Apologies if there is already a thread on this subject. I searched and didn’t find one.

At first blush, this appears to be a case of a major airline discriminating against the family of someone with a disability. After studying the apparent facts however, I have to come down on the side of AS and wonder what other's think. In my opinion, their concerns about the boy becoming sicker once underway and requiring an inflight diversion to ensure his safety are valid. Furthermore, the airline placed the family in first class on the next day flight.

One last point is that when describing the airline’s actions, the media used the terms “kicked off” and “booted off” which are somewhat pejorative when compared to terms such as say “asked to deplane”. To me, that indicates media bias against the airline.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/airpl ... ng-n863166

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/woman-cl ... 44042.html

Well the general protocol is that if someone displays overt symptoms of being unwell or otherwise unfit to fly prior to departure they are deplaned until they can provide medical evidence of fitness. All in the details, of course.

The papers were just quoting the pejorative language of the family.

The sister is a third year law student. She's been conditioned to point the finger at others for every inconvenience in life.

I once flew on Alaska Air flight from Cancun to Los Angeles. A gentleman across from me was complaining about eye pressure from recent surgery he just had. He was asked to deplane too for his own safety. Oh, and he was a Mexican. So, Alaska Airlines must be racist too.

robsaw wrote:

Well the general protocol is that if someone displays overt symptoms of being unwell or otherwise unfit to fly prior to departure they are deplaned until they can provide medical evidence of fitness. All in the details, of course.

That’s pretty much what I figured. I guess what we don’t know is if he received a medical clearance in between flights but have to assume that he did. Otherwise, it wouldn’t make much sense for the airline to deny him boarding on one flight then allow him to board one 11 hours later without a medical evaluation in between.

What would be the responses if this occurred on a UAL flight?

mcdu wrote:

What would be the responses if this occurred on a UAL flight?

Ha! exactly.

Like every sensationalized airline headline, facts rarely get in the way of a good story. Nothing sells papers (or clicks) like outraging the general public.

SuperGee wrote:

Apologies if there is already a thread on this subject. I searched and didn’t find one.

At first blush, this appears to be a case of a major airline discriminating against the family of someone with a disability. After studying the apparent facts however, I have to come down on the side of AS and wonder what other's think. In my opinion, their concerns about the boy becoming sicker once underway and requiring an inflight diversion to ensure his safety are valid. Furthermore, the airline placed the family in first class on the next day flight.

One last point is that when describing the airline’s actions, the media used the terms “kicked off” and “booted off” which are somewhat pejorative when compared to terms such as say “asked to deplane”. To me, that indicates media bias against the airline.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/airpl ... ng-n863166

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/woman-cl ... 44042.html

I had a situation on a flight recently where someone with a similar illness began repeatedly screaming after having seated with the door still opened. It occurred for 2-3 minutes. I could see the FAs were pondering whether to remove them, but the screaming stopped. I don't think there is anything wrong with an airline asking a passenger who is continuously screaming to leave regardless of what illness they have. Am I wrong?

I didn't read the article because frankly I'm fatigued from all this airline vs passenger media stuff. I would guess, though, that either they got a doctor's note or that the child was clearly feeling better the next morning.

I'm really not sure how some of these things become news stories?

scoping2008 wrote:

The sister is a third year law student. She's been conditioned to point the finger at others for every inconvenience in life.

I once flew on Alaska Air flight from Cancun to Los Angeles. A gentleman across from me was complaining about eye pressure from recent surgery he just had. He was asked to deplane too for his own safety. Oh, and he was a Mexican. So, Alaska Airlines must be racist too.

You stated that "The sister is a third year law student. She's been conditioned to point the finger at others for every inconvenience in life. "

A rather pathetic and ignorant comment that sullies the reputation of this site.

LMFNINJA wrote:

scoping2008 wrote:

The sister is a third year law student. She's been conditioned to point the finger at others for every inconvenience in life.

I once flew on Alaska Air flight from Cancun to Los Angeles. A gentleman across from me was complaining about eye pressure from recent surgery he just had. He was asked to deplane too for his own safety. Oh, and he was a Mexican. So, Alaska Airlines must be racist too.

You stated that "The sister is a third year law student. She's been conditioned to point the finger at others for every inconvenience in life. "

A rather pathetic and ignorant comment that sullies the reputation of this site.

To the contrary, this woman is/was an opportunistic player in this unfortunate incident and deserves the callout.

Ok, I read the story. That's two minutes I'll never get back. I actually have less sympathy for that family now than I did before reading the story.

One troubling trend I'm noticing is that Passenger A does something that keeps them from traveling (i.e. show up 24 weeks pregnant for a cruise, which is against their contract of carriage) or vomits (who cares if it's a little or a lot?). The company denies them travel - within their rights - and the family makes a stink and says it wasn't about being denied travel (because, of course, that's their fault) but HOW THEY WERE TREATED AFTER. As if they weren't responsible for being in the situation they were in.

Airlines aren't perfect but we need to stop glorifying these incidents like something egregious has happened. In fact, who cares that the boy had Down's Syndrome? What did it have to do with anything?

I will say this. I can't imagine the challenges that a family dealing with a disability of any kind must face when doing simple things like going to the store, let alone traveling. However, unfortunately that is their burden to bear. Making a reasonable accommodation is more than some people may have gotten. I also think that the way that the sister is portrayed as describing it just twists it around to make everything a negative.

Well, they got First Class travel and reaccommodated at no charge. Personally, I don't think the F class thing matters, but at this point, if this story is actually newsworthy, we're screwed.

mcdu wrote:

What would be the responses if this occurred on a UAL flight?

Who the hell cares?

Last thought (I suppose). The family apparently put out a statement on raising awareness for Disability Discrimination, apparently advocating for those who can't advocate for themselves in these circumstances. Isn't that what the family that was with him is for? What did the airline not do that they should have done for this family that showed up with a sick child? How does it have anything to do with disabilities? And how does whining about not being given free hotel accommodations due to his illness further the healing of a divided nation, as they put it?

Frankly, this - to me, not being there - takes away from true issues that come up for those with disabilities.

enilria wrote:

SuperGee wrote:

Apologies if there is already a thread on this subject. I searched and didn’t find one.

At first blush, this appears to be a case of a major airline discriminating against the family of someone with a disability. After studying the apparent facts however, I have to come down on the side of AS and wonder what other's think. In my opinion, their concerns about the boy becoming sicker once underway and requiring an inflight diversion to ensure his safety are valid. Furthermore, the airline placed the family in first class on the next day flight.

One last point is that when describing the airline’s actions, the media used the terms “kicked off” and “booted off” which are somewhat pejorative when compared to terms such as say “asked to deplane”. To me, that indicates media bias against the airline.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/airpl ... ng-n863166

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/woman-cl ... 44042.html

I had a situation on a flight recently where someone with a similar illness began repeatedly screaming after having seated with the door still opened. It occurred for 2-3 minutes. I could see the FAs were pondering whether to remove them, but the screaming stopped. I don't think there is anything wrong with an airline asking a passenger who is continuously screaming to leave regardless of what illness they have. Am I wrong?

I think there comes a point where one must take into consideration not just the individual who is ill but any inconvenience and disruptions to the other passengers as well. For that reason, I don’t think you are wrong. Even more importantly, a person who is obviously ill may have something highly contagious. In that case, one of the LAST places you would want them be is on a tightly sealed airliner carrying 2-300 pax and at 30,000 plus feet in the air. You would then be jeopardizing the safety and health of everyone else on the plane.

I am not a doctor so I can't comment on whether a person screaming as in your example would necessarily have something contagious (I would think it unlikely) but I think it could indeed be indicative of some condition such as a mental problem that could make it unsafe not only for that person to fly but unsafe for the other pax on board as well. I recall hearing of several instances recently where unstable pax attempted to open the exit doors while in flight. Also, a continuously screaming pax would definitely be disruptive to the others on board.

BravoOne wrote:

LMFNINJA wrote:

scoping2008 wrote:

The sister is a third year law student. She's been conditioned to point the finger at others for every inconvenience in life.

