Print Story Are You Male? British Airways Thinks You’re a Child Molestor.
Travel
By BadDoggie (Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:47:45 AM EST) BA sucks, pederasty, stupid policies, ill-conceived, preposterous (all tags)
Flight 1462 to Edinburgh, Sunday night. Late boarding, we’re stuck in the ass of the plane. There’s an older chav-like female sitting in the window seat, reading some very pink magazine full of all the important information on world events one should be familiar with such as Britney Spears’ latest alleged lover’s name, the latest photos of Julia Someone-or-Other, and tips on how to do a French manicure at home for only £3.50.


Across the aisle were a couple of kids and some older guy on the window. The 12-ish girl was engrossed in a magazine as her brother sat fumpily looking over her shoulder, turning away whenever she looked up so as not to be caught reading material that was, for the most part, not much different than that which held the woman's attention.

Some twenty minutes after scheduled departure and still at the gate, a waitre… sorry, stewardess/air hostess/cabin crew member asked the man in 32F if he would change seats. He seemed happy at first until he was directed to 32A. They then asked the 40-something Chavette if she’d please move to 32F. Why is BA making them play musical chairs?

"The children are flying unaccompanied and it’s company policy not to seat them next to men."

The man didn’t care too much. The woman said, "I’m not bloody child-friendly," but moved nevertheless. I, unable to help myself, asked what the hell sort of blatantly and accusatorily sexist company policy that was supposed to be.

"It’s not sexist sir, it’s just company policy." I couldn’t help wondering if she’d previously worked for Boetha’s Ministry of Information. "it's not racism, it’s just country policy."

"It’s not sexist?" I asked. "You’re insinuating that be deint of the fact that he’s male, he’s unsuitable to sit next to children in an open aircraft. This isn’t some private room, it’s a well-lit airplane in which everyone is in full view."

"It’s our policy, sir."
That sounded so much better in the original German.

The man sat down and mentioned to me that he’s not traveling alone. Over 60 himself, his wife is sitting 18 rows forward because BA couldn’t or wouldn’t sit them together.

Now here’s where they could’ve been smart. Or clever. Or at least tactful. They could have asked the woman sitting next to this man’s wife to move in back next to the kids so that this man could sit with his wife. That would’ve been subtle. But BA doesn’t give a damn. They’re quite happy to be overtly discriminatory and play along with the insanity that any man is a potential pederast.

Another waitre… sorry, I keep doing that, passenger safety supervisory assistant… backed up the first one and threw in that the parents had asked for that.

I call shenannigans. I can’t think of any parent in the world who would, out of the blue, specifically ask that their kids not be sat next to a male. Worse, I can’t understand why any company in the world would accept such intolerable demands from customers and play along with – much less promote -- such baseless fears.

Not five minutes later, the head wai… ah, to hell with it, waitress came over to me and uttered the magic question, "Is there a problem?" "Yes," I replied, "There is indeed a problem. By virtue of his sex alone you've demanded that this man relinquish his seat and you've forced that woman to sit next to the kids."

"It's airline policy," she interrupted.

"You don't know if that man won a humanitarian award or if that woman was just released from prison for child endangerment." The pink lady looked up. "Nothing personal, just hypothetically speaking here. My point is that solely because he possesses testicles you're assuming that not only is he a child molester but that he'd also be dumb enough to do something on the plane in full view of passengers and crew."

"Sir, if you don't wish to be on the flight you can depart the plane."

"And how would I get to Edinburgh?"

"That's not my concern. My concern is the safety of the passengers."

"It can't be because you have no idea whether that woman could pose a risk to the children. You're assuming that because she has no testicles she presents no danger despite the fact that subtle killings such as poisonings are inevitably done by women. Your supposed policy is outrageous."

"Sir, I don't have time to discuss this. Would you like to leave the plane?"

And that was that. Either shut up or lose my flight.

There has never been a conviction on any charge of molestation in an airplane. There have been accusations, most famously an Indian on Northwest Airlines back in 2001. You have to search hard to find the mention of his acquittal. Not one of the cases was dropped due to a technicality; in each instance there was not only no evidence, what testinmony was given was found to be unbelievable, and in parts, impossible.

So I did the only thing I could do. As soon as we were "free to move about the cabin" I grabbed my laptop and wrote this story in Word, expanding the window to fill the wide-screen LCD monitor and making the headline very large. Every waitress saw it and they were concerned enough about it to get the head waitress who was working up front to come to the back.

Alas, there were no cops waiting for me in Edinburgh when we disembarked. I was able to get the rental car and after 10 minutes of pissing around in the carpark, I finally found the well-hidden exit.

On the way back to Germany I was pulled aside both in Edinburg and again in London for an extra-super-special "security" check. Big surprise, that.

BA is now on my "Do Not Fly" list.

< husifiary | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
Are You Male? British Airways Thinks You’re a Child Molestor. | 112 comments (112 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Write them a letter. by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #1 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 08:02:03 AM EST
Asking them to justify it.  I suppose it's feasible that some kiddie fiddler could use the time next to the kids to groom them for later interference.

But yes, I broadly agree, simply being in possession of a pair of testicles does not make you a paedo.

Reminds me of a recent flight back from Chermany when some charmless Everton fans were on the plane.  After being escorted onto the plane by the police, they were rowdy and uncouth.  Unsurprisingly, the trolleydollies were not serving booze.  Which was nice after an 80 hour week, I was looking forward to a celebratory beer.

To the 3 rows ahead and the 3 rows behind me, where these scallies had sited themselves.  The stewardesses were adamant that the plane was "no booze" yet 3 rows down I could see people supping their beers.

