Mom Involved In Second Airplane Baby Seat Dispute In A Month

Remember the woman who almost got kicked off a Skywest flight over a dispute about her infant’s baby seat? Well, the same woman was removed from a United Airlines flight earlier this week for allegedly causing a disruption.

This latest incident occurred while boarding a Unifted flight from San Francisco to Honolulu and involved concerns over whether or not her child’s seat would be able to fit into the narrow economy-class row.

From ChicagoBreakingNews:

[The mom] said she called a United customer service executive two weeks before the Honolulu flight to ask what she needed to do to make sure she’d be able to use the infant carrier. She said she was told to simply to let United employees know when she checked in, which she did. But when she boarded the Boeing 777, she discovered the rows in economy seating were too close together to accommodate the Graco Snug Ride infant carrier, which is approved for airline use.

She then began to take photos of the row and the baby seat. United says the impromptu photo shoot caused a disruption and removed the mom and her family from the plane.

However, the mom says she wasn’t being disruptive and that she only took a picture because the FAA inspector in the earlier Skywest incident had asked if she had photo documentation of that situation.

The airline did confirm to the AP that the row in question was too narrow for that particular, FAA-approved carrier but that there were no seats available in more accommodating rows.

After the woman and her family were removed from the flight, United rebooked them on a later flight to Honolulu, making sure to select a row in which the carrier would fit.

Mother kicked off United flight in infant carrier spat []


Edit Your Comment

  1. tinmanx says:

    Wow, that’s one well traveled baby.

  2. dush says:

    FAA approval, what is it good for?

  3. BorkBorkBork says:

    Sounds like someone’s going on the no-fly list.

    • romoish says:

      8-10 less flights a year without a baby on them.

    • FuzzyWillow says:

      If it doesn’t fit. You must acquit!

    • MishunAcomplisht says:

      Umm nope. You know what? I really hate people like you.

      This consumer had EVERY RIGHT to take those photographs after calling ahead and being told the wrong information. The one who should be punished is the dumb ass airline employee who lied to her. THEY are the ones who caused this situation, NOT ber. But that doesn’t stop morons like you from flaming other consumers instead of helping them. I hope the next time you get screwed other people laugh at you and drag you down and get you on the no fly list as well.

      • Anathema777 says:

        Uhhh. The commenter didn’t say the person deserved to be on the no-fly list, just that it could happen.

        There have been several articles about people undeservedly ending up on the no-fly list, I’m assuming that this comment is a tongue-in-cheek commentary based on the ease of ending up on that list for silly or nonexistent offenses.

      • haggis for the soul says:

        Holy overreaction, Batman.

      • BorkBorkBork says:

        HaHAHAHA…between the random caps, twisted logic, and just straight up hate, that has to be one of the most awesome responses I’ve ever received.

        Thank you for making my day. I’m literally laughing out loud right now.

      • RomeoCharlie says:

        Humor-blocking hate goggles, ACTIVATE! I can prove I’m better than you by TALKING LOUDER! Oh, you quit responding to my utterly ridiculous claims and off-topic retorts? Mishun accomplisht!

  4. billbillbillbill says:

    Seems like she did everything right this time around but couldn’t be accommodated so she was moved to the next flight.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      So, seems like she was gathering evidence for her defense and was removed to prevent such an action.

    • hymie! says:

      Did she get her involuntary denial of boarding payoff? I know there’s a term, but I can’t find it off hand. But she was bumped off the flight for lack of available seating.

  5. razz4901 says:

    Another reason why anyone below the age of 18 should not be allowed to fly….have your kids, keep them home with you until 18.

    • Rachacha says:

      Why? so that an infant in a safety seat won’t have to be relocated? Perhaps we should lock all kids up in a dark room until they are 18? Did your parents ever take a trip with you, or did they lock you in a windowless room.

      Let me know when you have kids so I can make sure that you never leave your house with them.

      • RvLeshrac says:

        My parents didn’t take me on any long-distance trips until I was old enough to care, and old enough to take care of myself in an emergency.

        I’m sick of people talking about how they “need to have a life” after a kid is born. That child *IS* your life. *NOTHING* else matters. *YOU* have a kid, *YOU* suffer the consequences of child-rearing.

        • jesirose says:

          Wow. Just…wow.

        • njack says:

          Not even sure how to respond to that. I guess you subscribe to the children should be seen but not heard school…actually more like the children shouldn’t even exist until they are 18.

