WWYD? Mom Lets Child Use Potty in Plane Aisle

[TickTockMan]

An air traveler is being both shamed and praised on social media after letting her child use the potty in the aisle of an airplane.

In a post to the popular Passenger Shaming Instagram account, the unidentified woman is seen holding the child on the potty just feet away from their fellow passengers.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/ne...olarizes-travelers/ar-BBNYC6w?ocid=spartanntp




Honestly I am not sure what I would do. Being around most kids is bad enough. This is beyond. I feel the airline should have had her arrested or at least banned for life.

 

[Latimer]

I would have immediately complained to the crew. I the follow up with an email to the airline involved.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Four things:

It's a public shared space. The main consideration is smell. The passengers are in a confined space and it is inconsiderate to subject them to the smell of the latrine. A passenger should not be allowed to change a diaper in the seats, but remove to the toilet.

The aisle is the only path down the plane for crew and passengers alike. NO passenger has the right to block it simply for a non-emergency reason of whim.

The aisle is a safety corridor. Anything can and does happen in flights. It's unfair to jeopardize passenger and crew safety by putting something in the aisle that cannot be grabbed up quickly. Nothing is allowed to be placed there except by the crew. This incident is in part the fault of the cabin crew. They should have intercepted the latrine in boarding and put it away where it could not be accessed. Trust no one.

Finally, the child should not be in a state of undress in a crowded plane. It's public indecency by the laws of most states. Whereas a child running around as a toddler and having shed his clothes in naivete is one thing and not so horrible, the baring of a child's private parts intentionally in public should be discouraged, as the child is a minor and his right to privacy should not be the caprice of his parents to give away.

 

[Cormac135]

If the toilets are occupied then good on her, it's just a poo or pee for fuck sake.

 

[Nealm1]

pretty disgusting - bet it smelled bad

 

[Telstra]

so what is the policy ?
if the child (under 5) want to pee or poo, should they use the toilet first instead of wait in line as adults ??

 

[NotHardUp1]

If the lavatories were unavailable, the owner should have just left the child in the carrier and then cleaned it out when she landed. Most of them have solid lower sections so that they don't leak.

 

[TickTockMan]

Four things:

It's a public shared space. The main consideration is smell. The passengers are in a confined space and it is inconsiderate to subject them to the smell of the latrine. A passenger should not be allowed to change a diaper in the seats, but remove to the toilet.

The aisle is the only path down the plane for crew and passengers alike. NO passenger has the right to block it simply for a non-emergency reason of whim.

The aisle is a safety corridor. Anything can and does happen in flights. It's unfair to jeopardize passenger and crew safety by putting something in the aisle that cannot be grabbed up quickly. Nothing is allowed to be placed there except by the crew. This incident is in part the fault of the cabin crew. They should have intercepted the latrine in boarding and put it away where it could not be accessed. Trust no one.

Finally, the child should not be in a state of undress in a crowded plane. It's public indecency by the laws of most states. Whereas a child running around as a toddler and having shed his clothes in naivete is one thing and not so horrible, the baring of a child's private parts intentionally in public should be discouraged, as the child is a minor and his right to privacy should not be the caprice of his parents to give away.

This may not have happened on a US airline. And the mother was told to stop and she said she didn't care.

If the toilets are occupied then good on her, it's just a poo or pee for fuck sake.

The article says the bathrooms were open and free.

 

[NotHardUp1]

This may not have happened on a US airline. And the mother was told to stop and she said she didn't care.

I had already assumed it was European. There were no casualties or a riot. Although she may have been American, as one of the commenters in your link claimed her response was that she didn't give a shit.

The appropriate passenger response would be to rise, walk to her seat and as she leaned back to allow you to pass, turn and fart a long one in her direction and proceed to the latrine, OR just go back to your seat, assuming the row had been designated an overflow latrine area.

 

[Latimer]

My partner flew transatlantic on Alitalia last week in Business. Said a couple came on board with 2 medium size dogs, which in the course of the flight they took repeatedly to the toilet compartment. Fortunately for them and their dogs--perhaps it's why they chose that carrier--the Alitalia planes (at least the 2 different aircraft I've flown) eliminate the hanging area next to the toilet in Business; consequently the toilet compartment is the largest I've seen on any carrier. It even has a full length mirror on the back of the door, which is great if you're as vain as an Italian male--or for that matter, myself. My partner added that both the man and women were fat and that he thought even with the added room it would be an difficult and tight fit.

