Flight diverted after family raises concerns over PG-13 inflight movie

[green73]

A family's criticism of inflight entertainment allegedly prompted a United flight to be diverted over "security concerns."

In a story published in The Atlantic, one family recounts traveling from Denver to Baltimore with two young sons, ages 4 and 8. During the flight, the PG-13-rated detective film "Alex Cross" was shown on drop-down monitors across the plane.

The family worried about their young children seeing inappropriate content in the film.

"Alarmed by the opening scenes, we asked two flight attendants if they could turn off the monitor; both claimed it was not possible," the family said, according to The Atlantic.

After some back and forth between the family and the flight crew, the family reportedly relented to the movie being shown and did their best to engage their children to keep them from watching the movie.

"We asked if the captain has the authority to address this issue, but received no response," the family said. "Throughout these interactions the atmosphere was collegial, no voices were raised and no threats, implicit or explicit, of any kind were made. The flight continued without incident, while my wife and I engaged our children to divert their attention from the horrific scenes on the movie screens."

But shortly after that, the captain announced the flight was being diverted to a Chicago airport due to "security concerns."

When the family disembarked, they were questioned by law enforcement officials then booked on a new flight.

"United flight 638 from Denver to Baltimore diverted to Chicago O'Hare after the crew reported a disturbance involving a passenger," United Airlines told FoxNews.com. "The flight landed without incident and the customers were removed from the aircraft. We reaccommodated the customers on the next flight to Baltimore and have since conducted a full review of our inflight entertainment."

The family argues the captain overreacted to the incident.

"We understand that airline captains can and should have complete authority," the family said. "However, when this authority is used for senseless, vindictive acts, it must be addressed."

The family also contends that United should reassess the movies they screen to ensure they are appropriate for all audiences.

"Had this been in a cinema or a restaurant, we would have simply left if the content were too violent," the family said. "Cruising at 30,000 feet, leaving was not an option.

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/story/21888563/flight-diverted-after-family-raises-concerns-over-pg-13-inflight-movie

[fisharmor]

I haven't flown in a long time, but given the way things were going, I'm quite surprised that they haven't figured out a way to charge $6.50 if you want to watch anything.

[belian78]

I frickin swear, people enjoy being offended, they must. Just the other day at my niece's bday party they tv got turned off and none of the 13 or more adults could watch it, all because one lady's 2yr old was watching Harry Potter and it might effect him negatively. Now a frickin plane being diverted because some uptight parents couldn't relinquish control for 2 hrs?

Please let me off this crazytrain.

[paulbot24]

I haven't flown in a long time, but given the way things were going, I'm quite surprised that they haven't figured out a way to charge $6.50 if you want to watch anything.

It's been a while since I was wanded have flown too. I do remember charging like 5 bucks for proprietary headphones required to hear the movie so I think they're on it.

[Darguth]

I frickin swear, people enjoy being offended, they must. Just the other day at my niece's bday party they tv got turned off and none of the 13 or more adults could watch it, all because one lady's 2yr old was watching Harry Potter and it might effect him negatively. Now a frickin plane being diverted because some uptight parents couldn't relinquish control for 2 hrs?

Please let me off this crazytrain.

If the story is accurate I don't think what the parents did was in any way objectionable. They didn't want their children to see a movie, asked if it could be turned off, and when they were told it couldn't they tried to shield them from it. That, IMO, is exactly how they should have handled the situation.

You may disagree with their parenting choices but I don't think they--in anyway--indicated that they "enjoy[ed] being offended" or any such nonsense.

[jllundqu]

I frickin swear, people enjoy being offended, they must. Just the other day at my niece's bday party they tv got turned off and none of the 13 or more adults could watch it, all because one lady's 2yr old was watching Harry Potter and it might effect him negatively. Now a frickin plane being diverted because some uptight parents couldn't relinquish control for 2 hrs?

Please let me off this crazytrain.

