Yes I discriminate in favor of Ivy, so sue me. In what world are all disabilities considered equal?
To remind you:
Or a cyst behind the knee??
So what would you have done, if you were the pilot / FA? Said, “oh, go ahead, let her sit on mom’s lap, their life is tough enough” and started the engine? Not knowing whether there was an FAA inspector on board, and putting your own pilot license / livelihood at jeopardy if it became known? At least own it if that’s what you would have done.
If you were driving your own car, and your neighbor with a special-needs child wanted you to transport her child and she didn’t have the appropriate car seat, would you say “oh, heck, just have her sit on a grownup’s lap, your life is tough enough” and drive away, knowing that you are ultimately responsible for her safety?
I don’t think you get that the pilot (and FA) is responsible for safety the same way you as the driver of your car are responsible for the safety of everyone in that car.
A cyst behind the knee was potentially life threatening as there was risk of a blood clot. They almost didnt clear me to fly, and did so only with the accommodations noted. I’d prefer not to die of a blood clot on a plane, thank you. Several have died from clots that formed on long flights, including a well known journalist: http://www.today.com/allday/10-years-later-david-bloom-remembered-1B9239813
Ivy probably was at lower risk of dying from her condition than I was with mine at the time. I have a family history of phlebitis and was at higher risk for a potential clot.
You keep repeating the “not able to sit up on her own”. Its time to move the needle off that broken record. There are accommodated carseats available that would have made it quite possible for her to be placed appropriately in an airline seat. The family has made other accommodations for their car, a bicycle, etc.
And BTW, many disabilities arent visible. Good heavens.
Thank you, jym. Sorghum, you keep acting as though this is a disability that’s never been seen before, or that she cannot sit up at all under any circumstance. Of course she can sit up. When she is properly supported. You’re just rationalizing the fact that the family, who otherwise appears on the ball, dropped the ball on this one. They’ve even said they’ve gotten or are in the process of getting an approved car seat for her needs for their next trip. So she can sit up.
Sending you all a free round of virtual joe before anybody becomes virtually disabled!
I did not say that.
I said there are rules, so there is a problem. And if there is flexibility, I would apply it first to a case like Ivy.
Did I ever say that all disabilities are visible?
I don’t see that how the adult acquired a broken leg has anything to do with their comfort level on a flight.
When one works with people with a range of disabilities, one gets impatient with people whose apparent disability is their very myopic view.
My point is that there are lots of disabilities and some can be as equally debilitating as others. But this young girl’s disabilities are more readily apparent, with the insinuation that that somehow may engender more sympathy. The sympathy for her is understood, but the implied minimization of other types of disabilities as less deserving of sympathy, or at the very least simply less sympathy, is distasteful.
From a pediatrician who was asked about Ivy’s case. An accommodation for her disability should NOT be something that endangers her health.
Also, most airlines have procedures for POS (people of size). You can look on Southwest’s web site and they have instructions for how you can purchase 2 seats and use a special middle initial for one of them. Then, you tell the gate agent so that they know you’ll be getting 2 adjacent seats. Afterwards, you’re allowed to write to SW and ask for a full or partial refund for that second seat.
As seats get smaller, we might all have to do this!
My daughter has an iq of 62. She was also born with low muscle tone. She couldn’t walk until she was 2. My daughter’s disabilities are nothing like Ivy’s.
There are categories of disabilities. My daughter is considered mildly disabled. (My daughter is really more disabled than mildly disabled). Ivy’s disability is severely disabled. My daughter and Ivy are treated differently. They are treated differently by some government bodies. They receive different government benefits. Ivy will receive more benefits. My daughter 's benefits are inadaquate. Ivy’s benefits are better… As they should be.
I would never expect my daughter and Ivy to be treated the same in a plane. Even though my daughter had low muscle tone and couldn 't walk until she was 2, she never needed the physical support Ivy needs. My daughter is multiple times easier to take care of too.
Sorghum, I get what you are saying.
Of course people exist with disabilities that are not as apparent as Ivy’s. (Ivy’s disabilities are extremely severe). I would hope everybody is treated with the utmost respect.
You never know. That person sitting next to you in a plane may be dying of cancer.
