The 64K Question..
Thread Starter
The 64K Question..
Good Morning BlankBox:
We all should realize disease vectors can be found in sneezing, coughing and to be delicate all forms of bodily fluids.Today in the world a pathogen can be world wide in around 36 hours plus minus.Now take the position of a flight attendant/flight crew member who has witnessed the this and with departure coming quickly has to make a quick decision on if this passenger in question can fly or not. You are doing a 14-hour flight knowing full well if you divert the crew will be out of a duty day and stranding a plane full of passengers while crew gets a rest period or wait for a rescue flight. Now throw this in if you recall the Emirates flight that landed in JFK with passengers experiencing high temperatures flu like symptoms ask yourself this. How will local authorities cope/handle this situation where the passenger in question in the article got sicker and infected more passengers who are sick with an unknown illness? At this time the most expedient way to handle this is to deny boarding and have the medical people take over.If I recall the “event” was brought on by the smell of the washrooms. If this was the case why did it not affect more passengers? Another question for everyone is when I travel around the world not only do I have medical insurance but in addition trip interruption insurance so why did the family in question not have this as well? Should airlines be held to “nanny state” rules or should passengers take some responsibility in a situation like this where the airline was not responsible for this issue as it could have been food poisoning? Could this have been handled better it is hard to tell at this juncture. But in light of the ongoing legal dispute I will use this analogy, this is like a divorce where there are three sides to the story his, hers and the truth but I digress
We all should realize disease vectors can be found in sneezing, coughing and to be delicate all forms of bodily fluids.Today in the world a pathogen can be world wide in around 36 hours plus minus.Now take the position of a flight attendant/flight crew member who has witnessed the this and with departure coming quickly has to make a quick decision on if this passenger in question can fly or not. You are doing a 14-hour flight knowing full well if you divert the crew will be out of a duty day and stranding a plane full of passengers while crew gets a rest period or wait for a rescue flight. Now throw this in if you recall the Emirates flight that landed in JFK with passengers experiencing high temperatures flu like symptoms ask yourself this. How will local authorities cope/handle this situation where the passenger in question in the article got sicker and infected more passengers who are sick with an unknown illness? At this time the most expedient way to handle this is to deny boarding and have the medical people take over.If I recall the “event” was brought on by the smell of the washrooms. If this was the case why did it not affect more passengers? Another question for everyone is when I travel around the world not only do I have medical insurance but in addition trip interruption insurance so why did the family in question not have this as well? Should airlines be held to “nanny state” rules or should passengers take some responsibility in a situation like this where the airline was not responsible for this issue as it could have been food poisoning? Could this have been handled better it is hard to tell at this juncture. But in light of the ongoing legal dispute I will use this analogy, this is like a divorce where there are three sides to the story his, hers and the truth but I digress
Good Morning BlankBox:
We all should realize disease vectors can be found in sneezing, coughing and to be delicate all forms of bodily fluids.Today in the world a pathogen can be world wide in around 36 hours plus minus.Now take the position of a flight attendant/flight crew member who has witnessed the this and with departure coming quickly has to make a quick decision on if this passenger in question can fly or not. You are doing a 14-hour flight knowing full well if you divert the crew will be out of a duty day and stranding a plane full of passengers while crew gets a rest period or wait for a rescue flight. Now throw this in if you recall the Emirates flight that landed in JFK with passengers experiencing high temperatures flu like symptoms ask yourself this. How will local authorities cope/handle this situation where the passenger in question in the article got sicker and infected more passengers who are sick with an unknown illness? At this time the most expedient way to handle this is to deny boarding and have the medical people take over.If I recall the “event” was brought on by the smell of the washrooms. If this was the case why did it not affect more passengers? Another question for everyone is when I travel around the world not only do I have medical insurance but in addition trip interruption insurance so why did the family in question not have this as well? Should airlines be held to “nanny state” rules or should passengers take some responsibility in a situation like this where the airline was not responsible for this issue as it could have been food poisoning? Could this have been handled better it is hard to tell at this juncture. But in light of the ongoing legal dispute I will use this analogy, this is like a divorce where there are three sides to the story his, hers and the truth but I digress
We all should realize disease vectors can be found in sneezing, coughing and to be delicate all forms of bodily fluids.Today in the world a pathogen can be world wide in around 36 hours plus minus.Now take the position of a flight attendant/flight crew member who has witnessed the this and with departure coming quickly has to make a quick decision on if this passenger in question can fly or not. You are doing a 14-hour flight knowing full well if you divert the crew will be out of a duty day and stranding a plane full of passengers while crew gets a rest period or wait for a rescue flight. Now throw this in if you recall the Emirates flight that landed in JFK with passengers experiencing high temperatures flu like symptoms ask yourself this. How will local authorities cope/handle this situation where the passenger in question in the article got sicker and infected more passengers who are sick with an unknown illness? At this time the most expedient way to handle this is to deny boarding and have the medical people take over.If I recall the “event” was brought on by the smell of the washrooms. If this was the case why did it not affect more passengers? Another question for everyone is when I travel around the world not only do I have medical insurance but in addition trip interruption insurance so why did the family in question not have this as well? Should airlines be held to “nanny state” rules or should passengers take some responsibility in a situation like this where the airline was not responsible for this issue as it could have been food poisoning? Could this have been handled better it is hard to tell at this juncture. But in light of the ongoing legal dispute I will use this analogy, this is like a divorce where there are three sides to the story his, hers and the truth but I digress
Everyone's tolerances to smells and motion are different. What affects me might not affect you in the same way. Had it been an expecting lady suffering from morning sickness would she have been removed. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't most airlines include air sickness bags in the seat pockets? I do agree with you statement that the truth is somewhere in the middle of what the airline is saying and what the passenger is saying. Would be interesting to hear if Air Canada even showed up for the hearing or if they blew it off as a joke?