I once flew on Alaska Air flight from Cancun to Los Angeles. A gentleman across from me was complaining about eye pressure from recent surgery he just had. He was asked to deplane too for his own safety. Oh, and he was a Mexican. So, Alaska Airlines must be racist too.

You stated that "The sister is a third year law student. She's been conditioned to point the finger at others for every inconvenience in life. "

A rather pathetic and ignorant comment that sullies the reputation of this site.

To the contrary, this woman is/was an opportunistic player in this unfortunate incident and deserves the callout.

You overlooked the substance of my post. It is that third year law students are NOT "conditioned to point the finger at others for every inconvenience in life".
It is an ignorant generalization about ALL law students.

Opportunist.

I guess she ignored this, which made some of the national news

http://www.king5.com/mobile/article/new ... -514886633

robsaw wrote:

Well the general protocol is that if someone displays overt symptoms of being unwell or otherwise unfit to fly prior to departure they are deplaned until they can provide medical evidence of fitness. All in the details, of course.

The papers were just quoting the pejorative language of the family.

The proper procedure (which is followed at my airline and I'd imagine many others) is to call Medlink or StatMD's 'fit-to-fly' hotline which can provide a definitive answer regarding a passenger's condition and if they should fly. In most cases, they are very conservative and request the passenger visit a doctor/hospital to get clearance for travel. I believe AS uses MedLink (I have heard operators speaking to their flights while waiting for my turn to speak with them as for my flights as a dispatcher) so I'd imagine the process there would be similar. With regards to vomiting, the usual advice I've heard given by Medlink has been if the passenger has vomited in the last 2-3 hours, they are not cleared to travel.

LMFNINJA wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

LMFNINJA wrote:

You stated that "The sister is a third year law student. She's been conditioned to point the finger at others for every inconvenience in life. "

A rather pathetic and ignorant comment that sullies the reputation of this site.

To the contrary, this woman is/was an opportunistic player in this unfortunate incident and deserves the callout.

You overlooked the substance of my post. It is that third year law students are NOT "conditioned to point the finger at others for every inconvenience in life".
It is an ignorant generalization about ALL law students.

As someone who went to law school, graduated, and passed three different bar exams, I stand by my original comment. It's not an "ignorant generalization" if it's based on experience.

Good for Alaska, I'm getting tired of anything and everything negative related to air transportation being picked up by the media, although positive experiences don't make for good news I guess.

JAGflyer wrote:

. With regards to vomiting, the usual advice I've heard given by Medlink has been if the passenger has vomited in the last 2-3 hours, they are not cleared to travel.

Useful info...




I recall a flight from HKG-SFO in the J class bathroom 50% of the time..... But I *did* manage not to throw up until we lifted off....

I've got no problem with that. It has nothing to do with his disability, I don't want anyone actively vomiting on the same airplane I'm on. What happens if he pukes again and gets it on another passenger or creates a biohazard in the aisle?

I mean look at the picture, he looks like he feels like shit.

scoping2008 wrote:

LMFNINJA wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

To the contrary, this woman is/was an opportunistic player in this unfortunate incident and deserves the callout.

You overlooked the substance of my post. It is that third year law students are NOT "conditioned to point the finger at others for every inconvenience in life".
It is an ignorant generalization about ALL law students.

As someone who went to law school, graduated, and passed three different bar exams, I stand by my original comment. It's not an "ignorant generalization" if it's based on experience.

For someone who purportedly went to law school, graduated and passed three different bar exams you have an annoying habit of making generalizations and deprecating the legal profession of which you are allegedly a member.

usflyer msp wrote:

The sister is being ridiculous - she was not even there! - then she is complaining about the airline not providing a hotel after they already waived the change fees and upgraded them to first class out of kindness. The hotel is not the airline's problem - if her family is so broke that they cannot afford a hotel room for their sick child perhaps they should have stayed at home. I am so over entitled, whiny passengers...

We do in America Have a issue with thinking that any misstep or grievance/wrongdoing requires a mega lottery winning like payment.

