Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Considering the airline apologized, paid for the overnight stay, refunded their tickets and flew them for free, I'm not sure why people feel compelled to defend their actions. It was an overzealous clerk who took things too far.
Don't confuse what a major corporation does for public relations reasons (especially with an agenda driven reporter driving the story) with corporate malfeasance or guilt. Comping a flight and paying for a hotel might cost $500 to the corporation, as oposed to $500 per hour in litigation. It's an economic decision, not an admission of guilt or wrong doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74
And btw, presumably the woman was cleared to fly by her doctor - you know, before she got on the first flight from California to Hawaii!
We don't know if she is terminal at this point (lot of medical advances in chemo treatments and life extention for cancer patients), however, a terminal cancer patient on chemo may have deterioted SIGNIFICANTLY in a week or two. My brother was on chemo for nearly a year, and was doing fine in appearance (his blood numbers told a different story though), and was still up and around doing occasional light chores on his property right up until he got a minor stomache infection.
He was in the hospital the next day, and dead 4 days later because his body was so depleted by the chemo it couldn't fight the relatively common and mundane infection.
The airline did the right thing to question (for the safety of the passenger) whether she was medically cleared/safe for flying. It was about her safety, not the other passengers.
Last edited by Tuck's Dad; 04-08-2015 at 02:43 PM..
Considering the airline apologized, paid for the overnight stay, refunded their tickets and flew them for free, I'm not sure why people feel compelled to defend their actions. It was an overzealous clerk who took things too far.
Because many of us don't agree that it was an overzealous clerk who took things too far. I think it was a clerk who was doing a good job and ensuring that a customer was actually well enough to safely make the trip.
Taking the steps that the airline did to rectify the situation doesn't necessarily mean that they were wrong to take the action in the first place. It just means they've got a good public relations team.
Since when is wearing a face mask an indication that one is terminal? I've seen that any number of times on airplanes by people who are just trying to avoid the germs on an airplane. There is nothing in the links I've read to indicate the woman was terminal.
And she emailed her doctor during the incident, who emailed back saying she was ok to fly but the airline refused to accept that.
Innocent people apologize all the time. It's the first step in avoiding a lawsuit from the victim and crucifixion from the press. The woman should have called ahead and told somebody about her special needs. The airlines would have saved her a trip,,, and a "look-at-me" performance that backfired on her.
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,365 posts, read 2,147,181 times
Reputation: 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl
I don't think this is so awful. They had reason to believe she might not be medically stable to fly. If something happens in air, there are no ERs to rush someone to and the airlines IMO are within their rights to protect themselves. It seems like if it was so urgent she get home in a certain time frame, she'd have flown a day earlier or something...anything can happen any day to delay or cancel a flight.
To me this is damned if you do, damned if you don't for the airlines...someone dies in air, they're the bad guys...require medical clearance, they're the bad guys..
I agree. How did she get to Hawaii in the first place? This is hardly the airlines fault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by so954
The airlines did apologize to her and pay for her extra nights stay. An innocent party does not apologize, there was no reason to not let her fly home. Does everyone need a doctors note to fly now? Flying is transportation open to the public. She was wronged.
Sure they do. Its called courtesy. Airlines try to make their customers as comfortable as they can when things like this arise. They would be risking an awful liability claim if she was allowed on and had an emergency on the flight. No one has to be 'in the wrong' to be sorry for an inconvenience.
Don't confuse what a major corporation does for public relations reasons (especially with an agenda driven reporter driving the story) with corporate malfeasance or guilt. Comping a flight and paying for a hotel might cost $500 to the corporation, as oposed to $500 per hour in litigation. It's an economic decision, not an admission of guilt or wrong doing.
We don't know if she is terminal at this point (lot of medical advances in chemo treatments and life extention for cancer patients), however, a terminal cancer patient on chemo may have deterioted SIGNIFICANTLY in a week or two. My brother was on chemo for nearly a year, and was doing fine in appearance (his blood numbers told a different story though), and was still up and around doing occasional light chores on his property right up until he got a minor stomache infection.
He was in the hospital the next day, and dead 4 days later because his body was so depleted by the chemo it couldn't fight the relatively common and mundane infection.
The airline did the right thing to question (for the safety of the passenger) whether she was medically cleared/safe for flying. It was about her safety, not the other passengers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74
Since when is wearing a face mask an indication that one is terminal? I've seen that any number of times on airplanes by people who are just trying to avoid the germs on an airplane. There is nothing in the links I've read to indicate the woman was terminal.
And she emailed her doctor during the incident, who emailed back saying she was ok to fly but the airline refused to accept that.
Never did I say she was terminal (see above), nor is wearing a mask an indicator of her being terminal, but CHEMO is an indicator that it is a significant cancer (may or may not be terminal) and CHEMO ravages the imunne system in most of its varieties, and has huge side effects that can run for several days to weeks after a CHEMO treatment, and can have significant secondary side effects on the body and organ functions - none of which a flight crew is prepared to deal with if something goes south on the plane.
If her condition changed during the trip (a distinct possibility), and she was having problems with her energy level AT THAT POINT IN TIME, then an e-mail note from her physician (who couldn't have actually examined her from the mainland while she was in HI) is an interesting data point, but not an indication the airline was unreasonable in exersising caution WRT the woman's health and her ability to safely fly.
If this was a one hour flight over land with several points (with hospital facilities) to land for a medical emergency, then maybe the airline over-reacted, but a 6 hour flight over the Pacific, with go back or go forward as you only two options, is a different problem set entirely.
I know this is America and all, but if I had those kinds of issues - I wouldn't put myself in a position where that could happen.
Someone with cancer wanting to visit "bucket list" places like Hawaii doesn't seem at all unusual to me.
Count me as one who thinks the airline was being prudent and did their best to remedy the situation. I saw a lady trying to buy a plane ticket at the counter once and she was saying how sick she was (perhaps for sympathy). The airline ended up refusing to let her fly. As someone else noted, planes aren't ready to handle many medical emergencies mid-flight. It's not uncommon for someone to die on board and for the flight to continue on it's normal course. Stopping on a flight from HI to CA wouldn't even be an option.
I don't know. I wasn't there and, so, don't know exactly how things went down. From what I do know, however, the airline seems to have overreacted. Someone with cancer healthy enough to help themselves to the counter, etc. (I don't care if they put on a mask) doesn't seem like someone who is at risk of kicking the bucket on a flight. Of course, there's no sure way to know, but I think the airline should've let her fly. Now that that's all said and done, though, the issue becomes what will come of this situation. The airline didn't break any laws (from what I can tell) and only owes compensation for airline tickets purchased (they should also, in my view, pay to put the family up in a hotel for a few night until the woman's doctor can send the note, if that hasn't already happened). It is helpful for travelers, though, in terms of what others in this woman's situation should consider having on their person when flying. It's also helpful for healthy and sick passengers alike who will decide whether to not fly with this airline as a result of how they treated this woman.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
