AIBU to think cancelling the flight over a child was excessive

[MrsShawnHatosy]

An airline cancelled a flight because a child refused to sit down and put their seatbelt on. AIBU to think they should have asked the parents to get off, rather than cancelling the flight and stranding the rest of the passengers?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/travel/news/flight-cancelled-passengers-stranded-due-37532204

Ok How exactly would you have got your 3 yo to sit in the seat?

Remember this flight was already 6 hours delayed, you've a tired cranky 3yo, who's frightened and probably tired.

I don't think 3 yo can be held responsible. I'd love to see the judge 👨‍⚖️ deal with that.

Nor do I think parents could physically restrain them while sitting in their own seat.

Some sort of harness yes. But I don't see how normal reins would do it. The isssue seems to be the child was sliding under the belt, some sort of crotch strap is needed.

But remember a plane needs to be able to evaluate in 90 seconds. So it needs to be something quickly released.

True, but what's the number of passengers who need seat extenders before they can fly verses the number of toddlers who will cause a flight delay or cancellation if they are forced to use a conventional seat belt?

I'd suggest there are quite a few of the former but very very few of the latter, so from the airline POV the cost v benefit equation may not stack up in favour of providing child harnesses gratis.

Not sure tying children up is ah, permitted tbh

Tying up anyone (adult or child) in an aircraft on the ground and then going flying isn't usually allowed either.....

There likely wasn't anything the parents could have done at that point, because the damage had already been done in their years of lax and insipid (non-)parenting leading to a child that is uncontrollable.

Is that not what we do when we drive. Essentially tie them to the seat?

We are all tied down when we fly to stop us hitting the ceiling in event of hitting an air pocket.

No. There is a rather big difference.

What’s the difference between “tying a child up” and strapping them into a strong car seat?

I may have misunderstood but I thought the context of the comment I was replying to was restraint as in the handcuffs and other kit that might be onboard.

That's (obviously) and as you mention not quite the same as the seatbelts

This is very unfair. They could be useless but a toddler having a tantrum/meltdown isn't really evidence of this, or most parents would be in this category.

I remember my 4yo completely losing it outside the supermarket because I said no to a magazine with plastic toys. He had outgrown the buggy and was too big to carry long distances, so there was nothing to do but wait it out. If he had been smaller or we'd had the car or buggy, it would have been a fireman's lift and strapped in. As it was, it was completely out of character for him and I wasn't expecting it at all as he's normally fairly calm.

The parents should be made to pay the costs of every single passenger on this plane.

Selfish cunts. I hate seeing a child at the gate when I’m about to get on a flight because you know the flight will be horrendous. I try to secure exit row seats whenever possible so that I can avoid them.

I was replying to the comment about using reins.

You can’t just tie people up to restrain them, no matter how urgent it might seem. I’m fairly sure it’s unlawful and could be dangerous.

While I realise that MN has numerous boards and discussions that it isn’t important whether you’re a parent or not, these sorts of comments do make me wonder if the childfree board is a force for good.

I don’t personally think that it is. It is one thing to be childfree and enjoy book discussions and gardening talk and so on. It is another to be childfree and actively dislike children.

Ah ..off topic but for info - in flight, yes crew can tie/secure people up on board if the situation demands it, perfectly lawful in most jurisdictions (including the UK) if approved by the pilot in command.

What you can't do on an aircraft is tie someone up, or similar, just to ensure they are restrained for takeoff..

Not sure if that's really relevant but hope that makes sense.

..

I love children, just not on a flight.

Nine times out of ten the parents are awful, let the kids run riot and don’t parent them. Like this situation.

Makes sense 👍🏻

People asking what the parents possibly could have done and how you can keep a toddler in their seat - hold them until seatbelt signs go off so they can't slide under the belt? Most parents are stronger than their toddlers, we are not talking about a tantrumming teenager.

You clearly didn't even read the article you linked! 🙄

It’s just embarrassing for the parents to be honest

The child was three!

How do we know the child was three? Just curious as I haven't been able to see the age online anywhere.

Presumably they were young if able to hide under the seat but it seems to be a fact on this thread that child was three.

There are various reports from people on the plane that the child was approx 3. One has him at 19mo. All say the child wasn't being bratty but was scared. None criticise the parents, only the airline's communication.

But hey, people who weren't there obviously know much better.

If the kid is that scared the parents shouldn’t be taking them on a plane. Or they should restrain it.

It’s just another excuse for diabolical parenting isn’t it?

Looking at Porter's website if the child was under 2 they either needed to be in a car seat or on an adults lap....

That might throw doubt on the 19 month figure....

What aspects of the airline's communications are causing grumbles?