Originally Posted by
fastair
I don't believe it's lack of empathy, it's psuedo-elitism. Remember, this wasn't a person, it was a NRSA. The negative posts don't knock the food allergy per se, they knock WHO had the food allergy.
I'm surprised you would write the bolded (emphasis mine), especially considering you work for UA and I assume are sometimes NRSA. You could say they're not a paying passenger, but they're certainly a person. And therein lies the crux. Perhaps I'm oversensitive because I am deathly allergic to peanuts (though I've never had an issue on planes - when people eat peanuts around me, I've always asked POLITELY if they can refrain, and have offered to get them other snacks, and people in general seem to be good, as I've never been refused) and perhaps I'm oversensitive for other reasons, don't know.
I agree that NRSA shouldn't be dictating or asking for seat changes or getting preferential meal, etc. Fine, you're not paying for your seat and that's a part of your contract - free seat for "lesser" rights. But not lesser rights as a PERSON, just as a passenger. A nut allergy is an issue a person faces. Like someone above posted, does an NRSA have to wait on board in event of emergency evacuation until paying pax have de-planed? Although on a lesser scale (and tact could have been different), this falls under that rubric (at least IMO).
Originally Posted by
Miggles
Such customers would probably rather cling to their fear than be corrected and assured by their physicians that their concerns are way overblown. Just take a look at how the anti-vaccine craziness grew to crisis proportions.
And to put this in perspective, the airport that this NRSA used probably has plenty of nut particles in the air already. Furthermore, the seat that she sat in probably has nut crumbs as well. Unless her fellow passenger has the table manners of Cookie Monster, I doubt that she was every in any danger.
This belies a lack of knowledge of how nut allergies work.