jeffandnicole

Actually, this whackadoodle did:

So should FedEx and UPS retire their planes? Do you ever order things over the internet? How do you think it gets shipped to you if they're stored across the country?

Planes are for much more than people.

Actually, in the comments sections of newspapers and online news sites, most people sided with Southwest. Other than this forum, where it seems like a dozen or so sided with the person, this issue didn't generate the bad press or issues that the UA story did.

Often1

Presuming that the media reports are correct, the entire issue of whether she indeed suffers from a life-threatening allergy is a red herring:

1. Passenger says she suffers from life-threatening allergy.
2. WN policy is that she must provide medical evidence that she is "fit to fly".
3. She cannot / does not do so.
4. Ops agent asks her to deplane and Captain then orders her off aircraft as he is authorized to do.
5. Passenger does not offload, police are called, they ask her to come with them and when she does not, she is arrested.
6. She is later charged with a variety of misdemeanors, including resisting arrest, and those are pending in Maryland local courts.

It is absolutely within WN's contractual ability to remove a passenger who may not be fit to fly until the passenger can demonstrate that. Doesn't have to be an allergy, it could be anything. There is an obvious reason for this which escapes some here.

Once she is ordered off by the Captain she is violating both federal and state law by not complying. Once she refused to accompany the police, she is violating their order as well.

The notion that the police cannot enforce private concerns is rubbish. The notion that WN ought to cancel or otherwise delay the departure is even greater rubbish.

As to the PR experts of FT, who all claim that every problem will drive a carrier into bankruptcy, that is rubbish to you. Not that this is a vote, because the Captain's concern is about avoiding a medical diversion or worse, but as the more sane reporting had taken hold and the law enforcement reporting has become somewhat public, the tide of public opinion has shifted.

TBD

You're wrong.


(You didn't feel the need to provide any sort of supporting logic/documentation, so I guess I don't need to, either)

LegalTender

It's stunning that no advance notice is required for medical/mental support animals on Southwest. Open seating leaves few(er) options for any orderly, reasonable or consistent accommodation for affected passengers. Proximity issues are best resolved at the time of booking, not at boarding. Anila Daulatzai's rule breaking cannot be the only take-away.

PTravel

Okay.


Was the offer of the flight conditioned on her providing a medical certificate? Because, if not, then WN was just handling a "problem" by pushing it onto the next flight, and using the police to enforce it.

h8teralert

Mic drop. /thread

eyeballer

It's completely different to an in-flight diversion.

No company ever goes into details in their initial statement for legal reasons.

Troopers

You're right, my bad.

It's like saying a shoplifter should be fined/jailed but the shouldn't be dragged through the store or down the street.

You good with that analogy?

Troopers

How so? How is it completely different when an airline has to divert due to a pax's actions? Who's responsibility to cover costs?


If and when WN makes that info available, it will be posted here. Until they said they did, they didn't.

UA Apologist

Yes, of course. Indeed, the police should give the shoplifter a ride home for free, while sharing tips on avoiding apprehension in the future.

eyeballer

It's completely different because an in-flight diversion is an emergency. Costs will be unavoidable at that point if lives are in danger. IMO, if it's a disruptive passenger causing a diversion the airline should pursue damages against them.

In this situation, you have a passenger claiming something and then not having required documentation. They are not approved to fly so I just can't see your view that taking the pets off the plane should be considered. Even if you take the pets off, she still wouldn't be approved to fly since pet dander is present on the plane!

