Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > TravelBuzz
Reload this Page >

No Private Peanuts!

No Private Peanuts!

Old Dec 24, 04, 6:45 am
  #46  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Washington, D.C.
Programs: DL GM, UA 1P, AA GLD
Posts: 1,963
I guess I'm sorta snobbish on this topic. If a person is allergic to peanuts, then he/she should never be in a position whereby his/her own health if put in jeopardy by the normal operations of an existing organization. Examples?

Kids with peanut allergies should not be allowed to go to public schools. They should be at schools with kids of similar allergies. Why? Because it is unfair to the 90% of the school kids who enjoy peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and for kvetchy mothers to impose their own child's dietary restrictions on another is selfish and inappropriate.

If I were on that flight, I would have eaten my peanuts irrespective of the FA wishes. It really comes down to a matter of Darwinian philosophy. For many, many years, peanuts were a part of the human diet. Obviously, those allergic to peanuts aren't supposed to survive on a human diet. If these individuals are not capable to putting themselves in a position where they would be SAFE from those who carry on like normal human beings and eat peanuts, they should DIE. Survival of the fittest, my friends. It's one thing to ask the FA to not serve peanuts to that person and to possibly have the seat cleaned of peanut dust. It absolutely inappropriate to ask the entire passenger population not to eat what they may have brought on board because the affected patient is not smart enough to distance himself/herself from such potentially dangerous situations.

Peanut power!
sowalsky is offline  
Old Dec 24, 04, 7:25 am
  #47  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Windermere
Posts: 285
Not so moderate

Originally Posted by sowalsky
I guess I'm sorta snobbish on this topic. If a person is allergic to peanuts, then he/she should never be in a position whereby his/her own health if put in jeopardy by the normal operations of an existing organization. Examples?

Kids with peanut allergies should not be allowed to go to public schools. They should be at schools with kids of similar allergies. Why? Because it is unfair to the 90% of the school kids who enjoy peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and for kvetchy mothers to impose their own child's dietary restrictions on another is selfish and inappropriate.

If I were on that flight, I would have eaten my peanuts irrespective of the FA wishes. It really comes down to a matter of Darwinian philosophy. For many, many years, peanuts were a part of the human diet. Obviously, those allergic to peanuts aren't supposed to survive on a human diet. If these individuals are not capable to putting themselves in a position where they would be SAFE from those who carry on like normal human beings and eat peanuts, they should DIE. Survival of the fittest, my friends. It's one thing to ask the FA to not serve peanuts to that person and to possibly have the seat cleaned of peanut dust. It absolutely inappropriate to ask the entire passenger population not to eat what they may have brought on board because the affected patient is not smart enough to distance himself/herself from such potentially dangerous situations.

Peanut power!

I guess it is a matter of scale. If your peanut orgy is more important to you than a person's ability to attend the local school or feel free to fly and "move about the country" (to extend the Southwest reference), then please proceed with your Darwinian fantasies. You make decisions everyday that don't follow "survival of the fittest" - your simplistic understanding of how this works. Shall we sterilize the idiots?

I imagine that you perceive that you have been an accomplishment of natural selection.

I agree that the peanut thing is a nuisance - I comply but, perhaps like you, wonder where we draw the line to conform to everyone's needs.

Merry xmas,

TPML
typical pm loser is offline  
Old Dec 24, 04, 10:55 am
  #48  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by sowalsky
I guess I'm sorta snobbish on this topic. If a person is allergic to peanuts, then he/she should never be in a position whereby his/her own health if put in jeopardy by the normal operations of an existing organization.
There's a provision called "reasonable accommodation" under the Americans with Disabilities Act that fortunately for thousands of people with life threatening allergies, which are covered by the ADA, that overrules you here.

Originally Posted by sowalsky
If I were on that flight, I would have eaten my peanuts irrespective of the FA wishes. It really comes down to a matter of Darwinian philosophy. For many, many years, peanuts were a part of the human diet. Obviously, those allergic to peanuts aren't supposed to survive on a human diet. If these individuals are not capable to putting themselves in a position where they would be SAFE from those who carry on like normal human beings and eat peanuts, they should DIE. Survival of the fittest, my friends. It's one thing to ask the FA to not serve peanuts to that person and to possibly have the seat cleaned of peanut dust. It absolutely inappropriate to ask the entire passenger population not to eat what they may have brought on board because the affected patient is not smart enough to distance himself/herself from such potentially dangerous situations.

Peanut power!
I think the phrase I want here is "involuntary manslaughter."
SptCA is offline  
Old Dec 24, 04, 11:02 am
  #49  
925
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Programs: Marriott Titanium
Posts: 2,861
Originally Posted by sowalsky
If I were on that flight, I would have eaten my peanuts irrespective of the FA wishes. It really comes down to a matter of Darwinian philosophy. For many, many years, peanuts were a part of the human diet. Obviously, those allergic to peanuts aren't supposed to survive on a human diet. If these individuals are not capable to putting themselves in a position where they would be SAFE from those who carry on like normal human beings and eat peanuts, they should DIE. Survival of the fittest, my friends. It's one thing to ask the FA to not serve peanuts to that person and to possibly have the seat cleaned of peanut dust. It absolutely inappropriate to ask the entire passenger population not to eat what they may have brought on board because the affected patient is not smart enough to distance himself/herself from such potentially dangerous situations.

Peanut power!
Perhaps you should consider that federal regulations require you to obey crew member instructions. Failing to follow their instructions could cause serious issues with you, the airline, and the government.

And I know that it may be difficult to imagine, and certainly hard to agree with, but if someone died due to your disregard for the crew member instruction, criminal charges could easily be filed against you.

I guess your opinion appears to be in conflict with both government regulations and law. If that matters at all.
925 is offline  
Old Dec 24, 04, 12:24 pm
  #50  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 927
Originally Posted by sowalsky
I guess I'm sorta snobbish on this topic.

I don't think 'snobbish' is the most apt word, here.

Your survival doesn't hinge on needing to eat a handful of peanuts during the course of a couple-hours-long flight occurring during one single measly day out of your presumably very long life.

Their's does. Suck it up.
flymeaway is offline  
Old Dec 28, 04, 10:20 pm
  #51  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New York NY USA
Posts: 432
This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. It seems to me that a few years back, the airlines gave away peanuts as a snack on a regular basis. How come nobody died then? Were there peanut allegies then or did this problem develop after the first law suit against the airlines? I wonder how many people have died while flying and eating (or being around peanuts).
PS, I'm mildly allergic to shrimp, but I never turn down the shrimp cocktail in FC. I take my chances. Just like smoking cigarettes, eating McDonalds, driving around with no seatbelt, riding a bike without a helmet, and having sex with out a condom. It's a cold, cruel world out there and eventually we are all going to die sooner or later. If you have a severe allergy to peanuts or anything else that's going to kill you, I suggest you stay home in bed under the covers with a bag full of Epipens. But for crying out loud, stay off airplanes. The nerve of these people to affect the lives of others just so they can fly peanut free. You know what, I'm gonna claim that I'm deathly allergic to travelling in coach and that I must only seat in first class. Look peanut allergy people, if you can't fly around peanuts, rent a Lear jet and make sure it's peanut free. Problem solved!

Good grief, we are turning into a bunch of pansies.

We all have problems, just don't make YOUR problem MY problem.

Last edited by Elite Nomore; Dec 28, 04 at 10:22 pm
Elite Nomore is offline  
Old Dec 29, 04, 12:40 am
  #52  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: SEA
Programs: NW Silver Elite, Starwood Gold Elite
Posts: 160
Originally Posted by SptCA
There's a provision called "reasonable accommodation" under the Americans with Disabilities Act that fortunately for thousands of people with life threatening allergies, which are covered by the ADA, that overrules you here.
Aircraft are exempt from the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. 12181(10). Instead, the Air Carrier Access Act and federal regulations promulgated under it govern. Unfortunately, I'm too lazy at the moment to see what they have to say about this type of situation.
deephouse is offline  
Old Dec 29, 04, 1:33 am
  #53  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by deephouse
Aircraft are exempt from the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. 12181(10). Instead, the Air Carrier Access Act and federal regulations promulgated under it govern. Unfortunately, I'm too lazy at the moment to see what they have to say about this type of situation.
Interesting, I'll have to look up those statutes very soon. Just this past summer I was told by a Justice Department staffer that some provisions of the ADA did cover air travel - We were specifically discussing people with life threatening allergies being allowed to travel with their own food supply and having the right to bring it wherever they might need to. Perhaps that is covered but protection from other allergens is not?

UPDATE: I did a little research and found out that the peanut question has been addressed under the Air Carrier Access Act:
August 2, 1998--... letter was sent to the 10 largest U.S. certificated airlines, explaining DOT's policy under Part 382 on accommodating air travelers with documented severe peanut allergies. The letter explained the reasoning of the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings that creating peanut-free buffer zones in response to the request of a traveler with a medically documented peanut allergy was a reasonable accommodation and did not constitute an undue burden on air carriers.
There may have been further action taken by the DOT on this issue, but the above quote from http://www.ncd.gov does show that the Air Carrier Access Act does include some provision for protection of people with life threatening peanut allergy.

Last edited by SptCA; Dec 29, 04 at 2:35 am Reason: updated to include new info
SptCA is offline  
Old Dec 29, 04, 1:35 am
  #54  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Current Micronesian, Ex Buckeye....
Programs: All My $$$ Went to CO (Plat) with a Lifetime PClub membership that got degraded to United crap...
Posts: 2,089
First of all, this has been a fun, interesting and informative thread to watch over time.

I feel sorry for the folks who are allergic to nuts, but I also wonder what is going to be taken away next? If we are always bending over backwards to satisfy what I assume is a small percentage of the flyers out there, will there be anything left we can do / have / eat on a plane?

Personally, I have no problems with a "peanut-free" flight, I have no problems with voluntarily waiting to eat any foods I brought on a flight for later, I would follow FA's requests, and if a fellow passenger had any issues I would probably be more then happy to assist and co-operate to make sure they have a safe flight if the issue is life threatening, but let's face a fact here, we can't satisfy everyone and if we try then there won't be anything left.

If we make all these rules across the board about what we can't do, where would it end? No children? No pets / animals? No fat people? No muscular people? No perfume? Meals being only a vitamin mix with spring water? Mind as well let the TSA be the FA as well as the security screening.

Again, I understand your issues and concerns as I do agree that allergies can be life threatening, I just hope we don't start making rules and reg's for all flights / all airlines for any and all possible issues out there. Just my POV
KosraeTV is offline  
Old Dec 29, 04, 10:41 am
  #55  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Either at the shooting range or anywhere good beer can be found...
Posts: 49,652
As someone who is deathly allergic to primarily almonds, but also peanuts, tree nuts, and various types of legumes, like chick peas, I read this with quite a bit of interest. I can assure you that my allergies are not in my head. I've been rushed to the hospital for allergic reactions, carry an Epi-Pen and a stock of chewable Benedryl, because while neither the Epi-Pen nor the Benedryl is a permanent fix, it is a temporary stop gap measure, at least in my case. I have to deal with them on a daily basis - reading food labels, ensuring my food, even if it is served sans nuts, hasn't been served using the same utensils that touched nuts, etc. However, I believe my allergy shouldn't affect everyone, unless the easiest and safest solution is to eliminate the allergen. I've opted to not eat when I'm not sure if my request can be met without much trouble, but on a plane, it's a bit different. Yes, dust from nuts can become airborne, and I can inhale that, and have a reaction.

Let me ask this - is it easier on all persons on a flight to go without nuts for a flight, or is it easier for everyone on the flight to have to make an emergency landing somewhere and be delayed because I'm having an allergic reaction due to inhaling the peanut dust?
kipper is offline  
Old Dec 29, 04, 10:43 am
  #56  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Augusta, GA, USA
Programs: DL FC, NW
Posts: 3,522
Originally Posted by exerda
With life-threatening allergies, my guess is that they research ahead of time, and may have inquired with the CSRs prior to booking if the airline serves peanuts. I've witnessed someone break out into hives and start wheezing just from having a jar of peanut butter opened in the same room, so I'm sure this segment of the population is very careful about their allergy.

Some of that colonge and perfumed that people wear sometimes makes me sick to my stomach, but I never hear anyone banning that practice.
USCGamecock is offline  
Old Dec 29, 04, 10:52 am
  #57  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SEA/YVR/BLI
Programs: UA "Lifetime" Gold and Silver Wings, AS MVPG100K, HH Diamond, IC Plat, Marriott Gold, Hertz Gold
Posts: 9,381
Originally Posted by USCGamecock
Some of that colonge and perfumed that people wear sometimes makes me sick to my stomach, but I never hear anyone banning that practice.

Halifax Nova Scotia did it on the ground back in 2000 or so. The quickest link I found is one that raises a stink about it, to coin a phrase:

http://www.fumento.com/scents.html

Any lurking Haligonians could provide a better update and more of the "pro-ban" perspective.
Fredd is offline  
Old Dec 29, 04, 1:02 pm
  #58  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: أمريكا
Posts: 26,526
Originally Posted by Analise
Isn't amazing what Southwest will do when the cameras are rolling?
I don't know, most of the time I see the show Southwest agents seem to be looking for or trying to invent reasons to deny boarding.
Doppy is offline  
Old Dec 29, 04, 1:10 pm
  #59  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: أمريكا
Posts: 26,526
What I don't understand is why this peanut allergy thing came on like such a fad. Not many years ago it was a non-issue, but in the recent few years all of a sudden everyone has it.

Why is that?
Doppy is offline  
Old Dec 29, 04, 1:16 pm
  #60  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by Doppy
What I don't understand is why this peanut allergy thing came on like such a fad. Not many years ago it was a non-issue, but in the recent few years all of a sudden everyone has it.

Why is that?
From what I've read , severe peanut allergy is on the increase, as is asthma and other severe allergies. I don't think researchers have yet pinpointed why, altho suspicions include early expose to soy (it is in a large number of infant formulas), fewer children are being breastfed - not getting the immune benefits of that, increased amount of toxins in the air and water damaging immune systems and less exposure to dirt at any an early age preventing normal development of immune systems.
SptCA is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread