Child forced to urinate in seat of plane

[Linda7NJ]

First I hate that children are treated like second class citizens.. Like its only a child no big deal.

What if that was an adult. Someone who really had to go. What would they do then? Would you be more upset if they made an adult wait for 3 hrs on a runway and she was humiliated?? Because it is the same thing. Just because she is 3 does not mean she should be treated any less that a grown adult. She is still a person.

Totally agree!

I find it quite interesting not a single poster has answered that question...what if it were them???

When I got up and went, like I said earlier, I did get the stink eye. Yet...No one threatened me, the pilot wasn't notified, the plane didn't turn around.
Nothing earth shattering happened. There was no "unpredictable movement."
It was a NON-EVENT.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[K_Z]

I'll take it a step further. This mother should be thanking her lucky stars she wasn't arrested.

Imagine for a moment how a non-English speaking mother, or someone of another race or ethnicity, or a mother in Islamac traditional dress would have been treated, if they had behaved the exact same way that this mother did. Would they have been allowed to stay on the plane? Would they have been arrested? Yes, I think so. Would passengers have come to their defense? I doubt it. This mother benefitted from her race and appearance, IMO. That's the elephant on the plane nobody wants to acknowledge. She definitely benefitted from "white privilege" that day, IMO.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I'll take it a step further. This mother should be thanking her lucky stars she wasn't arrested.



Imagine for a moment how a non-English speaking mother, or someone of another race or ethnicity, or a mother in Islamac traditional dress would have been treated, if they had behaved the exact same way that this mother did. Would they have been allowed to stay on the plane? Would they have been arrested? Yes, I think so. Would passengers have come to their defense? I doubt it. This mother benefitted from her race and appearance, IMO. That's the elephant on the plane nobody wants to acknowledge. She definitely benefitted from "white privilege" that day, IMO.

Surely you're joking???

I would come to ANY mothers defense in the same situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PrairieWind]

I don't think the problem really is the flight attendant trying to enforce regulations, but rather the way the flight crew and FA reacted afterwards. They had the plane begin to return to the gate to have the mother and girl removed and turned over to security as "unruly." That is ridiculous.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I'll take it a step further. This mother should be thanking her lucky stars she wasn't arrested.

Imagine for a moment how a non-English speaking mother, or someone of another race or ethnicity, or a mother in Islamac traditional dress would have been treated, if they had behaved the exact same way that this mother did. Would they have been allowed to stay on the plane? Would they have been arrested? Yes, I think so. Would passengers have come to their defense? I doubt it. This mother benefitted from her race and appearance, IMO. That's the elephant on the plane nobody wants to acknowledge. She definitely benefitted from "white privilege" that day, IMO.

Arrested for what? Wanting her child to go potty? That is utterly ridiculous.

Have you ever had small children? Stuck on a runway for hours?
What in the name of mike does this have to do with islamic dress??

This is about a person who had to go to the bathroom and was made to sit in her seat for 3 hours.

 

[K_Z]

bbm, She expected them to break the rules by letting a child go potty when they were sitting there doing nothing? How long were they on the runway?? How is the mother supposed to forsee a 3 hr delay? Come on.

No one should be blaming the mother or the child. The FA was wrong and mean. Period.

News articles said the plane was delayed 30 min (not 3 hours), but we don't know "where" that 30 min happened. At the gate? In line for take off? We just don't know. And it doesn't matter. The woman argued with flight crew members while the plane was buttoned up, cleared, and waiting to take off. It doesn't matter what her issue was.

These days, you just DON'T break the rules in airports or on planes. Period. Everything is suspect-- every person, every behavior that is not compliant. You may disagree whether this is "right" or not, but in a post 911 world, this is the new reality. If you are out of order, argumentative, or non-compliant, you will probably be arrested. Period. That is just the way it is. The rules are the same for me, and I have literally hundreds of thousands of hours flying as a USAF crew member, and as a civilian.

We ALL have to follow the airtravel rules, however dumb we might think they are.

ETA-- I have literally travelled the world with small kids-- up to three at a time, alone. I do understand, quite thoroughly, the issues of air travel, and the needs of kids.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Well I'm certainly glad JetBlue gets it!!!!

"JetBlue apologized Saturday, offering Deveraux a $50 credit and $5,000 to be donated to the charity of her choice, WBZ-TV in Boston reported.

