4 ms·
Are you fucking joking? Yes, perhaps the parents shouldn't have sent the kid, should have gotten a cell phone etc. But there is ZERO excuse for what happened to
by fingerprinter 14y ago
Are you fucking joking? Yes, perhaps the parents shouldn't have sent the kid, should have gotten a cell phone etc. But there is ZERO excuse for what happened to that child at the hands of United, in a service they provide and charge for. This isn't a black and white issue, though using percentages, fault is 85+% United, 15-% parents.
- masklinn 14y ago> This isn't a black and white issue How's it not? As you noted United charge for an unaccompanied minor service[0], the parents believed everything was squared and United completely dropped the ball. Had the service not existed they could have opted to not send the child to camp, try to get what to do drilled into her and sent her on her own or found somebody to accompany. Then they could have been at fault if things had gone wrong. But here? I fail to see how any fault can be put on the parents. We can debate between the fault being 100% United or 80% United and 20% bad luck, but the parents? Not in the presentation of the article. [0] And the complaint letter adds details: > The United personnel who gave her the wristband and instructions told her very loud and clear to “only go with someone with a United badge on and that she would be accompanied at all times”.
- fingerprinter 14y agoI say not black and white b/c as a parent I would have taken extra precautions. The cell phone being a notable one. Also, some written instructions to give to people (police, security etc) in case of emergency is just another that comes to mind. Perhaps they did these (or other things), I don't know, but it didn't sound like it. Even so, you're right. It should be like 99% United, 1% parents.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]