Boy with Down Syndrome denied first class

[i.b.nora]

The local Porterville newspaper has an article that is interesting to me:

http://www.recorderonline.com/news/airlines-53836-attention-family.html

"His (Robert Vanderhorst) goal is simple.

“I hope in the long run to change how airlines accommodate disabled people,” explained Robert Vanderhorst. To that end he would like a few things to happen:"

1 - The family would like to establish contact with American Airlines and United Airlines and explain to them their own personal side of the story.
2 - They would ask that the airlines change their policy in the way that pilots and staff decide on who gets to board.
3 - They would ask that each passenger be assessed individually.

"In taking his family’s story public he has received information about the Air Carrier Access Act.

According to Robert Vanderhorst he has learned from other people that there should have been a mediator at the airport to help resolve disputes between the customer and the company.

“This wasn’t offered or mentioned,” added Robert Vanderhorst."

A Guide to The Air Carrier Access Act

A snippet from the page regarding the 'mediator' mentioned by Vanderhorst above.

http://www.disabilitytravel.com/airlines/air_carrier_act_details.htm

New procedures for resolving disputes

* All carriers are now required to have a Complaints Resolution Official (CRO) immediately available (even if by phone) to resolve disagreements which may arise between the carrier and passengers with disabilities.

* Travelers who disagree with a carrier’s actions toward them can pursue the issue with the carrier’s CRO on the spot.

* A carrier that refuses transportation to any person based on a disability must provide a written statement to that person within 10 calendar days, stating the basis for the refusal. The statement must include, where applicable, the basis for the carrier’s opinion that transporting the person could be harmful to the safety of the flight.

* If the passenger is still not satisfied, he or she may pursue DOT enforcement action.

 

[redheadedgal]

I still want to see the entire surveillance video, but that guy telling them they can't record needs to be shown a copy of the first amendment. JMO

this is on the port authority's (ny/nj) website... as it's listed under "media access", would it apply just to media or in a broader scope for all airport visitors?

The Port Authority reserves the right to restrict videotaping and photography at its airports. Videotaping in runway and taxiway areas at all airports is prohibited at all times. Videotaping and photographing at security checkpoint areas operated by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration is prohibited without the consent of the TSA.


http://www.panynj.gov/press-room/media-access.html

 

[gitana1]

this is on the port authority's (ny/nj) website... as it's listed under "media access", would it apply just to media or in a broader scope for all airport visitors?

The Port Authority reserves the right to restrict videotaping and photography at its airports. Videotaping in runway and taxiway areas at all airports is prohibited at all times. Videotaping and photographing at security checkpoint areas operated by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration is prohibited without the consent of the TSA.


http://www.panynj.gov/press-room/media-access.html

The video shows the boy sitting in a waiting area. They can spin all they like, but that's no security checkpoint area. So I don't think their rule applies.

Further, it wasn't the TSA telling them they couldn't record. It was an AA official.

Fishy, IMO.

 

[redheadedgal]

1) the port authority runs the airport and is separate from the TSA who have authority @ checkpoints according to the last sentence i linked

2) would the port authority have authority over the AA employee? if so, does it fall under the first criteria i highighted which sounds more general to the entire airport than any specific area(s)?

3) does this just apply to media being listed under that heading?

 

[gitana1]

1) the port authority runs the airport and is separate from the TSA who have authority @ checkpoints according to the last sentence i linked

2) would the port authority have authority over the AA employee? if so, does it fall under the first criteria i highighted which sounds more general to the entire airport than any specific area(s)?

3) does this just apply to media being listed under that heading?

I don't really think so. But I interpret the phrase: "The Port Authority reserves the right to restrict videotaping and photography at its airports." to mean that the way in which they restrict videotaping and photography is as follows: "Videotaping in runway and taxiway areas at all airports is prohibited at all times. Videotaping and photographing at security checkpoint areas operated by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration is prohibited without the consent of the TSA."

But let's say that's not how they restrict it. Let's say the PA has authority over the AA official and thus that official must act as an agent of the PA when it comes to videotaping and photography. Well, what you quoted states the PA has the right to restrict taping and photography, not that all taping and photography is restricted.

The fact is, the AA official stated she was not allowed to tape for security reasons. They were not at a security checkpoint, they were not at a runway or taxiway and you have yet to quote something stating recording of any kind is restricted. So the AA official was making up the rules as he went along.

And I do not believe at all that the PA would cede their authority to some airline worker to make decisions regarding the running of the airport, such as where and when recording in the airport is allowed.

Again, IMO we can try to spin their actions all we want but the bottom line for me is that American Airlines wanted to make sure that this family stopped recording what was going on, which, at that moment, included their very calm son being denied the right to board by an irritated looking official.

