OMG - can you believ this story??? Crying Child and Her Parents Removed From Flight

[KarenNYC]

Crying Child and Her Parents Removed From Flight
AirTran Ejected 3-Year-Old and Her Parents After Tantrum


Elly Kulesza, 3, and her parents, Julie and Gerald, were kicked off an AirTran Airways flight from Florida to their Worcester, Mass., home because Elly would not stop crying. (ABC News)


Jan. 23, 2007 — Every parent has dealt with a child having a tantrum and causing embarrassment at the worst times — in a grocery store, in a restaurant, and at weddings.

For a Massachusetts mom and dad, however, their toddler's tantrum cost them their flight home.


On Jan. 14, 3-year-old Elly Kulesza and her parents, Julie and Gerald, were kicked off an AirTran Airways flight from Florida to their Worcester, Mass., home because Elly would not stop crying.

Elly, who had been a model passenger on the flight to Florida four days earlier, began to cry uncontrollably once she got on the plane, throwing a temper tantrum on the floor.

AirTran employees demanded that the Kuleszas calm down their child. When Elly didn't stop crying, the crew banned the Kuleszas from flying for 24 hours. Later, AirTran offered an apology to the family along with a refund on their tickets.

"As we have an obligation to the 112 other passengers onboard the flight to operate the flight on time," AirTran said in a statement, "we had to make an operational decision to ask the Kulesza party to deplane so the flight could depart."


Passengers Sympathetic, Unlike Crew, Parents Say

On "Good Morning America," the Kuleszas insisted that their toddler wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary.

"I don't know what happened. No one can tell when something like this is going to happen. She had a great morning, but then she got on the plane and she started to cry," Julie Kulesza said.

"She's like the typical 3-year-old. She has her moments, but overall she's a very, very good child."

The Kuleszas said that unlike the AirTran crew, the passengers on the flight were sympathetic to their situation.

"I jokingly turned around and asked the three gentlemen behind me, 'Aren't you glad you got these seats?" Julie said. "Another passenger offered up a lollipop to try and calm her down."

Despite AirTran's apology and offer of a complimentary flight, the Kuleszas don't plan to fly with the airline anytime soon.

"We'll pass on that," Gerald Kulesza said. "After that, I told them I'd never fly with them again."

[Alys the Cat]

It's interesting how different media outlets portray the same incident. I read the AP article in my local online paper today, and it was less sympathetic:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-123tempertantrum,0,6134461.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

I think what really bugged me were the nasty comments people posted in response to the story. Didn't they ever have kids? Is a three year old in an unfamiliar environment really that easy to control? Yikes.

[mommy111]

What a bunch of idiots!!!!!!!!!!!
To deplane a crying child! And if the child is throwing a tantrum, why is it such a big deal to have her in your lap instead of the seat? Completely horrible!

[jgriffin]

In all fairness to the airline, I think it was a tough decision to make. Safety is important, and most of you probably wouldn't think of getting in your car and driving off without your toddler safely buckled in. You have the luxury to wait until he is done with his tantrum to get him in his carseat, but what if you didn't? If the girl was sitting on her parent's lap and there was even a minor accident, she could be injured. Probably wouldn't happen, but it's the airline's duty to keep everyone safe.

Also, it *is* unfair to the other passengers to delay a flight, whatever the reason (and no matter how sympathetic they may be). Maybe they have connecting flights that they might miss. Maybe they've got a kid with them who might have a meltdown too if they're on that plane any longer than they have to be. I would argue that they should have given the parents more time to calm her down, but how long would be enough?

I'm not saying what AirTran did was right, and I feel terrible for the family, but I can see why they made the decision they did.

Jen

[KBecks]

I wonder how many minutes they gave the family to work with the child before demading they leave.

As for the comments, some people hate children.

[Lynnie]

those comments are incredible.

wow.

[dules]

Agreed, but (call Nanny 911 right now) I've been known to smush a screaming DD into her carseat in the car when we're late, I'd probably do the same on a plane. (ducks)

To the PP who mentioned some people hate children, so true. I flew yesterday and there was a baby 15 months or so on my flight. Super cute kid, but noisy. You'd think the mother had brought on a bag of excrement the way people shifted away and gave her dirty looks. The flight was not nearly full so they found lots of room near the back. If it had been full, I was going to volunteer to sit in the row with them or in front of the baby to try and cut down on the evil looks the mom was getting (like it's not hard enough to get through the airport alone with a toddler).

OK, related vent over. LOL.


Mary

[psophia17]

I'm a smusher, too, when I need to be.

As to the OP - if I was on a flight and my 3yo was pitching a fit, I'd like to think I could calm him down in a reasonable amount of time. Does it say anywhere how long the girl was having her tantrum for before the family was deplaned?

[Marisa6826]

I agree, and we've all been there. However, after seeing the kid on a clip from (possibly?) the Today Show - it was a link to in the article - she started acting up toward the end of the interview, I'm not so sure she's the little angel her family is making her out to be.

If she boarded as a regular passenger, she had to have had at least 15-20 minutes before they were ready to take off. If she was throwing a fit for that long, and was hitting, screaming, etc., then there was probably a good chance that she wasn't going to calm down. Who knows what the kid is like at home. The parents mentioned that they thought her 'ear may have bothered her' on the trip down, and that set her off. I don't know, but I wonder what the publicity would have been if the parents insisted on getting off instead of being thrown off and their request was denied. Would the airline then be as despicable for keeping the kid hostage? Instead it was the kid keeping 112 other people hostage, so the story has two sides.

I have been stuck on a transcontinental flight from Italy to NYC with what can only be described as the child from hell. Put it this way, the parents flew first class, and the kid and his nanny flew coach. That child was just AWFUL. Not crying, just shrieking at the top of his lungs, running up and down the aisles for the majority of the 6+ hour flight, pushing, throwing things, refusing to sit, thinking it was just hysterically funny when the nanny tried to control him. Let me tell you, it was honestly one of the longest flights of my life.

One word. BENADRYL.

-m

[niccig]

That's a good point about what the tantrum was like. My DS will cry and throw himself on the floor, but he calms down quickly. And yes, I've smushed him into his carseat as a last resort. A child in our parent ed. class lashes out, I've seen her kick/bite/hit her mother and once as the mum was carrying her out of the room she accidentally kicked another child in the head. All the parents watch her like a hawk as she can go from playing happily to lashing out in seconds. It's really sad. If the girl on the plane was throwing a similar tantrum, I can see why they couldn't take off as in a confined space she could have hurt herself and others. I wonder how bad the tantrum was, and how much time they had to calm her down.

[kbudsberg]

As a former flight attendant, supervisor of flight attendant training, and supervisor of over several hundred flight attendants I think they did the right thing. There are some questions that are unanswered in the article though.

The one big thing was if the f/a's were demanding about it or had they tried to help. When I was flying I always tried to help parent's w/their children. Traveling w/children is stressful and often brings out the worse in them. I've worked w/too many f/a's that were down right rude to kids and the parents. So assuming they too tried (although I do have my concerns w/the f/a saying you need to get her in control, unless this was the final warning) to help I think they did the right thing.

The FAA requires the girl to be in her seat w/a seatbelt on anytime the seatbelt sign is on. If she is not (or anyone for that matter) the plane cannot go. They are right that there were over 100 other paying passengers to be considered. Being 3 she is required by the faa to be in her own seat and can't be held.

I also wonder if they were still at the gate or on the taxiway. That's a big difference. At the gate, I'd say give them a couple of minutes more to get the girl settled. If they were on an active taxi way the pilot is required to actually pull the plane off until the person is seated. In that case there is a more immediate safety concern. I don't know of a pilot that wouldn't have someone removed if they had to return to the gate because of them.

I am a parent of a child who I will admit is often not in my control. Unless you have one of these you wouldn't understand, I didn't until Emma showed up. However, we travel a lot and I come prepared. If I need to bribe her on the plane w/candy, then so be it. We don't use bribes at home, just traveling. This is also why she travels in her carseat on the plane whenever possible (since we fly standby occassionally we can't use it). She is more familiar w/it and cannot get out of it like she can the plane seatbelt.

Kim

[linsei]

We flew on Air Tran this summer when ds was a few months past his 2nd b-day. Let me just say that the flight crew made all of the difference. On the way there, they wouldn't even let us hold him in our lap when the seat belt sign was turned off. He whimpered the entire flight because we had to keep him in his seat with the belt on. Granted, we didn't get the the tantrum level and did not delay the flight, but we got a lot of dirty looks from the big-haired, fake nailed, stiletto wearing flight attendants.

On the way home, ds was sick (not puking, but lethargic and had a fever). I really was stressed about the return trip because of how the 1st flight was. On this flight, the crew members were so nice. I told them he was almost 2.5, got sick at the end of our vacation. They told me that it was fine to hold him in my lap, that he was still considered a lap-child. I said again that he was over 2, just in case they misunderstood me, and they repeted it was fine. We held him the entire flight, even during takeoff and landing.

I'm not saying that 1 person should be able to delay the flight, but kicking them off seems a little extreme.

Linda

http://b3.lilypie.com/64MSm4/.png[/img][/url]

[bubbaray]

Those comments are sad. We were all children at one point.


Melissa

DD#1: 04/2004

DD#2: c/s 01/2007

[JBaxter]

I have traveled with a 3 yr old who on a good day is challenging. Even in his worse tantrum I am able to pick him up and restrain him smushing him into the seat if necessary ( Im bigger so I win may not be popular but I am the parent so I make the rules). I feel bad for the family getting kicked off but in the end if they cant get a 3 yr old in a seat and strap her in tightly with a seat belt they have bigger problems. The rules are over 2 you must be strapped in to as seat for take off. Delaying everyone shouldnt be an option ( connecting flights, missed work and just aggervation) because a 3 yr old decides she didnt want to sit in her seat. I think the correct thing was done.

[Marisa6826]

Thanks for the insight Kim. It always helps to hear from somebody that's been there/done that.

-m

[cmo]

I think it said 15 minutes.

[chlobo]

I was in the waiting room with parents of a "willful" child. They dutifully gave the child benadryl before getting on the plane. Unfortunately, it didn't have the intended effect and the kid was wired for the entire flight.

[Marisa6826]

Yeah, I did a 'test' run with Sophie before making a six hour drive alone with both girls last year.

It has NO effect on her whatsoever. Glad I knew that before the trip!

-m

[deannamorrison]

I agree with you Jeana.Of course, I'm positive that if anyone had seen the parents holding the child down and forcing into the car seat, they would have been criticized for that,too. Sometimes you just can't win!

[mariza]

As a parent, I feel bad that these people had to go through this, the poster who compared it to traveling with a child in a car without a carseat hit the nail on the head. No one of us would ever consider doing that and I think the airline would be doing the family a greater injustice if they had allowed that to happen.
I was on a flight once where the right engine blew up shortly after takeoff and we had to circle the control tower for 45 minutes so they could see the extent of the damage before allowing us to make an emergency landing. Imagine if something like this happened and they allowed the family to stay on, it would traumatize the child forever. I know this is an extreme example, but beleive me, stuff like this happens and as an airport security manager, I'm just trained to think this way - just as the AirTran employees acted upon their training. The majority of people reacting to this story are parents, and rightly so are voicing opinions based on those gut reactions. There are rules for everything, and no one expects the traveling public to like or understand them all the time, just to trust in the system and know that there are reasons for the rules even if they seem unfair at the time.
I think AirTran went above and beyond giving the family a full refund, a flight home AND free tickets for future travel. I've seen many a passenger get kicked off of flights for being disruptive and not get these "perks". The airline does have the right to refuse service to anyone they deem unfit for travel, this includes intoxicated passengers, passengers suffering from dementia whom I've witnessed become confused and beligerant (even violent) and unfortuanltely it can include children. When you have 100+ paying customers you have to worry about everyone's needs and make a decision quickly. Delays cost money and airlines are in the money making business.

*sorry for spelling & grammer errors, too tired to correct*
Mariza
Mommy to my "Thing 1" DD 1/05
and "Thing 2" DS 9/06

[mariza]

