Sign in to follow this  
anonymous

Canada's "favourite" airline continues slide into mediocrity

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, thor said:

If the passenger was sitting in the window seat of an emergency exit then it’s a TC requirement that the passenger be awake for take off and landing. 

And were they? If incapable of what is required to be in the exit row, they would normally simply be moved to another seat and not deplaned.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Malcolm said:

  Fits with the topic title:" Canada's "favourite" airline continues slide into mediocrity, no ???? 😀

 

 

No, it doesn't. If fits with your theme of posting unrelated articles in topics they don't belong. As usual. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Malcolm said:

Blah, blah. so sorry

You started your own thread to post WJ and Swoop related news. Use it. Stop posting random articles that add nothing to the topic. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Malcolm, take that little piece of advice from CanadaEH  (the very same piece of advice I've given to you many times over the years) - when you post random, non-sequitur or otherwise unrelated stuff into a thread about something else - it annoys people.  Yeah, I know, you see it as a thread about Westjet and therefore any Westjet related article is fine but the rest of us see it as a thread about this one particular incident at Westjet.  Also, the title, unfair and not representative of the subject of the first news item.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, seeker said:

Malcolm, take that little piece of advice from CanadaEH  (the very same piece of advice I've given to you many times over the years) - when you post random, non-sequitur or otherwise unrelated stuff into a thread about something else - it annoys people.  Yeah, I know, you see it as a thread about Westjet and therefore any Westjet related article is fine but the rest of us see it as a thread about this one particular incident at Westjet.  Also, the title, unfair and not representative of the subject of the first news item.

Following your sage advice all non conforming posts have been deleted. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, thor said:

If the passenger was sitting in the window seat of an emergency exit then it’s a TC requirement that the passenger be awake for take off and landing. 

Hmmm.  Do you have a reference for that? I have never read anything requiring this.  The only requirement I am aware of is that the passenger must not have a disability that would interfere with their ability to assist, and must receive and be able to understand the briefing.  After that, nothing.

I've seen more than a few cases where an airline policy was somehow thought to be from Transport Canada when it wasn't.  Could this be such a case?

Vs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Vsplat said:

Hmmm.  Do you have a reference for that? I have never read anything requiring this.  The only requirement I am aware of is that the passenger must not have a disability that would interfere with their ability to assist, and must receive and be able to understand the briefing.  After that, nothing.

I've seen more than a few cases where an airline policy was somehow thought to be from Transport Canada when it wasn't.  Could this be such a case?

Vs

  1. Quote

    I guess item 5 could be interpreted to include a passenger who is not awake.

    1. requirements for foreign air operators. Please refer to this link: http://airconsumer.dot.gov/rules/rules.htm 
    2. https://www.tc.gc.ca/en/services/aviation/reference-centre/advisory-circulars/ac-700-014.html#s2-0
    3. 4.0  EMERGENCY EXIT SEATS

    4. This section applies to air operators under Subpart 703, 704 and 705 of the CARs.

    5. Air operators shall establish procedures to ensure that seats located at emergency exits are not occupied by passengers whose presence in those seats could adversely affect the safety of passengers or crew members during an emergency evacuation.

    6. Emergency exits seats are defined as:

      1. Each seat having direct access to an exit;

      2. Each seat in a row of seats through which passengers would have to pass to gain access to an exit, from the first seat inboard of the exit to the first aisle inboard of the exit; and

      3. A seat from which a passenger can proceed directly to an exit without entering an aisle or passing around an obstacle.

    7. A passenger’s presence would be considered to adversely affect the safety of passengers and crew members during an emergency evacuation where he or she does not meet the following criteria. Passengers seated at emergency exits:

      1. Must be physically capable of using the exit;

      2. Must be capable of understanding the printed and spoken emergency instructions;

      3. Must be able to visually determine if the exit is safe to open;

      4. Must have sufficient mobility, strength and dexterity to reach, operate and stow (or otherwise dispose of) the emergency exit;

      5. Must be able to receive aural information from the crew and to orally communicate that information to other passengers;

      6. Must be of a minimum age (as established by the air operator) to ensure that he/she has the physical, cognitive and sensory capacity to operate an emergency exit;

      7. Must not be responsible for another person as this can hinder the opening of the emergency exit;

      8. Must not be travelling with a service animal; and

      9. Must not have a condition that might cause them harm by opening the exit.

    8. requirements for foreign air operators. Please refer to this link: http://airconsumer.dot.gov/rules/rules.htm
    9.  

     

     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did read that AC, probably a similar search.

The definition of  'adversely affect' does not include wakefulness after the briefing.  I think it is assumed the individual would wake up if required.

Now we are on a whole line of assumption here.  In the cases I have seen where a passenger WAS found to be unable to remain in an exit row, the solution then was to switch them with another passenger, not punt them.

Somehow there's a big part of this story that I think we are missing.

Vs

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Vsplat said:

I did read that AC, probably a similar search.

The definition of  'adversely affect' does not include wakefulness after the briefing.  I think it is assumed the individual would wake up if required.

Now we are on a whole line of assumption here.  In the cases I have seen where a passenger WAS found to be unable to remain in an exit row, the solution then was to switch them with another passenger, not punt them.

Somehow there's a big part of this story that I think we are missing.

Vs

And we may never know the "real" story but

Quote

CTVNews.ca Staff
Published Saturday, November 3, 2018 1:41PM EDT
Last Updated Saturday, November 3, 2018 2:46PM EDT

A WestJet passenger says he plans to sue the airline after falling asleep on a flight to Cuba and being kicked off the plane.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odd that we haven't heard from Gabor Lukacs yet.  Usually he weasels his way into getting his face into the news right from the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, thor said:

If the passenger was sitting in the window seat of an emergency exit then it’s a TC requirement that the passenger be awake for take off and landing. 

Just my opinion but I would consider a pax who was in a drug-induced stupour....not awakened by the " nudging" of his wife....to be a person whose presence in the emergency exit row might adversely affect the lives and safety of passengers and crew. Somewhat difficult to hear and understand commands if you're asleep or to engage in the physical demands required in the event of an emergency if it is the emergency itself that rouses you from your slumber.

I don't believe that operators unduly concern themselves with those requirements. I have seen many individuals who in my opinion and for sundry reasons ought not to have been seated in an exit row.

In any event, it was my understanding from the original story that the removal of this gentleman from the flight was not because of his location on the aircraft but rather by reason of his apparent physical condition and concern that he was in some form of medical distress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, seeker said:

Odd that we haven't heard from Gabor Lukacs yet.  Usually he weasels his way into getting his face into the news right from the start.

'Embarrassing:' WestJet passenger says he was kicked off flight after falling asleep

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
image.jpg
A Burnaby man is accusing WestJet of humiliating him when he was kicked off a flight to Cuba.
 
 
  facebook-icon.png  
17
  twitter-icon.png  
  google-icon.png  
  reddit-icon.png  
  share-icon.png  
17
  print-icon.png  
  email-icon.png  
 

CTVNews.ca Staff 
Published Saturday, November 3, 2018 1:41PM EDT 
Last Updated Saturday, November 3, 2018 2:46PM EDT

 

Gabor Lukacs, founder of Air Passenger Rights, believes Bennett and his family should have been left on the plane.

“It’s not a question of what they thought, the question is what (the situation was) and what was the evidence,” he said. “It was clear in this case the passenger was perfectly fine.”

WestJet, meanwhile, stands by the decision, telling CTV Vancouver in a statement that when crews “observe a guest who is exhibiting signs of not being fit to fly, we will, out of an abundance of caution and in adherence with Transport Canada's regulations remove the guest from the flight."

Bennett says he plans to sue WestJet because of the incident.

With a report from CTV Vancouver’s Shannon Paterson

 
  facebook-icon.png  
17
  twitter-icon.png  
  google-icon.png  
  reddit-icon.png  
  share-icon.png  
17
 
Edited by UpperDeck
Trying to highlight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CTVNews.ca Staff
Published Saturday, November 3, 2018 1:41PM EDT 
Last Updated Saturday, November 3, 2018 2:46PM EDT

A WestJet passenger says he plans to sue the airline after falling asleep on a flight to Cuba and being kicked off the plane

 

 

Ahhhhh the Press..........How many readers would think the passenger was kicked off the flight in Cuba for falling asleep on a flight to Cuba...

Well I guess that catchy sentence gets the reader attention though.. 4192.gif

Yeh, it is a boring Sunday...sorta like this thread 4187.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, UpperDeck said:

'Embarrassing:' WestJet passenger says he was kicked off flight after falling asleep

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

What the passenger saw prior to being rudely awakened..

4188.gif.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vsplat said:

the passenger must not have a disability that would interfere with their ability to assist, and must receive and be able to understand the briefing.  After that, nothing.

Folks, I submit that to any reasonable person, the above is more than sufficient. If being non responsive isn’t grounds for removal from an exit seat, I don’t know what is.

In addition, being unwilling to operate the exit should it be required warrants a seat change. On several occasions, I have seen passengers reseated when they didn’t “want the responsibility” after having been briefed on exit procedures. I was dead heading on one of them and took the seat myself.  I would urge you to consider the headline if a non responsive pax was placed in an exit seat (with the malice of forethought) and blocked it when needed. Cheers

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is much dispute here about what would make sense.   That's often way different from what passengers sometimes expect.

I have to say, during my DH yesterday, I was seated at an emergency exit and the fellow beside me was out cold within seconds after the door closed.  Next time I heard from him was top of descent.   Not a word from the cabin staff.  So.....

Vs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I drove ambulances in another lifetime, it was long ago in a galaxy far away but when people become non responsive in transit after having suffered a recent stoke, it was usually my cue to turn on the lights and siren.

 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the man says a paramedic and a nurse cleared him to travel after checking on him. Does WestJet use a service such as MedLink or StatMD to assess medical issues? If so, maybe they made the call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2018 at 8:22 PM, J.O. said:

Well, the man says a paramedic and a nurse cleared him to travel after checking on him. Does WestJet use a service such as MedLink or StatMD to assess medical issues? If so, maybe they made the call.

Yes we do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I boarded a flight to YOW several months ago and took my seat.  I immediately fell asleep before the boarding was even completed.  I awoke when they throttled back for descent.  No issues.  Whats the big deal?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, boestar said:

Whats the big deal?

If you subscribe to the notion that there’s no difference between falling asleep and being non responsive shortly after experiencing a stroke event, then you might say the crew over reacted. I’m not quite there yet…. assuming his non responsive state is simply due to sleeping pills is a bit problematic here, had he been allowed to stay and then died in transit, his family would be singing an entirely different tune right now; I think all of us can agree on that. If nothing else, it shows that Medlink is there for a reason.

 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 thought Medilink and the paramedics cleared him but he was still refused....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Wolfhunter said:

If you subscribe to the notion that there’s no difference between falling asleep and being non responsive shortly after experiencing a stroke event, then you might say the crew over reacted. I’m not quite there yet…. assuming his non responsive state is simply due to sleeping pills is a bit problematic here, had he been allowed to stay and then died in transit, his family would be singing an entirely different tune right now; I think all of us can agree on that. If nothing else, it shows that Medlink is there for a reason.

 

A major point is......was the fact that he had previously, "a few months ago", experienced a stroke ever discussed during the incident ?? I can't find that info OTHER THAN the author of the original newspaper article.

He gave his reason for falling asleep and, again, there is no mention by any of his NOK that he had previously experienced a stroke..again, only the author mentioned it.

Even if he had experience a stroke, and then passed away enroute, the NOK would have no legal right to sue the airline if that information was not verbalized prior to getting airborne.

He took a pain pill, and we all know many narcs cause one to go to sleep. He was awakened and checked by a nurse and again, there is no indication that even the nurse knew about the stroke....and even if she did.........why would the passenger be booted of the aircraft?......He said he had leg pain, he took a pain killer, he was now awake....Away we go.

There seems to be an assumption that his previous stroke and falling asleep after taking a pain killer made him ineligible to fly......is there a time limit on stroke survivors before airlines will let them fly???

Personally, I think he was treated unfairly..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So buddy wants to sue WestJet. Have at it. The burden of proof is on him to prove that the flight attendant was negligent in his/her job. I’m assuming that MedLink was called and their decision is what we have to go by regardless what any other medical personal says. They assume all responsibility. 

Malcolm, next time maybe you could give both sides of the story before passing judgment. We all know media networks don’t.  Out of my respect for you please keep your Schadenfreude to yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this