Where do you stand on this?

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

Trying WAY too hard.

 

[Magic Band Defender]

I was referring to having to make an emergency landing and you know it. Stop pretending you're somehow above arguing with people about this subject, because that is exactly what you're doing.

I did not know you were referring to having to make an emergency landing. I do not see any reference to the emergency landing in your post.

I am merely responding to those who responded to my post and no one and nothing else.

 

[smiths02]

IMHO, the mother did not use autism as a threat, but rather explained the reason for the request.

I think that is where the problem is. I think the flight crew believed it was a threat.

No matter disability, you can't go around telling people that someone will be injured if they don't provide something for you. And you especially can't do this on an airplane after 9/11.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Just like you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, or joke about hijacking the plane in an airport, you can't threaten that someone is going to start harming others in the air. It's really that simple.

 

[mjkacmom]

Just like you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, or joke about hijacking the plane in an airport, you can't threaten that someone is going to start harming others in the air. It's really that simple.

I was just about to post that it's like yelling fire in a movie theater!

 

[Magic Band Defender]

I think that is where the problem is. I think the flight crew believed it was a threat.

No matter disability, you can't go around telling people that someone will be injured if they don't provide something for you. And you especially can't do this on an airplane after 9/11.

I agree with you. I wasn't there obviously, nor were any of us. I am guessing the mother's comment could've been taken at least two ways:

1) Mother asked for a meal for her daughter. The flight attendant explained they were only for first class passengers. The mother asked for an exception and attempted to explain why the were asking for the accommodation. She may have attempted to explain that her daughter is on the autism spectrum, is having a bad day, their Plan A didn't work, and they are hoping to avoid a meltdown. Since the FA might not have understood ASD's, the mother may have explained what a meltdown for her daughter would be like and a list of what may occur during a meltdown (including scratching).

2) Mother asked for a meal for her daughter. The flight attendant explained they were only for first class passengers. The mother demanded a meal for her child. The mother used her daughter's potential meltdown as a threat to get her accommodation.

I see no problem with scenario 1. I do see a problem with scenario 2. I understand the same conversation can be taken many ways.

 

[barkley]

Medical pre-boards and those requiring extra assistance do inconvenience hundreds of other people. Those who use ECV's on Disney transportation inconvenience and/or delay other guests. Just because a disability is invisible, doesn't mean it's any less of a disability. Thank you for your reply.

in both situations i expose myself through personal choice and by accepting the terms of entering into the contract of purchasing a ticket on the airline/into the amusement park.

when choosing to include my asd son in either i also do it by entering into an identical contract BUT i take the step to review what accommodations are available and what are not. if my son's REASONABLY ANTICIPATABLE needs cannot be met i do myself a disservice/am neglectful of my son if i fail to research ahead of time viable and available alternatives.

 

[nugov2]

Just like you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, or joke about hijacking the plane in an airport, you can't threaten that someone is going to start harming others in the air. It's really that simple.

And that is the crux of the issue here. Here wording and behavior not her daughter having autism or even having an extreme need because of a mistake on the parents part is not. She could have went about it a million other ways and still got what her dd needed and not had to be escorted off, but because she was frustrated(and I'm sure we all get frustrated and make mistakes from time to time) she made a poor choice. She needs to accept responsibility for that mistake not try to fault the airline or make it out like this is because her dd has autism. That has nothing to do with how United reacted. I would have more sympathy for her and understanding if she owned it, but spinning it into a PR opportunity is more important to this mom than the needs of her child. She could use this as an opportunity to raise awareness about how to properly prepare when flying with a special needs child and how to contact the airline prior to your departure if you have any extraordinary needs. She clearly needs more awareness on this front so I would guess many others would benefit from knowing that you can in fact contact them ahead of time and they will try to accommodate you.

 

[cabanafrau]

I think that is where the problem is. I think the flight crew believed it was a threat.

No matter disability, you can't go around telling people that someone will be injured if they don't provide something for you. And you especially can't do this on an airplane after 9/11.

The mother told the flight crew there was a risk of people getting scratched if her daughter didn't get piping hot food. If I'm a fellow passenger on that plane, I have not purchased a ticket with the understanding that any random passenger may lose control and scratch me for whatever reason and that's what I'm signing up for. What if my invisible disability is extreme anxiety, airline travel is a stretch for me and being scratched or the threat of being scratched in this situation leaves me disembarking the plane suffering from more severe anxiety and PTSD rendering me unable to board a plane in the future?

The mother knew her daughter's needs before buying the plane ticket(legally a contract of service.)
The mother knew her daughter's needs were not met before boarding the plane.
The mother did not discuss this with airline personnel prior to boarding the plane to attempt to make contingency provisions.
Daughter's needs arose during the flight.
These needs were not unforeseen by the mother, yet she did not take reasonable steps to address those needs until the situation was acute and passengers and flight crew were at risk of assault.
The airline was prevented from providing their customers with the contracted service as agreed upon because this family did not take proper proactive action or make reasonable attempts to inform the airline in a timely fashion.
Daughter was put through stress needlessly and other customers were inconvenienced.

