Advice please on plane incident
May 10, 2019, 7:13 pm
#76
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2014
Programs: Top Tier with all 3 alliances
Posts: 11,688
What is the official term that BA and other UK airlines use? If they only use "cabin crew", which is plural, to be used as singular ("he is cabin crew"), or too wordy to be used properly ("he is a member of the cabin crew"), I guess that leaves an awkward gap in the UK aviation parlance, that may force people to use the older term for convenience.
May 10, 2019, 8:35 pm
#79
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,646
What is the official term that BA and other UK airlines use? If they only use "cabin crew", which is plural, to be used as singular ("he is cabin crew"), or too wordy to be used properly ("he is a member of the cabin crew"), I guess that leaves an awkward gap in the UK aviation parlance, that may force people to use the older term for convenience.
Steward doesn't seen that awful a word since it is defined as "A person employed to look after the passengers on a ship, aircraft, or train." - unlike the US use of 'Flight Attendant' it actually implies that the person is there to provide service rather than to sit and read a book/magazine
May 10, 2019, 10:20 pm
#80
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: DUB/ORD/SIN/PVG
Programs: EI AerClub Concierge, EK Gold, BA Gold, BD Gold (Retired), HHonors Diamond, Bonvoy Lifetime Gold
Posts: 2,923
Plenty of horror stories and inconsistent on-board responses (e.g. thread below):
Biohazard (Passenger Vomit) Procedure?
Vomit is a bio-hazard and should be
properly cleaned, particularly in a food service environment such as an aircraft cabin. Common sense CDC guidelines below are consistent with cabin crew being there “primarily for our safety”...
https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/air/m...abin-crew.html
Biohazard (Passenger Vomit) Procedure?
Vomit is a bio-hazard and should be
properly cleaned, particularly in a food service environment such as an aircraft cabin. Common sense CDC guidelines below are consistent with cabin crew being there “primarily for our safety”...
https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/air/m...abin-crew.html
May 11, 2019, 4:22 am
#81
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, United Kingdom
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold;BA GGL; hhonors lifetime diamond; Marriott lt Gold; IH Plat Amb; Amex Centurion
Posts: 4,741
Does it? I know this is sometimes thought to be true and I admit I am no lawyer so happily welcome corrections, but for England & Wales it would seem that Section 2 of the Compensation Act 2006 explicitly says the opposite.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/29/section/2
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/29/section/2
May 11, 2019, 4:28 am
#82
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, United Kingdom
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold;BA GGL; hhonors lifetime diamond; Marriott lt Gold; IH Plat Amb; Amex Centurion
Posts: 4,741
...
Sorry but it does really annoy me when someone adds to the stigma of HIV in-necessarily. It is a treatable chronic condition. If the person is on treatment and their viral load is undetectable, there is ZERO risk of transmission (U=U). Even if the person has a high viral load and you have blood to blood contact, the risk is still low, even if someone was sharing needles with someone who is HIV positive the risk of transmission is low. Most people with HIV diagnosed early due of unrelated medical problems in old age.
...
Well said, Sir. Remarks like the one you are responding to remind me of the people who used to refuse to drink out of the same cup that an HIV+ person had drunk out of, or fallen in with the theory that you can "catch AIDS from toilet seats".
May 11, 2019, 3:28 pm
#83
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: north of heathrow
Posts: 1,109
What is the official term that BA and other UK airlines use? If they only use "cabin crew", which is plural, to be used as singular ("he is cabin crew"), or too wordy to be used properly ("he is a member of the cabin crew"), I guess that leaves an awkward gap in the UK aviation parlance, that may force people to use the older term for convenience.
May 12, 2019, 3:17 pm
#84
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 628
Meanwhile back to vomit as I said. It is a low but not zero risk. And this is the case not knowing for certain what caused the person to vomit and contrary to what you have stated, if the person had nothing wrong with them then the risk of infectious disease would be zero.
it can cause micro-droplets and travel, but they still have to get into your mouth, so touching the droplets then putting your fingers in your mouth or eating food/drink that has been contaminated. This is why you should wash your hands before eating (a practice which for some reason people seam reluctant to do in the air).
as I said it is a Low risk which should be taken seriously but equally shouldn’t be exaggerated (I for one wouldn’t want a plane to have to divert every time someone vomits onboard for example as some here seam to be advocating).
You might dismiss Norovirus as no big deal, and I agree it is hardly fatal in otherwise healthy people, but three points.
(1) I have dry eyes. I have to constantly use eye drops at the best of times, to avoid irritation and infection. I also wear sports goggles outdoors to avoid the wind blowing in dirt. So while I laughed at buddy who posted the photo of the Hazmat suit ( a sure way to convince the crew I am nuts, which I suppose would get me returned to the gate if I was desperate to do so) I was quite serious about using my sports goggles when attempting to clean a vomit-stained surface. (Also disposable gloves because while I would also wash my hands, I might have to wait a bit to get access to one of the onboard loos.) It is precisely because I realize I would have to deal with the situation on the spot that I want to try to prepare myself to address it.
(2) While a lot of flyers on this board get to fly up front, that is not me, and my next flight is for an event that will last all of 3 days. This is almost exactly how long it would take me to recover from a bout of Norovirus. Why fly, if a flight is going to be the very reason I can't perform at destination.
(3). If infected I could be contagious for up to two weeks.This would be more than a mere inconvenience for those who know me. For the second time, I'm part of a shuttle team of friends to escort one of our number who is going for radiation/chemo treatments. People in that condition need to be exposed to additional crap like they need a hole in the head. So I would have to opt out of my part of the schedule for as long as I worried I was contagious, which would disrupt everyone.
Even people who merely have elderly parents would have to exercise caution if they think they're contagioius. You sound like you know enough to be aware of how quickly someone very old or young could dehydrate if infected.
Last edited by simpleflyer; May 12, 2019 at 3:51 pm
May 12, 2019, 4:27 pm
#85
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold; FB Silver; SPG; IHG Gold
Posts: 2,991
What a horrible state of affairs. What's SOP in a situation where there are no other seats available in the booked cabin but there are some available in a higher cabin? I'd assume an upgrade to the higher cabin seat (whilst keeping booked cabin service/meal), but I'm not so sure with BA these days.
May 13, 2019, 7:54 pm
#86
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ORD
Programs: US Air, UA BA LH AI DELTA MARRIOTT CHOICE SGP
Posts: 9,883
What a horrible state of affairs. What's SOP in a situation where there are no other seats available in the booked cabin but there are some available in a higher cabin? I'd assume an upgrade to the higher cabin seat (whilst keeping booked cabin service/meal), but I'm not so sure with BA these days.
May 13, 2019, 8:22 pm
#87
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: London, UK
Programs: BAEC GGL/GFl, HH Diamond, BW Diamond, Virgin Voyages Deep Blue Extra, Blue Peter Badge Holder
Posts: 3,937
Hang on a mo'. I at least didn't say anything about HIV. I take your point about not exaggerating, but you should now take MY point about not making assumptions about what are people's concerns.
You might dismiss Norovirus as no big deal, and I agree it is hardly fatal in otherwise healthy people, but three points.
(1) I have dry eyes. I have to constantly use eye drops at the best of times, to avoid irritation and infection. I also wear sports goggles outdoors to avoid the wind blowing in dirt. So while I laughed at buddy who posted the photo of the Hazmat suit ( a sure way to convince the crew I am nuts, which I suppose would get me returned to the gate if I was desperate to do so) I was quite serious about using my sports goggles when attempting to clean a vomit-stained surface. (Also disposable gloves because while I would also wash my hands, I might have to wait a bit to get access to one of the onboard loos.) It is precisely because I realize I would have to deal with the situation on the spot that I want to try to prepare myself to address it.
(2) While a lot of flyers on this board get to fly up front, that is not me, and my next flight is for an event that will last all of 3 days. This is almost exactly how long it would take me to recover from a bout of Norovirus. Why fly, if a flight is going to be the very reason I can't perform at destination.
(3). If infected I could be contagious for up to two weeks.This would be more than a mere inconvenience for those who know me. For the second time, I'm part of a shuttle team of friends to escort one of our number who is going for radiation/chemo treatments. People in that condition need to be exposed to additional crap like they need a hole in the head. So I would have to opt out of my part of the schedule for as long as I worried I was contagious, which would disrupt everyone.
Even people who merely have elderly parents would have to exercise caution if they think they're contagioius. You sound like you know enough to be aware of how quickly someone very old or young could dehydrate if infected.
You might dismiss Norovirus as no big deal, and I agree it is hardly fatal in otherwise healthy people, but three points.
(1) I have dry eyes. I have to constantly use eye drops at the best of times, to avoid irritation and infection. I also wear sports goggles outdoors to avoid the wind blowing in dirt. So while I laughed at buddy who posted the photo of the Hazmat suit ( a sure way to convince the crew I am nuts, which I suppose would get me returned to the gate if I was desperate to do so) I was quite serious about using my sports goggles when attempting to clean a vomit-stained surface. (Also disposable gloves because while I would also wash my hands, I might have to wait a bit to get access to one of the onboard loos.) It is precisely because I realize I would have to deal with the situation on the spot that I want to try to prepare myself to address it.
(2) While a lot of flyers on this board get to fly up front, that is not me, and my next flight is for an event that will last all of 3 days. This is almost exactly how long it would take me to recover from a bout of Norovirus. Why fly, if a flight is going to be the very reason I can't perform at destination.
(3). If infected I could be contagious for up to two weeks.This would be more than a mere inconvenience for those who know me. For the second time, I'm part of a shuttle team of friends to escort one of our number who is going for radiation/chemo treatments. People in that condition need to be exposed to additional crap like they need a hole in the head. So I would have to opt out of my part of the schedule for as long as I worried I was contagious, which would disrupt everyone.
Even people who merely have elderly parents would have to exercise caution if they think they're contagioius. You sound like you know enough to be aware of how quickly someone very old or young could dehydrate if infected.
Risk is likelihood x consequences, now with yourself the consequences may be greater than with others, but the likelihood remains low and the overall risk remains low (but still not zero as I have stated).
There is a risk that a plane gets diverted and I am delayed on every flight I catch. I turn up to the airport and I’m warned that the flight may be late as there is a technical fault that the engineers are working on. If I was going home to have surgery the following day for a painful condition, should I be compensated based on that risk, despite the plane actually arriving on time or just if it were actually late due to BA’s fault?
May 13, 2019, 10:58 pm
#88
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,568
i do indeed take your point, but there is no evidence here that the health of the Op or family DID actually suffer as a result. Had it of done, then I would expect BA to have compensated at a higher level.
Risk is likelihood x consequences, now with yourself the consequences may be greater than with others, but the likelihood remains low and the overall risk remains low (but still not zero as I have stated).
There is a risk that a plane gets diverted and I am delayed on every flight I catch. I turn up to the airport and I’m warned that the flight may be late as there is a technical fault that the engineers are working on. If I was going home to have surgery the following day for a painful condition, should I be compensated based on that risk, despite the plane actually arriving on time or just if it were actually late due to BA’s fault?
Risk is likelihood x consequences, now with yourself the consequences may be greater than with others, but the likelihood remains low and the overall risk remains low (but still not zero as I have stated).
There is a risk that a plane gets diverted and I am delayed on every flight I catch. I turn up to the airport and I’m warned that the flight may be late as there is a technical fault that the engineers are working on. If I was going home to have surgery the following day for a painful condition, should I be compensated based on that risk, despite the plane actually arriving on time or just if it were actually late due to BA’s fault?
1) Your example: There was a risk that something might go wrong but by the time your flight takes place it is clear that nothing did. Moreover, strictly based on your description of the event, there is no evidence of negligence by BA.
2) simpleflyer's concerns: I certainly do not want to put words in his/her minds and maybe I am misunderstanding his/her arguments, but it seems to me that it pertains to the uncertainty of whether any contamination did or did not occur as a result of the contact with the vomit and therefore the worry that ensues and potentially the need for tests to ascertain whether any contamination did occur in his case (this is how I interpret the reference to being in contact with a patient undergoing chemotherapy with a consequential need to ascertain that one is not contaminated by a norovirus that could be transmitted to that friend with potentially serious consequences. Moreover, here we are dealing with a case of clear and avoidable negligence on BA's part.
Should you be compensated for something that "might have happened" but did not. You're certainly right, absolutely not. Does it follow that one should not be compensated for having to worry about something that "may have happened" and of which one is not sure that it has or not and may not be for a while, the potential need to undergo tests to ensure that it has not (that's simpleflyer's working assumption), and the anxiety caused by having to wait for a result that could cause distress but will - hopefully - eventually prove negative? absolutely not. If the OP and/or his son did worry sufficiently to undergo such tests, then I would personally consider that this is something that would deserve compensation in and by itself even if the results came (hopefully) back negative.
