More delightful grievances from the so-called friendly skies…
San Francisco resident Jeff Cobb registered yet another complaint against an airline for discrimination against LGBTQ families. While waiting for his flight from San Francisco to Taipei, Taiwan, representatives for EVA airlines told Cobb and his husband that only one of them could pre-board with their 19-month-old son. His husband, gate attendants told Cobb, would need to wait in line for general boarding.
Cobb found the incident disturbing and immediately suspect as soon as he noticed several families with heterosexual parents boarding as a group; no parents had to stay behind to wait for general boarding. Cobb protested to gate agents, pointing out that he and his husband are legally married. Still, the airline made Cobb’s husband wait for general boarding before they would allow him to board.
Cobb took his complaints to Twitter in hopes of raising awareness with EVA and with the public.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
@EVAAirUS 1/3 My husband and I were told only one of us could join our 19 month old in the family boarding group of EVA Air 27 from SFO on 9/1/18. I explained we were both the fathers of the child, and they said it was their policy that only one parent can board…
— Jeff (@jeffcobb415) September 2, 2018
@EVAAirUS 2/3 and the other has to wait in the normal line. Not having flown EVA before, I accepted it and let my husband and child go while I boarded later. When I met him on the plane, he said there were many other (straight) families all boarding together.
— Jeff (@jeffcobb415) September 2, 2018
@EVAAirUS 3/3 I’m very disappointed that the EVA ground staff at SFO thinks it’s ok to separate same-sex families during boarding. I will definitely not be flying this airline again after this incident.
— Jeff (@jeffcobb415) September 2, 2018
Predictably, Twitter erupted with outrage over EVA’s handing of the situation. Cobb also said that he and his husband were allowed to board with their son together when catching a connecting flight in Thailand. A spokesman for EVA released the following statement:
EVA Air and most especially our San Francisco International Airport team sincerely apologize to all the passengers affected by this incident. It is our policy that passengers traveling with infants can have priority boarding. The policy does not limit the number of accompanying adults or specify the relationship to the infant. This unfortunate incident was due to misunderstanding. Our San Francisco ground-handling agent understood that only one parent could board with an infant. We have apologized to our passengers and reminded our airport staff and agents about our priority boarding policy so that we can prevent this kind of incident from happening again.
The incident with EVA marks a growing litany of disturbing incidents on airlines involving queer people.
Scout
The San Francisco agent knew exactly what he was doing. He didn’t misunderstand anything and should be immediately fired.
MacAdvisor
As Scout points out, the agent knew precisely what he was doing. If he had known the policy was to allow only one parent, then why did he allow straight families to board together.
If I may offer a bit of advice when confronted with an unhelpful employee: “May I please speak to your supervisor? You don’t seem to understand or have the necessary authority to help.”
Mack
While I agree with you asking for the supervisor, in today’s reaction they might stop the couple from boarding period by saying they were “unruly”. The problem now days is the fight attendants have too much authority and uses their bigotry over common sense.
KevInSD
“The incident with EVA marks a growing litany of disturbing incidents on airlines involving queer people.”
This incident did not involve any “queer people.” It involved 2 gay men and their child.
Tête Carrée
Get over yourself.
RichInIowa
Thank you, Kev!!
Kangol
2 gay men/gay couple = “queer people,” in today’s parlance.
Goforit
Kangol: When you mature a bit more, perhaps you might come to understand that just because you are not offended by something doesn’t mean that you have license to impose those beliefs on every one else. That is exactly what the religions of the world do with their doctrines. Being called “queer” is still offensive to a large segment of this community ( with good reason ) and you would be ill advised to use the word indiscriminately.
JAW
So true… It sickens me that the PC Police attack people that who might add ty to identify out trans brothers and sisters and then refer to all LGBT people as q’s because they like the term for them selves.
queer is as offensive to many of us as tranny, dyke and faggot are.
There is nothing strange or odd about me.
Mattster
Give it a rest. The site is named Queerty, for god’s sake, if you are that offended by the term queer why are you registered at the site? There are plenty of sites that do not use the term, perhaps you would be happier at one of them?
QueerTruth
I don’t find “Queer” offensive at all. Certainly better than the growing ridiculousness of LGBTQIAPK…
Hussain-TheCanadian
What a nonsensical, generic, BS of a response by the airline – There was no “misunderstanding”, the person who denied them to board together new exactly what they were doing, and they need to be reprimanded ASAP
I recommend that the airline sends them 2 free tickets to anywhere in the world, and a big box of goodies topped with a wine bottle.
seaguy
Eva retired it’s passenger fleet of 747’s last year so that image is a little out of date now.
MacAdvisor
Thank you, Patrick Smith: http://www.AskThePilot.com
martin_erickson
ITS, not “it’s”!
Traveler69
I worked for an international airline for many years, retired now. The gate agent knew exactly what they were doing. If this airline is allowing their employees to make these kind of decisions, then they don’t have a very good management. This person should have been reprimanded and give time off without pay for this
That is what would have happened if it had happened where I was employed.