Originally Posted by
JerryFF
Honestly, folks, what is the big deal? I really think people object because they feel someone else's needs (or apparent needs) are getting priority over their own.
If this was just about peanuts (i.e. peanuts was the only source of anaphlactic shock), there would be no problem. Ban the peanut would be viable solution However this is not just about peanuts, its about being negatively impacted by all sorts of anaphlactic shock sources (eggs, milk, seafood and shellfish, nuts, peanuts, dogs, cats, etc.).
Further the offered solution (ban the product from the airplane on moments notice) gross exagerates the issue. This allergy issue was studied extensively by the Canada Transport Agency. Findings indicated there is only a concern for the pax seat and those around them. Therefore the solution in Canada is to ban the offending item from subset of the pax cabin. THe allergy buffer zone is about 9 seats and other pax objecting can be reseated. If the pax was seated in row 9A, the following seats have a ban 8ABC, 9ABC, 10ABC, however the DEF seats of these rows are not affected. Gone from Canada are the days where whole airplane has ban on product. This solution was born out of discussions with aircraft manufacturers who designed the airplane air flow. It is scientifically the best option available.