Man flies first class seated near corpse

[transplant99]

Yikes.

"The corpse was strapped into the seat but because of turbulence it kept slipping down on to the floor," Trinder, a businessman, was quoted as saying. "It was horrific. The body had to be wedged in place with lots of pillows."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17683917/?GT1=9145

[Burninator]

The woman's daughter was also upgraded and spent the rest of the nine-hour flight from Delhi to London grieving next to her dead mother, the Sun reported.

Nine hours?! That's terrible. I can't believe they wouldn't turn the plane around and land.

[STeeLy]

Thats just a horrible time to go... however, I'm not sure if the captain and first officer tried to find somewhere to land

[Sample00]

I just want to go on record as saying that we did not do this booking!

[Frank the Tank]

I understand how this is pretty disturbing for everyone, but whats the point of landing somewhere? If they were flying from New Delhi to London, the woman is probably from one of those two places, so what would be the point of landing in, say, Athens?

[Prototype]

So that's how you get bumped to First Class...

[troutman]

Sounds like a treatment for the next Weekend At Bernie's Franchise.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by troutman

Sounds like a treatment for the next Weekend At Bernie's Franchise.

Then they will need to tweak the script already in the works.

From the sounds of it, its essentially the same storyline – except this time Bernie invites the two guys up to his ‘Ski Lodge’ – so expect plenty of ‘dead body’ goes skiing, jokes – instead of the Beach House.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yikes.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17683917/?GT1=9145

Other news stories on this have indicated many airlines have policy provisions for what to do in this kind of situation and some airlines even have specific storage places for bodies if there is a death.

Propping him up in first class probably isn't in any of those manuals though!!! Yet, you do have to be sensitive to the surviving relative as well.

I know some people who would have been delighted to find themselves sitting next to a person who never uttered a word for a nine hour flight . . . . . either because they like the silence or they're so verbally prolific that they would talk the entire time and never notice the other person hadn't said anything.

Cowperson

[fanforever1986]

Jeeze, don't they know...First classers get pissed off when you put dead people next to them. Leave the damn dead people in the back of the plane with the economy class.

I'd sit beside a dead lady for all that extra leg room.

[mykalberta]

She wouldnt have been bumped if it wasnt for the dauther, if she was travelling alone, standard policy would be to if possible, clear out the last row and place her there or place her in a lavatory and lock the door until the plane lands.

There is no way an airline diverts due to a dead body, what are they going to do, stop in Greece and drop the body off? The Greeks or any other nation likely would not accept it.

MYK

[JimmytheT]

Originally Posted by fotze

I thought they would try to land the plane sooner. May as well huck it in cargo if you are going to continue on.

I imagine its pretty difficult to put things in the cargo hold while the plane is in the air.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

She wouldnt have been bumped if it wasnt for the dauther, if she was travelling alone, standard policy would be to if possible, clear out the last row and place her there or place her in a lavatory and lock the door until the plane lands.

There is no way an airline diverts due to a dead body, what are they going to do, stop in Greece and drop the body off? The Greeks or any other nation likely would not accept it.

MYK

Planes have landed for lesser reasons. When a passenger is disruptive (drunk or threatening) they land planes and arrest them. I don't see why they can't do that for a body. By the sounds of the article she didn't die mid flight, but after take off. So turning around shouldn't be a problem.

People can put their lives on hold for a couple of hours because someone has died. Your time is not that important. If I was on a plane and someone died in the air, I would have no problem turning around. In fact I would feel weird not doing that.

The part about the daughter grieving besides her for nine hours sounds horrific. That would be terrible to go through.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by JimmytheT

I imagine its pretty difficult to put things in the cargo hold while the plane is in the air.

"Airline attempts mid-flight corpse-to-cargo-bay maneuver. Hijinks ensue."

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Planes have landed for lesser reasons. When a passenger is disruptive (drunk or threatening) they land planes and arrest them. I don't see why they can't do that for a body. By the sounds of the article she didn't die mid flight, but after take off. So turning around shouldn't be a problem.

Well, first off a disruptive passenger can be a danger to the safety of the plane. A dead person isn't.

The second thing- they were on a 9 hour flight. Based on what I've read about 9/11 and from watching "Mayday" they would have had to dump several thousand gallons of fuel to do a safe landing. Let's say 5,000 gallons, and let's say that costs $20,000. Who pays for that? I'm also not sure if the airline also would have to pay for the cleanup costs of that much fuel going into the environment.

Could it have been handled better- probably. But risking a return to the airport wouldn't have been my first choice.

[lifer]

Originally Posted by fotze

I wonder if Russell Peters will take this story and spin it saying the lengths that people will go to extract a better deal.

He just might. I think it will depend on whether or not the lady's nationality fits in with the stereotypes he like to poke fun at. That guy is hilarious.

[Daradon]

Yeah making an emergency stop in another country or turning the plane around are really not viable options. It's a terrible situation, but I bet you it happens more often than we hear about.

I feel bad for the daughter, that had to be really tough on her.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Well, first off a disruptive passenger can be a danger to the safety of the plane. A dead person isn't.

The second thing- they were on a 9 hour flight. Based on what I've read about 9/11 and from watching "Mayday" they would have had to dump several thousand gallons of fuel to do a safe landing. Let's say 5,000 gallons, and let's say that costs $20,000. Who pays for that? I'm also not sure if the airline also would have to pay for the cleanup costs of that much fuel going into the environment.

Could it have been handled better- probably. But risking a return to the airport wouldn't have been my first choice.

Why would you have to dump the fuel out? Lessen the risk of the plane exploding I assume?

There is probably a good chance that many of the disruptive passengers are drunk. Who sold them that alcohol? The airline or airport. So the airlines are potentially causing their own problems with disruptive passengers in that case. I don't hear any complaints about wasting money because someone is drunk. And I am sure this happens way more than someone dying on a plane. I understand the need to getting distruptive passengers off of the plane, but someone dying mustn't happen that often.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Why would you have to dump the fuel out? Lessen the risk of the plane exploding I assume?

Yeah, pretty much. The plane has a maximum landing weight, so my 5,000 gallons of fuel example would weigh 20 tons. Now they said last night that the 2nd plane to hit the WTC had 11,000 gallons of fuel for a 5 hour flight, so I would think a 9 hour flight would have 1.5 times that much. If the airplane is too heavy, the landing gear can't handle the weight and colapse; which lead the plane skidding down the runway at 250-300 km/h. (Average landing speed.)

Not sure if you remember the plane that crashed into the sea off of Nova Scotia about 8 years ago? It was going from Boston to Europe or something. Anyways, they would have made Halifax had they not had to turn back over the sea to dump their fuel. The pilot had assumed he could dump over land, and Air Traffic control (unaware of the urgency) told him to go back over the sea because dumping over land was too dangerous for the people below.

(Yes, I watch waaaaay too many shows on plane crashes.)

Originally Posted by Burninator

I don't hear any complaints about wasting money because someone is drunk.

I don't know this for a fact, but if you cause a plane to do an emergency landing, you are responsible for the costs associated of said unscheduled landing.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Yeah, pretty much. The plane has a maximum landing weight, so my 5,000 gallons of fuel example would weigh 20 tons. Now they said last night that the 2nd plane to hit the WTC had 11,000 gallons of fuel for a 5 hour flight, so I would think a 9 hour flight would have 1.5 times that much. If the airplane is too heavy, the landing gear can't handle the weight and colapse; which lead the plane skidding down the runway at 250-300 km/h. (Average landing speed.)

Not sure if you remember the plane that crashed into the sea off of Nova Scotia about 8 years ago? It was going from Boston to Europe or something. Anyways, they would have made Halifax had they not had to turn back over the sea to dump their fuel. The pilot had assumed he could dump over land, and Air Traffic control (unaware of the urgency) told him to go back over the sea because dumping over land was too dangerous for the people below.

(Yes, I watch waaaaay too many shows on plane crashes.)

Interesting I didn't know that. I thought they would have been worried that if the plane crashed there would a greater risk because of catastrophic fire. I wouldn't have thought about the weight.

I don't know this for a fact, but if you cause a plane to do an emergency landing, you are responsible for the costs associated of said unscheduled landing.

I assume this would be apply to disruptive passengers, not someone having a medical emergency. But if that is the case it would cost thousands of dollars if you caused a plane to land, yikes. But I've never heard of that, I would be interested to hear if that is true.