Unaccompanied minors stranded

[mjkacmom]

Like I said, my opinion, kids this age shouldn't be on a plane alone! There is a time and place to start "letting go" and these kids are too young, AGAIN, my opinion! Never was a "helicopter Mom", our kids are quite successful, thanks! Thankfully we've done something right so far. Think I'm quite aware of what happens when they turn 18, both kids lived away at college, one did an internship in NYC, the other is living in NYC with a great career!

I never accused you of being a helicopter moms, but there are some here that appear to be, like a poster who’s children have never been out of her sight, that’s just not healthy. I wouldn’t have let my kids fly alone this young either, especially an evening flight, but a 12/13/14 year old? Absolutely. Yes, bad stuff happens, that’s why it makes the news. To me, the benefits kids get by doing things independently far outweigh the minuscule risks.

 

[mjkacmom]

Imagine that - media ran with a story only to get it wrong.

Sensationalism, which is why people have such a distorted perception of the world today.

 

[Jennasis]

In the litigious quick-to-sue world we live in I am surprised the airline did what they did (or found an employee willing to be put in that situation).

 

[NHdisneylover]

The problem lies in that, IMHO, it should be strict policy that they require a ticket for ANY unaccompanied minor under a certain age to have those services and charges.
It shouldn't be a choice of whether the parent/guardians should be able to decide not to pay... Or for the airline to decide not to provide those services.

Well thank goodness you do not get to create airline policies (or laws?) that make that parenting choice for those of us who feel our kids are capable of this.
Between turning 12 and 18 my oldest must have flown at least 15 round trips unaccompanied and not babysat by the airlines.
For DS19 it was more like 10 (plus one trip on Southwest when he was 10 and my oldest was 12; at the time as long as someone 12 or older was with him it was allowed---don't know the current rules as it no longer matters to me).

I'd never tell someone else they should be forced to send their children on flights on their own, I figure parents know their own children.

 

[BLAZEY]

In the litigious quick-to-sue world we live in I am surprised the airline did what they did (or found an employee willing to be put in that situation).

I agree, and if we keep at it, soon many privileges where you should assume some personal responsibility, will be gone. If they sue the airline, I wouldn't be shocked to see the unaccompanied minor service disappear. Not worth the hassle for the airlines if people sue everytime things don't go exactly as they want. These kids were safe, fed and supervised. In this case I think the parents should own up that they did not have a back up plan if there was some delay, send the kids with a cell phone with your numbers programmed into it at least. It also sounds like the airline was in contact with the mother but not the father and he's the one making issue of the situation.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Yes... you can give thanks!!!!
Do the happy dance!!!

Just saying the judgment and name-calling here are really showing.
the totally baseless assumptions that our kids never leave our sight.
The 'helicopter mom' name calling.

Have at it.... Knock yourselves out!

It is funny to see how people can try to defend an agenda!!!

 

[CarolAnn856]

I think this thread has quite a few examples of why having more than one employee supervising the children is important. In my first post, I mentioned that having 2 or more would protect both the kids as well as the employees.

The number of people, on this thread but also on many other threads (bathrooms, etc.) who see perverts everywhere is shocking. I would be concerned, as an employee, of being falsely accused by someone like that. Heck, the dad in the story is already accusing the airline of not feeding the kids. What else could someone misconstrue or even make up?

 

[sam_gordon]

Just saying the judgment and name-calling here are really showing.
the totally baseless assumptions that our kids never leave our sight.
The 'helicopter mom' name calling.

Baseless? Did you read the thread? This is what prompted that comment...

I am insanely overprotective of my kids, which is actually a terrible thing and I have constant guilt because I really don't send them anywhere without me. There are very few people that I trust with my kids. Besides spending time supervised by a very few trusted adults, my kids are almost never out of my view. I attend their field trips. I volunteer in the Sunday school class. Until this year, I even worked in their school. There are a small handful of houses where my kids are allowed to sleep over, if someone outside of that small number invites one of my kids for a sleepover we invite them to sleep over at our house instead.

It is funny to see how people can try to defend an agenda!!!

What agenda are people defending? It really, really, really helps if you want to prove a point if you'd quote what you're responding to.

 

[NHdisneylover]

Yes... you can give thanks!!!!
Do the happy dance!!!

Just saying the judgment and name-calling here are really showing.
the totally baseless assumptions that our kids never leave our sight.
The 'helicopter mom' name calling.

