Why?

I don't think Southwest needs to apologize for anything. She admitted her kids were unruly. The last thing that should be happening on a plane is kids running around "excited." I just don't want any kids running around the plane - possibly causing some problem (opening a door, doing something at the galley, getting their hand sucked in the toilet) - worst case scenario, I know, but it's just not safe to have kids wandering around a plane.

I don't know, I think they deserve refunds. They paid money to go from point A to point B, and if I remember right, they didn't make it to point B. However, I also think they should be banned from the Airline, and they aren't deserved an apology.

Some will argue with me, because I know a lot of people side with the Airlines on this. And I'm definitely a huge screaming kid hater. But I don't like when businesses can kick you out and keep your money. Kick them off the plane, give them a refund and pamphlet for training on being a good parent.

They don't need to apologize. The refund was a nice gesture.

The refund was nice, but entirely optional in my opinion. While I do empathize with their cause--a bunch of kids, plus some disabilities makes for a rough time. However, children do not exist in a vacuum--they exist with other travelers, flight attendants, etc. It means that parents need to be able to control their children or reduce the exposure of poorly-behaving children [that is, not to be confused with children acting as children] out of consideration to others. However, the ironic part about it is that consideration is the missing element here--clearly this mother couldn't control her children and let them run wild on a plane - simply not appropriate. Next time they can get a minivan, but I'm sure she'll try to fly with them again.

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't know about banning the family in the future, but getting them off the flight and refunding the money seems to be the right balance of things.

They didn't fly the flight, so, sure, the tickets should be refunded. I actually think they might have gone as far as giving them the hotel room for the night since that was a bit of a stranding. However, they definitely don't need to apologize. They did all the passengers a great service, and we all know how serious the situation must have been if fricken police were called to meet them at the gate when they landed. Definitely a ridiculous sob story put on by the mother and the news crew.

An apology is so unnecessary. If I was Southwest I wouldn't have given the refund either.

Wow, talk about caving in. I guess airlines are in such bad shape even when they are right by refusing to allow them to fly, they still have to refund them to mitigate any bad press.

Are they going to start refunding tickets when they keep drunk people off flights? Both of these are judgment calls, if one deserves it why not all of them? Often the drunk people are less unruly than a herd of screaming running kids.

I think SW owes them something since the service wasn't provided. I wouldn't apologize for doing what needed to be done for safety reasons.

thats fair, in the future maybe they should ask if any persons purchasing tickets has a disability. then maybe this could have been avoided from the beginning.

Southwest is paying a small price for them to go away. The gesture probably reduces SW's chance @getting sued, since they gave them /something/. Wise move on their part - would you want to be sitting next to them?

You need to behave when traveling in a crowded space. She admits they did not behave. I am proud of SW but they should not provide a refund. This was manufactured by the media.

I think the refund is the perfect balance and will make everyone watching happy with Southwest. Personally, I would have given the refund along with a statement like "Refund? Heck, we'd have paid them to stay away."

Somehow I doubt Virgin is going to pad a plane, stock it with pixie sticks and invite them to fly for publicity this time.

@fostina1: This had ZERO to do with the disabilities of the kids, but rather the abilities of the parent.

I guess a full refund makes sense since they probably save more then that in the inevitable court cost in the coming lawsuit, even if its tossed out quickly.

(Im assuming that SW is requiring the family to waive their option to sue)

I think this is a reasonable outcome. I believe the parents should have consulted with doctors, since the kids obviously have special needs, they should have considered some sort of sedative for this out-of-the-ordinary experience, just in case.

Our local news just had a piece on our local news about this. Very much in favor of the family who by all that I have read is at fault.
I don't see a problem with refunding the tickets but I do not think they are owed an apology.

@crabbyman6: I've seen once a very drunk passenger in an airport. Oh, he was polite to everyone. Only he came crawling to customs :) He pulled out his docs from his pocked, while still ''walking'' on his knees and hands =)

Refund, yes. Apology? No.
If anything, the parents should apologize to Southwest.

