Child forced to urinate in seat of plane

[K_Z]

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.

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.

BBM. Then you probably would have been arrested. I would be arrested, too, if I made a big scene on an aircraft.

It is quite simply, not within our ability to carry out decisions at that point that are in conflict with aircrew instructions.

It doesn't matter how much any of us think the situation was "safe" enough to decide to get up, or how "stable" the planes have been in the past when we flew. You are in a different capacity once you enter security lines at an airport. You DO give up rights when you fly. You can always choose NOT to fly, but you can't pick and choose which rules to follow. Not anymore.

 

[K_Z]

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.

I strongly disagree. It's about a passenger (who happened to be a mother) who argued with flight crew members, and would not sit down when they asked her to return to her seat and buckle up.

 

[K_Z]

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.

I think we only know one side of the story-- the mother's.

Maybe they could have let her get up, maybe not. It wasn't the mother's decision to make. She escalated the situation when she refused to sit back down, IMO.

I actually can't believe I'm taking the side of the air crew, lol. I've seen a lot of bad decisions. But I also know that no one, just NO ONE should argue with a flight crew once the plane is awaiting takeoff.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I strongly disagree. It's about a passenger (who happened to be a mother) who argued with flight crew members, and would not sit down when they asked her to return to her seat and buckle up.

I think we only know one side of the story-- the mother's.

Maybe they could have let her get up, maybe not. It wasn't the mother's decision to make. She escalated the situation when she refused to sit back down, IMO.

I actually can't believe I'm taking the side of the air crew, lol. I've seen a lot of bad decisions. But I also know that no one, just NO ONE should argue with a flight crew once the plane is awaiting takeoff.

That is preposterous. It is one thing to cause a seen it is another to beg someone to let your child pee. I bet if she let the child stand up and pee in the aisle they would have called the police.

This is simple. The child should have been allowed to go. The end.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I think we only know one side of the story-- the mother's.

Maybe they could have let her get up, maybe not. It wasn't the mother's decision to make. She escalated the situation when she refused to sit back down, IMO.

I actually can't believe I'm taking the side of the air crew, lol. I've seen a lot of bad decisions. But I also know that no one, just NO ONE should argue with a flight crew once the plane is awaiting takeoff.

Um, If other people also said the same thing then we have the whole story.

 

[redheadedgal]

As a matter of fact, I specifically recall the flight crew moving about while the plane was just sitting there, not moving at all.

they were likely performing duties vital to the safety and security of the passengers and aircraft which i believe they have the exception to do.

 

[Montjoy]

I'm not going to say I have insider or expert information here, but I know a lot of flight attendants (and for that matter, pilots and aircraft mechanics). I fly frequently to remote places where there is only one hotel in town (and we're talking about an 8-12 room hotel in some cases), and so I get to talk with flight attendants for extended periods of time (as we are often snowed in for days or weeks in some places). I've also been the best man in two weddings where a flight attendant was the bride. Long story short, I have a good idea about what these folks do, and many of their requirements.

First, it's no secret that they can be rude at times. But they are also rewarded for being friendly and/or flirtatious at times, and so I would defend them as being generally friendly and kind people. (And for what it's worth, despite the stereotypes, I don't see any reason for anyone to suggest that they are more promiscuous than the general public -- not that this has been suggested or discussed here.)

Second, it is clear to me that flight attendants (as a group) care a lot about their professionalism. Not going to mention any names here, but I saw the flight attendant manual for one of the small, arctic airlines that I often use -- it was 600 pages long.

It is actually a pretty difficult job in many ways, in that one must balance the professional demands (which are considerable) with the personal (friendliness) demands (which are also considerable). But the bottom line is that the professional demands trump the personal demands. They have federal regulations to follow. And they're part of a big, costly business -- they have to ensure that it can run smoothly in all ways that they can.

Even though some have union protection, some still are subject to 1-strike-you're-out termination policy regarding breaking FAA rules, which would include, in this case, allowing a child and her mother from going to the bathroom when the rules forbade it.

 

[TexanMom]

I'm a flight attendant for another airline (not JetBlue). I run into this situation all the time. Extended tarmac delays, and people getting up to use the lav. I let them use the lav if we are sitting. I just call the Captain and tell them people are up using the lav and I will call back when they are out. Taxiing is a different story. No one can be up moving around while the aircraft is taxiing on an active taxi way. Flight attendants are an exception since we can perform safety checks (securing galley and other equipment). I will say that I sent a small child back to their seat and would not let them use the lav. We were landing, and the gear had already come down. Better to let the child wet their seat than land in the lav!

 

[TexanMom]

Also, when it comes to FAR's (Federal Air Regulations) flight attendants can incur personal fines (sometimes in the thousands) for not enforcing them. So when I ask a person sitting at the bulkhead to place their purse in the overhead bin, it's not to be rude and single them out. It's my job!

 

[redheadedgal]

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. ...

no, we don't have jetblue's "side"... the FA has not commented. (if she has and i've missed it, please link -- thanks). and no one has said where the plane was... was it on an active runway? if yes, what number was it to take off?

and can you cite a link for "the rest of the passengers"? i've only read that some "other passengers" and the off duty pilot spoke up. thanks.

 

[Linda7NJ]

BBM. Then you probably would have been arrested. I would be arrested, too, if I made a big scene on an aircraft.



It is quite simply, not within our ability to carry out decisions at that point that are in conflict with aircrew instructions.



It doesn't matter how much any of us think the situation was "safe" enough to decide to get up, or how "stable" the planes have been in the past when we flew. You are in a different capacity once you enter security lines at an airport. You DO give up rights when you fly. You can always choose NOT to fly, but you can't pick and choose which rules to follow. Not anymore.

Ah yes...because sitting on the tarmak is sooo much more dangerous than being at 30,000 feet when the seat belt sign goes off and everyone is free to get up and walk around.
Terrorist threat is then over????

No fear of the three year old needing to pee is just a destraction in the air ?

Please explain the logic...it's completely lost on me.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

I think we only know one side of the story-- the mother's.



Maybe they could have let her get up, maybe not. It wasn't the mother's decision to make. She escalated the situation when she refused to sit back down, IMO.



I actually can't believe I'm taking the side of the air crew, lol. I've seen a lot of bad decisions. But I also know that no one, just NO ONE should argue with a flight crew once the plane is awaiting takeoff.

That's not true, the airline, JetBlue has issued an apology and sensitivity training for FA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

they were likely performing duties vital to the safety and security of the passengers and aircraft which i believe they have the exception to do.

And there are less duties when the plane is in the air???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[K_Z]

Passengers don't get to make, or break FAA rules by a show of hands. And the off duty pilot has no more decision making authority than any other passenger.

The pilot, and ONLY the pilot, and aircrew, are in charge of decisions about the plane, AND the passengers and cargo.

As an example, a few months ago it was still against rules to use a phone or iPad or E reader during critical phases of flight. A lot of people did it anyway, and some were severely penalized for disobeying FAA and aircrew instructions. Makes no difference that TODAY passengers CAN use these devices, and safety has been established by the FAA.

The issue, again, is not at all about the child needing the bathroom, or the fact that she wet her pants. It is 100% about complying with rules and instructions of the aircrew, and not arguing or creating a disturbance dueling critical phases of flight. The mother, not the child.

There are, unfortunately, people who buck the rules at every wisp of desire or opportunity. There are folks who want to make a stand, or make a protest anywhere they want. People, none of us, have the legal right to shout anything we want in a security line or on an airplane. You give up rights when you enter the security line at the airport.

You can't yell "bomb" on a crowded airplane, and you can't argue with aircrew during critical phases. You have to stay in your seat and do as your told.

Some people just have a hard time following ANY rules. Some people have a real chip on their shoulder about any authority figures giving them direction. Some people think they should get to decide which rules to follow and when. Those folks have a hard time in life. They get into trouble a lot. A lot. They set a bad example for kids and others, and cause problems wherever they go. There is a time and place for bucking the status quo, and letting your voice be heard. When the plane is buttoned up awaiting takeoff is not the right time.

I would have far less problem with the mother's whiny media recruitment if she had shut her mouth and complied while on the plane. She caused a lot of problems, and delayed hundreds of people with her attitude and noncompliance. I don't think she deserves any apology, nor do I think she deserves compensation. I'm sad she chose to handle things the way she did. What she doesn't realize is that her name could be flagged in the security databases now. She may have more inconvenience in the future.