Basically, when you're on their plane then you're at their mercy.  For your own safety, of course.




Write the letter by Phage (2.00 / 0) #2 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 08:14:08 AM EST
Copy any journalists you know and their customer relations area. Point out that they are in breach of laws regarding sexual discrimination.
You only have to wonder what the difference would be if the male was also an/a black/gay/amputee.
Point out that you are so offended that you will not be using BA again, and will advising all of your aquaintances to do the same.

Founder member Golgafrinchan 'B' Ark
[ Parent ]

Now that you've written this up by lm (4.00 / 1) #3 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 08:15:47 AM EST
Submit it to Bruce Schneier's blog, The Register and /.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic


Feel free to do the honours by BadDoggie (2.00 / 0) #8 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 08:48:33 AM EST
Not submitting my own arTicles.

woof.

OMG WE'RE FUCKED! -- duxup ?
[ Parent ]

The policy isn't new by R Mutt (4.00 / 1) #10 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 08:57:08 AM EST
This came up here or on K5 a couple of years ago.

IIRC the response was mixed. I think at least one poster had an anecdote about being groped on a plane as a child.

[ Parent ]

and I'm sure that anecdote was completely credible by discordia (1.00 / 1) #52 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 01:57:32 PM EST


[ Parent ]

Well, in fairness, by mrgoat (4.00 / 1) #110 Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 12:54:23 PM EST
I was groped by a plane as a child.

Years pass, things change, you end up living in Kansas. But the bag of dicks never leaves your side... - blixco
--top hat--
[ Parent ]

You've got balls, dude . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #4 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 08:28:10 AM EST
. . . you've got balls.



Had it been me by BadDoggie (2.00 / 0) #6 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 08:36:10 AM EST
I would've refused to move anywhere but up to first class, and possibly not even that on the principle of the matter. I would've raised holy hell about their presumption that I was a danger to the children (which I wasn't since they were surprisingly well-behaved and quiet).

I was on holiday. I had time and no fixed schedule.

woof.

OMG WE'RE FUCKED! -- duxup ?
[ Parent ]

Well there we go! by gazbo (4.00 / 8) #5 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 08:31:21 AM EST
There has never been a conviction on any charge of molestation in an airplane.

Clearly their well-thought-out policy must be working!


"Engarde!" cried the larvae, huskily. - Scrymarch



Having thought about this a bit by lm (4.00 / 2) #7 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 08:46:55 AM EST
BA's policy makes sense.

Is it sexist? Sure, but not obtrusively so as no one was denied service or even given inferior service.

Does it make the unaccompanied kids any safer? No. That isn't the point.

The point is to make mom and dad feel better about sending their kids alone on a plane.

That said, if it were me that was asked to move, I'd probably make a big stink the same way I do when a big box store employee asks to see my receipt.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic


And I disagree strongly by BadDoggie (4.00 / 2) #9 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 08:52:29 AM EST
There is NO EXCUSE for security theatre. None. The reason is that the false sense of security it may give to some leaves them that much more unprepared for any real problem. Believing the children to be completely safe because there's no big bad man sitting next to them means the waitresses won't be paying attention to anything the woman might do, like stuffing the bag of smack she's carrying into their knapsack to be retrieved once outside the airport (Oh, I think my little coin purse must've fallen into your kid's bag.").

woof.

OMG WE'RE FUCKED! -- duxup ?
[ Parent ]

Feel free to disagree, but you're wrong by lm (4.00 / 2) #21 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 11:10:48 AM EST
``NO EXCUSE for security theatre. None''

BA is in the business of making money. In the realm of making money, there is ample cause for security theatre.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

And what will the effect on business be by BadDoggie (2.00 / 0) #25 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 12:10:35 PM EST
when another coordinated hijacking occurs? None of the additional "security measures" implemented over the past six years would prevent it happening again. Only the strengthening of the cockpit door could make it more difficult.

Because people believe that security has been improved they're more complacent making it that much easier to pull it off.

ATTENTION FBI, DHS AND ANYONE ELSE WHO THINKS I'D BE FUN TO ARREST AS A TAIRIST: I'm not suggesting such an atrocity be committed, only pointing out that it's still just as possible as before because security theatre is not "security". People have likewise stopped responding to bullshit "threat levels" -- read The Boy Who Cried Wolf some time and understand why.

woof.

OMG WE'RE FUCKED! -- duxup ?
[ Parent ]

you tell me by lm (2.00 / 0) #45 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 01:38:40 PM EST
These issues aren't new. Aside from which you're missing the relevant point: with regards to taking profits actual security of the customer is a secondary consideration to the feeling of security of that customer. Regardless of whether or not an airline is secure, people won't fly unless they feel secure. Or in this case, regardless of whether or not it safe for unaccompanied children to sit next to a man, the parents won't put them on the plane if they don't feel their children are secure.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

There is a difference between by BadDoggie (4.00 / 1) #51 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 01:56:05 PM EST
marketing and safety.

The airlines can babble on as much as they want about how pretty their planes are, how friendly the waitresses are, how comfortable the seats are, and I don't really give a shit. We all know they're lying. But the lies aren't terribly harmful. You end up sitting with your knees pressed to your shoulders, you eat "food" that gives you the shits, and a surly waitress tells you that if you ask for another pack of peanuts you'll be arrested when the plane lands.

Contrast this with the lies that are security theatre. There are eegregious abuses of privacy, outrageous demands made of people (drink that breast milk, ma'am), outright abuses of power, humiliation of passengers, confiscation of personal property, all of this and more done in the name of "security". Which it bloody well isn't.

When you allow your rights to be taken away for "good reasons", you open the door for them to be taken away for bad ones as well.

woof.

