Plane at JFK airport quarantined after 100 people reportedly fall ill

a reply to: howtonhawky

No, I said some aircraft MIGHT in their first aid kit. There's a big difference.

A box of 50 surgical masks costs $7 on the low end. An Emirates A380 carries over 600 passengers plus crew. They have 104 A380s in service, with 58 on order.

You would have to have enough masks for everyone on board, because once you start passing them out, herd mentality takes over and most people will want a mask. So that's 13 boxes per A380, 6-7 per 777-200LR (6 aircraft with 266 seats, 4 with 302), 8 for the 2 777-300s, 8-9 for each of their 140 777-300ERs.

For the A380 fleet alone, that's almost $13,000. That's another $9,000 for the 777-300ERs.

We couldn't even get the airlines to pay $3,000 for an annual maintenance contract for equipment they were required to supply for a passenger checkpoint that was used for thousands of passengers daily.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Then charge an extra dollar or simply advise people to bring their own in case.

I understand what you are saying with the scary math but the liability is now on the airlines.

Just wait till those 90 people taken to the hospital yesterday sue.

People getting sick in a container they do not own is now an issue.

Nobody buys an airline ticket so they can get sat next to a carrier of illness that can spread.

Other airports have screening for the sicko's so it would be cheaper to provide emergency mask.

a reply to: howtonhawky

It was 10 taken to the hospital and 19 determined to be sick.

Airline liability is a very complex thing when it comes to illness. The airlines are responsible for taking reasonable precautions, but if they can prove that they complied with all requirements, and took reasonable precautions to protect the passengers on board, it will be difficult to prove that they're liable.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You are right but it will also be costly to prove they are not liable.

Just a matter of time before this comes up again in a more threatening manner like the swine flu or something similar.

I am the type to try to get ahead of the curve so to speak.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Not really. Show training records that the crew was trained properly, that the aircraft have the required equipment on board, and that they took the proper steps on this flight. That won't be particularly costly to prove.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yea in a perfect world.

That is what trump was thinkin when he first learned of a special council.

A court room can be a scary place for truth. Many cases it is very much beside the point.

a reply to: howtonhawky

That's why there are codes from ICAO, WHO, the FAA, that cover airline liability.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: howtonhawky

That's why there are codes from ICAO, WHO, the FAA, that cover airline liability.

Yea we were off base on a few points. All your doomsday maths were beside the point.

The fact i have realized is that the airlines do have a responsibility to carry particle mask on planes if they do not screen passengers for sickness.

It would not be an extra expense of any meaningful significance to an air liner and everyone would not want one.

The reason is because a particle mask does not keep a wearer from getting sick from airborne bugs in most cases. It can help but the better method is to make anyone with symptoms wear them. This would indeed protect the other passengers much and would be cost effective.
So yes the airlines do have a certain amount of responsibility in that area and their policies of full scrub down of planes often prove this. Mask would be another cheap tool in the airlines industries bag o prevention.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: howtonhawky

That's why there are codes from ICAO, WHO, the FAA, that cover airline liability.

Yea we were off base on a few points. All your doomsday maths were beside the point.

The fact i have realized is that the airlines do have a responsibility to carry particle mask on planes if they do not screen passengers for sickness.

It would not be an extra expense of any meaningful significance to an air liner and everyone would not want one.

The reason is because a particle mask does not keep a wearer from getting sick from airborne bugs in most cases. It can help but the better method is to make anyone with symptoms wear them. This would indeed protect the other passengers much and would be cost effective.
So yes the airlines do have a certain amount of responsibility in that area and their policies of full scrub down of planes often prove this. Mask would be another cheap tool in the airlines industries bag o prevention.