I'm sorry the crew didn't get to tell their side of story. I'm sorry JetBlue didn't stick up for their pilots and flight crew. It's sad the little girl had an accident, but the mother blew this all out of proportion, created a scene, and nearly got herself arrested. That's scary for her kids and family, IMO.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Passengers don't get to make, or break FAA rules by a show of hands. And the off duty pilot has no more decision making authority than any other passenger.

The pilot, and ONLY the pilot, and aircrew, are in charge of decisions about the plane, AND the passengers and cargo.

As an example, a few months ago it was still against rules to use a phone or iPad or E reader during critical phases of flight. A lot of people did it anyway, and some were severely penalized for disobeying FAA and aircrew instructions. Makes no difference that TODAY passengers CAN use these devices, and safety has been established by the FAA.

The issue, again, is not at all about the child needing the bathroom, or the fact that she wet her pants. It is 100% about complying with rules and instructions of the aircrew, and not arguing or creating a disturbance dueling critical phases of flight. The mother, not the child.

There are, unfortunately, people who buck the rules at every wisp of desire or opportunity. There are folks who want to make a stand, or make a protest anywhere they want. People, none of us, have the legal right to shout anything we want in a security line or on an airplane. You give up rights when you enter the security line at the airport.

You can't yell "bomb" on a crowded airplane, and you can't argue with aircrew during critical phases. You have to stay in your seat and do as your told.

Some people just have a hard time following ANY rules. Some people have a real chip on their shoulder about any authority figures giving them direction. Some people think they should get to decide which rules to follow and when. Those folks have a hard time in life. They get into trouble a lot. A lot. They set a bad example for kids and others, and cause problems wherever they go. There is a time and place for bucking the status quo, and letting your voice be heard. When the plane is buttoned up awaiting takeoff is not the right time.

I would have far less problem with the mother's whiny media recruitment if she had shut her mouth and complied while on the plane. She caused a lot of problems, and delayed hundreds of people with her attitude and noncompliance. I don't think she deserves any apology, nor do I think she deserves compensation. I'm sad she chose to handle things the way she did. What she doesn't realize is that her name could be flagged in the security databases now. She may have more inconvenience in the future.

I'm sorry the crew didn't get to tell their side of story. I'm sorry JetBlue didn't stick up for their pilots and flight crew. It's sad the little girl had an accident, but the mother blew this all out of proportion, created a scene, and nearly got herself arrested. That's scary for her kids and family, IMO.

The flight crew did. I am sure they did to the powers that be. There is a reason this company apologized and offered her a voucher. Because they know this FA was wrong. It is obvious.

 

[gitana1]

My fam and I are boycotting Jetblue ......

I love JetBlue. I am a nervous flier (used to be a phobic flier), and customer service is super important to me. JetBlue has always gone above and beyond for me. Love them.

I'm no toddler and when I have to go, I have to go. I would also be furious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, if you have to go when strapped into a roller coaster waiting to launch, what do you do? Or if you are in an elevator? Or in a long line for a bathroom and there aren't any other bathrooms nearby? Or in a car on a bridge in a traffic jam? Or out on the street somewhere and no bathrooms are close or available for you to use?

It is silly to expect that one's individual needs must take precedence over safety protocols. Things happen. Pee happens. If the plane was just sitting there for a long period with no imminent take off, and refusing to allow any bathroom breaks or snacks, etc., that's one thing. (I read half an hour but that is not unreasonable). But if it was just about to taxi, sorry, you have to hold it until it's in the air and stable. Safety and timetables should not take a back seat to one person's bladder issues, whether 3 or 60. Planes are huge hunks of steel that whirl into the air at a massive rate of speed. Being a nervous flier, I am panicked by people who start causing problems or try to break the rules.

You can't hold it? Well, you'll have to deal with the clean up after the plane is stable.

I fly a lot, and so I know that flight attendants can get into a fair bit of trouble if they do not caution/prohibit passengers from leaving their seats at some points during a flight. There are also quasi-passengers, if I can coin the term, who are aboard some flights partly to ensure that protocols are met: e.g., marshals, service evaluators, etc. Those folks are there in part to ensure that the crew follows the rules. If someone wants to break the rules they instate, and they do nothing to respond to them, well, the flight crew is in big trouble, and it's usually a 1-strike-you're out situation.

