Where do you stand on this?

[SMD]

The mom bringing food to heat up was discussed many times on pages 1, 2, 3, 4.... It's fine if you didn't read the entire thread, but it's not cool to imply I'm lying because of it.

I have read the entire thread. Other than the one person who asks if it's possible to heat the food in a to go container every other post says they can't reheat food on a plane. You're claiming that people said the mother should have brought food to be reheated. Yes, there are posts that mention heating a reheating food, but not one suggests that it's something that the mother should have done as you've stated, all but the one that asks if it's possible say that it is not possible. Again, I have read the thread and what you are saying people said is not what is posted on the pages you've referred to.

I do not have a persecution complex. I actually found it surprising that such a large number of people would respond to my post.

I don't know how my experiences would give anyone any better insight into what happened on the plane and I do not have any trying experiences to share. My toddler has a speech delay, but neither I nor my husband or child have ever asked for or received any special accommodations. I do have professional experience that makes me empathetic to those with special needs.

If your experiences don't give any better insight than why are you complaining that you're being told you're wrong just for sharing your experiences. You're being told that what you're sharing isn't relevant to the discussion. As an example, sending children to institutions had nothing to do with the discussion, but you brought it up. Then you didn't like it when other did not like the tone of that post. You say you're entitled to your opinion, but so are the people who are telling you that they don't like your delivery or your accusations.

Yesterday I had salmon for dinner. It was served so hot I had to wait to eat it. I'm just sharing my experience. If anyone tells me this is not relevant I will respond with generalizations. If anyone responds to my generalizations I will refuse to quote anything but claim someone else said something that I was responding to.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I do not have a persecution complex. I actually found it surprising that such a large number of people would respond to my post.

I don't know how my experiences would give anyone any better insight into what happened on the plane and I do not have any trying experiences to share. My toddler has a speech delay, but neither I nor my husband or child have ever asked for or received any special accommodations. I do have professional experience that makes me empathetic to those with special needs.

To the bolded, do you mean your first post? Maybe you should take what posters are telling you about your delivery, go back and reread it and the posts leading up to it. It came off as a lecture because you thought people were speaking negatively of disabled people.

 

[Magic Band Defender]

Actually you have, but you don't see that. You also won't accept the multiple posts of people stating that your presentation not just your view is what is off putting.

It's not that "I won't accept it", it's that I don't care. Why should I? I have attempted to respond to most. I have attempted to clarify. I started out by thanking posters and hoping for a well rounded discussion. I was accused of being sarscstic instead by more than one poster.

I did not put anyone down. You are welcome to think differently. I don't care.

 

[Magic Band Defender]

To the bolded, do you mean your first post? Maybe you should take what posters are telling you about your delivery, go back and reread it and the posts leading up to it. It came off as a lecture because you thought people were speaking negatively of disabled people.

I have said many times, I was also referring to other recent posts on the DIS, not just this one. I find no benefit in repeatedly raking someone over the coals for a post from a week or a month ago. If you honestly think there aren't any people speaking negatively of disabled people on this topic or other recent topics, fine. You are welcome to your opinion.

 

[Magic Band Defender]

I apologize if you replied to me and I did not respond. There are way too many to keep track of at this point. If you did not get a chance to tell me how wrong you think my opinions are, please feel free to disagree with me over on the boards I am usually on. Spoiler alert, I did not care for Chef Mickey's. Feel free to flame away.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I have said many times, I was also referring to other recent posts on the DIS, not just this one. I find no benefit in repeatedly raking someone over the coals for a post from a week or a month ago. If you honestly think there aren't any people speaking negatively of disabled people on this topic or other recent topics, fine. You are welcome to your opinion.

If your post is directed at a specific poster, you should make that clear.
I don't think anyone on this thread was speaking negatively of disabled people. I definitely don't think anyone was saying the things addressed in your first post. If you are bringing other threads into this one, you need to say that. You can't just assume everyone reads every thread you do.

