Originally Posted by
zitsky
Originally Posted by
WineCountryUA
If your are referring to
post 280, no one was forced to move, UA certainty did not require the person to move, a deal was struck and the 2F agrred to move. It could have been 2E that moved. The point, not one was required by UA to move. Agree the person with the allergy has a great motivation to move but they were not directed by UA move or deplane -- options were offered to all with a hope of finding a workable solution for all
The earlier response was wrong, the person would have not been taken off the flight -- if after attempting to find a voluntary solution, all would have been offered the opportunity to change flights.. UA would have not forced anyone to make a change.
And if no one agreed to move, what then???
Then everyone takes there assigned seats or makes a different choice.
If the assigned seating arrangements are more important to the person with the allergy, that is their choice (and same for the pet owner). Neither is required to move (that was the counterpoint I was attempting to make -- neither has rights over the other). Hopefully something can be worked out, but if you are going to be stubborn and/or inconsiderate, that is your choice.
Originally Posted by
SFO 1K
I'm not sure why you are saying I'm wrong. Flight Attendants can remove a passenger who appears too sick to fly or who claims to have a condition (allergy) that would cause them to have a negative reaction to flying in the presence of an animal. It may not happen, but it can happen and the airline would be within their right to do it to keep the passenger from getting sick and affecting the flight operation. Under the Contract of Carriage, Section H - Safety:
- Passengers who are incapable of completing a flight safely, without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight, as well as Passengers who appear to have symptoms of or have a communicable disease or condition that could pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others on the flight, or who refuse a screening for such disease or condition. (NOTE: UA requires a medical certificate for Passengers who wish to travel under such circumstances. Visit UA’s website, united.com, for more information regarding UA’s requirements for medical certificates);
I think reading into the above to allow airline personnel to remove an potential allergic passenger is the stuff of headlines the next day. Note the above refers to a passenger "that could pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others on the flight" which is hardly pertinent to an allergic passenger. And the other phrase "Passengers who are incapable of completing a flight safely, without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight", how is a airline employee to make that determination in the case of a potential allergic reaction? Only the passenger is aware of that.
Can you cite a case where an passenger with an allergy was removed from an aircraft against their will?? I have not heard of an such an incident and I pretty sure it would make the headlines, same as the cases where airlines refused to serve nuts on a plane at the request of nut allergic individual made news.
Again, the original issue is does the allergy passenger or the passenger with the allergen have primary rights, and I still say neither has rights over the other. But hopefully common sense and some cooperativeness with work the issue out. In the end the passenger(s) make need to make a choice but it is their choice,
We are starting to get in OMNI land here, but when equal rights come into play, there is never a perfect answer.