And also I expect the person with the problem make their imposition on others as minimal as practical. Don't ask for special accommodations if you can reasonably avoid doing so.

Man, can't tell if this is sarcastic or real...Poe's Law?

I'm hoping for the sake of FT humanity it is sarcastic.

No, it's not sarcastic. Nonrevs are told, by policy, to be invisible. That means not disturbing paying customers, not asking them to change seats or for other favors, they must give up a meal choice or even their entire meal for a paying customer if asked, and they certainly should not be asking a customer to stop eating a portion of their meal due to an allergy.

There is no excuse for what this nonrev did - they should have silently moved away and stayed out of view during the meal service if they had an allergy issue....and I say this as a former nonrev myself....I cannot fathom under what circumstances this behavior was acceptable, and most employees know this. I knew the rules and the result of violating them, and was always extra careful with everything from my attire to any interaction with a paying customer.

To illustrate, I was on a NRT-EWR flight a couple months back where a nonrev was boarded into BF with her two children. They were split up, but at least the nonrev had the sense not to ask other passengers to change seats. Another passenger insisted, without being asked, on trading seats so the nonrev mother could sit near her kids, but the purser went absolutely ballistic in the forward galley thinking the nonrev had requested the change because that would have violated policy.

First, I agree that you as the paying customer deserved priority over a non-rev.
She could have easily solved the problem by moving to coach.

Second, the "aerosol" threat from nuts has been wildly exaggerated.
See here:

https://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert...e-nut-allergen

https://web.archive.org/web/20090407...81213_Nuts.pdf

Most documented cases of an aerosol threat are from cooking and volatilizing the nut oils containing the offending proteins. Studies involving micro-milling and aerosolizing nut powder have shown a very low antagonistic response rate with normal circulating air environments.

LOL!

I've done that. Some special snowflake decided that it was appropriate to let her dog out of its cage. I was reseated a few rows forward but still spent most of the flight sneezing :(

Interestingly, as I was laying in bed recovering from my alcohol allergy, on the BBC radio this morning was this story:

'Cleaner world' increases allergy hospital admissions by 33% in five years

This person with the nut allergy was a human FIRST, a passenger SECOND, and a flight attendant THIRD.

If the first two do not motivate you to forgo your own nuts because of the allergy, I got nothin' for ya.

I guess the fact that you saw her ONLY as the 3rd inspired you to run to flyer talk to rat her out.

By your logic, handicapped passengers should be allowed to take First Class seats from paid-F passengers because they're "human FIRST". See here:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...passenger.html

I guess you would advocate this modification to UA's boarding instructions:

"Please select your seat as you board according to your needs or desires".

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." -Karl Marx

This is a funny thread. I'd hate to see how you all would react on Southwest. All it takes is one allergy onboard a WN flight for the FAs to not serve peanuts to anyone ON THE ENTIRE PLANE.

That's why we "entitled" UA elites don't fly lowly WN.:D
UA upholds our standards for us. See here:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-30521385.html

But in that incident on UA, after the first flight had to return for a medical emergency, UA declined to fly the child until (I suspect after a medical consultation) they believed the child could fly without putting the child's life in danger. Seems reasonable and consistent with their policy. It is better to be a day late than risk death.

Topic Check

This thread is about a passenger not getting served nuts due to allergy of a relocating UX? FA in an adjacent seat. While the topic of allergies while flying is clearly related, let's stay focused on UA and not turn this into a much broader discussion.
AND let's remember the FT mantra "Discuss the issue, not the poster." Once we get commenting on each other, the threads go badly. Disagree all you want, but commenting on the morality or humanity of other posters is not allowed
WineCountryUA
UA coModerator

As a responsible adult, I bring my own nut-based snacks and you can pry them out of my cold dead hands.

I can assure you that there is no possible way to prevent someone on a United flight from being exposed to nuts, no matter what they say:

In GF out of NRT, a few weeks ago, my wife lost her watch down the side of her seat. In an effort to recover it, I had to lay down flat on the floor and use a powerful flashlight to find it. What I saw under the seat and in the mechanical workings was interesting: Several nuts, lots of dust-bunnies, a couple flossers, money (I recovered a 500 Yen coin), tissues, croutons, a desiccated piece of sushi, a sock, and myriad other unidentifiable small particles.

:-:UA didn't wait until the plane was safe for the child, UA was trying to minimize liability and put on a good dog and pony show for the family.

