On a United Airlines flight from Newark to San Francisco, a passenger vomited extensively at the back of the plane. It got “all over the walls. It was so bad they couldn’t clean it, six people had to move to new seats” and the captain diverted the flight to Chicago.
What’s came next is the most striking thing. While a passenger reported that flight attendants said the diversion was for “a medical emergency” and that the “biohazard” was considered unsafe for crew and passengers, the man wasn’t removed from the flight. He said he felt fine and they continued to San Francisco with him on board.
There was no turbulence; it was a completely smooth ride, so I am not sure he was sick because of motion sickness. Here’s what I am wondering: how was this man not asked to leave the plane? It was so much of a biohazard we diverted hundreds of people to Chicago, but the person who could easily get sick again stayed. He could have easily been contagious with norovirus, rorotivrus, coronavirus, the flu, or anything else. How is this not a risk to other passengers?
This is a strange scenario. A passenger caused a flight to divert. He might have done the same thing again! The mere risk of a diversion of more than enough to remove a passenger. And feeling fine, temporarily, after an episode in which they were unwell doesn’t qualify them to fly – let alone over concerns by the airline which is well within its discretion to refuse transport.
They were already in Chicago, which is a United hub, with plenty of additional options to fly to San Francisco after a waiting period or medical clearance. Even if the sickness was a one-off, United is unlikely to be certain that’s the case and isn’t obligated to assume that it will be. Had I been on that flight I wouldn’t have wanted that passenger back on board following the diversion they’d caused.
This summer Air Canada kicked a passenger off for refusing to sit in someone else’s vomit and a family once claimed that United forced them to sit in vomit. An airline may not want to take a delay for passenger comfort, but here the captain actually diverted with the airline feeling they couldn’t keep flying under the circumstances! Why chance it again?
I feel like buying a ticket from United and then having to fly with vomit might be worth compensation (you didn’t get the experience you paid for) even though it’s not United’s fault. American recently refused compensation after a similar incident.
(HT: Live and Let’s Fly)
Sounds projectile. They got a priest to take care of it and then just sent him on his way. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Hope he hadn’t eaten chili dogs.
If you’re well enough to continue you are well enough to clean up your own mess.
not surprising from an airline whose CEO tries to flee town on a private jet when his airline is melting down because of the arrogance he himself had by building EWR schedules well beyond what the airport was capable of handling.
oh, and UA is leaving the NYC-HNL market which will leave DL and HA at JFK.
more and more markets from NYC continue to fall even as DL grows…
A few years ago I was traveling with a group of high school juniors, Tampa to Guatemala City for an arts festival. Just about to depart from Guate City and one of the students barfed at the gate. AA would not allow the student on the plane because she was a potential biohazard. I remained in Guate City for 4 days with her, awaiting medical clearance, while the rest of the group returned to Tampa. I cannot understand the UA thought process on this.
It seems to me the staff refused to clean it, or didn’t have the necessary supplies. I don’t blame them
Vomiting hours later after the first incident is not common. I suppose all passengers could be asked if they think they are going to vomit before boarding and denying boarding for those who think that they may vomit. Strange, they always seem to have vomit bags onboard. I suppose that the ground personnel cleaned the airplane in Chicago as safety officers cannot do that. The airplane probably needed to be in San Francisco. The only fault with United Airlines is not offering passengers a flight on a later UA aircraft with no compensation, a minor point.
Make the Board of Directors and Executives sit in the vomit seats and I guarantee you the airline would change their policy. Disgusting.
Definitely this man needs to be escorted off the plane. For sanitary precautions and possibly COVID CASE
If you’re going to vomit, you’re going to vomit. Not much you can do to stop it, once you get that feeling in your throat. I vomit almost daily due my medications. Its not pleasant, but not projectile. Just one of a number of (health) reasons I can no longer travel.
When you buy a ticket on United Airlines, and are forced to sit in vomit, you did get the passenger experience you paid for.
I was diverted a week or so on a flight from LAX-MEL – and we diverted to HNL due to a medical emergency. We all got off at 3am and then the same plane and crew and passengers all resumed travel at 11pm that same day. According to the crew, the affected passenger felt well enough to continue the journey, but was denied boarding by UA. I dont blame them!
What is your obsession with poop and vomit? Why are we covering these types of disgusting stories. Jesus.
@Barb: You write, “What is your obsession with poop and vomit?” To help keep passengers safe, Gary reports up-to-date airline news. Thanks to Gary’s information, informed passengers who do not want to be ordered by a flight crew to sit in an airline seat soaked in a pool of vomit can avoid flying on this airline. Regarding the United Airlines article, six passengers needed to move to new seats because vomitus “got all over the walls. It was so bad they couldn’t clean it…and the captain diverted the flight to Chicago.” Accordingly, Gary’s accurate article headline, “United Flight’s Controversial Decision After Massive Vomiting Episode,” was spot on. I agree with Gary that it is controversial to allow a passenger who created a medical diversion to continue to fly the same day without a medical clearance.