        • Rachacha says:

          And just because you have a child, it does not mean that you need to shut yourself in your house until the child has grown up and moved out of the house.

          When I was growing up, we took at least one family vacation a year. Each trip was by car, as my parents were afraid to fly, but you learn how to behave when you are stuck in a car for 1200 miles each way.

          I have 2 kids, they have been on many long trips by car (2.5 days drive time), plane 12hr flights), boat (1 week) and train (overnight trip). With each trip, we brought appropriate activities for the kids to do while in transit and made sure to plan our departures to coincide with the child’s schedule when they were an infant/toddler (i.e. if the child is always fussy at noon, we don’t schedule ourselves to be on the plane at noon if we can help it). Yes, occasionally the kids may have kicked the back of your seat, or been a bit too loud (but that business executive kept rummaging through his laptop bag under my seat and would not stop yelling into his phone…so not much difference), but we as parents addressed the issue (it did not happen again during the trip) and apologized as necessary. We plan our activities based on how the kids are acting that day. If they seem overtired, we will change our plans and go back to the hotel early to get a good night’s sleep, but if they are in a good mood we might do something special for them. These trips have taught my kids how to properly act in social situations, whether they are eating at McDonalds or a 5 star restaurant, and whether they are spending the night at a Holiday Inn or a luxury resort, a skill that they will keep with them for the rest of their life. A skill that some people apparently did not learn when they were young.

          Just because a family has a child does not mean that they can no longer take a FAMILY vacation. I do agree that parents need to take care of their children as their number 1 priority, but banning them from planes, trains and hotels as you seem to suggest because you MIGHT hear a short cry from an infant is insane.

          Same offer as the previous poster. Let me know when you have kids and I will be happy to lock you in your house for 18 years if you think that is the only way to raise a child.

        • shepd says:

          I assume you feel your parents deserve any burdens you put on them, and perhaps some extra ones then?

        • alana0j says:

          Ok, as a 24 year old with a 3 year old and another on the way, I can say that your child/children come **FIRST** before anything else and yes, your life changes a bit but it’s not the end. I gave up being drunk and stupid damn near every night, no it’s not the end of my world, it was actually a refreshing new beginning. My daugher **IS** my life but we still have fun. Since she was born I’ve taken 4 trips to Dallas, TX (coming from TN) and we travel 2 1/2 hours one way every year at Christmastime to see relatives. Maybe she’ll remember some of what we do while she’s this young, maybe not, but she knows how to behave in the car and she knows how to behave in public since I take her everywhere, I see 7 and 8 year olds in public whose parents I want to smack the sh*t out of because their child just can’t/won’t listen and throw a damn tantrum while the parents try to get them in the car to leave or won’t buy them a candy bar. Kids NEED that exposure early to get them accustomed to being around other people without behaving like neanderthals.

    • lukesdad says:

      Or better yet, you learn to deal with the real world or stay home yourself.

    • Quake 'n' Shake says:

      I can’t tell. Is that sarcasm, or are you merely a miserable human being?

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      I’m going to call troll ont his one.

    • Red Cat Linux says:

      Extreme, much?

      My mother worked for an airline, and by the time I was 12, I was a well traveled kid. And no – none of us were given to shenanigans while traveling.

      I got in a lot of reading, from what I remember. Oh, and tons of Find-a-word puzzles. My only regret is that I did most of my traveling before I was of an age to fully appreciate it all.

    • AnthonyC says:

      The only result of that would be a whole generation of 18 year old people the rights and priveleges of adults, but with the emotional and social intelligence (and experience) of small children. And you think that would be an improvement?

      • Firethorn says:

        Gah – so much this. We’ve seen it with driving ages – Raise it two years, sure you get the 15 year olds off the roads. But two years later the 17 year olds are as bad as the 15 year olds were. Sometimes worse.

        Responsability is a skill. It takes practice to get good with it. Used to be we’d trust 12 year olds with a squirrel rifle and some varmit hunting. Now we’re wondering if we should allow 21 year olds to get a gun, period. We used to, without problem, let teens bring their rifles to school and store them in the lockers to go hunter afterwards, now we suspent and recommend expulsion for a student who’s mother absentmindedly packs a butter knife in with their lunch.

        I’ve seen it with college kids as well – treat them like kids, deny them responsability, and they’ll continue actings as kids.