LMFNINJA wrote:

scoping2008 wrote:

LMFNINJA wrote:

You overlooked the substance of my post. It is that third year law students are NOT "conditioned to point the finger at others for every inconvenience in life".
It is an ignorant generalization about ALL law students.

As someone who went to law school, graduated, and passed three different bar exams, I stand by my original comment. It's not an "ignorant generalization" if it's based on experience.

For someone who purportedly went to law school, graduated and passed three different bar exams you have an annoying habit of making generalizations and deprecating the legal profession of which you are allegedly a member.

I’m not deprecating the legal profession. Just calling out a law student who appears to be exaggerating facts and freely throwing around the term “disability discrimination” when she doesn’t know what the hell she’s taking about.

Did not bother reading the story. As someone cited here, I am also sick of such stories. I bet if it was United, this thread would be up in flames!

It seems based on some have said here. AS offered them an upgrade and waived any fees. It also seems that they were being whiny and wanted a hotel. Tough. Hotel isn’t the problem of the airline. To say you can’t afford it isn’t probably pushing it. I’m sick of pax using this excuse when they want something or want to get away with something. If you can afford your ticket, then I’m sure you can afford everything else!

Regarding medical issues and disabilities. Airlines will try their best to accommodate your needs. However, they have every right to refuse travel if it impacts your well-being or those on the flight. Peanut allergies for example. If it causes you an issue so much and you start making demands, don’t fly! Why should hundreds of pax and crew have to step on eggshells for you?!

In the case of downs. I probably wouldn’t do anything with the pax unless I really needed proof of their medical fitness or I can see they were causing any nuisance and couldn’t be calmed down. Cause let’s face it. They probably don’t feel comfortable themselves and shouldn’t be subjected to any discomfort!!

scoping2008 wrote:

I’m not deprecating the legal profession. Just calling out a law student who appears to be exaggerating facts and freely throwing around the term “disability discrimination” when she doesn’t know what the hell she’s taking about.

On face value, that appears to be the case.

The young lad was asked to deplane because he was ill, not because he had Downs Syndrome. It seems that she, looking for a media frenzy resulting in a big pay out, was the one that brought up the boy's affliction ... not the airline. One could almost insert any race, gender, bias, etc ... and make a "facebook, we want money" issue out of it.

The bottom line is that all airlines are required to not only look out for the best interests of all passengers, but for the ill passenger as well. Sometimes, denying boarding waiting for better health is the best option for the passenger. I have run into it many times. It was gracious of Alaska to accommodate them as they did.

I am just genuinely wondering whether someone who does not have down's syndrome would have been deplaned under the same circumstances....

I am saying this with just a little bit of hindsight...
Fact: barely two weeks ago I boarded an international flight together with a friend who was visibly ill, and had just vomited *literally* ON the airline counter at check-in, and again during boarding (he had to excuse himself, and run to the toilet literally as he was handing out his boarding pass to the F/A). Both times he apologized, blaming the Chinese buffet he had had the night before. Oh, and I -who was accompanying him- had a pretty nasty cold and was sneezing profusely and clutching a horrible wet Kleenex in my hand. Coming to think of it, I also probably had a fever, and surely didn't look my usual best.
Well guess what: us two, well dressed, "normal-looking", white-skinned, businessman-looking gentlemen were not even thrown a second passing glance by the crew....
Just sayin'.....

The garbage bag may have been a bit much, but I have to side with the airline as well. Anyone visibly ill should be asked to deplane. It's one thing if illness occurs in flight and the passenger shows no signs of it during the boarding process all the way through to departure, and I would expect AS to act in the same manner if someone else without any special needs was as visibly ill as the young man in this story.

However, since the airline removed the family, they should have paid for accommodations if they were rebooking them for the next day. That part I do think was a poor practice on on Alaska's part.

scoping2008 wrote:

I once flew on Alaska Air flight from Cancun to Los Angeles. A gentleman across from me was complaining about eye pressure from recent surgery he just had. He was asked to deplane too for his own safety.

