Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Pilot kicks the crying kid off the plane

This is topic Pilot kicks the crying kid off the plane in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002605

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 10-15-2003, 08:19 PM:

http://www.kypost.com/news/1997/baby122997.html

Crying child kicked off Delta flight
By Crystal Harden, Post staff reporter

One family's rights collided head on with the safety and comfort of other passengers aboard a Delta flight last month when a pilot ordered a mother and her screaming child to disembark before take-off.

LaVonne McCord of Grants Lick in Campbell County and her 2 1/2-year-old son, Patrick, were ejected as the plane was about to depart from Louisville to Orlando.

A Delta spokesman said the two were removed for safety reasons. The boy was uncontrollable and wouldn't stay seated, Delta spokesman Todd Clay said.

The bottom line is the pilot is in control of the aircraft and can make decisions about what action needs to be taken to ensure the safety of passengers, Clay said.

Mrs. McCord believes the pilot should have been more patient. Her son would have been fine once the plane started moving, she said.

What happened to Mrs. McCord and her son is an example of a new ''zero tolerance'' philosophy encouraged by the Federal Aviation Administration, which has urged airlines to crack down on unruly passengers.

FAA spokesman Roland Herwig said any conduct that threatens the safety of the airplane or the passengers needs to be addressed.

The FAA's new guidelines were prompted by reports of increasing incidences of violent or disruptive behavior aboard commercial aircraft. Flight attendants and pilots have been punched, stabbed, grabbed and verbally abused by passengers.

The zero-tolerance policy is aimed at adults who misbehave, not necessarily children, but ''adults are responsible for the children,'' Herwig said.

Still, Mrs. McCord believes removing her and her child was unwarranted.

The two had boarded the flight to Orlando, where they planned to rendezvous with her husband, Pat McCord, who had driven to Florida.

Mrs. McCord put her luggage in the overhead compartment, then tried to sit down with her son.

''He got upset and started crying,'' she said.

A flight attendant asked the two if they wanted to move to the front of the plane, where there was more room.

''We were trying to get situated, and Patrick was crying and crying and crying,'' Mrs. McCord said.

''The pilot came over and said "Son, you need to sit in this seat and you need to be quiet.' I put the seat belt on him, and he tried to wriggle out.''

The pilot came back a second time and asked the two to leave, she said.

Mrs. McCord said that she pleaded with the pilot, but to no avail.

Delta paid for a room for the two and scheduled another flight for them.

Mrs. McCord reached her husband on a cellular telephone in the truck he was driving in Florida.

''They had no money, no clothes. I had everything. She had a little carry-on bag and a stroller,'' he said.

When he arrived in Orlando, he caught a plane to Atlanta, then to Louisville.

On his flight, at least four babies were crying uncontrollably, McCord said. The family finally got to Orlando for their once-a-year vacation, but ''our trip was just totally ruined,'' he said.

''My wife was so upset over the situation I actually took her to the hospital. Her stomach and nerves were just shot.''

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-15-2003, 08:27 PM:

quote:

Mrs. McCord believes the pilot should have been more patient. Her son would have been fine once the plane started moving, she said.

Yeah! Once the plane is in the air THEN the pilot can kick them out! [evil]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-15-2003, 09:03 PM:

Right on Randy! [thumbsup]

>>> Phil

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-16-2003, 12:37 AM:

Something is missing from that equation. I mean, when I was a little kid and started behaving like a brat I got my ass whipped immediately. Zero tolerance. I'm sure most others in this forum have similar experiences.

It sounds like the lady was taking the wimpy-ass be nice and hope the kid calms down route. Big f**king mistake. IMHO, this is why so many kids these days are such horrible assholes. No consequence to acting like a little shithead.

I would not put it past some kids these days to fling open an emergency exit and depressurize the plane just for kicks. My feeling is the pilot was correct in booting the two off the plane. Parents need to have better control of their kids. If they are unwilling to use some "corporal punishment" to gain control they don't need to be riding on planes or visiting movie theaters either.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-16-2003, 12:46 AM:

Problem is, Bobby, that when real parents discipline their little assholes, other people around them admonish the parents for being so "cruel" to the child. So most parents won't discpline their little assholes in public in the manner in which they should be disciplined.

And yes, all kids are little assholes.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-16-2003, 01:54 AM:

Joe -- I like to think of you as a big kid. I guess that makes you a big asshole? [Big Grin]

Back to our lead story -- I used to work for an airline and I've had to eject passengers as part of that job. And this was waaaaaaaay back in the late 80s. Long before 9/11 and the "new" zero tolerance.

You can't deal with the "promise" or "hope" that things will improve after the door is closed and the plane starts moving. Everything has to be kosher before the door is closed. We even had a case where a flight was in line for take-off and came back to the gate because a passenger was getting out of line with one of the flight attendants.

Get 'em outta there. [thumbsdown]

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 10-16-2003, 01:59 AM:

I agree... if I was the pilot I'd have kicked them off too. Maybe it's just because I come from a family of pilots... maybe it's because I think I actually have a grip on reality. [Smile]

Hell, she's lucky the airline put them up for the night and let them take another flight.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-16-2003, 02:27 AM:

You hit the nail on the head, Manny! I am indeed a big asshole! [Big Grin]

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 10-16-2003, 07:13 AM:

You are preaching to the choir, Joe.

If I had acted like 'little Patrick' when I was a little monster, I, too, would have gotten a good tanning. Believe me, it happened... alot!

Would YOU want to sit on a plane with a screaming kid nearby?

As an adult who no longer screams, I sure wouldn't.

I'm currently working in a 'retail' setting. You wouldn't believe what some peoples kids do in our store when they come in with their parents. Most of the time, the parents just ignore them. Sometimes, they scream at the kids in a voice that could shatter glass: "GET THE **** OVER HERE!"

It floors me when I hear parents cursing their children to their faces. Ever had a 6-8 year old tell you to f*** off? I did on Tuesday.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-16-2003, 07:25 AM:

I would not put it past some kids these days to fling open an emergency exit and depressurize the plane just for kicks.

I do not think that is physically possible to open the aircraft door against the pressure difference.

But I agree with the pilot; it should be done more often.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-16-2003, 08:19 AM:

The Pilot was dead on right in what he did!!!!!!!
I can speak first hand of an experience in which a screaming child was in the seat right behind me all the way from Seatac to Cincinatti. The kid cried the whole way and continued crying through the terminal in Cincinatti till I lost them on the way to my connecting flight. The connecting flight from Cincinatti to Chicago was nice though aboard a monsterous old dinosaur L-1011 that had only three other people on it. Talk about friendly service on a flight.....
Mark @ CLACO

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 10-16-2003, 01:28 PM:

Been there, done that. Not one of the more pleasant aspects of being an airline pilot, but I value an orderly ship above all things. Although a screaming child can be an annoying thing, even as I feel sorry for the little bugger, a person running around in the cabin during a seat-belts-required flight segment is simply unacceptable, both for safety-of-flight and company liability reasons. So kid and mom get booted, not for the screaming but for mom's inability to keep the kid belted in his seat. On second thought, the screaming by itself could be a bootable offense if it's loud enough and continuous enough to interfere with safety-of-flight PA announcements. The claim that things would get better once under way would not inspire me with confidence (cabin pressure can play havoc with young one's ears--the usual reason for kids crying on planes).

As for opening plug doors on the ground, that can be a concern. Once in the air the cabin pressure differential quickly builds to the point where the door cannot be opened against it. But on the ground there is very little or no differential, so opening is possible. I've seen it happen with plug doors--depending on what was done with the door once opened, it could as minor a thing as calling line maintenance to re-insert the door and re-safety wire the release handles--about a half-hour delay. But if the door got tossed out onto the wing (as called for in some evacuation instructions)--that plane ain't goin' anywhere until after an inspection. Which will lead to something longer than a minor delay... [Smile]

Ultimately it's the captain's call--as is everything once his ship leaves the gate. But oh the paper work and visits with management pilots (for sure your FMT and maybe the chief pilot of your domicile) that follow such a booting!

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-16-2003, 03:53 PM:

Here is a really stupid question: Once the plane flies in high altitudes, the pressure outside is much lower than in the cabin. Why then is it not possible to open the door because of the pressure difference?

Posted by Mike Williams (Member # 1140) on 10-16-2003, 04:08 PM:

quote:
Here is a really stupid question: Once the plane flies in high altitudes, the pressure outside is much lower than in the cabin. Why then is it not possible to open the door because of the pressure difference?

I'm sure Paul could answer this better, but I've noticed a lot of aircraft doors actually open inwards... so my guess is the cabin pressure keeps it in place (closed).

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 10-16-2003, 06:17 PM:

Mike is correct, Mike. The emergency exit plugs must be pulled in before they can be tossed sideways through your new found hole. I'd hang on to it though, some of the doors will float.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-16-2003, 06:22 PM:

Yes Michael, once again you are 100% correct... it WAS a stupid question.. [Razz]

>>> Phil

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 10-17-2003, 01:45 AM:

They open inwards....to keep assholes from opening the doors in flight as well as possible door malfunctions because of differential pressure. The way the doors are designed, pressure from the inside of the aircraft would help seal the doors better than at ground level. Besides, why would you want to open the door at 35,000 feet? They were not designed for that. Even if you jumped out with a parachute strapped on your back, the chances of survival would still be a minus 10.

