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

Is your question a hypothetical that the actual situation made you think of? Because the airline did what you said they should - kicked the family off of the flight. Unfortunately, in doing so, they missed the airport’s curfew and could no longer take off. They did just “cancel” the flight.

And for the next FOUR HOURS to Toronto?

Because the safety couldn't be guaranteed after either. If a child is that distressed, you do need to think about that.

All the people with children who clearly aren't escapologists, you are lucky. DD was fine on planes but could work any child lock, any buckle, any door lock, any fastener. She was incredibly wriggly and could go 0-60 in a speed other relatives couldn't believe when they saw it. Some kids are built differently.

Parent their kid?

😂 😂

Brilliant

It would be £100,000s. The cost of missed connecting flights, missed hotel rooms etc. Not to mention the cost to the airline. Although I'm not saying I disagree with you!

Good. They need to be taught a lesson

It sounds like the other people on the flight are a darn sight nicer than your common or garden MNetter.

Except that they could never pay it, so it would be a pointless gesture.

I think there’s a case for arguing that parents shouldn’t take children on flights until they’re older, unless it’s absolutely necessary, if they can’t control their behaviour. (I realise that it can’t be avoided sometimes. And it would be impossible to enforce anyway.)

My DD1 (now 17) has additional needs and her behaviour has been very challenging over the years. When she was a young child, we would have found it very hard to get her to sit still in an aeroplane seat, and keep her belt on. It was a battle we avoided by not taking our 2 DDs on a plane until they were 9 and 6.

I would have hated to be in the position of those parents in this situation.

People are only required to wear seatbelt for takeoff and landing, not for the entire flight. The article didn't mention that the crew considered the toddler unsafe to fly, just that they are not allowed to take off unless all passengers are wearing seatbelts. I really can't see that a toddler, even when distressed, could pose an actual danger to plane, passengers or crew mid-flight. Unless it's a baby Incredible Hulk or something?

19months the child would legally be allowed to be on parents knee with extension belt.

First problem is there's also the requirement to wear the seat belt in the event of turbulence, an unrestrained child actually could pose a risk to passengers and crew in the event of a really significant turbulence encounter ( yes I,'m applying sods law here but that's the thinking behind some of the precautions and rules)..

Secondly if there had been a major battle to get the child restrained for take-off it might have been a fair to assume that similar might happen prior to arrival in Toronto, in a situation where you don't have the benefit of holding forever while crew and parents try to get the child strapped in.

Frankly I can see exactly why the decision was made to return to the gate.

I have never seen a child run riot on a flight.
My worse was two girls who screamed at every bit of turbulence. Parents didn't say a word.

99% of kids are well behaved.

I've flown probably 100+ times in my life and I have never seen a child running riot. You must have extraordinary bad luck.

Don't you think that if that was the answer and the parents hadn't thought of it, the cabin crew might have suggested it?

Frankly I can see exactly why the decision was made to return to the gate

The decision was correct, as parents were unable or unwilling to keep their child strapped in. I am just questioning their choice. It's a toddler, we are talking about minutes here, I would have absolutely simply held mine seated and belted. But they for some reason decided to get off the plane instead.

yes they might have suggested and maybe parents were of the soft parenting style and simpy refused to? I can't see how 2 adults physically simply cannot manage to get one toddler to stay seated for takeoff.

Ok, so with the benefit of your superior parenting expertise, give us your foolproof method of establishing if a small child will be scared, and to what extent, without taking them on a plane.

Or surely much more likely it wasn't suffcient to satisfy the cabin crew everyone was safe.

well here we are both just speculating, but there is no rule that parent cannot physically hold a child who is trying to escape a seatbelt. Well, no rule stating specifically that it is allowed either, but I've seen it many times while flying, not the first kid who does not like to be strapped in. One of mine objected very strongly as well while toddler, I just held her.

How long did it take the parents to take their child off the plane ? Unbelievable really.

If the parents know their child is scared, don’t get on a plane.
If you don’t know they are, then just either strap them in or realise they are so unable to do as asked straight away you have no business being on a plane. It is too dangerous a place.

Holding up hundreds of people is selfish. I would be tempted to sue the parents.

Sigh. It didn't become apparent that the child was scared to this extent until after the plane left the gate. Exactly how do you remove your child in that situation?

They would have had to sit down before and had their belt checked. So the parents managed to get the child seated and strapped.

The parents I suspect would have had an idea that they would not keep it on. That they were unhappy on the plane before the plane began to depart.
That they would be unable to follow instructions. Or refuse to do so.

Sorry, I think this was entirely avoidable.
They had no business being on a plane.

From looking at accounts from people who were on the plane, I don't think that is the case. He was well behaved until the plane started moving.

@Monty36

They would have had to sit down before and had their belt checked. So the parents managed to get the child seated and strapped.

Maybe.

I don't know about Porter's procedures, but on a lot of airlines cabin crew only do a check of belts as part of their cabin walk through after the safety brief is done, by which time the aircraft is often well away from the gate.

Was she badly behaved or possibly SEN?