Actually, there was a study earlier this year[0] which showed, with better data and more rigorous treatement of the fluid dynamics, dropplets can travel much farther than previously thought. [1] has a summary of the research, in case the article is not available. But their basic conclusion is that, depending on the size, droplets can travel up to 200 times farther than previously thought, because they are carried along with the "cloud" associated with the sneeze.
[0] http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag...
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/09/sneeze-cloud_n_5110...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/205151
In that study, 11 of 15 hand-contact exposures to a rhinovirus led to infection, which is not 80%, but it's within the margin of error. Notably, it was almost as good as large-particle aerosol exposure at spreading the virus.
But yes, the important point is that you don't need an airborne virus for a pandemic. Every virus is different, but there's this public fixation on "airborne" transmission that is a bit of a red herring. Ebola is doing just fine without it.
Yes, a pandemic can occur even if the pathogen is not transmitted through there air - see HIV/AIDS.
Airborne and droplet spread make for fast spreading and hard to control epidemics. If something spreads through bodily fluids only, it's easier to do contact tracing and put the right measures in place. I think that's what people want to highlight if they say that Ebola is not airborne.