“She said: ‘I am a mom, too. I understand what you’re going through, and I am so sorry this happened to you,’” Devereaux said. “It just felt so good to hear those words from someone from that company.

“I am so happy this all turned around for the good.”

JetBlue said employees will undergo sensitivity training, WBZ-TV reported."

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/06...zes-after-daughter-forced-to-urinate-in-seat/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[K_Z]

I don't think the problem really is the flight attendant trying to enforce regulations, but rather the way the flight crew and FA reacted afterwards. They had the plane begin to return to the gate to have the mother and girl removed and turned over to security as "unruly." That is ridiculous.

Absolutely that is the pilot's discretion at all times. Policies have changed since 911. There is little tolerance for unruly or argumentative passengers. The problem the plane turned around for was the mom refusing to return to her seat once she was asked to sit down and buckle up. And arguing about it.

 

[K_Z]

Well I'm certainly glad JetBlue gets it!!!!

"JetBlue apologized Saturday, offering Deveraux a $50 credit and $5,000 to be donated to the charity of her choice, WBZ-TV in Boston reported.

“She said: ‘I am a mom, too. I understand what you’re going through, and I am so sorry this happened to you,’” Devereaux said. “It just felt so good to hear those words from someone from that company.

“I am so happy this all turned around for the good.”

JetBlue said employees will undergo sensitivity training, WBZ-TV reported."

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/06...zes-after-daughter-forced-to-urinate-in-seat/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I saw that. I think it was the wrong response.

They should have expressed regret that the child had an accident, focused on passengers complying with safety instructions of flight crew members, and emphasized parents being prepared for delays and missed bathroom opportunities when travelling with kids.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Absolutely that is the pilot's discretion at all times. Policies have changed since 911. There is little tolerance for unruly or argumentative passengers. The problem the plane turned around for was the mom refusing to return to her seat once she was asked to sit down and buckle up. And arguing about it.

A three year old urinating had/has nothing to do with 911 or terrorism.

If ya keep this up...the terrorists will win


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Well I'm certainly glad JetBlue gets it!!!!

"JetBlue apologized Saturday, offering Deveraux a $50 credit and $5,000 to be donated to the charity of her choice, WBZ-TV in Boston reported.

“She said: ‘I am a mom, too. I understand what you’re going through, and I am so sorry this happened to you,’” Devereaux said. “It just felt so good to hear those words from someone from that company.

“I am so happy this all turned around for the good.”

JetBlue said employees will undergo sensitivity training, WBZ-TV reported."

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/06...zes-after-daughter-forced-to-urinate-in-seat/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. And they would have fought it if it were not true. I don't care how long the plan was on the ground. It does not matter. All they had to do was let the person go potty and that would have been that.

 

[Donjeta]

How quickly the child "gets over it" is irrelevant IMO.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When I put on my mom glasses I tend to see it as the most important thing in all of it. If whatever happens and how it's handled is traumatizing for the child it's very bad, but if the child gets over it quickly then no harm done

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yes, I saw that. I think it was the wrong response.

They should have expressed regret that the child had an accident, focused on passengers complying with safety instructions of flight crew members, and emphasized parents being prepared for delays and missed bathroom opportunities when travelling with kids.

How is it wrong. They acknowledged what happened apologized and made an effort to right it.

It does not matter if you take your kid to every bathroom from the start of the airport to the end, Sometimes they still have to go. Some are nervous tinklers.

This is funny now.

 

[Linda7NJ]

How is it wrong. They acknowledged what happened apologized and made an effort to right it.



It does not matter if you take your kid to every bathroom from the start of the airport to the end, Sometimes they still have to go. Some are nervous tinklers.



This is funny now.

....blushing....I am a nervous tinkler


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[redheadedgal]

This is about a person who had to go to the bathroom and was made to sit in her seat for 3 hours.

hi scarlett. there is no way this plane and these passengers sat on the tarmac for three hours... new rules were put into place in 2009:

http://www.dot.gov/briefing-room/ne...irline-tarmac-delays-provides-other-passenger

 

[K_Z]

Respectfully, I think some are missing the whole point. This has little to nothing to do with a child needing to use the bathroom, or wetting her pants.

It has to do with the behavior of the mother, arguing with the flight crew, creating a scene, and refusing to stay in her seat when they told her to.

