Travel Article in Sunday's NY Times
Jul 16th, 2001, 04:56 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Travel Article in Sunday's NY Times
Somebody posted about the article that was in Sunday's NY Times travel section -- 14 Years of Travel Tips. I just read the article and was very disturbed by one travel tip. It said something like Don't let your child fly alone until he is mature enough to handle travelling alone on public transportation in a large city. What is this about??
It's hard to imagine that if your child is on a direct flight that ends up in a different place than planned (for whatever reason) that your child would be left to his own devices. If you pay the "unaccompanied minor" fee, doesn't someone from the flight have to stay with the child? (Hmmm, what if it does turn into an overnight?)
Under what circumstances could you imagine
someone from the airline putting a child on a city bus??
Please share your insights! And let's not turn this into a discussion of how only irresponsible parents let their children fly alone.
Thanks.
It's hard to imagine that if your child is on a direct flight that ends up in a different place than planned (for whatever reason) that your child would be left to his own devices. If you pay the "unaccompanied minor" fee, doesn't someone from the flight have to stay with the child? (Hmmm, what if it does turn into an overnight?)
Under what circumstances could you imagine
someone from the airline putting a child on a city bus??
Please share your insights! And let's not turn this into a discussion of how only irresponsible parents let their children fly alone.
Thanks.
Jul 16th, 2001, 05:46 PM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Evidentally, you didn't hear the news story this weekend about the unaccompanied child who was put on the wrong plane, ending up in Orlando instead of Detroit! To make matters worse, the family was not informed for hours about the child's whereabouts!
And, yes, the family paid the fee for an unaccompanied child!
And, yes, the family paid the fee for an unaccompanied child!
Jul 16th, 2001, 05:55 PM
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Now come on, Ann.
Surely you don't expect that the airline is going to provide a trained and certified day care attendant to watch, entertain, feed and transport a child around the area if the plane has problems. Sure, they'll have someone to provide basic info and directions and such, but if the child isn't old enough to navigate public transportation without a companion, then I'm not trusting him/her to an airline that can't even transport my inanimate baggage properly.
You get what you pay for. Hire an escort to travel with your child or take pot luck (whatever the airline dishes out for support).
Surely you don't expect that the airline is going to provide a trained and certified day care attendant to watch, entertain, feed and transport a child around the area if the plane has problems. Sure, they'll have someone to provide basic info and directions and such, but if the child isn't old enough to navigate public transportation without a companion, then I'm not trusting him/her to an airline that can't even transport my inanimate baggage properly.
You get what you pay for. Hire an escort to travel with your child or take pot luck (whatever the airline dishes out for support).
Jul 17th, 2001, 08:46 AM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
The airlines treat adults like cattle! What makes you think they are going to treat a kid any better??? All the airlines care about is cramming as many people into seats as they can. If you are a parent and are stupid enough to put your minor child on a flight by themselves, accompanied or not, you get what you deserve...
Jul 17th, 2001, 09:06 AM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ok Frank, the parents get what they deserve but what do the kids get? Are you saying a parent, who has been assured by the airlines that after paying a fee the child will be escorted, should not expect the airline to then follow its own procedures? Then just get whatever service the airline feels like providing? Meanwhile what becomes of the unsuspecting child? Boy between this post and some others, this appears to be an awfully hostile world for children.
Jul 17th, 2001, 09:14 AM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
We picked up an unaccompanied 11 year old at SJC last weekend. He was kept on the plane with the other children until a ground attendant could collect them. We then had to show picture I.D. to get him back. This was UA but I think the procedure is the same for all airlines. This little boy was coming out to California for a weeks camp. His parents couldn't afford to fly with him. He said he had a great time on the flight and even enjoyed the food. I don't think I would put a 5 year old on alone, but at 10 or 11 they are pretty competent.
Jul 17th, 2001, 09:20 AM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
My son flew alone last year but I stayed there until he boarded. He is a seasoned flyer at 12, and he still was a bit scared when there was some turbulence, but he made the hour long flight okay.
Personally, I would not put a 6 year old on a flight alone, but 10 and up is reasonable if they have already flown a couple of times and know what the routine is. I would also stick around to make sure they got on the right flight, and not put them on a flight with connections.
Personally, I would not put a 6 year old on a flight alone, but 10 and up is reasonable if they have already flown a couple of times and know what the routine is. I would also stick around to make sure they got on the right flight, and not put them on a flight with connections.
Jul 17th, 2001, 10:10 AM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think the key to peace of mind is to put the children only on direct flights and watch them board...connections being what they are (NOT) these days!There was a report on Dateline or 20/20 or one of those shows about this subject. One girl (about 10) missed her connection and was put alone in an office--locked in-- for 5 or 6 hours (maybe longer)!!!! The airline was responsible for her safety after all. Almost all of the hair-raising stories do involve missed connections.
Jul 17th, 2001, 12:35 PM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Don't get upset by something you read in the newspaper(s). People who work in the media field are not accountable for being correct. Unfortunately, we (myself included) often take what is in print to be "true" - unless we constantly remind ourselves what we read isn't always truthful and just one person's opinion.
The particular author who wrote her final article for the NYT has plagiarized posts from this forum (or from others who read this forum). I would not take any more weight or respect for this article than what you may overhear in the line at an airport gate.
Obtaining good, solid, useful or interesting travel information requires sifting through many, many sources.
Regarding your direct question, here is an example: Newark was closed due to weather. The plane landed in Philly. Passengers were bussed to Newark, by Continental. If an unaccompanied minor was on this plan, he or she would be on a bus...
The particular author who wrote her final article for the NYT has plagiarized posts from this forum (or from others who read this forum). I would not take any more weight or respect for this article than what you may overhear in the line at an airport gate.
Obtaining good, solid, useful or interesting travel information requires sifting through many, many sources.
Regarding your direct question, here is an example: Newark was closed due to weather. The plane landed in Philly. Passengers were bussed to Newark, by Continental. If an unaccompanied minor was on this plan, he or she would be on a bus...
Jul 18th, 2001, 06:10 AM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Unis, while I agree with the spirit of what you're implying, that most info in the mass media should be thoughtfully considered without making assumptions about validity, you'll get plenty of flack for making blanket statements like "Don't be disturbed by something written in the newspaper".
That's a ridiculous statement.
Think about what you just said.
The vast majority of the info there is non-subjective and the questionable/editorial/subjective content is minimal overall.
That's a ridiculous statement.
Think about what you just said.
The vast majority of the info there is non-subjective and the questionable/editorial/subjective content is minimal overall.
Jul 18th, 2001, 08:20 AM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bob, Thank you for your reply. I do have an opinion about news and newspapers. It is stronger than my opinion of a 2 year old going to Disney (which is a 'so what'). I guess it showed in my post.
I strongly believe that the influence of a writer in a newspaper is not always in line with the priorities of the readers. Thus, when I read or hear how someone is negatively affected by reading an article, my initial response is to say "take it with a grain of salt" and don't worry about it.
This is not to say all newspapers are bad and all writers are bad. It is to say that all words written are written from the mind of a person, and thus are always, by definition, through the authors lens.
I strongly believe that the influence of a writer in a newspaper is not always in line with the priorities of the readers. Thus, when I read or hear how someone is negatively affected by reading an article, my initial response is to say "take it with a grain of salt" and don't worry about it.
This is not to say all newspapers are bad and all writers are bad. It is to say that all words written are written from the mind of a person, and thus are always, by definition, through the authors lens.
