“I’m Not Risking My Career” United Pilot Refuses To Fly To Cancun After Passenger Smokes Weed Onboard

A United Airlines pilot refused to operate flight 1679 from San Francisco to Cancun on Tuesday, and the flight was delayed four hours, after a passenger smoked pot in the lavatory. They were afraid that second hand smoke exposure would cause them to test positive if subjected to a random drug test.

First our flight was delayed due to technical issues, then waiting for the paperwork to get completed someone smoked weed in the front bathrooms. They got removed from the flight then sat on the plane for 40 ish min waiting for crew to figure out what to do. Crew was concerned they got exposed so we deplaned and are awaiting new crew.

Quote from the captain, “I have 30 years left of my career at United, I’m not willing to risk getting drug tested when I get to Houston”

Passengers were given $15 meal vouchers. That doesn’t go far in the San Francisco airport. And to be clear,

  • The likelihood of testing positive from secondhand marijuana smoke in a well-ventilated aircraft is laughably low.

  • Yet I still understand the irrational fear given FAA drug testing regulations and zero-tolerance airline policies that punish even inadvertent exposure if a positive test occurs.

Virtually any detectable level of marijuana metabolite in urine is considered a failed test, regardless of reason. However secondhand cannabis smoke does not cause positive urine tests at DOT thresholds except in the most extreme conditions – think hot-boxed room, hours of exposure, no ventilation.

Remember that once the plane gets going it will benefit from HEPA air filtration, the pilot is in the cockpit and the passenger was in a lavatory (though it’s unclear which lavatory was used). Any exposure would be brief.

Nonetheless, a positive test could end a pilot’s career after a lengthy investigation and loss of certification. Without evidence of passive exposure the pilot also cannot expect union protection. The pilot also has a duty to report any impairment concerns – if they even believe they might have some risk of impairment they are reported to self-report it.

About Gary Leff

Gary Leff is one of the foremost experts in the field of miles, points, and frequent business travel - a topic he has covered since 2002. Co-founder of frequent flyer community InsideFlyer.com, emcee of the Freddie Awards, and named one of the "World's Top Travel Experts" by Conde' Nast Traveler (2010-Present) Gary has been a guest on most major news media, profiled in several top print publications, and published broadly on the topic of consumer loyalty. More About Gary »

More articles by Gary Leff »

Comments

  1. Passenger was a moron and should be banned from flying United, not jailed (weed is legal in CA), but definitely arrested and fined.

    Can’t blame the pilot at all for wanting to protect his career, would’ve done the same.

  2. I wouldn’t be happy as a pax on this flight, but totally behind the crew here. It’s probably not just an FAA test to worry about, imagine immigration or FAA equivilant in MEX runs a test and it’s a positive – kind of assume they have the right to do this for flight crew. Then it’s likely more the career the pilot has to worry about.

    As for $15 vouchers for the pax – while definitely not enough for a meal, that seems standard, as AC gave us that after we de-boarded their aircraft in SFO a couple of years ago when it went MX before pushback. We got $15 each (and we were a party of 4) – we had already eaten so went to get a few bags of snacks – I think we eneded up with maybe 5-6 bags of chips and nuts total. Definitely wouldn’t cover a meal.

  3. @Krod Mandoon. I travel worldwide. I am paranoid. I agree with your assertion that I doubt that anyone would get in trouble for trace pot anywhere in the USA. But what about any other countries? Scoff if you want to. Probably not, but better safe than sorry.

    Watch National Geographic Border Patrol New Zeeland. They have money sniffing dogs. Food sniffing dogs. Drug sniffing dogs. It is amazing how many things dogs are being trained to find.

    There is nothing in my profile that would be alarming, otherwise I would not have a Global Entry Pass. One airport security machine in the USA thought that my underarm deodorant was a possible explosive. My cheap Dell travel laptop had been swabbed to check for explosive in Frankfort, Vancouver, London, several airports in the USA, and Tokyo more than once. In Macau, on the way out, they sent me to secondary to make sure I was not carrying too much money. That being said, 98% of the time, I go through security with no issues.

    Maybe drug traces are not a problem, but I am paranoid. Sneer if you want, but I would rather be safe than sorry. Further, if I was a pilot, I would be even more careful, because they go through security more in a couple of days than I do in a year.

  4. I wouldn’t be happy, but I wouldn’t be mad at the pilot either. Drug tests dont come with a “some dude was blazing in the bathroom beside me” exemption. You fail a drug test, you’re guilty until proven innocent.

    Plus, although its an incredibly small chance, if anything did happen on the flight, you know lawyers would latch onto that exposure to try and paint the pilot as irresponsible for flying impaired in a lawsuit.

  5. @Denver Refugee. Your comment about Wall Street and cocaine was pretty funny.

    There used to be an Urban Legend in New York that if you at poppy seed bagels before taking a drug test for employment, it could cause a false positive.

  6. There was a case years back where an American 20 year old guy was a total pot head and smoked a ton before a flight to either Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Once he got outside the airport he got injured and broke some bones. Was brought to the hospital. They obviously ran blood tests and they arrested him for the drugs in his system. You can google these general words and find the article somewhere.

    So yea. I get the pilot reaction.

  7. The pilot made the right call, risk-management-wise.
    Dang stoners who flout the law. Makes the rest of us look bad.

  8. I see the general public is poorly informed on second hand smoke and urine drug detection. One joint smoked in another room nearby by someone else is beyond any credible amount of exposure to uptake an amount that could lead to a positive urine sample.

    The DOT and the DOD have similar threshold and “positive” levels which are designed to find the user and not some happenstance individual. Why? Because these things usually end up
    in court and the government simply does not want to waste time with questionable positives. Simply put, if you test positive, only you are to blame, no friends, small enclosed spaces, or spiked brownies are going to get you there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *