I did a R/T JFK-HKG last week and had pax with medical issues on both flights.

As usual, CX handled the situation professionally and properly - fortunately there were docs on board both times and in the end we didn't have to divert

Here is the question -the first incident happened as we were almost directly over the NOrth Pole and the diversion would have been to Oslo Norway or if we didn't have the ETOPS, it would have been Siberia - if we did have to divert, who's responsibility would it be to get the pax to his final destination if he didn't carry the proper travel insurance (which i am sure was the case here)??

Legally, the pax would be responsible for getting himself wherever he needs to be, I believe.

I suspect the airline would try to help after the patient was medically able to fly if they have service to the spot he was dropped off.

The JFK flight is plague with medical diverts/incidents - prob due to the length

How about YYZ? The flight is almost as long but I don't hear much about medical-related diversions on this route.

But there r more flights at JFK

i am actually surprised that there are not more incidents..

My take is that most people really don't know how taxing a nearly 17H (this time of year) can be.

You see elderly and infirm people getting wheeled on the plane and sitting in Coach - it's amazing that there aren't more incidents!!

This has to be a real dilemma for CX and other polar carriers - at what point do they deny service outright and/or make the pax responsible for any diversion which must costs tens of thousands of dollars if not more..

I'm sure the extra expenses are covered by insurance, either purchased by CX or the passenger.

This actually happened to me, although I didn't realise it until we landed.

I must have eaten something bad in penang and about 4 hours out of LAX I started feeling really bad and shortly after I threw up 5+ times. (I can no longer eat the steak option in F after seeing it come back up) Then my hands and feet started to tingle which had me a bit worried. The FA's took my temperature (normal). They did call the medical service and they said they could give me some medicine but apparently it wasn't in the med kit.

I had a good feeling it was food poisoning and that I'd be fine in the end so I kind of told them not to make a big deal out of it, but we had a super fast approach to LAX and there were paramedics waiting at the gate. Apparently any time they call the medical service the paramedics must respond. They said that the tingling was due to breathing too much (to try and make me feel less nauseous) because there is less oxygen in the pressurised air.

They asked if I wanted to go to a medical place somewhere but I declined as LAX was my final destination. A customs officer walked with us and someone wheeled me out to immigration/baggage claim/ and the curb. I threw up once more on the way to immigration and then slowly recovered over the next few days.

CX handled it very well and I never heard anything more about it from anyone (the paramedics was free)

A wrongful death lawsuit would cost millions. Diverting when medically necessary is the correct choice.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B206 Safari/7534.48.3)

Though it does make me wonder, when the FAA/JAA certified ETOPS-180 or even 210, how do they expect airlines to handle acute medical emergencies? Should they carry out some form of stricter "fit to fly" screening for ETOPS-180/210 flights?

That's why there is a morgue on the plane

Would it be in the dead centre of the plane?

Around two years ago Linda Sim mentioned in the quarterly MPC newsletter that there will be a special training programme set up for doctors and nurses (who are MPC members) who would like to volunteer to provide medical assistance inflight. A year or so ago I sent MPC an email to ask if this programme was going ahead. It seems like it won't be going ahead.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B206 Safari/7534.48.3)

I read about them http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2004/may/11/theairlineindustry.travelnews .

But is this the only response? It's kind of like saying the only response to Fukushima is the ability to clean up the site immediately.

Is it even a sufficient response? Wonder if anyone tried going after an airline for boarding a passenger who didn't survive, on the basis the deceased should not be accepted for travel in the first place.

Same logic with both ETOPS and inflight emergencies - ETOPS related and health events ARE going to happen -the question what is the socially and economically acceptable level of these events happening -

When you print a CX eticket it is 7 pages long and basically absolves itself from every conceivable situation that a pax can sue for but we all know that that does not start a lawsuit.

IF you have flown enough, I am sure that you know that some people board on wheelchairs because of necessity and others because of convenience.

Maybe the solution is when an agent sees a potential issue, they sign an additional waiver before boarding that they are aware of the potential problems and accept all of the consequences