Whose actions were out of line here?

 

[Magic Band Defender]

I didn't say you attacked anyone specific. The tone of your post was kind of attacky though. Nobody was talking about any of the things you felt the need to bring up. Either you are accusing people of saying the things you decided to post about or you just decided to make totally random comments that have nothing to do with the ongoing discussion.



To the bolded, Nope. You are twisting what people have said.

Nobody said the mother used Autism as a threat. How would that even be a threat?

Perhaps reading more carefully would help you better understand what people are saying you seem to be misinterpreting quite a bit.

You say the tone of my was "kind of attacky" even though I refused to attack anyone or any post specifically, but I'm the one twisting what people have said? You don't think perhaps you have twisted what I have said?

Yes, someone did say the mother used Autism as a threat. In capital letters. I really don't want to involve that poster in this discussion, so perhaps reading more carefully would help you better understand as well.

 

[nugov2]

I agree with you. I wasn't there obviously, nor were any of us. I am guessing the mother's comment could've been taken at least two ways:

1) Mother asked for a meal for her daughter. The flight attendant explained they were only for first class passengers. The mother asked for an exception and attempted to explain why the were asking for the accommodation. She may have attempted to explain that her daughter is on the autism spectrum, is having a bad day, their Plan A didn't work, and they are hoping to avoid a meltdown. Since the FA might not have understood ASD's, the mother may have explained what a meltdown for her daughter would be like and a list of what may occur during a meltdown (including scratching).

2) Mother asked for a meal for her daughter. The flight attendant explained they were only for first class passengers. The mother demanded a meal for her child. The mother used her daughter's potential meltdown as a threat to get her accommodation.

I see no problem with scenario 1. I do see a problem with scenario 2. I understand the same conversation can be taken many ways.

Sorry, there is no need to even go there even if you truly believe that a person doesn't understand ASD. There are a multitude of behaviors that not just ASD kids can display when agitated, but other kids as well. There is no benefit to listing them other than as a means to get your way. Her words were if you don't then you will have to deal with and she listed it. Did the mom know this would happen or just a meltdown would happen. She simply could have left it at that without the mention of violence, once she went there the Air line has a responsibility to protect the passengers b/c as I stated before they are protected if they make an landing to err on the side of caution vs taking the gamble it won't happen and then it actually does. She made her bed when she dropped that threat bomb and now has to lie in it and that is where she is culpable. She is human and makes mistakes. She could have been frazzled and made a bad choice, had a rough day and made a poor judgement call about not preparing for the flight all of which we are all probably guilty of from time to time, but she has to own it not try to blame an airline for being discriminatory or not trained properly.

 

[gwynne]

I agree with you. I wasn't there obviously, nor were any of us. I am guessing the mother's comment could've been taken at least two ways:

1) Mother asked for a meal for her daughter. The flight attendant explained they were only for first class passengers. The mother asked for an exception and attempted to explain why the were asking for the accommodation. She may have attempted to explain that her daughter is on the autism spectrum, is having a bad day, their Plan A didn't work, and they are hoping to avoid a meltdown. Since the FA might not have understood ASD's, the mother may have explained what a meltdown for her daughter would be like and a list of what may occur during a meltdown (including scratching).

2) Mother asked for a meal for her daughter. The flight attendant explained they were only for first class passengers. The mother demanded a meal for her child. The mother used her daughter's potential meltdown as a threat to get her accommodation.

I see no problem with scenario 1. I do see a problem with scenario 2. I understand the same conversation can be taken many ways.

The flight crew will always keep the safety of the crew and passengers first and foremost.
Part of being a good neighbor on a flight is coming prepared for the obvious, day to day needs each passenger has.
Bring your medication, Snacks, drinks, entertainment, blankets, infant supplies and the like.

Keep in mind anything even in the ballpark of demanding, arguing, threats or even thinly veiled threats are a bad idea. And it really doesn't matter how convinced a passenger is that their scenario/take is correct.
It's not the passenger's call. We aren't the boss in the air. The Captain gets to decide if it's time for an unscheduled stop and deplaning.

 

[smiths02]

I agree with you. I wasn't there obviously, nor were any of us. I am guessing the mother's comment could've been taken at least two ways:

1) Mother asked for a meal for her daughter. The flight attendant explained they were only for first class passengers. The mother asked for an exception and attempted to explain why the were asking for the accommodation. She may have attempted to explain that her daughter is on the autism spectrum, is having a bad day, their Plan A didn't work, and they are hoping to avoid a meltdown. Since the FA might not have understood ASD's, the mother may have explained what a meltdown for her daughter would be like and a list of what may occur during a meltdown (including scratching).

2) Mother asked for a meal for her daughter. The flight attendant explained they were only for first class passengers. The mother demanded a meal for her child. The mother used her daughter's potential meltdown as a threat to get her accommodation.

I see no problem with scenario 1. I do see a problem with scenario 2. I understand the same conversation can be taken many ways.

If I am on that plane with my baby, sitting right next to the 15 year old who is going to start scratching...I still see a problem with #1.

