Budget airline ‘nearly ruined stem cell op’ - November 21, 2008
A strange follow up to Wednesday’s story of a groundbreaking windpipe transplant: it nearly didn’t happen after an airline allegedly refused to fly stem cells used to make the new windpipe for Claudia Castillo from England to Spain.
The cells, which were used to coat a donor windpipe, were grown in Bristol and then flown to Barcelona. But airline EasyJet refused to carry the stem cells, saying that they were stored in more than 100ml of fluid and therefore breached regulations and were a “security risk”, says Bristol’s Martin Birchall.
“I almost got arrested by armed police. I was so furious, trying to explain months of work,” he says (Sun / Daily Telegraph).
“The clock was ticking. We'd taken the cells out of their culture media an hour before. We thought about driving to Barcelona, but that would have taken too long.”
Eventually Birchall paid for a surgeon friend of one of the research team to fly the stem cells in his private jet (BBC). The university later refunded the money.
EasyJet says “we do not have any record of the request” but it has refunded the cost of the flight (Sky News).
The cells apparently had to arrive in Barcelona within 16 hours of leaving the Bristol lab. Maybe Birchall can count himself lucky. When I last flew EasyJet from Barcelona to London I arrived nearly 12 hours late. And in Bristol.
UPDATE - Just to clarify, in light of the comments this post has attracted: airlines can carry items with more than 100 ml of liquid such as transplant organs. The BBC notes, “The airline had said it would carry the cells, but on the day check-in staff refused”.
Image: Claudia Castillo / University of Bristol
Comments
Stop blaming the airline you statist and instead blame the government for its stupid regulations. Get a clue.
Posted by: Peter Szlachetka | November 21, 2008 04:25 PM
Blaming the airlines for the consequences of fascist government regulation is unfair to say the least.
Posted by: Bryan Morton | November 21, 2008 05:11 PM
Let's put the blame squarely where it belongs, shall we? The airline merely complied with the onerous "security" regulations, which it was required to do, or face severe consequences.
Hint: From whence cometh said "security" regulations, and strong-arm tactics?
Posted by: Jonathon Plimpton | November 21, 2008 05:37 PM
Post-update: Thanks for the clarification, but still, it's the insane regulations that take the decision to use common sense away from airline employees. Instead, we have to hope that each employee has access to and fully remembers each obscure rule for each rare circumstance found in some (probably) huge guidebook filled with bureaucratic nonsense. Of course "random check-in guy" isn't going to take the risk of being wrong if he thinks he could lose his job over it. He'll take the "safe" route...in this case, denying passage because of the rule he does remember.
i.e. Yes, the law didn't specifically forbid this, but it's still partly to blame for what occurred.
Posted by: Brian Cutaia | November 21, 2008 07:46 PM
Sometimes you run into a clerk who insists the exact opposite of company policy. It's good to draw in the supervisor at that point. And if that doesn't work, take out your cell phone and call customer service and let them talk to the sup. Saner and smarter heads will eventually prevail, but sometimes it takes a lot of pushing and prodding.
Posted by: Joe S. | November 21, 2008 08:57 PM
So a guy turns up at an airport with a box, was it a BOMB, was he a terrorist?
It's crazy to think this guy could have just jumped onboard a plane without permission, has he not seen the media, the limit is 100ml Government rules, not the airline!
Posted by: Simon Fox | November 22, 2008 08:35 AM