BK
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Nowhere and All Over
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a330, you could not hit harder. Totally agree with you. It does not make sense to me at all.
Actually, if the judge fines Jet Airways too, it means the kid was already sick in the 1st leg, and that Jet Airways has failed to evacuate this source of health hazard from other passengers ?!
If I were sick, would it not be my own responsibility to spare the others in my proximity of the risk of contamination ?
The judge or the family want a doctor to diagnose and heal this kid instantly so she can board the flight. If they can pay - and find - a doctor immediately available at the gate to deal with any illness in any traveller in any part of the world, why not. AC is not obliged to provide this care, nor provide it free of charge. Actually, AC ground staff did just that: remove the kid till she gets help before reboarding, consistent with AC request that travellers report their medical conditions and may ground those unfit to board.
AC should have given instruction or some logistic support for the family though.
Actually, if the judge fines Jet Airways too, it means the kid was already sick in the 1st leg, and that Jet Airways has failed to evacuate this source of health hazard from other passengers ?!
If I were sick, would it not be my own responsibility to spare the others in my proximity of the risk of contamination ?
The judge or the family want a doctor to diagnose and heal this kid instantly so she can board the flight. If they can pay - and find - a doctor immediately available at the gate to deal with any illness in any traveller in any part of the world, why not. AC is not obliged to provide this care, nor provide it free of charge. Actually, AC ground staff did just that: remove the kid till she gets help before reboarding, consistent with AC request that travellers report their medical conditions and may ground those unfit to board.
AC should have given instruction or some logistic support for the family though.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Canada
Age: 66
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a330, you could not hit harder. Totally agree with you. It does not make sense to me at all.
Actually, if the judge fines Jet Airways too, it means the kid was already sick in the 1st leg, and that Jet Airways has failed to evacuate this source of health hazard from other passengers ?!
If I were sick, would it not be my own responsibility to spare the others in my proximity of the risk of contamination ?
The judge or the family want a doctor to diagnose and heal this kid instantly so she can board the flight. If they can pay - and find - a doctor immediately available at the gate to deal with any illness in any traveller in any part of the world, why not. AC is not obliged to provide this care, nor provide it free of charge. Actually, AC ground staff did just that: remove the kid till she gets help before reboarding, consistent with AC request that travellers report their medical conditions and may ground those unfit to board.
AC should have given instruction or some logistic support for the family though.
Actually, if the judge fines Jet Airways too, it means the kid was already sick in the 1st leg, and that Jet Airways has failed to evacuate this source of health hazard from other passengers ?!
If I were sick, would it not be my own responsibility to spare the others in my proximity of the risk of contamination ?
The judge or the family want a doctor to diagnose and heal this kid instantly so she can board the flight. If they can pay - and find - a doctor immediately available at the gate to deal with any illness in any traveller in any part of the world, why not. AC is not obliged to provide this care, nor provide it free of charge. Actually, AC ground staff did just that: remove the kid till she gets help before reboarding, consistent with AC request that travellers report their medical conditions and may ground those unfit to board.
AC should have given instruction or some logistic support for the family though.
According to the article Jet Airways was the first leg of the trip and they allowed the passenger to travel which mean that the child wasn't sick or showing any signs of illness OR the kid actually got sick because of the smell coming out of the bathroom.
Roybert
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Nowhere and All Over
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True, Roybert, it is exactly what I pointed at. It clearly indicates that the kid was not sick, and the fine to Jet Airways did not seem to make sense except if there was other context not described here.
Agree with a330pilotcanada : the “event” was brought on by the smell of the washrooms. If this was the case why did it not affect more passengers?
