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

ive taken a flight before that was the last chance to see someone.
I’d have been devastated if my flight was cancelled due to this and missing my opportunity to say goodbye

Did you read it? It wasn't so much being badly behaved he was scared. Perhaps he was a little young

They usually give you a seatbelt to put around the parent which goes around the child as well. I had to do this once when my son who has severe autism was about 6 refused to keep seat belt on for landing. Luckily he’s very slim and the belt went around him easily. He soon settled on my knee and fell asleep. It was because our fight was at stupid o’clock and he had hardly any sleep. He was tired and wanted to lie down but couldn’t. I’ve refused to get an early flight since then not worth the stress.

But surely that child had travelled in a car before or in a buggy if very young? The idea that you wear a belt couldn't have been new.

They probably thought the child would be okay once onboard. Of course the parents didn’t want this to happen… But, it’s what happened!

Yes and I can only imagine the 62% who have said the OP is NBU haven't read it either.

Mind boggling.

Few years ago I was on a flight to Schiphol with some very rowdy passengers. When we landed the pilot apologised but said nobody would be disembarking until the police arrived to detain said passengers. They would be held, then returned to UK, and not allowed to enter the Netherlands. The rest of us sat very quietly until the police left. I have been on flights since that should have taken the same approach.

Whatever the cause of the child's refusal to stay seatbelted it does not change the fact that it's a safety requirement. Other passengers and airline staff cannot parent the child so if a child refuses which results in delays and costs for both passengers and airline the parents should be at the bare minimum be put on a no fly list for a period to prevent it happening again. The parents stopped everyone flying because they weren't willing to pick their child up and walk off the plane.

Endangering an aircraft is an offense
Ban them for life

As in, simply open the door of a plane that’s already rolling and then jump down 10m? This incident happened after the plane had left its parking position.

Had this with a flight back from majorca some time ago. A boy of around 10 with additional needs including refusing to wear any clothes refused to sit or wear a belt. The mother kicking off about discrimination and threatening to sue if they tried to offload them. The crew completely frustrated. Even moving people out of paid-for front row seats because the mother insisted he and she needed those seats. We were hours and hours delayed. I couldn't quite believe what we all witnessed.

It could be, but this child was slipping out of the seat belt and under the seat. Parents could have done something.

Tbh I think the parents should be liable for the airlines losses incurred because of their child’s behaviour… that might make parents think twice about how they parent their kids and - yes, am going to infer that he may have had SEN needs - whether their child should be taken on flights at all, especially without a contingency in place against meltdowns.

I've been on flights before that were delayed taking off and had to return to gate because the receiving airport would have been closed for the night. Frustrating but the airline's hands were tied. It takes time to return and deboard passengers and luggage. I feel sorry for the child who was scared, not wilful, but could the parents not have done something?

It explains that the airline could not fly because it was then too late - presumably because they missed their slot or because staff may have been above authorised hours. It’s not the airline’s fault.

Not in North America they don't. Small children - under 2 - sit on their parent's lap without a belt being held. An older child with its own seat uses the standard seatbelt.

Agree that if the child was small enough to be standing on the seat and slipping under the seatbelt, they were young enough to be physically restrained by the parent. I think any one us in the situation with a little sod of a child who would not sit still would assist the parent so the flight could take off safely. I definitely would.

And as for "they were scared" - awww, diddums. Again the parent's fault for not managing the situation. Perhaps one of those parents who asks tantrumming toddlers to make better choices or explain their feelings?

I was on a plane where a little kid was refusing to sit down and they said we couldn't take off until she had. The parents forced her into the seatbelt and we took off. I was so relieved. She screamed the place down for a while but that was far better than the flight not going.

For info it was too late because (according to reports elsewhere) the airport closed for departures at 0030 local time, nothing to do with ATC slots or crew hours.

Many countries/airports have no flex when it comes to night noise curfews, Australia (certainly Sydney) and Germany are infamous for it, looks like this airport in Canada is another

This story has gome around the world for no good reason. The child was scared not an arsehole. There is no evidence the child is gently parented. The family was removed. Victoria airport closes so the flight couldn't go later.

But everyone is an aviation and parenting expert without reading the facts.

Just try to read long form before you immediately and emotionally react in whatever your form of bias wants you to. Media nonsense designed for clicks.

Seriously. The facts are that an entire planeload of passengers was inconvenienced because the parents - and the article is clear that it's parents plural could not make their small child sit on its arse and put its belt on.

The stuff about it being scared not naughty is completely irrelevant. Total parenting fail.

Open the door and walk into air? Onto the taxi route to the runway?? Leaving their luggage in the plane against all travel rules??
As others have said the plane had left the gate, timings are that tight...this wasn't a bus to get straight off

Scared or arsehole makes no difference.

There's no flex in the timings for passengers to get cold feet and freak out. There's no contingency for waiting around while someone processes big feelings. The plane goes when scheduled. There are also numerous passengers who depend on that flight leaving on time.

The point people were making is that it's tough if the child is scared - it shouldn't stop everyone else from getting where they needed to go.

Physical restraint by the parents was needed, and perhaps they should reconsider plane travel if they are not willing to insist the child complies 🤷‍♀️

Somebody else's child isn't the problem of other passengers

You can't just walk off a plane once it's left the gate.

The child was frightened and it also seems to have been after 11pm, so I'd suggest the lateness of the flight was a big factor in unsettling the child.