Stop airlines charging women extra for travelling with expressed milk

[SantasBigHelper]

Please sign and share if you agree:

www.change.org/p/justine-greening-mp-allow-women-to-fly-with-expressed-breastmilk-free-of-charge

You've rather missed the point Pestilence.

People with FF babies don't have to bring formula with them when travelling without the baby.

Kickass, I totally agree. Telling a woman to suck it up because, y'know, she's breastfeeding now and everybody knows that means she has to lose out in ways to which men aren't subject... it spectacularly misses the point of equal opportunities (as well as smacking of an "I'm alright Jack" attitude).

OP I agree in principle that a breastfeeding mother should be able to transport more than 100ml expressed milk without being charged money to do so, even if travelling without a baby. (And to PP: yes, of course it's possible to do so safely).

However, the petition is too woolly and needs more specific goals. For example, unlimited expressed milk in the hold is unfeasible so what limit should apply: 1 litre, 10kg, etc.? And what about the need for airport security to screen samples of milk (as they can do when travelling with a baby): does that need special provision? And should it be limited to breastfeeding mothers or should anyone (e.g., partner) be allowed to transport expressed milk? These questions and more all need answering as part of developing a policy so I don't think it's feasible for a petition to specify them. Also, unless you want this agreement to be limited to domestic flights, shouldn't a petition be directed to the European Commission rather than the UK Civil Aviation Authority?

I missed the point completely, I used to take the babies and the nanny with me when I travelled for work when BF.
I may have saved a fortune not buying formula, but I spent another fortune in compromises to make my choices work.
You should be able to fit a fair amount of expressed milk and your clothes in one hold bag. Why is that not a reasonable solution?

OK - let's break this down. It isn't about whether dads with young babies can travel, or how people with FF babies are treated. It's about the absolute basic principle of discrimination.

1. Women who lactate can't conveniently 'switch off' the milk supply or simply throw it away. It is a biological fact that they will lactate and that they will need to be able to travel with milk.

1. there are certain 'protected characteristics' within law which it is illegal to discriminate against. Charging extra for providing a service counts as discrimination.

so - a service provider (let's not confuse people, we'll stick to airlines) can't charge someone using a wheelchair for causing extra work and taking extra time going through security. They can't charge extra if a person needs a longer lap belt if they're pregnant. they can't charge extra for allowing people with mobility problems to board ahead of others. It's against the law.

1. Anyone who has a protected characteristic is legally protected from this kind of discrimination. They are legally entitled to access services with reasonable accommodations being made for them. For a service provider, such as an airline, not to do this is breaking the law.

TBH - a petition shouldn't be needed. Anyone should be able to contact the relevant govt. departments and say 'this co. is breaking discrimination law. Please stop them'.

Airlines cannot charge someone for a reasonable accommodation under discrimination legislation. They're breaking the law. Anyone who wants to try and say it isn't 'reasonable' for a lactating woman to want to be able to carry milk on a flight would have to prove that it was so truly inconvenient that it affects the business's ability to operate, or that women could somehow 'choose' when to lactate or not. The onus, btw, is on the service provider to prove that they're being asked to do something unreasonable, not on the person to prove that it IS reasonable.

(There are, of course, countries where there aren't discrimination laws, but the OP had specified areas of travel)

KickAss - thank you for wording it infinitely better and more concisely than I did.

Geeka - thanks for your thoughts. I see your point about specific goals and about being wooly, but I'm not sure how feasible/fair it would be to put a limit on it. Some women need to be away from their babies longer than others. Some women lactate more than others. It would be hard to imagine a breastfeeding mother being away from her baby long enough to produce a volume that would be unreasonable to ask the airline to transport.

It's only ever mother's who are discriminated by the current situation as it's only ever mothers that need to express milk whilst separated from their child and then to transport that milk back, so I don't think partners need to come into it. If they are travelling with the baby they of course fall under the special conditions for travelling with baby milk. I don't imagine there is any need for the airport to screen milk in the hold. They only screen milk in hand luggage.