Agree with a330pilotcanada : the “event” was brought on by the smell of the washrooms. If this was the case why did it not affect more passengers?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In some ways, this comes down to a "damned if you do or don't" situation for Air Canada.
If they remove the passenger, they take heat for removing an otherwise healthy person reacting to a bad smell. If they don't, and the person does end up sick through the flight, they take heat for not removing that passenger in addition to all the other associated costs outlined above.I'm sure many of us have had similar situations where an FA tells us someone appears to be sick just as we're about to close the doors. Granted the couple of times it has happened to me, I have not been 14-hours away from base and save for one situation, there were more flights that day. But, I've lost count the number of times I've been told never to allow a person who appears to be sick or is being sick onboard the aircraft. Therefore, if I or my FAs deny boarding, we're following company protocol. Done deal. They did their jobs. End of story.
Could or should Air Canada have done more? Perhaps. But, given the information in the article, it reads as a "he said, she said" scenario. Everyone loses in those. If Air Canada puts them on the next flight, they admit they were wrong in the first place. If Air Canada continues to deny passage while another airline agrees to it, then Air Canada is still in the wrong. Better to be in the wrong publically but err on the side of caution than to give in and create a precedent. The needs of the many, sort of thing.
Bksmithca, I know where you're going with your comment, but I don't think that because an airline installs air sickness bags gives passengers the right to show up sick. The bags are there primarily for motion sickness, not to allow little Jonny or Julie to travel while projectile vomiting. Each case is different, and when my wife was travelling while pregnant, she avoided travelling during the hours where she was sick. If she could not avoid it, she made sure to tell the crew beforehand. I'm sure it does help to have a husband in the industry who knows the rules, but I wouldn't think to show up to a meeting in a confined space where I knew I couldn't get out for a couple hours without telling someone I might be in-and-out of the bathroom. In that case, I would expect to be told to stay away.
Could or should Air Canada have done more? Perhaps. But, given the information in the article, it reads as a "he said, she said" scenario. Everyone loses in those. If Air Canada puts them on the next flight, they admit they were wrong in the first place. If Air Canada continues to deny passage while another airline agrees to it, then Air Canada is still in the wrong. Better to be in the wrong publically but err on the side of caution than to give in and create a precedent. The needs of the many, sort of thing.
Bksmithca, I know where you're going with your comment, but I don't think that because an airline installs air sickness bags gives passengers the right to show up sick. The bags are there primarily for motion sickness, not to allow little Jonny or Julie to travel while projectile vomiting. Each case is different, and when my wife was travelling while pregnant, she avoided travelling during the hours where she was sick. If she could not avoid it, she made sure to tell the crew beforehand. I'm sure it does help to have a husband in the industry who knows the rules, but I wouldn't think to show up to a meeting in a confined space where I knew I couldn't get out for a couple hours without telling someone I might be in-and-out of the bathroom. In that case, I would expect to be told to stay away.
+TSRA
After taking off and without having a way to check if the individual has a fever or just has motion sickness, how would you make the discussion to continue or divert. It's been a number of year since I flew as an FE with the RCAF and at that time we didn't carry a lot of medical equipment. Standard First Aid kit and a portable O2 bottle. I know on the last commercial flight I took they had a sign for an AED but not sure what other equipment they carry, digital thermometer?
BK
After taking off and without having a way to check if the individual has a fever or just has motion sickness, how would you make the discussion to continue or divert. It's been a number of year since I flew as an FE with the RCAF and at that time we didn't carry a lot of medical equipment. Standard First Aid kit and a portable O2 bottle. I know on the last commercial flight I took they had a sign for an AED but not sure what other equipment they carry, digital thermometer?
BK
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bksmithca,
When airborne, the discussion of whether to continue or divert is taken out of our hands by MedLink. By my airline's procedures (and I would think Air Canada is similar), I am to contact MedLink for any situation, even when there is a doctor on board. The FAs provide us with the symptoms observed or reported by the passenger or onboard doctor, and we relay this information to the on-call doctor or nurse at MedLink. The MedLink professional then decides for us whether to continue or divert. Whether we continue to destination or divert, we would still issue a Pan or Mayday with ATC in order that we might have an ambulance waiting - unless MedLink advised us otherwise. We are also supposed to call MedLink when we are on the ground, but it's been my experience that in the three to five minutes it takes to have this conversation with the doctor, EMS will already have been onboard for two minutes if we call a Pan or Mayday on the radio. In a situation where we cannot get in touch with MedLink, then it goes back to the decision making of old - do I or my FA's think that the person in question is in peril if they remain on the aircraft, or can they continue. I try and look at such situations as I do with my son. If I think a bit of bed rest is what is needed, we continue. If given the conditions I would take my son to the hospital, then I divert.
I find the inconvenience of a diversion is quickly eroded with the right words over the PA and a generic plea to peoples basic human nature.