Excuse me... as the father of a 3 year old, I severely restrict what 'entertainment' he gets to watch. He gets little to no TV and the shows he watches consist of things like Daniel Tiger, Word World, and Dinosaur Train. Were I on that flight and someone was blasting people to death with a shotgun while my son watched... I might raise a stink about it too!

I applaud the parents for taking an active role in what is poured into their childrens head! Have you seen what passes for PG13 these days???

[Mani]

PG-13 can be quite disturbing for a 4 year old. Even some 8 year olds. It can be quite violent and scary. It's on the drop downs so it's on a bunch of screens, I don't think the parents kindly asking if they could switch movies or turn it off is unreasonable. It sounds like it was a REQUEST not a DEMAND.

And then went about their business.....

I think the pilots fucked up for kicking them off the plane.

[chudrockz]

Don't fly. Just drive. That's what we do, and what we view on a laptop or anything like it is entirely up to us.

[AGRP]

A simple piece of paper to cover the screens would have worked.

[Kords21]

Yeah I'm wondering why they couldn't just cover up the screen with a blanket or something. I don't think the parents were out of line by asking about the monitor, but to divert the plane like that is overreacting to the extreme. I'm sure the airline will have quite a few questions for the pilot after diverting for no good legitimate reason.

[jllundqu]

A simple piece of paper to cover the screens would have worked.

There's like 30 screens... Sure you could cover one close to you, but not next to, infront of, or any of the other 29 screens for them to look at.

[2young2vote]

I just flew on United a few weeks ago. The movie they were showing was REALLY bad and I was actually surprised that it was probably PG-13. I mean, it would seem like common sense to not show that because you KNOW people are going to complain about it. BTW the headphones are free to use.

[AGRP]

There's like 30 screens... Sure you could cover one close to you, but not next to, infront of, or any of the other 29 screens for them to look at.

There are plenty of ways to solve the problem with common sense. Sounds like common sense isnt so common these days.

[Brian4Liberty]

I frickin swear, people enjoy being offended, they must. Just the other day at my niece's bday party they tv got turned off and none of the 13 or more adults could watch it, all because one lady's 2yr old was watching Harry Potter and it might effect him negatively. Now a frickin plane being diverted because some uptight parents couldn't relinquish control for 2 hrs?

Please let me off this crazytrain.

Any time children are around an adult or family party, the TV becomes the baby sitter. Put all the kids in front of the TV so the adults can do other things.

[dannno]

What is the content of the opening scene of Alex Cross that is so offensive?

[Brian4Liberty]

Contempt of cop, contempt of medical personnel, contempt of flight attendant, all the same thing. A little power is given, and any mundane who dares to question in any way will be dealt with in the most severe terms.

[jmdrake]

I frickin swear, people enjoy being offended, they must. Just the other day at my niece's bday party they tv got turned off and none of the 13 or more adults could watch it, all because one lady's 2yr old was watching Harry Potter and it might effect him negatively. Now a frickin plane being diverted because some uptight parents couldn't relinquish control for 2 hrs?

Please let me off this crazytrain.

Are you being "freaking" serious? It's the stupid airline that overreacted. The parents made a polite request and when the request was denied the asinine pilot landed the plane out of "security concerns". What "security concerns"? The parents were not at all wrong in this case and the pilot should have his license suspended for abject idiocy. If the parents had been raising a ruckus that would have been one thing.

Really, the more I think about the reaction of some to this story, the more pissed off I get. On the one hand liberatrians tell parents "Don't try ask for government to control TV. Control it yourself." Then in this case parents are chided for "not reliquishing control?" WTH? Make up your mind. Either parents should be responsible or they shouldn't. And if we're going to go with "let the market work", how exactly is it supposed to work if everytime someone speaks up in a situation like this they are attacked? In the situation you described the lady with the 2 year old could have taken him to another room or left the party altogether. That's not exactly an option in an airplane.

[jmdrake]

A simple piece of paper to cover the screens would have worked.

