Jonathan Arthur, 34, and wife Xun Sun, 35, were flying from Shanghai Pudong Airport to London Heathrow for a family wedding when they were told they couldn’t board their British Airways flight
A family was barred from their flight due to suspicions over insect bites on their toddler’s leg.
Jonathan Arthur, 34, and his wife Xun Sun, 35, were travelling from Shanghai Pudong Airport to London Heathrow for a family wedding when they noticed some insect bites on their one-year-old son Joseph.
Upon clocking the bites, they asked British Airways staff at the desk where they could purchase some allergy medication as a precaution.
The couple alleges that the check-in desk assistant called a medical advice hotline who advised them not to board the flight, fearing that the rash around the bites might be a reaction to Joseph’s mild peanut allergy which could worsen during the flight.
The airline staff insisted that the child needed a ‘fit to fly’ letter from a doctor and escorted the family away from the boarding gate, making them feel like criminals.
Have you been blocked from a flight? Email [email protected]
READ MORE: Martin Lewis’ warning to Brit holidaymakers over common luggage item
After being turned away, they spent the entire day at the airport before re-booking flights with another airline, which didn’t require a letter, for that evening.
The bites, no larger than 1cm in diameter, vanished within 10-15 minutes of applying a bite cream and caused no further discomfort to the child, the parents claimed.
Jonathan, a marketing and sales professional from Doncaster, South Yorkshire, currently working in Hangzhou, said: “It was nothing more than swollen bites.”
He added: “At the desk they asked loads of questions after they saw the bites and so we told them about his mild peanut allergy.
“The medical staff at the airport said to apply some ointment and wait 10 minutes – which we were happy to do. But 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. His bites were actually going down by this point, and my son was completely fine. But as we were speaking, staff were already unloading our suitcases. We were treated like we had done something wrong.”
The dual-nationality family had booked return flights at a cost of £3,000 two weeks prior, with the intention to fly back on May 1 for a family wedding on May 3.
Upon discovering four itchy welts surrounded by a pinkish rash and slight swelling on their son’s legs, back and arms during their holiday, parents sought online medical advice.
An e-doctor confirmed that the marks were indeed bites and suggested purchasing antihistamines to reduce the inflammation.
Before heading to the departure gate, the couple queried if they could purchase these medications at an airport pharmacy.
However, the sight of the marks and the mention of medicine linked to allergies prompted the boarding gate staff to summon the airport’s medical personnel and to consult BA’s medical hotline.
Jonathan explained: “The bites just came out red because of the heat, and because he had a nappy on rubbing against them.”
The family hypothesised that their son’s reaction might have been caused by bedbugs or mosquito bites at their accommodation and simply planned to acquire some allergy relief as a precaution.
Jonathan revealed that the airport’s on-site medical team, who were not BA employees, asked if they had any bite cream in their luggage – which they did – and instructed them to use it.
He stated that they informed him that if the bites began to subside within ten minutes, they would be cleared for flight – however, he alleges that a BA medical adviser over the phone vetoed this.
Despite arguing that the bites and rashes were unrelated to his mild peanut allergy, Jonathan and Xun were informed they could not board without a fit-to-fly certificate.
Jonathan said: “BA simply told us we couldn’t fly, gave us a case number and someone to contact about a fit-to-fly letter. We knew the rash had nothing to do with the peanut allergy – the bite was already subsiding after we applied the bite cream.”
They are now liaising with BA and their third-party booking agency to seek a refund. Jonathan expressed: “We felt like criminals – as if we had done something wrong.
“I find it odd that someone else in a different country can speak to an airport staff member who isn’t a medical professional, diagnose and refuse boarding, without seeing the rash.
Sign up to the Mirror Travel newsletter for a
You can get a selection of the most interesting, important and fun travel stories sent to your inbox every week by subscribing to the Mirror Travel newsletter. It’s completely free and takes minutes to do.
“When you pay for a service you expect to be treated like a customer, not like a nuisance.It felt like they thought ‘they’re not flying, just get rid of them’.”
A spokesperson for BA commented: “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. Whilst we appreciate our customer was disappointed with this decision, we never compromise passenger safety.”