Almost kicked off FLIGHT! Please help

[Jenvenza]

The rules against food in certain places don't bother me as long as they are universal. A court room doesn't say you can eat every day but today you have to hold off on lettuce because someone in the other isle is allergic. Walmart doesn't stop you at the door and say that contrary to their rules that you can bring in food today you have to hold off on bringing in yogurt because someone in isle 5 is lactose intolerant. I don't go to a restaurant with the expectation that I can or can't eat something like I do on a plane. I would have a problem in a restaurant if they wouldn't let me order something off the menu because someone a few booths over couldnt' have it. That would infuriate me.

Eat what you want in situations where your own food is allowed and I will eat what I want. I won't throw peanuts at someone who is allergic but stay out of my food choice.

What a selfish thing to say. If a CHILD had a peanut allergy and you were sitting next to that child on a plane and you knew that had the allergy, you would continue to eat the peanuts KNOWING it could harm that child? Wow. Some people......

 

[FireDancer]

As far as I'm concerned, the issue isn't the peanuts either, as you stated. The main issue for me is the way the op was treated by the airline employees, especially the man who said all of his vicious remarks to her and about her personally. That's just ridiculous.

Yes, which is why in my first post I said that there was no excuse for the tone or way she was treated.

What a selfish thing to say. If a CHILD had a peanut allergy and you were sitting next to that child on a plane and you knew that had the allergy, you would continue to eat the peanuts KNOWING it could harm that child? Wow. Some people......

I would be willing to move to a different seat, but I would not be willing to be in a different part of the plane and still be told that I can't eat something because someone 10 rows away is allergic. I'm sure it would not be hard to find someone who was not eating whatever the food was in question. I find it unacceptable that the entire plane is off limits because of one person, that is the crux of the issue.

It is like telling me I can't send my child to school with the food I chose because someone else has an allergy. Place my child on the opposite end of the class, but don't restrict their choices. That, I do find is a violation of my right to feed myself or my child what I see fit. I hold that right as important as any other.

 

[boltfans]

It is like telling me I can't send my child to school with the food I chose because someone else has an allergy. Place my child on the opposite end of the class, but don't restrict their choices. That, I do find is a violation of my right to feed myself or my child what I see fit. I hold that right as important as any other.

My kids' school and my son's camp are like this. In their school, 1 child has a peanut allergy. The kids all eat lunch in their respective classrooms, but the whole school has a ban on peanut products now. I think this is a bit much because the peanut allergy kid is on the 1st floor of the school, never is on the 2nd floor (just other classrooms) and that is where my kids classrooms are, yet they cannot have peanut products. They never come in contact with this kid as recess is scheduled by floor, they are never in the 1st floor classrooms, so I don't get it. It wasn't huge issue for me last year as my son came home for lunch. But at camp and this year at school he will be eating lunch. The only sandwich he will eat, literally, is peanut butter and fluff. So all summer he's been eating only a tupperware of fruit and a yogurt everyday for lunch. He will not touch deli meats (doesn't like the texture) and won't eat cold cubed meats (like cut up chicken, turkey, steak), and there's no way to heat his food. He also likes beans, burritos, etc, but again not cold, and by the time he gets it at lunch, it's not longer hot. So I feel like you regarding the school peanut bans. My son's PB sandwich would in no way affect this kid cause they never share a common space (all activities like languages and art are also done in the classrooms, so no common room at all) but yet he can't eat it and has to eat a protein free lunch everyday.

 

[FireDancer]

My kids' school and my son's camp are like this. In their school, 1 child has a peanut allergy. The kids all eat lunch in their respective classrooms, but the whole school has a ban on peanut products now. I think this is a bit much because the peanut allergy kid is on the 1st floor of the school, never is on the 2nd floor (just other classrooms) and that is where my kids classrooms are, yet they cannot have peanut products. They never come in contact with this kid as recess is scheduled by floor, they are never in the 1st floor classrooms, so I don't get it. It wasn't huge issue for me last year as my son came home for lunch. But at camp and this year at school he will be eating lunch. The only sandwich he will eat, literally, is peanut butter and fluff. So all summer he's been eating only a tupperware of fruit and a yogurt everyday for lunch. He will not touch deli meats (doesn't like the texture) and won't eat cold cubed meats (like cut up chicken, turkey, steak), and there's no way to heat his food. He also likes beans, burritos, etc, but again not cold, and by the time he gets it at lunch, it's not longer hot. So I feel like you regarding the school peanut bans. My son's PB sandwich would in no way affect this kid cause they never share a common space (all activities like languages and art are also done in the classrooms, so no common room at all) but yet he can't eat it and has to eat a protein free lunch everyday.