 

[sam_gordon]

I was accused of being sarscstic instead by more than one poster.

Yet another falsehood. If you don't want to call out individual posters, then simply copy & paste posts where you were called "sarcastic".

 

[SMD]

I have said many times, I was also referring to other recent posts on the DIS, not just this one. I find no benefit in repeatedly raking someone over the coals for a post from a week or a month ago. If you honestly think there aren't any people speaking negatively of disabled people on this topic or other recent topics, fine. You are welcome to your opinion.

To be fair, you did say that you were referring to posts about GAC and air travel after you pointed your finger at everyone and made accusations which people responded offended them. So instead of just quoting the people you're responding to you'd rather make generalizations and accuse everyone of sharing opinions that you're not willing to cite. And instead of actually responding to posts people made a week or a month ago, instead you rake them over the coals in this thread. You think that by not using someone's name and just saying "recent posts" or "many people" and then being rude about what you say they said is somehow ok because you don't quote anyone. Again, people disagree with your delivery, and yet you keep going. And in addition you're deliberately misinterpreting things in this thread alone that people have said and then vaguely referring to them to make your point. So please excuse anyone who holds the opinion that your points just don't hold up.

It's not that "I won't accept it", it's that I don't care. Why should I? I have attempted to respond to most. I have attempted to clarify. I started out by thanking posters and hoping for a well rounded discussion. I was accused of being sarscstic instead by more than one poster.

I did not put anyone down. You are welcome to think differently. I don't care.

No one said sarcastic or sarcasm until you brought it up. Yet again, putting words in peoples mouths to make your point.

 

[Jennasis]

The FA did ultimately try to supply the girl with a suitable meal. The pilot had no choice but to land the plane and remove the family regardless of the fact that the scratching crisis was averted by the jambalaya because he had no idea if the offering would be the magic one that would work to calm the kid when so many offerings had been rejected...and he couldn't risk her hurting herself or others. Also, once the decision to e-land has been made the pilot can't undo it, even if the threat seems to have abated.

That folks, is all there is to it. I'm not even going to go "there" about the parents role in this other than to say once mom made the threat on behalf of her kid the wheels were set in motion and the damage done.

 

[piccolopat]

For the 18th time, why is selling unused food such a terrible, entitled, crazy idea?

Her choice of an economy seat only entitled her to purchase from the economy class options. The chicken sandwich available in economy is described on the United website as " Chicken & Swiss Focaccia $9.49 Tomato focaccia with chicken breast, Swiss cheese, arugula and roasted tomatoes. May be served warm on select aircraft". If this child absolutely had to have a steaming hot meal, why would this mother expect the available economy class meal which might be available warm (and not steaming hot) to meet her daughter's needs? If any first class meals were still around, it might have been because a first class passenger decided to eat later on in the flight. There was also no posted "first class meal for purchase at $xx.xx" info on United's website indicating they have no policy to make any extra meals available for sale. Maybe extra meals are only made available to first class passengers who might want more. Even if they did make these meals available to economy class passengers, how do you decide who in economy gets to buy the one or two first class meals that might be available? What if there were three people on board with a disability that just had to have a hot meal that they didn't bring on board themselves? If you feel so strongly about United making leftover first class meals available for purchase in economy, I suggest that you contact them directly. Arguing your point here won't change things.

The more I read your posts here, the more I wonder if you have a connection to the Beegle family in some way.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Here is the jambalaya meal that was on their flight-that was served to her-(the JAMBALAYA part)
part)

 

[Aladora]

The FA did ultimately try to supply the girl with a suitable meal. The pilot had no choice but to land the plane and remove the family regardless of the fact that the scratching crisis was averted by the jambalaya because he had no idea if the offering would be the magic one that would work to calm the kid when so many offerings had been rejected...and he couldn't risk her hurting herself or others. Also, once the decision to e-land has been made the pilot can't undo it, even if the threat seems to have abated.