The parents did the right thing. After the request was denied, they did their best to distract their children.

[Czolgosz]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FXYWpl_VbiU/UJqB0n6_1iI/AAAAAAAADvg/RaTNUPWOS48/s1600/5+what+a+country.jpg

[aGameOfThrones]

There are plenty of ways to solve the problem with common sense. Sounds like common sense isnt so common these days.

THis wouldn't have happened if they just played a common sense movie... Idiocracy!

[Mani]

Are you being "freaking" serious? It's the stupid airline that overreacted. The parents made a polite request and when the request was denied the asinine pilot landed the plane out of "security concerns". What "security concerns"? The parents were not at all wrong in this case and the pilot should have his license suspended for abject idiocy. If the parents had been raising a ruckus that would have been one thing.

That's tens of thousands of dollars of fuel pissed away for really no reason. Maybe a lot more, as I have NO clue about fuel costs but I've heard every extra mile costs some ridiculous amount of money. Every extra ounce of weight on the plane costs a ridiculous amount.

I think from a cost perspective that detour was fucking expensive for NO reason.......so you can't even make a request without risk of getting tossed from a plane?

[jmdrake]

It's been a while since I was wanded have flown too. I do remember charging like 5 bucks for proprietary headphones required to hear the movie so I think they're on it.

That's true on most airplanes, but doesn't help if the problem is the images as opposed to the words. The better planes have individual video screens on each seat. Considering the ubiquity of things like iPods airlines could dispense with inflight movies altogher and just offer wi-fi for $5.00 per flight. (Some do actually).

[GOP]

I haven't flown in a long time, but given the way things were going, I'm quite surprised that they haven't figured out a way to charge $6.50 if you want to watch anything.

Wouldnt be hard. I haven't flown on a plane in years that didn't have individual monitors on each seat. Most of them have a credit card reader in the remote so you could charge people for the option of using the in-flight entertainment system.


It's been a while since I was wanded have flown too. I do remember charging like 5 bucks for proprietary headphones required to hear the movie so I think they're on it.


Those headphone jacks have been phased out over the last decade, new planes have regular headphone jacks (or removed them altogether for short-haul flights). You could always buy an adaptor for your own headphones to use the two pronged jack on airplanes for like $2.

[jbauer]

If the story is accurate I don't think what the parents did was in any way objectionable. They didn't want their children to see a movie, asked if it could be turned off, and when they were told it couldn't they tried to shield them from it. That, IMO, is exactly how they should have handled the situation.

You may disagree with their parenting choices but I don't think they--in anyway--indicated that they "enjoy[ed] being offended" or any such nonsense.

Agree, If this is the whole story the parents did exactly what they had the right to do. The didn't blow up in the face of the pilot. If anything the pilot over-reacted. Hindsight being 20/20 they probably shouldn't be showing pg13 films on airplanes with less then 13 age children. My wife limits what can go on. My 2 & 4 year old can get worked up by the silliest of things on the TV. I haven't watched Alex Cross but if its like some of the previous film in the series my wife probably wouldn't have approved.

This is what we should want from our folks. The parents took personal responsibility in the media their children were taking in. They tried unsuccessfully to change the channel and then tried to preoccupy their children. They deserve applause not condemnation of wanting to raise their children the way they see fit.

[Brian4Liberty]

There's like 30 screens... Sure you could cover one close to you, but not next to, infront of, or any of the other 29 screens for them to look at.

Yeah, not sure about the number of monitors, but no doubt it was shared screens. In other words, turning a screen off for this family would have meant turning it off for others too.

[Brian4Liberty]

There's like 30 screens... Sure you could cover one close to you, but not next to, infront of, or any of the other 29 screens for them to look at.

Yeah, not sure about the number of monitors, but no doubt it was shared screens. In other words, turning a screen off for this family would have meant turning it off for others too.

[Jeremy]

The monitor can't be turned off? Bad technology.

[jmdrake]

What is the content of the opening scene of Alex Cross that is so offensive?

