Family Kicked Off Flight After Daughter With Autism Deemed 'Disruptive'

[pinqy]

The airline made the right decision. The mom couldn't control her child. No one could. End of.

The airline didn't make the decision: the pilot did.
The child was under control and never causeed a disturbance.

The mother stated the the could throw a "tantrum," she also stated that her child would "scratch" things. The mother was worried about her losing control, not the flight attendants.

Right. But once the flght attendents gave the girl hot food, no tantrum and no scratching.

Passengers said that unintelligible words were coming from her girl, and the flight attendants were working to keep her calm.

That would be true for infants as well...should they all be kicked off? (I'm torn on that). But the point is she did stay calm.

Once the pilot is aware of the situation, he has to react, his reaction was to make a landing in Salt Lake so the passenger could regroup.

He didn't personally check the situation,. And the girl never caused an actual disturbance.

Hell if you land a plane because their might be a disturbance, then you could just ground every plane.

 

[Papageorgio]

The airline made the right decision. The mom couldn't control her child. No one could. End of.

The airline didn't make the decision: the pilot did.
The child was under control and never causeed a disturbance.

The mother stated the the could throw a "tantrum," she also stated that her child would "scratch" things. The mother was worried about her losing control, not the flight attendants.

Right. But once the flght attendents gave the girl hot food, no tantrum and no scratching.

Passengers said that unintelligible words were coming from her girl, and the flight attendants were working to keep her calm.

That would be true for infants as well...should they all be kicked off? (I'm torn on that). But the point is she did stay calm.

Once the pilot is aware of the situation, he has to react, his reaction was to make a landing in Salt Lake so the passenger could regroup.

He didn't personally check the situation,. And the girl never caused an actual disturbance.

Hell if you land a plane because their might be a disturbance, then you could just ground every plane.

Yes, if the infant is causing enough of a disturbance, the child needs to be taken off until the parents and the child are in better moods.

The point is the pilot didn't have to personally check on the situation, he took the crews word for it and made the decision. I would imagine he got clearance and began his descent immediately. At that point there is no turning back.

 

[pinqy]

The airline made the right decision. The mom couldn't control her child. No one could. End of.

The airline didn't make the decision: the pilot did.
The child was under control and never causeed a disturbance.

The mother stated the the could throw a "tantrum," she also stated that her child would "scratch" things. The mother was worried about her losing control, not the flight attendants.

Right. But once the flght attendents gave the girl hot food, no tantrum and no scratching.

Passengers said that unintelligible words were coming from her girl, and the flight attendants were working to keep her calm.

That would be true for infants as well...should they all be kicked off? (I'm torn on that). But the point is she did stay calm.

Once the pilot is aware of the situation, he has to react, his reaction was to make a landing in Salt Lake so the passenger could regroup.

He didn't personally check the situation,. And the girl never caused an actual disturbance.

Hell if you land a plane because their might be a disturbance, then you could just ground every plane.

Yes, if the infant is causing enough of a disturbance, the child needs to be taken off until the parents and the child are in better moods. .

Wait...why the different standard? You're saying they were right to kick the girl off because she might cause a disturbance even though she actually didn't, but the infant would have to actually be making "enough of a disturbance.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is a great clip on Youtube from the show "What Would You Do" where they have an actor scold parents of an autistic kid because he's being disruptive in a diner. The entire diner comes to the kid's defense, and forces the man to leave. They then show a clip of Michael Savage saying that autistic kids are just "brats who haven't been told to cut the act out".

We've gotten those exact reactions. We try to eat out at restaurants that aren't crowded not only to minimize unsympathetic strangers, but also because our son seems to do better with fewer people and less ambient noise. At this one restaurant we frequent, the waitress introduced herself and tried to draw him out, having an autistic niece herself. He seemed to ignore her. But then the next time we came, he said hi and called her by name. Now when we go, he doesn't want to be served by anyone else, so we call ahead to make sure she's on shift.