The flight crew, may, in fact, have been able to let her and her child up to use the bathroom, or not. For whatever reason, the answer was "no" and "return to your seat." It simply WAS NOT THE MOTHER'S CALL TO MAKE. If she asked and they said "no", that is the end of it.

There is just little to no tolerance for ANY passenger disruptions nowadays, due to terrorism concerns. This mother, an experienced flyer, should know that. This kind of thing would be an excellent terrorist distraction, don't you think? Create a distraction with a mother and small kids needing to use the bathroom, then they, or someone else, tampers with the airplane during the distraction. People are blowing up planes and flying them into buildings nowadays---there is NO BEHAVIOR that is not "suspect".

This is NOT a city bus-- it is an aircraft awaiting takeoff. A bomb full of people.

She could have been arrested for creating a disturbance on the plane during clearance for take off-- that is the issue. This was not a medical emergency-- I'm sorry-- it just isn't.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Respectfully, I think some are missing the whole point. This has little to nothing to do with a child needing to use the bathroom, or wetting her pants.

It has to do with the behavior of the mother, arguing with the flight crew, creating a scene, and refusing to stay in her seat when they told her to.

The flight crew, may, in fact, have been able to let her and her child up to use the bathroom, or not. For whatever reason, the answer was "no" and "return to your seat." It simply WAS NOT THE MOTHER'S CALL TO MAKE. If she asked and they said "no", that is the end of it.

There is just little to no tolerance for ANY passenger disruptions nowadays, due to terrorism concerns. This mother, an experienced flyer, should know that. This kind of thing would be an excellent terrorist distraction, don't you think? Create a distraction with a mother and small kids needing to use the bathroom, then they, or someone else, tampers with the airplane during the distraction. People are blowing up planes and flying them into buildings nowadays---there is NO BEHAVIOR that is not "suspect".

This is NOT a city bus-- it is an aircraft awaiting takeoff. A bomb full of people.

She could have been arrested for creating a disturbance on the plane during clearance for take off-- that is the issue. This was not a medical emergency-- I'm sorry-- it just isn't.

Yes it does. That is the issue and it entirety. If it was me I would have gotten upset too. I probably would have handled it worse. Arrested for what? Begging them to let her dd pee?

It is ridiculous to say a 3 yr old that has been through security is a risk to a plane because she has to pee.

The point is that people need to be treated like people. Not cattle.

 

[K_Z]

And as for children not being involved with terrorism, I'm very sorry to say that's not true. That is a very well-known tactic. Disabled, elderly, mothers with small kids-- they don't arouse suspicion. They engender compassion, exceptions to rules, and letting one's guard down. And lots of terrorist damage has been done using kids. I'm not saying they viewed this family as terrorists, but that there is just "no tolerance" anymore for disruptions and disobeying flight crews, because of the horrible things that have been done by terrorists. The rules apply to everyone, now. If you argue, you are immediately suspect, and have to be dealt with as a security risk. That is reality.

Maybe I just have too much aircraft and military training to be able to see air travel as just another city bus.... sigh.

 

[PrairieWind]

K Z we have two sides to this story: that told by the mother and that told by the FA. Apparently the rest of the passengers including the off-duty airline pilot all took the side of the mother. It sounds to me like this was a simple matter that the FA, not the mother, chose to escalate, and then grossly over-reacted in trying to return the plane to the gate. Was this woman with the wet 3 year old a security threat? Of course not. Fly on. But no, the FA just couldn't let it go. It isn't always necessary to "win" every argument. Better to just resolve them.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

And as for children not being involved with terrorism, I'm very sorry to say that's not true. That is a very well-known tactic. Disabled, elderly, mothers with small kids-- they don't arouse suspicion. They engender compassion, exceptions to rules, and letting one's guard down. And lots of terrorist damage has been done using kids. I'm not saying they viewed this family as terrorists, but that there is just "no tolerance" anymore for disruptions and disobeying flight crews, because of the horrible things that have been done by terrorists. The rules apply to everyone, now. If you argue, you are immediately suspect, and have to be dealt with as a security risk. That is reality.

Maybe I just have too much aircraft and military training to be able to see air travel as just another city bus.... sigh.

This is not about terrorism. Please stop trying to make it something it is not.

IT is about a little girl who had to potty. Nothing more. Nothing more.
Apparently as pp said, The support from people on the plane came down on the side of the mother.