WR Cage

I loved the part where Huyer mentioned that nuts are not served on United and have not been served on United for years.

Has she been on UA international J in the past two years or looked at the Snack pack contents?

International J has warm nuts after take off. The Choice Snack box has almonds and the a la carte menu has Salty Nut Mix, Banana Nut Bar.

sfo

Nut free aircraft? First you must take off all the passengers.

WR Cage

The issue before CTA was Dr Huyer's request to force AC to provide a nut free environment throughout the flight so that her comfort is not impacted in any way. While the CTA can force AC to accomodate those with a disability, they cannot force AC to go beyond the basic accomodation requirements. In short, if AC provide a nut free environment on the last row middle seat of the every aircraft, AC has met the CTA accomodation requirements.

Being an international traveller, what Dr Huyer wants is for CTA to force AC to ban nuts from the aircraft so that she can sit in J class or where ever she desires. In one instance highlighted in the CTA ruling, Dr Huer was given the options of sitting in the back econcomy section, not flying at all, or taking her originally assigned J seat. She chose to stay in the J seat and hang out in the washroom during the nut service.

hjohnson

Really, this boils down to the question as to how much the majority should give up in order to accommodate the (very real) needs of a minority.

On the one hand, Air Canada should (and does) have a duty to ensure that her health (and life) is not unduly put at risk. On the other hand, she has to to consider the economic damages to Air Canada, and the reduced enjoyment of the other passengers, are really necessary.

I can completely understand such a person making the request (and Air Canada assisting) if it was a one time event such as visiting an ill family member, once in a lifetime trip, or similar. however, according to a story in the paper, she's making the trip twice a month. She needs to ask herself whether she's really in the right job, and perhaps there is some other, equally fulfilling work that she could do that would place her less at risk, and not adversely affect a large group of people.

RockoHorse

Maybe someone has brought this up already, but I wonder if her work is nut free?

I think it would be interesting to note whether she had already successfully forced her employer to ban them from the premises before she moved on to air canada...

Stranger

These guys operate under the misconception that plane air is bad compared with most elsewhere. Such as houses or offices. When actually the opposite is true.

Which underlines the CTA decision.

Final Approach

Isn't it interesting that the CTA is creating a "Nut Free Zone" to accomodate a person who has an allergy. Yet, forced airlines to carry pets in the cabin and impact those with Animal Allergies (which can be as debilitating) and more reactive to airborne particles then those with a nut allergy.

LeSabre74

Exactly, where does the insanity end. First that fat chick foists the cost for her obesity onto the rest of us who pay for tickets, now this.

RCyyz

That's a fair point, but let's contrast this with a bus driving from YYZ to YUL. There are many places on the road that are very close to a hospital, but there are many places on that same road that are close to nothing but trees.

Or how about a Via train travelling through the Rockies? How is one supposed to divert a train to get to the nearest hospital?

IMHO, Huyer is asking for far too much. In post #56 on page 4 of this thread, YEG Guy points out that a reasonable solution is quite possible. I hope this is what AC will pursue.

OuttaYOW

In total agreement. Pets should be banned form the cabin. Even more ridiculous to exempt them from the no carry-on rules currently in effect. Another example where common sense (and humans) looses to pressure from animal activists and the likes.

Stranger

I have trouble seeing "animal activists" getting involved in this issue. If these pets were seals, who knows, but they aren't. And ditto for loose nuts.

As to the issue proper, to nuts, pets, stinky feet, perfumes all fall more or less in the same category.

Yes they may be a potential issue. But yes the issue can be solved creating a nut-free/pet-free/stinky feet free in the back of the cabin.

Bottom line: plane air filtering is quite effective, no matter what urban legends have to say.

why fly

LOL stink free zone at the back of the plane beside the washroom! YES!

Its time someone steps up in the country and just says NO!

OuttaYOW

Bottom line is, IMO, pets have no place being in the cabin with the paying passengers period. As for the other irritants mentioned above, well we could all think of other practices/situations we would like see banned from the cabin; but that's life, unless you fly your own plane and can call the shots

Stranger

What did pets do to you? Arguably pets are nicer travel companions than stinky feet.

Usually better behaved than your average spoiled brat too.

You would be surprised how often it happens that someone has a pet under the seat in front and that nobody even notices.

OuttaYOW

As I had mentioned, there are other "things" that should be banned or controlled in the cabin also in my view. However, did not wish to elaborate and go further off the nutty topic. And yes, I am allergic to pests (pun intended) even if I may find some cute, their owners should have them fly in the pressurized compartment below - and I am not referring to guide dogs and the likes