Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

...just for being male. His legally purchased ticket just happened to place him next to two unaccompanied minor boys. He did nothing wrong, yet was publically humiliated anyway. Like D1B on steroids, Stupid Virgin Australia thinks that EVERY male (not just RC priests) are paederasts.

Spoiler: show

Oh, they've publically decided to "review" their policy, but the damage has been done, and they will likely have to cough up a pretty penny should this abused hero decide to sue....

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/m ... ravel.html

A lot of airlines have had this policy for many, many, many years. I read this story few days back and was confused as to why this became a big deal now. British Airways, Air France, American, Qantas, and Singapore are among the large number that have the policy, and there's clearly historical reasoning if so many airlines have adopted it. Personally, I think the dude is overreacting. Maybe they didn't explain it clearly enough to him, but I certainly wouldn't feel like I'm a pedophile just because they ask me to move. Hell, male or female, I'm not really sure why you'd even want to sit next to a kid.

edit: Apparently British came under fire for this policy in 2010 after a similar incident but they kept it in place. I imagine the cost of losing a lawsuit for failing to protect a minor (and the ensuing bad publicity) is much worse than occasionally having to settle for "humiliating" someone...probably the difference between a few thousand and hundreds of thousands dollars. I guess it's all part of the risk-benefit analysis.

SuperHornet wrote:...just for being male. His legally purchased ticket just happened to place him next to two unaccompanied minor boys. He did nothing wrong, yet was publically humiliated anyway. Like D1B on steroids, Stupid Virgin Australia thinks that EVERY male (not just RC priests) are paederasts.

Spoiler: show

Oh, they've publically decided to "review" their policy, but the damage has been done, and they will likely have to cough up a pretty penny should this abused hero decide to sue....

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/m ... ravel.html

You're a dumb fuck.

So do they do the same thing if an adult is seated by a child regardless of the sex of either party? Adult male/child female? Adult female/child female? Adult female/child male?

I would be begging the airline waitress to find me another seat. The only thing worse than having to sit beside a kid on a long flight would be having to sit by two nasty little crumb crunchers.

∞∞∞ wrote:A lot of airlines have had this policy for many, many, many years. I read this story few days back and was confused as to why this became a big deal now. British Airways, Air France, American, Qantas, and Singapore are among the large number that have the policy, and there's clearly historical reasoning if so many airlines have adopted it. Personally, I think the dude is overreacting. Maybe they didn't explain it clearly enough to him, but I certainly wouldn't feel like I'm a pedophile just because they ask me to move. Hell, male or female, I'm not really sure why you'd even want to sit next to a kid.

edit: Apparently British came under fire for this policy in 2010 after a similar incident but they kept it in place. I imagine the cost of losing a lawsuit for failing to protect a minor (and the ensuing bad publicity) is much worse than occasionally having to settle for "humiliating" someone...probably the difference between a few thousand and hundreds of thousands dollars. I guess it's all part of the risk-benefit analysis.

I don't see the problem. I'd gladly give up my seat so I wouldn't have to sit next to kids. This guy is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

JohnStOnge wrote:So do they do the same thing if an adult is seated by a child regardless of the sex of either party? Adult male/child female? Adult female/child female? Adult female/child male?

From the article, there was NOTHING even remotely resembling gender equity in their application of the policy. The airline said that while they would NORMALLY try to seat the kids alone, there were too many people on this flight for that, so they immediately sat a woman with them.

I'm all for Title IX, but like the elimination of boys baseball, wrestling, track, and golf, I don't believe that you can infringe on the rights of men in general because SOME people screw up.

So this dude was upset because he wanted to sit with the little boys...

....and you seem to understand his being upset.....

SuperHornet wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:So do they do the same thing if an adult is seated by a child regardless of the sex of either party? Adult male/child female? Adult female/child female? Adult female/child male?

From the article, there was NOTHING even remotely resembling gender equity in their application of the policy. The airline said that while they would NORMALLY try to seat the kids alone, there were too many people on this flight for that, so they immediately sat a woman with them.

I'm all for Title IX, but like the elimination of boys baseball, wrestling, track, and golf, I don't believe that you can infringe on the rights of men in general because SOME people screw up.

I thought you hated men.

When I flew a bunch for business I used to prefer Southwest with their open seating policy - on full flights I'd always look for the single mom flying with an infant and sit with them, if only because it pretty much gtd that if there was only 1 empty seat on the plane it would be the middle seat between me and her, with her kid in her lap...

So this dude was upset because he wanted to sit with the little boys...

My guess is that he was upset because the action implied that he was a THREAT to the little boys. I"m guessing the same thing would've happened if it was little girls.

So, once again, it's OK to discriminate against a certain sex if the sex is male. And, though this one is not related to this story, it's OK to discriminate against a certain race if the race is white. So on and so forth.

Don't get me wrong. I think people should be free to discriminate on the basis of race and sex. But it's interesting to me that the people who say you SHOULDN'T be able to do that make exceptions for males in general and especially for white males in particular.

Another example: It's fine to charge males more for auto insurance based on risk models but DON'T YOU DARE charge females more for health insurance based on risk models.

So if Elena Kagan were seated next to an unaccompanied 12-year old girl on an international flight, would they reseat her?

JayBilasBitesPillows wrote:So if Elena Kagan were seated next to an unaccompanied 12-year old girl on an international flight, would they reseat her?

Yes they would - the 12 year old girl, that is...

Would they give the Supreme Court Justice an old smelly piece of carpet to munch on for her inflight snack?