|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
The airlines have come
under fire for the policy that critics say is political correctness gone mad
after a man revealed he was ordered to change seats during a Qantas flight
because he was sitting next to a young boy travelling alone. Auckland man Mark
Worsley says an air steward approached him after take-off on the Christchurch
to Auckland flight and told him to change seats with a women sitting two rows
in front. The steward said it was the airline's policy that only women were
allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children. "At the time I was
so gobsmacked that I moved. I was so embarrassed and just stewed on it for
the entire flight," Mr Worsley said. The 37-year-old
shipping manager, who has two-year-old twins, followed the incident up with
the airline and was told Qantas wanted to err on the side of caution. "I felt that it
was totally discriminatory - besides the point of what the hell was I going
to do on a crowded flight." The incident, which
happened a year ago, irked Mr Worsley so much that he recently contacted
National Party political correctness eradicator Wayne Mapp. Dr Mapp said the
airlines' policy was an example of political correctness that had got out of
hand. "I think this is a
gross over-reaction by the airlines. What do they think men are going to do
that women won't? It is the same as saying men shouldn't sit beside children
on a bus," he said. A Qantas spokesman
confirmed the Australian airline, which operates domestic flights in New
Zealand, does not allow unaccompanied children to sit next to men. The spokesman
said the airline believed it was what customers wanted. Air New Zealand
spokeswoman Rosie Paul said the airline had a similar policy to that of
Qantas. "Airlines are
temporary guardians of unaccompanied minors so we have preferred seating for
them," she said. Air New Zealand tried
to seat children near a crew area so crew could keep an eye on them and, when
possible, children were seated next to an empty seat. "Sometimes this
isn't possible, so the preference is to seat a female passenger next door to
an unaccompanied minor," she said. When asked if the
airline considered male passengers to be dangerous to children, Ms Paul
replied: "That's not what I said." When it was put to her
that that was the implication of the policy, she repeated: "No, that's
not what I said." Children's Commissioner
Cindy Kiro said she commended the airlines for putting thought into the
policy and for endeavouring to keep children safe. Dr Kiro said she did
not think it was intended to be a slur against men. Green MP Keith Locke
said today he would be writing to the Human Rights Commission to get it to
intervene in what he felt was a clear breach of the Human Rights Act. "I will be writing
to the Human Rights Commission asking them to intervene to bring the two
airlines to their senses," he said. The airline needed to
recognise that "men are people too". "It is prejudicial
to presume that men can't be trusted to have contact with children unless
they are related to them or are specially trained," Mr Locke said. The ban went against
progress that had been made in society where men now played a greater role in
rearing their children – househusbands were more common – and engaging in
play centre and school activities.
|