The airline made the right decision. The mom couldn't control her child. No one could. End of.

The airline didn't make the decision: the pilot did.
The child was under control and never causeed a disturbance.

The mother stated the the could throw a "tantrum," she also stated that her child would "scratch" things. The mother was worried about her losing control, not the flight attendants.

Right. But once the flght attendents gave the girl hot food, no tantrum and no scratching.

Passengers said that unintelligible words were coming from her girl, and the flight attendants were working to keep her calm.

That would be true for infants as well...should they all be kicked off? (I'm torn on that). But the point is she did stay calm.

Once the pilot is aware of the situation, he has to react, his reaction was to make a landing in Salt Lake so the passenger could regroup.

He didn't personally check the situation,. And the girl never caused an actual disturbance.

Hell if you land a plane because their might be a disturbance, then you could just ground every plane.

No one ever gave the girl any hot food. There was none to give her. At most, the girl was temporarily distracted.

 

[Papageorgio]

The airline made the right decision. The mom couldn't control her child. No one could. End of.

The airline didn't make the decision: the pilot did.
The child was under control and never causeed a disturbance.

The mother stated the the could throw a "tantrum," she also stated that her child would "scratch" things. The mother was worried about her losing control, not the flight attendants.

Right. But once the flght attendents gave the girl hot food, no tantrum and no scratching.

Passengers said that unintelligible words were coming from her girl, and the flight attendants were working to keep her calm.

That would be true for infants as well...should they all be kicked off? (I'm torn on that). But the point is she did stay calm.

Once the pilot is aware of the situation, he has to react, his reaction was to make a landing in Salt Lake so the passenger could regroup.

He didn't personally check the situation,. And the girl never caused an actual disturbance.

Hell if you land a plane because their might be a disturbance, then you could just ground every plane.

Yes, if the infant is causing enough of a disturbance, the child needs to be taken off until the parents and the child are in better moods. .

Wait...why the different standard? You're saying they were right to kick the girl off because she might cause a disturbance even though she actually didn't, but the infant would have to actually be making "enough of a disturbance.

The mother sunk herself, she said, "How about we wait for her to have a meltdown? She’ll be crying and trying to scratch in frustration. I don’t want her to get to that point.”

That is a threat and it worried the flight attendants. If a mother said, my baby is upset and is going to cry, then the kid should be taken off the plane until they are ready to fly.

 

[Flopper]

There is such a wide spectrum for autism. My neighbor's child is high level autistic. He is wonderful at math, terrible at communicating but is a really sweet kid, very funny and at times very insightful. Kids like this have something to offer to society. The key is to get them in the right environment.

I am lucky to have been born HFA (high functioning autistic), but there will always be those challenges. I've trained myself over the years to seem "normal". The thing is that it's mentally exhausting. I live my life going through an act. This autistic woman in a documentary explained my days perfectly. You play out every conversation in your head in the morning like a script, but if anyone strays from that script during the day it can lead to a meltdown.

I documentary film about an autistic girl, well worth watching.

I've heard of this movie! Never seen it though. I'll check it out this week!

The film is about Temple Grandin, a girl born in 1947 when no one had ever heard of Autism. It's told in her words giving the viewer a perspective of how she views the world. Today you she's a professor of animal science at Colorado State University, a best-selling author, an autistic activist, and a consultant to the livestock industry on animal behavior.

It's true that the general public knew nothing about autism, but it was first identified by a Russian neurologist in the 1920s. The research was later picked up by Hans Asperger in the mid 1940s, which is where the term Aspergers Syndrome comes from.

In the 1950's, it was belived that autism represented nothing less than the emotional withdrawal of an infant at the hands of a cold and emotionally distant parent. Parents of autistic children in the 1950s and 1960s sought professional help only to be sent into psychoanalysis intended to help them understand how they had, perhaps unknowingly, rejected their child.

