Allergies - when is it too much ?
 

The wife and self have caught 4 different BA flights recently, 2 for me and 2 for her. On one of hers and on both of mine passengers were asked not to consume any nut products during the flight as there was at least one passenger on board with an allergy.

Questions about where all these nut allergic people came from aside (everyone munched on peanuts when I was a kid?) - and while doing without my favorite snack for a few hours is hardly a big deal I am left wondering when all this will become too much. I seem to recall a recent story about a near fight resulting from someone with a “service dog” sitting near someone else with a dog hair allergy. I have a general theory that you know when things have gone too far with special interest groups when their unique requirements start to be at odds with each other.

Is there a point where health concerns, allergies, phobias, the need to have a Great Dane on your lap for that 15 hour flight to NRT and other assorted medical conditions will overload the system ?

I'm afraid I take a view that flights are public transport, you will mix with the public & you are in a confined public place. If you have a condition that means that is a problem for you, then it's precisely that, your problem. This doesn't mean a reasonable request should not be granted.

Airlines have strict liability and will err on the side of caution generally. I can’t honestly see that foregoing nuts for a while is a big deal, and the allergies are not an invention, people do die.

I can remember maybe 2 flights where this was an issue out of hundreds.

Someone with a severe nut allergy may die as a consequence of someone else munching nuts in an enclosed space that there is no easy escaping from once it's at cruise altitude.

Why are there more nut allergies these days is an interesting question, but it may have to do with not quiet as many severe allergy sufferers dying in childhood.

In any case, one should take these things serious - the young lady dying of an allergic reaction to a pret sandwich on a BA flight a few months back is a sad example as to why this is important.

Another long but recent thread on this subject can be found here.

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/brit...ts-please.html

In post 208 of this thread, I recall the story of being delayed 2 hours into AUH, with approx 90 minutes of that due to the fact that a family group discovered that the main CW and WTP meal had almond flakes in it. They were eventually were offloaded since it was a case of choosing between very limited catering for the entire aircraft for 7 hours or removing a family of 6 CW passengers. So at some point the allergy traveller had the worse outcome, it does happen.

The other point I would make to the OP was that though I had two flights in succession with a nut allergy announcement, and a third a week or two later, in July this year, I haven't had a single flight since then where the announcement was made. So while there may be a some increase in this issue, it is by no means a common occurrence. And I've only ever had about 4 guide dogs for the blind in a whole BA flying career, despite living on a route where a blind BA staffer was an occasional traveller, BA doesn't have the "service dog" issue.

To be accurate that unfortunate incident happened in 2016 and the inquest in September 2018 - so not a few months back - and the young lady was allergic to sesame seeds not nuts.

And she directly consumed the item - there was no air contamination. and as BA were apparently not aware of her allergy they could make no announcements etc.

I am sticking to facts with no comment here. I had two flights this month on BA, different routes, where a request was made not to consume peanuts.

Are there a lot more people with allergies than there were back in the old days? Probably.

Are there people pretending to have an allergy? I know of at least one.

But, are people known to die because of peanut allergy? Absolutely. (And didn't a young girl die on a plane recently on BA, although not because of food she had on the plane but that she brought from elsewhere?).

My most personal bottom line is: the risk is there and if to avoid it completely it means I can't snack on the peanuts, I'm perfectly fine with that.

Without making comment, just as a point of reference, I have never heard this announcement over my 79 BA flights, including 32 BA in 2019. In fact never had it on any airline to be honest.

Had it several times on Jet2 flights no BA

Why can’t the needs of someone who needs a service dog (not ESA!) be as valid as someone with allergies? May require either to go on the next flight and that’s ok.

Why do you lump everything else with allergies? Why do you care so much about nuts but so little about someone’s ability to fly, which, granted isn’t a right or anything but it is the only practical way to go decent distances.

Allergies are definitely not « going too far »

I also have a mild allergy to nuts but BA chose to run the announcement on a couple of occasions. I don’t need it but it seems to be common procedure.

I demand taking everyone on FlyerTalk onboard my next flight in F for emotional support.

Numerous researchers have found that people are extremely unlikely to suffer anaphylaxis as a result of exposure to airborne nut dust. I’d ask any person claiming this (to be allergic) how many auto-injectors they carry; if the number is less than two I’d question their personal approach to managing their allergy. (Or is it actually an intolerance?)

The bottom line is that flying with a peanut allergy and being exposed to potential sources of peanut in the cabin is not likely to represent an increased risk to the peanut allergic flier. There is no evidence to support peanut vapor as a cause of reactions or that peanut dust itself circulates and causes reactions. There is evidence that common surfaces on an airplane may have residual peanut contamination, but there is also evidence that this can be readily cleaned with commercial agents that passengers can bring aboard themselves, and that doing such cleaning has been noted to reduce the risk of reporting an in-flight reaction. https://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/peanut-air-travel

As I said, BA and other airlines have strict liability and won't be interested in the finer details of level of risk. If told about an allergy, standard legally agreed procedures kick in.

I sense there's more to this than the actual frequency of event anyway - in about 300 flights over the past 3 or 4 years I can remember maybe 2-3 announcements, and it hasn't been a major issue to forgo the Frit. I like warmed nuts as much as the next guy, but it's not central to my in-flight experience. Most service animals don't cause issues, they're not Great Danes as a rule.

I'd speculate that this is more about feelings about loss of control over events, which underlies a lot of flyer psychology. It gets blown up in peoples' minds because it is yet another something external affecting their personal experience and further reducing their latitude to control what is happening to them, and maybe it feeds a "everything's going to the canine support animals" view of life.

Unfortunately food allergies are a reality, sufferers should not be treated like flat-earthers IMHO. At least BA is making an effort on this unlike many airlines:

https://community.kidswithfoodallerg...-nut-allergies

By contrast, Emirates advice is to consult your doctor before flying and bring your own food:

https://www.emirates.com/english/bef...uirements.aspx

Has anyone ever, anywhere (on an aeroplane or anywhere else), had a severe allergic reaction to airborne nut particles? What about from touching a surface which was previously touched by someone who had nut residue on their hands?

Here is a report from The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology titled "Reactions to Peanut During Air Travel: Can Anaphylaxis Be Due to Inhalation?". https://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/peanut-air-travel

I quote the summary:
From this and other studies I have read (just do a search on Google), it is extremely unlikely that anyone will have a severe reaction to nuts on a plane especially if they take it on themselves to wipe down their table and local area with commercially available cleaning wipes on arriving at their seat. In fact, probably no more likely than when they travelled to the airport by train! I am still open to persuasion to the contrary but I am now of the opinion that to stop the entire plane from eating nuts because of a passenger with nut allergy is over the top and, quite frankly, unnecessary.

Here is another interesting paper on the persistence of peanut allergen: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3599460/

(Note: Sorry I double quoted the AAAAI report. The previous quote was posted while I researched and wrote my post!)

All true, but when my daughter travels, who has a severe nut allergy (all tree and ground nuts), we find the main issue staff is not realising cross contamination as the main risk factor. Serving nuts to one customer and a drink to her without washing hands in between.

Unfortunately nut allergies are just scratching the surface these days. I know of someone who is potentially coeliac but is waiting for the tests. She definitely has a gluten issue, can’t eat certain nuts, egg, certain pulses and seeds, dairy, most types of fish. She’s basically on a limited semi-vegan diet. I’ve seen first hand the problems that any of these foodstuffs cause and it’s extremely unpleasant.

I’ve had the peanut announcement on several flights and I don’t mind it if it keeps everyone safe. Cross contamination is the issue

I would have thought the "main risk factor" is consumption.

I realise that having a severe nut allergy is difficult to manage but if I had one then I would be insisting that CC do wash their hands before serving me. Yes, we all have the responsibility not to deliberately expose anyone with allergies to the allergens but at the end of the day, it is a public transport service: the bulk of that responsibility IMO should rest with the person with the allergy to ensure that safe practices are followed around them. If I was informed I was sitting near someone with a nut allergy then of course I would not eat nuts. But to ask someone at the other end of the plane not to do so is excessive in the extreme IMO. If CC are told someone has a nut allergy then they should, IMO, ensure they properly clean their hands immediate prior to serving that person and if that means serving that person first or last then so be it. I am sure that this could be accomplished without undue disruption to the service as there are never likely to be more than a very few passengers that would require this treatment.

