Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

Passenger With Coronavirus Dies On United Flight (UA591 MCO-LAX 14 Dec 2020)

Passenger With Coronavirus Dies On United Flight (UA591 MCO-LAX 14 Dec 2020)

Old Dec 16, 20, 8:33 pm
  #1  
st3
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: TPA
Programs: National Exec, UA MP, Bonvoy
Posts: 354
Passenger With Coronavirus Dies On United Flight (UA591 MCO-LAX 14 Dec 2020)

Saw this over on OMAAT. There's a lot to unpack here, I think the widow should be charged reckless endangerment or something.

https://onemileatatime.com/passenger...m=BoardingArea

Snippet per FT rules
Unfortunately a passenger died on United Airlines flight 591 from Orlando to Los Angeles on Monday:
- About two hours into the flight a passenger sitting in seat 28D stopped breathing; according to other passengers, he was having a hard time breathing from the beginning of the flight
- The crew asked if there were any doctors onboard, and a few people ended up trying to help the passenger; you could apparently hear his bones cracking during chest compression, and then the man turned blue
- Reports suggest that the passenger’s wife initially admitted he was experiencing shortness of breath and a lack of taste and smell, and when talking to EMTs in New Orleans, the wife admitted the man had tested positive for coronavirus
- After the passenger was offloaded in New Orleans, his seat was wiped down, and the plane continued to Los Angeles

Last edited by WineCountryUA; Dec 16, 20 at 8:53 pm Reason: snippet
st3 is offline  
Old Dec 16, 20, 8:49 pm
  #2  
Moderator: United Airlines; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat 1.85MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Gold
Posts: 53,081
Particularly interesting one passenger wrote UA (and made public)
I feel that $20K payout per family member can minimize the trauma and health risk which was imposed on us
bocastephen, drewguy and SxMan like this.
WineCountryUA is offline  
Old Dec 16, 20, 8:55 pm
  #3  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Programs: AS MVPG, Delta Gold, Hertz PC, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Titanium + LT Silver, United Platinum
Posts: 3,829
The compensation request is absurd.
Repooc17 is offline  
Old Dec 16, 20, 9:03 pm
  #4  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Programs: United Premier Platinum
Posts: 551
Originally Posted by Repooc17 View Post
The compensation request is absurd.
Absolutely. If you want compensation, sue the widow for it.
mcrw00 is offline  
Old Dec 16, 20, 9:12 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: 1A
Programs: UA GS, NH Diamond, Hyatt Courtesy Card, Amanjunkie, Global Entry, CLEAR
Posts: 2,963
Originally Posted by Repooc17 View Post
The compensation request is absurd.
Completely ridiculous, agreed. It isn't the airline's fault when someone is sick. Diversions for medical emergencies which create long delays for other pax don't mean compensation to those delayed pax, right?
ainternational is offline  
Old Dec 16, 20, 9:15 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: IAH
Programs: UA 1K 2MM, Marriott LT Plat, IHG Spire
Posts: 2,857
The pax could all sue the estate of this man and the family members who knowingly accompanied someone diagnosed with covid on the plane. They should be banned from United.

United is not at fault here.
cesco.g, Spiff, Redhead and 16 others like this.

Last edited by JNelson113; Dec 16, 20 at 9:23 pm
JNelson113 is offline  
Old Dec 16, 20, 9:31 pm
  #7  
Moderator: United Airlines; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat 1.85MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Gold
Posts: 53,081
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.

