'Glitch' put toddler on no-fly list?

A spokesman for the family of an 18-month-old girl who was pulled off a flight because airline employees thought her name was on the U.S. no-fly list says the girl's parents do not plan to take any legal action.

[Hunglo]

The Diaper bomber!!

Sharing a name with someone on the no-fly-list is a pain in the azz though. Somewhere in Ireland there is a guy who shares my name and who likes to blow things up. Really, who doesn't? However, I now have a card that has a redress number on it so I can do things like print my own boarding passes.

[Dr Stinko]

If it were my call, all 18 month toddlers would be on that list.

[quilterqueen]

The airlines!!! Don't you love 'em? Like the blind leading the blind and both have guns.

[aur56]

At some point common sense should kick in with this. I mean, a toddler.really??? Think TSA before you make your selves look really incapable of doing your job.

[Spotted Girl]

Have to watch those terrorist-twos.

This story is par. If they are patting down youngsters, then putting them on no-fly lists is also reasonable.

I guess those patting down toddlers doo find "bombs" on occasion. But at those only need sanitary wipes and a replacement diaper.

[Chilli J]

I flew in and out of Orlando on business for years, often every two weeks. So I'd guess most toddlers could make the no-fly list. Just because the sweet little babies are toddlers. Headphones mostly did the trick. Their parents' embarassment was funny.:D

However, this story is yet another reason, IMO to avoid JetBlue.

[Chilli J]

quilterqueen wrote:

The airlines!!! Don't you love 'em? Like the blind leading the blind and both have guns.

More like the deaf leading the dumb. That's what I want, an airline bright enough to overcharge on carry-on bags, hot-listing toddlers. Kinda make you wonder how well they do on that routine airframe and engine maintenance, doesn't it? Fly JetBlue? Hmmm...

[Session_Whine]

And we are trusting these people with our lives.

[Mitt s Hairy Denial]

Dr Stinko wrote:

If it were my call, all 18 month toddlers would be on that list.

In such cases I support toture.

[SIR LANCELOT]

aur56 wrote:

At some point common sense should kick in with this. I mean, a toddler.really??? Think TSA before you make your selves look really incapable of doing your job.

Common sense and government do not go together.

[tallyho]

excuse me , a computer is only as good as the trusted programer ... so what is the big deal

wasn't done with MALICE ....

[PFfff]

good to see there are still mature people who dont feel the need to take legal action on every simple mistake....

[Spotted Girl]

PFfff wrote:

good to see there are still mature people who dont feel the need to take legal action on every simple mistake....

I wouldn't have considered it immature if the family had sued. Anything that gives the TSA a black eye is fair game. Besides, in many cases, maturity is not the issue, but need or greed.

[tallyho]

Spotted Girl wrote:

<quoted text>
I wouldn't have considered it immature if the family had sued. Anything that gives the TSA a black eye is fair game. Besides, in many cases, maturity is not the issue, but need or greed.

who was pulled off a flight because airline employees thought her name was on the U.S. no-fly list

they don't work for the TSA

[Fish_sticks]

PFfff wrote:

good to see there are still mature people who dont feel the need to take legal action on every simple mistake....

I agree in a sue happy world, though inconvenient, it would be a laughable moment to remember.

[PFfff]

Spotted Girl wrote:

<quoted text>
I wouldn't have considered it immature if the family had sued. Anything that gives the TSA a black eye is fair game. Besides, in many cases, maturity is not the issue, but need or greed.

if they Did, i'd see it more like greed as the issue.

need? if u "need" then i say its greed again..

[Spotted Girl]

PFfff wrote:

<quoted text>
if they Did, i'd see it more like greed as the issue.
need? if u "need" then i say its greed again..

If you are about to lose the house, and it isn't even a good house, and the only car (some later model) is broken down, and you are struggling to keep groceries on the table, then suing would not be greed, just another way to bring in income.

[tallyho]

or you have a car you can't fix, can not provide food to eat , and losing a house ,

perhaps you bought more house than you can afford ... trying to either dream or impress

[PFfff]

Spotted Girl wrote:

<quoted text>
If you are about to lose the house, and it isn't even a good house, and the only car (some later model) is broken down, and you are struggling to keep groceries on the table, then suing would not be greed, just another way to bring in income.

no, Thats taking advantage of an unfortunate situation, which boils down to greed. u can try and justify it all u want but it comes down to whats right and wrong.
to sue in this case would be wrong, its the same as stealing...

obviously its how u are raised and what u were taught that determines what a person would do in this situation.

[Hunglo]

Spotted Girl wrote:

<quoted text>
If you are about to lose the house, and it isn't even a good house, and the only car (some later model) is broken down, and you are struggling to keep groceries on the table, then suing would not be greed, just another way to bring in income.

I'm willing to bet that there's an Obama sticker on the back of your car.
If a company or agency did you harm then compensation is right and suing is justified, but if you're just looking for free money to cover your own poor choices then no, it's the same as stealing.