Passenger With Coronavirus Dies On United Flight (UA591 MCO-LAX 14 Dec 2020)
Dec 17, 2020, 12:11 am
#17
Join Date: May 2001
Location: RNO, NV, USA.
Programs: UA 2MM
Posts: 5,063
Dec 17, 2020, 12:28 am
#19
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: SIN / SFO
Programs: UA GS, SQ PPS, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Titanium, Hilton Diamond, Accor Gold
Posts: 1,215
I would hope that the widow is prosecuted, banned from UA for life, and sued into complete financial ruin by other passengers and UA.
Nothing here is obviously UA's fault, but anyone who knowingly flies while infected with COVID (or knowingly allows someone else to do so) or otherwise violates public health guidelines needs to be made an example of and have the book thrown at them—it's not acceptable under any circumstances.
Nothing here is obviously UA's fault, but anyone who knowingly flies while infected with COVID (or knowingly allows someone else to do so) or otherwise violates public health guidelines needs to be made an example of and have the book thrown at them—it's not acceptable under any circumstances.
Dec 17, 2020, 3:31 am
#20
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 13,811
Is that so? Before you pass any judgment, may I ask, whether UA has asked its passengers if they have any symptoms before boarding?
If affirmative, then you can pass judgment.
The deceased was an adult. I hardly can see the widow would be prosecuted, unless the widow got it as well. While I am inclined to agree with the ban, the issue was the widow may not have done something wrong, especially if UA has never asked about their health conditions.
I respect everyone's right to be pissed. But keep in mind - the wronged party was the deceased, not the widow (unless she had COVID-19 as well). FWIW - I am not saying the deceased deserved to die. But should he choose not to fly, he might be still alive. I would say he has met his destiny for making poor choices.
If affirmative, then you can pass judgment.
I respect everyone's right to be pissed. But keep in mind - the wronged party was the deceased, not the widow (unless she had COVID-19 as well). FWIW - I am not saying the deceased deserved to die. But should he choose not to fly, he might be still alive. I would say he has met his destiny for making poor choices.
Dec 17, 2020, 3:45 am
#21
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: EAU
Programs: UA 1K, CO Plat, NW Plat, Marriott Premiere Plat, SPG Plat, Priority Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 4,712
Not supporting any lawsuits in general but it's naive to think this is some evil pax violating UA policies. UA actively promotes travel and they (along with other airlines) can implement pretravel test requirement to greatly improve safety. Not only they don't want to do that but they mostly removed most precautions introduced earlier - middles are not blocked, boarding and deplaning are barely controlled etc etc (but of course they went with all might after fussy 2 yo who didnt want to put on a mask)...
Everyone on that plane knows there might be other people on the plane who have COVID.
And United's practices are in line with standard practices in the industry and government recommendations/regulations.
To prevail, someone would have to show United knew or should have known the particular passenger had COVID.
Yes, they ask.
But keep in mind - the wronged party was the deceased, not the widow
The wronged party was everyone else on the plane.
Dec 17, 2020, 4:03 am
#22
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
Interesting (and tragic in this case) how someone with COVID can go from semi-short-of-breath at room air on the ground into a fatal respiratory crisis based on a few thousand feet of altitude's pressure. Sort of scary. Good thing they wiped down his seat.
Dec 17, 2020, 4:11 am
#23
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: SIN / SFO
Programs: UA GS, SQ PPS, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Titanium, Hilton Diamond, Accor Gold
Posts: 1,215
All travelers checking in acknowledge:
- You must wear a face covering that fully covers both your nose and mouth in the airport and during your entire flight, unless you're eating or drinking, for the safety of everyone. A face shield alone does not count as a face covering. Travelers who aren't wearing their face coverings in the airport or on board may be refused transport and could lose their travel privileges on future United flights. Children younger than 2 years old are exempt.
- You have not been diagnosed with COVID-19 in the last 21 days.
- You have assessed yourself for COVID-19-related symptoms, and have experienced none of the following in the last 14 days:
- Known temperature of 38 C/100.4 F or higher
- Cough (excludes symptoms from a pre-existing condition)
- Shortness of breath/difficulty breathing (excludes symptoms from a pre-existing condition)
- Chills
- Muscle pain
- Sore throat
- Recent loss of taste or smell
- You have not been denied boarding by another airline due to COVID-19 exposure in the last 14 days.
- You have not had close contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19 in the last 14 days, or you’re a medical professional following CDC guidance and using proper PPE.
- You are not currently awaiting the result of a COVID-19 test.
The deceased was an adult. I hardly can see the widow would be prosecuted, unless the widow got it as well. While I am inclined to agree with the ban, the issue was the widow may not have done something wrong, especially if UA has never asked about their health conditions. I respect everyone's right to be pissed. But keep in mind - the wronged party was the deceased, not the widow (unless she had COVID-19 as well). FWIW - I am not saying the deceased deserved to die. But should he choose not to fly, he might be still alive. I would say he has met his destiny for making poor choices.
Dec 17, 2020, 4:45 am
#24
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,599
Yes, UA requires you to certify at check-in that you/your party have no COVID-19 symptoms and are not COVID-positive.
........
The wronged are the rest of the passengers on this flight, who were knowingly exposed to COVID-19 by this couple after they lied on a health declaration, and also delayed in their travels as a result of this couple's reckless behavior.
........
The wronged are the rest of the passengers on this flight, who were knowingly exposed to COVID-19 by this couple after they lied on a health declaration, and also delayed in their travels as a result of this couple's reckless behavior.
If I were the airline, I would ban any passenger who boards a flight knowing that they meet the criteria for reporting a contagious disease and remain silent.
Dec 17, 2020, 5:18 am
#25
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,126
This would go nowhere. You can’t prosecute a deceased person. As for the woman, what’s the charge that would be brought against her and how would a case be laid out?
Dec 17, 2020, 8:00 am
#26
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NYC/Northern NJ
Programs: 1K - UAL, Platinum DL, Marriott, Hilton, SPG
Posts: 1,815
Dec 17, 2020, 8:23 am
#27
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Honolulu Harbor
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 15,023
Dec 17, 2020, 8:43 am
#28
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: UA 1K 1MM, AA, DL
Posts: 7,418
While the presences of the COVID positive passengers (as a negative test is not required recommended for most domestic travel, Hawaii excepted) is beyond UA's responsibilities, did UA do enought to justify the flight continuation?
-- DId UA provide an alternative option for those that did not want to continue on the same plane?
-- DId UA suggest the antimicrobial sprays they are using are long lasting provided enough protection to justify continuing with the same plane?
Unclear what reasoning UA provided the provided for continuing the flight.
-- DId UA provide an alternative option for those that did not want to continue on the same plane?
-- DId UA suggest the antimicrobial sprays they are using are long lasting provided enough protection to justify continuing with the same plane?
Unclear what reasoning UA provided the provided for continuing the flight.
Dec 17, 2020, 8:45 am
#29
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 90
It is very possible the husband filled out the electronic declaration and didn’t inform his wife about it. It’s also possible the ticketing agent checked them in manually, not sure if they have protocol to ask those questions on their screens if you choose not to check in on the electronic kiosk. Either way doesn’t seem like a lawsuit gets far here.
Dec 17, 2020, 8:51 am
#30
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: W29
Programs: It's Complicated...
Posts: 6,820
Very sad situation. I have no legal expertise so I will not delve into that area, but it will be really interesting to see how the positivity rate comes back from people on that flight. Purely from a data perspective with regards to flying.