THIS BULLETIN IS LONG. We know. But it’s important. We urge you to give it a good read.
The February 20th edition of IFS News at Mainline had an article about fume events which we would like to address.
It’s all in the dose, but how can you know?
You may have heard that simply smelling something isn’t an indication of toxicity or harmfulness, and that it’s the dose that counts. That’s kind of a half-truth – especially in occupational health and safety.
Aside from grossly oversimplifying the complicated field of toxicology, this statement fails to acknowledge that workers can only rely on their senses of smell and sight to detect unusual circumstances. These include fume events and their exposure to potentially hazardous substances. It also fails to account for the fact that the employer currently has no controls in place to tell you what you have been exposed to or the dose you’ve been exposed to.
Did the company say science doesn’t support it?
Sure did! Based on one document. But the thing is, in safety, companies can’t just pick/choose from the scientific arguments that suit their bottom lines when the evidence points in different directions!
The GCAQE has a 154-page published medical protocol, written by 16 subject matter experts – including toxicologists – and sanctioned by medical organizations representing over 180 experts from around the world. It includes references to 302 sources. Click HERE to view it.
An employer that truly places safety first, that believes in us winning together, and that understands its role and responsibility towards its workers will always err on the side of caution and adopt a preventive approach until scientific consensus exists, and the tools and processes required (like onboard detection) exist.
In December 2025, courts in France delivered the first final judicial recognition of aerotoxic syndrome as an occupational disease anywhere in the world. The court was explicit: the absence of scientific consensus does not prevent recognition of a causal link when the evidence is substantiated. A court of law has already heard the arguments employers across Canada are making — and rejected them. (Click HERE to read the French decision)
Why do we have a different Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for Mobil Jet Oil II?
It has come to the Union’s attention that the SDS provided by the company for Mobil Jet Oil II is different from the one supplied by the manufacturer, EXXON-Mobil, on its site (sds.exxonmobil.com) as well as from other airlines in Canada and across the world.
The SDS everyone else has says that it can have negative impacts to health. Ours doesn’t.
See the company’s SDS sheet HERE.
See the SDS sheet obtained directly from EXXON-Mobil (manufacturer) as well as other major airlines HERE.
I heard that the term “fume event” isn’t a scientifically accepted term.
Acknowledging that workers don’t always speak like scientists is part of the job in safety! That doesn’t mean that the things they’re describing aren’t real, are silly, or should be minimized. This attempt to dismiss our concerns based on language amounts to them saying this is not worth being taken seriously and is academic and professional snobbery. It’s unbecoming of those whose professions are based on the concepts of listening, protecting and preventing.
Whether we’re calling it oil vapours, fume events, cabin odour events, smell-in-cabin events or stinky sock incidents, it’s all the same: superheated jet engine oil or other substances are entering the cabin air supply when they aren’t supposed to.
They say the air is filtered and exchanged every 3 minutes
HEPA filters trap pathogens – not the fumes generated in fume events. The air IS recirculated every few minutes, but EVEN IF the filters could remove the fumes, that would still mean you breathe them in BEFORE they got filtered out.
It’s unfair and gross of companies to exploit the limited knowledge that crews have of cabin air systems to dismiss concerns.
Did they forget to suggest reporting your illness/injuries?
Oddly, while the employer suggests reporting fume events to the pilots and filing a CAB report, their most recent IFS News article at Mainline omits two crucial reports:
- The Health and Safety Complaint E-report (if you believe there’s a hazard in the workplace)
- The Workplace Illness/Injury E-Report
(These will have different names at RG).
Remember that CAB reports at Mainline are severely de-identified and therefore your safety committees and IFS safety managers will never be able to follow up with YOU, the worker, to ask follow-up questions. A Health and Safety Complaint does allow us to reach out, and for you to refer your alleged hazard to the joint safety committee for investigation. We suggest ALSO filing one for this reason (through the miracle of copy/paste, this is easy to do).
The company’s message implies that fumes are normal and safe.
Let’s be clear: while odours such as fuel, exhaust, or other smells from routine aircraft operations may exist, that doesn’t mean they’re ok. Fuel vapours need to be addressed per your manual. The same goes for diesel fumes, which can be indicative of CO exposure. From a quality assurance and safety perspective, the fact that our employer suggests that these things are “normal” just means that we can and ought to do better.
Airlines have a choice: They can get on the right side of history with cabin fume events, defend their workers’ health and take manufacturers to task for selling them defective products that they’re now stuck with.
Or they can hitch themselves to arguments that resonate about as well as those of the asbestos and tobacco industries. We all know how that played out.
In solidarity,
Your Air Canada Component of CUPE Health and Safety Committee