I had retinal detachment on both eyes. After the surgeries, the doctor asked not to fly for a few months. Changes in air pressure can have negative effects on the eyes.

evank516 wrote:

The garbage bag may have been a bit much, but I have to side with the airline as well. Anyone visibly ill should be asked to deplane. It's one thing if illness occurs in flight and the passenger shows no signs of it during the boarding process all the way through to departure, and I would expect AS to act in the same manner if someone else without any special needs was as visibly ill as the young man in this story.

However, since the airline removed the family, they should have paid for accommodations if they were rebooking them for the next day. That part I do think was a poor practice on on Alaska's part.

Give garbage bag: “They just handed them a garbage bag and said ‘Here, he can vomit in this’!”

Didn’t give a garbage bag: “They didn’t even offer to help. They just let him sit there getting sick on himself!”

Person is vomiting as they get in car for three hour drive back home - family waits to leave until next mornings, securing hotel room for another night. Inconvenient.

Person is vomiting as they get on plane for three hour flight back home - family demands hotel accommodations and is now advocating for the rights of the disabled.

W. T. H. ?

oldannyboy wrote:

I am just genuinely wondering whether someone who does not have down's syndrome would have been deplaned under the same circumstances....

I am saying this with just a little bit of hindsight...
Fact: barely two weeks ago I boarded an international flight together with a friend who was visibly ill, and had just vomited *literally* ON the airline counter at check-in, and again during boarding (he had to excuse himself, and run to the toilet literally as he was handing out his boarding pass to the F/A). Both times he apologized, blaming the Chinese buffet he had had the night before. Oh, and I -who was accompanying him- had a pretty nasty cold and was sneezing profusely and clutching a horrible wet Kleenex in my hand. Coming to think of it, I also probably had a fever, and surely didn't look my usual best.
Well guess what: us two, well dressed, "normal-looking", white-skinned, businessman-looking gentlemen were not even thrown a second passing glance by the crew....
Just sayin'.....

I’m not sure if you’re actually making Alaska sound good here, but I’m thinking yes, you are.

Please change the title of this thread. The passenger was asked to deplane because they were ill, not because they had down syndrome. This has been established and the title is now extremely misleading.

NYPECO wrote:

Why do these headlines mention the boy had down syndrome (which isn't even relevant to the story) instead of highlighting the fact that the airline removed them for safety reasons?

Because the sister made it an issue.

Why do these headlines mention the boy had down syndrome (which isn't even relevant to the story) instead of highlighting the fact that the airline removed them for safety reasons?

NYPECO wrote:

Why do these headlines mention the boy had down syndrome (which isn't even relevant to the story) instead of highlighting the fact that the airline removed them for safety reasons?

Because that’s what sells newspapers and articles in today’s shallow society. A title like, “AS removed vomiting passenger” isn’t as sensationist as falsely making it appear they discriminated against a disability.

This is the same reason for example why you’ll see a bogus headline like, “Train kills family of five.” You won’t see the headline state what really happened, “Idiot driver ignored multiple crossing warning with his family in the car and innocent train engineer will have nightmares for the rest of his life.”

About 6 months ago I got sick and threw up shortly before I was supposed to fly (AS actually) to Boise. I made the decision myself not to board.
That's what a reasonable person does. AS was very kind with re-booking me.
A little personal responsibility is needed sometimes. Had I boarded the plane and gotten sick (sometimes you roll the dice and try, right?), I sure wouldn't have blamed AS for throwing up.

Sad the boy was sick and obviously even more sad that he has Down Syndrome, but I don't see AS having done anything wrong. This smells of taking advantage of the situation and frankly using Down Syndrome as an opportunity to go after AS. On the surface of things, I find this rather disgusting!

Slow media day obviously. Doesn't matter which airline it is, its all about safety. Why even chance it? Good call by the airline.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

I didn't read the article because frankly I'm fatigued from all this airline vs passenger media stuff. I would guess, though, that either they got a doctor's note or that the child was clearly feeling better the next morning.

I'm really not sure how some of these things become news stories?

IMO, because in the age of 24/7 news, they have to fill the time and space with things that would otherwise never be noticed. I started out as a journalism major at college. Even in the 70's I saw way too much questionable tactics for my taste and went in a different direction.

SuperGee wrote:

I have to come down on the side of AS

Pun intended?