As a parent, I feel bad that these people had to go through this, the poster who compared it to traveling with a child in a car without a carseat hit the nail on the head. No one of us would ever consider doing that and I think the airline would be doing the family a greater injustice if they had allowed that to happen.
I was on a flight once where the right engine blew up shortly after takeoff and we had to circle the control tower for 45 minutes so they could see the extent of the damage before allowing us to make an emergency landing. Imagine if something like this happened and they allowed the family to stay on, it would traumatize the child forever. I know this is an extreme example, but beleive me, stuff like this happens and as an airport security manager, I'm just trained to think this way - just as the AirTran employees acted upon their training. The majority of people reacting to this story are parents, and rightly so are voicing opinions based on those gut reactions. There are rules for everything, and no one expects the traveling public to like or understand them all the time, just to trust in the system and know that there are reasons for the rules even if they seem unfair at the time.
I think AirTran went above and beyond giving the family a full refund, a flight home AND free tickets for future travel. I've seen many a passenger get kicked off of flights for being disruptive and not get these "perks". The airline does have the right to refuse service to anyone they deem unfit for travel, this includes intoxicated passengers, passengers suffering from dementia whom I've witnessed become confused and beligerant (even violent) and unfortuanltely it can include children. When you have 100+ paying customers you have to worry about everyone's needs and make a decision quickly. Delays cost money and airlines are in the money making business.

*sorry for spelling & grammer errors, too tired to correct*
Mariza
Mommy to my "Thing 1" DD 1/05
and "Thing 2" DS 9/06

[babybear]

I thought it was interesting that on Good Morning America by the end of the segment she was squirmy and lifting her dress over her head. Also the parents said that on their return flight they ended up giving her Benedryl (sp?).

[babybear]

I thought it was interesting that on Good Morning America by the end of the segment she was squirmy and lifting her dress over her head. Also the parents said that on their return flight they ended up giving her Benedryl (sp?).

[AngelaS]

I totally agree that AirTran did the right thing.

[hobokenmom]

I also believe AT did the right thing.

Last year I was on a flight to the Cayman Islands, and there was a kid about 3, having a huge temper tantrum for what seemed to go on for at least a half hour.

Then once the plan had landed, the kid was still throwing a fit, and the parents obviously allowed him to unbuckle while the plane was taxiing and he was in the middle of the aisle kicking and screaming while the plane was moving to the gate. The flight attendants didn't do anything to tell the parents that they were putting their child in danger (I'm not sure why).

In my opinion, there were some great parenting issues going on here, but I believe the cops should have gotten on that airplan and arrested those PARENTS who allowed their child to lay, kicking and screaming in the aisle, while he should have been safely buckled into a seat.

Those are exactly the same type of parent who would probably sue the airline *if* the plane had stopped short and their child was injured, even though he wasn't buckled in.

[dules]

I think most folks agree that if the child was in danger (i.e. not buckled in) that the airline did the right thing by protecting her safety and deplaning the family.

What do you think, though, if the child *were* strapped in, just screaming and having a tantrum? Would the crew be justified in having the family removed, because their little passenger was disruptive, belligerent, and disturbing to the other 100+ paying passengers?

I'm just curious here. :) For me, if I were travelling without DD and there were another loud kid having a tantrum, I wouldn't be happy but would be pretty sympathetic to the parents and just try to ignore the noise. But before I had kids, I would have wanted that child off of the plane. Similarly, if it were DD behaving that way, I'd feel bad, but don't feel that it's worth kicking us off the flight over, provided she's contained in her carseat in the plane.

Thoughts?


Mary

[hobokenmom]

No, I don't think the airline would have the right to kick them off just because the kid was screaming IF she were properly buckled in.

Yes, I'd be FUMING MAD if I were on the plane (especially without my own kids), but look, things like that happen. Kids are kids, and they're going to pitch fits.

I'd like to think that I don't generally give in to any type of huge fit, so if my kid were the one screaming and crying, I'd use force to jam him into the carseat, and then once he realized he'd lost the battle he'd stop crying fairly soon.

Let's face it, in situations like this, we (as outsiders) are seeing one tiny glimpse into the lives of those parents with that kid. It's tough to pass judgment in such a short time.

[mariza]

Most likely no. However, if it were so bad that the other passengers could not hear or understand the crew's instructions over the screaming, than the airline would reserve that right to have the family removed, but I think they would give them the benefit of the doubt. Aircraft are not allowed to move if anyone required to be in a seat is not in one, so a screaming child however disruptive is not the same as an unseated one.
I've seen elderly passengers suffering from dementia removed for being loud and disruptive, IMO that is no different from a child who behaves the same.