Why Is Alex Cross Rated PG-13?

Violence: Characters are frequently shot, beaten, punched and threatened. During a cage fight a man’s arm is broken after a serious battle. A man injects a paralyzing drug in a woman’s neck. A man catches on fire from a stove. Bloody injuries are depicted along with numerous dead bodies. A man sets off several explosions in and outside of office buildings. A speeding vehicle rams a character’s car. Men are shot after taunting a character. A character cuts off the fingers of a woman and puts them in a bowl. Other depictions of tortured women are seen. A man cauterizes bloody wounds and exposes himself to other pain-inducing activities. Characters are hit with a golf club, kicked in the groin, stabbed, bashed with a club and taken captive by an angry mob.

Sexual Content: A woman wears a bikini at a cage-fighting event. A woman strips down to her underwear and a man ties her to the bed in a prelude to sexual activity. Sexual sounds are heard and a brief shot of a couple in bed is seen, along with clothes strewn across the floor. Derogatory sexual comments are made.

Language: The script includes infrequent profanities, scatological slang, mild curses and some innuendo, as well as a few slurs.

Alcohol / Drug Use: A man injects a paralyzing drug into his victims. A woman appears to be high on drugs. References to illegal drugs, including bags of cocaine, are included. Characters drink in a bar or home setting.

Cutting off fingers and putting them in a bowl? I'm wondering why this only got a PG-13 rating.

[GOP]

The monitor can't be turned off? Bad technology.

There's one video source feeding every monitor. The only way to turn it off would turn them all off for the other 150 or so passengers.

[dannno]

^Thanks jmdrake

I agree that people tend to enjoy using their power of being offended to control others, and I have no idea how these parents actually reacted on the plane, but they should be using more discretion about what types of movies are played on airplanes. You would think that would be, you know, part of somebody's job to actually select the films carefully.

[Jeremy]

There's one video source feeding every monitor. The only way to turn it off would turn them all off for the other 150 or so passengers.
They should each have a power switch. That's what I would do if I were making a plane.

[dannno]

They should each have a power switch. That's what I would do if I were making a plane.

That's why you don't make planes, that's why congress makes planes, I mean airplane regulations.

[GOP]

That's why you don't make planes, that's why congress makes planes, I mean airplane regulations.

Congress doesn't make regulations, the executive agencies do. Congress writes laws and then unelected bureaucrats determine how those laws are implemented by writing regulations.

[chudrockz]

So we have some parents who are worried about subjecting their kids to some violent and/ or sexual content in a movie, yet they subject them to the ultra violent pedophile-infested TSA?

Parents can parent however they like I suppose, but that is some screwed up priorities.

[kcchiefs6465]

They should each have a power switch. That's what I would do if I were making a plane.
While my electrician knowledge is very limited I'd imagine they have them wired in a series circuit. All of them connected, A to B, so to speak. I believe they would have had to have them wired in a parallel circuit for each to have an individual power switch. (being able to shut one off without shutting off the rest down the line) A lot more time and wiring to do it that way. I agree though, they probably should have thought about the customer who doesn't want to be distracted by their movies or parents who don't want their kids to see certain things. Depending on how short the kids are, maybe covering up the screens closest to them would have sufficed. I doubt they could see over the seats, anyways.

[Christian Liberty]

So we have some parents who are worried about subjecting their kids to some violent and/ or sexual content in a movie, yet they subject them to the ultra violent pedophile-infested TSA?

Parents can parent however they like I suppose, but that is some screwed up priorities.

I have never experienced anything more than a metal detector when going on a plane. My dad has had his bags searched, but that's it. I've never actually seen anyone get a patdown. While it certainly happens, and is horrible when it does, its not a sure thing.

Even still, I can see your point, but why should we give up our right to travel because of a group of thugs?

In any case, regarding the movie, I don't see how the family did anything wrong. The airline, on the other hand...