Pizzagirl ( Post 557), I agree with most all your observations. The thing we are missing is how the entire situation was approached by the FA who flagged the Ivy situation. That the crux of the matter was that there is a safety issue that is specifically addressed by airline rules regarding her seating tends to get lost in all the business of the first class boarding passes and where Ivy’s seat should have been, etc, etc. None of that should have even been brought up in the arguments that ensued. Simply that the child had a seat in the back, that was not being used, so a family member could go sit back there freeing up one of the family seats in first class next to a parent who could then help Ivy sit up buckled should have been the focus because once it is noted that a child is over 2, it becomes an expressed safety issue to others as well as the child to not be secured in her own seat and is addressed by airline regs specifically. A lot of the nonsense that ensued was pure distraction, IMO.
Actually, the parents with their arguments were lucky that it was not decided that Ivy could not safely ride the plane without some special harness or seat since the parents were insisting that she could not sit by herself, strapped in without issues. If it came down to that being a danger to the child, and because airline regs specifically address the lap situation, Ivy might not have been able to safely ride a plane without other accommodations that were not made in advance by the parents and approved by the airline. Also, a lot of these fights occur when the tone or the arguments are such that it all becomes a confrontation. The onus is more on the FA, airline employee, IMO in these things.
When rules are not consistently enforced, and people get used to them not being enforced, and when examining the reason for the rules, it makes little sense, these furors can result in a change for them. In an example, where I once lived, there was a notorious speed trap where the speed limit went down abruptly and there were cops sitting there to pick off violators. It was found, in a court case, that it was entrapment and the township got sanctioned for the situation, and the rules were changed. It can be argued that in a case where a child is the size of most children under the age of two and has the sitting ability of an infant, that seating on the lap is the same situation or even safer than some under two year old who is a Gonzo (like one of mine was) and should be sitting in a seat. It’s not really a safety issue that is driving these airline rules but economics.
So… If a flight attendant told me my daughter had to sit in her own seat because she is two or three, I would have no problem. That is ok. My daughter can sit on her own.
The problem people have with this situation has nothing much at all to do with the child or her disability. That is just the mom’s excuse for making a scene. The mom didn’t like the flight attendant and refused to move for an hour delaying the take off and causing other passengers to miss connections because she wanted more compassion. That is not okay and that and her nasty tweets are what turned the public sentiment against her in this situation. Not being prepared or even the unlikely event of not knowing the rules could have been handled. Her refusal to cooperate when informed is the issue and it has nothing to do with Ivy.
Bingo, marie1234. Maybe, just maybe, she didn’t know there was an appropriate carseat available that is FAA approved. Doubtful, but possible. More likely, given the flexibility shown on previous flights, they figured they didnt need to carry on a carseat. OK, also understandable. But, once it was raised as an issue and they had to address it, she should have cooperated.
It does make one wonder what kind of adaptive carseat they use in their car. Of COURSE they know that they have to support her head or risk an airway obstruction. They likely have top notch medical care for their daughter, and have lived with her for 3 years. They know what care she requires. If she was placed in an adaptive carseat next to them, surely mom would have kept her eye on her-- probably more than she could if she was driving with Ivy in the back seat.
I’ve never seen a thread so unified. I’m usually arguing with half of you.
I have not read all the evidence, so bear with me. Jym’s post made me think of what could have triggered a strong reaction out of a parent. I do not know if this is the case, but let’s try to imagine. So far you think you’ll be okay flying holding the child because you’ve been allowed to in the past. You’re in the DR now, trying to get the family home. Somebody doing their job decides to enforce this rule which maybe you knew about or maybe you didn’t. It was never a problem before. Even if you want to comply, you haven’t got the equipment with you to do what she’s saying. Maybe you’re super duper scared that a) if you try to upright the kid without it she won’t be able to breathe and could die or b) you’re going to get kicked off the plane and then what do you do? I’m not saying what should or should not have been done by anyone, just something that could trigger an emotional response. I don’t know the child’s medical condition or if this was the case at all.
"Simply that the child had a seat in the back, that was not being used, so a family member could go sit back there freeing up one of the family seats in first class next to a parent who could then help Ivy sit up buckled should have been the focus "
What makes this complicated is that while premium seats are obviously more comfortable / desirable for most everybody, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, coach seats might be a better solution, because the physical space is smaller, armrests could be raised, and a child could be strapped in and have a parent lean over and support. If it was a priority for the Kirschenbaums to stay in premium, that posed a dilemma in coming up with a solution, because the ability to safely prop up a child without the ability to do so herself is a lot harder in a larger seat with immovable armrests that don’t allow the child to lean on or be held by a parent.
“Maybe you’re super duper scared that a) if you try to upright the kid without it she won’t be able to breathe and could die.”
Oh please, the child was recently propped up on the back of bicycle.
Marie, why this tone? I’m not saying I think the airline is in the wrong. I’m trying to understand.