This is exactly the kind of situation that makes me so adamant in my position.

 

[elizke]

OP - What a horrible experience! It's a tough situation, but most businesses know that showing concern and finding a solution is good for business. What the heck was the matter with that guy?? You are right to write a letter. It will make you feel better, and may help the next person those people encounter not be subjected to the same.

This peanut allergy thing is just so perplexing to me. It's obviously on the rise, to put it mildly, and someone needs to find out why. I keep saying that it would really behoove the peanut industry to do some major studies on the question and find some answers. The dramatic rise, and the reaction severity are obviously related to SOMETHING. The change has been too quick to be evolutionary. I knew NO ONE growing up that had a peanut allergy. My kids (10 & 13) don't have any allergies, but have had someone almost every year in their class who does, and it's always the peanut, and always severe. My son's 5th grade teacher was highly allergic. It was a tough year for her! (She had no peanut issues growing up, but had her thyroid removed and from then on, trips to the hospital when exposed. So strange!)

The point is, it's a new thing these families are having to deal with. Some common ordinary thing suddenly is highly dangerous to your children. How scary! We need to figure out what the problem is, and meanwhile understand what it must be like for families trying to deal with this, and consider yourself lucky if you don't have to.

I do not place my rights above human compassion or ethical behavior, and most certainly not for peanuts.

 

[PattnFmly]

I truly feel for the OP and she should not have been treated like that. The airline guy was way out of line and I think the letter is great. I hope she gets somewhere!

I just wanted to mention that it is possible though, for others' rights to be violated by not being able to eat peanuts on the plane. The last time we flew as a family (which was a couple years back, before the new guidelines) I had packed for our journey: pbj sandwiches for all of us and everyone had picked a favorite candy bar to eat on the plane which included, peanut m&m's, reese's, and snickers. Once we had all boarded, it was announced that there was a peanut allergy on the plane and no one was allowed to ingest any peanuts for the duration of the flight. Well, that's all fine and dandy except I was traveling with little children who had not eaten anything but toast that morning and now we had do the entire trip, the waiting on the runway, the flight as well as the unboarding with starving, cranky children. The airline offered us nothing, as they had nothing else on board except the sodas. Once we landed and got into the airport I let my kids eat what we had packed but one child got sick because he had gotten too hungry and ate too fast. We lost the rest of the day dealing with those issues. All could have been avoided if they had told us prior to boarding so I could've let the kids eat then maybe they would've slept! I would not want to cause anyone to have a reaction, but people need to realize that the allergy people are not the only ones with rights. I had paid for our tickets also, and then had to deal with a sick child all day. We now drive when we go to WDW because there's just too many issues with flying. It's way easier to drive!

 

[kaytieeldr]

and I think the letter is great.

Ah, yes - back to the actual issue . The theory of the letter is great, but there are suggestions for editing it earlier in this thread, and in fact another poster actually took the time to rewrite the letter to make it (ideally) more effective. The issue, by the way, is the employee's treatment to the OP; the actual conditions are, really, secondary. Their area WAS ultimately cleaned, before they returned to it. The OP needs, in the future, to be proactive - if the airline allows preboarding so the passenger can ensure the seats are 'safe', the passenger needs to take some responsibilitly. Airlines just plain don't have time to clean the planes between flights.

packed but one child got sick because he had gotten too hungry and ate too fast. We lost the rest of the day dealing with those issues. All could have been avoided if they had told us prior to boarding

Ah, and now we come to another sticking point. It is the responsibility of the PA passenger or the passenger's representative (e.g. the parent) to notify the airline IN ADVANCE. It's possible your airline dropped the ball, but it's FAR more likely that the passenger in question merely notified a Flight Attendant after they were aboard. That's just plain selfish and inconsiderate. It's 100% impossible that the passenger/family just 'discovered' such an allergy aboard the plane. They knew.

