Well, first of all, I was never a flybe fleet manager. Secondly, I don't fly the 146 now, nor do I work for an airline that does. So in what way could I possibly have a vested interest? In fact, the reverse is true, it would be in my interest to jump on the bandwagon and try and blame my sore knee on cabin fumes, get some compo, and retire early!
As you know very well airlines are not telling the public they have been exposed to contaminated air
No. They aren't telling them of the dangers of a sudden decompression or a structural failure either. But in any case, your premise is false - they haven't
necessarily been exposed to contaminated air, in fact the chances are very slim that they have. Even if they had, an hour or so in an aircraft is highly unlikely to have any detrimental effect.
Is that not their right to be informed ?
Certainly. In which case, they should be informed of the dangers of breathing car exhaust fumes and other industrial pollutants, the dangers of fumes given off by car interior plastic trim, the toxicological effects of too much tea, and the possible effects of being bitten by a mosquito. Everything on the planet is toxic if you take things to extremes.
BALPA have no agenda apart from to protect the health of their members and to reduce the flight safety impact that contaminated air is having.
Oh, grow up will you. BALPA are a
UNION, and as such will take any opportunity to gain leverage with the airlines. They are certainly interested in the things you mention, but they also understand the value of the issue as a bargaining chip - particularly with BA.
Take the time to actually read the data.
All the data so far is INCONCLUSIVE, and I'm certainly not paying hundreds of dollars to look at this latest article. When it is in the public domain (as it would be if there were serious health implications), I'll read it, but I am pretty certain I will not be surprised.