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).

This belies a lack of knowledge of how nut allergies work.

I agree with this assessment, but I would say that an NRSA should be held to a higher standard when it comes to politely and apologetically explaining to the inconvenienced passenger what the issue is.

This whole incident would've been a non-event if the FA had been a bit more circumspect about how her needs were impacting others around her.

I agree that you can divide the question

1. Is a nut allergy a legitimate "complaint?"
2. Should it be said with tact and politely?

I think the answer to the first is yes to everyone, equally
I think the answer to the second is yes, but significantly more so when it comes to NRSA

Because the first is about the person (NRSA shouldn't matter - we're all human beings). The second is about a passenger (no longer about life and death; it's about approaching other passengers).

I bring nuts onto almost all of my UAX flights, generally one of those nuts/M&M combos that make me feel as if I'm at least trying to be healthy while gorging on sweets. Anyway, there have been two instances in the last three months where I've had someone near me ask me not to open/eat the nuts.

One was a father travelling with his daughter who was allergic. They were two rows in front of me on a RJ-145. He asked nicely, almost pleading. I cut him off and said of course I won't open them. That would have been exceedingly selfish of me to eat. I know in advance people are allergic and if I absolutely needed to ensure I had something to eat I'd have chosen another snack. The other one was a very rude older woman. I find it extremely rare that older people have this allergy, but that's irrelevant. She saw my bag, sitting across from me in the exit row, and demanded I not open. I was a bit put off by her demand, and told her so, but I still didn't open them. See....this is a severe allergy, and the tone of the person asking is not relevant at all.

In the OP's instance, I have absolutely no sympathy for him. It's a cup of nuts, likely prior to a main meal. I like them too, but the talk of people getting upset over the FA reaction- and several saying they would ask for them out of spite and without regard to the health issue!!!- is abhorrent to me. Just because you paid for a business class ticket does not give you the right to disregard fellow passenger safety- no matter how or why they are near you.

This gets under my skin...the lack of regard for others....

Cuts both ways. Here's a band-aid.

s

I have health issues that make me adverse to the for sale food. Should I have to not eat my nut KIND bars on a 6 hr tcon?

I think it's clear-cut: the FA handled this terribly. I'd be unhappy if I was the paying customer.

I get the seriousness of the nut allergy. I could take or leave nuts myself, but if I'm sitting in a cabin with other paying customers with a severe allergy, I'll happily skip the nuts. No biggie to me, and I understand it *is* a big deal to someone with the allergy.

But the nonrev should have gone to the back of the plane - period. Not snapped at the paying customer while the nuts were being served. That's just poor on all accounts. :td:

That is one defining characteristic of narcissism. Like when people place their own needs above others. Like the NR FA in this case. Like FA's who put their luggage in bins above paying F passengers. All things being equal, customer service ethic demands that you extend courtesies to those who pay your salary, not demand that they meet your needs.

Yes. I would offer you some vegan, nut-free granola bars for free.

^If her nut allergy was that important to her, she could have easily taken a seat in Y. But no, she wanted that F-seat and was willing to impose her affliction on her seat mate.

She showed no concern whatsoever for OP's needs.

I believe that UA would assert that she was a representative of the airline first.

Bolding mine. C'mon folks. We are going around the bend here. If a handful of nuts has been elevated to a NEED, we are losing perspective. We can debate all day long about the "right" way for her to have handled the situation, but putting a potential health risk at the same level as the "need" for a handful of nuts I think we have lost perspective.

Well, the FA clearly didn't show any concern for the people who pay her salary. What she did was completely wrong. I suspect it was her desire to sit in the F seat combined with a lack of concern for anyone else - including her coworkers on the flight and the paying customer next to her.

The correct action would have been to go to the back of the plane and sit there.

The 2nd-best action would have been to quietly talk to the lead FA prior to departure and explain the allergy. In that case, the (working) FA might have been able to arrange seating so she wasn't exposed...or simply not serve nuts that day at all.

I understand the seriousness of the allergy - just not the self-centered behavior of the nonrev FA.

For a handful of nuts a non-rev, who is otherwise entitled to sit where she is, should go to the back of the plane? Or not even get on the plane? Mentioning an serious allergy is self-centered? I don't think so.

OP was fine. I might be frustrated too and I have a food allergy. But people don't all communicate the same way. They may stumble over their words. And sometimes they just have a bad day. A little grace goes a long way.