We've come a long way with understanding autism, not near far enough with treatment, and prevention is just avoiding some things that have a correlation with autism and could be a possible cause.

 

[Flopper]

The airline didn't make the decision: the pilot did.
The child was under control and never causeed a disturbance.

The mother stated the the could throw a "tantrum," she also stated that her child would "scratch" things. The mother was worried about her losing control, not the flight attendants.

Right. But once the flght attendents gave the girl hot food, no tantrum and no scratching.

Passengers said that unintelligible words were coming from her girl, and the flight attendants were working to keep her calm.

That would be true for infants as well...should they all be kicked off? (I'm torn on that). But the point is she did stay calm.

Once the pilot is aware of the situation, he has to react, his reaction was to make a landing in Salt Lake so the passenger could regroup.

He didn't personally check the situation,. And the girl never caused an actual disturbance.

Hell if you land a plane because their might be a disturbance, then you could just ground every plane.

Yes, if the infant is causing enough of a disturbance, the child needs to be taken off until the parents and the child are in better moods. .

Wait...why the different standard? You're saying they were right to kick the girl off because she might cause a disturbance even though she actually didn't, but the infant would have to actually be making "enough of a disturbance.

The mother sunk herself, she said, "How about we wait for her to have a meltdown? She’ll be crying and trying to scratch in frustration. I don’t want her to get to that point.”

That is a threat and it worried the flight attendants. If a mother said, my baby is upset and is going to cry, then the kid should be taken off the plane until they are ready to fly.

If a mother said, my baby is upset and is going to cry, then the kid should be taken off the plane until they are ready to fly.

 

[Papageorgio]

The mother stated the the could throw a "tantrum," she also stated that her child would "scratch" things. The mother was worried about her losing control, not the flight attendants.

Right. But once the flght attendents gave the girl hot food, no tantrum and no scratching.

Passengers said that unintelligible words were coming from her girl, and the flight attendants were working to keep her calm.

That would be true for infants as well...should they all be kicked off? (I'm torn on that). But the point is she did stay calm.

Once the pilot is aware of the situation, he has to react, his reaction was to make a landing in Salt Lake so the passenger could regroup.

He didn't personally check the situation,. And the girl never caused an actual disturbance.

Hell if you land a plane because their might be a disturbance, then you could just ground every plane.

Yes, if the infant is causing enough of a disturbance, the child needs to be taken off until the parents and the child are in better moods. .

Wait...why the different standard? You're saying they were right to kick the girl off because she might cause a disturbance even though she actually didn't, but the infant would have to actually be making "enough of a disturbance.

The mother sunk herself, she said, "How about we wait for her to have a meltdown? She’ll be crying and trying to scratch in frustration. I don’t want her to get to that point.”

That is a threat and it worried the flight attendants. If a mother said, my baby is upset and is going to cry, then the kid should be taken off the plane until they are ready to fly.

If a mother said, my baby is upset and is going to cry, then the kid should be taken off the plane until they are ready to fly.

If the child,is upset, and will not calm down, why subject the parent, child or others to the screaming?

 

[Flopper]

The airline didn't make the decision: the pilot did.
The child was under control and never causeed a disturbance.

The mother stated the the could throw a "tantrum," she also stated that her child would "scratch" things. The mother was worried about her losing control, not the flight attendants.

Right. But once the flght attendents gave the girl hot food, no tantrum and no scratching.

Passengers said that unintelligible words were coming from her girl, and the flight attendants were working to keep her calm.

That would be true for infants as well...should they all be kicked off? (I'm torn on that). But the point is she did stay calm.

Once the pilot is aware of the situation, he has to react, his reaction was to make a landing in Salt Lake so the passenger could regroup.

He didn't personally check the situation,. And the girl never caused an actual disturbance.

Hell if you land a plane because their might be a disturbance, then you could just ground every plane.

Yes, if the infant is causing enough of a disturbance, the child needs to be taken off until the parents and the child are in better moods. .