Refunding their money is a good customer service gesture, if only in appearance, because of the high cost of plane tickets. From yesterday's Consumerist discussion, it seems the woman was entirely at fault. But the fact that people in Phoenix willingly chipped in to get the family a hotel room also seems to indicate that people do sympathize with them. This latest KPHO article notes too that no report was filed with Phoenix police. If one had been filed, Southwest's action would look legitimate instead of possibly heavy-handed.

The original news story was badly reported. I'd like to know what Phoenix police and other passengers on that plane have to say. It'd also help if Southwest would clarify "threatening behavior." Their use of vague terms only leads to further speculation on their justification for kicking the family off the flight.

I think a refund is fair, because the family didn't make the trip, at Southwest's request. I also think they're right not to apologize if the family was truly problematic.

I would think that the family had recourse under the Americans with disabilities act. At least two of the children had disabilities, both of which could lead to hyperexitation. IANAL but I would recommend she talk to one.

I'm glad they got the refund and no apology. If anything, they should have issued a statement reading "We've decided to terminate any business relationship with the Slaughter family. They have been issued a refund and further attempts to fly on Southwest will not be accepted."

I'm curious to hear what it was like on the plane from the other passengers. Did the Mom make any effort to control her kids? Or did she just ignore them and say 'Kids are kids!' over and over?

Southwest deserves an executive email carpet bomb of thanks (EECBs are only for complaints?) for respecting the rights of the other passengers on the flight.

@Bladefist: Banned from the airline is a bit much. Stranding a family somewhere is enough deterrent to both keep them away from the airline and keep other customers in line if they choose to return. A stern lesson is usually good enough.

Though, maybe banning all children from the airline is better? I can hope.

The refund is fair. The woman, however, should offer a public apology to all of the fellow passengers and flight crew on the original flight. I can't imagine what hell that must have been.

@JoeVet: Hyperexcitation? And you think the mother made a sound decision when she decided to take these potentially DANGEROUS HYPEREXCITED KIDS ON BOARD A JET AIRPLANE??? Puh-leeeeez dude, all is NOT fair in love and war. If they're so disabled that they can NOT fly in a public jet airplane then they do NOT belong on one and their mother KNEW this beforehand. She was being selfish, stupid, and SHE endangered the other people and the aircraft so NO, she gets no apology and I think the refund is a smart business move in our suit happy country but I don't think she's due that either.

@Eigtball: Actually, I'm pretty sure Southwest is one of the few not circling the gutter, due to hedged fuel prices (locked in a while back).

That said, I make a point to fly them because they make a point to treat me better than a farm animal. The refund was appropriate (I don't remember from the original article, but did SW detour to drop them off? If not, the family should be thankful they were dropped along their route at least). As for the apology, I'm glad SW didn't apologize, because truly, if you can piss off those flight attendants, you don't deserve one.

/I'm not a sock-puppet, just a person who can still tolerate flying because of them

I am absolutely shocked that is the actual picture of the mother. Seriously, did she have to purchase two tickets (isn't that Southwests policy)?

/The mullet in the picture is awesome, too.

I think she should be put on the no fly list, to begin with, but failing that, I think, looking at her, she should be charged for 6 seats per flight - 3 for her gross tonnage alone and 3 for the kids from now on.

I would only have issued an apology if it was accompanied by a discount coupon for Jenny Craig, lol.

@emona: Refund, yes. Apology? No.
If anything, the parents should apologize to Southwest.

Exactly. The parents should also apologize to all the other passengers too.

I'm a big fan of Southwest anyway, and even more so after this event. A refund was a nice gesture, given that they never flew. However, I'm sure their ticket stated that they could get booted for something like this. While it's usually the customer who gets the benefit of the doubt, it's about time that people who refuse to follow the rules of decency and common courtesy be shown the door.

Mocking their appearance; applauding abject humiliation of an overwhlmed mother with disabled kids. Nice work all, you should proud. And the meek shall inherit the earth.

I think people are hypothesizing too much on exactly how unruly the children in this situation were. The mother admitted the kids were unruly, but again this is all perception. At no point has it said anywhere that screaming was involved.

quote:
"The children were out of control on the flight you know, they were restless, excited and worked up and they are kids,"

A screaming overexcited child that won't/can't follow instructions (from airline or parent) to belt up when necessary is one thing. A child that merely wanders occasionally and perhaps explores their surroundings a little is another.

I don't believe that anyone here has nearly enough non-subjective information to say whether this family deserved the hassle they endured.

All that said I think the refunded tickets are deserved. I also think all the comments about "bad parents" are out of line until we get more details.

These breeders should not be allowed to fly

@Poxpopulus

And that adds to this conversation how? I'm sure were your picture plastered on the web we could all find myriad complaints about your personal appearance as well.

I think this refund is one of the reasons people like Southwest. I don't believe the family was entitled to a refund since them getting booted off the flight was due to their own actions. Would I get a refund if I missed my flight due to my own fault?

However, Southwest did refund them the portion of the flight they didn't take (even if they didn't have to) and are showing they still know how to treat customers, even ones acting so unruly as to be kicked off of a flight.

@TakinItSeriously

MORON

That @ poxpopulus should have been at CRNewsroom ... my bad

As someone pointed out yesterday, with a young child, you put them in the window seat with a parent or responsible adult between the child and the aisle.

How is a child going to undo their seatbelt AND be running up and down the aisles without the cooperation of the parent in this situation?

Prudent parenting and / or doctor's advice could have avoided this mess.

I vote yes on refund as the services were not delivered. No on apology as the airline did their duty to maintain a safe flight condition.

Lifetime ban, no as we can hope that the parents will improve their handling of their children and the children will become more capable of appropriate behaviour in these types of stressful situations.

They do NOT deserve an apology as the airline did the right thing. I'm on the fence about the refund, as there are lots of ways one can miss a flight and not be given a refund. It was THEIR FAULT they did not fly, not Southwest's fault.

The family should apologize to everyone that they should encounter in life.

@JoeVet:

IANAL either but I believe the ADA requires that "reasonable accomodations" be attempted (or some similar wording). This means you have to let someone in a wheelchair on a plane, but if he is not following the rules or causing a disruption on the plane he can be removed, disability or not.

Also, I recall some threads on here talking about the fact that the ADA may not apply to planes since it is trumped by some other federal transportation laws. I could be wrong though...

The "They didn't get their flight, so they deserve a refund" argument is flawed.

Say as I am entering the plane, I kick the pilot in the shins. If I get thrown off the plane, do I get a refund?

No.

It was a nice PR gesture from SW. It cost them next to nothing in comparison to their daily revenue. I don't think they had a right for a refund, but it was kind of SW to give it to them to help them pay for whatever alternate transportation they needed to acquire.

I think not giving them the apology is the most important part of the story.

@TakingItSeriously:
Ouch, devestating.

I can't understand why other domestic airlines, who are constantly loosing money, customers and face, don't look to SWA as an example of how to run this type of operation.

It's the right thing to do from SW. Some people here do argue that the family was not entitled to a refund, but it's SW's decision (and I agree it was the right thing to do.)

No apologies though. They should be grateful SW was graceful enough to give their money back. People with unruly children should not fly. Get your kids in check, make them understand no one in interested in being stuck with them for hours, THEN fly.

The refund was really the least they could do. I absolutely hate flying with unruly kids, but IMO airlines should clearly advertise their policies detailing under what circumstances folks may be kicked off the plane or not allowed to fly (burying them somewhere in the fine print does not count). Maybe even adding it to the confirmation screen so you can print out their rules for flying ahead of time.

I see nothing wrong with having standards and enforcing them, but airlines should be up front about it so people know whether they want to run the risk of flying with them before they shell out the money for the tickets. Also this makes it possible for families with kids (especially those with special needs) to plan ahead and figure out what makes sense for them in their situation.

Too often it seems that air travel is ruled by unwritten, secret rules and regulations that are arbitrarily enforced by whoever happens to be working (I'm thinking back to the women who were ordered to change out of their "revealing" tops and yet that didn't seem to be an actual written policy of Southwest's).

while i don't think that the family deserved refunds, i do believe that the airline did so to quell a potential lawsuit, which would cost far more than the tickets just to defend.

@poxpopulus

Yeah heh ... sorry about that ... I fail at scrolling up far enough.