In the military jets, they had to be blown open. What was known as the "Shit Chute" on the navy-issue A3 aircraft was opened in flight just that way if the crew had to abandon the aircraft. In addition to that, the "Shit Chute" was blown down in flight if the nose gear did not deploy proir to landing. The "Shit Chute" kept damage of the aircraft to a minimum under these circumstances. It served as a front wheel without a tire.

An unauthorized blowing of the Shit Chute has been known to happen. Once that I remember, one of the members of an A3 crew developed a case of screaming shits. Since there were no potties on board the aircraft, the crew member used his helmet as a commode. Well, it stunk so bad they had to get rid of it. So the crewman opened the upper hatch in the companion way, and placed the helmet between that and the Shit Chute. After the upper hatch was secured, the pilot tried to blow the Shit Chute. It didn't open all the way. So they were stuck with the helmet in the aircraft.

However, when an arrested landing was made on an aircraft carrier, the ajar Shit Chute deployed completely.

You guessed it....a helmet full of shit went bouncing down the flight deck splattering shit all over everything in its path. [Big Grin]

And then, with the old SPADS, it was an airframe bolted around a 18-cylinder engine swinging a 16-foot propeller. Well, the pilot had to "go" and the only thing he had was a box lunch. So, he crapped in the box somehow. He opened the hatch to throw it out. It didn't work. The prop wash of that 2,000 HP engine blew it all back into the cockpit. The pilot was covered from head to toe in shit as well as the interior of the cockpit.

When he landed on the carrier, he shut the engine down and got out. He ran to the edge of the flight deck and completely undressed and threw all his flight gear and clothing over the side while the flight deck officer was yelling over the bullhorn to get that shitty aircraft off his flight deck.

Later, the pilot ordered the plane captain to clean up the cockpit. The plane captain refused. The pilot placed the plane captain on report for failure to obey a direct order from a commissioned officer. The plane captain went before Captain's Mast. The ship's captain listened to the story and dismissed the case. The ship's captain told the pilot, "You made the mess, you clean it up." [thumbsup]

End of story.

Ah, the good 'ole navy memories. [Smile]

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-17-2003, 02:44 AM:

I know the emergency doors above the wings open inwards (yes, as a compulsive manual reader I have actually read the security leaflet), but don`t the big doors on the front and back open outwards?

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 10-17-2003, 03:55 AM:

Worrying about just the doors is considering minutiae of the possibilities in this dangerous situation. What if this ill-behaved child brought a cordless drill onboard? Or a SawzAll?

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-17-2003, 10:21 AM:

quote:

Paul Thompson: ...What was known as the "Shit Chute"...

Paul,

Does the "Shit Chute" deploy right after the "OH! FUCK!" light comes on?

[Big Grin]

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 10-17-2003, 10:39 AM:

I was unfortunate enough to be on a plane flying from Dallas to Seattle, when a young mother decide to change the baby's diapers, but not in the rest room.
Well that was one flying aluminum tube that really stunk. Guess she figure it was "natural" and all. Boy did she get a lot of comments from the passengers. Probably the same type of "starved for attention" woman that hauls her tits out in public to feed the kid.
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 10-17-2003, 01:22 PM:

Yes, on practically all currently produced (in the west anyway) jet-powered airliners, the cabin doors initially open inward, then swing outward on double hinges. One type that doesn't is the Boeing 777 in which the door moves upward a few inches before it swings out (and translates forward). The 777's doors are still plug doors though, just like the others.

There is a PBS documentary video available on the design and construction of the 777. In that video there is a section that showed the certification testing for the new doors. One of the tests was for the ability of an average-sized cabin attendant to open the door even when it is covered in ice up to some thickness (probably an inch or so).

Some types used a vertically-opening pocket cabin door, but they were still plug doors that had to move inward before they moved upward. Airbus used this style on at least the A-300, and Lockheed used it on its Electra propjets and L-1011s.

As for opening a plug door against the cabin differential pressure, here are some numbers:

Door size (Boeing 777) 74 x 42" = 3108 sq in
Typical airliner max diff pressure = 9 psi
Force against the door = 3108 x 9 = 27,972 lbs

So yeah, go ahead. Try to open it!* [Big Grin]

* A joke. Do not try this. Especially on my airplane. Use of deadly force authorized. You have been warned. [evil]

[ 10-20-2003, 02:47 AM: Message edited by: Paul Mayer ]

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-17-2003, 04:52 PM:

quote:

Paul Mayer: Use of deadly force authorized. You have been warned.

You must be the pilot who made THIS in-flight announcement, then?

[Big Grin]

[ 10-17-2003, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Randy Stankey ]

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 10-17-2003, 05:19 PM:

Randy, the pilot of the A-3 had to blow the chute manually when the "Oh, Fuck!!!!" light comes on.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-17-2003, 05:51 PM:

The ending of the mp3 file is a little corrupted. Is that for comic effect or is the file messed up?

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-17-2003, 06:05 PM:

No, it's not on purpose. Must have gotten krunched in the net transfer. Sorry. I'll see if I can re-upload it.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-20-2003, 01:51 AM:

Around a couple of years ago there was a string of incidents involving yobbish behaviour on charter flights between Britain and cheap holiday destinations in Spain and the Mediterranean. These usually involved drunk teens and 20-somethings. The first time it happened the perpetrators were given a warning by police, but nothing more. Then the charter airlines got tough, and started making emergency landings to kick them off, often in countries where they knew the legal system doesn't have any time for loony left snivel libertarians who claim that we should put up with these hooligans becuase they've been socially deprived or something like that.

Within a few months the problems had stopped.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 10-21-2003, 10:02 PM:

I have TWICE physically disciplined my children and I am glad I did it, even though it made me feel bad and still does...

Incident number one.... My oldest son who is now 13, when he was 4 he came up to me, grabbed his wiener and said... "I'm gonna pee on you". He got the biggest face slap you could give without it bieng child abuse. He no longer behaves with such insolence...

Incident number two... My youngest daughter, now 8, when she was four... she was up in the projection booth making rabbit ears in the projection window during a showing of the Matrix. I grabbed her by the arm, spanked her about as hard as I could about five times, then admonished her in front of a very pissed off crowd.

Of course the crowd was like all sad for her now, and then I told them off for trying to back down to a child! I didn't fall for the puppy dog eyes, and now she doesn't act like a little brat! Well she does, and still gets in trouble for it, and not some wussy trouble, its like taking her stuff and grounding her and then slapping her with it.

Parents have got to be the bad guy, otherwise these little brats will be facing the police as the bad guy. Gotta keep em in line.

Dave

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-21-2003, 10:18 PM:

There is a difference between "paddling" a kid and "hitting" a kid.

There is NOTHING wrong with paddling. There is almost NEVER a time when hitting a kid is good.

Let me tell you from experience! There is nothing like the sound of leather clearing belt loops... Thwip! - Thwip! - THWIP!... to make a kid fall into line! [Big Grin]

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 10-22-2003, 12:12 AM:

Quote
Probably the same type of "starved for attention" woman that hauls her tits out in public to feed the kid.

You're kidding?

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-22-2003, 01:03 AM:

You seriously believe that a woman breast-feeding a child is doing it for attention? I hope you're being sarcastic because otherwise it's a pretty asinine statement.

Breast Feeding Info

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 10-22-2003, 09:21 AM:

Yep, when they do it in restaurants and in public places without covering their "activities". Also, it's illegal.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-22-2003, 11:16 AM:

Bull. Just in case there was any lingering ambiguity over the issue, your state of Washington enacted HB1590 and it was signed into law in 2001. Breastfeeding does NOT constitute indecent exposure. I don't understand people who think like you.

Info on the WA law

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 10-22-2003, 11:56 AM:

So women can haul their tits out in public any old time eh?
How about modesty, do you understand that?
So then is it ok to get a blow job in public too?

Like I said if they want to cover themselves and do the activity that's one thing, but I don't buy the "natual-beautiful" slant that's been applied in recent years. Also don't forget that it's the metro areas (I5 corridor) that dictate state law here although geographically they are the minority. Out here in the country, our backwards and non progressive towns and villages still have morality and decency laws.
Try to understand "people who think like you" as much as you want me to tolerate tits in a restaraunt. Or is this one of those one way streets?

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 10-22-2003, 12:18 PM:

quote:
as much as you want me to tolerate tits in a restaraunt.

the more broad-minded among us tolerate tits wherever we see them.

but seriously, this is not a one way street. just as laws shouldn't prevent women from breast-feeding (although i think a restaranteur should be able to ban it if it's on his property, or at least impose a "corkage" fee), laws should not prevent you from feeling as you do. we will tolerate you, you will avert your gaze. deal?

carl

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-22-2003, 12:44 PM:

Well, since you asked, I really do have a difficult time understanding our society's difficulty with nudity. No I don't expect to see naked people walking down the street anymore than I would expect to see a girl in a string bikini. Not that either should be against the law. Yes, if it was a pretty girl walking downt the street nude I would find it, um, interesting. But that's a result of being conditioned by having been brought up in this society. Nudity does not have to equate with sex as much as some people want to insist that it does. Hence I will not dignify your question about blowjobs in public with a response since to bring that up in a discussion of breast feeding is a ridiculous attempt to force such a connection and I'm not buying into it.

In the more appropriate context of, say, a beach, why should someone unclad be any big deal? It's the human body--jeez louise. So what? (And yes, there are some that I'd rather not look at but so what to that, too.) As for the breast-feeding mother, again so what? When someone can demonstrate harm that comes from someone, even a child, observing the unclad human body then I would be more sympathetic to your point of view.