Aside from all of that, I would contend that there are basic realities about travel. Not talking about this case or any in particular. Perhaps it would be a good idea for people going on flights to urinate before they board. Perhaps it would be advised that one shouldn't consume a number of juice boxes before they board a flight.

This was a short flight, and it did actually have toilet facilities. I actually think that is a luxury, in a way, as I often take flights that are 4-5 times longer in aircraft having no bathroom facilities whatsoever (and yes, there are sometimes kids on board). Passengers in need have to (forgive my language) pee or poo into a bag in the cargo hold if they so need. Or use their pants. (Fortunately, neither happens often.)

Again, JMO, but if a kid (or adult) pees or poops her/himself on a flight (or basically farts for an entire flight), I think that most people will just think, well, so be it.

I don't mean to blame the parent or child here, but I definitely don't want to blame the flight attendant. For those who would say that they would just defy her/him and go to the bathroom regardless, well, you might just cost the flight attendant her/his job.

What passenger plane has no bathrooms and easy access to cargo holds? I've never heard of such a thing!! Is it a tiny one or something? Private plane?

I can imagine some smartazzed childless flight attendant saying NO BATHROOM AT THIS TIME.... ugh. 2 and 3 years cant hold it in.

JetBlue takes customer service very, very seriously. It's founder and first CEO flew the planes himself weekly, cleaned up the aisles himself, etc., and had an alarm that let him know when any of his planes left the gate late. I have never met one of their staff who wasn't super lovely to deal with. I doubt they have any "smartazzed childless" flight attendants.

Actually, that makes it 100 times worse, IMO. She definitely knew what she was doing was wrong. The plane had left the gate for take off. No question she was being disruptive.

I bet the other passengers were just thrilled with the flight delay. Not to mention the additional paperwork she caused the pilots, with the return to the gate, etc. Probably delayed other flights, too with the domino effect of this plane arriving late in Boston.

I personally don't think Jet Blue should have apologized to her. They should have supported their flight crews, IMO. The plane was ready for take off.

Customer service is religion for JetBlue. Of course they would apologize for any inconvenience. As they should.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I love JetBlue. I am a nervous flier (used to be a phobic flier), and customer service is super important to me. JetBlue has always gone above and beyond for me. Love them.



Well, if you have to go when strapped into a roller coaster waiting to launch, what do you do? Or if you are in an elevator? Or in a long line for a bathroom and there aren't any other bathrooms nearby? Or in a car on a bridge in a traffic jam? Or out on the street somewhere and no bathrooms are close or available for you to use?

It is silly to expect that one's individual needs must take precedence over safety protocols. Things happen. Pee happens. If the plane was just sitting there for a long period with no imminent take off, and refusing to allow any bathroom breaks or snacks, etc., that's one thing. (I read half an hour but that is not unreasonable). But if it was just about to taxi, sorry, you have to hold it until it's in the air and stable. Safety and timetables should not take a back seat to one person's bladder issues, whether 3 or 60. Planes are huge hunks of steel that whirl into the air at a massive rate of speed. Being a nervous flier, I am panicked by people who start causing problems or try to break the rules.

You can't hold it? Well, you'll have to deal with the clean up after the plane is stable.



What passenger plane has no bathrooms and easy access to cargo holds? I've never heard of such a thing!! Is it a tiny one or something? Private plane?



JetBlue takes customer service very, very seriously. It's founder and first CEO flew the planes himself weekly, cleaned up the aisles himself, etc., and had an alarm that let him know when any of his planes left the gate late. I have never met one of their staff who wasn't super lovely to deal with. I doubt they have any "smartazzed childless" flight attendants.



Customer service is religion for JetBlue. Of course they would apologize for any inconvenience. As they should.

It only takes one. I am glad you had awesome service but that does not mean that everyone else does.

 

[Minette]

Anecdata is interesting, but the FAA does not put safety regulations in place because a given individual has or hasn't experienced jolting of the plane while taxiing, etc. The fact is, all children who are over 2 years old are required to be restrained in their seat during takeoffs, landings, or when instructed by flight attendants.


This is one part of one section of one regulation regarding young children being restrained. It is for THEIR safety. And the pilot was quite within his rights and responsibilities to return to the gate once the mother unbuckled, stood up, whatever she did. And yes, she is lucky she wasn't arrested for being disruptive. Whether or not you agree with that, it is now the world we live in post 9/11.