That folks, is all there is to it. I'm not even going to go "there" about the parents role in this other than to say once mom made the threat on behalf of her kid the wheels were set in motion and the damage done.

As a mother of a child with autism, I have read this entire thread and quite a few others on other sites I am a member of. I have thought about what I could add to this discussion and whether or not I really wanted to wade into the cluster that this thread has become.

At the end of the day, I do not think I can explain my views better than the member I quoted.

We fly with our son often. He is 9 and has been on close to 30 separate flights all thankfully without incident. Have we been lucky? Maybe but I can tell you that my husband and I do everything we can to ensure that things go well on trips. We make sure that we have food that he likes, we make sure that we have things to keep him entertained and we have backup plans if things go south.

This woman made a number of poor choices and her choices were the cause of her family being escorted off the plane. I hope that she eventually realizes that she is the person who can effect changes in how her child interacts with the world and that she figures out how to work with the world instead of against it.

I get how hard life can be with a child with special needs, I live it every single day. But, I live my life with the goal of preparing my child to live in this world rather than trying to prepare this world to accommodate my child. One day, I will not be here and while I hope that it is a day far in the future, I have to make sure that my child has the tools necessary to live in this world without his mommy making sure that everyone caters to him.

Prepare the child for the road, not the road for the child.

 

[Dawnlight]

Prepare the child for the road, not the road for the child.

That's what every good parent should strive to do.

 

[mnrose]

Her choice of an economy seat only entitled her to purchase from the economy class options. The chicken sandwich available in economy is described on the United website as " Chicken & Swiss Focaccia $9.49 Tomato focaccia with chicken breast, Swiss cheese, arugula and roasted tomatoes. May be served warm on select aircraft". If this child absolutely had to have a steaming hot meal, why would this mother expect the available economy class meal which might be available warm (and not steaming hot) to meet her daughter's needs? If any first class meals were still around, it might have been because a first class passenger decided to eat later on in the flight. There was also no posted "first class meal for purchase at $xx.xx" info on United's website indicating they have no policy to make any extra meals available for sale. Maybe extra meals are only made available to first class passengers who might want more. Even if they did make these meals available to economy class passengers, how do you decide who in economy gets to buy the one or two first class meals that might be available? What if there were three people on board with a disability that just had to have a hot meal that they didn't bring on board themselves? If you feel so strongly about United making leftover first class meals available for purchase in economy, I suggest that you contact them directly. Arguing your point here won't change things.

The more I read your posts here, the more I wonder if you have a connection to the Beegle family in some way.

That thought definitely occurred to me too.

I still wonder why this mom, who knows her daughter needs "steaming hot" food to keep her satisfied came equipped with her "favorite" Blue Jolly Ranchers (I read that somewhere, I swear...LOL) as a snack. What's with this mom that she doesn't have even the basic thing her daughter apparently requires (steaming hot food), but she feels compelled to sue United because it doesn't have steaming hot food in coach. Wow. Just wow.

 

[Ceila]

It's not that "I won't accept it", it's that I don't care. Why should I? I have attempted to respond to most. I have attempted to clarify. I started out by thanking posters and hoping for a well rounded discussion. No, you did not. I was accused of being sarscstic instead by more than one poster.

I did not put anyone down. Actually, yes, you did. You are welcome to think differently. I don't care.

Please don't try to re-write history. You "started out" by insinuating that people on this thread want those with special needs to be shuttled off to institutions. Then you suggested that those who "don't like [the increase of people with autism in public]" should move to where special needs people are "still locked up." Given the contents of this thread, you left little doubt that you were talking to most of the posters here. Hiding behind claims that you didn't quote anyone specifically doesn't absolve you of your actions. You may think that you are being clever by not directly quoting posters and backtracking, but you are acting cowardly and, IMO, like a troll. Oh, and to refresh your memory:

Just a few generations ago, special needs children were routinely sent to institutions. Often as infants. Many never saw a family member ever again. Many never saw beyond the walls of their facility ever again.