EvanWSFO wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

I didn't read the article because frankly I'm fatigued from all this airline vs passenger media stuff. I would guess, though, that either they got a doctor's note or that the child was clearly feeling better the next morning.

I'm really not sure how some of these things become news stories?

IMO, because in the age of 24/7 news, they have to fill the time and space with things that would otherwise never be noticed. I started out as a journalism major at college. Even in the 70's I saw way too much questionable tactics for my taste and went in a different direction.

Exactly. I still work in a newsroom bullpen after three decades, and lord forbid, if we don't have news, we fill it with op-ed, and you all know how much the demanding public loves that

A number of years ago I was flying AA all hepped up on pain meds and antibiotics. The drugs were really making me woozy so I got off the plane myself. AA was able to rebook me for two days hence when I was much better. Having said this, they would have been well within their rights to order me off of the plane. No one wants a serious medical emergency partway into the flight requiring a diversion and in my case I was very ill.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

I am just genuinely wondering whether someone who does not have down's syndrome would have been deplaned under the same circumstances....

I am saying this with just a little bit of hindsight...
Fact: barely two weeks ago I boarded an international flight together with a friend who was visibly ill, and had just vomited *literally* ON the airline counter at check-in, and again during boarding (he had to excuse himself, and run to the toilet literally as he was handing out his boarding pass to the F/A). Both times he apologized, blaming the Chinese buffet he had had the night before. Oh, and I -who was accompanying him- had a pretty nasty cold and was sneezing profusely and clutching a horrible wet Kleenex in my hand. Coming to think of it, I also probably had a fever, and surely didn't look my usual best.
Well guess what: us two, well dressed, "normal-looking", white-skinned, businessman-looking gentlemen were not even thrown a second passing glance by the crew....
Just sayin'.....

I’m not sure if you’re actually making Alaska sound good here, but I’m thinking yes, you are.

Well, clearly NO, I'm not. I'm sure if the person vomiting a little had been a "normal" white well-clad businessman, he would have gotten all the pity and sympathy from the F/As -maybe even a couple of smiles- but certainly would have not been deplaned - of course not!! Come on, let's get real here people! Nobody gets deplaned for being a little sick....there's a million reasons for vomiting a bit, and in most cases it's never something as serious as requiring a flight diversion. A flight diversion for vomiting??? Maybe for a heart attack, but for puking?? Do people go to the ER each time "they vomit a little"??? Please.....

NYPECO wrote:

Why do these headlines mention the boy had down syndrome (which isn't even relevant to the story) instead of highlighting the fact that the airline removed them for safety reasons?

What SAFETY??? Are we being serious here? Vomiting doesn't transform you into a terrorist.
It just blows my mind how everything in the US of A becomes a threat to the public.

oldannyboy wrote:

NYPECO wrote:

Why do these headlines mention the boy had down syndrome (which isn't even relevant to the story) instead of highlighting the fact that the airline removed them for safety reasons?

What SAFETY??? Are we being serious here? Vomiting doesn't transform you into a terrorist.
It just blows my mind how everything in the US of A becomes a threat to the public.

Well don't know how sick this kid was or more importantly what caused his illness. Vomit is a fantastic transmission method for bacteria and illness. I wouldn't be so much concerned about the folks on that flight, because they would know to avoid touching anything in close range of the sick boy. The problem is the unsuspecting individual who sat down in the seat on the following flight unaware the seat and general area is contaminated.

roadrunner165 wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

NYPECO wrote:

Why do these headlines mention the boy had down syndrome (which isn't even relevant to the story) instead of highlighting the fact that the airline removed them for safety reasons?

What SAFETY??? Are we being serious here? Vomiting doesn't transform you into a terrorist.
It just blows my mind how everything in the US of A becomes a threat to the public.

Well don't know how sick this kid was or more importantly what caused his illness. Vomit is a fantastic transmission method for bacteria and illness. I wouldn't be so much concerned about the folks on that flight, because they would know to avoid touching anything in close range of the sick boy. The problem is the unsuspecting individual who sat down in the seat on the following flight unaware the seat and general area is contaminated.