Also, if the mom had just been to WDW, she would know that you can't just demand accommodation on the spot. You don't enter WDW, get in line with "Plan A" (your ipad), kid can't handle the line, go to nearest CM and demand front of the line and "explain the meltdown" behaviors. You have to go to guest services ahead of time, make arrangements, etc.

 

[sunshinehighway]

You say the tone of my was "kind of attacky" even though I refused to attack anyone or any post specifically, but I'm the one twisting what people have said? You don't think perhaps you have twisted what I have said?

Yes, someone did say the mother used Autism as a threat. In capital letters. I really don't want to involve that poster in this discussion, so perhaps reading more carefully would help you better understand as well.

I didn't twist anything.

Using autism as a threat doesn't even make sense.

 

[Jennasis]

The pilot made the right call.

Here endeth the lesson.

 

[smiths02]

Sorry, there is no need to even go there even if you truly believe that a person doesn't understand ASD. There are a multitude of behaviors that not just ASD kids can display when agitated, but other kids as well. There is no benefit to listing them other than as a means to get your way. Her words were if you don't then you will have to deal with and she listed it. Did the mom know this would happen or just a meltdown would happen. She simply could have left it at that without the mention of violence, once she went there the Air line has a responsibility to protect the passengers b/c as I stated before they are protected if they make an landing to err on the side of caution vs taking the gamble it won't happen and then it actually does. She made her bed when she dropped that threat bomb and now has to lie in it and that is where she is culpable. She is human and makes mistakes. She could have been frazzled and made a bad choice, had a rough day and made a poor judgement call about not preparing for the flight all of which we are all probably guilty of from time to time, but she has to own it not try to blame an airline for being discriminatory or not trained properly.

Totally agree. I feel bad for the mom. I see that scene from Terms of Endearment in my head, and I see getting all Mama Bear in a rough situation, but you just can't do that on an airplane.

 

[mnrose]

I am reading your comments fully. I am familiar with the basic rules and regulations of air travel. I do not believe asking a FA for a reasonable accommodation and explaining the reason behind the request is tantamount to not complying with the rules and regulations while on an airplane. I do not wish to argue with you or any other poster. Have a pleasant day.

Reasonable isn't defined by the person making the request. I think it is patently Unreasonable to demand (or loudly request with a threat of violence if it isn't granted) something that isn't offered on that plane. To ask/request/demand something that IS offered, is reasonable.

So, for example, if I am a disabled person who needs additional leg room because of back pain, I can't expect the airline to seat me in first class (without paying for it) merely because it is "reasonable" to me to want more leg room. It isn't reasonable for me to request/demand/expect an aisle seat (without paying for it or following the rules which apply to everyone) because it might help alleviate my own anxiety.

In this case, this young lady's strong preference for "steaming hot" food was well known to her parents. They CHOSE to get on a 4.5 hour flight with ONLY cold snacks. The airline only offers cold snacks in coach. So, it seems the parents were at least as poorly equipped as the airline to address the need for a "steaming hot" meal. Yet, the airline should be sued? Really? Is this the world we live in?

Sad.

It is up to ME as a parent to care for my children on a flight, and to provide for their needs (whatever they may be) during that flight. No one else. Period. I won't sue someone because I forgot their iPads at home, and the airline won't provide me with an electronic gizmo to keep them amused. Same thing here.

 

[cabanafrau]

You say the tone of my was "kind of attacky" even though I refused to attack anyone or any post specifically, but I'm the one twisting what people have said? You don't think perhaps you have twisted what I have said?

Yes, someone did say the mother used Autism as a threat. In capital letters. I really don't want to involve that poster in this discussion, so perhaps reading more carefully would help you better understand as well.

What you may not understand is that repeatedly stating your viewpoint while stating you do not wish to argue with others and then repeatedly signing off with banal pleasantries might be interpreted by those reading as if you wish to be heard and have no wish to discuss the issues with anyone here -- on a discussion board. Adding on the tagline of have a nice day compounds it by implying you might mean anything but. It gets kind of tricky to understand merely the written words without the rest of the context we usually use in face to face discussions or phone calls.

 

[gwynne]

What you may not understand is that repeatedly stating your viewpoint while stating you do not wish to argue with others and then repeatedly signing off with banal pleasantries might be interpreted by those reading as if you wish to be heard and have no wish to discuss the issues with anyone here -- on a discussion board. Adding on the tagline of have a nice day compounds it by implying you might mean anything but. It gets kind of tricky to understand merely the written words without the rest of the context we usually use in face to face discussions or phone calls.

Thank you 1000 times, cabanafrau.

 

[JanaDee]

What you may not understand is that repeatedly stating your viewpoint while stating you do not wish to argue with others and then repeatedly signing off with banal pleasantries might be interpreted by those reading as if you wish to be heard and have no wish to discuss the issues with anyone here -- on a discussion board. Adding on the tagline of have a nice day compounds it by implying you might mean anything but. It gets kind of tricky to understand merely the written words without the rest of the context we usually use in face to face discussions or phone calls.

That comes through loud and clear.