FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   United Airlines | MileagePlus (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-airlines-mileageplus-681/)
-   -   No nuts for me....due to NRSA allergy (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-airlines-mileageplus/1795582-no-nuts-me-due-nrsa-allergy.html)

JVPhoto Oct 15, 16 12:39 am

What was the end result with the Muslim FA who didn't want to serve booze?

fastair Oct 15, 16 12:44 am


Originally Posted by kettle1 (Post 27348396)
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.

It's people who did not like smoke that got the laws changed to not allow smoking in public buildings in many states. It is the one that gets injured that laws are written to protect, the minorities, the weak, the downtrodden. Few protective laws are written to protect the capitalist in his ivory tower. Smoking? Great example. $350,000,000, that is what the cigarette companies agreed to pay for flight attendants for working where people smoked, in addition to paying out other class action suits as well as individual suits Guess none of them should have taken the job...oh wait, they did, and get paid! Perhaps the airlines should have learned their lesson about things that are environmental irritants to many.

None of the AA flight attendants should have taken their jobs if they were planning on being allergic to them/ How dare 400+ of them get hives from the fabric! They shouldn't have taken the job if they were planning on working in an environment where their employer would subject them to such things!

Do you honestly think that the airlines ask detailed medical questions about everything on a plane that the person may be allergic to, and then deny employment based on their medical status? Hook me up with a lawyer, I'm, finna get rich!

Should long haul pilots who are at high risk of radiation exposure not be protected from it, or should the ones with a history of cancer in their family be refused employment based on that? Let's go a step further and anyone who is at a genetic per-disposition to sickle cell anemia also be banned from employment, after all, the risk of reduced oxygen is far greater at 36,000 feet then one at sea level...

freshairborne Oct 15, 16 12:46 am


Originally Posted by Silver Fox (Post 27328537)
Now you know why. Have you never seen the non-revs causally schmooze at the counter? I have plenty of times.

But back on topic, I have been on a United flight when they have announced that peanuts will not be served. It's strange that so many people have these allergies these days to nuts. It just didn't seem like anyone died/suffered a reaction to them in my day so is it something that is on the increase and if so, why?

In my opinion the FA definitely overreacted in this case and if it was that bad I would want to take myself well away from the danger.

As an occasional "non-rev" myself, I will sometimes "schmooze" the agents, but it's either because I know them or I'm asking if they think I'll even get on at all. They theoretically could do favors but it's more likely to be for a regular passenger than me.
The term non-rev is a misnomer. Nothing is free; we would be paid more $/hour if we did not have the possibility of "non-rev"ing. Personally, I usually just buy the tickets when my wife and I travel because our travels are on high-demand routes and we miss more than we make as "non-revs".

FAB

747FC Oct 15, 16 1:21 am


Originally Posted by fastair (Post 27348435)

Do you honestly think that the airlines ask detailed medical questions about everything on a plane that the person may be allergic to, and then deny employment based on their medical status? Hook me up with a lawyer, I'm, finna get rich!

Tons of good companies have attorneys who do one thing: Make sure that job descriptions are based upon job analyses. For example, someplace in an FA's or baggage handler's job description is a line that says: "Lifts X pounds on a regular basis." It is an essential function of the job, and there are no "reasonable accommodations" that can be granted to avoid lifting X pounds.

Now if those same attorneys made sure that FA job analyses were accurate, there would be a line in the job description that says: "Serves food and drink to customers, including pork, beef, shellfish, alcohol, and nuts." This would be an essential function of the job, and if you are vegan, Halal, Kosher, vegetarian, allergic to shellfish, or a teetotaler, and you can't get past your belief system or allergy, you do not qualify for the job.

The problem is that many companies, even good ones, have lousy attorneys that allow really poorly-written job descriptions to be published. So we have FAs working who make FT such an enjoyable read...

fastair Oct 15, 16 8:10 am


Originally Posted by 747FC (Post 27348514)
Tons of good companies have attorneys who do one thing: Make sure that job descriptions are based upon job analyses. For example, someplace in an FA's or baggage handler's job description is a line that says: "Lifts X pounds on a regular basis." It is an essential function of the job, and there are no "reasonable accommodations" that can be granted to avoid lifting X pounds.

Now if those same attorneys made sure that FA job analyses were accurate, there would be a line in the job description that says: "Serves food and drink to customers, including pork, beef, shellfish, alcohol, and nuts." This would be an essential function of the job, and if you are vegan, Halal, Kosher, vegetarian, allergic to shellfish, or a teetotaler, and you can't get past your belief system or allergy, you do not qualify for the job.

The problem is that many companies, even good ones, have lousy attorneys that allow really poorly-written job descriptions to be published. So we have FAs working who make FT such an enjoyable read...

Excellent point.

Loren Pechtel Oct 15, 16 4:33 pm


Originally Posted by 747FC (Post 27348514)
Tons of good companies have attorneys who do one thing: Make sure that job descriptions are based upon job analyses. For example, someplace in an FA's or baggage handler's job description is a line that says: "Lifts X pounds on a regular basis." It is an essential function of the job, and there are no "reasonable accommodations" that can be granted to avoid lifting X pounds.

Now if those same attorneys made sure that FA job analyses were accurate, there would be a line in the job description that says: "Serves food and drink to customers, including pork, beef, shellfish, alcohol, and nuts." This would be an essential function of the job, and if you are vegan, Halal, Kosher, vegetarian, allergic to shellfish, or a teetotaler, and you can't get past your belief system or allergy, you do not qualify for the job.

The problem is that many companies, even good ones, have lousy attorneys that allow really poorly-written job descriptions to be published. So we have FAs working who make FT such an enjoyable read...

"Serves and will be in the proximity of the consumption of"

NH_Clark Oct 15, 16 4:57 pm


Originally Posted by fastair (Post 27348435)
It's people who did not like smoke that got the laws changed to not allow smoking in public buildings in many states. It is the one that gets injured that laws are written to protect, the minorities, the weak, the downtrodden. Few protective laws are written to protect the capitalist in his ivory tower. Smoking? Great example. $350,000,000, that is what the cigarette companies agreed to pay for flight attendants for working where people smoked, in addition to paying out other class action suits as well as individual suits Guess none of them should have taken the job...oh wait, they did, and get paid! Perhaps the airlines should have learned their lesson about things that are environmental irritants to many.

None of the AA flight attendants should have taken their jobs if they were planning on being allergic to them/ How dare 400+ of them get hives from the fabric! They shouldn't have taken the job if they were planning on working in an environment where their employer would subject them to such things!

Do you honestly think that the airlines ask detailed medical questions about everything on a plane that the person may be allergic to, and then deny employment based on their medical status? Hook me up with a lawyer, I'm, finna get rich!

Should long haul pilots who are at high risk of radiation exposure not be protected from it, or should the ones with a history of cancer in their family be refused employment based on that? Let's go a step further and anyone who is at a genetic per-disposition to sickle cell anemia also be banned from employment, after all, the risk of reduced oxygen is far greater at 36,000 feet then one at sea level...

Ummm... so ban anything on a flight that anyone, crew+pax, may be allergic to. Righhtttt.... might as well shut down air travel. 😒

bocastephen Oct 17, 16 1:09 pm


Originally Posted by NH_Clark (Post 27350996)
Ummm... so ban anything on a flight that anyone, crew+pax, may be allergic to. Righhtttt.... might as well shut down air travel. 😒

I don't think you can compare nut allergies to smoking - the latter is harmful to everyone, including the person doing it, and long term exposure can result in certain death far earlier than expected, while a nut allergy is something that does not affect anyone but the one with the problem, and then it becomes a question of the rights/needs of the affected vs everyone else.

Over the years we've been down this road in multiple vehicles starting with the annoying soccer-mom types who've objected to reading or video material (including IFE) their precious delicate flower might catch a glimpse of - and then insisting it be turned off. Then it became perfume and cologne....and now here we go with nuts. I would agree - where does it end?

An airplane may be privately owned, but it's considered a public space and there needs to be balance. No one is suggesting at the slightest that we're going to blow nut breath on a child with a deadly allergy, but there needs to be some form of balance and fairness to both sides, soccer-mom opinions notwithstanding.

tht Oct 17, 16 3:53 pm


Originally Posted by bocastephen (Post 27357694)
I don't think you can compare nut allergies to smoking - the latter is harmful to everyone, including the person doing it, and long term exposure can result in certain death far earlier than expected, while a nut allergy is something that does not affect anyone but the one with the problem, and then it becomes a question of the rights/needs of the affected vs everyone else.

Over the years we've been down this road in multiple vehicles starting with the annoying soccer-mom types who've objected to reading or video material (including IFE) their precious delicate flower might catch a glimpse of - and then insisting it be turned off. Then it became perfume and cologne....and now here we go with nuts. I would agree - where does it end?

An airplane may be privately owned, but it's considered a public space and there needs to be balance. No one is suggesting at the slightest that we're going to blow nut breath on a child with a deadly allergy, but there needs to be some form of balance and fairness to both sides, soccer-mom opinions notwithstanding.

Smoking is probably not a good example because that is more likely to cause long term damage not an immediate reaction like an allergy.

The other way to look at this is you do nothing and someone has a severe reaction, in my experience of medical emergencies, that mostly leads to the flight being diverted, the last one I was on was this which was very sad. Point being if airlines and/or passengers do nothing, the chances of a severe reaction and diversion are pretty high, wonder if that would change peoples stance on it, if the downside impacted them as well as the person who might die.

NH_Clark Oct 17, 16 6:10 pm


Originally Posted by bocastephen (Post 27357694)
I don't think you can compare nut allergies to smoking - the latter is harmful to everyone, including the person doing it, and long term exposure can result in certain death far earlier than expected, while a nut allergy is something that does not affect anyone but the one with the problem, and then it becomes a question of the rights/needs of the affected vs everyone else.

Over the years we've been down this road in multiple vehicles starting with the annoying soccer-mom types who've objected to reading or video material (including IFE) their precious delicate flower might catch a glimpse of - and then insisting it be turned off. Then it became perfume and cologne....and now here we go with nuts. I would agree - where does it end?

An airplane may be privately owned, but it's considered a public space and there needs to be balance. No one is suggesting at the slightest that we're going to blow nut breath on a child with a deadly allergy, but there needs to be some form of balance and fairness to both sides, soccer-mom opinions notwithstanding.

I think we're in agreement... that at some point there has to be an element of self-monitoring and self-management to avoid situations that might expose one to something that may cause allergic reactions. To simply impose on everyone else is ludicrous.

kettle1 Oct 17, 16 10:29 pm

OK. Forget the smoking part I said above.

How about someone with a shellfish allergy working in a seafood restaurant? (My wife has this).

A FA working with a peanut allergy working in an enclosed tube at 30,000 feet full time serving peanuts?

A person working in a animal clinic with a severe allergy to cats and dogs?

Where does it stop?

walkerci Oct 17, 16 10:46 pm


Originally Posted by bocastephen (Post 27357694)
I don't think you can compare nut allergies to smoking - the latter is harmful to everyone, including the person doing it, and long term exposure can result in certain death far earlier than expected, while a nut allergy is something that does not affect anyone but the one with the problem, and then it becomes a question of the rights/needs of the affected vs everyone else.

Over the years we've been down this road in multiple vehicles starting with the annoying soccer-mom types who've objected to reading or video material (including IFE) their precious delicate flower might catch a glimpse of - and then insisting it be turned off. Then it became perfume and cologne....and now here we go with nuts. I would agree - where does it end?

An airplane may be privately owned, but it's considered a public space and there needs to be balance. No one is suggesting at the slightest that we're going to blow nut breath on a child with a deadly allergy, but there needs to be some form of balance and fairness to both sides, soccer-mom opinions notwithstanding.

I like this argument!

The question should never be whether an action is "offensive" to an individual.
Rather whether it is violating a specific law within a specific country's jurisdiction.

I am sure that millions of people might be offended if I consume pork or drink alcohol.

I will be equally offended if they do not!

And I can cite dozens of other practices that they might engage in that I find offensive.
However, they have the same rights as I do under the law wherever we happen to be at the moment. Presuming equal treatment. Admittedly, a HUGE leap of faith.

eng3 Oct 18, 16 8:16 am


Originally Posted by bocastephen (Post 27357694)
I don't think you can compare nut allergies to smoking - the latter is harmful to everyone, including the person doing it, and long term exposure can result in certain death far earlier than expected, while a nut allergy is something that does not affect anyone but the one with the problem, and then it becomes a question of the rights/needs of the affected vs everyone else..