Do you know how many THOUSANDS of people puke during their flight -mostly, one would hope, in the sickness bag- who nonetheless remain on the flight (quite rightly, I'd say). Not to mention people with colds, influenza, nasty intestinal bugs, who sneeze, cough and spit all over the place, etc. And let's not mention the bacteria that is to be found in the toilets with all the bodily fluids that come into contact with all surfaces.
Seriously, if people are so concerned with 'contaminated' areas, perhaps they should reconsider their travel priorities and options, and just stay home, or at lest avoid flying.

oldannyboy wrote:

What SAFETY??? Are we being serious here?.

Are YOU being serious, or just trolling? About a decade ago I was on a CO flight where a woman got up and headed for the lav, but instead vomited in the aisle. She was escorted to her seat, while FAs donned full PPE, attempted to clean what they could, the woman was given an N95 mask, and a priority approach was given to IAH.

YES, safety is a serious issue. As was said very well by someone else...

roadrunner165 wrote:

Well don't know how sick this kid was or more importantly what caused his illness. Vomit is a fantastic transmission method for bacteria and illness.

The safety of passengers - ALL passengers - and crew need to be taken seriously, and if someone exhibits signs of being seriously ill, Medlink is immediately contacted to determine fitness to fly, and in many cases, paramedics are called to help render aid and assess fitness as well.

Far better to let this young man, or any other traveler, recover on the ground and take a later flight than to place him and the other passengers in a potentially bad situation at FL350. It doesn't matter if this is an elderly passenger, a young one, one wearing a suit, or one who happens to also have Down's Syndrome. You treat everyone equally, with their well-being in mind rather than just their convenience.

NYPECO wrote:

Why do these headlines mention the boy had down syndrome (which isn't even relevant to the story)

It is relevant to the story. Humans with all chromosomes are better able to indicate their own health and have more familiar expressions. That makes it much easier to assess their health than that of someone with down.

I’m not saying there’s anything unfair or unreasonable about that, but it is relevant.

EA CO AS wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

What SAFETY??? Are we being serious here?.

Are YOU being serious, or just trolling? About a decade ago I was on a CO flight where a woman got up and headed for the lav, but instead vomited in the aisle. She was escorted to her seat, while FAs donned full PPE, attempted to clean what they could, the woman was given an N95 mask, and a priority approach was given to IAH.

YES, safety is a serious issue. As was said very well by someone else...

roadrunner165 wrote:

Well don't know how sick this kid was or more importantly what caused his illness. Vomit is a fantastic transmission method for bacteria and illness.

The safety of passengers - ALL passengers - and crew need to be taken seriously, and if someone exhibits signs of being seriously ill, Medlink is immediately contacted to determine fitness to fly, and in many cases, paramedics are called to help render aid and assess fitness as well.

Far better to let this young man, or any other traveler, recover on the ground and take a later flight than to place him and the other passengers in a potentially bad situation at FL350. It doesn't matter if this is an elderly passenger, a young one, one wearing a suit, or one who happens to also have Down's Syndrome. You treat everyone equally, with their well-being in mind rather than just their convenience.

The point is, that it seems to matter, if this is an elderly passenger, a young one, one wearing a suit, or one who happens to also have Down's Syndrome.

mcdu wrote:

What would be the responses if this occurred on a UAL flight?

We would assume it’s just another day flying the friendly skies.

bgm wrote:

mcdu wrote:

What would be the responses if this occurred on a UAL flight?

We would assume it’s just another day flying the friendly skies.

But yet that shows the narrow mindedness of the culture that has been taught by Facebook manipulators to believe anything.

Because if you take the time to review the actual events that take place you will see ALL airlines have events. DL pilot on film smacking a customer, AS customer plunging to her death in a wheelchair, DL Cusotmer service agent threatening to take a passengers children away, AA FA wrestling a cusotmer. WN throwing off a family, WN passengers brawling. WN landing at the wrong airport.

So would it really just be another day at UA or would it be another day in the airline industry. And if it is just another day at UA I hope you won’t be posting when the next event happens and it includes UA because that is whay you expected so your comments would be wasted.