protect our most vulnerable and everyone coming together to be on board with that. Like I said, I can appreciate how it could potentially be upsetting for blokes but there's more at stake than an individual being offended. I'm a woman and I'd move in a heartbeat for a family to sit together or for the benefit of an UM. And have done. My husband is the same. It just seems to be the courteous thing to do, and I know if I'm asked to move it isn't about me personally.

It is the manner in which some male passengers are asked to move that causes most of the problem.

If an airline wants to have a policy regarding male pax and UMs, and if people really want to end up sounding like Tracey Spicer, that's fine. But sort it out before pax board the aircraft.

When cabin crew ask a male pax, who through no fault of their own has been sat next to a UM, there is absolutely no excuse for them to be treated as a sex offender in front of the rest of the cabin.

'Mr MEL_Traveller, we have a seat for you in business class today' is one way to move someone. 'Mr MEL_traveller, you need to move, right now, because you are not allowed to sit next to a child' is another.

It is not illegal for a male passenger to sit next to a UM. The male passenger is not breaking the law... even though so many goody-two-shoes-tree-hugging-I-must-drive-my-children-to-school people would really like to have it that way (a criminal offence).

 

[harvyk]

I can understand why it would offend blokes, but in fairness its reasonable risk management to have UM's sit with women and not men. I work with sex offenders and they can be highly opportunistic, they're very good at manipulating kids AND adults, and they are mostly men. The very (very very) few women offenders tend to offend against family members and not strangers. Also there's a whole lot more sex offenders around than ever come into contact with the justice system, so it's something everyone should be aware of when considering sending their kids as UM's (or unaccompanied in any other setting). If you look at the number of child sex offenders, the number of UM's travelling every year, and the gendered risks, I'd make the same decision.

and what percentage of the community do those men make up? and how many of those men have the ability to fly international (or even full stop) without restrictions?

 

[Rebekkap]

The policy of moving pax based on Gender does not eliminate the risk, as females are just as capable of committing such acts (this may be against what the stats say but how accurate are the stats?).

You would think there are other strategies that don't discriminate but also reduce the risk at the same time.

I wonder how these policies work in line with the anti discrimination act.

It doesn't eliminate the risk, but it greatly reduces it, and I can see why airlines do it. I can't see another way of reducing the risk as substantially without a "discriminatory" policy.

And the stats are inaccurate in that these sorts of crimes are vastly underreported, but I've never seen any suggestion that the crimes by one gender are less reported than crimes by the other.

As for the anti-discrimination act (which by the way is not one act, but a bunch of different federal and state laws covering different areas - https://www.humanrights.gov.au/guide-australias-anti-discrimination-laws#summary), I don't believe the airline is discriminating against anyone - they are providing the same service (a seat in the class you've paid for on a specific flight, and the terms and conditions say they get to allocate that seat wherever they want for basically whatever reason they want) whether you are seated in 4A or 24B. You'd be hard pressed to argue that you'd been discriminated against when they have in fact provided you with the service you paid for, just as they have provided that service to everyone else who paid for it, regardless of sex/gender/age/race etc.

I'm sure they have sought legal advice, however, and if they need to have sought an exemption from the applicable act.

 

[Rebekkap]

and what percentage of the community do those men make up? and how many of those men have the ability to fly international (or even full stop) without restrictions?

If you look at the percentages of the community who report being assaulted compared with the percentage of people prosecuted successfully for those crimes, there must be a substantial number of men who have committed offences but have never been charged or convicted of them. Those individuals wouldn't have restrictions on them.

 

[Steelo]

Agree. If airlines wish to pursue this policy - then sort it out at seat allocation - to ask a male passenger to move from his seat because the airline has seated an UM next to him, is offensive humiliating and embarrassing - and even worse it is done in front of an audience.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It is not ok to say that Muslims were responsible for 9-11 therefore we should treat Muslims differently with regards to security. But all of a sudden because ALL men can be tarred with the same brush it becomes 'ok' to treat them with suspicion? Because we're not really discriminating are we? We can label them all the same?

That's a really nice way of thinking.

I appreciate some may happily be bullied and shamed into moving on a flight 'in a heart-beat'. It doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept that sort of hysterical behaviour.

If the airline was really concerned they'd split up male family members and relatives from travelling with their own children first, then worry about total strangers. According to posts above regarding risk management that would seem to give the best security?

 

[harvyk]

If you look at the percentages of the community who report being assaulted compared with the percentage of people prosecuted successfully for those crimes, there must be a substantial number of men who have committed offences but have never been charged or convicted of them. Those individuals wouldn't have restrictions on them.

Define substantial...

 

[Steelo]

This is quite offensive - are we going to apply the guilty until proven innocent approach to all areas of potential criminal activity for all people travelling by Plane?

