My solution is the same as my solution in the other thread. The airlines can remove anyone they want from their aircraft. Unfortunately, that view didn’t prevail in the other thread, where it was made clear to me that once a passenger is on the aircraft, there has to be a legal reason to remove them. So strong was the opinion that extortion was mentioned as a result of the airline crew threatening to call the police when the passenger didn’t leave.
I meant in regards to pets.
This is not what the consensus was. The consensus was that an airline should not be allowed to forcefully remove a passenger who had already boarded with a valid ticket solely for the reason that they wanted to give the seat to an airline employee instead.
If you take away all the context, then of course nothing will make sense.
From all the information I’ve seen, it seems that she did not say anything about her alleged allergies until she was already on the airplane. I think you’re taking the word “board” too strongly; do you think the airline is legally or otherwise prevented from removing her from the plane because she had already boarded?
ETA: NM, I saw in a subsequent post where this question was answered.
Sure, that’s okay. What regulation allows them to remove a passenger in this situation?
What law prevents them?
Good answer. But as was made clear in the other thread, there has to be a reason to remove a passenger. They just can’t remove a passenger for no reason because there is no law against it. So again, what law or regulation allows them to remove this passenger?
I don’t think the law works that way. Unless there is a law forbidding it, what prevents them?
She claimed that being on the plane was dangerous to her life; it would be negligence to impede her departure in any way.
I thought the same thing. Until it was brought to my attention that Airlines can’t just remove passengers because they want to. I’m not going to argue a position that I don’t hold.
Sure, you say that. But what legal reason did the airline have to remove her?
Their legal responsibility for a passenger’s safety.
Findlaw states (here http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-is-a-common-carrier.html), that “common carriers must exercise the utmost care and diligence with respect to their passengers” - so as soon as they learned that a passenger was in danger, removing that passenger from the danger was needed.
That’s cool. Why didn’t they remove the things that were causing her discomfort?
As previously discussed, that’s impossible; any dander the dogs may have shed was already on the plane.
I see. So there is a rule that says “If there is dander in the plane, people who are allergic to said dander can be removed from the plane”?
Not as far as I know - but as I mentioned there is a rule that says an airline must protect its passengers.
Here we have a passenger claiming to be in deadly danger from something that can not be removed from the plane; therefore, removing the passenger is the only alternative.
Why can’t the the “something” be removed from the plane?
Dander spreads around, clinging to clothing and seats, and spreading through the air. it may be possible to remove enough of it to make the plane safe for a person with a deadly allergy, but it would take substantial time - and making the endangered person remain in danger for this time would be negligent.
Anyway, though I’ve enjoyed batting this around, I do have to get some sleep, so I probably won’t respond until tomorrow.
Yes.
Speaking as someone with serious allergies, I have emergency meds pretty much anytime I go on a trip, frequently even during day-to-day activities, and also keep them next to my bed at night. And mine aren’t even on the life-threatening level for environmental exposure like sitting next to someone holding the allergen.
People with a life-threatening allergy to something that might be found in an environment, like animal dander, tend to have things like medic-alert bracelets and epi-pens.
As already noted, this was Southwest. There is no first class.
Safety.
Airlines can get away with a lot of stuff if they can invoke “safety”, and that’s actually not unreasonable. Medical emergencies at 30,000 feet add an extra dimension of excitement and deadliness you just don’t get on the ground. At cruise altitude the airplane is roughly a half an hour from landing anywhere because doing so faster can jeopardize the rest of the passengers and crew.
As soon as you say “I have a life-threatening medical condition that may occur during this flight” the airline is going to remove you and probably not want you back until a doctor can certify you can fly with minimal chance of dropping dead or going into an acute crisis at altitude. Airlines don’t want dead passengers, it’s even worse PR than hauling the unwilling off the airplane.
I am guessing the injection referred to is an epi-pen, which airplanes may well carry as part of an emergency kit. You don’t use them as a preventive, you use them after a life-threatening reaction has started. Use of such a medication to prevent a reaction is inappropriate.
They’re very easy to use, and using them for a life-threatening reaction is pretty much in the same category as CPR and ADF’s - if the situation calls for them even the untrained should make an attempt to use them because otherwise the patient will most likely be dead. It’s a nothing-to-lose scenario. You don’t use them unless things are getting that bad.
The other downside is that epi-pen injections typically only last about 15 minutes, after which you have to give another one. Serious allergic reactions, though, can easily last 48-72 hours… the epi-pen is NOT really what is needed to treat that, all it does is buy you some time to get the patient to where other medications can be administered to get the reaction under control, as well as any other needed supportive medical care, like an ICU or ventilator.
Because if someone is having a life-threatening allergic reaction they might be unconscious and unable to self-inject? Because when someone has a life-threatening emergency on an airplane we all sort of hope someone will try to do something to save a life? Same reason we’d probably expect flight crews to know CPR and some basic first aid?
Kits aboard airliners contain things as basic as aspirin and bandaids and as complex and automatic defibrillators and IV equipment. Flight crews are not trained on all aspects of using the more advanced stuff and will ask any medical personnel on board to help in an emergency. All of this is required because, as I said, if you’re in cruise you will at least a half an hour between you and an ambulance on the ground to take the passenger/patient to an ER, and in some circumstances (ocean-traversing flights, for example), hours away from landing no matter what.
If you collapse on a flight the crew will try to save your life, but if the airline knows before take-off you might have a life-threatening emergency they will attempt to prevent the potential problems and emergency by simply removing you from the airplane until you can be certified reasonably safe to fly.
No, but there ARE rules stating the flight crew can do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of those aboard.
It is impractical to remove animal dander on short notice from an aircraft - just ask anyone how easy it is to remove dog hair from a cloth upholstered sofa. Much easier and faster to remove the person who is a severe medical risk than annoy everyone else on board to to get a different, dander-and-hair-free airplane.
I agree. But can you point to the law or regulation that allows the airline to remove such a passenger?