Yes, Smoke is airbone and spreads through the cabin affecting everyone. Nuts and Nut particles cannot become airborne and only affect the area where the nut particles are falling. I'll also note that I highly doubt that the seats are being thoroughly vacuumed after each flight so the chances of someone with an allergy coming in contact with nut particles already on the seat from the last flight is probably much higher.

gold23 Oct 19, 16 7:21 am

I guess it's me, but if there's a non-essential perk in any line of business that is actively dangerous to anyone surrounding them- for whatever reason that may be- then it's perfectly reasonable to expect everyone to forgoe that perk. If this were alcohol, meal service, etc.- something that actively had a negative impact on services and experience- it would be 100% different and the onus would be on the person with the affliction.

I also don't think the examples above are apt comparisons. A FA can certainly do their job without the need to handle nuts. Those in Y are either not getting any or are getting them in a sealed bag. So you basically have 5-10% of the cabin being served nuts for 5 minutes at the outset of service. I guess on some of the smaller regionals where only 1 FA is servicig the cabin this could be an issue...but I am pretty certain it would not preclude a FA from getting the job (and legally would be difficult to as well, since this would be VERY hard pressed to be seen as an "essential" aspect of a FA job).

axl Oct 19, 16 7:54 am


Originally Posted by 747FC (Post 27348514)
Tons of good companies have attorneys who do one thing: Make sure that job descriptions are based upon job analyses. For example, someplace in an FA's or baggage handler's job description is a line that says: "Lifts X pounds on a regular basis." It is an essential function of the job, and there are no "reasonable accommodations" that can be granted to avoid lifting X pounds.

Now if those same attorneys made sure that FA job analyses were accurate, there would be a line in the job description that says: "Serves food and drink to customers, including pork, beef, shellfish, alcohol, and nuts." This would be an essential function of the job, and if you are vegan, Halal, Kosher, vegetarian, allergic to shellfish, or a teetotaler, and you can't get past your belief system or allergy, you do not qualify for the job.

The problem is that many companies, even good ones, have lousy attorneys that allow really poorly-written job descriptions to be published. So we have FAs working who make FT such an enjoyable read...

For our real lawyers here... Does the employer have a duty to make reasonable accommodations for employees as a result of food allergies? If so, how does that balance with the concept of refusing employment at the outset for prospective employees who disclose such allergies? Is this addressed by the ADA?

Baze Oct 19, 16 12:09 pm

When was the last time anyone saw a peanut (which isn't even a nut, it's a legume) on a mainline United flight? I haven't in years. And I don't remember seeing peanuts on any UX flights for quite a while either.

chavala Oct 22, 16 10:05 pm


Originally Posted by Baze (Post 27366948)
When was the last time anyone saw a peanut (which isn't even a nut, it's a legume) on a mainline United flight? I haven't in years. And I don't remember seeing peanuts on any UX flights for quite a while either.

I have been wondering this since the OP 10 pages ago. Is he saying the FA is allerigic to regualr nuts and cashews? I've never heard of those being "airborne" like the peanut people claim. I also haven't seen a peanut on US flight in years, certainly not in J.

zombietooth Oct 23, 16 5:12 am


Originally Posted by chavala (Post 27381101)
I have been wondering this since the OP 10 pages ago. Is he saying the FA is allerigic to regualr nuts and cashews? I've never heard of those being "airborne" like the peanut people claim. I also haven't seen a peanut on US flight in years, certainly not in J.

OP implied that the FA was allergic to tree nuts.

However, there is no known aerosol threat from microscopic nut particles, so the FA really had no valid complaint. Two studies were done with micro-milled nut powder (i.e. nut flour) to determine if inadvertent inhalation (i.e. not snorted) of microscopic nut particles would induce an antagonistic reaction in allergic subjects and no risks were found. The only known aerosol threat is from cooked nut products where the nut oils volatilized and were inhaled to induce an allergic reaction


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:11 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.