Lobster From Germany, joined Oct 2008, 49 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8462 times:
I'm thinking the pilot and F/A have never heard of the Americans With Disabilities Act. I'm sure that it covers this guy. Besides, if its company "policy" why didn't the person who checked him in or the gate agent know about it? I mean, come on!!
Doug_Or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3300 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8424 times:
Wait for the details on this one. The air carrier access act outlines the rights AND responsibilities of disabled pax. Its been over a year since I've dealt with it, but it might have been possible that the passenger failed to bring neccesary support equipment or personel. Also possible that it was illgeal both ways. We had some situations with disabled passengers where the only options were to break the ACA or the FARs. Captain chose the former.
NorskMan From Norway, joined Jan 2005, 113 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 8369 times:
The story seems to talk more about the guy's condition rather then the incident in question. I'm sure the pilot had his reasons for refusing him the flight. If he kicked him off for no reason, surely his career is over. So we'll need to wait for more details. Keep us posted.
GoCOgo From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 701 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 8292 times:
Sure not going to encourage a lot of people to fly US Airways out of Cleveland. That story was on the front page of the Plain Dealer. Perhaps the pilot thought that the vent relied on compressed oxygen canisters. In any event, details should have been given if they weren't. To me, it sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
Jc2354 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 554 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 8163 times:
I agree, lets wait until the pilot "talks".
But, in the meantime, as the passenger had a spinal injury, he might have been unable to sit or hold himself upright. This situation could cause more injuries to the passenger, in case of turbulence, sudden braking, etc.
Also, as he was travelling with a ventilator, perhaps it could not be properly stowed or secured on this particular aircraft.
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12677 posts, RR: 13 Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 8132 times:
Could it be that there wasn't the proper arrangements made with US in sufficient time to make sure the aircraft and handling of him on it were properly set up, including notifying the Captain in timely fashion of this special needs pax and the oxygen. O2 rules are very strict and the captain may have determined all of the necessary clearances were not followed. Maybe (cynicaly) the captain didn't want a pax whom would need hightened attention or care that would delay his flight or arrival of the flight at it's destination. I do agree that this makes US look very bad.
Iluv747400 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 369 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 8131 times:
Could it be that the pilot was concerned that, in the event of an emergency, the man would be unable to evacuate the airplane? I realize the article said the pilot made his decision after seeing the ventilator (which also made me think of compressed oxygen canisters), but the article was definitely short on facts/explanation.
F9Animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4870 posts, RR: 29 Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8033 times:
With such a major injury, usually patients are transported via medivac. Come to think of it, I have never observed a serious medical patient on a commercial flight. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it really is the captains final decision. I seriously doubt a pilot would discriminate someone with a disability, unless it could interfere with the cabin crew and safety. Especially the safety of the passenger with the disability.
Sounds like an unfortunate set of circumstances, but I am sure there is much more to the story than it told.
GoCOgo From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 701 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7921 times:
Quoting F9Animal (reply 11): With such a major injury, usually patients are transported via medivac.
I'd hesitate to say he had a "major injury." Yes he did, but that injury was years ago. A medivac would certainly be appropriate if the injury just recently happened, but this was not the case. I attend class with a quadriplegic who is on a ventilator. He is completely medically stable. Yeah, he needs help and special devices to eat and to use the bathroom, but that does not mean he is eminent danger of dying.
Quoting LTBEWR (reply 9): O2 rules are very strict and the captain may have determined all of the necessary clearances were not followed.
Ventilators do not necessarily require oxygen. Many operate of regular room air. The fact that it mentioned that extra batteries were brought but not extra O2 cans indicated that this was the case. As I said earlier, maybe the captain WRONGLY concluded that their was O2 canisters present, but the kid didn't necessarily have them with him. Remember, he was headed for surgery that would allow him to breath ON HIS OWN, meaning he didn't require oxygen so he probably didn't have a vent with O2 cans.
Quoting F9Animal (reply 11): Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it really is the captains final decision.
That is absolutely true. But that doesn't make it right. A captain could decide to throw every Arab of his flights, but that would clearly be wrong.
Quoting LTBEWR (reply 9): Maybe (cynicaly) the captain didn't want a pax whom would need hightened attention or care that would delay his flight or arrival of the flight at it's destination.
Wouldn't the opposite be true? With a person on a ventilator headed for surgery, a smart captain might see about getting a "lifeguard" designation so he got priority.
"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7856 times:
but it might have been possible that the passenger failed to bring neccesary support equipment or personel..
After he's travelled this way time and time again like this, as the story says? Unlikely. US screwed up-why are some on here just trying to apoligize for them? They screwed up either by letting this man go all the way, for 3 hours, thorugh check-in, and waiting to fly, letting him on the plane, and THEN telling him he couldn't go. Whther the captain was right or wrong, US simply dropped the ball on this one.
Could it be that there wasn't the proper arrangements made with US in sufficient time to make sure the aircraft and handling of him on it were properly set up, including notifying the Captain in timely fashion of this special needs pax and the oxygen
Says he was there 3 hours early? How much time is needed from the time he starts check-in to notify those who need to know? A day? US had more than enough time before he boarded to figure out if he belonged on board or not.
Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7832 times:
The pilots/flight attendants/gate agents did not make any decision.
Correctly, US contacted MedLink, who determined that the passenger was unfit to fly.
It took 3 hours, AFTER the pax was ONBOARD, to decide to contact MedLink? Doesn't that sound like a SNAFU to you? It does to me. If US had been on the ball, either the man would never have gotten onboard, after being in the airport for 3 hours, or they would have told him when checking in that things were not in order.
US Airways may refuse to transport, or may remove from any flight, any customer for the following reasons:
*A customer who requires constant oxygen or other life support equipment (except a customer meeting US Airways' special procedures for in-flight oxygen).
NOTE: US AIRWAYS IS NOT LIABLE FOR ITS REFUSAL TO TRANSPORT ANY CUSTOMER OR FOR ITS REMOVAL OF ANY CUSTOMER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS, BUT US AIRWAYS WILL PROVIDE THE APPLICABLE INVOLUNTARY REFUND.
I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
USrampleadSTL From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 102 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 7688 times:
I've run into many scenarios where the ticketing agent and the gate agent do not consistently apply company policy either because they don't notice a problem or they don't know the rules, which is tragic, but probably the reason why it took so long to come to a decision about the passenger. Barring misunderstanding of the federal laws and extensive internal guidelines that govern the transportation of disabled passengers, I have utmost faith that the crew made the appropriate decision.
02C14MARPHLFCOMM1 - FLY THE FLAG!
25 Falcon84: I have utmost faith that the crew made the appropriate decision. Fine, let's assume the crew made the right decison. I'm not willing to buy that yet,
26 Accidentally: As a quadrplegic with a few flawless and pleasant recent flights on USAirways, I'll go ahead and say something is missing from this story.
27 Skidmarks: Have to agree with Accidentally - something is missing here from the reported facts. I would suggest that the captain was made aware of some fact we a
28 GoCOgo: Falcon, I was attempting to be sarcastic. Who called Medlink anyway? Was it someone who was able to competently and accurately describe the medical si
29 Nucsh: He wasn't on the PLANE for 3 hours, he arrived at the airport 3 hours in advance. Jeez, read more carefully next time.
30 Aerorobnz: The Captain's decision is final. No correspondance will be entered into. that's rubbish. US Airways as a whole is not at fault, it was a single captai
31 GoCOgo: Yeah, they have that to cover their asses. Just because it's in the contract of carriage does not make it the right thing to do. I highly doubt the s
32 Falcon84: Falcon, I was attempting to be sarcastic My apologies, then. Maybe, though, you should have put something in to make it seem sarcastic. Some old dogs
33 AKelley728: He finally made it to Cleveland in a private jet: http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.d...rticle?AID=/20050215/APN/502151118
34 Cha747: According to the airline, flight personnel followed procedures developed to comply with the Air Carrier Access Act, including contacting medical consu
35 GoCOgo: The FAA has jurisdiction over passenger medical equipment? I can see jurisdiction over O2 cans, but vents? I imagine all manufactures make them prett
36 Aerorobnz: He doesn't have to be on death's door to be a risk, He could be as fit as a marathon runner, but if he is quadriplegic he cannot exit the plane witho
37 252MKR: Post # 37... Stated like a true Captain. Not an aim-chair QB--like many other posters. Look at the UA pilot thread--turned out it was a psycho ex-wife
38 TCFC424: As a former firefighter and EMT, I do not find this astounding at all. Sure airlines transport people with ventilators all the time...but are those pa
39 Lincoln: Just to make the point, the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) has been found (by way of a few court cases) to specifically NOT apply to Airlines
40 AR385: I don't know if it was legal or not for the Captain to kick him out of the plane. What I know, is that he made a conservative, informed decision based
41 Mikefad: Speaking of lawsuits, Can you imagine the liability of USAir if the plane crashed because of the reasons they explicitly detail in their contract of c
42 Jumpseat70: Everyone who travels has a set of rules that govern them, even those with disabilities, ESPECIALLY those with disabilities. I am sure that the counter
43 Falcon84: None of you guys get it, do you? Whether the captian was right or wrong, US still screwed up. It should NOT have taken 3 HOURS after this guy checked
44 Russophile: http://www.newkerala.com/news-daily/...tures.php?action=fullnews&id=74214 Seems to me that US is in the wrong. FACT: He has flown nearly 2 dozens time
45 Babybus: Calls of "discrimination" are weakening our society on both sides of the pond. People need to get used to the word "NO". If I was a pilot and I though
46 Airgeek12: I'm not really sure how descrimination got involved in this thread because that is certainly not the case. And no the pilot would not be fired, airlin