Have at it.... Knock yourselves out!

It is funny to see how people can try to defend an agenda!!!

The only "agenda" I've seen on the thread would be if you truly want to ban airlines and parents from making by their own decisions about older children and teens flying.

 

[EveDallas]

What agenda are people defending? It really, really, really helps if you want to prove a point if you'd quote what you're responding to.

Don't hold your breath. This poster has a history of accusing people of having an "agenda" but never explaining what she means.

 

[maxiesmom]

I think this thread has quite a few examples of why having more than one employee supervising the children is important. In my first post, I mentioned that having 2 or more would protect both the kids as well as the employees.

The number of people, on this thread but also on many other threads (bathrooms, etc.) who see perverts everywhere is shocking. I would be concerned, as an employee, of being falsely accused by someone like that. Heck, the dad in the story is already accusing the airline of not feeding the kids. What else could someone misconstrue or even make up?

How does having 2 employees fix all of that? Couldn't they both lie? Why are 2 people suddenly sure to be on the up and up while 1 is bound to be a pervert?

 

[CarolAnn856]

How does having 2 employees fix all of that? Couldn't they both lie? Why are 2 people suddenly sure to be on the up and up while 1 is bound to be a pervert?

Good grief. The chance that some poor airline employee who unexpectedly gets stuck supervising unaccompanied minors during an unscheduled diversion will do something wrong is incredibly, completely, totally small. The chance that two of them will collude to do harm is so ridiculously remote it isn't even worth this discussion.

ETA: My post references the possibility of the kids, or their crazy parents, FALSELY accusing the employee of wrongdoing. You realize that, right?

 

[maxiesmom]

Good grief. The chance that some poor airline employee who unexpectedly gets stuck supervising unaccompanied minors during an unscheduled diversion will do something wrong is incredibly, completely, totally small. The chance that two of them will collude to do harm is so ridiculously remote it isn't even worth this discussion.

ETA: My post references the possibility of the kids, or their crazy parents, FALSELY accusing the employee of wrongdoing. You realize that, right?

I totally agree. The whole thing is ridiculous

 

[ronandannette]

Ronandannette....
Sorry, but the fact that this one case was an orchestrated and purposeful 'parental abduction' does NOT, in any way at all, mean that I would not worry about stranger danger.
Abduction and sex-trafficking, especially of vulnerable, and certain 'highly-desireable' young tween and teenaged girls is a very, very, real concern.
Those are the 'facts' that I would be concerned about.
The one thing/incident has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
Don't confuse things in order to further 'reinforce' an agenda.

Perhaps you're just confused in general on the specifics of this thread. The incident that ended up having been perpetrated by the child's own parents (not an abduction either) was actually brought up by a PP as an example of the risks to children in airports. Epic fail as an example of that. I've got no "agenda" - do you even know what that term means? https://www.dictionary.com/browse/agenda

It is my opinion - one overwhelmingly supported by statistics, that children are at far greater risk of being abused or neglected by family or friends than by strangers. http://victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/statistics-on-perpetrators-of-csa

 

[Palp]

I sent my daughter on a Frontier flight to visit my parents when she was 12. I was required to pay $100 for unaccompanied minor service each way. I was required to stay at the gate until she boarded. After she boarded, I went to the restaurant, but was required to stay at the airport until the aircraft was in the air (small airport only 2 gates and 1 runway) I filled out paperwork with the name of the person receiving her (my mother). She needed to show her ID and was given a gate pass to get past security. She needed to show ID again at the gate for my daughter to be released to her. If your name is not on the form, you don't get to leave with the child. All the unaccompanied minors were seated together at the rear of the aircraft and were given snacks and a drink (flight was about 2 hours). Unaccompanied minors are only allowed on non-stop flights. (non-stop is not the same at direct). Upon her return, she was walked off the aircraft with an employee and I signed the same form I had filled out before her first flight to get her released to me. I never questioned what would happen if the flight got diverted. I realize now that I should have, but I assumed that she would be looked after no matter what happened. That's why you pay the fee. At 12, my daughter was perfectly capable of navigating the airport and could have found her grandmother on her own, it's the unforeseen circumstances that she would have needed help with and by using (and paying) the service, a parent expects the airline to take responsibility for the child until the child has reached their destination and been released to the appropriate guardian.