Russian Airlines Defending from Pregnant Women

Nat · Post by **Nat** » 28 Sep 2007, 12:48

Some Russian air carriers derogate pregnant women from their rights, according to human rights defenders. A number of airlines compel heavily pregnant women to go through a compulsory medical checkup, and in some cases even do not allow them to go aboard plane http://www.russia-ic.com/news/show/4840/

fcw · Post by **fcw** » 28 Sep 2007, 12:54

Almost all airlines worldwide have the same policy: medical certificate required after more or less 7 months.

b720 · Post by **b720** » 28 Sep 2007, 12:58

heavily pregnant women are not supossed to be flying in the first place...

Nat · Post by **Nat** » 28 Sep 2007, 13:10

fcw wrote:Almost all airlines worldwide have the same policy: medical certificate required after more or less 7 months.

Yes, but the problem is that in Russia the law about air transportations does not contain any direct notices about pregnant women in particular. In this case what our airlines do is their internal laws and regulations, not the federal laws which means that in fact passengers are not obliged to be aware of them and to follow them. See the point?

Nat · Post by **Nat** » 28 Sep 2007, 13:11

b720 wrote:heavily pregnant women are not supossed to be flying in the first place...

What if she needs to fly even if she is not supposed to?

fcw · Post by **fcw** » 28 Sep 2007, 13:42

Nat wrote:[Yes, but the problem is that in Russia the law about air transportations does not contain any direct notices about pregnant women in particular. In this case what our airlines do is their internal laws and regulations, not the federal laws which means that in fact passengers are not obliged to be aware of them and to follow them. See the point?

No, I don't see the point. Airlines have terms and conditions which you have to accept when you buy a ticket. They can't go against laws, but they can be more restrictive.

TUB001 · Post by **TUB001** » 28 Sep 2007, 13:42

Nat,

It's absolutely not a question of laws and all that stuff. For once, Russian airlines have a good point on this. "Heavily" pregnant women shouldn't be flying, point. It's a question of medicine.

Regards

fcw · Post by **fcw** » 28 Sep 2007, 13:46

Nat wrote:
b720 wrote:heavily pregnant women are not supossed to be flying in the first place...
What if she needs to fly even if she is not supposed to?

Nat, I can already imagine the tittle of your post when an airplane had to make a overweight landing due to medical emergency because of a pregnant woman...
It would sound like: " Pregnant woman puts live of 300 people at risk"...

b720 · Post by **b720** » 28 Sep 2007, 14:00

I don't see the relevence of this post.. the law says that you can not be heavily preganat and fly (i think 7 months)... a woman does not wake up one morning finding herself 7 months pregnant.. she can make sure that she will not have to fly after her 28 week of preganacy.. if she really must travel she can take, train, car, bus etc..

Nat · Post by **Nat** » 28 Sep 2007, 14:25

TUB001 wrote:Nat,

It's absolutely not a question of laws and all that stuff. For once, Russian airlines have a good point on this. "Heavily" pregnant women shouldn't be flying, point. It's a question of medicine.

Regards

Hmmm... Actually it was written from a lawful point of view, not from a medical one. Concerning medicine: even if a doctor gives a pregnant woman a document confirming that she can fly on a plane, who still can guarantee that the labour does not start during the flight?

I think here is the topic that lays beyond the normal frames of "right-wrong"...

Nat · Post by **Nat** » 28 Sep 2007, 14:27

b720 wrote:I don't see the relevence of this post.. the law says that you can not be heavily preganat and fly (i think 7 months)... a woman does not wake up one morning finding herself 7 months pregnant.. she can make sure that she will not have to fly after her 28 week of preganacy.. if she really must travel she can take, train, car, bus etc..

What laws say that? European ones?
Like i said before, the Russian laws do not mention pregnant woman in particular.
Using bus, train? You know, there are different situations. Sometimes people (including pregnant women) may need to be somewhere within the shortest period of time.

Nat · Post by **Nat** » 28 Sep 2007, 14:29

fcw wrote:
Nat wrote:[Yes, but the problem is that in Russia the law about air transportations does not contain any direct notices about pregnant women in particular. In this case what our airlines do is their internal laws and regulations, not the federal laws which means that in fact passengers are not obliged to be aware of them and to follow them. See the point?
No, I don't see the point. Airlines have terms and conditions which you have to accept when you buy a ticket. They can't go against laws, but they can be more restrictive.

Yes, it comes so that the internal regulations of our airlines prohibit pregnant women do what the federal laws allow.

b720 · Post by **b720** » 28 Sep 2007, 15:09

read IATA regulations... unhindered travel up to 28th week of pregnancy, after which the pax must ALWAYS have a doctor's certificate stating good health, and date of expected delivery.. PAX NOT to fly, 4 weeks before expected delivery date.. IATA leaves it to airlines to implement regulations as they see fit, they only give guidelines i.e. laws differ depending on the airline.. Hence a preganant pax must always consult the airline before booking..

chornedsnorkack · Post by **chornedsnorkack** » 28 Sep 2007, 17:21

Can an airline have a policy, as part of their terms and conditions, not to transport any Negroes? Not to transport any Jews? Not to transport any known or suspected homosexuals?

Sure, there may be good reasons why carrying a passenger who is pregnant, or otherwise sickly, or somehow disabled, or fat, or tall can be dangerous, uncomfortable or offensive to other passengers.

But can an airline make up their own rules on those matters/refer to IATA, which is a private organization and cannot make laws? Or does an airline actually need a law valid in the country having jurisdiction spelling out what grounds they may have to refuse service?

Nat · Post by **Nat** » 29 Sep 2007, 09:45

The most amazing thing is that pregnancy is not an illness, and not a disease, but treated as if it is. Being pregnant is natural and does not mean being ill. I still see it as discrimination and am sure that airline`s regulations that do not corellate with the country`s federal laws are invalid.

Why do not airlines prohibit transportation of persons having a flu or cold, who can be sneezing and coughing during the whole flight and infect other passengers? Sure, people with a flu or cold can hide their state while a pregnant woman can`t.

And how about passengers with tuberculosis? They may be sitting next to you on a plane and you won`t even know that you`re under risk. But why only pregnant women must have a medical checkup before a flight? Shouldn`t all passengers go to the doctor before a flight in order to prove they do not have any dangerous infections that can be caught by other passengers? Or a pregnant woman is more dangerous than a person infected with tuberculosis?

It would be also reasonable to ban flights to people with serious heart diseases. What if a heart attack occurs during a flight, it also may result in forced landing and be uncomfortable to other passengers.

Aviation24.be

Russian Airlines Defending from Pregnant Women

Russian Airlines Defending from Pregnant Women

Grounds to refuse carriage