      • JennQPublic says:

        And you think that would be a change?!

    • LadySiren is murdering her kids with HFCS and processed cheese says:

      Obvious troll is obvious.

  6. GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

    The flight attendants should have broken out their tools and made the rows fit the carrier. I mean, it’s approved for airplane use!

    • DorsalRootGanglion says:

      Why so angry at the woman? She was simply following a logical chain of events:
      1) Follow FAA rules and buy a baby seat that is appropriate.
      2) Call ahead to make sure the seat would work, being told “yeah, let us handle it”.
      3) Obey instructions regarding installation of baby seat by the flight crew.
      4) Take pictures of the fail, AS SUGGESTED BY THE FAA INSPECTOR.
      5) Get thrown off because apparently doing 1-4 above is a terrible, terrible thing.

      Yeah, that really sounds like an ill-tempered, prima donna, self entitle bitch, doesn’t it? Oh wait, that’s just another consumerist poster.

      • Cheap Sniveler: Sponsored by JustAnswer.comâ„¢ says:

        “Oh wait, that’s just another consumerist poster”

        I think that having a firm grasp on the concepts of “sarcasm” and a subtle mastery of “snark” are part of the “user agreement” you accept to become a poster here. If it’s not, it should be.

        • DorsalRootGanglion says:

          Do you understand how many people would post like that in utter seriousness? There is no line between sarcasm and reality on this board.

      • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

        She shouldn’t have bought a Baby Kevin Smith sized carrier! Those carriers are too fat to fly!

      • kobresia says:

        Man, talk about completely missing the point and making an ass of yourself.

        Since you seem to require a detailed explanation on the intent of that sarcasm, here’s an explanatory haiku:

        The seat would not fit!
        What is the steward to do?
        Book another flight.

        Right. I don’t see rage in SteveDave’s comment. It’s not even directed at the passenger, unless she threw a tantrum over the attendants not being able to make the seat fit in the cheap seats she purchased, or their unwillingness to bump passengers who paid for larger seats to provide a seat upgrade for her. Seriously, getting bent over such an error (and it’s not even clear whose part the error of booking too-small econo seats is on) does nothing to make the seat magically large enough.

  7. myCatCracksMeUp says:

    United sucks . They should give the family a free set of tickets to anywhere the airline flies to compensate them for the inconvenience, the delay, and the general scumminess of United’s behavior.

  8. BuyerOfGoods3 says:

    So…There ARE bigger economy rows? You Bastards!

    • Rachacha says:

      Sounded like she was in a bulkhead row or some row that had the tray table in between the seats instead of in the seat in front of you. These seats are extremely narrow.

      As for legroom, United offers “Economy Plus” seating which gives you extra legroom.

    • nbs2 says:

      She was probably trying to get the seat into one of the bulkhead seats, which are narrower because the tray table storage integrated into the armrest.

      So, it isn’t that there are wider seat, just that there are narrower seats.

      Finally, if she couldn’t get it to fit, I blame it on user error. I never had trouble getting car seats to fit when using the bulkhead row on Narrow Seat Airlines (dba Continental).

      • Jevia says:

        I understood that it was an infant carrier, which is supposed to be rear facing and the problem was that the pitch between the seats was too narrow (because airlines have been reducing leg room for years, making what used to be the normal pitch of seats now available for an “extra fee”).

        • ShruggingGalt says:

          Again, why does an infant carrier have to be rear-facing on an aircraft? Just because that is how it is designed for AUTOMOBILES doesn’t mean that it has to be the same in the air.

          I bet the physics involved are much different for most issues on a plane. If you are going up and down, it doesn’t matter if you are facing aft or stern.

          • Jevia says:

            Well, the plane is still moving forward, like a car, on wheels even, during take off and landing.

          • 99 1/2 Days says:

            It’s the way they are designed, apparently. For a reclining infant, the attachments are on the foot of the carrier. The forward facing attachments prop the kid upright in a sitting position, great for toddlers, bad for infants.

  9. Yenier says:

    I have one of those carriers and they are good sized! The bucket itself should have fit, its the large handle and rim around it that probably got caught on the arm rests. If it had been me, I would have tried to borrow a smaller carrier from friends or family for the airplane ride. Yes, it’s unfortunate this all happened. At least she was able to make it eventually, and enjoy a trip (if that can be said with kids).