This is all part and parcel of why I feel AC is being handed a slap to the face. They did what they thought was right at the moment. It might have been proven wrong or slightly less than correct with hindsight, but hindsight in these situations should not be used as a legal argument. I can only imagine the complexities and frustrations of dealing with other cultures or languages on their home turf where perhaps disembarking the passenger is the best course of action to save from a bigger incident.
I also doubt much has changed since you last flew; we have onboard a number of standard aviation first aid kits, an AED, a couple first aid oxygen bottles, and a universal protections kit. I had to look up the contents of these kits in our Flight Attendant Manual (FAM), and I do not see a digital thermometer listed - just the standard items one would find in any off-the-shelf kit, plus the UPK. The FAM does describe different temperatures for different conditions, however, they must train people to still use the back of their hand and guesstimate a persons temperature.
When airborne, the discussion of whether to continue or divert is taken out of our hands by MedLink. By my airline's procedures (and I would think Air Canada is similar), I am to contact MedLink for any situation, even when there is a doctor on board. The FAs provide us with the symptoms observed or reported by the passenger or onboard doctor, and we relay this information to the on-call doctor or nurse at MedLink. The MedLink professional then decides for us whether to continue or divert. Whether we continue to destination or divert, we would still issue a Pan or Mayday with ATC in order that we might have an ambulance waiting - unless MedLink advised us otherwise. We are also supposed to call MedLink when we are on the ground, but it's been my experience that in the three to five minutes it takes to have this conversation with the doctor, EMS will already have been onboard for two minutes if we call a Pan or Mayday on the radio. In a situation where we cannot get in touch with MedLink, then it goes back to the decision making of old - do I or my FA's think that the person in question is in peril if they remain on the aircraft, or can they continue. I try and look at such situations as I do with my son. If I think a bit of bed rest is what is needed, we continue. If given the conditions I would take my son to the hospital, then I divert.
I find the inconvenience of a diversion is quickly eroded with the right words over the PA and a generic plea to peoples basic human nature.
This is all part and parcel of why I feel AC is being handed a slap to the face. They did what they thought was right at the moment. It might have been proven wrong or slightly less than correct with hindsight, but hindsight in these situations should not be used as a legal argument. I can only imagine the complexities and frustrations of dealing with other cultures or languages on their home turf where perhaps disembarking the passenger is the best course of action to save from a bigger incident.
I also doubt much has changed since you last flew; we have onboard a number of standard aviation first aid kits, an AED, a couple first aid oxygen bottles, and a universal protections kit. I had to look up the contents of these kits in our Flight Attendant Manual (FAM), and I do not see a digital thermometer listed - just the standard items one would find in any off-the-shelf kit, plus the UPK. The FAM does describe different temperatures for different conditions, however, they must train people to still use the back of their hand and guesstimate a persons temperature.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: East end.
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
+TSRA
After taking off and without having a way to check if the individual has a fever or just has motion sickness, how would you make the discussion to continue or divert. It's been a number of year since I flew as an FE with the RCAF and at that time we didn't carry a lot of medical equipment. Standard First Aid kit and a portable O2 bottle. I know on the last commercial flight I took they had a sign for an AED but not sure what other equipment they carry, digital thermometer?
BK
After taking off and without having a way to check if the individual has a fever or just has motion sickness, how would you make the discussion to continue or divert. It's been a number of year since I flew as an FE with the RCAF and at that time we didn't carry a lot of medical equipment. Standard First Aid kit and a portable O2 bottle. I know on the last commercial flight I took they had a sign for an AED but not sure what other equipment they carry, digital thermometer?
BK
Crew made the right choice, when a passenger is visibly sick - possible communicable disease/diversion/problem inflight - and you are about to push back for a 15 hour flight, you should get them checked and approved to travel and they can go the next day once approved. This may be a slight inconvenience to 1 person, but serves the greater good and ultimately their interest/well being too.
Reminds me of the recent Halifax passenger with visibly bad case of shingles (pox is a highly contagious, communicable disease, in some stages), taken off a flight and brought by AC staff to a doctor for confirmation safe to travel, given a hotel, first flight the next day, upgraded to business, and they still sued AC for discrimination because she was a minority, francophone, female, and was embarassed that the crew dealing with her wore protective gear, mask/gloves, assisting her off the plane...
You can't do right, if you allowed them to travel someone would have taken a photo of a visibly infected person and posted it and blamed AC for risking everyone.
+TSRA and Altiplano
Thank you both for the reply, Things have changed since I left the Air Force. I never had to worry about one of the passengers wanting to sue, just need to make sure the officers were happy.
BK
Thank you both for the reply, Things have changed since I left the Air Force. I never had to worry about one of the passengers wanting to sue, just need to make sure the officers were happy.
BK