Even put in religious terms for the more conservatively minded I don't understand. Didn't Adam and Eve learn to be modest from the Devil? But to look at a nursing mother and to think this most natural of acts is evil...well, that is just warped.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-22-2003, 01:21 PM:

Kodak and other progressive companies encourage working mothers to breastfeed during working hours:

http://motherwear.com/Services/community/outreach/main_gate.asp?Page=3

quote:
Motherwear wishes to acknowledge the Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies Coalition, Breastfeeding Promotion Committee, for developing the original Competitive Edge brochure from which this was adapted.

Electronic Data Systems
Aetna
Los Angeles Department
of Water and Power
Cigna
Home Depot
Eastman Kodak
Motherwear
What Gives these companies a competitive edge?

Why should employers be concerned about working mothers who breastfeed?

Supporting breastfeeding in the workplace can positively impact your company's bottom line by lowering healthcare costs, enhancing productivity, improving employee satisfaction, increasing retention and improving corporate image.

http://www.socialfunds.com/news/release.cgi/241.html

quote:
A study of Working Well Moms,
CIGNA's (NYSE: CI) corporate lactation program for employees who breastfeed,
revealed a savings of $240 thousand annually in health care expenses for
breastfeeding mothers and their children. In addition, a savings of
$60 thousand annually is realized through reduced absenteeism among
breastfeeding mothers at CIGNA. The study also found that pharmacy costs for
breastfed children are lower, because they require 62 percent fewer
prescriptions.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-22-2003, 03:05 PM:

quote:
So women can haul their tits out in public any old time eh?

That sounds like a great idea, Greg.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-22-2003, 03:44 PM:

Yeah, can you imagine he's arguing against this? [Confused]

I have an automatic disdain when it comes to men telling women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies insofar as female-only issues are concerned.

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 10-22-2003, 03:46 PM:

I find it very difficult to understand how anyone can become offended by the sight of a mother breastfeeding her child. Such a sight has always been considered natural, healthy and even holy. Witness the Mother and Child paintings and icons in churches and cathedrals in many countries.

In our pediatric office my wife counsels mothers on breast feeding, and mothers frequently nurse their babies in our waiting room. Neither children nor other adults have ever complained. On park benches, in publictransit and in fine restaurants, women have always nursed their children. In restaurants adhering to coat and tie dress codes, waiters may offer a scarf or mantilla if the mother prefers, or will offer to seat her out of the busy stream of traffic.

Could be those who find breastfeading mothers offensive have never been breastfed themselves, and having formed a distorted veiw of breasts, or of mothers, feel guilty about such a crippling attitude, and try to ban the practice?

Incidentally, men can be made to lactate by a series of simple hormone injections. If the survival of the human race ever depended upon it, that possibility exists.

Breastfeeding is here to stay, for all its practical, medical and psychological benefits it bestows on mothers and babies alike.

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 10-22-2003, 07:21 PM:

Well I see everyone is ignoring what I say to bolster their arguments.
Breast feeding is ok. How's that?
Of all the women I have seen breast feeding in public only a small amount choose not to put a scarf or blanket over the nursing kid.
What is the problem you guys have with doing that? What problem could a woman have with doing that if it might offend someone?

"....Well, since you asked, I really do have a difficult time understanding our society's difficulty with nudity...."

So you admit society has a problem with it? So I'm not the only one? Boy do I feel better

".... But to look at a nursing mother and to think this most natural of acts is evil...well, that is just warped...."

Trying to put words in my mouth to bolster your argument? How lame.

"....Hence I will not dignify your question about blowjobs in public with a response since to bring that up in a discussion of breast feeding...."

Private body parts being sucked on in public, are body parts being sucked on in public no matter what sex. So now the double standard is shown. Women can do it but men can't. Hmmm

"....I have an automatic disdain when it comes to men telling women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies insofar as female-only issues are concerned...."

Again, it's a men vs women thing. You're reaching Steve. But your basic statement, I agree with

"...offended by the sight of a mother breastfeeding her child. Such a sight has always been considered natural, healthy and even holy...."

Then how come it's illegal many places, or has been until recently? (oh yah except for the more "progressive" places.)

"...Witness the Mother and Child paintings and icons in churches and cathedrals in many countries...."

I don't think I can remember ever seeing a religious painting that explicitly illustrated a naked breast being sucked on. Can you give an example? Maybe eluded to but not graphically

There's a time and place for everything. There's modesty to consider and appropriate action in appropriate places. If I'm out for dinner at a nice restaurant I do not want to see tits unless it's a topless bar and I'm there on purpose
Lets see.. maybe if I'm at a nice restaurant I should be able to stand up and rip off a great big fart. Hey it's perfectly natual. Everybody does it. Is that ok? Don't like it? Plug your ears and don't sniff. Is that inappropriate behavior at an eating establishment? Why

Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 10-22-2003, 07:55 PM:

Whoops! Wrong room.
leaving now. [Big Grin]

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-22-2003, 09:32 PM:

Now I know why I like titty movies I was bottle fed
maybe I should sue for depravation [Big Grin]

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 10-22-2003, 10:09 PM:

Gerard,

You made mention of breast feeding in a restaurant requiring a coat and tie. I, for one, would be quite aggravated indeed if someone had the nerve to bring a child small enough to be breast fed into such an eatery. I equate that to bringing a 6 month old to the theatre. Hire a babysitter or cook at home! I don't care to hear your whining child and I'd wager a bet that I wouldn't be the only one.