[V3n]

For those that didn't read the article let me summarize:

1. evil movie appears
2. parents ask for it to be turned off
3. it can't be turned off
4. parents do NOT make a stink
5. pilot or crew of airplane is butthurt that the passenger has the gall to ask for it to be turned off and reports a security threat

It wasn't diverted because of the parents.

[Anti Federalist]

Contempt of cop, contempt of medical personnel, contempt of flight attendant, all the same thing. A little power is given, and any mundane who dares to question in any way will be dealt with in the most severe terms.

That's the point to be taken away from all of this.

What was in the movie or the parenting skills of these people is NOT the issue.

The issue is the police state, once again, has made it very clear what is expected of you at all times:

Full, total and complete compliance, with no backtalk or static for any reason.

Failure to comply will be dealt with severely.

[kcchiefs6465]

I have never experienced anything more than a metal detector when going on a plane. My dad has had his bags searched, but that's it. I've never actually seen anyone get a patdown. While it certainly happens, and is horrible when it does, its not a sure thing.

Even still, I can see your point, but why should we give up our right to travel because of a group of thugs?


When is the last time you've flown?

Last few planes I've gone to get on, they have you walk through a standard metal detector to the xray machine that can see you naked, more or less. You have to put your hands up in a jumping jack position while standing in this radioactive machine. You can opt out of going through this process for a physical patdown. It is a pretty invasive procedure. (feeling around your balls etc.) For those who cannot go through these machines (people with pacemakers, in wheelchairs, or what have you) they get wanded and a physical pat down. While chudrockz statement was hyperbolic, it was not that far off.



http://i.imgur.com/V54wG5n.jpg?1

http://i.imgur.com/n5oOL6a.jpg?1 (http://imgur.com/n5oOL6a)

[abacabb]

Excuse me... as the father of a 3 year old, I severely restrict what 'entertainment' he gets to watch. He gets little to no TV and the shows he watches consist of things like Daniel Tiger, Word World, and Dinosaur Train. Were I on that flight and someone was blasting people to death with a shotgun while my son watched... I might raise a stink about it too!

I applaud the parents for taking an active role in what is poured into their childrens head! Have you seen what passes for PG13 these days???
That titty scene in Titanic is pretty sweet ass. Especially when they fugg in the back seat of a 1907 Oldsmobile RealOldCar.

The issue here is not the parenting, but landing the fugging plane over the issue. Personally, I wouldn't say anything, the kids cannot even hear the movie. They won't even pay attention unless they have amazing attention spans.

[enjerth]

While my electrician knowledge is very limited I'd imagine they have them wired in a series circuit. All of them connected, A to B, so to speak. I believe they would have had to have them wired in a parallel circuit for each to have an individual power switch. (being able to shut one off without shutting off the rest down the line) A lot more time and wiring to do it that way. I agree though, they probably should have thought about the customer who doesn't want to be distracted by their movies or parents who don't want their kids to see certain things. Depending on how short the kids are, maybe covering up the screens closest to them would have sufficed. I doubt they could see over the seats, anyways.

With the quantities they would be ordering, adding a per-screen power switch in the original design and the wiring for it that does not interfere with that circuit would probably cost about 25 cents per unit according to my current asstimates.

[kcchiefs6465]

With the quantities they would be ordering, adding a per-screen power switch in the original design and the wiring for it that does not interfere with that circuit would probably cost about 25 cents per unit according to my current asstimates.
Assuming you are an electrician, was my earlier post you quoted incorrect? I have taken a basic course on electricity and from my understanding, that would be how it needed to be wired. My circuits often didn't work as the diagram wanted them to, though. Lmao. I did pass the class, fwiw. I am not sure exactly how they wire an airplane (the methods) and how much it would cost. Probably a harness comes and people personally install it. Depending on the quantities of harnesses made (before someone realized it would be a good idea to have a switch for each television) it could cost a pretty penny to change. And for what? The one or two offended parents and the one or two people who would like to read without a television flashing various hues their way? While sure, maybe going by your asstimate it may cost 25 cents per unit when mass produced, perhaps they weren't mass produced? :eek: And maybe changing their manufacturing methods or retrofitting airplanes presents an unreasonable cost for the 4 people yearly who cannot cope with a damn movie being shown?