Mariza
Mommy to my "Thing 1" DD 1/05
and "Thing 2" DS 9/06

[DrSally]

It's hard to know wo/being there, but ultimately I guess they couldn't take off wo/ her straped to her seat. I can only hope they were polite about it. As for the comments on the article site--I had to write a few responses myself, they were just horrible. Over the holidays, we had a woman on the other side of the isle, 2 seats over literally scream at DH b/c DS was playing with an electronic phone. It was so muted with the airplane noise, that I didn't think anything of it. He was so amazingly good on the flight, no crying (except when we took away the phone). If it bothered her, she could've said something to us instead of raging at my husband in front of my baby. I was angry that she screamed b/c we never scream at/around him. Ok, got that off my chest.

ETA: In reference to the article responses on the other site, when these people talk about "brats" on the plane (and worse), I have to say that their lewd and disgusting responses show themselves to be Brats!

[sdbc]

I agree. They weren't kicked off because of crying. They were kicked off because she wasn't in her seat. The parents were obligated to buckle her in. If they couldn't or wouldn't do so, they should not be allowed to hold the rest of the passengers up--they could have connecting flights, weddings, who knows what they had to get to.

I'm sympathetic to the parents, and i wouldn't judge a parent with a child having a tantrum, but i do judge them for acting like some huge injustice was put upon them. It was a practical decision, from what I can tell. Why do they think that everyone should have to wait for *them* rather than that they should have to wait for the next flight? Sure it would suck, but that's life.

Sue, mommy to Aurora (Rory) born 5/13/04

[tylersmama]

>I'm sympathetic to the parents, and i wouldn't judge a parent
>with a child having a tantrum, but i do judge them for acting
>like some huge injustice was put upon them. It was a practical
>decision, from what I can tell. Why do they think that
>everyone should have to wait for *them* rather than that they
>should have to wait for the next flight? Sure it would suck,
>but that's life.
>


ITA. In my opinion, Air Tran went above and beyond what was necessary for these people, yet they're still out there in the media stirring the pot. Do they legitimately think that they were treated so poorly, or are they just trying to get their 5 minutes of fame? Maybe I'm just cynical, but either way, I really don't think Air Tran is in the wrong here.

[madelinesmom]

>One word. BENADRYL.
>

Before kids, my husband and I were on a night flight to Florida, we were going golfing, others were going to Disney. The flight left Houston at 8:00, packed with kids, we were scared to death, that many kids we knew there had to be problems. Nothing... Not one... probably one of the best flights... It makes you wonder if they passed out Benadryl when the parents boarded the plane...


Jane
Madeline 1/20/03
Emily 11/29/05
http://b4.lilypie.com/l3-em6/.png
http://b1.lilypie.com/-FG1m6/.png

[BeachBum]

This story is so misleading compared to other reports I've read. I absolutely think AT did the right thing.
They weren't kicked off for crying, they were kicked off for not buckling their child into her seat. They delayed the flight for 15 min to try to accomodate this family.
Then they refunded the family's money. And offered them vouchers for another flight! Above and beyond IMO.


Additionally, I saw a report that the child had recently had some sort of ear surgery.
I'm assuming that she was extra sensitive to the pressure on the descent and flipped out when faced with flying again. Pretty insensitive of the parents to fly with her in the first place.

[supercalifragilous]

My ped told us that in order for the Benadryl to work as intended (make kids drowsy), you have to give them the proper dosage for their weight. Underdosing or overdosing causes kids to instead become wired. Of course there also some kids/people who just don't react to the drug well anyway and could also produce the same effect.

Anyway, he gave us the proper exact dosage for diphenhydramine (Benadryl) based on DD's body weight instead of following package instructions.

[Globetrotter]

While I feel bad for the family, I think AT did the right thing because it's a safety issue. You cannot and should not take off without every passenger buckled in their seat. I think her ear surgery must have made flying extremely painful, so the parents should have considered that before making her fly again. There are some preventive measures to make it less painful - I think some sort of drops?


Kris

[Jen841]

My Mom gets WIRED from Benedryl (you would think she was WAY overserved!) If I intend to use it I will need to have a practice run.

[dhano923]

I think the airline did the right thing. It's not fair to the other 100 passengers to delay the flight because the parents woouldn't belt their child in. Plus the story I read online this morning (can't remember which site because I read several) said that the parents were told they needed to buckle the child in and they refused. The child was climbing under the seats in front of her and they did nothing. That's wrong of the parents IMO. A screaming child is one thing, but a screaming child climbing around and bothering other passengers while you do nothing is unacceptable in my book.