There was no security breach of any kind in what they were recording. So when I see something like that, something that has no basis in discernible logic, I tend to believe someone's trying to hide something and it ain't the people doing the recording.

 

[redheadedgal]

could that AA employee (reported in the video to be "security") not known the exact rules re: recording? could he not have made an honest mistake attributing the ceasing of recording to a security violation even though he wasn't TSA @ a checkpoint? maybe he was new to the job? idk. but i don't think it's fair to characterize the incident as "making things up" or purposefully lying to the family...

 

[SkewedView]

could that AA employee (reported in the video to be "security") not known the exact rules re: recording? could he not have made an honest mistake attributing the ceasing of recording to a security violation even though he wasn't TSA @ a checkpoint? maybe he was new to the job? idk. but i don't think it's fair to characterize the incident as "making things up" or purposefully lying to the family...

Hired security at airports & rail stations are notorious for not being aware of the right to film them, as well as for overly aggressive reactions to said filming (numerous examples can be found at the 'Photography is not a crime" site here: http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/carlosmiller ). I agree, it's not something that I'd bother reading into overly much.

All JMO as always.

 

[gitana1]

Hired security at airports & rail stations are notorious for not being aware of the right to film them, as well as for overly aggressive reactions to said filming (numerous examples can be found at the 'Photography is not a crime" site here: http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/carlosmiller ). I agree, it's not something that I'd bother reading into overly much.

All JMO as always.

The guy commanding her to stop recording was not security. He was the AA staffer denying the child the right to board the plane - not TSA, not a security guard, not port authority, none of the above.

He had a reason for wanting what was happening to not be recorded and it was not confusion, IMO.

 

[SkewedView]

The guy commanding her to stop recording was not security. He was the AA staffer denying the child the right to board the plane - not TSA, not a security guard, not port authority, none of the above.

He had a reason for wanting what was happening to not be recorded and it was not confusion, IMO.

Yeah, that seems to be the default position of Airline employees when it comes to filming of their interactions with customers - either as an assertion of 'authority' that they do not in fact have, or to head off potential lawsuits etc, since they do tend to be in the wrong (legally and/or ethically) so often.

All JMO as usual.

 

[redheadedgal]

The guy commanding her to stop recording was not security. He was the AA staffer denying the child the right to board the plane - not TSA, not a security guard, not port authority, none of the above.

He had a reason for wanting what was happening to not be recorded and it was not confusion, IMO.

the article below contradicts your assertion. as well i saw a news report where the reporter states he was "security"... as evidenced by my earlier post.


At that point, the mother pulled out her cellphone and began recording the confrontation with security because she said she believed her son's civil rights were being violated.

"My question is, why are you singling me out?" the mother can be heard saying to a security officer.

To that, a security officer said, "You are in a security-controlled area. You cannot be recording this."


http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/state&id=8798232,


i don't think it's necessary to argue semantics b/w "official", "employee", "staffer", and "security"... imo, he could be all four.

 

[gitana1]

could that AA employee (reported in the video to be "security") not known the exact rules re: recording? could he not have made an honest mistake attributing the ceasing of recording to a security violation even though he wasn't TSA @ a checkpoint? maybe he was new to the job? idk. but i don't think it's fair to characterize the incident as "making things up" or purposefully lying to the family...

BBM. But it's fair to insinuate or assume that the family is making things up and purposefully lying, that their child must have been running around wildly and the poor, beleaguered airline officials were simply trying to protect passengers from a dangerous teen with superhuman strength? Because frankly, I'm seeing some of those insinuations and assumptions on this thread.

I find it disturbing that some are willing to undergo various contortions in order to find any possible excuse, no matter how thin, as to why this young man was denied first class, other than prejudice, which is what the facts logically point to. :twocents:

 

[lillygator]

tha video is a small snippet....have other passengers come out and said he was running around wildy before the flight?

 

[redheadedgal]

BBM. But it's fair to insinuate or assume that the family is making things up and purposefully lying, that their child must have been running around wildly and the poor, beleaguered airline officials were simply trying to protect passengers from a dangerous teen with superhuman strength? Because frankly, I'm seeing some of those insinuations and assumptions on this thread.

I find it disturbing that some are willing to undergo various contortions in order to find any possible excuse, no matter how thin, as to why this young man was denied first class, other than prejudice, which is what the facts logically point to.

what facts? currently, there is 1) a "he said she said" type of situation b/w AA and the family, 2) footage of an angry mom yelling at security (which would be a no no at any airport, right?... shouldn't she be thankful she wasn't detained/arrested for that behavior?), 3) footage of bede sitting quietly which was obviously taken after the family was barred from the AA flight after bede allegedly was acting in manner not appropriate to board/fly (after which he calmed down?) and 4) the family was isolated even in coach by a second airline (which logically infers they support AA's decision/decided it had merit)... so, until others who saw the family at the gate come forward or until security camera footage is released, again, what facts?

