WSJ: A Flight Attendant From Hell; Really?

Posted in Airline Insight, check it out, In the News, My Views | 15 comments

The Wall Street Journal just posted an article written by Marisa Acocella Marchetto titled: A Flight Attendant from Hell. Why am I posting about this? Because after reading the article, you’ll find the flight attendant did her job. She wasn’t sent from hell. The other side of this story needs to be heard.

In brief, the passenger, Ms. Marchetto, believed she was suffering from acid reflux on a flight from New York to Rome this past October. She didn’t have a Nexium handy, the drug used to cure her symptoms, and that’s when all hell broke loose.

My mom called a flight attendant to ask what “they” had for an upset stomach. Only aspirin, the attendant said. Which, of course, would make it worse. I tried to relax. I took deep breaths. I shifted in my seat, curling up in a fetal position. Nothing helped.

First, I’m shocked they even offered Ms. Marchetto an asprin. Most airlines don’t distribute any medications, at all, unless the passenger is suffering from a heart attack or any other life threatening situation. Flight Attendant’s aren’t allowed to distribute any medications unless advised by MedLink, a company which is based in Phoenix, AZ and they advise that the medication is needed. In Ms. Marchetto’s situation, MedLink was called:

We were above Dublin. “Hon, you’re looking pale,” my mom said. It’s not like I could call my doctor—or could we? Again we buzzed the attendant, who returned with a satellite phone. I said, “Thank you, now I can call my physician.

“She looked at me sternly. “You’re not calling your doctor,” she said. “I’m calling ourdoctor.” We were stunned. I muttered something about Kathy Bates as that “cockadoodie” Annie Wilkes in “Misery.”

The attendant riffled through a manual the size of a September Vogue, called something like “The Airline Book of Rules and Regulations.” Then she called Good Samaritan Hospital…in Phoenix, Arizona. Sitting agog we listened to her describe my symptoms: heartburn, nausea, discomfort, anxiety. “He wants to know your age,” Annie Wilkes said.

Ms. Marchetto, if you would have done a bit of research you would have found that the “Vouge” like manual is usually called the “InFlight Emergency Manual” or sometimes the “InFlight Manual.” Each and every flight attendant out there today is required by FAA regulations to carry their own updated copy of this manual. This manual has policies and procedures for each and every situation and a possible remedy. Our Manual, at my airline, has the information listed on how to dial MedLink from the “Satellite Phone.” Now, about that. Passengers are not allowed to use our phone either, especially to call their Doctors. Once inflight any medical situations are handled by MedLink. We have “MedLink” check lists which we must complete before and during our call to Phoenix. The flight attendant was following procedure. The Doctor on the ground whom answers the call at the hospital in Phoenix assumes the liability for treating the passenger and can walk the flight attendant through treating the passenger if no nurses or Doctors are present.

She wasn’t being rude, mean or unsympathetic by asking your age it’s simply procedure.

“I have to listen to what the Good Samaritan Hospital doctor tells me,” said Annie [the flight attendant].

This is true! If the Doctor on the ground advises us to do something, or not to do something in this case, then that’s what we do! We don’t go against their advice, they are now the treating physician.

“We’re almost halfway home, Mom,” I said, relieved. “Wake me when we land.” A few minutes later, she nudged me out of slumber, and said, “Look up on the monitor.” We were en route to Shannon, Ireland.

My mom jumped up from her seat to find Annie Wilkes. “Turn the plane around! She said she’s feeling better!”

And? What if your condition worsens? The decision to divert is made by the Doctor’s at MedLink and the Captain. Not your Flight Attendant from hell. Ms. Marchetto, before you attempt to give flight attendants, a first responder in your situation, a bad name why not do your research first? Was she mean during the process? I don’t know, I wasn’t there to hear her tone of voice and see her body language. However, did she follow procedure and do all that she could, legally? Absolutely.


blog advertising is good for you
  • http://bethblair.com Beth Blair

    You are absolutely right. The flight attendant followed procedure. Period. Had the passenger actually been having a heart attack and the flight attendant did nothing – then what would the angle of the WSJ piece been? I bet a lawsuit would have been mentioned. 

  • Anonymous

    this woman is a moron. thank you for writing this!

  • User47

    Excellent response.

