When I travelled with THAI last time, something strange happened at the check-in desk.

The woman in front of me in the TG check-in row was not allowed to check-in. I noticed that she was pregnant (big time).

She started to argue with the TG staff, who told her that pregnancy over 7 months prohibits travelling with THAI. The pregnant Thai woman was not allowed to check in. And I tell you she was very pissed about the TG staff!

What is the reason? To minimize the risk that someone gives birth during a flight?

I am just curious, is this a new rule? Or just THAI's rules? Or is it maybe a global rule?

I think it's a rule for most airlines - probably a pretty wise one too. I wouldn't let anyone I know fly in that condition (pregnancy is stressful enough on the body, as is flying particularly long-haul) .....I'd hate to have a heavily pregnant woman sit next to me on a flight....quick boil some water, get some towels!!!

I believe it is a global rule, but airlines have different standards as far as how pregnant a woman can be and still fly.

For example, a lot of Koreans fly down here to Saipan to give birth to little US Citizens. They seem to arrive soon before the birth via Asiana. (Maybe they wear those big flowing Korean dresses?) But Continental and NW won't fly anyone who is in their 9th month.

It can cost up to $80,000 to divert an aircraft in a medical emergency. Not to mention the hassle to the other passengers. You'll find more tolerance on short domestic flights than overseas flights.

cv

A lot of airlines have 2 standards: between x weeks and y weeks, you need a Doctor's letter to say you're not about to drop. After y weeks, they just refuse to fly you.

I think that most of them refuse you around 32 weeks so Thai may be stricter than others but they are by no means unique.

It's all in the small print so you'll probably find that the lady didn't even get a refund...

Many airlines introduced rules after an incident in the States in 1986. A woman went into labour the birth was complicated the child died. She sued saying that if the staff had been properly trained the child would have lived. Only a pedtitrician could have saved the child. The rule was the response of most airlines some even less than 7 months.

3rd trimester rule - for her safety and course the airline's expense.

Doctor's letter will generally just confirm the current duration of the pregnancy - and not make any further representations (he doesn't want to end up legally liable)

All of this is perfectly routine.

totally a safety rule......for her and the kid and then the airline.......it is well advertised....

But how are they the staff going to tell if someone is pregnant and how long into it?

Well its an honour system. I dare say probably in the fine print if you happen to be preganant and plane is diverted because of your condition you'll be held liable for the costs.

what if the woman is obese, its sometimes impossible to tell if an obese woman is pregnant

Anyone else heard the old wife's tale about Thai. If a women gives birth on one of thier flights , the baby is rewarded with free flights in later life for bringing the airline good luck . My mother-in-law reckons it's true but like I say, sounds like total BS to me.

I think this is a good rule, as my wife has had 2 miscarriages from flying long haul, these were with thai, bangkok to london, the first flight had to divert to moscow, and we were stuck there for a few days, in the middle of feb, my travel insurance paid for the hospital etc, also the 2nd time she had a miscarriage on the way to Thailand, i told her not to fly and so did the Dr, but she would insist, the 3rd time she was pregnant she was supposed to fly to Bangkok in july 2002, i cancelled it, now we have two daughters with the youngest three year of age.

Anyone else heard the old wife's tale about Thai. If a women gives birth on one of thier flights , the baby is rewarded with free flights in later life for bringing the airline good luck  . My mother-in-law reckons it's true but like I say, sounds like total BS to me. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's true. The most recent time I can recall it happening was on a flight from Japan to Bangkok a few years ago. Huge picture spreads in all the English and Thai-language papers and the newborn babe was snowed under with scholarships, free flights for life and other goodies. The (Thai) mother gave the baby the same name as the one given the aircraft.

It's a very good rule, the safety of the mother and the unborn child is most important, then the inconvinience to the other passengers with a unsheduled stop and the cost to the airline.

Also there is the consideration of a passenger being able to egress the aircraft in a safe and expedient manner in the event of an emergency.

Grinchy I know but...

Wish the airlines would extend that to babies under 2 years.

Sick of being on flights with them screaming solidly for hours and hours.

Or at least build a coner of silence down the rear of the plane.

Also there is the consideration of a passenger being able to egress the aircraft in a safe and expedient manner in the event of an emergency.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Anyone else heard the old wife's tale about Thai. If a women gives birth on one of thier flights , the baby is rewarded with free flights in later life for bringing the airline good luck  . My mother-in-law reckons it's true but like I say, sounds like total BS to me. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It sounds like an urban myth

Grinchy I know but...

Wish the airlines would extend that to babies under 2 years.

Sick of being on flights with them screaming solidly for hours and hours.

Or at least build a coner of silence down the rear of the plane.

I wish some airline would have designated "Family flights". Special flights where parents don't have to worry that their kid might annoy everyone else because the majority of the other passengers would have kids with them too. Movies, and other entertainment could be geared more to kids to keep them occupied. If an airline does a dozen round trips a week, one designated for people with kids would probably fill up fast and be welcomed by both the parents and those who can take mostly kid-free flights thanks to it.

cv

Thai Inter tell me the cut off point for a single birth is 8 months and it is down to the mother to prove the length of pregnancy.

Thai web site has this, so even if less than 8 months you should obtain prior approval from my reading, especially if gate may think you look more.

This requirement has been around as long as I can remember (and sometimes that is a long, long time); with various airlines having such rules.

7.2 SPECIAL ASSISTANCE

Acceptance for carriage of unaccompanied children, incapacitated persons, pregnant women, persons with illness or other people requiring special assistance is subject to our discretion and prior arrangement with us. Passengers with disabilities who have advised us of any special requirements they may have at the time of ticketing, and been accepted by us, shall not subsequently be refused carriage on the basis of such disability or special requirements.

Very good idea

Many parents of today seem to have the view we all love their little darlings!!!,and do nothing about supervising them.

My last holiday to a very expensive hotel in fiji was ruined by two such families.

I suspect many parents would avoid a kiddie flight though.

HMMM

new business coming on

kidfreeflights.com

kidfreeholidays.com

My best mate is married with three,they would love to go on a holiday where they never had to see ,hear kids!!!

Grinchy I know but...

Wish the airlines would extend that to babies under 2 years.

Sick of being on flights with them screaming solidly for hours and hours.

Or at least build a coner of silence down the rear of the plane.

I wish some airline would have designated "Family flights". Special flights where parents don't have to worry that their kid might annoy everyone else because the majority of the other passengers would have kids with them too. Movies, and other entertainment could be geared more to kids to keep them occupied. If an airline does a dozen round trips a week, one designated for people with kids would probably fill up fast and be welcomed by both the parents and those who can take mostly kid-free flights thanks to it.

cv

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The reason women are urged by thier doctors not to fly while pregnant is that there is a real increased risk of DVT ( deep vain thrombosis). Everyone who flys has a slight risk of this as sitting still for long periods of time can cuase fatal clots in the legs, with a pregnant woman this risk is substantially increased, so the airlines are only looking out for the safty of thier passengers.

Pregnant women (especially in the third trimester) should know better than to put thier own lives, plus the life of thier baby at risk.

The reason women are urged by thier doctors not to fly while pregnant is that there is a real increased risk of DVT ( deep vain thrombosis). Everyone who flys has a slight risk of this as sitting still for long periods of time can cuase fatal clots in the legs, with a pregnant woman this risk is substantially increased, so the airlines are only looking out for the safty of thier passengers.

Pregnant women (especially in the third trimester) should know better than to put thier own lives, plus the life of thier baby at risk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would have thought that the reason women in the third trimester were banned from flying was the aircraft presurization. Most aircraft cabins are only pressurized to the equivalent of approx 5000 feet, not ground level. I would think that with a women in late pregnancy, this change in pressure might trigger a miscarriage, or premature labor. That's the last thing an airline wants to happen.

Although I have seen Vietnamese women working in the rice paddys until 24 hours before they went into labor, and then they went back to work again only 2 days after the baby was born. Depends on the woman, I guess.

I wish some airline would have designated "Family flights". Special flights where parents don't have to worry that their kid might annoy everyone else because the majority of the other passengers would have kids with them too. Movies, and other entertainment could be geared more to kids to keep them occupied. If an airline does a dozen round trips a week, one designated for people with kids would probably fill up fast and be welcomed by both the parents and those who can take mostly kid-free flights thanks to it.

cv

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There was a rumour that BA were looking into this a few years ago. They had 2 flights a day from London to New York and were considering making one of them kid-free (and I guess the other kid-friendly). Never heard any more about it though. Shame really...