Pestilence - you've missed the point again. You have to pay extra for a hold bag. If a breastfeeding mother have no requirement for a hold bag other than to transport expressed milk due to hand luggage liquids restrictions then she is being forced into paying for her biology.

1. Women who lactate can't conveniently 'switch off' the milk supply or simply throw it away. It is a biological fact that they will lactate and that they will need to be able to travel with milk.

Well, that's wrong for a start. I lactated, and travelled, and expressed in the shower (or toilet once when desperate) the only place I travelled with milk was in my boobs (or soaking into my t-shirt when unexpectedly delayed)

A man with a baby at home can leave formula to feed it, a woman can do the same. A breast feeding mother doesn't need to express and bring large amounts home. She may want to, but she doesn't need to. She can express before the trip, she can express during and bring hand-luggage amounts home etc.

I can't see this as discrimination. OP has to travel to do her freelance work - this freelance work makes breastfeeding tricky, as her own employer, she is responsible for dealing with this, not the airline. Her business should pay the €50 for a checked bag or whatever - and if her business can't do that, then her business can't afford to employ her to do her job. This isn't an airline discrimination problem, but an insufficiently profitable business problem.

Chocchoc - actually in my case I do need to express and bring large amounts home.

My baby can only have breastmilk.

Whilst I can express before the trip, the expressed store gets depleted whilst I am away, so if I don't bring milk back I can't take any work (even work close to home) for another couple of weeks as I have to build the store back up.

In my line of work I pay my own flights as I have to go to where the work is.

Therefore I have to pay more to fly than a man in the same situation as me does.

Thanks for your speculation with regards to whether my business is profitable I'm just not sure it's particularly relevant when it comes to the question of why I have to pay more to fly just because I am breastfeeding.

I will not be signing this. I see no reason at all why the milk can't be put in the checked in hold luggage. Not all airlines charge extra for hold luggage and frankly if you can afford to fly you can afford to pay the checked in luggage charge; particularly when if you are travelling for work the cost will either be charged to your employer or tax deductible if you are self employed.

I see no reason why airport security should be made more of a hassle whilst everyone else is held up whilst the security staff are checking bags of breast milk.

All airlines in the U.K. charge extra for hold luggage on domestic flights.

Who is it for you to decide what people can and can't afford?

The whole point is that there is an imbalance - breastfeeding women who need to transport their milk need to pay more to fly than anyone else.

Nothing to do with airport security having to check bags either. It's about hold baggage.

Nothing to do with airport security having to check bags either. It's about hold baggage

Are you saying it can't be put in the checked in hold luggage? I thought your gripe was you had to pay for checked in luggage because it could be put in the checked in luggage but not in the carry on luggage.

Re the rules for UK flights I never fly internally as always take trains. I still have no sympathy for anyone who can afford to fly complaining about the extra costs of paying for checked in luggage.

I'm saying a breastfeeding woman can't bring expressed milk along with her when flying without paying extra.

I'm saying that this is sexist as it's a premium that only breastfeeding women are forced to pay.

But anyway, you lost me at 'sympathy'.

Is it really so difficult to imagine that a new mum who has to work might:

A) have to take flights as a way to minimise nights away from home.

B) be on a tight budget

?

So how do you propose this works?

If it is in hand luggage exclude the liquid safety rules just because you say it is milk?

Apply the liquid safety rules and cause further delays at check in?

Just disapply all checked baggage fees as long as there is nothing else other than breast milk in your checked in luggage?

I think lasswi has no grasp of facts and has a typical tory voter mentality of 'I don't do that/pay for that why would anyone else'. I travel often internally for work and as a man I find it abhorrent that many users think its okay to tell a mother to take her extremely young baby on flights. It's disgusting and a new low on mumsnet. It's not enough users have to attack transsexuals but now even attacking mothers... I've read it all now.

