Temperature checks for crew and pax
03-27-2020, 09:17 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 770
Temperature checks for crew and pax
Throwing this out there for discussion.
It seems like one of the first observable signs of infection is a temperature. The biggest risk to crews and passengers is pilots contracting the virus from the other pilots, flight attendants contracting from passengers and passengers contracting from other passengers.
Wouldn't be perfect, but what about using one of those touch free thermometers to check everyone about to board the airplane?
If a passenger, pilot or flight attendant has a temperature, they would be denied boarding.
Would give everyone one more level of confidence.
It seems like one of the first observable signs of infection is a temperature. The biggest risk to crews and passengers is pilots contracting the virus from the other pilots, flight attendants contracting from passengers and passengers contracting from other passengers.
Wouldn't be perfect, but what about using one of those touch free thermometers to check everyone about to board the airplane?
If a passenger, pilot or flight attendant has a temperature, they would be denied boarding.
Would give everyone one more level of confidence.
03-27-2020, 09:20 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 438
I asked something similar on skynet. I asked about requiring crew members to get temp checked upon check in. Said the logistics would be too challenging as a lot don’t check in on Ops pc’s. They figured out how to do it for anyone going into HQ
03-27-2020, 09:24 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 770
Originally Posted by 53x11
I asked something similar on skynet. I asked about requiring crew members to get temp checked upon check in. Said the logistics would be too challenging as a lot don’t check in on Ops pc’s. They figured out how to do it for anyone going into HQ
How hard would it be for every gate agent to have a touch free thermometer?
You could screen everyone that would be on that airplane.
03-27-2020, 09:31 AM
#4
Rerouted On Weekends
Joined APC: Oct 2015
Position: 717A
Posts: 2,937
Originally Posted by casual observer
I get that, but the better decision point is at the gate.
How hard would it be for every gate agent to have a touch free thermometer?
You could screen everyone that would be on that airplane.
How hard would it be for every gate agent to have a touch free thermometer?
You could screen everyone that would be on that airplane.
03-27-2020, 09:40 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Position: Representing the REAL Delta
Posts: 857
Originally Posted by casual observer
I get that, but the better decision point is at the gate.
How hard would it be for every gate agent to have a touch free thermometer?
You could screen everyone that would be on that airplane.
How hard would it be for every gate agent to have a touch free thermometer?
You could screen everyone that would be on that airplane.
1) Denied boarding is lost revenue and will create a level of ill will from the customers stand point later on. Especially if it’s a false positive.
2) False positives will occur and with re-crewing, delays will occur.
3) Pilots and flight attendants are a dime a dozen because of the schedule reduction. Replacing a sick us would be easy....the folks in HQ, not so much.
4) Taking temperatures requires someone to do that and deal with a resultant high temperature. That equals payroll. The equipment also costs money.
I like the idea, don’t get me wrong, but see it like a bean counter. No matter what people think, the Delta family mantra is about money, not you or I.
03-27-2020, 09:45 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 770
Originally Posted by cornbeef007
Because of money...It isn’t Deltas job to contain this and management knows it.
1) Denied boarding is lost revenue and will create a level of ill will from the customers stand point later on. Especially if it’s a false positive.
2) False positives will occur and with re-crewing, delays will occur.
3) Pilots and flight attendants are a dime a dozen because of the schedule reduction. Replacing a sick us would be easy....the folks in HQ, not so much.
4) Taking temperatures requires someone to do that and deal with a resultant high temperature. That equals payroll. The equipment also costs money.
You have to see it like a bean counter.
1) Denied boarding is lost revenue and will create a level of ill will from the customers stand point later on. Especially if it’s a false positive.
2) False positives will occur and with re-crewing, delays will occur.
3) Pilots and flight attendants are a dime a dozen because of the schedule reduction. Replacing a sick us would be easy....the folks in HQ, not so much.
4) Taking temperatures requires someone to do that and deal with a resultant high temperature. That equals payroll. The equipment also costs money.
You have to see it like a bean counter.
If we decided that it would be significantly beneficial, we could make it happen.
The question is: would that be something worthwhile in terms of crew and passenger confidence and spread mitigation?
Or would it be more trouble than it's worth? I'm open to either argument.
03-27-2020, 10:20 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,027
Yes, temperature checks. Anyone found with a temperature is considered a sick leave abuser because they refused to use their sick leave and endangered us all. Time is taken from their sick leave bank and used to compensate the rest of the crew. They are sent home unpaid for their attempt to ruin the Delta brand and damage the goodwill of the company.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