 

[nyctopgam]

Pets and very small children should not be allowed on planes. It's part of the cost of choosing to have them, like schooling or vet care.

 

[sixthson]

What drama, what outrage, what indignation! I hope she flopped a tit out afterwards and breastfed the child in public.

 

[unloadonme]

I'm always disappointed when I get on a plane and see small children, even more so if they sit anywhere near me. That said, on my last flight there was a couple with a very young baby on the opposite side of the aisle and it didn't make a sound for the whole two hours. Happily not a potty in sight.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

Four things:

It's a public shared space. The main consideration is smell. The passengers are in a confined space and it is inconsiderate to subject them to the smell of the latrine. A passenger should not be allowed to change a diaper in the seats, but remove to the toilet.

The aisle is the only path down the plane for crew and passengers alike. NO passenger has the right to block it simply for a non-emergency reason of whim.

The aisle is a safety corridor. Anything can and does happen in flights. It's unfair to jeopardize passenger and crew safety by putting something in the aisle that cannot be grabbed up quickly. Nothing is allowed to be placed there except by the crew. This incident is in part the fault of the cabin crew. They should have intercepted the latrine in boarding and put it away where it could not be accessed. Trust no one.

Finally, the child should not be in a state of undress in a crowded plane. It's public indecency by the laws of most states. Whereas a child running around as a toddler and having shed his clothes in naivete is one thing and not so horrible, the baring of a child's private parts intentionally in public should be discouraged, as the child is a minor and his right to privacy should not be the caprice of his parents to give away.

I completely disagree with your last paragraph. I love how little children have no body issues and I wish people could carry this into adulthood rather than be filled with inferiority complexes about perceived shortcomings, as most people seem to be. Moreover, the "baring of private parts" is a complete non-issue to me. It's just a human body. Nobody is upset if they see my French Bulldog naked, why should it be different to catch me skinny dipping or a toddler deciding to take in the sunshine?

But I do agree with everything else. Safety aside, there is also good manners. This parent, like far too many parents, has a twisted sense of entitlement: she believes that just because she has a child, she can do things that are unacceptable. We need to stand up to this.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

What drama, what outrage, what indignation! I hope she flopped a tit out afterwards and breastfed the child in public.

Breastfeeding would not be an issue. It doesn't hinder safety, it doesn't produce foul smells, and most of all, virtually every country in Europe allows breastfeeding in public places.

 

[NotHardUp1]

What drama, what outrage, what indignation! I hope she flopped a tit out afterwards and breastfed the child in public.

Breastfeeding is wholly acceptable. A modesty cloth is optional.

Moreover, the "baring of private parts" is a complete non-issue to me. It's just a human body.

A child isn't capable of making the decision to be naked or not. Photos or videos should not be allowable for a child who isn't able to give consent. It's obvious that strangers can and did film the girl.

Who's responsible when a perv takes videos of a naked 3-yr.-old in public? 900 onlookers may be harmless. The few who are not should not have access. It's a shame we have to consider the threat, but it's real. There's no need in feeding it more than has to be.

 

[Vannie]

I'm gonna bring my own potty next time!

 

[Kahaih]

/\ Or you could ask the person sitting next to you to change your nappy on their lap.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Finally, the child should not be in a state of undress in a crowded plane. It's public indecency by the laws of most states. Whereas a child running around as a toddler and having shed his clothes in naivete is one thing and not so horrible, the baring of a child's private parts intentionally in public should be discouraged, as the child is a minor and his right to privacy should not be the caprice of his parents to give away.

I must've forgotten to send you the memo, we had a sexual revolution about fifty years ago and no longer equate nudity with sex.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

Breastfeeding is wholly acceptable. A modesty cloth is optional.



A child isn't capable of making the decision to be naked or not. Photos or videos should not be allowable for a child who isn't able to give consent. It's obvious that strangers can and did film the girl.

Who's responsible when a perv takes videos of a naked 3-yr.-old in public? 900 onlookers may be harmless. The few who are not should not have access. It's a shame we have to consider the threat, but it's real. There's no need in feeding it more than has to be.

By your logic, women should be fined for giving birth to any children that are not dressed properly in the presence of doctor or midwife.

And where do you draw the line? If we cannot film a naked girl because she is too young to consent, why is filming a dressed girl acceptable? Should we fine every tourist who takes a selfie of the Eiffel Tower when there happens to be a child in the shot? Perhaps there are kids on the tower itself, that may become visible if you blow up the photo enough.

The pendulum has swung way too far. All too often the evil is in the eye of the beholder.