kumrabai

I have to say that on the basis of what Robinsonpyy says at least, the fault seems to be on the side of the airline. Motion sickness is not a new phenomenon, as witnessed by the presence of sick bags in front of every pax on every plane. Point taken about dehydration, but it is not difficult to quickly check if a pax is unfit to fly. But surely the burden should be on airline to demonstrate why this is the case? A second hand report from a F/A is not good enough - there would have to be something else.

And once a mistake had been seen to be made - well, this is where it got totally unacceptable.

No good EK - time to update guidance to staff and crew!

ashcoza

I am a bit surprised, at many times FT seems to take the sides of the airlines and disconnect to the passenger. Sure by their book they had the rights to do it, and the pilot had no job to talk to you, but many do and it is the decent thing to do. Especially when it is a family involving kids. The fact that the doc said he is fit to fly really disregards anything else and I am shocked they wouldn't pay for one nights hotel too after they were making all the decisions. I can't imagine the helpless frustration at the airport there.

aussielori

This sounds very Emirates. they always know everything.
and act first and ask questions later, not really hearing what one has to say.
Im so over it and will be letting my gold lapse for EY G+ where I get answers and comp upgrades and excellent service.

Doc Savage

Good example to warn against letting the airline know too much of your personal business.

Australia may be a country that is hyper sensitive about allowing ill passengers to enter - maybe that is why the airline overreacted so radically.

global happy traveller

i wonder if this is a typical airline response to sick passengers and trying to cover the butt/avoiding liability?

While I agree with getting the child checked to make sure he is fit to fly by a licensed physician, i think the entire approach could be dealt with more professionally (ie. having medics meet at the gate upon arrival, seek any on-board doctor for assistance)

Dave Noble

The point is that the medical people had already stated that the passenger was unfit to fly

"Medlink had judged that he was too ill to fly"

and in that situation would you really expect a pilot to act against the recommendations of, what I would assume to be, medical practitioners

It then required another doctor , after they had disembarked, to assess that the passenger was fit to fly

I would say that after being informed that the passenger was unfit to fly, that the captain did the only thing he could reasonably be expected to do

seanthepilot

This could be the issue. Aussie Customs and Immigration are Hyper sensitive indeed.

You may be correct...
But, perhaps the captain relaying this position himself to the Original Poster would have been a better way to handle it.

Brussels traveller

I am sickened reading the story.

Regardless of whether it was right to deplane the family or not, the whole situation was handled extremely poorly and there can be no excuse for that. Particularly when there were children involved, for whom the whole experience of being evicted from the aircraft would have been frightening and traumatic.

The Captain should have come and explained the situation himself. Emirates should have had their station manager meet the family, arrange for them to be accommodated overnight and assist them onto the flight the following day. This would have turned a horror story into a positive one, as they recount the experience to others. The inconvenience of an overnight stop in Singapore would have paled in comparison to the warm and supportive customer service they would have experienced.

Opportunity missed, EK.

eightblack

It is a tough story to read and I feel for the family. But we weren't there so its hard to know what should have/could have been done under the circumstances.

I have also come to know the EK culture over these past 3 years and the words "empowerment" are "EK" do not quite go together.

To accommodate overnight would have required someone's approval, to go outside the rulebook would have required someones approval and any decisions which weren't by the book would have eventually trickled back to DXB and questions asked. Is that right? No, but it is what it is.

Dave Noble

That depends on whether you believe that rules should be consistently applied or not

Tim(HAM)

Though the way of the interaction with the family may not have been the best it is interesting to follow this thread bearing in mind in 2008 everyone on this forum was bashing EK after EK201 (A380) diverted into MUC.

The diversion was due to a dehydrated girl, similar story, dying in the end. All the "experts" on the forum knowing everything and having all the medical knowledge without any degree, not having been there, suggesting what EK should have done to prevent it (e.g. not letting them board in DXB, calling MEDLINK for advice)...
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/emira...verts-muc.html

makhdoom

Going entirely by OPs account and timing, Emirates made the decision to off-load the passenger(s) before the medlink exam. The discussions, and off-loading luggage etc. took a while. Had the (quick) medlink exam come first, I suspect a different, more agreeable to all, outcome may have been possible.

FlyerTalker683455

I don't know anything about the above story, but if it's so, then it might have made it into their SOPs with a strong "no exception" notation. In that case, however, they could have still just insisted on a Dr certificate in time to let the family fly. THAT I think is the poor customer service part of the story.

ukdoctor

I have been asked to see unwell patients on three occasions, though never on EK.
2 of the cases were straightforward. One was a diabetic who had low blood sugars and the Other was an asthmatic with difficulty in breathing.

The third one was very challenging. It was a male late 30's early 40's with sudden onset of chest pain . We were somewhere over the middle east ( Not an EK flight). Gave him aspirin, oxygen had a chat with the in flight rector and recommended a diversion. Thrombolysis ASAP can prevent further damage.

However the passenger wouldn't have any of it and wanted to continue towards LHR.(He was a US national).I'm sure that if it was EK he would have been sorted out at DXB even if the pax refused. Luckily he made it till LHR and was sorted out there. The airline was lucky, the passenger was lucky and I was lucky as well( though they did make him sign a disclaimer).
If anything had happened to him his family would have gone to the media saying how he was left to die!!!! And that no care was given.


The problem with all the 'experts' posting over here is that a majority of you don't have any
Clue how difficult it is to asess someone mid flight.
You don't have access to an ECG machine for example.Even listening with a stethoscope is not easy due to the ambient cabin noise(I have never seen a noise cancelling one in any airline medical kit so far)

It is sometimes a Damned if you do and damned if you don't situation sometimes and I have to agree with EK's decision .If unsure it is always safer to intervene early especially and they have made mistakes in the past.

I do agree that in this case the pax should have been treated in a better way though and there should have been proper communication throughout the event.

SKRan

This is typical behaviour of Emirates crew - waving off responsibility as instead of trying to help. disgusting culture!