There absolutely needs to be a test taken before even entering the airport. This 72hr business is just nonsense, someone can pick up the virus 24hrs or even 3hrs before departure. A more certain test that only takes moments to confirm should be on the priority list of the pharmaceutical industry as a requirement to begin opening up pretty much every facet of society, not just air travel. While United did not design the Hawai'i test rules, I think both the state govt and the airline industry needs to take a step back and prioritize rapid testing, probably by quick-prick blood drop, to clear passengers into the airport terminal before departure, certainly if the airline industry wants to see travel return to normal anytime soon.

(Full disclosure: I've had both the nasal and the blood/serology tests come back negative in the past 24 hours because a client I'm visiting requires serology for access to their facilities and the clinic I went to said (and explained why) that didn't make any sense so I decided to to do both while I was there but)...

I thought at one point the UA checklist included a "have not tested positive or have a pending test result" -- though it seems based on upthread either that got changed or I am misremembering about the "pending" detail -- which in and of itself provides a strong disincentive from testing: If you have none of the symptoms and can honestly answer the other questions, with inconsistent test return times (I was quoted 3-6 days for the nasal and 3-?? days for the blood, wound up being basically 2.5 and 3 respectively) in that scenario there is no good that can come from being tested. Either you're testing so far out that by the time the flight happens you have any number of other exposure possibilities to ensure a result by departure time or you're unnecessarily disqualifying yourself from flying because the result is pending -- which without symptoms is really no different not having a test at all.

Clearly if there are symptoms, known exposures, etc. that informs a very different result but in the current environment testing is a bad single-point disqualifier -- not only with the speed of return but also the difficulty in getting tested. I live in an area with robust and well respected healthcare enterprises, including the Cleveland Clinic. I'm 36 and don't have a PCP (yeah, should probably change that but I tend to pass out discussing anything medical or in/near their facilities so I keep putting it off)... I had to call 15 different places in my county on the Ohio DPH's list of "places that do Covid testing" before I found one that could schedule the test in less than two weeks and also that was willing to do the test without a PCP/Doctor's orders, and no symptoms. There were places that would test with a Dr.'s orders but without symptoms, With symptoms but without Dr.'s orders -- but neither in any kind of short timeframe (like the "72 hours before departure" that seems to have become defacto-ish) is a significant barrier to entry.

Edited to Add: Checked in for my next round of flights this morning and the checklist does, in fact, include a "You are not waiting for the results of any COVID test" -- so I'll reiterate that that on its own seems like a significant disincentive for testing.

"She also had underlying high-risk health conditions".

Just so we all know.

I find this knocking on the door of "false advertising", especially since one UA passenger ORD-HNL flew positive. Not to mention how many have probably flown asymtomatically, or with minor symptoms, but not tested. Without testing every passenger, UA (or anyone else) does not know what the exposure risk is. I guess I would find "low" somewhat acceptable vs "almost non-existent"...


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...a0603591f6.jpg

Not just false advertising, but by sponsoring the "study", United is setting itself up for legal liability claims should people get sick. It's an enticement to undertake behavior on a claim by United that "nothing to see here, this is perfectly safe". Good luck with that, especially from an airline that was packing flights as full as possible from day one. This nonsense "study" is probably being used to justify the lack of middle seat blocking and the half-a**ed enforcement of the mask policy.

as a lawyer, i'm stunned that UA's legal department is evidently giving the PR team the unrestricted green light to widely use language like "non-existent."

i wonder what sort of internal discussions have taken place w/r/t specific language allowed to be used, and whether we'll see any sort of recalibration in the coming weeks vis-à-vis the 'second wave' we're now beginning to experience.

The thing businesses have going for them (including United) is plausible deniability because of the long incubation time and the large percentage of symptomless spreaders/superspreaders which means that it's often impossible to trace most cases back to a particular venue. The number of people who tested positive and/or had symptoms or who didn't but silently passed it to others within a week of flying is certainly a LOT LOT LOT higher than the 44 *worldwide* number the IATA is claiming. And then dividing it by 1.2 billion passengers (a lopsided share of which has to be from before the shutdowns, before the virus was really spreading) seems very disingenuous.

And other studies assume complete mask compliance, sitting silently facing forward. The goober nursing his "snack" or "drink" with mask off, the family loudly talking and laughing behind you, and the the person arguing in the aisle with the crew without a mask are all putting the rest at higher risk than those assumptions. I get that they're losing money and want people to fly, but making stuff up makes a lot of us who see through that less likely to do so.

And below is on the app.

Note they show a Polaris cabin, which is good as it gets on a full plane, in terms of spacing.”almost zero” instead of “almost non-existent”.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...383dfd27eb.png

stunned? UA legal knows suing them is difficult due to airline deregulation act and the high bar it would take to prove COVID is rampant on airplanes which so far seems to be not the case.

This has nothing to do with the Airline Deregulation Act which does not insulate an airline business from being successfully sued for committing fraud.

Fraud? What fraud?

Financing a loosy-goosey science project that is making unsubstantiated claims about the risk of contracting coronavirus while on an aircraft, and that an aircraft cabin is one of the cleanest places you can be - all while jamming in as many passengers as possible and failing to uniformly enforce a mask policy with zero tolerance.

no need for UA to worry. Just sue Boeing at x10 the market cap and their claims.

https://www.boeing.com/confident-tra...SAAEgLH0_D_BwE

There have been more than 10 COVID+ United passengers that flew to Hawaii thinking they were negative when they really weren't over the last 20 days. Other than the ORD-HNL passenger that made headlines a week or two ago for finding out she was positive upon landing from her pre-test, I'm surprised we haven't heard more about them...or the people sitting next to them that the Department of Health reached out to.

A recent visitor who flew into Kauai got the result after landing in Kauai - that made the news this morning, they implied that happened yesterday. With that said, the State knew COVID passengers would be arriving and projected far more COVID passengers than has actually happened. We know some won't test - we know some false negatives - we know in the 72 hours since a test you can catch it. Given the State opened Oct 15, I've been happy with the results so far.

I also think that if air travel was so unsafe to catch this - it would prominently be in the headlines on a daily basis regardless of airline.