Boy with Tourette’s denied boarding after bomb remark

[TamanTun]

I was just thinking about the news article about the 13 year old boy who was denied boarding after shouted ‘bomb’ at the gate. His parents had warned the airline in advance, he had his diagnosis letter on him and was wearing a sunflower lanyard. Imagine a world where others would understand and be supportive in a case like this rather than what happened. The family had done everything they could to avoid something like this but yet it did happen. Why can we all not be more accepting? I suppose it comes with educating others and does depend on the situation.

“They spent the night in a hotel before paying £2,400 for new flights with Vueling on Sunday.” apparently

Because people with disabilities are protected from discrimination by law (thankfully). And I'm sure with an announcement made regarding his condition, the majority of passengers would be understanding. Obviously, the ignorant ones will make a huge issue out of it though...

No just ban people who cause distress to others.

I doubt it.

It's not true to say that there would be no danger though. No risk of a bomb perhaps but plenty of risk of panic and of the boy himself being harmed by (an)other passenger(s) who had failed to properly assess the situation.

None of that changes how sad it is for the family, and absolutely not their fault. Not risk free though. I'm genuinely not sure what could be done to mitigate that risk. A tannoy announcement to the flight would not be listened to by everyone.

I have read from the news reports that the decision not to let the family board was, allegedly, ultimately predicated on the parents' behaviour toward the staff member who was attempting to de-escalate the situation (the parents putting their phones in the female manager's face, raising their voices, getting extremely close to her while this was being done, being intimidating, failing to listen to her explanation, etc).

This may or may not be true.

A number of airlines now have rules about not filming staff members and putting their images online for public consumption and ridicule.

The family then rebooked with a different airline and arrived in Spain the following day.

Yes, regardless of what the complaint was, I don't think any passengers behaving in that way can expect to be allowed to board. As so often in these cases the headlines (and OP) leave out significant relevant detail.

It’s not discrimination because anyone who says bomb in an airport is treated the same way.

I have read up on Tourette’s syndrome and it’s a horrible condition that I am glad I do not suffer with and thus have sympathy with those that do.

But on a plane where safety is paramount I think shouting bomb no matter how young the child is could cause panic and no one wants that in the air where you can’t just land and let everyone out for a breather. Shouting profanities is different as it doesn’t conjure up the panic in people like the words ‘bomb’ does.

I am with the flight crew on this one. People get denied boarding for a lot of reasons and this unfortunately is one that they judged to be a safety issue at the time.

You also have to wonder where it stops. Addiction is an illness, so are we going to let alcoholics on board while drunk? Drug addicts with class a drugs stashed away? Smokers to light up and smoke 20 in the bathroom? Addiction is, after all, something that can’t always be controlled.

The airline was correct. He wasn’t denied boarding due to his disability, it was because of the safety risk and making a perceived threat.

The lady that was filmed explaining it to the family did a really good job, keeping calm and rational in the face of their increasing annoyance at her and should be commended.

Had I been on a flight or about to board where this was shouted. I would have got off. I imagine other people would too.

Why are you comparing the disability of Tourette's Syndrome, with addictions which are not classed as disabilities in the UK?

ETA People don't choose to start having Tourette's, it's not a choice.

Inclusion is important, but there are limits, especially if the result is that everyone else is anxious or uncomfortable

This

It's also unlikely that the parent's attitude to the staff helped
If a situation had needed to be managed inflight working together would probably have been important, and it may be that the staff weren't confident this would be possible

Addictions are illnesses and out of people’s control.

Why are you trying so hard to argue that people who shout “bomb” should be allowed on planes?

Yup, this is hard for the family, but I'd imagine the majority of people on a plane would utterly panic if there was an individual on it repeatedly saying "bomb", even if an announcement was made on the tannoy. Besides, I'm not sure the airline is legally allowed to announce this over the tannoy as it likely infringes on disability rights. Regardless, the airline is 100% in the right on this.

I feel sorry for the boy, but it was the right decision. You just can’t have someone who shouted bomb going on the plane, it’s too big a risk.

Exactly he could have seen a bomb concealed and shouted bomb the place would have been in panic

It’s very unfair for the family but equally it is not fair on the crew to have to make a determination that the use of that word and the so-called threat is completely without foundation and therefore they need not follow their usual protocol. I feel for all but think crew did the right thing.

I remember watching one of those fly-on-the-wall airline documentaries, and a man had a violin in a case. He joked to customs that it was a machine gun, and he was immediately taken away by airport security and questioned. He missed his flight, got some sort of caution, and had to buy a new ticket.

It seems they take these things really seriously, whether said in jest or unavoidably as part of a disability.

Whilst addictions are illnesses, they are not disabilities which are protected by law.

I'm not saying that people who shout "bomb" should be allowed on planes, I'm saying discretion should be used when it's someone with the Tourette's disability, as they cannot control their verbal tics. The airline were forewarned about his condition, and they had a letter confirming this condition/disability.

Tourette's Syndrome is a neurological condition, not a behavioural choice.

You’re incorrect. A lot of addictions cause physical or mental issues that are then classed as a disability.

I'd be interested to know how the flight the next day went and if there were any shouts of 'bomb' or not.

Right decision not to give in to intimidating behaviour by the family as that sets a terrible precedent.

If he had screened “THUNDERCUNT” repeatedly at the top of his lungs he would be let on board. Shouting BOMB at an airport is very different.

Denying him boarding was right. You can't risk the lives of a plane load of people, plus the city the plane crashes onto, just because you suspect, with no proof, that someone's having an oral tick instead of saying what they mean.

If he was doing something unacceptable but not actually harmful, absolutely, overlook it because it's his disability, but not something that could kill people.

Of course anyone, including a child with a family, who says they have a bomb should not board a flight. It's not negotiable, no matter what the reason. This is how safety protocols are supposed to work - to be absolute. There's not supposed to be leeway for staff to decide it's fine.