Wait...why the different standard? You're saying they were right to kick the girl off because she might cause a disturbance even though she actually didn't, but the infant would have to actually be making "enough of a disturbance.

The mother sunk herself, she said, "How about we wait for her to have a meltdown? She’ll be crying and trying to scratch in frustration. I don’t want her to get to that point.”

That is a threat and it worried the flight attendants. If a mother said, my baby is upset and is going to cry, then the kid should be taken off the plane until they are ready to fly.

If a mother said, my baby is upset and is going to cry, then the kid should be taken off the plane until they are ready to fly.

 

[aaronleland]

I am lucky to have been born HFA (high functioning autistic), but there will always be those challenges. I've trained myself over the years to seem "normal". The thing is that it's mentally exhausting. I live my life going through an act. This autistic woman in a documentary explained my days perfectly. You play out every conversation in your head in the morning like a script, but if anyone strays from that script during the day it can lead to a meltdown.

I documentary film about an autistic girl, well worth watching.

I've heard of this movie! Never seen it though. I'll check it out this week!

The film is about Temple Grandin, a girl born in 1947 when no one had ever heard of Autism. It's told in her words giving the viewer a perspective of how she views the world. Today you she's a professor of animal science at Colorado State University, a best-selling author, an autistic activist, and a consultant to the livestock industry on animal behavior.

It's true that the general public knew nothing about autism, but it was first identified by a Russian neurologist in the 1920s. The research was later picked up by Hans Asperger in the mid 1940s, which is where the term Aspergers Syndrome comes from.

In the 1950's, it was belived that autism represented nothing less than the emotional withdrawal of an infant at the hands of a cold and emotionally distant parent. Parents of autistic children in the 1950s and 1960s sought professional help only to be sent into psychoanalysis intended to help them understand how they had, perhaps unknowingly, rejected their child.

We've come a long way with understanding autism, not near far enough with treatment, and prevention is just avoiding some things that have a correlation with autism and could be a possible cause.

Unfortunately there are still people who hold the opinion that autism is just the result of bad parenting. Like when Michael Savage said kids with autism were just "brats". Reminds me of a popular internet meme.

But I have to admit that meme is pretty funny.

 

[aaronleland]

Right. But once the flght attendents gave the girl hot food, no tantrum and no scratching.

That would be true for infants as well...should they all be kicked off? (I'm torn on that). But the point is she did stay calm.

He didn't personally check the situation,. And the girl never caused an actual disturbance.

Hell if you land a plane because their might be a disturbance, then you could just ground every plane.

Yes, if the infant is causing enough of a disturbance, the child needs to be taken off until the parents and the child are in better moods. .

Wait...why the different standard? You're saying they were right to kick the girl off because she might cause a disturbance even though she actually didn't, but the infant would have to actually be making "enough of a disturbance.

The mother sunk herself, she said, "How about we wait for her to have a meltdown? She’ll be crying and trying to scratch in frustration. I don’t want her to get to that point.”

That is a threat and it worried the flight attendants. If a mother said, my baby is upset and is going to cry, then the kid should be taken off the plane until they are ready to fly.

If a mother said, my baby is upset and is going to cry, then the kid should be taken off the plane until they are ready to fly.

If the child,is upset, and will not calm down, why subject the parent, child or others to the screaming?

People are subjected to that everyday by children and adults without autism. It's a part of everyday life. Sometimes a parent is forced to bring a crying baby onto a plane. Sometimes your neighbor will play their music too loud.Sometimes the guy on the bus next to you smells like BO. Sometimes people will talk through a movie. Usually black people, but you get the point.

 

[Papageorgio]

The mother stated the the could throw a "tantrum," she also stated that her child would "scratch" things. The mother was worried about her losing control, not the flight attendants.

Right. But once the flght attendents gave the girl hot food, no tantrum and no scratching.

Passengers said that unintelligible words were coming from her girl, and the flight attendants were working to keep her calm.

