VA/Seating of male pax nr unaccompanied minors

[Steve S... 2]

The policy is very insulting and discriminatary to males.

[Rowan McKeever]

Originally Posted by Radi K

the airline is not discriminating on gender.

They actually are, as Rod says. This particular policy seems specifically to deal with where a male passenger can and cannot be seated; there is no similarity between this and your example of disabled passengers not being able to be seated in exit rows as that is a clear and obvious safety issue which I'm sure no disabled person would argue against.

In this particular instance I'd suggest the issue is less about the policy itself and more about the handling of the situation by each of the now 2 airlines involved... it seems like their computer systems should be able (even with online and kiosk check-in) to avoid these kinds of events in many cases (obviously if someone's title is Dr or Prof etc it would be difficult) and that the cabin crew could be a lot more discreet at the times when the system gets it wrong?

[Adam.S]

As a possible solution;
Perhaps the airlines should keep things simple by only sitting unaccompanied minors in rows that sit opposite or next to the f/a seats. (are the f/a seats located mid-cabin only positioned at exit rows?)

For example make it common knowledge a child must be seated in the aisle seat of this particular row when they are travelling.
That way in the future, when the adult who already has this seat allocated will be asked to move to a different seat regadless of their gender.

[David Knudsen]

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with being asked to move, so long as it was explained at the time that it was airline policy not to seat male pax next to UM's , rather than just being told "Hey you can't sit near children!" as I imagine that would be slightly embarrasing.

[Matthew Chisholm]

Some of the stories I've read over the last few days would have certainly very embarrasing to the customers who were asked to move, and advised why in front of others.

[Steve S... 2]

Both airlines aught to be ashamed of themselves.

It is an insult to the entire male population of Australia, not just to those who have been unfortunate enough to be caught up in it.

With today's technology it is astounding how the airlines found it easier to humiliate people rather than to have some plan in place for special seating for unaccompanied children "before" the flight.

I would hope those affected would get some sort of compensation.

[Sarah C]

Maybe this is being simple - but why don't they move the child instead of the adult? Surely that would avoid the embarassment etc and the children probably don't care if they are moved anyway.

[Rowan McKeever]

I thought that this morning Sarah but then I suppose you're still moving a passenger because they or another passenger is an adult male. I assume as well that there are only certain parts of the cabin where UMs are allowed to be seated for safety/evacuation and general supervision reasons?

[Wayne D]

It seems that most of those who have made comment agree with me. I wonder how long it would take for a policy change to be effected if the discrimination were to be against adult women, who were prevented from sitting next to unaccompanied minors?

The first woman to be insulted enough by the presumption that she is a pedophile who went to the media would see this issue painted in a very different light.

Remember, there are female sex offenders as well as males, I don't see how gender is a basis for deciding who is or isn't going to commit the crime.

I would have no issue suing Qantas if this happened to me, and I feel so strongly about it even now, that I will make further enquiries on behalf of all males.

[Craig Murray]

Nothing wrong with existing policies re unaccompanied minors (UM)

The incident referred to was perhaps poorly handled.

As a bloke (with kids) I'm happy with the policy just the way it is.

Good luck to those who jump on the discrimination bandwagon - don't forget the issue here is UM's, ie children and their wellbeing in a vunerable situation, and not human rights and blokes getting their frilly knickers in a knot about being so hard done by in one very specific and unique situation. The policy is not written to discriminate, it is written to protect those who are perhaps too young to protect themself. There should be NO compromise on this. Ever.

Where a spare seat cannot be blocked to allow UM's their own space, the person seated next to them should be female and at the suitability of that person to occupy said seat should be at the sole discretion of the cabin crew.

Back to the main issue at hand, I am sure the said airline(s) will take steps to ensure situations like this are handled more professionally in future.