When you know better, you do better. Those facilities are not the ideal place for special needs children to reach their full potential.

There have always been and always will be people with special needs. Despite how things were "back in your day" special needs children are now growing up in the same society and environments as you and your NT children.

Get used to it. Special needs children will be in the grocery store, school, mall, WDW, and everywhere else you normally find children. This generation of parents will not be locking their children away like sending an unwanted pet to a shelter.

The number of children on the spectrum is on the rise, especially in little boys. There is no consensus on why this is happening, how it could be prevented, or even the best treatments.

If you don't like it, please feel free to rent a private jet, or better yet move to some backwards country where people with special needs are still locked up, abused, and ignored.

 

[Tozzie]

As a mother of a child with autism, I have read this entire thread and quite a few others on other sites I am a member of. I have thought about what I could add to this discussion and whether or not I really wanted to wade into the cluster that this thread has become.

At the end of the day, I do not think I can explain my views better than the member I quoted.

We fly with our son often. He is 9 and has been on close to 30 separate flights all thankfully without incident. Have we been lucky? Maybe but I can tell you that my husband and I do everything we can to ensure that things go well on trips. We make sure that we have food that he likes, we make sure that we have things to keep him entertained and we have backup plans if things go south.

This woman made a number of poor choices and her choices were the cause of her family being escorted off the plane. I hope that she eventually realizes that she is the person who can effect changes in how her child interacts with the world and that she figures out how to work with the world instead of against it.

I get how hard life can be with a child with special needs, I live it every single day. But, I live my life with the goal of preparing my child to live in this world rather than trying to prepare this world to accommodate my child. One day, I will not be here and while I hope that it is a day far in the future, I have to make sure that my child has the tools necessary to live in this world without his mommy making sure that everyone caters to him.

Prepare the child for the road, not the road for the child.

You sound like a great mother who advocates for her son but knows there are boundaries and respects them.

 

[NotUrsula]

Aladora is exactly right. My son also really hates cold food, but he learned early on that sometimes that is all there is wqhen traveling, so if you are in that situation, you have to own it yourself. I carried several cold prepared foods all over Europe when we went to visit family, so that he would never have a meltdown caused by going hungry when he didn't like the food offered. My aunts thought it was a picky-American thing to do, but the only boy they had as a houseguest was well-behaved and calm, because my carrying familiar foods helped to keep him that way. It wasn't the American in me that caused me to do it; it was the spectrum Mom that did.

Added to that, there are two things that NO ONE should ever do on a plane: 1) rely upon an airline to provide food, because even when they tell you that a meal will be served, there is no guarantee that turbulence won't prevent it from being served, and 2) EVER mention violence against another person as something that might happen on board a plane. FA's are now completely paranoid and even perhaps a bit drunk on power; and it is not only likely, but almost a sure bet they will treat ANY such comments as serious threats and attempt to have you either restrained or evicted from the aircraft, and often both. "Interference with flight crew members or attendants" is a Federal felony charge that is deliberately written so broadly that ANY kind of challenge to an FA's opinion might get you charged with it, I was once threatened with it over refusing to front-face an infact carseat. I only was able to [politely] stand my ground on that because I was carrying a printout of the FAR that said that the airline could not prevent me from doing so in a purchased "legal" seat location.)

The mom in this case was either a clueless idiot or a provocateur looking for publicity. In making that snide threat and insisting that the FA violate airline policy, it was she who caused the flight to be diverted, not her daughter.

