Boot the Brat!

[Zkribbler]

Airline: Public OK With Decision To Bump Disruptive Child

AirTran Airways said Wednesday it's getting overwhelming support from the public for bumping a screaming toddler from a flight.

Airline spokesman Tad Hutcheson said the company's getting swamped with e-mails and phone calls, and 92 percent support the decision to get the tantrum-raising toddler off the plane. He said about 8 percent are opposed.

Julie and Gerry Kulesza were heading home to Boston last week from Fort Myers, Fla., when their daughter Elly got upset. She cried and refused to get strapped in her seat.

And cried. And cried.

Hutcheson said that the tantrum started when the family boarded, and went 15 minutes past the departure time. The crew and gate agent decided the family had to get off, so the flight could go on.

Federal regulations require all passengers be strapped into their seats.

Julie Kulesza said she was angry when she found out they'd have to wait 24 hours for another flight. AirTran said connections were available, but the family wanted nonstop only.

The family has refused the company's offer of free tickets. They were given a refund for the flight they had to leave.

"She cried and refused to get strapped in her seat." WTF, Toddlers now get to decide whether or not to take their seats?! Toddlers get to hold up an entire airplane while they throw a temper tantrum?!

I say, toss the kid!

[LordShiva]

Doddler refusing to take his seat

[Imran Siddiqui]

[Zopperoni]

I don't see the need for a refund

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Services not rendered. Why say you, no refund?

[Winston]

Ah. There' one airline that won't ever see Ozzy booking a flight again.

[Provost Harrison]

Beat on the brat with a baseball bat!

[DRoseDARs]

Next time, it would be cheaper for the family to get a babysitter. Or kill the child, whichever.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Services not rendered. Why say you, no refund?

Services not rendered because the family failed to comply with federal law to be seatbelted into their seats.

The airline was ready, willing and able to provide the services. It was the actions of the family that prevented the airline from transporting them.

The family was wrong--it should take the financial hit.

[Provost Harrison]

Yeah, chloroform the kid

[Dinner]

This is excellent news. Sure, sometimes kids throw fits no matter how good of a parent you are but it seems like some parents have much more control over their kids as the children understand there will be negative consequences to pissing off mommy and daddy. Other parents are over indulgent and their kids throw fits over every thing.

Check out Pekka's Sweet 16 thread to learn how not to raise a child.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Services not rendered because the family failed to comply with federal law to be seatbelted into their seats.

The airline was ready, willing and able to provide the services. It was the actions of the family that prevented the airline from transporting them.

The family was wrong--it should take the financial hit.

Sorry, I'm not going that far. They should have gotten the refund. That was fair play by the airline. But they should have kicked him as well.

[Zopperoni]

I wonder if this could be abused...

(1) Make child cry;
(2) Make child cry louder;
(3) Get booted from the aircraft;
(4) Act upset;
(5) Pocket free plane tickets.

[Krill]

Q: What if it had been a person with an epleptic fit that couldn't be strapped in?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Sorry, I'm not going that far. They should have gotten the refund. That was fair play by the airline. But they should have kicked him as well.

Agreed.

Just because they couldn't get the kid to comply does not also mean that their intention was not to comply just the same as it was the airlines intention to comply to render goods and services.

The transaction did not occur because of conditions out of both parties control. Hence a refund is in order but not necessarily anything more than that.