  10. Quake 'n' Shake says:

    I have to admit, that was a concern of mine when we flew with our son. We had an upright convertible car seat though, not an infant seat. It was a tad wide, but we kept the armrest up and the flight attendants had no issue with it.
    Since we booked a row of 3 together, we thought we would put him in the middle. The flight attendant insisted that we put our son in the window seat. She said it was a “regulation.” I honestly don’t believe that. However, not wanting to get in a pissing match which we had no hope of winning, we did as she asked. Turned out that worked better for us.

    If we had been in a row where the armrests wouldn’t lift, we wouldn’t have been able to use the seat.

    • Magspie says:

      It is a regulation. It’s so the seat doesn’t block the window person from getting out in an emergency.

      • Quake 'n' Shake says:

        . A CRS should be placed in a window seat so it will not block the escape path in an emergency.

        That’s not a regulation. That’s a suggestion. A good one, but not the same as a “regulation.”

        • twocutetx says:

          When I flew with my twins when they were 11 months old, I was allowed to block one carseat with the other (i.e. one in the window, one in the middle, me in the aisle). Flight attendant argued, and the pilot got clarification on the regulation. Didn’t say a carseat couldn’t block another carseat!

          It was later explained to me that they didn’t want an adult to be blocked by a carseat. If you’ve ever tried to get around one when it is strapped in anywhere (van, car, etc.), it’s impossible — the carseat can’t wiggle/shift like a person’s legs/body can.

  11. Franklin Comes Alive! says:

    Call me cynical, but two incidents with the same family makes me think someone (i.e. mom) might be provoking some of these incidents with something in her behavior.

  12. Franklin Comes Alive! says:

    Call me cynical, but two incidents with the same family makes me think someone (i.e. mom) might be provoking some of these incidents with something in her behavior.

    • njack says:

      You’re cynical, but so am I.

      Usually they would ask people on the plane if they would switch. Of course at least 2 people next to each other would have to be willing to move, so maybe they didn’t get any volunteers.

      Of course she could just be so pissed with the situation that she was a little unreasonable as well. I can see getting frustrated over the situation especially after having experienced it the (apparently) last time she flew. It’s no secret ho crappy airlines treat their customers these days.

  13. GMurnane says:

    Does FAA approval mean its guaranteed to fit? Or does it just imply it meets the safety standards necessary to use it inflight?

    • Cheap Sniveler: Sponsored by JustAnswer.comâ„¢ says:

      I’m not sure, but it seems that the airlines, the FCC, and child seat makers should all get together and make sure that if a seat is “approved for airline use”, it means that it is both safe for airline use, AND also that it’s ABLE to be fit an airline seat.

      • HogwartsProfessor says:

        Maybe it was designed before they shrank the damn seats.

        • GMurnane says:

          You bring up an interesting point. If the seat was approved by the FAA and then the airlines shrunk the seats—does the approval still stand?

        • nybiker says:

          Hey, we already have the GSR. We surely do not need the SSR (Seat Shrink Ray). {I will now pause for the obligatory ‘Don’t call me Shirley’}.

        • NeverLetMeDown says:

          It’s not the seats, it’s your butt. While there’s some variance among carriers, and (moreso) among planes within a carrier, seat sizes have remained pretty static.

      • FuzzyWillow says:

        I don’t the FCC cares about the seat. But if she wants to swear on broadcast Television, they might get concerned.

  14. scgirl_212 says:

    The disruptive part most likely came from the fact that she was trying to take pictures and make a fuss while people were still boarding! You know how irritating it can be when you’re standing in the aisle waiting for someone fumbling with their bags, meanwhile there is a line of people a mile long waiting and waiting…this would be 100 times worse.

  15. pjstevens77 says:

    How is this news? Problem solved, nice sensationalism

    • myCatCracksMeUp says:

      The problem was solved, you idiot.

      The family got bumped from their flight and ended up getting to their destination late.

      SOLVED would have been for them to be given seats that would work for them on the same flight they had tickets for.

  16. Red Cat Linux says:

    Photo of problem = disruption? I call BS on the airlines.

    She did what she was supposed to do, which is call in advance. The problem seems to be not her, but the ever shrinking passenger seating on airplanes.

  17. Geekybiker says:

    Exit and bulkhead rows typically have trays in the arms. This makes the seats narrower. Perhaps she was booked into one of these seats?

