The Forum > Article Comments > Discretion or discrimination? Toddlers, toilets and temperamental travellers > Comments
Discretion or discrimination? Toddlers, toilets and temperamental travellers : Comments
By Jocelynne Scutt, published 8/9/2011Why airlines need to reconsider tolerance as a social and legal responsibility.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
-
- All
Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 9 September 2011 10:27:55 AM
| |
susieonline wrote "What about if they let him go to the toilet at this time, and he fell and fractured his skull as the plane hit turbulence?"
Huh? The plane was on the ground! Read the story "...Depardieu is removed from the aircraft....". Do you think they chucked him out mid-flight or that that stationary planes hit turbulence? The prostate issue aside (and who knows what they deem a "strong stream"; mine is at times a steady stream, but urgent), to ban someone who says it is urgent from urinating on a stationary plane is unwise, even irrational. What if susieonline had diarrhea? Would she think the attendants should make her "poo her pants"? The attendants are like trained monkeys about standing - I once remembered I'd omitted to turn off a mobile in the overhead cabin, and stood up to so do. Two female attendants rushed up and ordered me to sit down. During the time I explained what I wanted to do and they repeated their order, I could have turned it off 5 times. So my "safety" was more important than the alleged danger to everyone caused by the phone being on! They could stand with safety, but I could not? Not even to safeguard the safety of all passengers and crew, according to the spiel they presented just minutes earlier? The danger to anyone of letting Depardieu use the toilet approximates to 0.00000000. Posted by L.B.Loveday, Friday, 9 September 2011 4:30:25 PM
| |
Mr. Loveday, a plane taxiing to it's take off position IS considered part of the take-off procedure.
Read the real story: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0818/1224302639122.html The plane was moving, the seatbelt signs were on, and the air-hostesses had told him to sit down repeatedly. There is no conspiracy on the airways to stop you doing what you want ... but merely to keep you safe. Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 9 September 2011 10:36:27 PM
| |
What about those whose disabilities confine them to bed? Should the airlines have a legal obligation not to discriminate, and have to accept them bed and all?
Posted by Peter Hume, Saturday, 10 September 2011 10:47:14 AM
| |
Peter Hume, the airlines will accept anyone, as long as they can pay for the 5 or 6 seats needed to accommodate a portable stretcher bed.
Not many disabled people confined to bed could afford that! I have accompanied several sick bed-ridden people flying from Northern Australia to Perth hospitals via commercial passenger planes. The Health Department paid for this though. Posted by suzeonline, Saturday, 10 September 2011 3:09:07 PM
|
Having taken many, many elderly men with prostate problems to the toilet in hospitals over the years, and stood by while they use a urinal, I can assure you none of them had a 'strong stream'!
Yes, they dribbled, and yes many were incontinent, but I never met any who acted like this drunken actor did in the aisle of a plane!
Are you suggesting that because he may have had a prostate disorder that it was ok for him to pee in the plane aisle, or that you would suggest he was being 'discriminated against' because he wasn't allowed to get up and go to the toilet during take-off or landing?
What about if they let him go to the toilet at this time, and he fell and fractured his skull as the plane hit turbulence?
Would he then be likely to take the airline to court?
What a load of rubbish.