PS: 49 USC 46504, one of the most broadly written criminal statutes in existence, reads as follows: An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

 

[sasywtch]

I noticed a few (maybe 1 or 2, lost track of who said what) that confuse ADA equal access vs special accommodations. I deal with this everyday at work, granting special accommodations to people and legally can ask for medical documentation. I am in the camp that it had nothing to do with autism or the teen but the mother mentioning something physical. I read the facebook page someone posted above and think it's odd that the paramedics and the police both told the woman they had more important/better things to do and they shouldn't have been called. Most airports have fire/paramedics, police on site so I don't see them saying this especially condraticting a pilot's judgement. She also said the police showed her the statements from the passengers? How long was that plane on the ground to get a lot of written statements from all those passengers? Most police I know, know better than to give judgements to people because they know they will end up in court testifying.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Aladora is exactly right. My son also really hates cold food, but he learned early on that sometimes that is all there is wqhen traveling, so if you are in that situation, you have to own it yourself. I carried several cold prepared foods all over Europe when we went to visit family, so that he would never have a meltdown caused by going hungry when he didn't like the food offered. My aunts thought it was a picky-American thing to do, but the only boy they had as a houseguest was well-behaved and calm, because my carrying familiar foods helped to keep him that way. It wasn't the American in me that caused me to do it; it was the spectrum Mom that did.

Added to that, there are two things that NO ONE should ever do on a plane: 1) rely upon an airline to provide food, because even when they tell you that a meal will be served, there is no guarantee that turbulence won't prevent it from being served, and 2) EVER mention violence against another person as something that might happen on board a plane. FA's are now completely paranoid and even perhaps a bit drunk on power; and it is not only likely, but almost a sure bet they will treat ANY such comments as serious threats and attempt to have you either restrained or evicted from the aircraft, and often both. "Interference with flight crew members or attendants" is a Federal felony charge that is deliberately written so broadly that ANY kind of challenge to an FA's opinion might get you charged with it, I was once threatened with it over refusing to front-face an infact carseat. I only was able to [politely] stand my ground on that because I was carrying a printout of the FAR that said that the airline could not prevent me from doing so in a purchased "legal" seat location.)

The mom in this case was either a clueless idiot or a provocateur looking for publicity. In making that snide threat and insisting that the FA violate airline policy, it was she who caused the flight to be diverted, not her daughter.

PS: 49 USC 46504, one of the most broadly written criminal statutes in existence, reads as follows: An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

Wow. Great, and moving, post.

I noticed a few (maybe 1 or 2, lost track of who said what) that confuse ADA equal access vs special accommodations. I deal with this everyday at work, granting special accommodations to people and legally can ask for medical documentation. I am in the camp that it had nothing to do with autism or the teen but the mother mentioning something physical. I read the facebook page someone posted above and think it's odd that the paramedics and the police both told the woman they had more important/better things to do and they shouldn't have been called. Most airports have fire/paramedics, police on site so I don't see them saying this especially condraticting a pilot's judgement. She also said the police showed her the statements from the passengers? How long was that plane on the ground to get a lot of written statements from all those passengers? Most police I know, know better than to give judgements to people because they know they will end up in court testifying.

I felt the same way about the airport emergency personnel. Something's fishy with that.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I apologize if you replied to me and I did not respond. There are way too many to keep track of at this point. If you did not get a chance to tell me how wrong you think my opinions are, please feel free to disagree with me over on the boards I am usually on. Spoiler alert, I did not care for Chef Mickey's. Feel free to flame away.

OP here. While you did liven up the thread yesterday, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and pass along some tips since we've all been new here at some point and it takes a while to figure out how things work.

There's a handy little feature to use while you're reading a thread. It's the "Quote" button in the bottom right of a post. If something triggers a response in you, you simply hit that button. Nothing happens right away until you're ready to reply yourself. When you go to the Reply box, you hit the buttons that say "Insert Quotes", then "Quote These Messages". Once they appear in your Reply box, you can re-read them and decide if you still want to respond to them. If you don't, there's another handy feature that let's you simply delete them. If you do, then there they are. That way you can very easily respond to specific comments and get it right every time as to who said what, and their exact words. (I did it above just for you.) If you want, you can either shorten the quoted message or bold the specific words you're replying to, for clarity.

Once you join the thread you can then respond to individual posts as you feel like it. Makes life a lot easier than responding generally, especially when you have such assertions (which is fine if that's what you want to do, but don't be surprised when there's kickback).