  • Allan Bird

    So the procedures, as you describe them, are ineffective and costly, but that’s okay because they protect the airline from lawsuits while creating significant inconvenience for all of the passengers on the plane.  There are two types of errors that the airline can make.  Type 1 Error — the passenger is actually suffering from a heart attack, but the airlines listens to her and to the nurse who also examined her on the flight.  She dies or is physically harmed in some way, and they are liable.  I get understand that.  Type II Error — the passenger is not having a heart attack but airline protocols require that she be treated as having a heart attack.  In this case, the airline incurs significant operational costs, delays and significant passenger inconvenience and frustration.  From what you describe, the airline has no way of addressing Type II Errors, which was exactly the type of error that occurred in this case.  The passenger exhibited and expressed severe physical discomfort.  The flight attendant treated it as though it were a heart attack because protocol requires that she do so, BUT it wasn’t a heart attack and all of the attendant costs of a Type II Error were incurred.

    A more appropriate airline protocol would acknowledge the possibility of both types of errors and have incorporated sufficient flexibility to reduce the risk of both.  That it chooses not to do so, in the process incurring significant costs and passenger inconvenience is emblematic of bureaucratic mindlessness and litigial timidity.  It’s not the passenger that is the moron in this case.

  • http://upupandagay.com Bobby Laurie

    And my point is that it’s not the flight attendant either, for doing her job as she was taught and told to do so. The original author’s issue should with with the airline, not its employee.

  • http://upupandagay.com Bobby Laurie

    THANK YOU for reading this! :)

  • http://upupandagay.com Bobby Laurie

    Thanks!

  • http://www.thesegoldwings.com/ Jet

    I don’t see what the pax is in such a huff about! Forget for a second that they wanted to speak to their doctor as opposed to Medlink (my airline follows the same regulation under Transport Canada, btw). They were in such a state that they needed to call a hospital from the plane. It’s only logical that any doctor would say divert just for that reason. IMO calling Medlink is the safer option anyway; those doctors are trained in aviation medical situations, and know better when to land and when to carry on.

    Either way, the rules (thankfully) are “Better safe than sorry”. Not knowing if this could be a serious situation the doctor made the right call in choosing to land the plane.
    The part that gets me is how the pax is suddenly feels fine as soon as they realize they’re diverting. Either they care more about getting to their final destination than their own well being, or they were making a bigger deal about a stomach ache than it was worth.In short; I agree with you Bobbie. The flight crew did their job, did it by the book, and did it well. Thanks for the write up!

  • Dianalynnwelsch

    Maybe her next article can be about her apology to the airline, crew, and passengers.

  • http://upupandagay.com Bobby Laurie

    I agree! The flight attendant needs one at least!

  • FredStone

    The story that Marisa Acocella has written about is one of the main issues in our country.   People feel that everyone else should be responsible for them – but not them themselves.
    Marisa should have never had the spicy meal the night before – knowing the potential problem she could have.

    Then once on the aircraft when she started feeling the pain – she should have gotten off the plane prior to them backing it out of the gate.

    I’m sure that all airlines have procedures and this is what the flight attendant followed – if not she would be fired or certainly reprimanded.

    Marisa has the balls and stupidity to write this – when she should be ashamed of her own actions.

    Suggestion Marisa – how about you wearing a big billboard saying “I’m too stupid to be responsible for myself – help me not do stupid things to myself, my mother taught me to be this way and is also stupid.

    This flight attendant needs a public apology and IF it were something more serious you’d be thanking her, the airline, the captain over and over again.

    ……

  • Anonymous

    I think the article could’ve been written by her fellow passengers, “The Passenger from Hell.”  Ms. Marchetto owes a huge apology to them.  I wrote about her in “It’s All About Me.”  http://www.idontgetit.us/2012/01/its-all-about-me/

  • Marjie

    Thank you. I was thinking the same exact things as I read the article. People need to do their research first before blaming the flight attendants for everything. 

  • Marjie

    Well said!! That was the first thing I thought of when I read this article! “Why WOULD you eat that spicy spaghetti dish and NOT bring the medicine you know helps your condition?”. I will never, ever understand the phenomenon of people thinking that everyone ELSE is to blame for THEIR problems. 

  • http://electradaddy.com ElectraDaddy

    Everything could have been avoided had the passenger simply brought her medication. Seems to me she has to accept the consequences of not doing so.