OMG WE'RE FUCKED! -- duxup ?
[ Parent ]

It's not just marketing by lm (2.00 / 0) #55 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 02:04:17 PM EST
You appear to be making two erros.
  1. You seem to be in denial that people are psychological beings.
  2. You seem to think that because some aspects of security theory are invasive violations of rights, that all must be.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

The Register bottled it by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #104 Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 06:49:22 AM EST
Straight after the 100ml bottle rule was announced, El Reg had a link on one of their analysis stories to some US military chap's dissertation. 

Which pretty much blew everything about the 100ml limit away - basically you'd need a rucksack full of ice, and a good 8 hours alone in the toilet, in addition to quite a lot of other chemical reagents that you'd need to smuggle onboard the plane (think 15 litres plus).

So, the 100ml restriction is basically security theatre.  And a nice little earner for Boots as well - if I have no hold luggage, I must buy deodorant and toothpaste once through security, only to discard them part used on the way home.


[ Parent ]

really reasonable? by aphrael (4.00 / 2) #19 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 10:48:22 AM EST
"given inferior service" that depends. were the seats the same?

in any event, would you be as sanguine about a policy which said kids couldn't sit next to black people?

also, i'm not convinced the point is to make mom and dad feel better. i think the point may well be to provide a strong defense against a negligence suit in the event that someone is molested. i would not be surprised at all if the policy was instituted after an out-of-court settlement to such a suit.

If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.
[ Parent ]

BadDoggie didn't say the seats differed by lm (2.00 / 0) #49 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 01:54:07 PM EST
Although a promotion to business class would have been a nice touch.

Race is a different game altogether as it is (arguably) an artificial construct while sex is not.

And I think your last point is connected to mine. Whether or not someone sues is (in part) by how secure they feel.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

"mom and dad feeling better" by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #26 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 12:11:57 PM EST
It doesn't make *this* dad feel any better.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

I doesn't make me feel any better either by lm (2.00 / 0) #34 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 12:47:30 PM EST
And I have sent my daughters unaccompanied on flights.

But I'm not typical.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

it's ridiculous by MillMan (2.00 / 0) #71 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 04:40:02 PM EST
consider what we're balancing here: my "rights" to the seat vs. the "rights" of this modern psychological hysteria of parenthood to be assuaged. Ucb was right to use the analogy of race - it wouldn't be allowed in that situation, and for good reason.

When I'm imprisoned as an enemy combatant, will you blog about it?
[ Parent ]

rights to `this' seat? by lm (4.00 / 1) #75 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 05:15:19 PM EST
You lost me on that. Airlines (at least in the US) don't even guarantee that you get a seat on the plane when you buy a ticket, let alone a specific seat.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

that has nothing to do with it by MillMan (2.00 / 0) #77 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 05:30:39 PM EST
their policy in that regard doesn't make it more or less plausible to make you change seats once on the plane. If you're arguing that they're a private company that can do what they want, that's separate from the argument over the soundness of the policy itself.

When I'm imprisoned as an enemy combatant, will you blog about it?
[ Parent ]

we're talking about a for-profit company, no? by lm (2.00 / 0) #79 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:16:10 PM EST
Whether it's a sensible policy boils down to simple questions. Do they lose more business from the policy than they gain by it? Are they in violation of any laws? I doubt that the answer to either of these is `yes.'

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

I'm not sure by MillMan (2.00 / 0) #80 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:41:08 PM EST
if there have been any consumer lawsuits over implied criminality (policies like the one under discussion, checking your receipt against your bag when leaving a store, etc).

When I'm imprisoned as an enemy combatant, will you blog about it?
[ Parent ]

Not that I'm aware of by lm (2.00 / 0) #85 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:52:57 PM EST
I'm aware of lawsuits over forcibly detaining people  when they refuse to show their receipts but I'm not aware of any over the policy that customers must show receipts. AFAICT, the store has every every right to ask people who refuse to show their receipts to never come back but cannot detain them against their will.

This situation is more than a bit disanalogous. No forcible detention is made. Seats of the same value are being traded. Further, there are several laws detailing the extent to which airline passengers must obey the flight crew.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

"same value" by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #98 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 11:19:24 PM EST
Seats *cost* the same, but they may not have the same value. I'm a pretty big guy...an aisle seat has a lot more value to me than a middle seat. This is especially an issue given that you usually have choice as to seats prior to boarding. If airlines really want to make this policy, they should not assign men seats next to unaccompanied children in the first place.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

I was using value in the economic sense by lm (2.00 / 0) #103 Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 06:31:49 AM EST
I'm not aware of any courts that would take what seat you would have preferred into consideration if you sued over the matter outside of some fairly rare situations.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Heh by jayhawk88 (4.00 / 2) #11 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 08:59:03 AM EST
I call shenannigans. I can’t think of any parent in the world who would, out of the blue, specifically ask that their kids not be sat next to a male.

You need to spend some more time in the States watching the evening news, then your Rightthink will be Double Plus Good.



Are you male? The whole British establishment by ambrosen (4.00 / 1) #12 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:05:59 AM EST
Thinks you're a child molester. As far as I can tell.

That said, nobody's actually asked for a copy of my paedo check to work at this college I'm at, so maybe I'm wrong.



Not wrong... by dmg (2.00 / 0) #88 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:59:34 PM EST
so maybe I'm wrong

No, you're not wrong. you seem to have forgotten that gross incompetence is another characteristic of the "new-labour" authoritarian state.
--
Hard work is morally wrong.
[ Parent ]

I'm not sure what I think of the policy itself, by yicky yacky (2.00 / 0) #13 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:13:49 AM EST

but, if it is company policy, how the hell did they end up sitting next to the man to begin with? Surely that's the kind of thing that can be dealt with surreptitiously at check-in, and nobody need even be aware of it.


