Article: Should Airlines Rebook Sick Passengers for Free?

[Quickstatus]

My view is, if airlines want to ask passengers not to travel because they are sick, these airlines need to work with the customer to rebook them at a date and time of their greatest convenience, otherwise it's unfair.

I think if check in or cabin crew suspects someone is too unwell to travel (meaning that the pasengers is at the airport or at the gate), they can ask for the traveller to be medically assessed. This usually means they will miss the flight, but airlines have rescheduled passengers for free when they are fit to travel (with medical letter).

This is similar to the drunken traveller who presents themselves at the gate - they get sinbinned but the flight is rescheduled.

 

[Lynda2475]

This may also mean they may be non infectious as well.

If non infectious no need to delay travel, again with medical clearance for a reportable disease like TB.

Just because someone has a cough does not mean they cant travel.

And I never said they couldnt (seriously read what is written), for some odd reason you are determined to reply to me about people with coughs, when I stated from the start people travel with coughs and other issues, and I never stated they shouldn't (it is their personal choice whether they do or dont, unless they have a notifiable condition which legally requires them to isolate), and I oppose the idea of allowing them to make free changes / get free refunds because of a minor cough.

If medical assessment is unfit to travel use your insurance or negotiate with the airline. If you decide not to travel but are medically fir to do so you wear the cost of that decision. Otherwise you fly; anyone with explosive gastro should have no issue getting a medical certificate deeming them unfit to fly as you would be seeking a shot to be able to keep water down. Simples.

So perhaps direct your ire to those who support giving those who buy the cheapest inflexible tickets, have no insurance and then want to use a throat tickle to secure a refund or free change. That isnt me.

 

[Quickstatus]

If non infectious no need to delay travel

Again, the issue is how do you know if someone is infectious/non infectious just by symptoms such as a cough. There are lots of non infectious causes of a recurrent cough.

I never stated they shouldn't

But...

It is naive to think that everyone with a cough will be considerate and not travel to protect others even if airline provides for refund or free rebooking.

 

[Lynda2475]

But...

Says nothing about whether I think a cough is reason not to travel, an observation of human behaviour. You are infering a stance I don't hold.

Like I said take it up with those that want to see us all pay higher fares so that cheapskates can feign minor illness and get charges/refunds they are not entitled to, that isn't me.

 

[Pushka]

I think if check in or cabin crew suspects someone is too unwell to travel (meaning that the pasengers is at the airport or at the gate), they can ask for the traveller to be medically assessed. This usually means they will miss the flight, but airlines have rescheduled passengers for free when they are fit to travel (with medical letter).

This is similar to the drunken traveller who presents themselves at the gate - they get sinbinned but the flight is rescheduled.

And this is a very slippery slope for cabin crew. If the person is actually fine, but the crew thought otherwise, and they miss important events etc, then watch for the fiasco to follow because a condition that was chronic but of no risk to anyone could be determined by a non medical person as a risk. Or worse, there were no symptoms at all but cabin crew 'thought' there were.

 

[Ausbt]

I'm feeling nervous right now as I'm SYD-HND on Friday and have had a cough last two days. Negative on COVID tests, will see doctor shortly for antibiotics, but seated middle in Y on ANA and yeah, apologies to the pax next to me. Obviously I will be masked, hopefully I don't have to resort to duct tape as well.

 

[drron]

I'm feeling nervous right now as I'm SYD-HND on Friday and have had a cough last two days. Negative on COVID tests, will see doctor shortly for antibiotics, but seated middle in Y on ANA and yeah, apologies to the pax next to me. Obviously I will be masked, hopefully I don't have to resort to duct tape as well.

Wearing a mask should be a comfort to those beside you. You should be congratulated for being responsible.

 

[BJReplay]

f the person is actually fine, but the crew thought otherwise, and they miss important events etc

That's the thing: it's not just the flights, it's everything else: whether it's work, conferences, family events, weddings, funerals: you name it, people will miss things.

That's why they travel when they probably shouldn't (or aren't certain), and that's why it's difficult to expect cabin crew to offload passengers on suspicion. They don't have time between arriving, turning around an aircraft, and departing on say SYD-MEL-SYD to screen passengers.

TI doesn't cover the event that is missed, just the costs (after excess).

Coming back to the question implied by the thread title: should airlines rebook sick passengers for free: I think, with a medical certificate (even if it is from Dr Howlong), yes. The cost of a medical certificate, after rebates, is not free, but it is cheaper than change fees. The effort to obtain a medical certificate is non-zero. Even Dr Howlong won't repeatedly risk their ability to practice and hand them out for no reason. Airlines will notice repeat offenders, and it is within their ability to draft T&Cs to say that they won't accept medical certificates issued without physical attendance at a doctor's surgery more than once, for example, for serial offenders.

In other words, it's possible - just as the office has adapted to post-covid working, by making it clear to employees that they'd prefer sick employees to WFH rather than come into the office - it is possible for airlines to make it clear to travelling public that - if they are genuinely unwell, they can delay their travel, and, for the cost of a medical certificate after medicare rebates, they can change their flights.

Not everyone will be able to do this, but some that can, will.

The airlines can make it possible yet make it clear that passengers that abuse the privilege will have it revoked.

Will they? I doubt it.

Will most passengers travel anyway? Most are travelling for a non-deferrable purpose, so probably.

But even pre-covid, I'd cancel work travel if I was unwell - because I didn't want to be in another city, another office, and a hotel room while unwell. So those that can defer travel because they are unwell, who will face less financial cost for doing so, might.

 

[Flyfrequently]

I think if check in or cabin crew suspects someone is too unwell to travel (meaning that the pasengers is at the airport or at the gate), they can ask for the traveller to be medically assessed. This usually means they will miss the flight, but airlines have rescheduled passengers for free when they are fit to travel (with medical letter).

This happened with my then 13 year old godson transiting through Changi on SQ from the Philippines in 2019 @Quickstatus
FA thought he looked unwell, was assessed at airport medical facility and was found to be febrile.
Rebooked for 24 hours later, TI kicked in, temperature back to normal.

 

[SkyMogul]

It's all well and good that airlines can assess cases of illness on a case by case basis, but I question the need to have inflexible tickets at all when they can just be overridden by the airline.

How is it that airlines such as Southwest in the US can offer no change or cancellation fees and still be highly successful?

The whole idea of cancellation and change fees hark back to the days of paper ticketing where flights would be purchased weeks or months ahead and collected from the travel agent. These days tickets can be changed or cancelled right up until the last second, in many cases using self-service functions with no involvement from humans.

Flight availability is in a constant state of flux with passengers changing seat selection, changing flights or being moved to different flights due to disruptions so it's not like the systems are designed to be set and forget.

In some ways having flexibility as a default could provide additional revenue as some pax would be more inclined to pay a higher fare difference for a last minute change as they wouldn't be further penalised with a change fee. Cancellations could be redeemable as flight credits for cheaper fares and refunds for higher fares, like many airlines already do. An unwell passenger could change or cancel their own ticket with no involvement from airline staff which would mean sick people are less likely to risk it and travel.

At the end of the day if the airline is easy to deal with in circumstances which may be out of the control of the passenger such as illness then this would be a positive experience for passengers and would be beneficial in terms of image for the airline.

 

[Quickstatus]

FA thought he looked unwell

Yes and the significant word is "unwell"
Some CC are registered nurses in another life and can usually spot a crook traveller.
The rebooked 24hrs later is not necessarily because they may be carrying a bug and spread it to all and sundry but because they want to avoid a medical diversion.

I question the need to have inflexible tickets at all when they can just be overridden by the airline.

The "flexibility" refers to customer's flexibility, not the airline.
Similar to "loyalty". It is about the customer's loyalty to the airline, never the airline to the customer.

 

[Clayton]

Very well written. I agree that more confidence that compassion will be shown (eg. with a medical certifiacte) might lead to more people who may be infectious with something, but not personally unable to travel, rescheduling until they are not infectious. @drron's example of someone infectious with TB is a good case in point.

I wonder how many people suddenly are confirmed infectious with TB in the final 24 hours before a flight? Perhaps a more reasonable policy than airline forced refund all unrefundable flights simply based on a Dr's sick certificate, having a federal policy that nobody boards with out travel insurance covering the duration of the flight to the end destination. And if a return ticket is used, the TI should cover that complete duration.

 

[Ausbt]

I'm feeling nervous right now

I'm feeling better right now. Just a head cold, cleared up with Codrol but the doc gave me a course of antibiotics anyway. In a way it's good to get this in the week prior to a trip perhaps. I'll stick with a KN95 mask for the flight. SYD-HND in Y on ANA, it's been a while since I did a long Y flight but it's daytime. Off to have a ski, first time in 4 years after busting an ACL last trip

 

[tdimdad]

a federal policy that nobody boards with out travel insurance covering the duration of the flight to the end destination. And if a return ticket is used, the TI should cover that complete duration.

Are you suggesting that if I do a month long visit from Sydney to Brisbane, 1) I should have a TI for the flights and 2) for all 30 days?
If there ever was a requirement for a TI to cover the flights, in domestic travel it'd be much more reasonable to have the medical cover for 1 day on the way out and then another 1 day for the return (unless you want or need it for the full duration).

I would see much more value in a rule (legislated or a shared social norm) that you travel only when non-contagious. Though, this is both idealistic and hard to practice as in many cases you are asymptomatic at the start of the illness but already potentially contagious. I'm still doing RAT's before flights but I'd hazard a guess that only very few bother these days.

 

[drron]

Are you suggesting that if I do a month long visit from Sydney to Brisbane, 1) I should have a TI for the flights and 2) for all 30 days?
If there ever was a requirement for a TI to cover the flights, in domestic travel it'd be much more reasonable to have the medical cover for 1 day on the way out and then another 1 day for the return (unless you want or need it for the full duration).

I would see much more value in a rule (legislated or a shared social norm) that you travel only when non-contagious. Though, this is both idealistic and hard to practice as in many cases you are asymptomatic at the start of the illness but already potentially contagious. I'm still doing RAT's before flights but I'd hazard a guess that only very few bother these days.

And many times you have symptoms and are not contagious.

 

[JessicaTam]

[mod hat]
Off topic posts have been removed.
[/mod hat]