That would be true for infants as well...should they all be kicked off? (I'm torn on that). But the point is she did stay calm.

Once the pilot is aware of the situation, he has to react, his reaction was to make a landing in Salt Lake so the passenger could regroup.

He didn't personally check the situation,. And the girl never caused an actual disturbance.

Hell if you land a plane because their might be a disturbance, then you could just ground every plane.

Yes, if the infant is causing enough of a disturbance, the child needs to be taken off until the parents and the child are in better moods. .

Wait...why the different standard? You're saying they were right to kick the girl off because she might cause a disturbance even though she actually didn't, but the infant would have to actually be making "enough of a disturbance.

The mother sunk herself, she said, "How about we wait for her to have a meltdown? She’ll be crying and trying to scratch in frustration. I don’t want her to get to that point.”

That is a threat and it worried the flight attendants. If a mother said, my baby is upset and is going to cry, then the kid should be taken off the plane until they are ready to fly.

If a mother said, my baby is upset and is going to cry, then the kid should be taken off the plane until they are ready to fly.

Yes you are and types kids have been taken off planes because of screaming, it is a fact of life.

 

[aaronleland]

Right. But once the flght attendents gave the girl hot food, no tantrum and no scratching.

That would be true for infants as well...should they all be kicked off? (I'm torn on that). But the point is she did stay calm.

He didn't personally check the situation,. And the girl never caused an actual disturbance.

Hell if you land a plane because their might be a disturbance, then you could just ground every plane.

Yes, if the infant is causing enough of a disturbance, the child needs to be taken off until the parents and the child are in better moods. .

Wait...why the different standard? You're saying they were right to kick the girl off because she might cause a disturbance even though she actually didn't, but the infant would have to actually be making "enough of a disturbance.

The mother sunk herself, she said, "How about we wait for her to have a meltdown? She’ll be crying and trying to scratch in frustration. I don’t want her to get to that point.”

That is a threat and it worried the flight attendants. If a mother said, my baby is upset and is going to cry, then the kid should be taken off the plane until they are ready to fly.

If a mother said, my baby is upset and is going to cry, then the kid should be taken off the plane until they are ready to fly.

Yes you are and types kids have been taken off planes because of screaming, it is a fact of life.

Quite the opposite. A fact of life is that you have no right to never be annoyed.

 

[Gracie]

If I were still traveling..I would pay more for a kid free flight.

 

[EverCurious]

I /did/ pay more for kid free flights heh I despise flying as a whole, and coach is a damn crime imo, unfortunately my work often required flying, and worse extremely long 4-10 hour long flights. Kids under game boy age (say 7ish) are almost universally horrid on planes - even my own generally well behaved brats. There was /nothing/ I could do to stop their crying and general ass hattery of being confined to a tiny space for long periods on commercial flights; ear issues and ADHD, not a good combination for any medication. I did that once, then gave up and chartered private from then on; not that it saved /me/ at all. Still, for my business traveling, not every company was willing to let me upgrade to charter, which stuck me in first class listening to more yowling. Then someone out there saved the world with the invention of noise canceling headphones, beautiful!

I do understand that there's sometimes nothing the parent can do, but that doesn't mean I like listening to it heh

That said, idk about the OP situation yet; As I read it was a 2:30 flight, that's short, the landing to throw them off took at least 30m I'm figuring, shouldn't have been done without a 'serious' problem. I can't really blame the parent for her kido having an autistic breakdown, I can't really blame the pilot for making the call that there was a 'danger' to other passengers because of what the mom said, I can blame the mom for saying it, I could blame the flight attendant for informing the pilot of a "dangerous" passenger based on what mom said. Obviously can't blame the kido. Can blame the flight attendant for not just bringing the lady some hot food, mom had said she'd pay for it (right?) and I really don't buy the "they didn't have any" story (I've had seconds in FC more than once because I'd get distracted by work and forget to eat for days.)