----
A cynical, mercenary, demagogic, corrupt press will produce in time a people as base as itself - Joseph Pulitzer


Check-ins are not that sophisticated by Dr H0ffm4n (2.00 / 0) #16 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 10:18:15 AM EST
The technology is antiquated. How hard would it be to design a system that could allocate seats between booking and check-in so that families could sit together, no UC's were left with British men and no disabled people get the emergency exit?

[ Parent ]

That woman by ad hoc (2.00 / 0) #14 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:41:50 AM EST
was Louise Woodward.
--
The three things that make a diamond also make a waffle.


In defence of BA... by Horatio Hellpop (4.00 / 1) #15 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:55:19 AM EST
As a reminder, someone on this very site was repeatedly assaulted on flights as a youngster.

Let's err on the side of caution, shall we?

"You can't really know something until you ruin it for everyone." -some guy who used to have an account here


Note by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #28 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 12:19:53 PM EST
Most child abusers are:

  1. Woman.
  2. Related to the victim.
So making unrelated men sit elsewhere is not "caution".

Caution would be "make sure the stewardesses pay attention to the kids and sit them up front where they can be have an eye kept on them". As a parent, I'd heartily approve of that.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

the world is flat. by muchagecko (2.00 / 0) #35 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 12:47:50 PM EST
I don't know where you've gotten your stats, but I've seen plenty that show the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

"It means more if you have to earn it, even if it's by doing something as simple as eating a meal." Kellnerin
[ Parent ]

statistics by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #36 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 12:53:34 PM EST
The number one victimizer of children are the birth parents, mother more likely than father.

The number two victimizer of children are step-parents.

The number three victimizer of children are other relatives.

Strangers come a distant fourth.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

You are confusing molesters with abusers by muchagecko (2.00 / 0) #38 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 12:55:38 PM EST
nt

"It means more if you have to earn it, even if it's by doing something as simple as eating a meal." Kellnerin
[ Parent ]

Yes, I suppose I am by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #39 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 01:02:17 PM EST
However, most molesters are *not* strangers.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

you must be one of those by muchagecko (2.00 / 0) #40 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 01:08:53 PM EST
that expects the government & business to take care of everybody.

I prefer their protection only against strangers.

"It means more if you have to earn it, even if it's by doing something as simple as eating a meal." Kellnerin
[ Parent ]

Quite the opposite by ucblockhead (4.00 / 4) #47 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 01:45:38 PM EST
I'm one of those that realizes that children are in many more magnitudes of getting run over on the way to the airport than they are of getting abused by a pedophile on the plane.

Refusing to seat your kid next to a pedophile is not "protection". Pedophiles generally have more insidious plans than trying to sit next to random kids on planes. "Protection" is teaching your kid to scream like a motherfucker when anyone tries something in a crowded place, like a plane. (Or it is making sure the stewards/stewardesses actually pay attention to the kids on the flight.)

Refusing to sit kids next to men is just security theater that helps no one and merely serves to give people a false sense of security that something is "being done" when in fact no one is any safer.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

It happens on planes. by muchagecko (1.00 / 1) #58 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 02:21:45 PM EST
I agree with the airline's policy of keeping the part of the population with the greatest chance of molesting children they've never met before away from my kids. There's no false sense of security, it's just decreasing the chances of bad shit from happening dramatically.

Unaccompanied minors may pay up to $100 more per flight, but don't receive any special services other than being escorted on and off the plane. They aren't babysitters.

"It means more if you have to earn it, even if it's by doing something as simple as eating a meal." Kellnerin
[ Parent ]

It happens everywhere. by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #59 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 02:26:38 PM EST
And it's much more likely to happen off the airplane then on.

Do you want airlines to refuse to sit kids next to black people because black people are statistically more likely to murder someone?
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

murder who? by muchagecko (2.00 / 0) #61 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 02:29:16 PM EST
strange children? Statistics, dude. Look at the stats.

"It means more if you have to earn it, even if it's by doing something as simple as eating a meal." Kellnerin
[ Parent ]

Stats by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #70 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 04:21:30 PM EST
Ok...what are the stats? How many children are molested on airplanes each year?
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

Ballpark: Somewhere between 0 and 3,000. by Christopher Robin was Murdered (4.00 / 3) #74 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 05:09:11 PM EST
I'm guessing about 900 cases a year. On US planes anyway.

Here's the math.

Only two American airlines make public disclosure of all in-air incidents - United and Delta - and only one - Delta - distinguishes incidents by type. They report nearly 300 assaults a year.

Assuming the passengers on Delta are no more or less assaultive than passengers on other planes, we multiply that by 84, the number of passenger jet lines in the US. Now admittedly, most of these 84 lines are smaller than Delta, but Delta ain't the biggest airline either. To keep the math from getting to complicated, let's ballpark it at 84.

That's 25,200 in-air assaults per year.

With that stat in mind we hop over to the FBI. The FBI reports, as part of a 2006 case of in-air sexual assault tried in Boston, that 12 percent of the in-air assault cases they investigate are sexual in nature.

That makes for 3,024 in-air sexual assaults.

How many where against children. I don't know. We could ballpark again, but that's adding some serious abstraction to an already pretty abstracted stat. We don't even have accurate stats on sexual assault because reporting is such a thorny issue.

Just doing some number crunching on my own, a averaged some estimates and come up with 30% of SA victims are under the age of 17. Apply that to our previous number and we've got just over 900 case per year. I stress, however, that there are a lot of assumptions going into that number and you shouldn't take it as gospel.