3-3569 ENSURING THAT CHILDREN WHO HAVE REACHED THEIR SECOND BIRTHDAY ARE PROPERLY RESTRAINED.

A. Background. On June 8, 1995, a DC-9-32 was operated as a scheduled, domestic passenger flight under the provisions of part 121. The flight was cleared for takeoff on runway 27R. Five crewmembers and 57 passengers were onboard. As the airplane began its takeoff roll, the airplane occupants and air traffic control (ATC) heard a “loud bang.” The right engine fire warning light illuminated, the flightcrew of the following airplane reported to the crew that the right engine was on fire, and the takeoff was rejected. Shrapnel from the right engine penetrated the fuselage and the right engine main fuel line, and a cabin fire erupted. The airplane was stopped on the runway, and the captain ordered the evacuation of the airplane. The F/A seated in the aft F/A jump seat received puncture wounds from shrapnel and thermal injuries. Another F/A and five passengers received minor injuries. The pilots, the third F/A, and 52 passengers were not injured. The airplane’s fuselage was destroyed.

B. NTSB Recommendation A-96-84. The NTSB investigation of this accident resulted in recommendations to the FAA. These recommendations included A-96-84: Provide guidance on how to implement the requirement that occupants who are more than 24 months old are restrained during takeoffs, landings, and during turbulence.

C. Violations of Restraint Regulations for Lap-Held Children. During this NTSB investigation, it was determined that one child who had reached his or her second birthday was listed as a lap-held child, despite regulations that require all passengers who have reached their second birthday to be restrained during takeoffs and landings. The NTSB has long been concerned about the inadequacy and enforcement of this regulation, it has identified at least six accidents and one enforcement action in which children who had reached their second birthday were unrestrained because they were held in someone’s lap. The ages of these children ranged from 26 months to 5 years.

D. Present Regulations for Lap-Held Children. Present regulations allow parents/guardians of children who have not reached their second birthday the option of holding these children in their laps. Children who have reached their second birthday must be restrained in an approved restraint system. As pointed out in the background to the NTSB recommendation, the problem appears to be that some parents/guardians want to hold children who have reached their second birthday. This is not an acceptable procedure.

E. Recommendation for Air Carriers to Ask the Ages of Lap-Held Children. In order to preclude this occurrence, many air carriers ask the age of the lap-held child when the child is presented to be placed on the load manifest. In addition, many air carriers instruct crewmembers to ask parents the age of lap-held children. These procedures complement each other and are recommended.

http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=8900.1,Vol.3,Ch33,Sec6_SAS

 

[Minette]

And another thought: while the plane is 'just sitting there' on the tarmac you know what is going all around it? Lots of other 100+ ton hunks of metal moving around at various speeds, service vehicles driving between planes & gates, other planes being fueled, and birds sometimes flying around. I was looking around at some sites tracking airplane-involved injuries and it is amazing what can happen when a bird or a piece of wind-blown debris gets sucked up into an engine, or when another plane skids out of control. Air travel *is* safe these days, and a lot of the reason for that is that there are such restrictive seeming regulations in place. And again, if you are up and moving around the plane when you've been instructed to stay seated with your seatbelt fastened you pose a danger to yourself and everyone around you.

I'm sorry the little girl peed on herself. I wish the mother would get over herself.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

And another thought: while the plane is 'just sitting there' on the tarmac you know what is going all around it? Lots of other 100+ ton hunks of metal moving around at various speeds, service vehicles driving between planes & gates, other planes being fueled, and birds sometimes flying around. I was looking around at some sites tracking airplane-involved injuries and it is amazing what can happen when a bird or a piece of wind-blown debris gets sucked up into an engine, or when another plane skids out of control. Air travel *is* safe these days, and a lot of the reason for that is that there are such restrictive seeming regulations in place. And again, if you are up and moving around the plane when you've been instructed to stay seated with your seatbelt fastened you pose a danger to yourself and everyone around you.

I'm sorry the little girl peed on herself. I wish the mother would get over herself.

How is this about the mother. I wonder if this happened to some people here how they would feel watching most likely a recently potty trained child forced to wet herself. IT is really degrading and embarrassing for a child.

The mother got an apology and did not plan to sue, Did not even want a voucher, Just a dang apology. And she got it, You know why? Because they know they were wrong.