PS.. I don't really care for open breast feeding in public either. Covered up with a scarf, etc.. is fine with me.. bare breats out for all to see.. nope, don't care for that..

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-22-2003, 10:29 PM:

Actually last year the supreme court ruled that since the law didn't restrict men from going topless then they could be no legal penalty for females to go topless and as such if a woman wants to walk around topless go for it [Big Grin]

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-22-2003, 10:29 PM:

I would never go into a restaurant where I have to wear a tie. A tie is a stupid piece of clothing, and it might hang into the soup.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-22-2003, 11:17 PM:

quote:
Of all the women I have seen breast feeding in public only a small amount choose not to put a scarf or blanket over the nursing kid. What is the problem you guys have with doing that? What problem could a woman have with doing that if it might offend someone?

I'm not against a woman choosing to cover up. But you are insisting on it. I see no reason to force a woman to hide as though she is doing something illicit.

quote:
Private body parts being sucked on in public, are body parts being sucked on in public no matter what sex. So now the double standard is shown. Women can do it but men can't. Hmmm

Are you really claiming to not understand that one is a sex act and the other is not? Why do you keep insisting on connecting these two completely unrelated things? Women breastfeeding when and where the need arises, with or without a covering, has nothing to do with the legality of sex in public or dramatically passing gas. I think it's your case that is running out of gas when you have to trot out all this unrelated crap.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-22-2003, 11:22 PM:

quote:
If I'm out for dinner at a nice restaurant I do not want to see tits unless it's a topless bar and I'm there on purpose

Now you really surprise me, Greg. I would not have pictured you as someone going to topless bars. Does your wife know about this secret hobby?

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-22-2003, 11:24 PM:

This discussion is discusting, boring, and stupid. I think we should go back to discussing blow jobs... [evil]

OBTW: Mike, skip the soup. The tie won't be a problem. Or, throw your tie over your shoulder...that'll keep it outta your soup.

Emily Post told me...

>>> Phil

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-22-2003, 11:27 PM:

OK, you start the new thread and I'll be right over.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-22-2003, 11:28 PM:

Steve...LOL!

>>> Phil

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 10-22-2003, 11:35 PM:

Michael, when you come to ShoWest I will show you a restaurant where, if you happen to wear a tie into the place, you will be required to have it cut off and hung permanently from the rafters (along side hundreds of others). My kind of place. [thumbsup]

Randy, that PA announcement sounds like someone has been on one of my canyon tour flights. I want those residuals! [Big Grin]

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 10-23-2003, 09:12 AM:

"....I think it's your case that is running out of gas when you have to trot out all this unrelated crap....."

Well Steve the original topic was a pilot kicking a mother and kid off and airplane for aberrant behavior. Most of the people responding to this thread have agreed that the pilot was right.
So what we are really talking about is perceived aberrant behavior.
I see women who expose private parts of their body in an eating establishment (or anywhere else for that matter) as aberrant behavior. Especially when they are in the minority and could very easily not expose said parts of body but CHOOSE to. Which is the reason for the original comment I made which led to your attack.
So like it or not I still continue to dislike aberrant behavior in any form in a public place. I consider it ill mannered and un appropriate behavior. What's more, I shouldn't have to turn my head close my eyes, turn the other cheek or anything else when somebody engages in boorish and/or illegal behavior. I don't care who does it. That's my opinion. Don't like it? Tough

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-23-2003, 09:51 AM:

Apologies in advance for going off-topic.

quote:
Kodak and other progressive companies encourage working mothers to breastfeed during working hours...

So that's why Kodak is reported to be in dire financial straits - because its staff spend all their time feeding their kids rather than making cameras and film and stuff... [Roll Eyes]

Seriously, I have no real problem with breast feeding in public, just as long as it's done discretely and is not accompanied by any other antisocial behaviour (e.g. the baby crying, vomiting or filling its nappy - not a sound, sight or smell one would want to be confronted with, say, in a restaurant). But I'm completely fed up with this politically correct/snivel libertarian ethos which says that women should be allowed to do what the hell they like in the workplace and that men should have to pull their female colleagues' weight because to expect these employees to do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay would be misogynist and discriminatory.

I was recently required to attend a 'diversity training' session in which we were told that, in effect, society should make whatever concessions women, disabled and ethnic minority employees feel they would like. This included 'facilitating flexible working' (translation: they work when they damn well like and you work when they don't like, which is most of the time), 'facilitating home working' (translation: taking extra paid leave whenever they like), 'respecting the work-life balance' (translation: letting them off doing even more work) and much else besides.

Off the top of my head I can think of four workplaces in which freeloading female employees were partly or wholly responsible for my having to work ridiculous amounts of (usually unpaid) overtime. The worst such example was a chief projectionist who'd just had a baby and announced that she 'knew her rights', which meant never having to work evenings and weekends. Yes, that's right, this is a cinema and someone announces that she won't work evenings and weekends! The management were too scared of being taken to some loony left equal opportunities tribunal to stand up to her.

If these people can't stand the heat (i.e. do the same job, to the same level of efficiency, as their childless, healthy and/or male colleague), they should get out of the kitchen and this loony left freeloading culture should stop.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-23-2003, 10:01 AM:

Leo wrote:

quote:
So that's why Kodak is reported to be in dire financial straits - because its staff spend all their time feeding their kids rather than making cameras and film and stuff...

I'm sorry you feel that way, but many feel differently:

http://www.kodak.com/cgi-bin/US/en/corp/pressCenter/headlines.cgi

quote:
October 23 -- Recognizing the impact senior leaders have on diversity and inclusion in corporate America, Diversity Best Practices/Business Women's Network recently honored Daniel A. Carp, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Eastman Kodak Company, and nine other CEOs with the organization's Diversity Leadership Award.

IMHO, Kodak's consideration for its employees and customers helps it meet the challenges all companies are facing today.

And Kodak is not in "dire financial straits". For the third quarter of 2003, sales totaled $3.447 billion, up 3% from $3.352 billion in the third quarter of 2002. Earnings from continuing operations, excluding the impact of focused cost reductions and a non-operational item, were $252 million, or 88 cents per share.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-23-2003, 10:58 AM:

quote:
So like it or not I still continue to dislike aberrant behavior in any form in a public place. I consider it ill mannered and un appropriate behavior

ABERRANT Meaning different from the usual; different from the expected. Hmmm. That really doesn't enter into my moral calculus and I'm not really understanding why it should. Black people sharing a lunch counter or riding in the front of the bus was also once considered aberrant. (And no, I am not suggesting you are racist. Boobist perhaps.)

Status quo need not remain thus. If someone wishes to deviate from the expected norms it's reasonable to ask if the planned course of action carries a downside. In this case the mere fact that some folks will be horrified at the sight of a female breast is hardly good reason to force their concealment during a necessary function if comfort, convenience, etc. suggest otherwise.

In olden days a glimpse of stocking,
Was looked on as something shocking...

Society survived these shocks, all of which probably started as "aberrant" behavior and did not come crumbling down. Or maybe you think it has?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-23-2003, 11:04 AM:

quote:
And Kodak is not in "dire financial straits".

I did say 'reported to be in dire financial straits...' [Smile]

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 10-23-2003, 12:51 PM:

"...Society survived these shocks, all of which probably started as "aberrant" behavior and did not come crumbling down. Or maybe you think it has?..."

It is in the process, because of the "anything goes" philosphy that the politically correct, looney left is forcing on us. The "I know my rights" crowd does a lot of rediculous things "because they can" and to be defiant.
In the future, things might change, but I'm concern with things I do today, not some lah lah, wannabe perfect world of the future.
I guess you are just bound and determined to get the last word on me so go ahead Steve. I think you know where I stand and if you want to take some vaginized view towards life and public manners I could care less.
So go ahead and take the last shot

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-23-2003, 02:46 PM:

quote:
...if you want to take some vaginized view...

I've always loved the American English trick of turning nouns into verbs by quite simply adding -ize on the end (e.g. burglarize), but that trumps them all! [Big Grin]

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-23-2003, 02:53 PM:

I have no childish need to have the last word; in fact I was almost tempted to avoid responding just because of your taunt. However that would put me in the position of doing something (or not in this case) simply to prove a point and that's something I really abhor.

I agree with you that there are a lot of things wrong with our society and in some instances things have declined. But I am a rational thinking person, not an automaton, and I can give rational thought to things and not presume that change is automatically bad and not imagine connections that are a stretch at best and ridiculous at worst. Therefore as a rational thinking person I am not going to equate the occasional glimpse of a female breast in public as leading to the decline of our civilization.

Vaginized? Not a word in my dictionary but the highly misogynistic meaning is clear to all.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-23-2003, 04:55 PM:

OK Steve! That's it! You've used up your allotment of the 25-cent words.... [Razz]

>>> Phil

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 10-23-2003, 05:01 PM:

Progressive companies and government offices recognize the right of fathers to take paternity leave. Therefor time for a mother to breastfeed does not, to me, constitute unfair discrimination based on sex.

What are the alternatives to breastfeeding in public? Well, a lactating woman can express her milk into a sterile bottle, and if it can be kept from spoiling by refrigeration or freezing and then warmed to body temperature, she can feed it to her baby with a sterilized neoprene nipple. But I can't imagine many women able to do all that while traveling on an airplane, and I certainly don't think it advisable for her to take the baby into the toilet to breastfeed.

Cows milk? Formula? Have you tasted the difference? Mother's milk is far more flavorful and has the necessary antibodies to protect the child from disease, plus growth factors, which are not present in such substitutes. And eliminating the bottle eliminates lots of unsanitary baggage.

Ask any pediatrician or orthodontist about the differences in child development between breast feeding and bottle feeding. And bonding between mother and child is healthy for both, but who wants to bond with a glass or plastic bottle?

As for breastfeeding in art, any encyclopedia of art will reveal countless icons, paintings and sculptures from the middle ages through the renaissance right up to modern times showing the babe imbibing from his mother's breast, both in religious and secular art. I can't imagine any library, museum or church that would ban them, except in extremely repressive societies?

Breastfeeding in public illegal? Where? I would not want to live in such a society, if such exists.

As for restaurants, it is natural for parents to feed the
family when its members are hungry. Babies are hungry pretty often, and if not fed on demand, become irritable and cry. For a mother to deny the baby food while feeding the rest of the family is cruel. Not every mother can afford to leave the baby home with a wet-nurse, nor would many mothers consider this a desirable option.

Children who grow up in families where the mother breastfeeds her children realize the naturalness of the practice
and develope healthier attitudes towards their bodies and towards motherhood.

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 10-23-2003, 10:16 PM:

quote:
Cows milk? Formula? Have you tasted the difference [between these two and mother's milk]?

Have you?

Sorry, I just had to ask. [evil]

-Aaron

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-23-2003, 10:40 PM:

To bring the discussion back to the original topic: What are your feelings about breastfeeding pilots?

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-23-2003, 11:38 PM:

Mike, the pilots are allowed to be breast-fed up until the age of 65, IF it will not interfere with piloting the plane!

>>> Phil

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-23-2003, 11:43 PM:

Phil most babys have auto pilot for that issue [Smile]

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 10-24-2003, 01:34 AM:

Another in-flight berserker incident happened yesterday, right here. A bit more serious than the incident that started this thread, but still dealt with in a most appropriate manner. [thumbsup]

As for me, I was a bottle baby... [Razz]

Man Subdued on Southwest Flight

Thursday, October 23, 2003 Posted: 11:16 PM EDT (0316 GMT)

(CNN) -- A man aboard a Southwest Airlines flight from Nevada to California threatened to "take this aircraft down" and became so unruly that flight attendants and passengers had to subdue him with plastic restraints, officials said Thursday.

An FBI spokesman in Las Vegas, Nevada, where the flight originated Wednesday, said Salvador Gonzalez, 27, of Oceanside, California, had been arraigned Thursday and charged with assault, interfering with a flight crew, giving false information and making threats.

A judge ordered that he remain in custody.

The FBI spokesman said that soon after Southwest Airlines Flight 2466 from Las Vegas to Ontario, California, got under way, Gonzalez told a flight attendant he wanted to speak to police in Ontario as soon as the plane landed.

When he took his seat, he complained of breathing difficulties, the spokesman said, and demanded oxygen. Gonzalez then got up and walked toward the front of the aircraft and began making threatening statements, the FBI spokesman said.

"He said, 'I want to get off this plane, do I have to say there is a bomb on the plane to get off?' and 'I'm going to take this aircraft down,'" the FBI spokesman said.

Gonzalez was also aggressive and pulled luggage out of overhead bins, the spokesman said, at which point he was subdued and beaten by passengers. He sustained minor injuries, the spokesman said.

Southwest Airlines spokesman Ed Stewart said Gonzalez also rocked in his chair so forcefully that he knocked it loose from the floor.

The plane was diverted back to Las Vegas, the FBI spokesman said, and Gonzalez was arrested upon arrival.

CNN producer Beth Lewandowski contributed to this report.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-24-2003, 05:16 AM:

Salvador probably was bottlefed instead of breastfed in his infancy. That might account for his problems.
Here is another interesting question: if he lives in Oceanside, why does he fly to Ontario rather than San Diego? It takes more than 1h longer to get from Ontario to Oceanside than from San Diego. There seems to be a lot wrong with this guy. Does he even have a legal driver license?

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 10-24-2003, 11:51 AM:

Yes,Aaron,

I certainly have, both as a baby and as a father. Mother's milk is sweet and delicious, though its actual flavor is influenced by her diet.

More people should taste what they give to their babies, since pablum-type foods, and many processed foods in jars are tasteless or worse. All parents should check. Don't trust the advertising hype.

Gerard