Edmonton couple misses flight because of diaper trouble...

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Jodester

The plane probably sat on the tarmac for a while waiting to take off as per every experience i have had on a plane and over the course of a 2 hour flight 1-3 minutes, i cant tell the difference.

Here's the rub though, at busy airports (like LAS) if you don't push back from the gate on time the flight may be delayed further by ATC. It's a big choreographed mess from the ground to the air, and that delay on push-back could lead to an even longer delay on the taxiway.

Originally Posted by Table 5

I'd love if it there was a baby/family section in airplanes, so at least the noise isn't spread out. Stick all the people with babies/toddler together in the back where they are close to the bathrooms, and can board first with all their gear. It's noisier in the back anyway, so it won't be as obtrusive if there's crying.

We always try to book seats near the back of the aircraft for those very reasons.

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Here's the rub though, at busy airports (like LAS) if you don't push back from the gate on time the flight may be delayed further by ATC. It's a big choreographed mess from the ground to the air, and that delay on push-back could lead to an even longer delay on the taxiway.

In addition to this, the BTS (Bureau of Transportation Statistics) counts delays from when the plane departs from the gate. So every minute the plane is held, is a minute the plane is delayed. Generally they consider 15-minute delays a delay; anything less is considered 'on-time' And on-time departures are gold for the airline - they'll do anything to up the on-time statistics.

http://www.bts.gov/help/aviation/

This couple could have delayed the plane way more than their "5 minutes" claim - and as everyone else says, lose their spot in line to take off, pooch hundreds of connections, and irreparably damage the airline's on-time rating for that flight for a couple of dunderheads who can't figure out when to be on the plane?

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Toddlers who kick seats and whine should be forced to ride in the baggage compartment. At that age, they should be able to behave in public. How a child acts is a reflection of parenting, so I have no problem feeling high and mighty and giving dirty looks.

what do you consider a toddler?

I thought that too before i had kids...but when a 2 year old old gets something in there head and it doesn't go the way they want it to they tend to get whiney and irrate.i don't know if you have ever tried reasoning with a two year old when they are being disruptive while people are staring at you,but it kinda sucks and doesn't usually portray the parenting style..

now once they get to being school age well then yeah i see what you are saying about reflection of parenting..kids by that age should know what is acceptable behaviour.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Are you serious? This is about catching an airplane with interconnecting schedules for thousands of people across hundreds of miles - not a dropping your kid off at daycare.

Why didn't the ticket agent suggest to the parents that they could board and change him in the lavatory? That would have worked as opposed to giving away her ticket.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Dion

Why didn't the ticket agent suggest to the parents that they could board and change him in the lavatory? That would have worked as opposed to giving away her ticket.

Probably because the mother was already off changing the baby while the father was trying to get the gate attendant to hold the plane.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by jaydorn

I find it odd that in the time they were changing the child it wasn't "OMG Hold the Plane!" but more the airline "we're giving your seats away". odd

Interesting point. Perhaps those people were on time, waiting at the terminal and when it looked like standby tickets were available because the last 2 people couldnt possibly be this late and still intend on making the plane a decision was made, and then this couple show up at the last possible second and then beg the airline for more time.

I could think of countless similar situations where again, no clemency would be granted. You're parents of a small child. Usually that means you board well before everyone else, ergo if you're the last people there, you've missed your preferential boarding time due to a shocking lack of punctuality. That was your special treatment. You pissed it away by being late, you should no longer be able to ask for more.

While perhaps both parties are to blame here, they are parents, not some special snowflake, you have to be more aware of your time and scheduling.

I have little sympathy for the non-punctual. Its not like the plane's departure time was a secret, shrouded in mystery and only made known at the last second. People that were there, at the terminal, on time should have to wait more because of two people who were late to begin with are now going to be later because....why? Because they themselves couldnt be bothered to wait at the terminal like everyone else?

I wouldnt have paid their flight, I'd have given them vouchers for diapers at the duty free shop and they'd be lucky to have that.

