PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   Are BA for real? (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/187103-ba-real.html)

Hotel Mode 27th August 2005 14:26

Should in the FCO's means you better have a damn good reason not to. For example: [a wheels up/partial gear landing] SHOULD always be made on the paved surface rather than on grass or other soft surface.

You'd want a pretty good reason lined up for that one

normal_nigel 27th August 2005 15:11

Not the should/must argument again :rolleyes:

Complex_Type 28th August 2005 10:58

I've not heard anything about any untowards consequences for the pax, so well done that Capt. good decision.

Cosmo 28th August 2005 16:27

PAXboy raises the question of the potential liability of a carrier for medical expenses.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any expense that the passenger would incur in treatment in the US would have to borne by BA - not the individual.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How so? Do you have details of the insurance arrangements for this patient and that of BA?
In general, the Warsaw system would apply. By the "Warsaw system" I mean the Warsaw Convention and its numerous amendments.

Article 17 of the Convention (as amended by the Guatemala City Protocol) states that:
1. The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or
personal injury of a passenger upon condition only that the event which
caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course
of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking. However, the
carrier is not liable if the death or injury resulted solely from the state of
health of the passenger.


So it is entirely possible that a carrier would have to bear the costs of treatment of the kind of injury that apparrently took place in this case.

GrahamCurry 28th August 2005 16:43

>So it is entirely possible that a carrier would have to bear the costs of treatment of the kind of injury that apparrently took place in this case.

So it was in BA's financial interest to continue to the UK . . .

Hotel Mode 28th August 2005 17:12

What part of we call medlink they advise a course of action dont you understand? BA wont even normally be aware we've called Medlink until a course of action has been decided upon, and they certainly wouldnt interfere with any decision. Theres not a conspiricy everywhere.

Jerricho 28th August 2005 17:13

I would give up people.

Our thread starter doesn't seem to want to play anymore.

EasyBaby 28th August 2005 18:11

Well traveling back from SIN i developed renal colic (Kidney stones). I have never been in so much pain ever! Im cabin crew and i know that kidney stones is a diversionary medical complaint, its in bold: Diversion and seek medical help on arrival.

Well the crew and nurse that was onboard (thank f**k) explained the best they could, i was away with the fairies, that the nearest airport they would divert to was Mumbai. Now im sure they have very good medical care, but there was no way on Gods Earth that i was going to be left on my own far from home, in a county i know very little about, dont speak the lingo etc to have medical care. And i knew that with Kidney stones flying home would be out of the question for some time afterward.

The crew, nurse and i all agreed that they would continue to Europe, but if my condition was to get worse (i was not in good shape) they would have no option but to divert.

Now i knew the risk, as did the nurse, but i was the ill one, i was the one they consulted with, and it was my wish to continue the 12 hours to Europe. Should we be critising the airline and crew of the airline i flew with?

God knows how but we made it to Europe, and all i can say is thank you to the crew/airline and nurse that we did not divert. That was my wish and they carried it out. Im sure the BA crew consulted with the pax/crew with their ankle.

And so they jumped the queue, landed before anyone else, wether they should or shouldnt have declared an emergency, they still had someone onboard who was injured. And if that ment they got on the ground earlier and got the person seen to quicker then great. Perhaps it was a little bit of compassion that we so lack these days.

Bart O'Lynn 28th August 2005 21:48

Why are you all bothering with this numpty. He sounds like an emi rat wide body driver and if so obviously the holes in his mickey mouse licence validation and real experience of the industry are starting to show thru. All shiney jet and no substance.

Beernice, atpl you may have but your ignorance of the pretty common medilink type services indicates that you are indeed ignorant. Ignorant of the industry norms that is. Something you wouldnt be if you had any real exposure to it.

By comparison i called medical assistance recently at a spanish airport while still on stand. Got a bollocking for not calling medilink and for using the local quack (and boy he was) as we lost our liability cover and after care from medilink. Great action by the crew, instinctive by me , bollockings all round and the pax moaned that we had left him behind. Thats because a first epi fit is normal where he comes from...you cant win.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:45.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.