More Unfriendly Skies
July 7, 2008 by Kristina Chew, PhD
Filed under Health
While traveling from Detroit to Seattle on Southwest Airlines, a mother with four children, one who has autism and another who has cerebral palsy, and her five-month pregnant sister were stranded in Phoenix after being told they were “too disruptive” to continue on a connecting flight to Seattle. Wendy Slaughter acknowledged that her children were “loud and kept getting up and walking around the plane.” KIRO reports about what happened on Friday:
When the family landed in Phoenix they were met at the gate by police officers, detained and told they were too disruptive to get on their connecting flight to Seattle, Slaughter said.
Slaughter said they were left stranded at the Phoenix airport with no money and no lodging.
This was the first flight for the children. Slaughter admitted the children were loud and kept getting up and walking around the plane.
“The children were out of control on the flight you know, they were restless, excited and worked up and they are kids,” said Slaughter.
The family said flight attendants asked them to quiet the children twice, but they didn’t expect to be booted off the flight
“I am furious about it. I can’t believe they could do something like that and then leave us completely stranded with no money no way to get anywhere,” Slaughter said.
Southwest Airlines spokeswoman Christi Day told KIRO-7:
“They were being disruptive and unruly on the plane, and for the safety of our customers and the flight crew, we decided to not allow them to travel on to Seattle at that time. Typically if it’s a threatening behavior, it’s not safe to travel 30,000 feet in the air in a contained environment.”
Police officers brought the family food and Motel 6 donated a room for the night. The children’s grandmother paid $2000 to book the family on an Alaska Airlines flight, on which they had no trouble. The family is asking Southwest Airlines for compensation, and an apology.
It was just a few weeks ago that an autistic toddler, Jarret Farrell, and his mother were removed from an American Eagle airplane—looks like the very unfriendly skies are even not getting any friendlier. And the summer traveling season is not even halfway through—a little more kindness, a lot less exclusion, would be (at the very least) nice, though not looking too likely any time soon.
Aw, Chuck. Sadly, you are right. I was born with the SASSY, I must be the SASSY.
Man, I’m bored. I’ve got to stop posting and do some work. It’s been fun, but I think I’m going to go stay the course now.
K – I don’t consider anyone here my friend, don’t be silly.
Why would I ‘budge’ when it is my opinion? I don’t see anyone else here, save very few that have been ignored, considering ‘budging’.
Sassy? or overinflated ego?
No, no Emily. Don’t change a thing. I like you sassy.
Sareh, just to not be misunderstood, I am not coming down on your side, just that I was becoming uncomfortable and slightly bored finding out quite so much about someone’s personal life, especially since it is somewhat irrelevant to the original post.
To be frank, at least on this board because perhaps it is different up close and personal and not rhetorical, I think that you judge the situation rather harshly and that as much as good manners supports us as a society, we need to check whether our expectations are always reasonable or even, dare I say, kind?, and whether entities are not overstepping authority simply because they can do it. This particular family seems to have clearly violated a safety regulation on the plane, but I am not entirely clear why dumping them in the airport was the way to go. There have been other people kicked off for less clear reasons, and Chuck and other news reports seem to have articulated what might be going on behind the scenes and that it’s not always fair.
My main concern is that those who have or are travelling with someone with a disability and require accommodation are treated fairly, respectfully and equally in public transportation and public life.
I have no illusions that anyone is siding with me except a few and their comments have been ignored – I am the one to respond, apparently.
I agree that each situation needs to be reviewed in a reasonable manner, I find that this board doesn’t do that – it seems as though the posters here are so caught up in their own little world that an outside point of view is unheard of. Take it for what it is worth – there are a lot more people out there that hold similar opinions to mine.
I think they were left in an airport because there wasn’t another way to get them home or to their destination and trust that the children would not be a safety issue for another flight.
I use my ego for travel. I strap it onto a lawn chair, and I have my id as ballast, which I can gradually release as the situation warrants. I travel that way so that no flight attendants harass me when I am being SASSY.
See? Now you’ve distracted me from my work again.
Pfft, you couldn’t possibly believe in id, ego, or super ego with your opinion on psychology.
there are a lot more people out there that hold similar opinions to mine.
——————————-
I agree, I’ve seen them.
I think that it’s sometimes useful to view these situations from a civil rights framework, even as a what if.
Just to share one reason why I might be biased, which may not be of general interest or judged particularly relevant, is that one of my early memories is of being kicked off of a public bus with my mother in the middle of nowhere because the driver did not like people of my mother’s ethnic group, and then walking with her in the hot sun while she cried in shame and embarrassment in her Sunday best. Not one person stood up for her, and some applauded the driver and threw in a few choice racial epithets. I have never forgotten that.
So forgive my political correctness in pausing to ask, is this fair?
No, based on your scenario – that is clearly not right. If you had been running on the bus and peeing on the passengers while your mother stood idly by, then yes, I would hope you would be kicked off.
