This news piece is making the rounds about a 7 year-old boy who, along with his family, was "removed" from a flight after having an allergic reaction to dogs on board. I've read it, I've watched the video, and I would like some more answers before I jump on the "How Dare They?!" train. At first glance, this is about a young boy whose father has stage 4 throat cancer being bullied off an airplane, which is, to say the least, absolutely frigging horrible. But . . . hang on, what really happened?
The interview with the family (viewable in the above link) shows the mother saying her son started to feel itchy and broke out in hives, so she informed the flight attendant who, "...smirked, which minimized his experience for me...". They were moved away from the dog seated near them, but medical services suggested they leave the flight (that was already very delayed due to this situation) for the boy's safety. The situation was finally remedied, and passengers allegedly applauded. Hmm. Here's where it gets a little fuzzy for me — the mother says her child had never reacted to a dog like that before. Soooo, how did she know to ask if there were other dogs on board, then? Why assume that was the cause if the child had never reacted? Couldn't his reaction be from stress? (Or a million other options, really?) Was this really a situation that a bit of Benadryl couldn't have handled? Additionally, the vast majority of passengers probably had no idea why there was a delay, so clapped just because they were so thankful to be on the move. But I don't know because I wasn't there. And neither were most of you, I bet. So how can we really judge?
The mother's statement that the flight attendant smirked is curious, too. Why would anyone really do that? What's defined as a smirk? Are we to believe that the attendant took some joy in knowing a little boy was suffering, or maybe, just maybe, had the family been causing friction already on this flight? (Does anyone want to be seated next to a dog? Well, ok, maybe some of you, but certainly not me.) And exactly what does it mean to say that the boy's experience was "minimized"? Also, what does this experience have to do with the father's cancer diagnosis? I mean, it's a rather large focus of their complaint.
Something just seems fishy to me here, and I'm not alone in that. Redditors are with me in questioning this entire situation. How many dogs were really on board? What happened leading up to them leaving the plane? How many people were "clapping" — I just think that before we all criticize the situation, more details would be nice.
The mother stated, "It wasn't the flight attendant's fault we got off the plane. It was the flight attendant's attitude that perpetuated people's agitated behavior around us."
Ok, so wait, it's not HER problem, it's her ATTITUDE'S problem? This makes no sense, either.
Let me be clear: if anyone takes delight in someone else's suffering, they absolutely suck. Allergies of any kind are awful, and being in a flying tin can with recycled air having to breathe in dog dander is no fun. But also, if anyone manipulates a situation to make themselves seem like poor victims by exaggerating or manipulating a situation, they're even bigger jerks.