[NBC]

Originally Posted by fotze

Someone will reply with a story of a 2 year old they know that have wonderful parents and the occsions they see the kid he acts wonderfully.

People think that about my kid too. When he was that age there was always an element that you cannot control, just contain and hope to deflect.

In my experience cross-eyed, artistic, cat loving, pyjama wearing 1st gen eastern euro kids were the worst behaved.

I'd have to say that being stuck on a flight with dozens of French (France) children aged 8 and under is the worst I've experienced. I don't know what is worse, the horribly behaved kids or the totally oblivious parents. Coming back from Marseille a little while ago, a mother had her hands full trying to control her 2 kids - boy 8, girl 5. They were awful. The father was across the aisle and blissfully unaware as to the problems his kids were causing. The mother was almost draconian in her discipline, which was completely undone when she gave the girl (the worse behaved) the packet of white sugar that came with her coffee. Needless to say, it probably isn't the wisest decision to give an uncontrollable, wild-eyed orangutan of a child a teaspoon of sugar to eat, half way into a short-haul flight.

Am I wrong?

[browna]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I'd love if it there was a baby/family section in airplanes, so at least the noise isn't spread out. Stick all the people with babies/toddler together in the back where they are close to the bathrooms, and can board first with all their gear. It's noisier in the back anyway, so it won't be as obtrusive if there's crying.

Westjet did that, on a flight we took last week...last 4 rows were all with kids under 2, including ours.

Not much extra gear, we prefer getting on last rather then first, meaning less time our little one is restricted for movement at her age which equals lessened fussing.

As for these parents, I side completely with the airline, and smell something fishy in their story to boot. Likely just ill-prepared, late, but trying to pass the blame on someone else.

Diapers can be changed on board if required, no need to stop at the bathroom if you know you're already running late.

Doing the social media thing by firing away with a ridiculously titled "blog" and running and crying to local media for sympathy/attention as soon as was physically possible, even after getting offered a refund from Alaska, and refusing it, is pathetic itself and reason alone why Alaska shouldn't have caved in.

[Prototype]

- To all of those who say "Maybe you shouldn't have had kids", grow up. As a parent, it's impossible to suggest they knew what was going to happen, and we don't have all the story as to why they showed up 20 mins before. This doesn't make them unfit parents, and it sure as hell doesn't deserve a stupid comment like that.

- The word that keeps coming up for me is "explosive". I've seen some bad diapers between my two sons. And there have been some that have put me into panic mode, in the middle of a relaxing night at home, with no plane waiting for me. Without making excuses for the parents, I can't help but think they may have been delayed by a sick child, leaving with enough time, but being caught off guard by sickness.

- I can't believe that people are so ignorant to think that parents have anything to do with a baby getting upset or sick. We all know the risks with putting a child on a plane. My wife took my first son to Kamloops (approx 1.5 hour flight) when he was still a baby, and he cried the whole way. She said the experience was horrifying, but still made more sense than a 8-10 hour drive with the same child. And it wasn't like she, and the on flight staff, weren't trying everything in their power to calm him down.

- Changing a diaper, explosive or not, can't take more than 10 minutes at its worst. I think it was poor judgement by the airline staff to not understand the situation. I will side with anyone who says if they show up 20 minutes before, if there's proof that they left with no issues or hiccups along the way, with poor time management. But, the customer has put their faith in the companies hands, and paid for a ticket. They clearly were there in time, and were working to fix the situation. Asking for 5 mins and getting 2 is just dumb. I'm not saying as a parent I should expect extra attention, but as a human being, I should. What if it had been you, with explosive diarreha? And you find out that 2 mins before you got back to the gate, they gave away your seat, even though you explained the situation. You'd be livid. Now add the fact that as a parent, you have to juggle not only your life, but the lives of a young life. It's no easier to say "We'll just fly out tomorrow".

- I agree with everything Russic has said.

- I'm not trying to excuse the couple in question. There's so much information left out that we're not seeing. They weren't asking to hold the plane, they were asking to hold their seat. But we don't know how the trip to the airport went, why they were late, or how massive the diaper actually was. I applaud the airline for making things right by the client, and will be ready to defend any point I've made in this post.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I'd love if it there was a baby/family section in airplanes, so at least the noise isn't spread out. Stick all the people with babies/toddler together in the back where they are close to the bathrooms, and can board first with all their gear. It's noisier in the back anyway, so it won't be as obtrusive if there's crying.

Toddlers who kick seats and whine should be forced to ride in the baggage compartment. At that age, they should be able to behave in public. How a child acts is a reflection of parenting, so I have no problem feeling high and mighty and giving dirty looks.

[NBC]

"They weren't asking to hold the plane, they were asking to hold their seat."

When the boarding gate is closing or closed this is the same thing. Most airlines have a policy of closing the gate a set number of minutes before the flight is to depart. Passing through security 20 minutes before departure does not guarantee you will be at the gate before it closes. If this was the case then asking the airline to hold your seat is the same as getting them to hold the plane. But you are right when you say that information is most likely lacking.

[NBC]

This reminds me of that Simpsons episode when Marge set up Proud Parents Against Singles, Seniors, Childless Couples and Teens and Gays (PPASSCCATAG) as a response to SSCCATAGAPP - Singles, Seniors, Childless Couples and Teens and Gays Against Parasitic Parents.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by NBC

"They weren't asking to hold the plane, they were asking to hold their seat."

When the boarding gate is closing or closed this is the same thing. Most airlines have a policy of closing the gate a set number of minutes before the flight is to depart. Passing through security 20 minutes before departure does not guarantee you will be at the gate before it closes. If this was the case then asking the airline to hold your seat is the same as getting them to hold the plane. But you are right when you say that information is most likely lacking.

didn't they say in their blog that that was reported wrong?i thought it said they were at the gate 20 minutes early not the security gate as reported

[Sylvanfan]

This is seriously a very family unfriendly forum. I guess the next time I take my kid on a flight, and he fills his diaper, I'll change in the seat on the plane for everyone to smell. I might even hand you the diaper.

[NBC]

Possibly. I read the news report not the blog.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

This is seriously a very family unfriendly forum. I guess the next time I take my kid on a flight, and he fills his diaper, I'll change in the seat on the plane for everyone to smell. I might even hand you the diaper.

I'm not against families, I'm against self-entitled late people.

[NBC]

Entitlement sucks.

[Prototype]

Originally Posted by fotze

I don't think it is clear. and no you should not have that expectation, you will be disappointed. What if someone needs to make that connection to make his father's funeral. 5 minutes could lose the plane's spot in the que making it 45 minutes late. I think it would be appreciated to get consideration but should never be expected.

I'm not holier than thou, not that you're suggesting that. I can admidt that I don't think I'm 100% right, but I don't think I'm 100% wrong. And wouldn't you think that if people are expecting humand to be super early to eliminate issues such as these, that airlines should be to. They may be set to depart at 10:15, but aren't expected to take off until 10:30 due to unforseen circumstances?

Originally Posted by fotze

Not at the airline I wouldn't. I would be livid if they did wait and I had to walk on a full plane of steaming people because I crapped my pants. My problem, not 200 other people's problem

The wouldn't know why they were waiting, and for most people, I'd think an additional 5 minutes isn't much to ask to wait. But I do see your point.

[Crazy Bacon Legs]

Boarding is typically 30 minutes before a domestic flight leaves. These idiots showed up 20 minutes before the plane left, meaning 10 minutes late.

If they had been there on time to board the plane and junior soiled himself, there would be absolutely no problem. Plenty of time to let the staff know what was happening and everyone would be happy. If these people had boarded on time like responsible adults and then he drops a package, they could have changed their offspring on the plane.

It's nice to know I can be an irresponsible jackass and expect to be compensated.

[jayswin]

Does anyone else ever get stuck beside crying babies/children in random places, and then imagine yourself just booting the baby as hard as you can, and then you end up laughing out loud?