timbre

So this seems like really big news and yet I have only seen this covered in one place. Has anyone checked to make sure this is really true?

tkelvin69

While UA probably did no wrong here they do have an obligation that a passenger is fit to fly. Having some medical conditions, an intoxicant, disruptive mental health episode are reasons to deny boarding. Unfortunately, these situations are frequently assessed during boarding which gives non trained agents about 2-3 seconds to evaluate them.

One thing is true - we don't have all the facts but that never prevented judgement and execution on FT.

JimInOhio

It's impossible for any airline to asses whether a passenger is fit to fly before boarding. If we take this too far, they'll be requiring everyone to have an EKG in the boarding area.

tkelvin69

Happens all the time. Obviously intoxicated passenger, vomiting in the waiting area, bizarre behavior, aggressive actions, etc.

My point was that airlines have an obligation to deny boarding when it is obvious and that some people are difficult to assess. In this circumstance, if the passenger was in a wheelchair, ashen, diaphoretic, unstable walking, short of breath, not able to respond to verbal cues, then UA should have denied boarding and has a responsibility to do so.

Reasonable is the word here and not assuming the bottom of the slope is where it'll go.

expert7700

I think every plane in the US should be reqired to carry an emergency supply of N95 masks to open and distribute to all volunteer medical assistants, passengers, and crews, in the event of any respiratory or possible covid episode on a flight.
​​​​​​
The sick pax probably wore a bandana or 10 cent surgical mask.

from the time of the episode till at least medical staff offloaded the corpse (but more likely until after landing later than LAX) that plane was an exposure hotspot.

Likelihood of this happening is probably hundreds of times higher than needing a seatbelt or oxygen from the mask above.

seanp7

That's a good point. It's only on a couple of blogs, based on Twitter at this stage.

zymm

The flight DID divert: https://www.flightstats.com/v2/fligh...tId=1050289640
And the tweets certainly seem to support the story.

I would imagine there's not much information here that's available to the public since there's medical information involved as well as liability concerns. Not an expert on these sorts of things, but all the airline incidents I can recall hearing about involved living people who frequently went to the press themselves, or had videos and law enforcement involved. While I'm sure some people were ghoulish enough to record the resuscitation attempts, there aren't too many places something like that could be posted, I believe it would violate the policies of Twitter, Facebook and the like.

As for United's actions, I don't think there's too much they could have done in MSY that wouldn't have required an overnight delay. I certainly hope they gave people the option to deboard and be rebooked, as long as they offered that I think they fulfilled their obligations. Altogether a horrible situation for everyone involved. No pity for the wife, even if she didn't personally accept the certification you have to be willfully ignorant at this point to think it's okay to expose others to a known positive case. And even beyond that, with the symptoms the husband was experiencing they should have gone to a hospital, not the airport.

Scifience

I do not think UA should be liable. I think the deceased's estate, and the widow, should be liable.

timbre

I am NOT convinced it actually happened. I can find no other place that has covered this story. In a period of COVID, it seems like this should be bigger news and covered in more than just a blog post.

azepine00

No the word is "desperation".
Likely selfish, yes, but people should not be expected to act rationally when loved one's live is at stake. Just like we don't put parents in exit rows when they have young kids elsewhere in cabin - ther eis policy for that. And airlines can largely control covid onboard by requiring preflight tests but they do not want to.

WineCountryUA

Remember on FT
Posts discussing other posters will be deleted

Discuss the issue, not the poster(s)

Additionally let's stay to the UA related issues, discussions of the large COVID issues belong elsewhere -- Corononavirus Forum and/or OMNI

WineCountryUA
UA coModerator

PS. Let's avoid getting overly mean spirited -- its not becoming to the nature of FT and a individual, however misguided, has died.

meducate

Interesting point re carrying masks. UA (and other airlines) carry onboard medical kits; I have used the UA and LH kits in the past. They carry basic PPE but not N95s that I have seen. Adding an infectious disease component would likely be a good idea!

Re the "10 cent surgical masks" - that is the level of infection control that is taken for the majority of situations, and do a remarkably good job at preventing or reducing spread as we have seen in recent research. Proper use of N95 masks (that are US/NIOSH certified as opposed to KN95 masks that meet standards in other countries, but have been permitted for use in the US during the pandemic) requires fitting for proper size. I have seen people wearing KN95 masks (I know, because they are marked externally) in many places recently, and a lot were not fitted or worn properly.

SSF556

Has HIPAA been thrown out the window?

physioprof

It's worth thinking about whether, in light of the likely overall community positivity rate & likelihood of asymptomatic spread, the presence of this one known-infected individual on the plane substantially increased the risk of infection to the other passengers.

garykung

Sorry. I mean wrongful - wrong use of the word.