    • njack says:

      Probably so. I know many people traveling with kids like to request those seats as it typically gives them more space in front of them which allows them to handle their small children more comfortably. Also on longer flights, some airlines even have a basinette (sp) available which can hang from the bulkhead. I doubt UA has this, but have seen it on Aer Lingus and Lufthansa. As others point out though, you do sacrifice some width due to the tray tables being integrated into the seat arm rests.

      • NeverLetMeDown says:

        UA definitely has bassinets, for bulkhead rows, not exit rows. You can’t have a baby seat in an exit row.

  18. human_shield says:

    Her second problem in a month, from two different airlines. It would be priceless if one of the other passengers snapped some video of this event.

    For all we know she was blocking the aisle, shooting photos, and yelling about suing the airline.

    There is always someone on a plane that will be happy to switch seats to help a nice mom with her baby. And flight attendants are always accommodating when we fly with our kids. If there is a problem we just sit and wait for all to be seated, then figure out what to do.

  19. Tamar Weinberg says:

    Why is she unwilling to fly with the baby on her lap? It would save her this headache every time. You’d think she’d learn by now.

  20. judyz says:

    That seat is absolutely massive. The FAA may certify it as being safe to take on a plane but that does not guarantee that if you book cattle class you are going to get enough room to use it. I don’t think the airlines are going to have the measurements for every model of infant carrier. They do however generally provide you with the specs as far as seating sizes on their planes. She should have checked the measurements and ensured that the seat she booked would fit the carrier she planed on using.

    As a consumer I do not want ticket prices to go up based on the fact that we have to make mega wide seats for fat people and parents who insist on bringing massive infant carriers on the plane. Your 6 lb screaming baby does not need a 17×22 inch mega carrier to ride on a plane. If it crashes the extra large plastic seat isn’t going to save them.

    When you purchase a seat on a plane you pay based on the size of seat and comfort level you want. I paid more for a larger seat on my last flight. Why should I subsidize someone else getting those perks for free. I certainly do not want to be surrounded by baby carriers and Mommies who got their upgrade for free. Can you imagine all the people in the aisle seats who got whacked while she swung that thing down the aisle to the penalty box seats. If you want to fly in comfort pay for it yourself.

  21. Mold says:

    Weird. Other than disabled kids, I can’t think of any time passengers used baby carriers on flights.

  22. esc27 says:

    777’s usually have pretty good seats and leg room. Sounds like the people responsible for approving this particular baby seat are the ones at fault.

  23. Random_Tangent says:

    I suppose I’m always in favor of infants being removed from flights.

  24. nosense22 says:

    Just goes to show you how narrow United economy seats are. Hopefully, they don’t corrupt Continental.

  25. moonunitrappa says:

    I had issues recently with trying to fit my carry on under a seat (and my dog) on Delta. The flight attendants gave attitude when I had to put a small carry on in the above storage. Well I didn’t build this plane you dolt, and I didn’t choose to put lcd screens everywhere and then locate all of the electronics under the center seat in front of me. Barely anything fits under there so suck it.

    My off topic point is, I think it’s time planes start providing links on their sites (and/or ticket selling entities) to easily access data like seat widths, seat belt length (they all seem to be different), storage space dimensions, etc. Anything that will help us expedite our loading process and packing situations.

    Next time a flight attendant gives me an attitude for something I have no control over because they don’t know their own plane, I’m whipping out the middle finger.

  26. Mold says:

    Entitled much?
    What you call carry on…well, some might disagree.
    And, despite the fact that the attendants are working…this does not make them slaves.

  27. Sword_Chucks says:

    Noone is commenting on how sad it is that theyre stuffing us into rows too narrow for a carseat to fit? Im 6’00” tall, and after a couple accidents on my bike, I struggle sitting in any row but the exit row, due to the tight quarters. My knees start hurting too much. and no I dont slouch, my ass is to the back of the seat.

  28. clickable says:

    The original article is misleading and the Consumerist post even more so. The mother has been campaigning for this cause for years, which is fine by me, IMO.

    Notwithstanding what Consumerist says, she was rebooked when they realized her infant seat wouldn’t fit on the original flight. It’s not like they deemed her disruptive because she was taking pictures, forced her off the plane, then rebooked her as a favor. More like they realized her infant seat wouldn’t fit, wanted to accommodate her, couldn’t find seats on that plane where the infant seat would fit, found her another flight, then expected her, quite reasonably, to get off the the original plane to wait for her new flight.
    Under the circumstances, I don’t understand why she’s so deadset unreasonable about being rebooked. “I begged them to accommodate me.” They did, lady, what exactly would you have them do? Did you think they had an obligation to pull seated passengers out of their chairs? Your infant seat was your top priority, it didn’t fit into the seats you held on the Boeing 777, so they booked you onto a different flight where the infant seat would fit.