 

[redheadedgal]

tha video is a small snippet....have other passengers come out and said he was running around wildy before the flight?

if he had been acting "wildly", would you want to be the one who comes out to say "unkind" things about this child?

 

[Steely Dan]

if he had been acting "wildly", would you want to be the one who comes out to say "unkind" things about this child?

I would support either side I thought was right. That's just me though.

 

[gitana1]

what facts? currently, there is 1) a "he said she said" type of situation b/w AA and the family, 2) footage of an angry mom yelling at security (which would be a no no at any airport, right?... shouldn't she be thankful she wasn't detained/arrested for that behavior?), 3) footage of bede sitting quietly which was obviously taken after the family was barred from the AA flight after bede allegedly was acting in manner not appropriate to board/fly (after which he calmed down?) and 4) the family was isolated even in coach by a second airline (which logically infers they support AA's decision/decided it had merit)... so, until others who saw the family at the gate come forward or until security camera footage is released, again, what facts?

The facts are as follows:
1. No video or witness accounts thus far of a wildly out of control Bede.
2. One video showing a calm Bede, a father and mother trying to explain why their son was being discriminated against (no yelling that I heard at all) and then finally, a mom crying in disbelief.
3. A boy denied a flight in first class due to "safety issues" but allowed a flight right after that, in coach - suddenly, the safety issues were gone.
4. An American Airlines official trying to stop the recording that shows a calm boy playing with a hat.

 

[Steely Dan]

The facts are as follows:
1. No video or witness accounts thus far of a wildly out of control Bede.
2. One video showing a calm Bede, a father and mother trying to explain why their son was being discriminated against (no yelling that I heard at all) and then finally, a mom crying in disbelief.
3. A boy denied a flight in first class due to "safety issues" but allowed a flight right after that, in coach - suddenly, the safety issues were gone.
4. An American Airlines official trying to stop the recording that shows a calm boy playing with a hat.

Unfortunately, we don't have all of the facts yet. I'd still like to see the surveillance video of the gate prior to her recording. I find it odd that it hasn't been released yet by either side. Maybe the parents are having a problem getting it. JMO

 

[SkewedView]

Unfortunately, we don't have all of the facts yet. I'd still like to see the surveillance video of the gate prior to her recording. I find it odd that it hasn't been released yet by either side. Maybe the parents are having a problem getting it. JMO

Specifically, the fact that the Airline hasn't released such material as damage control is...well, rather suspect, IMO.


All JMO, as always.

 

[redheadedgal]

The facts are as follows:
1. No video or witness accounts thus far of a wildly out of control Bede.
*right-- so neither side wins that "fact" as there's no concrete evidence so hence, a lack of "fact"

2. One video showing a calm Bede, a father and mother trying to explain why their son was being discriminated against (no yelling that I heard at all) and then finally, a mom crying in disbelief.
*video taken after alledged "wildness" occured cannot be used to support as "fact"
**if mother was not acting inappropriately why were airport police called to by AA to intervene? reports indicate she was argumentative, protesting loudly (maybe not "yelling" per se but again, semantics) and causing a scene. again, cannot be used as "fact" to support your assertion

3. A boy denied a flight in first class due to "safety issues" but allowed a flight right after that, in coach - suddenly, the safety issues were gone.
*fact: segregated/isolated by second airline indicates a perceived safety risk

4. An American Airlines official trying to stop the recording that shows a calm boy playing with a hat.
*not proven why employee is "trying to stop recording" ... as i stated earlier, he might be mistaken and not know the rule, therefore no proven fact
**fact: child was calm some time after alledged "wildness" occurred

therefore, as i said, no facts:twocents:

*my points

 

[redheadedgal]

Specifically, the fact that the Airline hasn't released such material as damage control is...well, rather suspect, IMO.

maybe they don't feel it's necessary to do "damage control" or prove their POV at this point?

i'm not going to assume it's b/c AA is trying to hide anything... it's still early...

Unfortunately, we don't have all of the facts yet. I'd still like to see the surveillance video of the gate prior to her recording. I find it odd that it hasn't been released yet by either side. Maybe the parents are having a problem getting it. JMO

this past summer i attempted to get security footage from a 7-11 store where i was being verbally abused by a crazy man who ultimately followed me drive to work with a horrible case of road rage (honking loudly while driving thisclose behind me for 6-8 minutes before i managed to lose him in rush hour traffic) all because i politely asked him to move (his large *advertiser censored**) out of the doorway so i could exit the store. i was told only police would be able to access the tape, view them, use them. might be the same in this case... ?