[ Parent ]

Delta is not a middling airline. by ucblockhead (4.00 / 3) #81 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:06:36 PM EST
According to what I could find, there are around 660 million passengers a year.

Delta carries 119 million passengers per year. You can't assume anything like 84...the correct multiplier is 5.54 (assuming the rate on Delta in general (including international) is the same as for all US flights.)

So that's actually 1662 assaults total assaults per year. If 12% are sexual, that makes 199 total sexual assaults. You're off by more than an order of magnitude.

In general, it means that your chance of getting sexually assaulted on Delta is 1 in 3.3 million (119m passengers/36 sexual assults). Presumably your chance is roughly the same on any other airline. (Though maybe not...I suspect more assaults happen on cross-country red-eyes than short shuttle hops. Not sure how that applies.)

Now of course, there are a few things we don't know: We don't know what percentage are against children. We don't know how many were against strangers. We don't know what percentage are passengers are children are flying alone. But given that the number of total sexual assaults an all airlines in a year are under 200 and given my assumption that most children are not flying alone, I suspect the number of children assaulted on airlines by strangers is very low.

Now the current death rate for children is around 700 per 100,000. Even if every sexual assault on an airplane is against a child, the rate would be 0.03 per 100,000 flights. That means that if your child rides unaccompanied on an airplane once a month, he or she is still at the very least 2000 times more likely to be killed outright during the year then sexual assaulted on an airline.

Or looked at another way, the rate of sexual assault against children is 3.2 per 1000. (Or 320 per 100,000.) This means that again if your child takes a flight a month, that child is 1000 times more likely to get sexually assaulted off of the plane during the year than on.

Or put even another way: 320/100,000 is the same as 0.88/100,000 each day. This means that if your child takes a flight, that child is 29 times more likely to get assaulted before or after the flight on that day than on it.

Let's look at it by hour. The hourly sexual assault rate of 0.036/100,000 each hour. Assume the average flight is 2 hours. That gives an average sexual assault rate of 0.015/100,000 each hour. That means....

That your child has twice the risk of sexual assault *off* the airplane than on.

And this assuming that all sexual assaults on airplanes are against children, which is very obviously not true, and this that multiplier is almost certainly much higher. If I make the assumption that you did, that 30% of airplane sexual assaults are against children, then your child actually has SIX TIMES the risk of sexual assault *off* the airplane than on.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

I don't let my kids by muchagecko (2.00 / 0) #83 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:21:09 PM EST
sit next to strange men anywhere. Why should that be any different on an airplane?

"It means more if you have to earn it, even if it's by doing something as simple as eating a meal." Kellnerin
[ Parent ]

That's fine by ucblockhead (4.00 / 3) #86 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:53:55 PM EST
Don't demand the rest of society conform to your fears.

Demonizing all men because a very small subset of men do bad things is no different than demonizing all blacks because some blacks do bad things. 99.999% of men are not pedophiles.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

Are all old people weak by muchagecko (2.00 / 0) #91 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:55:51 PM EST
and unable to open the emergency exit? I was on a plane that forced an older couple to move from the emergency exit seats.

Airlines are just following policy that keeps the odds in their favor. Playing it safe. No one is being demonized or deemed worthless. Everyone gets a seat and service.

"It means more if you have to earn it, even if it's by doing something as simple as eating a meal." Kellnerin
[ Parent ]

So by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #95 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 10:18:04 PM EST
You don't let your son sit next to black people because they are more likely to murder people?

The argument is exactly the same.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

Not at all. by muchagecko (2.00 / 0) #99 Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 01:48:21 AM EST
We're discussing airline safety policy. Show me the stats on black people killing strange children on the airplane.

"It means more if you have to earn it, even if it's by doing something as simple as eating a meal." Kellnerin
[ Parent ]

Curious by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #102 Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 06:01:28 AM EST
I'd like to see a link to some stats showing the number of people (kids or adults) who actually do get molested on an airplane. Do you have a link to some real stats?

Frankly I'd be surprised if it happens much at all.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

How's my blogging: Call me at 209.867.5309 to complain.
[ Parent ]

Have you not by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #105 Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 07:31:36 AM EST
Been on a plane much of late then?


[ Parent ]

Well - it's been a year by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #107 Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 07:58:30 AM EST
Sadly I've never been molested on a plane.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

How's my blogging: Call me at 209.867.5309 to complain.
[ Parent ]

Next time by Breaker (4.00 / 2) #108 Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:04:08 AM EST
Wear something slutty, that might help.


[ Parent ]

Dude! by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #112 Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 05:45:36 PM EST
Have you seen the pics of his hush puppies. Does it get any sluttier that that?

[ Parent ]

You've got a friend at this very site by muchagecko (2.00 / 0) #109 Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:34:09 AM EST
who was molested on an airplane when a tween. My brother was approached on an airplane, but he yelled and nothing happened. It was a traumatic expreience for him.

I don't have the time to look up the stats - but CRWM did. 3000+ a year was his conservative estimate.

"It means more if you have to earn it, even if it's by doing something as simple as eating a meal." Kellnerin
[ Parent ]

Then don't let your kids fly alone by joh3n (2.00 / 0) #89 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 08:41:15 PM EST
-nt-

----
I just ate about 7 pounds of meat
-theantix
[ Parent ]

Have you ever spent all day flying across by muchagecko (2.00 / 0) #90 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:45:41 PM EST
the country, then turning around and flying back? It's not only expensive, but leaves you messed up for a few days.

I've got no choice - there's a court order involved.

"It means more if you have to earn it, even if it's by doing something as simple as eating a meal." Kellnerin
[ Parent ]

(Comment Deleted) by Christopher Robin was Murdered (4.00 / 1) #92 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:57:29 PM EST

This comment has been deleted by Christopher Robin was Murdered



[ Parent ]

(Comment Deleted) by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #97 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 10:40:24 PM EST

This comment has been deleted by ucblockhead



[ Parent ]

Let me apologize. by Christopher Robin was Murdered (4.00 / 4) #106 Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 07:53:34 AM EST
I'm going to erase my previous comment. I'd like to blame the couple of several of too many beers consumed betwixt reading your response and writing my own - but it doesn't change the fact that it was a donkey-headed thing to write. There's no hard figure out there on this and you made a serious and good faith effort to get a estimate of cases.

[ Parent ]

So abuse doesn't matter unless it's sexual? by lm (2.00 / 0) #53 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 01:58:49 PM EST
It seems to me that parents ought to be concerned about any abuse whether or not it's paedophilia.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Abuse on planes by muchagecko (2.00 / 0) #60 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 02:28:05 PM EST
Is the issue at hand. I think you have taken the comment out of context and are getting confused.

I suppose there may be people out there who beat our children up on airplanes, but I suspect that shit is pretty easy to detect.

Do I think the airlines should make sure that I'm not beating my children at home? No. I think they should stick with airline business.

"It means more if you have to earn it, even if it's by doing something as simple as eating a meal." Kellnerin
[ Parent ]

Most forms of abuse are easy to detect ... by lm (2.00 / 0) #62 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 02:49:39 PM EST
... at least within the confines of an airliner. So I can't agree with you that I'm confused or taking the comment out of context.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Ok by muchagecko (2.00 / 0) #63 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 02:58:22 PM EST
All forms of abuse against children on airplanes should be prevented.

What are you suggesting we do about the beating and murder of children on planes?

"It means more if you have to earn it, even if it's by doing something as simple as eating a meal." Kellnerin
[ Parent ]

Is that a problem that needs to be solved? by lm (2.00 / 0) #65 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 03:31:34 PM EST
What is the rate of any form of abuse of children by strangers on airliners that normal due diligence won't handle? Of that, what percentage is molestation? Only if the molestation numbers exceed 50% of all such abuse does it make sense to draw a distinction.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

agreed. by muchagecko (2.00 / 0) #69 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 04:19:40 PM EST
I see the issue in discussion is preventing molestation of children on airplanes.

"It means more if you have to earn it, even if it's by doing something as simple as eating a meal." Kellnerin
[ Parent ]

No it isn't by lm (4.00 / 1) #76 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 05:16:42 PM EST
It's making parents feel warm and fuzzy.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

IAWTP by Herring (4.00 / 1) #78 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 05:42:45 PM EST
Also you are giving the kids the message that Men are Evil.

Speaking as a (/me checks) man, the number of situations these days where you just feel awkward/guilty for being a man. A while back, SB was playing on the bouncy castle at a pub and a small (3-4 years) girl came up to me and asked me to help put her shoes on. I did help, but I remember feeling like I was going to be accosted at any point.

I'm English, and as such I crave disappointment. - Bill Bailey
[ Parent ]

You see it as warm and fuzzy, by muchagecko (2.00 / 0) #82 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:18:36 PM EST
I see it as reducing the risk, numbers, odds.

70 percent of peds are white men. The airlines aren't denying men services, merely changing locations. Weak individuals aren't allowed to sit in rows near the emergency exits. It's all about risk reducing.

"It means more if you have to earn it, even if it's by doing something as simple as eating a meal." Kellnerin
[ Parent ]

What percentage of peds assault strangers? by lm (4.00 / 1) #87 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:58:33 PM EST
That 70% of paedophiles are men says absolutely nothing about whether or not your child is more likely to be assaulted if sitting next to a male stranger on a plane than if sitting next to a female stranger.

But this does make the point I've been making elsewhere. The BA policy isn't about reducing risks. It's about making parents feel more comfortable so that they keep buying tickets.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Why can't it be both? by Christopher Robin was Murdered (4.00 / 1) #93 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 10:00:06 PM EST
I'm not completely for the policy because I'm not sure it helps. But would you be against a policy that gave parents the warm fuzzies and got the kids a little more supervision?

[ Parent ]

I'm not against the policy at all by lm (2.00 / 0) #96 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 10:31:41 PM EST
As I said elsewhere, I'd be grumpy if I were the one asked to move and I'd certainly try to negotiate an upgrade to first class and failing that, I'd probably get thrown off the flight. But that's just me being cantankerous and has nothing to do with justice. I've also said elsewhere that so long as the policy it losing them business, as no matters of justice are involved, it's a good policy.

But I highly doubt that the policy makes any difference to the actual security of the children involved. So far as I can tell, the only demonstrable service it provides is to make parents feel more comfortable about their kids flying unaccompanied.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

I'm not seeing the problem by georgeha (4.00 / 8) #17 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 10:27:11 AM EST
in fact, airlines should have a segregated, men only childfree section, I'd appreciate it on my business trips.




i'm torn on this. by aphrael (4.00 / 1) #18 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 10:46:16 AM EST
on the one hand, the policy is blatantly sexist and offensive. it prejudges half the human population based on knowing almost nothing about them. it's totally unreasonable

on the other hand, were a kid to be molested on the plane, even if no prosecution followed, the kid could likely sue the airline for negligence in not preventing the molestation, and win. because of the way the statute of limitations is regularly waived for molestation cases, that suit could come tomorrow, or it could come thirty years from now.

so BA could simply be trying to defend itself against a negligence suit by going to unreasonable lengths to "prevent" molestation --- this way nobody will be able to claim they didn't do everything reasonably necessary to prevent it.


