Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think this is unacceptable?

386 replies

flaviaritt · 14/12/2020 08:07

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9048759/Family-kicked-United-flight-New-Jersey-toddler-refused-wear-mask.html

This family were forced to leave a flight home because their two year old wouldn’t ‘comply’ with mask-wearing.

She’s 2.

Has the world gone mad? Surely it’s common sense that a young child should not be forced into a mask? Surely it’s a violation of the rights of the child to insist upon this?

OP posts:
onlythepianoplayer · 14/12/2020 11:01

Same as if they insisted children were drugged, or beaten unconscious before boarding

Your comparisons are getting stupider and more offensive. It's a bit of cloth, not beating a child unconcious.
WTF is wrong with you?

Wheresmykimchi · 14/12/2020 11:02

@flaviaritt

Absolutely. A parent who chooses to travel on an airline with this policy has complete responsibility. How do you contend the airline forced them to book?

I don’t. I contend that, as a group of adults who should have an understanding of concepts like causation, coercion and complicity, they should understand that they do have a part in the responsibility for their own policies. Same as if they insisted children were drugged, or beaten unconscious before boarding. Yes, the parents would be responsible - and these parents, knowing it is wrong, didn’t do it - but they are responsible as well.

Beaten unconscious before boarding Grin

I've read a few ridiculous posts in my time on MN but that takes the biscuit. You are surely on the wind up.

Viviennemary · 14/12/2020 11:02

They must have known about the rules before flying. If they thought the rules didn't apply to them why did they fly. I wouldnt have booked with that airline.

Original poster
flaviaritt · 14/12/2020 11:03

What violence? You can't just say that as if its fact and not your weird opinion.

I can say what I like. I think forcing a distressed child into a mask is a violent act.

OP posts:
Original poster
flaviaritt · 14/12/2020 11:04

Wheresmykimchi

You have missed my point. I am not comparing the two things. I am saying that the airline cannot abdicate its responsibility for any harm done by the actions of the parents, when they mandated those actions as a condition of travel.

OP posts:
Original poster
flaviaritt · 14/12/2020 11:04

onlythepianoplayer

It was not a comparison. Read it again.

OP posts:
Wheresmykimchi · 14/12/2020 11:05

@flaviaritt

Wheresmykimchi

You have missed my point. I am not comparing the two things. I am saying that the airline cannot abdicate its responsibility for any harm done by the actions of the parents, when they mandated those actions as a condition of travel.

You still haven't answered my question though.
Jaxhog · 14/12/2020 11:05

They knew the rules before getting on the plane. This is a publicity stunt.

Wheresmykimchi · 14/12/2020 11:06

@flaviaritt

Wheresmykimchi

You have missed my point. I am not comparing the two things. I am saying that the airline cannot abdicate its responsibility for any harm done by the actions of the parents, when they mandated those actions as a condition of travel.

Of course they can. They set the policy and if the parents didn't like it they shouldn't have travelled.
Original poster
flaviaritt · 14/12/2020 11:06

You have a strange view of responsibility Flavia. So instead of a parent choosing not to fly because they don't follow the rules , the airline should just not let them on?

Yes. They should take responsibility, not try to evade it with the nonsensical argument that it isn’t ‘them’ physically doing it.

What about the parents of 2 year olds whos children will happily wear a mask? Are they just not allowed on because you think it's abuse?

Yes, if necessary. I would rather a ban on young children flying than see little kids being abused.

OP posts:
MaryLeeOnHigh · 14/12/2020 11:06

@flaviaritt

The airline was perfectly reasonable to behave as they did.

Their behaviour is separate to that of the parents. They insist on 2 year olds wearing masks. They don’t have to do that. So they are accountable for the harm it causes.

There are countless things that airlines choose to do that they don't have to do, including their choice of destinations, decor, the food they serve, etc etc. What if someone has to take a longer journey because the airline doesn't go to their chosen destination? What if a passenger goes hungry because they don't like what's on offer? Is the airline accountable for that?
Butchyrestingface · 14/12/2020 11:06

Did a bit of research, the mother is a Trump supporting, covid denying Instagram 'star'.

For those offences alone, she should have been kicked off the plane ...

at 35,000 feet.

Kid can stay.

Original poster
flaviaritt · 14/12/2020 11:06

You still haven't answered my question though.

I was answering something else. So what?

OP posts:
Wheresmykimchi · 14/12/2020 11:07

@flaviaritt

You have a strange view of responsibility Flavia. So instead of a parent choosing not to fly because they don't follow the rules , the airline should just not let them on?

Yes. They should take responsibility, not try to evade it with the nonsensical argument that it isn’t ‘them’ physically doing it.

What about the parents of 2 year olds whos children will happily wear a mask? Are they just not allowed on because you think it's abuse?

Yes, if necessary. I would rather a ban on young children flying than see little kids being abused.

But they aren't forcing anyone to do it. If you don't like it , don't travel.

Re your second point - you are now making decisions for other parents, which is a very strange world.

Sorry you can't go and visit whoever , I know you're fine wearing a mask but flaviaritt says you can't.

Wheresmykimchi · 14/12/2020 11:08

@MaryLeeOnHigh what if someone meets someone on a plane , embark on a romance then get divorced....can they sue th airline Grin

Original poster
flaviaritt · 14/12/2020 11:08

MaryLeeOnHigh

The logical contortions you will go to to justify this as startling. What the hell does decor have to do with this? Yes, the airline is responsible for the basic wellbeing of its passengers. If someone boards with someone else hitting or assaulting them, the airline can’t just say “It wasn’t me.” If someone has a heart attack on board, they have to get them medical help. They are not just incidental observers here. They have a duty of care.

OP posts:
MaryLeeOnHigh · 14/12/2020 11:09

@flaviaritt

So 2 year olds are magically unable to transmit the virus?

No. They can transmit it. That doesn’t make it okay to abuse them to protect adults who don’t have to be there.

But no-one is abusing them. It makes zero difference to the 2 year old whether she gets on that flight or not. In fact, she's probably much happier not having to do so.
BestZebbie · 14/12/2020 11:09

I don't see any difference between wearing a mask and wearing any other item of clothing that a toddler might decide they dislike (e.g. any item of clothing at all, possibly at random with no notice) - I presume all toddlers were also required to remain fully dressed during the flight.

LastTrainEast · 14/12/2020 11:10

As others have pointed out that airline is famous for it's bad treatment of passengers. Perhaps a bit of patience might have solved the problem.

I wouldn't force a 2 yo to wear a mask, but did the parents not consider this in advance? Suppose the problem was that the 2yo couldn't be kept in a seat during take-off? Would we say that was ok?

notimagain · 14/12/2020 11:10

Not sure if the US CDC interim guidance behind all this has been posted already....if it has, apologies

www.cdc.gov/quarantine/masks/mask-travel-guidance.html

In part..

"Conveyance operators should ensure that any person on the conveyance wears a mask when boarding, disembarking, and for the duration of travel. Depending on the circumstances, conveyances operators should take the following actions:"

....

"monitor the conveyance for any person who does not wear a mask and seek compliance from such person; and
at the earliest opportunity, disembark any person who refuses to comply;"

...."Mask use may be exempted for the following categories of people":

"a child under the age of 2 (masks should NOT be worn by children under the age of 2)"

Wheresmykimchi · 14/12/2020 11:11

@flaviaritt

MaryLeeOnHigh

The logical contortions you will go to to justify this as startling. What the hell does decor have to do with this? Yes, the airline is responsible for the basic wellbeing of its passengers. If someone boards with someone else hitting or assaulting them, the airline can’t just say “It wasn’t me.” If someone has a heart attack on board, they have to get them medical help. They are not just incidental observers here. They have a duty of care.

They don't have a duty of care. What a strange thing to say.

I find it amazing you are Ok with forcible strapping down.

Most of my school kids don't like wearing masks. They know that without exemptions , they can't be in without a mask. Parents have a choice then. But if they choose to not send their child, that is not my fault. No more than is it an air hostesses fault if someone precious doesn't want their child to wear a mask.

A two year old could transmit and kill someone's granny. But ah well, as long as the kid is safe and happy eh.

MaryLeeOnHigh · 14/12/2020 11:11

@flaviaritt

Clearly some people think it is fine to force a child into discomfort and distress because they might transmit an illness to adults. What happened to the interests of the child? When did we all become so short-sighted and selfish? Children - practically babies - should not be paying the price of our fear. If you are happy to force a child into a mask, I think you are a coward and an abuser.
The only people forcing this child into discomfort and distress were her parents who chose to book a flight where they knew she would have to wear a mask. Feel free to report these parents to child protection authorities in the US.
Original poster
flaviaritt · 14/12/2020 11:11

a child under the age of 2 (masks should NOT be worn by children under the age of 2)"

Madness. 2 is a baby.

OP posts:
Awwlookatmybabyspider · 14/12/2020 11:13

Its all very well people throwing the old Don't like it lump it chestnut around.
In business if we all lumped what we didn't like and went elsewhere, theyd have no custom.

Wheresmykimchi · 14/12/2020 11:14

@flaviaritt

a child under the age of 2 (masks should NOT be worn by children under the age of 2)"

Madness. 2 is a baby.

No , 2 is a toddler. A baby is a baby. Agree with PP who say the only abuse was putting the child in the position in the first place.