Well, Sareh… my undergraduate degree is in Psychology. I graduated from the Honors program with an overall 4-year GPA of 3.9 and completed a Sr. Honors experimental thesis.
I find it hard to believe that you received a PhD in any area of Psychology and were confused by my reference to SES.
I also find your Freudian statement strange. Nobody studies psychoanalysis anymore.
Where’s your dissertation published? I think I’d like to read it.
m – you sure are smart. You can believe what you want, I certainly don’t care. Feel free – I will not put my full name on this message board but the dissertation is based on robots out of UCF.
Wow!
I don’t read a thread for a couple of days, and look what I’ve missed. Thanks to one and all for an amusing 15 minutes.
One thing I think we can all agree on is that flying sucks. Just read this today.
Happy traveling!
Joe
What? Artificial intelligence? In a Cognitive Psychology department? I can’t think of any other branch of Psychology that would deal with robotics. Interesting.. I am related to Sociology professor who does work in Artificial Intelligence.
If it’s true, then why do you come across as so hateful, narrow-minded, and oblivious to how others are perceiving you? You must be extremely young and inexperienced to have such a bad attitude toward other people.
It will change. The first time you cause a traffic accident, or lose money.. something will happen in your life and you will be the obnoxious, badly behaved person and all of the sudden your judgmental perspective will change.
Until then.
Based on Cognitive Psyc, yes.
Not young. Simply don’t care that my opinion differs from someone else’s and I am okay with not having the same viewpoint. None of the examples you gave will change that. I don’t have cognitive dissonance. My actions match my thoughts.
Well, that’s true, you are not attempting to relieve the intra-psychic anxiety associated with cognitive dissonance, but your schema is inconsistent.
Your schema has shifted from supporting “airline protocol” to just supporting severe consequences for unruly brats.
You don’t have a clear position with well-reasoned arguments or a broad, well-thought out perspective, you just have a basic emotional response to your idea of badly behaved people who deserve punishment.
So, what that tells me is that it is you who has some sort of unresolved emotional stake in this story- even though you perceive everyone else as having a narrow, personal perspective.
For me personally- this story does not describe me or my family. I would never, ever, ever, let me children get out of their seats on an airplane. Never.
So, why do you think it is that I am reserving personal judgment against this woman, and you are not? Could it be that I am just a fair person who doesn’t like to see bad things happen to anyone? And as a fair person, I see that a fair airline would have at the *very least* told this mother if she could not make her children sit, they would not be allowed on their connecting flight? And as a fair person, I imagine the stewardess smugly being pleased that this family had to endure this? And that makes me angry?
But you, on the other hand, seem to share the smug, self-satisfied attitude of the stewardess, and seem to take pleasure in this family’s “punishment”.
Maybe you should examine what compels you to enjoy seeing others being “punished”.
“UCF has said goodbye to the bottom 25 percent of national universities and hello to the third tier, in this year’s U.S. News and World Report’s annual best colleges ranking.”
No schadenfruede for me, I don’t think I put that across either.
Simply because I do not think that the airline puts people off of flights for dumb reasons doesn’t mean I can’t hold another view at the same time. I have worked for airlines, as I previously mentioned, and many times flights have been disrupted and nothing done (drunks, kids, etc.). I hold both of those views – that airlines don’t just throw people/revenue off for no reason and some people should be refused service. I don’t see that as ’shifted schemas’ but I find your viewpoint to actually be well thought-out and interesting, thank you.
Emily – see? UCF is just getting better! It is also the top 3 universities in my field.
If you had been running on the bus and peeing on the passengers while your mother stood idly by, then yes, I would hope you would be kicked off.
—————————
I suggest that that is a framed scenario and a bit of a straw man.
If we’re going to judge it on the, as you say, specific merits, then it probably makes sense to judge it on specific merits. So far I did not read anything about peeing on anyone on an airplane. I don’t recall doing so on that bus.
This is a segue and not immediately applicable to the Slaughter incident, but I think it has some relevance to the public comment that I have recently seen about what the public expects.
My point was that the event that happened to my mother and myself was a function of someone not liking the cut of her jib because of something that was intrinsic to her–for being the person that she was, and in her home country appeared perfectly acceptable for the majority of her life to that point, although I recall her frantically trying to assimilate–to be a “good American”. Similar popular opinion of its time has had something to do with treatment of people of color, those with different sexual orientation, religious belief, and age. Beliefs of behaving correctly, fitting in, maintaining comfort of the majority, not making waves. Sometimes such ideas of comfort extended to seating on public transportation and theaters and drinking fountains, employment and where one was allowed to go to school. People have been blocked from public participation, education, mocked, shunned, injured and killed for merely being “different”. The fact that federal statute, court cases have become involved seems to demonstrate that public opinion and what passes for common sense may not be sufficient protection. That some of these past opinions may now seem beyond the pale illustrates that the popular opinion of a given time has the potential of change or at least to be held in check.
My caution is to be careful when we set up our expectations of what others who have disabilities, and I include those with cognitive and developmental disability, should do and be capable of, that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.
Forgive me for the soapbox.
My oldest son once peed on someone at a wedding reception. Of course, he was 11 weeks old. Luckily, they didn’t kick him out.
Regan – I understand your point. I believe, as naive as that may be, that the family was not denied based on special needs kids – it was the lack of parenting. I maybe wrong on that. I have experience far too many situations that call for someone to handle poor parents. m already said that he/she would never, ever, ever allow his/her kids to roam the plane. If it was based on the special needs, then there is a special place in hell for those people. If it was based on poor parenting, then I support the decision to deny further service.
After reading through the article and all the spirited debate it has caused, I thought I’d throw my two cents in.
For what it’s worth, I’m a mom of three with extensive background and training in early childhood education. My two oldest sons are both diagnosed with autism. We’ve never taken a plane for a family vacation out of fear about just this sort of situation.
The disruptive nature of Autism, can leave those fortunate enough to have avoided living with it on a daily basis with a kind of head for the hills reaction that I dread encountering.
I get tired of explaining and apologizing. Despite what some have suggested, I believe that most moms of special needs children are very careful to avoid these situations. I facilitated an autism support group for a few years, and none of the moms there had a “well I have to deal with this every moment of my life, so get over it” attitude. But, could you blame them if they did?
Our kids have been tucked conveniently out of sight out of mind for a long time, and it has done no good. 1 in every 166 kids is the number right? Should 1 in every 166 families forfeit their public life to preserve the comfort of the other 165?
That being said, I think that there are a few lessons we can learn from a situation like this.
First, no person (child or adult) has the right to threaten the safety of others. If that was truly the concern, we must accept that the airline was trying to protect everyone involved. I know that is optimistic in light of the treatment many of us have endured, but it is clearly one aspect of this.
Second, I think it raises the question: If families like ours are not welcome to come as we are into society, where should we be? How should we travel? At what point does my sons abnormal behavior become too much for you?
Third, we must be careful to reserve the term discrimination for the places where it’s truly warranted. If it gets thrown into every situation where the word Autism is present, people will stop taking it seriously. (Boy who cried wolf…)
Lastly, I want to request patience for those of us who are doing all we know to do. Our deepest hope is for our children to find a place in the world as a whole. My son screams and covers his ears whenever he hears a siren in public. Is his expression of fear and discomfort somehow more bothersome to you the sound from the siren? Tolerance is less valuable to me than compassion. I would much rather people care about my son, than pity or tolerate him. Thanks.
Thank you for your input – I would like to ask a question based on your post. For your second point, what do you think should be the tolerable limit for people who do not deal with this on a regular basis? Compassion is noble, but you are the only person that has to love your child. No one has to like other people’s kids. Where is the limit and if the siren bothers your son and your son’s behaviour sets off another child or adult, when does it stop? How do we get it to stop?
I think you have very valid points. I think that sometimes it is very difficult to see a good parent with a special needs child and give them patience, tolerance, and compassion when we are surrounded by imbeciles who don’t want to parent. How to differentiate… Whether we would like to believe it or not, it is human nature to be upset by an annoyance and I would think that people look to determine if it is the parent (poor parent) or the child (special needs) and assess on a case-by-case basis.
My questions weren’t meant to be answered in this setting. Considering the fact that most kids like ours were still being sent to institutions 25 years ago, I think it’s a step in the right direction that we can even dialog about it.
You are right, there is no law that we love one another. That is truly an internal debate best left to individuals. I don’t expect patience and consideration from those around me. I request it. And when a person has the humane senses to extend it to me and my family, I am grateful beyond words.
Those issues, in my humble opinion, are questions of personal integrity that are merely meant to make us examine ourselves as people, and see what sets us apart as a society.
The “How far is too far?” debate I am clearly the wrong person to settle. I have a close personal interest in the matter. As I said, any grace is welcome. For now, my family and I will continue going to the grocery store and rushing out if my son gets too upset. Rules for our existence would certainly assist us in bothering people too much.
There are two thoughts that many try to apply to their daily lives and I try to apply in mine. “Treat others as you would like to be treated” and “Don’t judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes”. Perhaps the application of these two principles would help both sides find a middle ground.
“Treat others as you would like to be treated” and “Don’t judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes”
I agree and find it amusing that posters on a forum that requests compassion treats an outside poster in such a way as this.
Thank you for thoughtful and inspirational posts, Kimberly.
Just taught Oedipus Tyrannos today on the heels of Freud’s theories of psychosexual development, and reflecting on how Oedipus’ confident pronouncements that he knows he can find the murderer of Laios is the first sign of how little he truly knows, and rationalizes, until he becomes the outsider; the scapegoat; the pharmakos; the exiled.
Sure thing, there.
I guess Kathy spoke too soon. Such intelligent discourse broken by such a classless pose. Nice.