If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.


Then the seat by ks1178 (4.00 / 1) #20 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 10:51:18 AM EST
Next to the children should be empty.

[ Parent ]

Perhaps we should save the term atrocious . . . by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #22 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 11:13:03 AM EST
To describe stuff like child soldiers chopping peoples' limbs off so they can't vote and similar genuine atrocities.

That said, the policy does seem almost designed to ruffle the feathers of some touchy customer and pretty much ensures complaints.

Maybe a better policy would be to stash all the unaccompanied kids together in one single section. That way the FAs can keep an eye on them and any adult who lingers too long there would be immediately apparent.

Place 'em all in a couple of rows mid-way between the emergency exit and the rear stew station. That way they don't end up on the exit aisle, they're not too close to the head, and the stew at the aft station can keep an eye on them.

If you have an unexpected number of kids and you have to ask somebody to move, it would then be easy to do without implying they're some Humbert Humbert of the airways. You'd just say, "It's BA policy to try to keep all the unaccompanied kids in one group so they'll be easier to watch. We'd really appreciate the help, sir."

Certainly, you'll get one or two customers who stand on their God-given right, as a consumer, to place their comfort before the concerns of all others  - "Our Roundhead forefathers didn't behead Charles I so that their descendants should have to put up with the autocratic whims of stewardesses like you! Attica! Attica!" - but I think on the most part the new policy would make complainers look like butt-heads.



Nice idea by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #24 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 12:01:48 PM EST
But wouldn't putting that many hyperactive, undisciplined brats next to each other in one place cause some kind of critical mass of misbehaviour?

Also, what if an 11 year old boy puts his hand on a 9 year old girl's leg or something? Boys are potentially both abusers and abusees, which makes things trickier.

[ Parent ]

Well, we could always put them . . . by Christopher Robin was Murdered (4.00 / 2) #41 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 01:15:39 PM EST
In cages in the cargo hold. Or put all the men down there. I don't much care so long as somebody gets put in a cage. It's a sickness of mine, but I find the idea funny.

As for the critical mass of kids. We might have a problem there, but I honestly don't know how many kids we're talking about per flight. How many unaccompanied kids are usually on a flight? Two? Four? Ten? And they're in rows of, what, 3 or 4. It isn't really the same thing as having them run about the cabin.

Plus, given some of the stories about what crazed adults have done on planes, I'd say that we've got nothing more to about from the kids than we do from the adults.

As for the possibility of kid-on-kid crime, while that remains a concern, I think clustering them actually helps prevent that too. If a stew knows to make a quick check of the kids every time they pass rows 15 and 16, we'll get more checks and less chance that something amiss is going on.

Either way, scattering them about the cabin were stews can't quickly see them doesn't help either the problem of ill behaved children or minimize the risk of assault.

Let's be honest - the airline can't do anything that will make sure the children are perfectly protected. The best they can do is make a visible and regularly enforced policy that shows they're trying, attempt to mitigate some of the risk, and try not to piss off other customers. Right now they're doing 1, some of 2, and none of 3. I have no idea if this proposed policy is any safer (I think it might be, but that's just my guess); but I do think it meets the first need, is no worse at meeting the second need, and would be better at meeting the third.

There may, of course, be serious implementation problems I haven't considered. I must admit that the logistics of getting passengers on and off planes isn't something I've spent much time thinking about.

[ Parent ]

Having that kind of policy by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #44 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 01:25:33 PM EST
Is begging for a lawsuit if little Johnny pinches little Jemima's arse or something.  Putting the kids in a "special care" section implies an additional level of monitoring; if that fails then hordes of lawyer happy parents'll be filing against the airline.


[ Parent ]

Don't call it a "special section." by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #46 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 01:42:17 PM EST
I'd spin it just as they do the current policy: "We try to minimize danger by seating kids in a visible space, ensuring no single child is left alone in the company of a strange adult. The members of our flight staff will check in regularly with your young flier and attendants have been given instructions to treat the requests and concerns of our unaccompanied young passengers as a top priority."

Since you wouldn't necessarily know how many unaccompanied kids you have on any given flight, you couldn't really reserve a section anyway. Besides, actually creating a stable "section" for kids would screw you if you had to separate two kids for whatever reason. You'd want to leave that option available without leaving yourself vulnerable to the charge that took a kid out of th "special section."

So, it isn't a special section so much as a natural consequence of the "proactive seating strategy that BA employs to ensure every passenger has a safe and secure flight."

I admit I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how this policy would make them any more or less liable than their current policy.

Besides, we're making the perfect the enemy of the good here. The vast majority of sexual assaults are committed by adult males. Not taking action to mitigate against that concern because it won't change the possibility of a lesser threat seems like a bad bet.

The real question is how to prevent kids from getting stuck with names like Jemima. That's the real crime.

[ Parent ]

Jemima Khan. by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #101 Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 05:39:56 AM EST
You would. 

That is all.


[ Parent ]

Clustering by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #48 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 01:51:27 PM EST
The smart thing might be to put the unaccompanied children in a section with the kids that are accompanied...get a few adults in there who know how to handle kids.

Though on the other hand, given what I observed on my last flight, not all parents on planes know how to handle kids.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

That's the whole problem by ambrosen (4.00 / 2) #57 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 02:05:02 PM EST
You don't want the adults handling the kids.

[ Parent ]

I had the same idea. by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #72 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 04:42:49 PM EST
Then I thought about the parent/kid travelers on my last two flights and shuddered.

[ Parent ]

However by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #73 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 04:56:01 PM EST
As mine sat quietly coloring beside me for the entire flight, it did allow me to feel smugly superior. That's always welcome.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

I have no problem with that idea by BadDoggie (2.00 / 0) #27 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 12:13:12 PM EST
Except that the kids' seats should be all the way back in the ass of the plane so that the stews can be more vigilant (they're alwys in the back). They should also be by the toilets because unlike most adults, the kids tend to want to hit the head at least once an hour.

woof.

OMG WE'RE FUCKED! -- duxup ?
[ Parent ]

You haven't met mine by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #31 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 12:27:34 PM EST
Bladder of steel, that kid.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

I was thinking . . . by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #43 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 01:20:55 PM EST
That the bathrooms would be a high-risk area so, from the stews point of view, you'd want to be sure that unaccompanied children are truly unaccompanied as they head to the head. Putting the kids a little bit away from the bathroom would minimize the chance that anybody could quickly and quietly get a kid from their seat to the john without being spotted.

I must admit that I just cooked up the scheme. The details would have to be hammered out.

[ Parent ]

Jeebus FUCK! by BadDoggie (2.00 / 0) #54 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 02:01:54 PM EST
Do you actually think about the things you're thinking? High-risk? Because no one would notice a guy grabbing a kid and dragging him into the can? Because Teh Eval Molestar would be a pro at quickly and stealthily unfastening safety belts? Because the other kids in the row wouldn't say something? Because no one would hear a sound because airplane toilets are so well soundproofed?

woof.

OMG WE'RE FUCKED! -- duxup ?
[ Parent ]

Actually, I was imagining a scenario . . . by Christopher Robin was Murdered (4.00 / 2) #68 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 04:09:45 PM EST
In which Teh Eval Molestar offers, helpfully and happily, to walk the child to the can. Then, once there, the child is simply overwhelmed by the presence of an adult who is telling them to be quiet. Or, perhaps, that the child's screams would be ignored because the adult would simply act like they were a parent fed up with their wailing off-spring.

My comment was based on the idea the Eval Molestar would not, as you imagine them, act like some mad beast of the jungle. The threat that somebody would jump up from their seat, scramble over several rows of passengers, and grab some kid hadn't occurred to me because I think a self announcing threat isn't something we should be worried about. I think we can effectively discount fears that a van with the words "Free Candy" painted on it might drive on to the plane. Instead, I think we should worry about adults who might quietly and without calling attention to them

For whatever reason, many molested children shut down and are distressingly quiet about what's just happened to them. I don't believe you can count on the child defending themselves. Some will, and that's great, but some won't and it won't take anything more than adding some walking distance between the john and their seat to help protect those kids.

I understand that your righteous indignation requires you to act as if the threat of sexual assault were entirely fanciful, but inventing a magic world were threats to children can be spotted because they wear "I'm a Pedo" t-shirts is no better a hysterical response than BA's unfortunate and probably ineffective policy.

According to Delta, one of the 84 American lines, they had nearly 300 in-air assaults last year. Using the FBI figure that 12 percent of the assaults they investigate are sexual nature, we can ballpark 3,000 in-air sexual assaults per year on American lines. How many were against children, I don't know. Not all airline release their data, those that do aren't saying, and the FBI doesn't specify.

Admittedly, that's still a fairly small chance of anything actually happening. But, if by moving the kid's seat a little bit further away from the john means we might be able to better prevent anything from happening, are you actually going to suggest that we shouldn't do it?

Why?

What's the magic number we should wait for assaults to reach before we do something as mind-numbingly radical as moving a kid's seat a few feet away from the bathroom?

[ Parent ]

My kids fly at least 4xs a year by muchagecko (3.00 / 4) #23 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 11:44:00 AM EST
unaccompanied. I'd complain if they had to sit next to you.

"It means more if you have to earn it, even if it's by doing something as simple as eating a meal." Kellnerin


Statistically by ucblockhead (4.00 / 3) #30 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 12:23:52 PM EST
The most likely person to abuse a child is that child's mother.

If you don't want your kids sitting next to men, you are a bigot, as bad as the people who lock the doors when black people walk by. I understand you have personal experience. A person robbed and beaten by black gangbangers would likely feel bigotry as well.

Doesn't make it right, though.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

Check your pedophile stats again. by muchagecko (2.00 / 0) #37 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 12:54:39 PM EST
70% of peds are white males.

"It means more if you have to earn it, even if it's by doing something as simple as eating a meal." Kellnerin
[ Parent ]

ucb didn't say `molested' by lm (2.00 / 0) #50 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 01:55:20 PM EST
Not all abuse is sexual molestation.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

but what about all the children by muchagecko (2.00 / 0) #94 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 10:06:37 PM EST
dying in Africa? How are the airlines going to protect them?

Abuse and children dying in Africa aren't the issues on airlines. Airlines write policies that piss you off to keep pedophiles from children on airplanes. Pedophiles molest. It's their defining characteristic.

"It means more if you have to earn it, even if it's by doing something as simple as eating a meal." Kellnerin
[ Parent ]

I'd complain more by BadDoggie (2.00 / 0) #56 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 02:04:55 PM EST
about having to sit next to them. But to be forcefully removed from my seat and stuck in an even more inconvenient (and possibly dangerous) seat simply because I have a pair is intolerable.

woof.

OMG WE'RE FUCKED! -- duxup ?
[ Parent ]

It's only because by muchagecko (2.00 / 0) #84 Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:25:43 PM EST
you are a bad doggie. My kids have 'pet handling' diplomas and know better than to get close to any bad animal.

Eh, my kids are pretty quiet on the plane. They know to keep to themselves and they usually just play their Ni