The facts are that the user has clearly stated her cause and either you support or move on. Not post nonsensical answers which has nothing to do with facts.

I agree OP I believe that the best form of nutrition for a child if available is breast milk as it had other qualities other than pure nutrition such as a antibodies against things. I fully support your cause and I do think it is an extremely hard compromise put on mums. If I had a daughter I wouldn't want her to pay for something out of hand (the audacity of some to even suggest) for something that her baby needs.

Xposted but perhaps there needs to be another solution. I think technology is already developed so at the airport if there was an bottle of explosives covered as baby milk it would be extremely easy to test it and remove it. Also the fact that our dear govt had already gone to so many troubles should mean that before a potential terrorist goes to the airport that terrorist should be already arrested. Otherwise what's the point of stringent legislature that should've never been allowed to pass?

I think that Santas has said that her solution is for airlines to allow breastmilk in the hold, without charge. So you could specify that your hold luggage will only contain breastmilk and check that in, without charge. Fairly similar to how some airlines let parents check in a buggy/pram and car seat for free.

Speaknowords, I agree and that seems the most sensible suggestion. Another backer here Santa. I'm going to sleep so I bid mumsnet goodnight. My tiredness is responsible for the typos and I don't have the energy to correct them. Good luck OP.

But the milk will freeze in the hold. And then defrost again. You'd need to feed it to the baby pretty quickly. And then where was it before the hold? Has it already been pre frozen? I wouldn't be feeding that milk to anyone.

OP I assume your daughter has allergies? Have you tried specialist formula? I'm not trying to be snippy; I think if you're determined to continue flying you would be prudent to look into other solutions- some degree of mix feeding or whatever. Your current set up seems too precarious.

Presumably women who might need to do this would have thought about the practicalities. I guess I'd pack it all in a freezer bag with ice packs, it would freeze and then stay frozen for a good while. If it did defrost then you'd have to use it within 24 hours. It's not ideal but it's better than just having to chuck it away.

The more I think about this, it would be very easy for airlines to offer this service. Not many women would need to use it, but it would be very helpful for those that do. It wouldn't be any kind of impact on the airline either. So it seems churlish to object to it, I think.

I think lasswi has no grasp of facts and has a typical tory voter mentality of 'I don't do that/pay for that why would anyone else'

A typical Tory voter - how interesting.

But your argument states that your baby NEEDS breast milk. I don't believe this is true. Yes, it would be nice if your baby has bm, but it is not essential. Heaven forbid you hadn't been able to bf for any reason - what would your baby have done then?

Definately not good for milk to be hanging around for a few days waiting to be used having been frozen and then defrosted.

I would suggest the grammatical errors are fixed before it's submitted. "When separated from it's mother" etc

I agree with pp - unlikely that large volumes of milk would be able to be ingested in time to be useful and it can't be refrozen. Sure, I'm extrapolating to my own situation but I've managed to bf 4 kids, each for around 2 years without asking airlines to change the rules just for me. I've not given any formula, worked, travelled, gone to conferences etc. There's always been ways around it, usually expressing for comfort and building up a stash before a planned trip. Not holding up people at airports with extra liquids.

Thanks Milk and Speakno for understanding that this brave new world I am suggesting is not so impossible to imagine.

Lass - how many more ways can I explain this in this thread? I'll paint the scene this time.

Mother embarks on her return journey home. Takes expressed milk out of fridge or freezer. Places in cool bag along with frozen ice blocks. Heads to airport.

At check in/bag drop mother says ' I have a cool bag of expressed milk here, I believe I can pop it in the hold free of charge as it's too much to take through as hand luggage?'

Airline representative says 'sure madam, do you mind just unzipping it for me so I can see it is milk inside that cool bag?'

Mother - 'sure'

Airline representative - 'everything seems to be in order here, have a nice flight.'

NOTE: currently milk travelling in hold is not tested at this point, nor is it tested before it gets on the plane presumably unless airport security have worried about the bag. No change to this current situation proposed.

Mother then goes for a coffee (or potentially a bottle of straight vodka if she has been attempting to put forward a feminist suggestion to make working breastfeeding mothers lives a little easier on the mumsnet feminist chat board).

Plane takes off, milk stays in hold which is cold, plane lands. Mother picks up cool bag from carousel assessing how long the gap has been between plane landing and carousel pick up, checks whether milk is still cold/frozen and depending on what state it was in when she handed it in at check in, makes assessment on whether it is safe to put it in the fridge or freezer based on this, heads home, cuddles baby.

Showme + Cushion - This has already got far more personal to my own situation than I wanted it to, so I'm not going to get bullied into discussing my own child's medical condition or eating habits as it's irrelevant to my argument. However I will point out that given that airlines agree that breastmilk is an essential for a baby when the baby is travelling and thus will give it special conditions to be carried in greater volumes through security, is it such a leap to imagine that the same child needs the same milk when the mother has been travelling without the child, therefore that particular milk an essential medical item for that particular child, thus why should the airline profit from the mother being forced to pay a premium to carry that milk home?

I totally understand that for you this is a real issue, and that it would irk as it's costing you money just because you're a breastfeeding mum.

I do, however, think that the number of ladies this affects is so so small, maybe a handful of people a year? It will cost hundreds of thousands for MPs to spend their time debating, updating airline regulations, then for airlines to review and adjust their own specific policies. Then practically, it will happen so infrequently that in practise, ground staff may not actually be aware of this rule. The cost on the flip side is for a few ladies a year to spend £20-£30(?) on checked baggage, and whilst not trying to pry into your own personal finances OP, these ladies are unlikely to be on the breadline.

To me, the group of people who are away for long enough that they have deemed that they don't want checked baggage anyway (given that you then have costs of new razors/deodorants every time you fly for hand luggage), are expressing that amount of breastmilkuet away from baby, and also trust the hold/airport transport as a constant temperature that they are not just going to chuck their milk anyway is so small.

By having this rule that you are asking, airlines may also be concerned that it would look like they are guaranteeing that this could be done safely, without it defrosting/refrosting en route, which isn't the case.-

This doesn't affect only me. Ive also posted this idea on a breastfeeding support group boards and have received nothing but positivity for the idea - 49 of the people that have read my thoughts about it have agreed that this is an issue and signed the petition.

Where do you get this figure that it would cost hundreds of thousands of pounces to implement this?

The petition is about asking the minister for equalities to open a conversation with airlines to see if there is a way to redress an imbalance.

The only cost of this conversation would be to the airlines who would lose out on a number of checked bag premiums.

As PP outlined - there is actually no need for a petition about this. There is a clear cut case for equality discrimination that I can take directly to the government dept. I have to pay more to fly because I lactate the food needed for my son than a non-lactating person does.

It's really been an eye opener posting about an gender related inequality which affects me and others financially and which acts as a discouragement and hindrance when it comes to the careers of women who also breastfeed on a board about feminist chat and to have received such a depressing of responses.

Responses have ranged from derailing my point with a debate about empty bottles, to 'well it doesn't affect me, so I'm not bothered' to 'you should be able to afford to stump up more' to 'who not just feed your child something other than breastmilk' to 'you need to learn to compromise as a mum who wants to work'.

Whatever the motivations behind these responses, all I can tell you is the overwhelming message that's coming through to me from them seems to have a really dark subtext about not getting ideas above my station if I want to work, breastfeed and keep my child healthy.

I won't be signing either. there are too many ifs- If the plane is delayed and it defrosts, If the bag gets lost and misses the flight. There was the one incident that hit the papers . I would rather campaign for airlines to allocate FOC seats for children next to an adult when flying .