Flight Is Canceled After a Child Refuses to Be Seated
Passengers aboard a Porter Airlines plane headed to Toronto had to wait for a flight the next day after a child remained standing in a seat and would not get buckled in, the company said.
A flight from British Columbia to Toronto was canceled on Thursday after a child would not sit down and buckle a seatbelt before takeoff, the airline said.
Porter Airlines flight PD444 had left the terminal at Victoria International Airport in British Columbia and was headed for the runway when crew members saw a young child who was “standing in their seat and would not secure their seatbelt,” the airline said in a statement.
“Attempts by the accompanying parent and crew to address this were unsuccessful,” according to the company, which did not provide the age of the child.
“The aircraft could not take off in this unsafe condition, so the crew elected to return to the terminal and have the passengers disembark,” the airline added.
…
Well, I don’t know about you people, but I’m speechless.
Sounds like that is what they were trying to do but the flight was actually cancelled because by the time the child and parent were removed, it was too late for the plane to take off.
The time required “to bridge the aircraft, deplane the passengers in question, retrieve their baggage, refile flight plans and other paperwork meant that it was too late to depart” because the airport’s runway closes at 12:30 a.m., the statement said.
A spokeswoman for the airport confirmed that the flight was canceled because of the airport’s “scheduled airfield closure.”
So it’s a bit of a misleading headline. If the flight was a little earlier it would not have been cancelled.
They did taxi back and kid them off the plane. By then it was too late to take off for whatever complicated reason. I have no idea why but I do know that these logistical systems are enormously complicated.
At first I thought the kid was flying unaccompanied, which would make the story make a little more sense. But the parent was sitting next to the kid and couldn’t manage to make them sit down? Very weird indeed. Maybe there is some reasonable explanation, but I’d hate to be the parent at this point, because they’re going to be eviscerated on the Interwebz about this.
Per Flightaware, the plane was supposed to take off at 11:03 p.m. PDT. The airport runway didn’t close until 12:30 a.m., so that wasn’t the issue. Maybe the delay to disembark the child and their family (and their luggage) would have pushed the crew past their max allowable awake time.
I don’t really follow you. 1.5 hours to spend on: attempting to get the child to sit, deciding to give up, travel back to the gate, get the luggage off the plane, and top of fuel absolutely feels like it would be an issue to me.
You’re probably right. I always think things will take less time time than they actually do.
Let’s see: Per the Flightaware link, gate departure was scheduled for 10:30 p.m., with takeoff scheduled for 10:40 p.m. Actual gate departure was 11:03 p.m., and they were supposed to take off at 11:13 p.m. Five minutes trying to get the kid to sit down and ten minutes to taxi back to the gate puts them at about 11:30 p.m. Then at least 15 minutes getting them off…and what if they push back and argue with the decision?
Toddler, per NY Post. I would not assume parents who are unable to restrain their toddler are necessarily at fault; some toddlers can resist strongly enough to injure themselves, and a meltdown or developmental disability* can be extremely difficult to manage.
~Max
* Not saying this particular child has a developmental disability.
Captain should have gone over to the parent and miscreant and say, “You’ve got 2 minutes to get that kid buckled in - or get escorted off the plane.” If the tantrum hadn’t been allowed to drag on for a full hour prior to being ejected, the plane might have been able to beat the 12:30 takeoff deadline.
I have heard the Captain announce that they would not be taking off until everyone was in their seat and buckled in, but I have never witnessed them ejecting an individual who refused to do so (though, in principle, they would have to? And, I assume, ban such a person?)
I wonder what motivated the child. I remember my first flight, back in 1964. My parents explained what would happen, that I had to wear a seatbelt just like we had in the car, but I’d be able to look down from thousands of feet in the air, and we’d be halfway across the country in only a little while. It sounded so exciting, that I was anxious to obey every rule.
Well, that flight occurred without any incident, and I still remember it. Not because anything out of the ordinary happened, but because it was my first flight. Still, my parents had done a lot of prepping beforehand about what to expect, made sure I had enough distractions during the flight (I had my own little carry-on bag, with comic books, a coloring book and crayons, and plenty of candy). And I got the Junior Pilot wings from the stewardess, as flight attendants were known then, and all the soft drinks I could drink.
Wow! Candy I could eat without asking? Bottomless Cokes? Wings that say that I’m a VIP? This was a treat! If this was what flying was like, then I wanted to be on my best behaviour, and follow the rules.
I cannot explain this child’s behaviour. But I can suggest that the child’s parents did little to nothing to prepare the child for the flight, in the way that I was, way back when.
I think the biggest thing regarding the time taken have the plane ready to take-off without the kid (and presumably the parent) is getting the luggage off.
Due to the risk of terrorism, airlines must take off the luggage of passengers not on the plane. Depending on the plane this can involve either taking off a luggage container, and empting and refilling that or (on a smaller plane) taking off every suitcase until they find the right one, both of these take quite a bit of time.
