Article: Should Airlines Rebook Sick Passengers for Free?

[MEL_Traveller]

It’s not just passengers. It’s crew.

You have a crew member or two out at an outstation and the next flight back can be delayed 24 hours.

Or you have a biohazard on board when a passenger is vomiting or otherwise.

It must, at some point, be in the interests of the airline to prevent sick pax from flying.

 

[JohnK]

I'll keep saying this is a tough one.

We flew Christmas Day BNE-PER then next morning PER-SIN. I headed off for SIN-BKK and wife/daughter waited a couple of hours or so and flew SIN-CNX.

Wife picked up a nagging cough. She was fine in Brisbane and sick the next night in Chiang Mai. She thinks she picked it up on the flight. She usually wears a mask but not sure she wore on this flight.

We were in Thailand for 4 weeks. Chiang Mai, Pattaya and back to Chiang Mai before flying out. Daughter and I has nothing. Have we had this one before? Anyway cough cleared up a day or so before we flew back out to Australia.

If wife was still coughing should she be refused boarding? She is Thai but let's say that was someone on holidays with visa running out and no money for hotel or new flight. How long before they get better? Could be months. Tough call to make to refuse them passage.

If you are going to be strict on people flying then you need to be strict in the community first. If you're sick and have fever you can't be out and about on public transport, work, shopping etc. People just don't care which is a piss poor attitude.

 

[Quickstatus]

Wife picked up a nagging cough. She was fine in Brisbane and sick the next night in Chiang Mai. She thinks she picked it up on the flight

The start of symptoms relating to an infectious illness is almost always not related to the time of infection. Most likely the time of infection would have been in Brisbane.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I'll keep saying this is a tough one.

We flew Christmas Day BNE-PER then next morning PER-SIN. I headed off for SIN-BKK and wife/daughter waited a couple of hours or so and flew SIN-CNX.

Wife picked up a nagging cough. She was fine in Brisbane and sick the next night in Chiang Mai. She thinks she picked it up on the flight. She usually wears a mask but not sure she wore on this flight.

We were in Thailand for 4 weeks. Chiang Mai, Pattaya and back to Chiang Mai before flying out. Daughter and I has nothing. Have we had this one before? Anyway cough cleared up a day or so before we flew back out to Australia.

If wife was still coughing should she be refused boarding? She is Thai but let's say that was someone on holidays with visa running out and no money for hotel or new flight. How long before they get better? Could be months. Tough call to make to refuse them passage.

If you are going to be strict on people flying then you need to be strict in the community first. If you're sick and have fever you can't be out and about on public transport, work, shopping etc. People just don't care which is a piss poor attitude.

That’s what travel insurance is for. They’ll cover accommodation, meals and a new return flight home (if necessary).

I believe the thai visa can be extended if it is due to involuntary reasons (for example refusal to carry due to illness).

 

[marki]

That’s what travel insurance is for. They’ll cover accommodation, meals and a new return flight home (if necessary).

I believe the thai visa can be extended if it is due to involuntary reasons (for example refusal to carry due to illness).

A student flying "El Cheapo" Airlines in the middle row won't have any insurance as they are bulletproof at that age. Maybe insurance could be part of the airfare incorporated within the airline. (Still too expensive)imho.

 

[Lynda2475]

A student flying "El Cheapo" Airlines in the middle row won't have any insurance as they are bulletproof at that age. Maybe insurance could be part of the airfare incorporated within the airline. (Still too expensive)imho.

I think that is an unfair assumption. They may not have comprehensive insurance but a sensible one would at least have medical only cover.

When I flew overseas as a student in whY on sale fares I still always had travel insurance.

 

[marki]

I think that is an unfair assumption. They may not have comprehensive insurance but a sensible one would at least have medical only cover.

When I flew overseas as a student in whY on sale fares I still always had travel insurance.

I think you are one of the few ahead of the bell curve. Congratulations.

 

[moa999]

I still always had travel insurance.

Many don't though..
And equally many also don't follow the t&c's
(Eg. Hiring a motorbike in Asia without having an Australian license, extreme sports, or even being impaired by alcohol).

Equally though the growth in restricted fares and the often massive fare difference for changing flight makes it harder for many to voluntarily do.

 

[marki]

Many don't though..
And equally many also don't follow the t&c's
(Eg. Hiring a motorbike in Asia without having an Australian license, extreme sports, or even being impaired by alcohol).

Equally though the growth in restricted fares and the often massive fare difference for changing flight makes it harder for many to voluntarily do.

Yep - those restricted fares make it challenging on an air-thin wallet.

 

[JohnK]

The start of symptoms relating to an infectious illness is almost always not related to the time of infection. Most likely the time of infection would have been in Brisbane.

Possibly in the lounges but still wife infected and neither husband/daughter infected.

That’s what travel insurance is for. They’ll cover accommodation, meals and a new return flight home (if necessary).

I believe the thai visa can be extended if it is due to involuntary reasons (for example refusal to carry due to illness).

But that's 3 people involved. Huge inconvenience. If you want airlines to protect other passengers then why not buses, trains, ferries, shopping centres, restaurants etc everywhere? Do not leave important matters like health for people to manage. They'll get it wrong more often than not.

I think that is an unfair assumption. They may not have comprehensive insurance but a sensible one would at least have medical only cover.

When I flew overseas as a student in whY on sale fares I still always had travel insurance.

You'd seriously be surprised what people do or don't do.

I saw a foreigner in Pattaya on a busy Friday afternoon riding a motorcycle, no helmet and what's worse wearing what appeared to be noise cancelling headphones. I know it's not illegal but FFS wear a helmet and take those stupid headphones off and listen to what's going on around you. Not emergency vehicles but everything else going on around you, do not block it off. It may save your life.

And even if this person had travel insurance they'd be stuffed if something happened as travel insurance will not pay out. Very hard to cure stupid.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

But that's 3 people involved. Huge inconvenience. If you want airlines to protect other passengers then why not buses, trains, ferries, shopping centres, restaurants etc everywhere? Do not leave important matters like health for people to manage. They'll get it wrong more often than not.

The main question is only whether airlines should allow pax who are sick to rebook for a later flight, for free.

Part 2 is whether or not airlines should allow sock pax to board. They don’t allow pax who appear intoxicated, or who are wearing offensive clothing, or not wearing footwear.

Why is disallowing pax who are contagious to board so different?

It’s not just about other pax. It’s about the crew, too. A vomiting lax creates a biohazard that can infect a whole bunch of other people.

If airlines were to have such a policy, it should be fine, you can’t board but you can rebook for free on another flight. It’s then up to the passenger to manage their accommodation and food and other expenses. That’s what travel insurance is for.