Live Flight Tracking

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/ap_on_re_us/flight_tantrum_2

And the family gets a free trip and another free trip.

What is wrong with this picture?

Now let me see if I have this right.
I have a toddler which means I am one of the first to get on the airplane and for the next 20 or so minutes I can't get control of the little terror? Then when the crew comes along and elects to inconvenience me instead of the 100 plus other passengers I get ticked off?

I rode home from Hawaii one time (which carrier is unimportant) with a screaming toddler next to me. Mom did nothing to stop it. After about 45 minutes I got up and stood in the galley for the rest of the trip. It was a full boat so there was nowere else to go. The F/A's would look at me and I would say I am seated next to the screaming kid and they all gave that knowing nod.

The same story is posted on MSNBC news.

There is a poll with the article. 88% voted that the airline is justified in removing the family. A discussion forum is virtually unanimous in supporting the airline. There are (by now) at least a couple of hundred comments.

As a parent of a three-year-old daughter who has screamed on a couple of flights, I sympathize with the parents and the child, but I also agree that the airline did the right thing!

I think the father is more of a whiney cry-baby than his toddler daughter. No wonder the kid was acting like a brat - she learned it from her daddy.

The father says they will never fly AirTran again.

My first thought - good for AirTran, and their customers.

My second thought - BS! This nightmare and his family, like so many other travelers, has no concern about travel that is not overcome by a $5 difference in ticket price or some silly "loyalty" reward.

A gentleman would have not had to be asked to leave, nor likely had the problem with the child in the first place.

100% right to ask them to leave. They gave them a chance to calm the kid down and they failed. The kid needs to be in a seat with seat belt fastened for take off and landing. is the PIC going to risk his ticket because of someone else's screaming kid? I think not.

Just looked at the MSNBC response thread to the story, so far 203 pages (I only made it through 55) and about 6 people are AGAINST the airline.

The family is from Bahston. 'Nuff said.

I have a four year old daughter, and last February she started crying at about FL200 that her belly hurt ( on an AirTran flight, nonetheless). The flight attendant graciously gave me a can of ginger ale before beverage service even began, and my older daughter took her to the lav to see if that helped. Worked like a charm, Thank God.

I sympathize with the parents to this point: Sometimes, it's hard to stop a tantrum, particularly in public where the eyes of the world watch every move you make, and actually dispensing punishment could land you a date with a social worker (or, worse, in court in some places ).

The airline made a wonderful gesture by rebooking the family on the next flight to RSW without any fees whatsoever. They then went above and beyond what was necessary by giving them another free trip. For this S.O.B. to say that he'll "never fly AirTran again" shows what a classless ingrate he is. Does he think that they should have just taken off with the child screaming like that? Seems like somebody thinks they're the only ones on the plane. They're from Massachusetts, which tells me something. (Sorry, Mark Duell, but your state has some real flakes running around in it--you're not one of them AFAIK. )

Judgement: AirTran; the family is hereby ordered to surrender their free trip so as to hold the a-hole to his word.

Yea, right! He has three free tickets. He's going to use those three tickets regardless of the BS he says publicly.

The family was interviewed at length on CNN this morning and have stated that they were thrown off the plane "simply" because the child was crying.

Nothing about refusing to get in her seat.

Nothing about crawling under and between the seats.

Nothing about the child being out of control.

Just that she was crying loudly and the flight crew threw them off the plane, much to the family's surprise, embarrassment and eventual anger.

Anyone need a spin doctor?

Riiiiiight... AirTran singles THEM out from all the other families with cranky kids that they serve every day, gives them three vouchers for free flights, refunds their original fare and puts them on another flight home.

I wanna hear Paul Harvey's "The REST of the Story" on this one! On second thought, I think we've already heard it. Next time, I'm flyin' on AirTran and I'm gonna teach my toddler that no matter what Daddy says, Cry very loudly and DON'T get in your seat! Maybe I can get in on some of that action too...

Why think small? Convert to Islam, show up acting belligerent and anti-American, scare the other passengers, get kicked off, call the ACLU, collect big bucks. What could be simpler?

Nope - I can't do that. I respect women and life too much to do that!

I am surprised that I haven't heard about any lawsuit yet. If they don't intend to file a frivolous lawsuit over this then I'll give the family credit for that.
My wife and I have taken the risk of flying several times with our small kids (we do have control over them). Since we're in Dallas and AA loves to fly the MD-80 so much I would book seats in the back by the engines to help drown out any crying by our then infants.

OK, now we know that's one crying baby not flying on AirTran.

I believe the TRS's rating just went up about 50% in the polls lately. (Just kidding.)

The family was from Worcester, MA.

THIS ARTICLE seems to fill in a few gaps in the story.

It seems that Airtran didn't refund the money or offer the vouchers until way after the fact (after being contacted by a news reporter). It says that if one is "kicked-off" an AirTran airplane, they cannot fly on that airline for 24 hours:

But THIS ARTICLE says:


After reading these missing facts, I feel a little bit more for the family... IF indeed there is an AirTran policy of a 24-hour no-fly restriction when ejected. I think maybe the airline may be spinning a few things in their favor that shouldn't go that way.

They're not facts as the reporter wasn't a witness to what transpired.

I'd like to read some interviews with other passengers on the original flight.

They are indeed facts. The facts may be incorrect, but they are most certainly facts.

FACT:
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth

The reporter is presenting information as having objective reality. Whether or not the information is true does not stop the information from being a fact.

A statement can either be a fact or an opinion. We have to digest the facts (either correct or incorrect) presented to us by the media to reach an opinion as to how we feel about each of the parties involved...

But the point I was making earlier was that IF that reporter's facts are indeed correct, then I think AirTran could've handled things in a better manner! But we will probably never know the whole truth as it is more than likely THE MEDIA ( ) presenting THEIR desired spin on their stories.


I'd like that too.

I would like to know if the Father of that spoiled brat called the press about what happened . How did the media find out about this. You get kicked off a flight you should lose your ticket with no refund . Instead to try to be PC they get 3 free tickets? God bless America!

The issue that is missed on TV (and it amazed me that the story went on for two days with no mention of AirTran's side of the story or this issue I'm bringing up, and I believe JHEM posted this, but no one seemed to notice) is NOT that their child was annoying, or that they couldn't fly home right away on another flight.

They got booted off ONLY becuase the child wasn't strapped in to the seatbelt as required by the FAR's. The crew wouldn't be allowed to move that airplane until everyone is seated with their belts on, and I know it wouldn't have made the news if the other 100 people on board missed their connections or meetings due to a little kid refusing to do so. No one would have felt bad for the airline if that happened, and the parents wouldn't have had to pay the airline back for everyone else's inconvenience.

DM