So, flying in F for free is a valid need for the non-rev, but getting the nuts that you paid for when buying an F ticket is less valid?

Yes.

Nonrev.

Was that a trick question? :confused: I'm surprised this is even a discussion.

No. I never suggested that (and haven't read the whole thread to see if others have).

The way it was handled was incredibly self-centered.

Mentioning it to the working FA ahead of time would have been appropriate.

This isn't even about the allergy. It's about an airline employee grossly overstepping the bounds of courtesy and expecting a paying customer to comply with a request made in an extremely rude manner. :td:

If a fellow passenger politely informs me of a peanut allergy, then absolutely yes...I'm willing to show a little grace and not eat nuts. Really, the nuts themselves (and me giving them up) are not the issue.

Nutty person: "Don't eat what you want. DYKWIA?!??!

Non-Nutty person: "Could you kindly do me a favor, because I have a problem..."

Nutty person: "I think I'll get a job where I am exposed to pathogens all day long! I'll make sure everybody knows about my problem..."

Non-Nutty person: "I think I will isolate myself from environments which might be dangerous for me. When I can't, I'll plan properly and handle myself with grace."

You haven't traveled with me, then. Twice I have been sittting in 1B at the front of the F cabin and a passenger with a large (and I mean large) emotional support dog has arrived and sat down in 1F across the aisle, but with the dog lying on his feet and the feet of the person sitting in 1E (what a saint!) and breathing out halitosis, expelling bodily fumes and spreading allergen dander every time it got up to shake itself.

When I'm in paid F, I don't expect to be inconvenienced in this way, and certainly not have to deal with it on a flight lasting several hours. Nuts I am fine with, but not dogs. On both occasions I have had the person re-seated before the flight took off, but the way of doing that is not to confront the person but to speak quietly and calmly to a FA.

Can you kindly share what you say to the FA that so effectively gets the offender reseated rather than you? Thanks!

This.

Something alone the lines of "I'm very sorry, I have an allergy to dogs. If this one remains as close to me as it is now, I will be extremely ill, and I wouldn't want to put you to the inconvenience of taking care of me when that happens. I wonder if you'd mind very much asking the passenger in 1F to move to another seat further away from me?"

On both occasions, the FA has deftly managed to get passengers to trade seats so that I could be accommodated, and the dog ended up in 3F. I think the fact that I boarded the plane before the other guy arrived was helpful. I don't know what would happen if I arrived after the other guy had already taken his seat. Another reason for being one of the gate lice! ;)

Thanks. I applaud your success and the graceful way you approach the task!

I agree with you, except in the instances of health or safety. I remain astonished that people actually believe the OP should have demanded and/or eaten the nuts because he was a paying customer and she was an employee riding up front.

Did she handle it terribly? Absolutely. If she had asked him not to eat something because she didn't like the smell, or something otherwise less impactful than a serious health risk? Of course she'd be far out of line.

She obviously did not uphold her service responsibility, but that's irrelevant. OP had every right to be dissapointed, and she obviously did not handle the situation professionally. However, I suspect ALL that are siding with him do not have friends/relatives with a nut allergy. It's extremely serious, and I can fully comprehend her immediate reaction of fear.

She should have moved because an F passenger wanted to eat his 10 nuts in a tiny glass bowl? I guess I'm completely different up front. I complain a lot about service standards, attitudes, etc with UA. But if someone near me has an allergy to a non-essential snack, I simply believe it's proper to cede to their needs- regardless of whether I paid more. The thing lost here is that she had every right to be sitting where she was, regardless of what we may think.

I'm right with you if (a) it's any kind of paying customer (e.g., not an employee...I don't mean miles vs. upgrade vs. cash) and (b) the person is halfway courteous about it.

This entire post is nuts. :rolleyes: A FA that can not serve nuts due to an allergy. Good luck with that. Who at UA is doing the hiring? I guess it is not a brain surgeon. :confused: A FA is to provide service to PAX and that includes those that want nuts during the service. Period.

Everyone have a great Weekend. :) I just stubbed my toe and it hurts. :mad:

I shall survive. I think anyone looking to be a FA should be able to handle nuts during the flight. I mean nothing sarcastic with that statement. If you have a shellfish allergy, do not work in a seafood restaurant. If you do not like smoke, do not work in a Las Vegas Casino, etc, etc.