    As far as the pictures, your argument is invalid. You say that in the Skywest incident, the FAA demanded photos, and thus, in this United incident, you should have been allowed to take photographs as well. If I were a United representative, I’d be hard-pressed at this point to keep smiling brightly at you too, I have to tell you. And I’m all in favor of keeping babies safe, believe me. But you are a nag of the first water, and this particular line of reasoning is going to be the straw that breaks this camel’s back. Were I the hapless rep that had to deal with you, I’d point you to the diagrams of the 777 on our airline’s website and suggest you send the FAA the dimensions listed there and at this time, kindly gather your belongings and children and accompany me back to the business class lounge where you can wait for your rescheduled flight.

  29. Weekilter says:

    Please use a spell checker. It helps give the illusion that you check your work for accuracy :)

  30. clickable says:

    And why am I not surprised. I just read the article the article thoroughly including all the comments, and whaddya know, someone who was a passenger on the plane wrote in to share her perspective. She writes that she was in the row in front of this woman, and what she saw was that there were two attendants trying to help the passenger and they were being very kind and patient and trying hard to help. The carrier would have fit if the base were removed, and the attendants offered to gate check just the base so the carrier could be fastened to the seat, but the woman was screaming and refused. Then another passenger from across the aisle offered to change his seat so the woman could have his seat and move over there lock stock and carrier even if it meant he would have to sit in a middle seat throughout the flight (!) (which makes him eligible for minor sainthood as far as I’m concerned), but Mama Marin County refused that, too.

    And there you have it. This is a Mother With A Cause, and I doubt that anything but the arrangements she deems satisfactory will appease her. So we will probably be hearing from her again. Prepare the popcorn and pass the Xanax, folks!

  31. JonBoy470 says:

    Neither this post, nor the original article has a pic of the carseat. The post about the Skywest incident does though. Assuming she didn’t buy a new seat in the intervening month, then the car seat in question is a Graco Snugride, which is actually the smallest infant seat Graco makes. I dare-say it’s one of the smaller infant car-seats on the market in general. Anyone who says it’s “huge” or that she should have bought a smaller seat obviously hasn’t been in the market for baby gear in, say, the last decade or so. Either that or they’re smoking something good. All these car-seats are that big, if not larger.

    • clickable says:

      Something in this story piqued my interest, so I poked around a bit for answers. Previously, I found (and commented here) a comment by another passenger on the plane, who noted that the flight attendants offered to gatecheck the base of the Graco, after which the seat could be fastened onto the plane seat for the flight, an offer which the woman unilaterally rejected.

      Now I poked around to find out whether this offer would have been feasible at all, that is, was it possible to remove the base and was the carrier still safe and still within the useable parameters. Turns out, yes. It can still be safely used on planes without the base. The base is not needed to secure it safely to the plane seat. The mother is agitating purely because she’s pushing some private agenda. To what end, I don’t know. I say I don’t know, because it’s not polite to say she’s pushing for attention.

      Here is a thread from flyertalk in which several parents chime in about using their Graco Ride Snugs without the base on planes, without any problems. Including on planes with seat dimensions like the Boeing 777 the mother was on (31.0″ pitch, 18.0″wide).

    • clickable says:

      And even more. I just found the user manual from Graco, and apparently it is entirely optional to use the base at all, whether you’re using the seat in a car or a plane. So this mother is just one of those people who likes to create antagonism and draw attention.

  32. Mold says:

    From other posters I’d wager that BabyMomma has discovered that being a screaming PITA over a seat gets her a fwee! upgrade to First or Business. Mayhaps the attendants have her pic along with the other scammers.

  33. mcgyver210 says:

    Two incidents so close together makes it seem as though she i trying to cause trouble but who knows.

    I haven’t flown since before the anti civilians AKA TSA Nazis took over the airline industry & don’t plan on flying unless it can’t be avoided. You have no rights when flying now days no matter how you look at it.

  34. maynurd says:

    Why she having a cow about this. If it didn’t fit. then it didn’t fit. She was rebooked on a later flight where the seat could be used.