Parents Humiliated as British Airways Removes Them From Flight Over Baby’s Insect Bites

A couple traveling with their one-year-old son to attend a family wedding in London claim they were made to feel like criminals after they were booted from a British Airways flight in Shanghai because their baby had a mystery rash.

Arthur, 34, and his wife Xun Sun, 35, along with their son Joseph, had been looking forward to getting onboard the British Airways flight from China to London Heathrow earlier this month, but just minutes before takeoff, they were escorted away from the gate as all the passengers looked on.

“We were treated like we had done something wrong”

The couple says that Joseph just had insect bites and a rash from where his diaper had been rubbing the skin. They went public over the May 1 incident because they don’t understand why British Airways would want them to get a ‘fit to fly’ certificate from a local doctor before allowing them on a 14-hour ultra-long-haul flight.

“It was nothing more than swollen bites. At the [check-in] desk, they asked loads of questions after they saw the bites, and so we told them about his mild peanut allergy,” Arthur said.

“The medical staff at the airport said to apply some ointment and wait 10 minutes – which we were happy to do.”

Arthur and Xun thought that might be the end of the matter but they soon discovered that the British Airways staff in Shanghai were taking the rash a little more seriously.

“The BA staff said we needed to call their medical advice line. They thought his peanut allergy was the cause – so they didn’t want to take the risk,” Arthur continued.

“His bites were actually going down by this point, and my son was completely fine. But as we were speaking, the staff were already unloading our suitcases. We were treated like we had done something wrong.”

British Airways staffers contacted a 24/8 medical advice hotline to ascertain whether Joseph could fly, but the doctor wasn’t able to give a definitive answer so advised that Arthur and Xun get Joseph seen by a doctor and obtain a so-called ‘fit to fly’ certificate.

Once the couple had obtained the fit to fly certificate, British Airways would be able to rebook them on the next available flight, but Arthur and Xun decided to buy new tickets for a flight later the same day with another airline in order to avoid missing the family wedding.

They are now seeking a refund for the £3,000 they spent to fly with British Airways.

Arthur remains perplexed over the rationale used by British Airways for refusing to let their son travel without him first being seen by a doctor.

“I find it strange that someone else in a different country can speak to an airport staff member who isn’t a medical professional and diagnose and refuse boarding without seeing the rash,” Arthur said.

“When you pay for a service you expect to be treated like a customer, not like a hinderance. It felt like they thought ‘they’re not flying, just get rid of them’.”

Joseph may have been bitten by bed bugs or mosquitos at the hotel the family was staying in the night before the flight, and thankfully, a doctor was able to confirm that the rash was just an insect bite and could be treated with antihistamines.

British Airways has defended it’s decision, saying in a statement: “We take the safety and well-being of our customers very seriously and do everything we can to support them when issues like this arise.”

“This includes accessing specialist medical advice to assess an individual’s suitability to travel, which is what happened in this case.”

Matt’s take – This sounds like a textbook example of an airline trying to do the best thing for their passengers

What’s my take on this as an experienced flight attendant who really wouldn’t want to see distraught parents trying to care for a sick baby on a 14-hour flight?

No one wants an inflight medical emergency at 38,000 feet, especially on an ultra-long-haul flight, flying over remote high terrain with very limited diversion points to get someone to the hospital.

While this sounds like a really inconvenient incident for the family, it only sounds reasonable that a third-party medical advice service would say to British Airways airport staff something along the lines of, ‘Actually, we can’t properly assess this rash, so we can’t say whether Joseph would be safe to fly.’

In that kind of situation, I personally think British Airways should be congratulated for refusing travel until a ‘fit to fly’ certificate has been obtained.

Sometimes, however, airlines just can’t win. Last month, the son of an American Airlines passenger who tragically died on a regional flight to Durango–La Plata in Colorado sued the carrier, arguing that gate agents should have noticed he looked unwell and refused to let him board.