I'm sure it will, but as I said, I can't imagine they called the police before first explaining the situation to the passenger. We'll have to wait and see if that information ever emerges. In the mean time, in no way should the fact that SWA didn't say it in their initial statement mean it didn't happen.

nsx

I doubt that airlines are reimbursed for more than 1% of the costs incurred due to flight diversions. Airlines have to eat that expense. Why should airline policy add even more ways that passengers can trigger these unreimbursed costs?

freeflyin

^ I would also add that WN owes her no apology or compensation and by doing so, they encourage these types of incidents.

phltraveler

Totally agreed as someone with food allergies. She upped the ante by saying that her supposed allergies were too severe to fly and the dogs would have to be removed, had no documentation of her allergy whatoever and according to some reports, asked the crew for an EpiPen:

The fact that this woman asked the crew for an epinephrine autoinjector tells me a few things:

1. If she really had severe food allergies, she should be carrying her own. EpiPens are a prescription drug, you can't just hand them out like candy.
2. You don't administer an EpiPen to prevent an allergic reaction from occurring. The only time you would use epinephrine in regards to an allergy is if someone is suffering severe anaphylaxis/going into anaphylactic shock.
3. Even administering an EpiPen does not "solve" the problem of an allergic reaction. Epinephrine promotes opening of the airways/blood vessels so when your throat is swelling shut from a severe allergic reaction, you can continue breathing. It addresses the most severe and pressing symptom (not being able to breathe) on a temporary basis. EpiPens come in two packs for a reason, many patients have to administer a second dose before getting medical attention.
4. Once you get to a hospital or ER, they basically administer antihistamines via IV and inject you with normal (non-autoinjector) shots of epinephrine until the allergic reaction subsides. This can take several hours.

I can avoid eating on a plane or bring my own food/order a special meal, and I can wipe down a tray table with an alcohol based wipe to sanitize it.

Let's even assume the allergy is actually real and severe enough and that the passenger was woefully uneducated on what lifesaving medication does (and not carrying her own). Then she still shouldn't have been allowed to fly, because at the point at which animals being in the cabin is an issue and she is unable to present a doctor's note saying that it would be fine, it shouldn't be allowed. Not to mention the issue that de-boarding several passengers with service dogs would potentially pose an issue on the relevant laws with disabilities.

(By the way, anyone in the US on FT with severe allergies - I highly recommend Auvi-Q over EpiPen. $0 out of pocket expense for it if you have commercial insurance in the US, much smaller than EpiPen and it talks through the administration, which might be helpful if family/friend/a stranger has to administer it).

Food allergies generally don't pose a problem if someone else is eating them. The exceptions being cross contamination of cooking surfaces/utensils, or being at a place where it is cooked for certain foods (if you're allergic to seafood, you shouldn't go to a hibachi grill - beyond cross contamination, the smell of it cooking in front of you can be severe enough). Cross contamination or preparation doesn't apply on planes (although when I do fly international, I notify the crew of my allergy just to be safe), and I have no problem with someone eating an egg mcmuffin or a slice of pecan pie in the seat next to me, or even a salad with egg on it.

The other exception would be peanuts as peanut dust can go airborne and cause issues (which is why Texas Roadhouse posts a huge warning that those with peanut allergies should not enter, since they serve buckets of them to everyone, and why some families with severe food allergies will avoid Delta [peanuts are one of the free snack options, at least in the past.])

However, if you have such a severe environmental allergy that a service animal being in another seat on the plane is going to be a problem, then you aren't fit to fly, period.

I have gone without regular meals on international flights when my special meals didn't make it(vegan ticks the boxes to eliminate my allergies except pecans, which generally aren't in airplane meals), although the crew is usually willing to throw bagged/boxed snacks with ingredient lists at me in those cases. But in the worst case scenario, I can control my allergy by simply not eating on the plane.

justhere

You're not comparing apples to apples. The inside of an airplane is very different than the inside of a store. On the plane you've generally got one way in and out via an aisle that is at best a couple of feet wide. If someone, as in this case, decides they don't want to cooperate they are leaving the LEO's with very little choice.

At least in a store you've generally got wide aisles, etc. And even then, if someone is resisting and decides they aren't going to cooperate and walk, there's enough room for multiple officers to restrain the person and carry them off with their hands and feet tied.

Just thinking out loud here but I wonder if people feel emboldened in the confines and somewhat protected environment of the inside of a plane. Perhaps subconsciously, or not, they realize that they are entrenched and it is difficult to remove them if they don't cooperate.