The Toxic Air Up There: Airplane Air Quality
Are noxious fluids and poor ventilation affecting the
air we breathe while flying? Air travelers often wonder about the
cabin air on commercial airline flights; flight attendants contend
that it's toxic. Because of the growing number of complaints among
the flight attendant workforce, the Association of Flight Attendants
(AFA) is pushing for tighter federal regulations governing air
quality aboard commercial aircraft.
Toxic Fluids Into the
Air: Hazardous Duty
The AFA, which represents 50,000
flight attendants at 27 airlines, maintains that currently-allowed
levels of carbon monoxide, ozone, and other contaminants put airline
cabin crews' health at risk. Union members at one carrier have
submitted, over a nine-year period, some 760 reports of
symptoms—including headache, nausea, and memory loss—that arose from
exposure to contaminants on planes.
"The significant number
of complaints we get from flight attendants indicates that there is
a problem," says Christopher Witkowski, AFA's Director of Air Safety
and Health. He goes on to say, "The [airline] industry has been very
quiet about this problem until the last three to four years when AFA
research discovered a correlation between these complaints and the
leaks of hydraulic fluid."
In one of the most
widely-reported incidents, Alaska Airlines flight attendants
reported hundreds of instances of people getting ill aboard the
airline's MD-80 planes, which the attendants believed to be leaking
toxic fluids, such as oil. Twenty-six flight attendants sued the
airline in 1998 and were recently awarded a $725,000 settlement.
However, the AFA contends that Alaska Airlines still has not fixed
the problem of hydraulic oil leaking into the air supply aboard some
Alaska Airlines flights. "We are still getting complaints," says
Witkowski.
Airlines Not Cooperating With
Feds
Due to the growing number of complaints and
concerns, Congress last year ordered the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) to study the issue under the Aviation
Investment and Reform Act (AIR-21). The NAS study would be used
to come up with scientifically-based recommendations that the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) could use to write new
air-quality regulations. This information would allow the NAS to
correlate reported illnesses with these records and to determine the
origin of persistent air-quality problems that have plagued the
industry for years—particularly the hydraulic fluids and engine oils
believed to be responsible for causing air quality problems aboard
aircraft.
Unfortunately, the NAS has had difficulty getting
the airlines to cooperate; airlines have refused to provide flight
incident reports and vital information on maintenance. However, Sen.
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) have
expressed anger towards the lack of airline cooperation in the
matter. They co-authored a letter to FAA Administrator, Jane Garvey,
urging her to ensure that the airlines turn over the necessary
information by April 17.
The Stuffy
Skies
Another area of concern is onboard aircraft
ventilation, and currently, there are no set standards for it.
Despite flight attendant and passenger outcry for more breathable
skies, the airline industry is considering a proposal to reduce the
ventilation rates on planes by half, to a minimum of five cubic feet
of fresh air per minute per passenger, instead of the commonly
accepted guideline of 10 cubic feet. The standard on trains and
buses is 15 cubic feet per minute.
Last June, The Wall
Street Journal investigated air quality aboard 11 different
flights on 11 different airlines. The study measured airflow,
bacteria count, mold count, and respirable
particulates/contaminants. The expert findings concluded that
airflow, for virtually every flight measured, was too low for an
enclosed space. Findings also determined that the airflow on the
Northwest, TWA, and US Airways flights was deemed) "too low to
measure." On the Southwest and United flights, the airflow was
deemed acceptable; however, the bacteria count was high. The US
Airways flight had a mold count that was so high that experts said
it could cause problems for passengers with allergies.
"The
airlines are looking at ways to save money," says Witkowski. By
reducing outside air into cabins, airplanes become more fuel
efficient and cheaper to run—the savings can run into millions of
dollars per airline.
Airlines, Manufacturers, and
Governments Contend Air is Safe
In 1994, the Air Transport
Association (ATA) commissioned a study on air in cabins and
found that cabin air systems "exceed the requirements for
maintaining a healthy air quality environment." Furthermore, the two
largest aircraft manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus, have exhaustedly
studied air quality and deemed it very safe. However, because the
airlines and manufacturers did the studies, many have been skeptical
of the findings.
Nonetheless, across the pond, the UK House
of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology released a
significant study in November called Air
Travel and Health, which backs the findings of the ATA study.
The UK study states, "Air travel, like all other activities, is not
risk free. For the very great majority, any risks to health from the
aircraft cabin environment seem very small." However, the study also
criticizes the airlines because they have "woefully neglected"
health issues and because they haven't done enough research into the
problems.
More Needs To Be Done
While the UK
study is suggesting a more proactive approach to health concerns,
some feel that the current U.S. study, NAS's AIR-21, does not go far
enough to ensure the public's health. "AIR-21 is a big
disappointment," says Diana Fairechild, former flight attendant,
author of Jet Smarter, and founder of The Fair Air Coalition (an airline
advocacy group). Ms. Fairechild speaks from the heart. After logging
millions of miles in the air as an international flight attendant,
she became seriously ill. Doctors diagnosed her illness as "chemical
poisoning" triggered by the hazardous environment in
airplanes.
Fairechild says, "AIR-21 contains no requirement
that airlines make any corrections or even follow the new study's
findings a year from now. But the worst part is that on every flight
today, passengers continue to be deprived of fresh oxygen because
AIR-21 delays any protection for them—protection from contagious
diseases such as TB, which can spread in the recycled cabin air, and
from exposure to onboard toxic chemicals."
Nevertheless,
AFA's Witkowski remains positive and says, "We are pleased that the
study is going forward. AFA hopes that the NAS will be able to
obtain all the information it needs to do a complete analysis of the
problem with appropriate recommendations to improve aircraft air
quality."
Click here to return to article index