Last edited by WineCountryUA; Dec 16, 20 at 9:49 pm Reason: recommended vs required
WineCountryUA is offline  
Old Dec 16, 20, 9:38 pm
  #8  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,755
Originally Posted by WineCountryUA View Post
...as a negative test is not required for most domestic travel, Hawaii excepted...
A test is not required to actually board a plane and travel to Hawaii. Avoiding quarantine on arrival does require one. Just clarifying, but I know what you meant...
SPN Lifer, uanj, ekwang and 3 others like this.
IAH-OIL-TRASH is offline  
Old Dec 16, 20, 10:13 pm
  #9  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: AUS, WAS, PEK
Programs: FlyingBlue Gold, United Gold
Posts: 1,046
Originally Posted by WineCountryUA View Post
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.
Yes, I think this is the key point. UA could be at fault for the decision to continue the flight.
lixiaojuventus is offline  
Old Dec 16, 20, 10:27 pm
  #10  
Moderator: United Airlines; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat 1.85MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Gold
Posts: 53,081
Originally Posted by lixiaojuventus View Post
Yes, I think this is the key point. ...
The key point is passengers lied to UA about their status / health and recklessness made a decision to travel regardless
Originally Posted by lixiaojuventus View Post
... UA could be at fault for the decision to continue the flight.
First we don't know had this was handled. And while changing planes would have been more comforting to the passengers, would it had made any real difference?
artvandalay and Cat88L3 like this.
WineCountryUA is offline  
Old Dec 16, 20, 10:53 pm
  #11  
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: 12,756
Originally Posted by Repooc17 View Post
The compensation request is absurd.
Originally Posted by mcrw00 View Post
Absolutely. If you want compensation, sue the widow for it.
Originally Posted by ainternational View Post
Completely ridiculous, agreed. It isn't the airline's fault when someone is sick. Diversions for medical emergencies which create long delays for other pax don't mean compensation to those delayed pax, right?
Originally Posted by JNelson113 View Post
The pax could all sue the estate of this man and the family members who knowingly accompanied someone diagnosed with covid on the plane. They should be banned from United.

United is not at fault here.
Not so fast. UA can be liable in this instance.

First - if the tickets of any passengers on the flight are international, Montreal will kick in. In this case, UA can be found liable even no fault due to strict liability.

Second - whether UA should employ any measures to protect its employees and passengers, i.e. duty to care, is a matter usually left for the jury.

What I can say is this - no injury, the chance for compensation is slim. But if there are injuries, it will be another issue.

The estate of the deceased is obviously liable if anything happen. But I would not say UA is absolutely not liable, at least not until everything has been more clear.
nexusCFX likes this.
garykung is offline  
Old Dec 16, 20, 11:44 pm
  #12  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX/SFO
Programs: AA EXP; AS 75K; WN A List; UA 1K 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott AMB; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 45,558
I can't help but note the irony that this thread currently sits right on top of the United and CDC Work Together on Contact Tracing Initiative thread. Sometimes UA in practice doesn't quite match up with UA - the marketing.

As for the flight itself, what a horrible experience that must have been for the passengers nearby (not to mention the widow). And now of course everyone on the flight has to be worried about the exposure.
Kacee is offline  
Old Dec 17, 20, 12:04 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Programs: Non-Rev, SkyMiles, Global Entry
Posts: 544
The only thing UA might be liable for is continuing on the flight with the same aircraft, although not sure if most passengers were OK with this and just wanted to get to LAX or if they wanted a change of planes, MSY isn't really a large city for UA so there might not have been many flights others could've swapped to.

Seeing though as they knowingly traveled after being checked out and having COVID I would absolutely be going after the estate of the man if I was on that flight. They put everyone on that flight at risk due to selfishness.
FlyEndeavorAir is offline  
Old Dec 17, 20, 12:13 am
  #14  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: LAX
Posts: 9,816
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)...
azepine00 is offline  
Old Dec 17, 20, 12:23 am
  #15  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: IAH
Programs: UA 1K 2MM, Marriott LT Plat, IHG Spire
Posts: 2,857
Originally Posted by azepine00 View Post
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)...
But this passenger and the family members absolutely did violate UA policies. I flew on UA today and when I checked in I had to affirm that I have not been diagnosed with covid nor have I recently been around anyone who has. UA is expecting passengers to answer these questions honestly. This family all lied and that is the crux of the issue. Of course UA would like to have customers, and as long as people act in good faith with these screening questions and then wear masks on the flight one could argue that the risk is not excessive and that a reasonable person can make a decision whether to assume this risk.

Flying during this pandemic requires a social contract among all those on the plane to not knowingly fly with covid and endanger the entire flight. I believe that these people were evil to do what they did.
JNelson113 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: