The captain of an Iberia flight from Düsseldorf to Madrid was bitten by a tarantula Friday afternoon while piloting the Airbus A320 aircraft. He turned out to be allergic to spider venom, had a reaction, but managed to land the aircraft in Madrid.
The pilot was treated with methylprednisolone, an anti-inflammatory corticosteroid in the plane’s first aid kit, which helped prevent a more severe reaction. Iberia confirms that the pilot was in stable condition.
Several crewmembers identified saw the spider, but it was never recovered. Authorities believe that it boarded the aircraft during an earlier flight in Casablanca. They believe it entered the aircraft in passenger luggage, escaped, and stayed on board.
The aircraft was held on the ground in Madrid for fumigation, causing a three hour delay of the aircraft’s next flight to Vigo. Passengers waiting to board were initially informed of “maintenance checks” before the true cause of the delay emerged.
- I’m not sure I’d want to board an aircraft such a short period of time after fumigation
- Those that did reportedly appeared uneasy, checking their seats, aisles, and belongings for signs of additional spiders.
Iberia has stated it will review procedures to prevent similar occurrences in the future. It’s not clear that they’ll actually do anything differently, however.
The closest I’ve ever seen to spiders on a plane were the Spiderman amenity kits that United Airlines had in business class before the pandemic.
Garuda Indonesia once played off snakes on one of their planes saying it was just a “legless lizard.” No big deal.
Three years ago passengers actually tried bringing taratulas on board a flight on purpose, leaving Colombia for Germany with over 300 tarantulas, scorpions and giant cockroaches. On another flight, from the Dominican Republic to Canada, a passenger brought a tarantula with them as a souvenir, intending to keep it as a pet. People aren’t just dumb, they’re stupid.
(HT: Enilria)
Gary, you should have mentioned EU261!
After all, the incident caused a three-hour delay for a flight between EU countries–under their consumer-friendly laws, these passengers should be eligible for compensation ($200/person). Since Iberia already referred to it as a ‘maintenance’ issue, the airline should not be able to deny claims based on the ‘extraordinary circumstance’ defense, though they may still try to anyway.
If only we in the US had actual ‘common sense’ to legislate such protections for our people. Nope, instead we are blinded by 24/7, pro-business propaganda. So if such an incident happened here, we can ‘deal with it’ as we wait, or cancel for a refund in the amount of the unused portion of our ticket. Pretty lame by comparison, eh? Let’s do better, folks.
Not sure what the big deal about bringing a tarantula on a plane is… A properly caged tarantula is MUCH safer for the other passengers than an emotional support animal!
Weird. Did somebody just lose their pet tarantula on the plane? Sure, they can’t go around calling “Here Spot, come to mommy.” but the varmint making it all the way to the cockpit is really something. Then there’s the pilot’s allergy. I’ve never even heard of someone allergic to spider venom. Maybe Spain just has an inordinate number of venomous spiders or something.
I’ve heard that when tarantulas are fried, they are tasty. I’ve never had them that way, personally.
It sounds like the med kit needs at least one EpiPen to counteract anaphylactic shock possibilities.
If the owner of the tarantula could be found, charge that person with the costs of the delay. I don’t see that the airline was at fault so why should they pay? Stuff happens. Those who want it can buy insurance.
@jns — Oh no… so you’re a corporate shill, after all. *deep sigh* You clearly have never actually claimed against a travel insurance policy before. Because if you had, or if you read the fine print, you’d see that many of those terms require delays of up to 72 hours (3 days) or more, or 50% of your trip, which is absurd, to be affected before you will be reimbursed. It’s impractical. Don’t worry, those companies love collecting premiums, then not paying you when things go wrong. Sure, if it’s a true catastrophe insurance may help, and you’ll often have to appeal and appeal and maybe take them to court over many months and years to get anything, but still it likely would not help here. Better laws are the answer–actual consumer protections like EU/UK261, Canada’s APPR, are the better way. And this was likely not the passengers’ fault. Remember that the airline has the deeper pockets than most of us. And the airlines get can insurance to cover its possible liabilities for delay. This isn’t hard. Stop punching-down.
“The kind of man who demands that government enforce his ideas is always the kind whose ideas are idiotic.” H.L. Mencken
@Mike P — You are disgusting. Yet again, you quote racists and bigots on here. For those who don’t know, Mencken was a known supremist and antisemite who promoted vile social hierarchy theories. Beware, whenever you see ‘Mike P’ on here: he’s not ‘good guy.’
Perfect, an ad hominem attack. Usually reserved for those individuals unable to argue intelligently. Of course, it doesn’t change the point made by Mencken.
“It is important to remember that government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. Therefore, those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.” Ludwig von Mises
@Mike P — No, I called you out on substance–but, feel free to call me silly names, if you wish.
So, now you quote another loser from Austria…typical. For those who don’t know, Mises argued in favor of monarchy over democracy–he was unscientific, rejecting empirical analysis.
How many more intellectually dishonest propagandists are you going to quote here?
Shameful.
Is it honestly your goal to continue proving my arguments? Your comments about Mencken and Mises are the product of a weak mind. For gosh sakes, actually do some real research and quit getting all your opinions from Wikepedia.
@Mike P — ‘I accept your surrender,’ as you like to say. You are the weakest of us all.
Validation! I love it!
‘I love a good roast!’
Hey Gary! Should you change the name of this site to View(s) from Mike P. and 1990? Let’s just talk about traveling, flights, and aircraft, oh, and airports.
Oh, and don’t forget flight attendants.
@Joey D — You must be new around here. Gary is a generous host and a supporter of free speech (within reason). You should notice that I comment regularly on the topics at hand, and I’m also not shy to call out the bigots, like Mike P. You can ignore or engage. You do you. I prefer to troll the trolls. But ‘no mas’ of these explicit or implicit requests to censor or ban others. You remind me of @OneTrippe (or is that you with a different moniker this time?). Either way, if you can’t handle the heat, get outta the kitchen!
“I’m also not shy to call out the bigots, like Mike P….”
Yes, because that’s what weak-minded people do. I’ve never made a bigoted comment and I defy you to give examples of when I have. Your problem is that you don’t argue ideas, you simply denigrate and demonize people. That’s the M.O. of those who can’t refute a particular position or argument.
@Mike P — Come now, take some pride in your ‘work’. The history of your comments on here are still publicly available, after all. Mine, too. And I stand by my words. Go on. See for yourself.
My personal ‘favorite’ of his: Mike P’s comments on Gary’s post about the Russians shooting down that Azerbaijan airlines plane in December 2024–where Mike P pretended to have ‘no opinion’ on Russia–and then he tried to ‘change the subject’ promoting crackpot economic theories. Classic.
As I said, you can’t give one example of me making a bigoted comment. Also, your continuing to reference the issue in the above post demonstrates your ignorance. Having “no opinion” on Russian and discussing an economic theory, in case you didn’t notice, are two different subjects. The point of that post was to prove you were wrong about the economic advantages of building war machinery and that didn’t necessitate having an opinion about Russia.
@Mike P — Thanks for proving my point—You wouldn’t condemn the Russians then, or now. You’re an edgelord rehashing old fallacies. Most know better. You are still outnumbered.