It seems like in my consideration of everything I end up putting blame on the flight attendant more often. (The pilot gets two ticks, but his ticks are due to the flight attendant so I exonerate him on one.)

That said, I think it's both stupid and brilliant for mom to sue the airlines, a stupid premise in all honesty because as has been noted, pilot has the final call and I don't think given what he was told it was necessarily a bad call, but yet brilliant in that we all know the air line is likely to settle and pay mom off to shut up in todays PC culture. So I guess once she was put off she might as well pull out the PC card and get paid for it (sort of relates to her job, no?)

 

[Papageorgio]

Yes, if the infant is causing enough of a disturbance, the child needs to be taken off until the parents and the child are in better moods. .

Wait...why the different standard? You're saying they were right to kick the girl off because she might cause a disturbance even though she actually didn't, but the infant would have to actually be making "enough of a disturbance.

The mother sunk herself, she said, "How about we wait for her to have a meltdown? She’ll be crying and trying to scratch in frustration. I don’t want her to get to that point.”

That is a threat and it worried the flight attendants. If a mother said, my baby is upset and is going to cry, then the kid should be taken off the plane until they are ready to fly.

If a mother said, my baby is upset and is going to cry, then the kid should be taken off the plane until they are ready to fly.

Yes you are and types kids have been taken off planes because of screaming, it is a fact of life.

Quite the opposite. A fact of life is that you have no right to never be annoyed.

I didn't post any such thing.

 

[Flopper]

Right. But once the flght attendents gave the girl hot food, no tantrum and no scratching.

That would be true for infants as well...should they all be kicked off? (I'm torn on that). But the point is she did stay calm.

He didn't personally check the situation,. And the girl never caused an actual disturbance.

Hell if you land a plane because their might be a disturbance, then you could just ground every plane.

Yes, if the infant is causing enough of a disturbance, the child needs to be taken off until the parents and the child are in better moods. .

Wait...why the different standard? You're saying they were right to kick the girl off because she might cause a disturbance even though she actually didn't, but the infant would have to actually be making "enough of a disturbance.

The mother sunk herself, she said, "How about we wait for her to have a meltdown? She’ll be crying and trying to scratch in frustration. I don’t want her to get to that point.”

That is a threat and it worried the flight attendants. If a mother said, my baby is upset and is going to cry, then the kid should be taken off the plane until they are ready to fly.

If a mother said, my baby is upset and is going to cry, then the kid should be taken off the plane until they are ready to fly.

If the child,is upset, and will not calm down, why subject the parent, child or others to the screaming?

You sound like someone who has had to endure a 4 hour flight with a mother and screaming child.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yes, if the infant is causing enough of a disturbance, the child needs to be taken off until the parents and the child are in better moods. .

Wait...why the different standard? You're saying they were right to kick the girl off because she might cause a disturbance even though she actually didn't, but the infant would have to actually be making "enough of a disturbance.

The mother sunk herself, she said, "How about we wait for her to have a meltdown? She’ll be crying and trying to scratch in frustration. I don’t want her to get to that point.”

That is a threat and it worried the flight attendants. If a mother said, my baby is upset and is going to cry, then the kid should be taken off the plane until they are ready to fly.

If a mother said, my baby is upset and is going to cry, then the kid should be taken off the plane until they are ready to fly.

If the child,is upset, and will not calm down, why subject the parent, child or others to the screaming?

You sound like someone who has had to endure a 4 hour flight with a mother and screaming child.

Interesting how you came to that conclusion. I have done no such thing. The issue with babies is the ear popping. If they have an ear infection and are flying they are in a lot of pain, why would anyone loving parent do that to their own child.

 

[HenryBHough]

I wonder how it's working out -- IF it's still going on!

Crying Kids on Planes Spawn Child-Free Zones Flight Nannies - Bloomberg Business

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

If I were still traveling..I would pay more for a kid free flight.

I'm beginning to think you strangled your inner child.