[enjerth]

Assuming you are an electrician, was my earlier post you quoted incorrect? I have taken a basic course on electricity and from my understanding, that would be how it needed to be wired. My circuits often didn't work as the diagram wanted them to, though. Lmao. I did pass the class, fwiw. I am not sure exactly how they wire an airplane (the methods) and how much it would cost. Probably a harness comes and people personally install it. Depending on the quantities of harnesses made (before someone realized it would be a good idea to have a switch for each television) it could cost a pretty penny to change. And for what? The one or two offended parents and the one or two people who would like to read without a television flashing various hues their way? While sure, maybe going by your asstimate it may cost 25 cents per unit when mass produced, perhaps they weren't mass produced? :eek: And maybe changing their manufacturing methods or retrofitting airplanes presents an unreasonable cost for the 4 people yearly who cannot cope with a damn movie being shown?

I'm not an electrician, but I know the switch is effectively just cutting the line. The power feed (wire) to the screen can certainly be tapped to install an inline switch without interfering with other screens and without much expense, per unit. I really can't imagine identifying the power and installing said switch would be much of any job at all. But, like I said, that was my just asstimate.

Either that or only run G films? Does the flight crew, or whomever chooses the films to watch, have any awareness of children?

You have a captive audience. Don't upset them. The movie even says so... it may be upsetting to children under 13.

[angelatc]

Any time children are around an adult or family party, the TV becomes the baby sitter. Put all the kids in front of the TV so the adults can do other things.


Because they might get kidnapped and die if they were kicked outside, like we were. The adults have a responsibility to do other things. Being a parent doesn't equate to hovering over your children at the expense of all other interactions.

[angelatc]

So we have some parents who are worried about subjecting their kids to some violent and/ or sexual content in a movie, yet they subject them to the ultra violent pedophile-infested TSA?

Parents can parent however they like I suppose, but that is some screwed up priorities.


You don't have kids, do you?

[kcchiefs6465]

I'm not an electrician, but I know the switch is effectively just cutting the line. The power feed (wire) to the screen can certainly be tapped to install an inline switch without interfering with other screens and without much expense, per unit. I really can't imagine identifying the power and installing said switch would be much of any job at all. But, like I said, that was my just asstimate.

Either that or only run G films? Does the flight crew, or whomever chooses the films to watch, have any awareness of children?

You have a captive audience. Don't upset them. The movie even says so... it may be upsetting to children under 13.
True enough. A simple solution could be to run more family friendly movies. Not that they'd even necessarily have to be rated G. PG usually isn't too suggestive and the young children aren't going to understand the puns or whatever anyways. If it was just one of those seat televisions they could have just covered them up. I don't think the children would be big enough to see other tvs around them. Seems something could have been without landing the plane. I would have been pissed if I happened to be on a plane that got rerouted for something so trivial.

[kathy88]

THis wouldn't have happened if they just played a common sense movie... Idiocracy!

Yeah, OW My Balls would hav gone over much better. :rolleyes:

[Barrex]

This is how I see it in my head:
http://media.flexiety.com/images/MontyPythonsFlyingCircusS1980_f.jpg

http://neuronarrative.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/monty_python-spot-the-looney-fc.jpg


HERE GOES CAPTION**:"(On the Screen a Caption appears - 'AND NOW THE PUNCH-LINE')

Man: Lucky we didn't say anything about the dirty knife. "



**I can not believe it no one on internetz made it. I would appreciate if someone would so I can finish this post properly. I am very disappointed with you internetz. You failed me.

[jtap]

According to the ratings of that movie, they would've been doing a favor to the people aboard if they had turned it off. Why not take a vote? Oh yeah, that is reserved for democracies only.