If you look at the percentages of the community who report being assaulted compared with the percentage of people prosecuted successfully for those crimes, there must be a substantial number of men who have committed offences but have never been charged or convicted of them. Those individuals wouldn't have restrictions on them.

 

[harvyk]

If you look at the percentages of the community who report being assaulted compared with the percentage of people prosecuted successfully for those crimes, there must be a substantial number of men who have committed offences but have never been charged or convicted of them. Those individuals wouldn't have restrictions on them.

Whilst I'm at it, considering a much larger percentage of assaults are carried out by someone the child knows, wouldn't in accordance with your logic a child be safer sitting away from family and friends? Forget the UM's, statistically they are safe, please start thinking of the children who are at risk by sitting next to family and friends.

 

[JohnPhelan]

.... there must be a substantial number of men who have committed offences but have never been charged or convicted of them. Those individuals wouldn't have restrictions on them.

And the same applies to women.

 

[JohnPhelan]

I work with sex offenders and they can be highly opportunistic, they're very good at manipulating kids AND adults, and they are mostly men

who are related to, or know, the child.

 

[harvyk]

And the same applies to women.

It's believed the numbers around women are severely underestimated because there is such a taboo on men crying rape against women, with men either having their sexuality questioned or not believed since all men "want it all the time".

Furthermore, reported just this morning is a story of a female rapist -> Joy Morsi, teacher charged with rape of student, ‘flipped out over prom date’ | News.com.au however they put the word rapist in quotation marks, and the reason why she was caught was because she got jealous of her victims prom date. Had it been a male teacher targeting a female student you could bet they would not be using quotes around the word rapist.

Edit: Now can I suggest we get back to the original question? There are many threads which this issue has been discussed in.

 

[Princess Fiona]

So, you don't think a 7yo will kick the seat in front? Wouldn't spill food or drink. Ever seen a 7yo and 10yo have a fight or shouting match in the back seat of a car? I've had one vomit in a plane. 14 hours is a long time unsupervised.

No I don't which is why I said that, I thought it was pretty clear.

 

[rhjames]

Many children are abused by their fathers. Therefore, kids shouldn't sit next to any male, including their fathers. Actually, I saw on TV yesterday, that one young boy abused another young boy. Therefore perhaps children shouldn't sit next to anyone. Perhaps they could go in little cages for their own protection! Where does this stop? I've seen a flight (KLM) with horse stables in the back half. Perhaps this suggests a possibility for children.

 

[Denali]

..... Perhaps they could go in little cages for their own protection! Where does this stop? I've seen a flight (KLM) with horse stables in the back half. Perhaps this suggests a possibility for children.

When did kids become so hated?

 

[kirstyoz]

Women might be capable, we all have fingers and toes, but women just don't do it in anything remotely like the numbers that men do. Women aren't socialised or hard-wired for it in the same way. Like I said, I work in the field, my knowledge is experiential rather than stats based, although I'm fully conversant with the research. I've worked with victims and offenders for years and I’ve trained with some of the best in the world.
I always find it funny when men cite anti-discrimination legislation in cases like this... at the end of the day it's about protecting kids through managing risk, and the risk is being accurately assessed in this case. Whether it offends you or not, it's right that males are the core population of sex offenders, and more than that, they're the sole offender group who would commit this kind of high risk sex offence. I think the community expectation is that people are more concerned with protecting children than trying to cry discrimination when the risk policies are evidence based.
Put it the other way, if airlines were successfully challenged (which I don't believe could happen because of the overwhelming evidence in support of what they're doing) and men could sit next to UM's, you'd without a doubt see a spike in incidents of child abuse on aircraft. The you have the jurisdictional complexity of prosecution where it's an international flight, the fact that the child may not have access to good supports in the destination country... you're talking about massively increasing the risk of victimisation of children, placing them in a situation where it's even more traumatic than if abused where they have the ability to access supports in a familiar environment, making the process even more traumatic for them... for what? So men have the privilege of sitting next to a UM? So they don't get asked to swap seats once or twice in a decade? To my mind that position is an extraordinarily selfish one to adopt.

Anyway, I'm done hijacking the thread, just my thoughts.

 

[kirstyoz]

QUOTE=JohnPhelan;1059313]who are related to, or know, the child.[/QUOTE]

That's true, but it hardly negates stranger assaults? There are very large numbers of stranger assaults and the majority of those go unreported because of the nature of them. I've spent years dealing with the guys who do things like assault kids in toilets at the movies whose parents presumed they'd be alright to run to the toilet quickly during a film - the risk is real and immediate whether it offends you or not. A sex offence against a child can take a single minute. I find it baffling that people argue this point because the risks are real, the people who do this are not as uncommon as you must presume, and the people who don't like it are the same people who would want to sue the airline if one of their kids was hurt. Anyway, I'm done. Disappointed in humanity today.