percysmith

Haha no, make them BOB, and (unlike peanuts) ban BYOB. How often have you heard of aircraft making an unscheduled landing/diverted due to an passenger who bought too much BOB alcohol to drink?

invisible

Already. Saudia.

OK, ban peanuts. Alcohol. Dogs/cats/pets. Y cabin.

So, where do we stop?

StuckInYYZ

I've been reading this thread with a bit of amusement and dismay.

While the father was prepared (as he should be), he also must take responsibility. With all the allergens out there, what would be left without it? You wouldn't be able to serve anything. Literally. Peanut oil is often used and that can cause peanut allergies... then "nut allergies"... many Asians are lactose intolerant and seafood? Citrus oil/juice (one place I worked had a total ban on any form of citrus on the floor at all times of the day because one person was severely allergic...to the point where even just a hint from someone who was on the floor hours before could trigger it)...

Then as someone mentioned, if you're not informing people early enough, there will be people who can't really make reasonably priced alternatives (you're telling me this after I boarded the plane?)...

Then there are those who have medical conditions like diabetes where they need to keep at least some food near them (and nut-based snacks like trail-mix are quite common)... who is to say someone's allergies are more important than other people's medical conditions?

You want a dry airline? I can understand that. Religious meals? All for it. But the point is there is no way for SQ or any other airline to make themselves hypo-allergenic (as it were). You can only do so much and to ask for more, I just don't see it happening.

(Edited to correct it should be hypo-allergenic, not hyper-allergenic)

carrotjuice

Peanut oil has gone through a refining process that has removed the allergens.

And the alcohol withdrawal by certain airlines has never considered allergy as a potential reason. It's down to religious preferences (in the case of Saudia) or simply cost (like MH).

StuckInYYZ

I have seen people who still have issues when unknowingly consuming peanut products (regardless of the refining... they didn't even know it was touched by nuts or peanuts prior to consuming the food).

As for alcohol, it does make some people sick (not a common allergy). Yes, I realise the majority of the dry airlines are doing it on cost or religion, but the point was that alcohol can be a choice, but if we're going to ensure an allergen sterile environment, it's not going to happen...there will always be someone who is allergic to something on the plane (food product or not). There is only so much that can be done for them (short of building some sort of chamber for them).

yewgene

As fathers, we have to take ownership and responsibility of our kid's condition and health.

If my kids are allergic or sensitive to tobacco smoke, I make the effort to choose a non-smoking hotel when travelling overseas. Same, if one knows that their kids are allergic to peanuts, there is a need to make that same effort to choose an airline that is nut-free (if any). FWIW, SQ has made it very clear in their website that they cannot guarantee a nut-free cabin. With this information on hand, such parents would and should consider other airlines that can cater to their needs.

Asking for a complete ban on nuts or seeking compensation when one has not done its due diligence? That's absurd.

percysmith

Were the Daleys asking for a complete ban, or compensation?

puddiemel

The mom said something to the effect of "All they have to do is just stop serving peanuts … and there's so many snacks." Pretty high-handed there IMO.I.e. "it's all about my kid.."

And they've lodged a 'formal complaint' which indicates they're seeking compensation of some sort though IMO the airline did nothing wrong.

garykung

What happens with nut allergy is foreseeable. All others may not.

Beside - as a caution, some airlines did deny boarding people with serious health issues without their doctors signing off.

So airlines indeed want to avoid medical emergency diversions as many as possible.

percysmith

Yes I amended my comments on foreseeability. But on the same line of thought (convenience and foreseeability), SQ can reinstate smoking also just as long as they'd state on some webpage they allow it.

Yet that is not calling for a complete ban on others bringing peanuts/using peanut oil/growing peanuts as ornament in the first class cabin...

Complaint without compensation http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/catha...l#post28586420

davidj1

Hypothetically let them...

Lets say a reasonable person was allergic to cigarette smoke, to the point they could die, they could:

1. Do research. Does SIA allow smoking? Yes. Therefore they could consider other airlines that prohibit smoking, and avoid SIA.
2. If a person continued to choose SIA, they could safely assume there would be smokers and therefore cigarette smoke on the aircraft. Assuming otherwise could be a deadly mistake.
3. A reasonable person would therefore be prepared. Epinephrine Injector, face mask, oxygen tank (?), seating in the non-smoking area on the aircraft, liaise with SIA on the best approach for the situation as they have a 'special need' (ie what else can they do for their special need on board SIA).

4a. Board the aircraft prepared; or
4b. Board unprepared; and

5. Get home and lodge an official complaint that smokers were on my flight, and approach the media and complain about SIA, how they allowed smoking, and how they almost died.

natbam

I think this shouldn't be SQ's problem and neither do I think that SQ should stop serving peanuts just to accommodate to 1 passenger. The parents are completely unreasonable to think that the whole world should stop eating peanuts just because their kid has an allergy. Pick a different airline then.

Troopers

Yes. The "cost" of inconvenience 100+ paxs is a person's life.

No and no, both are unreasonable. Again, airlines should make a reasonable attempt. Not serving nuts and prohibiting other paxs from bringing nuts is not unreasonable.


Lol, now we're getting ridiculous.


Responsibility for safety and comfort.

Troopers

For all nut suporters (no pun intended), please explain/justify policies re durian juxtaposed against policies re nuts.

percysmith

I can answer that one - it's never been allowed, so why allow it now? Regimented lockstep.