full scrub down of aircraft prove they have a responsibility? first off what full scrub down? is that something they do once a year or something? seriously they do not even propperly general clean aircraft between flights. even when the aircraft has been parked overnight. you normally find trash when boarding an aircraft. especially in the magazine pockets. trays, armrests and windows are not even attempted to be cleaned. not even piss and puke on the seats is what i would call propperly dealt with, things that technically are an actual biohazard. they fully expect you to sit in those contaminated seats, oh they might try to brush off the worst of the bits in the puke, but nothing else. if you bitch about it, they will just tell you, people often piss in their seats. and people get sick, and to just sit in it, unless you don't want to go. i have seen and heard them do this personally. and don't even think of trying to argue, because at that point they can have you arrested and thrown off the aircraft if they want. it certainly will not lead to them doing anything. so since they spend the money to clean the aircraft so well, that they would actually spend money to provide masks? at one time they used to give out cheap slippers to everyone on long flights. but that cost too much so they stopped except fpr first/business class passengers.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Ok, go ahead and start an airline and pay for all these extra "not very expensive" things and see how long it operates.

a reply to: generik

Actually i have not been on an aircraft in years and i was just speaking of some"airline procedures" i was reading that the airlines claim to go through. They claim of a scrub down after every flight and a through cleaning once a month. I have found that in this forum reality is beside the point of regulations.

Forget it. You know better than anyone, so sure. Whatever you say.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So spot on IMHO. They do not carry masks. Nor is it feasible IMHO. For a variety of reasons beyond cost.

First off, the masks are only effective for so long. Once they get wet with moisture (breathing), they are no longer effective and need to be changed. Also as they get damp they become increasingly difficult to breath through.

Also, thin paper masks are all but useless other than a feel good measure. For real protection without knowing the causative agent would really require the use of an N-95 (or N-99) mask. N-95's are exponentially more expensive figure about $10-14 per 20 masks in bulk. They also take up a fair amount of space and are not compressible. They also have out dates which require checks and replacement etc. And the changing requirements due to moisture are the same.

N-95 require annual training in a hood to make sure the fit is 100% perfect and you have the right size. Facial hair or small children will have difficulty achieving a good fit.

I have had to keep an N95 mask on for a 4 hour transport. I went through 10 masks and it was not fun to say the least

If you are really curious about what an aircraft is required to carry:

www.faa.gov...

I know how to use everything in that list, but if a full sized adult goes into cardiac arrest a complete kit has enough emergency medications for 2 rounds. So 4 cycles of CPR and 2 epinephrine administrations and after that you are out.

I have gotten into a kit before when a kid had a bad asthma attack. Got the albuterol going and he got better. We were close enough to home that we did not need to divert. It was also cool they had a 24/7 call center manned by doctors and nurses that I spoke to in real time, but they would have been hard pressed talking someone through the procedures that has no medical background. I took about 10 minutes to get them online and by that time I had already started the albuterol.

That really basic kit also is predicated on a medical person onboard AND them knwoing what to do with the gear. A psych nurse and a podiatrist is going to struggle.

a reply to: FredT

They could carry them for sick people and they would be effective in stopping the spread of the germs. As you stated they will not really keep someone from catching something. They would only have to use them for someone exhibiting symptoms. Srry but there is no logical reasoning in not protecting people couped up on a plane.

Did you happen to notice that when the cdc was transporting sick patients with the serious flu they use particle mask on them?

It is logical to either screen patients for sickness or provide particle mask for passengers who are expelling infected particles.

It is not logical to ignore an obvious problem.

zaphod58 already pointed out that the cdc has guidelines for the airlines so they obviously are dropping the ball somewhere if they are not recommending the same procedures they use for transporting infected people.

Please forgive me if i have touched on someones nerves.

I hope they lit the goddamned plane on fire.

Don't bring that # to me

a reply to: stormcell

its probably food borne.
illness seldom strikes that quickly.

a reply to: howtonhawky

The CDC used more stringent measures for that type of transport. I am actually well versed in the procedure as my center was one of the designated spots to receive ebola and potentially transport them:


Thats me on the right in my biohazard gear

Just sticking on a mask will not work. It needs to be the correct and properly fitter and maybe a little luck too.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Doesn't flu still incubate for days before symptoms emerge?

a reply to: SonOfThor

this does sound fishy. Cough is not normally a symptom of food poisoning and respiratory illness does not strike that quickly unless its an airborne irritant and then I dont know if that would cause fever.