It is about striking a balance that sensibly take into account the risk factors vs the inconvenience of other passengers. IMO banning the eating of nuts for one person with a severe nut allergy seems unnecessary and could be effectively managed in a more balanced way.

On my BA2770 flight last Thursday, there was an announcement about a passenger with severe nut allergies and therefore nuts would not be served (do they ever on those short LGW–JER flights anyway?). The FA then proceeded to say that it would also be appreciated if other passengers would refrain from getting their own nuts out. I will leave you to imagine the reaction of most of the passengers… :-)

It must’ve been the same we had when the IAG office, then still on Bath road, was being picketed by Iberia employees during IB’s restructuring. They circled the building chanting “Willie out!”. That definitely didn’t work out as intended.

I agree it is about balance and consideration for folk with a condition. An allergy that can cause anaphylactic shock must be taken seriously, just as seriously as any disability. There should be a kindness in society to be empathetic to our fellow passengers, as said above, we are all on public transport. I find it incredibly disrepectful to suggest people should 'choose not to fly' if they suffer from a condition or disability that makes it difficult. We as a society should be making allowances so people can perform the same work and have the same freedoms as those who are able-bodied / free of medical conditions. Whether it be allowing service (guide / hearing) dogs, allowing those with mobility issues to board first, allowing those with (unseen) medical bowel or bladder issues to use the CW toilets when they aren't travelling in CW, or not serving warm nuts on a flight. I am glad that there are procedures in place for crew to minimise risk to the passenger and hence disruption to everyone else; I would far prefer to err on the side of caution and have no nuts served.

There has been some attention in the Finnish media this week because earlier this year they shot an episode of the UK version of The Apprentice in Finland some of the contestants have a nut allergy and the cabin crew on Finnair were not as accommodating as the BA crews mentioned earlier in this post and refused to make any special arrangements or announcements telling the rest of the passengers to keep their packets of peanuts and crunch bars tightly closed.
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel...-a9201016.html
The explanation offered by the airline is that Finnair have a lot of flights to Asia and nuts are a common part of the cuisine there and less people have become severely allergic to them, so Finnair don't intend to make the majority suffer on behalf of the few.
From what I've seen the contestants attitude and subsequent attempts to shame Finnair on twitter have not gathered much sympathy in the Finnish media, I think partly because in Finland they're not quite so obsessed with "health and safety" .. playgrounds with slides and climbing frames, seaside cliffs without warning signs and ropes, coffee served hot in cafes etc.

I agree. We should all have respect for those with any special needs. But as I said in my post, it is about what is reasonable and about striking a balance. If we are to ban nuts on a flight then what is different to being on a train? Should we then ban nuts on trains because there is a passenger that has a severe allergy? What about busses? In fact, why not just ban nuts in all public enclosed spaces? Make nuts the new cigarette?

Obviously, I am not serious about that but it does beg the question... what is reasonable and just where does it stop?

In my opinion it should be evidence based. If it is shown that there is an increased risk then there is an argument to banning. However, from what I have read, there is no significant increase in the risk providing sensible precautions are taken by the crew and by the person with the allergy themselves. It doesn't need a blanket ban to make people safe (not that banning blankets would help in any way!!!!! :) ).

There is a simple answer to this... Just don't serve nuts on flights. I have had packs of popcorn or other "nibbles" on flights and although I love nuts (especially the warm ones) I have not blinked an eye. It just isn't important enough to worry about not having nuts.

Take a look at the show Rotten on Netflix, season 1 ep 2 entitled The Peanut Problem. It'll explain a whole lot about the increase in allergies. Great series all-in-all.

Go on, give us a clue! Not the full clinical analysis but a sentence in summary would help.

The first few times I was in Berlin there is a particular playground near one of the bars I frequent. Talking to the bar owner he called it the "danger playground". Children all seemed happy and they were, supervised, making a big bonfire and working with basic power tools.

www.nytimes.com/2016/06/05/travel/berlin-family-holidays.amp.html

I have a fairly significant dog hair allergy. It won't kill me, just produces symptoms akin to a heavy cold... running nose, sneezing, spluttering, watery eyes and so on.

I've no issue with any sort of dog sitting beside me on a flight, as long as the owner/handler has no issues with me potentially sneezing and spluttering over them for the entirety.

In which case win win I'd say.

SQers got over peanut prohibition when it was confirmed peas and crackers snacks will be provided to replace peanuts https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/sing...l#post29701185, and satay will continue to be served. Economic/gastronomic not scientific concerns by passengers.

I have the same with cats. And it starts asa clothes with cat hairs comes close to me. No need for the cat to be present. May I kindly ask BA to make sure that not only nuts disappear from planes but any kind of cat hairs, too?

I have head of a few airlines refusing passengers with sever allergies as it presents too much risk for them

Could a staffer elaborate on what actions (if any), crew would / should take if a passenger completely ignores the request and opens and tucks into their home made peanut butter sandwich. Could be said the passenger is ignoring the valid actions of a member of the crew, or is the request not enforceable.

We all read the DYKWIA stories and if this has not happened, it is only a matter of time?

How many deaths are you prepared to cause by eating nuts on a plane? How long do you think you could cope with not eating nuts, if you know it could cause the death of a fellow passenger? If you think your need for nuts outweighs the need for someone else to live, then you've answered your question. Simples. Why bother asking for other people's opinions to validate your own, if you're sure of own opinion. Because otherwise it just looks like victim-blaming.


If it could cause the death of a fellow passenger, I'd say that's reasonable. I'm just surprised you have to ask that question. What exactly is your issue with assisting those with life-threatening conditions? How much inconvenience are you prepared to put up with to prevent a death?

What's their incentive for doing so? They just like to be a PITA?

Is it just me that thinks if someone has, in this case, a potentially life threatening nut allergy, inserting themselves inside a confined space, for several hours, a long way from professional medical help with a group of strangers who have little understanding of their allergy is playing Russian roulette?

Going on public transport and expecting everyone to cooperate with whatever you desire (don't smell, don't snore, don't drink too much, don't drink too little, open the window blind, close the window blind, bang my legs every time your weak bladder talks) is asking too much IMO.

If the allergy is that severe, consider taking personal responsibility for your own safety.

Puts on Flack Jacket, hard hat and Hi-Viz.

I think conflating what someone desires, and what they need to stay alive is unhelpful in this debate. Talking about smells, snoring et al is inflammatory.

Not every trip is a jolly. People have to fly for all sorts of reasons, and some are more necessary than others. Taking personal responsibility for one's own safety is second nature when you have a life threatening allergy. It's not just a preference. But when there are very minor adjustments that others can do to further reduce the chance of an incident, it doesn't seem too much to ask.

And for the record, I don't have a severe allergy.

I've never had a flight where I knew there was an allergy announcement.

Because I can't hear announcements anyway.

I do wonder what happens when a passenger eats nuts on a flight after they've made an announcement about it. After all, AFAIK the announcement is only a request not to eat nuts, not an edict.

And how would the allergy sufferer prepare for the fact that the airline can announce whatever they like, but you can always count on passengers to disobey; much in the same vein that I never believed that phone signals could noticeably interfere with flight instruments, because there is a near-zero chance that literally every passenger on any given flight turns their phone off just because they're told to. If phones could really bring planes down, they would confiscate them at the door.

Surely for the same reason, if someone's truly so horrendously allergic to nuts that airborne particles can bring about a reaction, they would have no reason to rest assured after such an announcement?

I have had this announcement twice in over 500 flights taken since May 2013 when I started keeping record of such things.

Compare that to the following in the same period;

Three go-arounds, two cancelled flights, one case of a passenger being offloaded by Police, one diversion en-route, two flights missed due to traffic, two connections missed due to late inbounds, one rejected take off.

Yes I know I am very sad keeping such notes. It would suggest in this totally non-scientific sample of one that you are more likely to have a go-around than a nut allergy announcement.

Had this announcement twice on recent flights, then had crew, on both flights serve me with a dish with nuts in it.

Replay in both cased was that the concerned passenger was not in this cabin...
Other option was we would go hungry.