For me the ban on peanuts if a hyper-allergic passenger is on a flight, is NOT the real issue; it is compelling a plane load of people to conform to the problem(s) of a single person.
One similar issue comes to mind:
Should movies/tv programs, which are aired in prime time, have their content geared to the lowest common denominator of their audience, which in many cases are children?
That's a faulty analogy. If you don't want to watch something on TV, you can turn it off, or change the channel. You can't just stop breathing on a plane.
Originally Posted by
Segments
It's not whether the airline serves nuts, it's whether they can prohibit pax from eating the food they carried on board... especially when the notification occurs during/ after boarding.
Why can't they? It's their plane.
To the airlines, this is basically a business decision and nothing more. If they refuse to ban peanuts for an allergic person, they lose a passenger (and their family). If they ban peanuts, then a whole planeload of people complains, but it's highly unlikely that any of them will stop flying that airline because they weren't allowed to eat their peanuts. Therefore, the airline gets more revenue if they ban peanuts when necessary.