El Al (Airline) will no longer make women move

I read this as I thought it was about religion. Turns out to be about something that is uncommon and isn’t even allowed by many airlines now. BA stopped their solo child skyflyers service a while ago as have several others.

Aye, cabin crew aren't "trolley dollies" (as a pilot I once knew used to call them), they have vital safety roles.

Flight attendants have been instrumental in rescuing more than a few trafficked children because they know what to look for and how to recognize what they see.

(I can foresee step-parents not giving a shit).

Based on my highly scientific sample of three post-divorce partners of my parents. Obviously NASPALT.

@Snappity How is saying that a child should be accompanied by a parent, guardian or some other responsible adult making it less safe for children?

The law of unintended consequences applies here. Whereever something is a) mandatory and b) hard to regulate supply of, a black market of dodgy suppliers springs up.

In Snappity's world, all children fly with an adult escort, but the airline have no way of knowing whether the adult is related to the kid. Result: people hire themselves out as escorts to the desperate (the parent whose spouse died whilst taking the kids to see grandma and needs to fly the kids back ASAP and grandma doesn't have a UK visa) or uncaring (I can foresee step-parents not giving a shit). Result: escort-for-hire becomes an attractive job for paedophiles and human traffickers, especially as the airlines would no longer have the rule that they only release a child to a named adult. The hired escort could easily divert the child to a paedophile ring or human trafficking gang, e.g. at a connecting airport, instead of making the connection, just leave the airport. The UM rules mandate chain of custody from check-in to hand-over to a named adult at the destination.

For all you know, that child alone next to you is a recent orphan, flying to live with relatives. Shame on you for resenting your part, as a woman, in keeping that.child safe.

Should also point out that military families quite often need to do the same if posted abroad

Most men I know would be delighted not to have to sit next to an unaccompanied child. I do wonder about the men who object to being moved.

@Snappity How is saying that a child should be accompanied by a parent, guardian or some other responsible adult making it less safe for children?

Some kids don't have an adult who can fly with them. As people said upthread, their parents are dead, or deported, or incapacitated in hospital. If a child is abroad with one parent and that parent dies or is arrested or imprisoned, who will look after that child whilst the other parent arranges visas etc to fly out to escort the child home? Visas can take weeks to process. It is far far safer to fly that child home alone as an unaccompanied minor.

Now theres an idea pratchet

Bloody Michelle

@Snappity I was not at any point required to be a nursemaid to the child next to me. The cabin crew checked on her at intervals, they were the nursemaids, not me. Stop making assertions that aren't true.

*Just for the record I completely blame pom

She led me astray*

I think in future we must all blame Michelle

When i was 6 or7 pom i got the cane at school

The crime was talking in assembly

Now to be fair to the head i think the caning wasnt for the crime itself

But Michelle blamed me and i blamed Michelle

(It was absolutely michelles fault...i want to make that clear)

Pombear nails it
Thank you Pom

Rufus shivers up the back of my neck.

Sitting at the head's desk.

You're right, I led you astray.

But after our bollocking, let's do a Thelma and Louise - we're off!
(Though not off a cliff in the end, this time, we'll be transitioning films at the end and going for the Grease car....we're flying over them all!)

It's late. I'm tired, been at work all day. But I love all you gender critical women.

Just for the record I completely blame pom

She led me astray...

enoughisenough12
This!

Pratchet I'm not sure whether I've disqualified myself from flowers and lovebombing for flaming this thread but just in general to you for helping us all through this bog peat (and ducks).

Exactly enough

And before I go to bed...the reason why I responded on this thread:

A point on another thread (about non-binary passports) was made that airlines need sex-specific passports to ensure that unaccompanied minors were sat next to female-bodied people.

Snappity seemed to think that this was a) unnecessary and b) that anyone allowing minors to fly unaccompanied demonstrated poor parenting anyway.

Snappit then comes here to cheer about the 'balance is shifting' away from 'those who object to sitting next to a particular passenger'.

NB: It's not the children who 'object to sitting next to a particular passenger'. It's the airline who are putting safeguarding measures in place.

But Snappity seems to want these safeguarding measures blurred because 'trans-feelz'.

But hey, if they do get blurred, and an incident occurs - hey, parents, it's your fault anyway!

Snappity, who is a vocal trans-right advocacist on many other threads here, seems to think it's important that children's safeguarding rights are eroded so other people can cheer that the 'boundaries are shifting'.

The risk of child molestation is statistically reduced by seating next to a woman. But there is still a risk. Some airlines have introduced kids-only zones. That is the only realistic way to remove the risk. That is what airlines should be doing.

But what about unaccompanied male passengers and the risk they pose to women? Might it not make more sense to have a seating area for unaccompanied men? That way women and children don't have to be put at risk. It seems like the logical conclusion. Isolate the risk.

These threads always end up as a spectacular example of the lack of empathy and insight into the reality of children's lives and the lives of their families that a few posters hold.
Airlines trying to make lives easier and safer for children - confronted by adults determined to make them more difficult and less safe. And on Mumsnet as well

snappity I, as a female bodied person, can absolutely understand why the airline may need me to swap seats with my male bodied person fellow traveller due to safeguarding issues.

I'm not expecting to be a free 'nursemaid' (interesting phraseology you use there, cos, they aren't toddlers on this type of flight arrangement)

And, you know, quite a lot of us parents have experienced flights with kids. This is really not 'classic feminism' grounds. This is 'classic humanism' grounds for behaviours. Flights in airplanes force us all into small spaces which demand stronger humanity than normal small spaces, otherwise shit falls apart.

And all the children I've ever encountered on unaccompanied minors-type flights tend to the sort who don't need 'free childcare' as their parents have nurtured and raised them to be independent and confident children who are OK to go on flights on their own, regardless of the complex reasons they may need to be on that flight.

The more you post, the more I don't think you understand about parents/kids.

But I'm sure you'll tell me why you do!

Yeah what thebewilderness said

I know you have quite a tenuous grasp on the truth snappity

And i know we have the same ideas about sex segregation so its awesome that we are being able to errrrmmmm...understand each other

Its fine

The expectation that women should act as free nursemaids...

It has been explained more than once that that is not the case but if you are committed to burning that straw man to the ground by all means do not let the reality of the situation interfere.