If the OP and his son did not have those worries then I would not see this as justifying compensation in my view. If they did fear and had to take measures to ensure that they were not suffering from something that the vomit may have caused even if it was unlikely, and even if it ultimately proves that it did not then in my view, it is entirely reasonable that this should be taken into account in the compensation proposed by the airline even if the result proved negative.
May 13, 2019, 11:57 pm
#89
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: London, UK
Programs: BAEC GGL/GFl, HH Diamond, BW Diamond, Virgin Voyages Deep Blue Extra, Blue Peter Badge Holder
Posts: 3,937
Apples and pears as you and the person you are answering are talking about two very different conceptions of risk.
1) Your example: There was a risk that something might go wrong but by the time your flight takes place it is clear that nothing did. Moreover, strictly based on your description of the event, there is no evidence of negligence by BA.
2) simpleflyer's concerns: I certainly do not want to put words in his/her minds and maybe I am misunderstanding his/her arguments, but it seems to me that it pertains to the uncertainty of whether any contamination did or did not occur as a result of the contact with the vomit and therefore the worry that ensues and potentially the need for tests to ascertain whether any contamination did occur in his case (this is how I interpret the reference to being in contact with a patient undergoing chemotherapy with a consequential need to ascertain that one is not contaminated by a norovirus that could be transmitted to that friend with potentially serious consequences. Moreover, here we are dealing with a case of clear and avoidable negligence on BA's part.
Should you be compensated for something that "might have happened" but did not. You're certainly right, absolutely not. Does it follow that one should not be compensated for having to worry about something that "may have happened" and of which one is not sure that it has or not and may not be for a while, the potential need to undergo tests to ensure that it has not (that's simpleflyer's working assumption), and the anxiety caused by having to wait for a result that could cause distress but will - hopefully - eventually prove negative? absolutely not. If the OP and/or his son did worry sufficiently to undergo such tests, then I would personally consider that this is something that would deserve compensation in and by itself even if the results came (hopefully) back negative.
If the OP and his son did not have those worries then I would not see this as justifying compensation in my view. If they did fear and had to take measures to ensure that they were not suffering from something that the vomit may have caused even if it was unlikely, and even if it ultimately proves that it did not then in my view, it is entirely reasonable that this should be taken into account in the compensation proposed by the airline even if the result proved negative.
1) Your example: There was a risk that something might go wrong but by the time your flight takes place it is clear that nothing did. Moreover, strictly based on your description of the event, there is no evidence of negligence by BA.
2) simpleflyer's concerns: I certainly do not want to put words in his/her minds and maybe I am misunderstanding his/her arguments, but it seems to me that it pertains to the uncertainty of whether any contamination did or did not occur as a result of the contact with the vomit and therefore the worry that ensues and potentially the need for tests to ascertain whether any contamination did occur in his case (this is how I interpret the reference to being in contact with a patient undergoing chemotherapy with a consequential need to ascertain that one is not contaminated by a norovirus that could be transmitted to that friend with potentially serious consequences. Moreover, here we are dealing with a case of clear and avoidable negligence on BA's part.
Should you be compensated for something that "might have happened" but did not. You're certainly right, absolutely not. Does it follow that one should not be compensated for having to worry about something that "may have happened" and of which one is not sure that it has or not and may not be for a while, the potential need to undergo tests to ensure that it has not (that's simpleflyer's working assumption), and the anxiety caused by having to wait for a result that could cause distress but will - hopefully - eventually prove negative? absolutely not. If the OP and/or his son did worry sufficiently to undergo such tests, then I would personally consider that this is something that would deserve compensation in and by itself even if the results came (hopefully) back negative.
If the OP and his son did not have those worries then I would not see this as justifying compensation in my view. If they did fear and had to take measures to ensure that they were not suffering from something that the vomit may have caused even if it was unlikely, and even if it ultimately proves that it did not then in my view, it is entirely reasonable that this should be taken into account in the compensation proposed by the airline even if the result proved negative.
Further, there doesn’t need to be the presence of vomit to cause transmission, the poster could indeed catch Norovirus from any number of sources. How often, when asymptomatic are they getting tested and who is authorising this test (NICE for example recommend against testing and the risks outweigh the benefits in my opinion). Is it therefore reasonable for an airline to compensate on the basis of something the professionals recommend against?
If i I thought my chicken wasn’t thoroughly cooked, and despite BA reassurances, their records demonstrating that it was indeed cooked IAW food safety standards but there was not record to confirm that the CC washed their hands, and I despite remaining symptom free, should in the event I get tested because of my own worry, the airline be compensating me?
I’m of the opinion that actions need to be rational and appropriate, should a health care professional recommend testing then yes perhaps this should be taken into account when an airline’s decides a gesture of goodwill, irrespective of whether they do or indeed do not have actual legal liability, but should someone insist on being tested against the advice of the professional, I don’t think that is rational and I don’t believe that the airline should increase their gesture when they have not caused actual harm as a result of their actions.
id also point out that at nl time have I stated that Norovirus is ‘no big deal’, particularly having had a prolonged hospital stay in the past as a result. I have simple stated that the risk of a case where there is 2 bags of vomit and streaks on a tray-table on a plane is low but not zero risk
Last edited by navylad; May 14, 2019 at 12:03 am
May 14, 2019, 12:36 am
#90
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 610
My point is not regarding compensation. My point was that BA should be made aware of this so that it does not happen again, instead of just brushing it off.
Economy is unpleasant enough as it is on BA. And ANY risk, even if it is low,, especially an infection risk, should not be happening on a plane. Would i complain if this was a bus or a train? Yes. I would expect the bus to be taken out of service and if it was a train, i would expect that carriage to be taken out of service and shut too till cleaned. The crew did not know if the passengers were ill.. a nine year old that gets noro virus will more than likely have to be hospitalised if it becomes severe.
If it was me, i would have kicked up a right fuss and would have either had the plane grounded (i would have asked to speak to the captain.. was he made aware of the situation at ALL?).
The fact that the cabin crew thought that it was acceptable for someone to sit in vomit on a long haul flight is disgusting.. were they to blame that this happened? No. But arent their checks made before the plane boards passengers? How is this not a thing? If the smell was as bad as the original poster says, they would have noticed it when doing these checks and chose to ignore it.
In an ideal situation and how i think this should have been handled- this should have been picked up before the passengers boarded. If not, they should have told the captain and had the plane grounded. If the captain did not agree, i would have insisted on being moved.. I would find it very odd if there was a flight that had no spare seats in the premium cabins.
I dont think that the OP wanted an apology as such, but more to look into how this happened and how british airways are going to train staff so that it does not happen again.
I couldnt care less about the compensation. Im more concerned that this has been allowed to happen and that now, everytime i get on an economy long haul flight, as an anxious flyer, i have to do an extra check so i am not sat in puke for 10 hours.
Economy is unpleasant enough as it is on BA. And ANY risk, even if it is low,, especially an infection risk, should not be happening on a plane. Would i complain if this was a bus or a train? Yes. I would expect the bus to be taken out of service and if it was a train, i would expect that carriage to be taken out of service and shut too till cleaned. The crew did not know if the passengers were ill.. a nine year old that gets noro virus will more than likely have to be hospitalised if it becomes severe.
If it was me, i would have kicked up a right fuss and would have either had the plane grounded (i would have asked to speak to the captain.. was he made aware of the situation at ALL?).
The fact that the cabin crew thought that it was acceptable for someone to sit in vomit on a long haul flight is disgusting.. were they to blame that this happened? No. But arent their checks made before the plane boards passengers? How is this not a thing? If the smell was as bad as the original poster says, they would have noticed it when doing these checks and chose to ignore it.
In an ideal situation and how i think this should have been handled- this should have been picked up before the passengers boarded. If not, they should have told the captain and had the plane grounded. If the captain did not agree, i would have insisted on being moved.. I would find it very odd if there was a flight that had no spare seats in the premium cabins.
I dont think that the OP wanted an apology as such, but more to look into how this happened and how british airways are going to train staff so that it does not happen again.
I couldnt care less about the compensation. Im more concerned that this has been allowed to happen and that now, everytime i get on an economy long haul flight, as an anxious flyer, i have to do an extra check so i am not sat in puke for 10 hours.