 

[Nik's Mom]

Yes, which is why in my first post I said that there was no excuse for the tone or way she was treated.



I would be willing to move to a different seat, but I would not be willing to be in a different part of the plane and still be told that I can't eat something because someone 10 rows away is allergic. I'm sure it would not be hard to find someone who was not eating whatever the food was in question. I find it unacceptable that the entire plane is off limits because of one person, that is the crux of the issue.

It is like telling me I can't send my child to school with the food I chose because someone else has an allergy. Place my child on the opposite end of the class, but don't restrict their choices. That, I do find is a violation of my right to feed myself or my child what I see fit. I hold that right as important as any other.

I agree with you on this one. My sons are autistic and are very picky eaters, which is common for kids on the spectrum. They aren't big meat eaters, so they get their protein through peanut butter sandwichs for lunch. If the school told me that I could not send them to school with their lunch, I'd be ticked. I understand that peanut allergies are serious, but there is a better solution, like a peanut free table, or air line seats.

To the op, it was wrong the way you were treated though. That employee should not have yelled at you like that. Hugs to you!

 

[koima]

Ah, and now we come to another sticking point. It is the responsibility of the PA passenger or the passenger's representative (e.g. the parent) to notify the airline IN ADVANCE. It's possible your airline dropped the ball, but it's FAR more likely that the passenger in question merely notified a Flight Attendant after they were aboard. That's just plain selfish and inconsiderate. It's 100% impossible that the passenger/family just 'discovered' such an allergy aboard the plane. They knew.

If you read the OP, you'll see that she not only notified the airline in advance, but also told the baggage claim agent and agent at the gate before boarding. At what point did she drop the ball? Sounds like she did her due diligence in this case.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I wasn't responding to the OP. I had quoted and was responding to the post directly above mine, by PattnFmly. THAT poster had the experience where they were not informed until everyone was aboard the plane that no peanuts could be consumed. It's apparent - from the information that the airline had no alternative snack aboard - that the PA passenger didn't inform anyone of the problem until they were on the plane. Had they been considerate enough to tell the Gate Agent, that employee could then have made announcements while the passengers waited inside the terminal and had the opportunity to find acceptable food.

 

[RachelEllen]

Yes, which is why in my first post I said that there was no excuse for the tone or way she was treated.



I would be willing to move to a different seat, but I would not be willing to be in a different part of the plane and still be told that I can't eat something because someone 10 rows away is allergic. I'm sure it would not be hard to find someone who was not eating whatever the food was in question. I find it unacceptable that the entire plane is off limits because of one person, that is the crux of the issue.

It is like telling me I can't send my child to school with the food I chose because someone else has an allergy. Place my child on the opposite end of the class, but don't restrict their choices. That, I do find is a violation of my right to feed myself or my child what I see fit. I hold that right as important as any other.

I just wanted to point out that however strong your feelings are on the matter, you are under an obligation to follow the flight crew's directions while on the plane. I'm assuming that a lot of this is rhetoric, and that you, nor any reasonable person, would not actually violate flight instructions not to eat peanut products.

 

[ols386]

None of that matters to me. I am concerned with my right to do what I want. I will not constrain the choices of someone else merely because my choices are constrained. There comes a point when you have to fight for your rights and this is one area. I have the right to eat what I want when I want. I find it appalling that choices are made that effect everyone because of a few people's restrictions.

I know there are schools where kids can't bring in a peanut snack for themselves because of other people allergies. This appalls me as badly as restricting the religious rights of one person because another doesn't agree. I will eat my peanuts and my kids will eat their peanuts. With the childhood obesity in this country. I don't see why one healthy option should be taken away. You and your kids can chose not to eat peanuts. My choice should have zero bearing on yours while yours has zero bearing on mine. In my scenario no one is denied their free choice, everyone wins. I would rather die than ask someone to give up their freedoms.

I believe the supreme court has made some pretty important, if not controversial, decisions about restraining rights, even at the cost of life.

I think I could find something more important to fight about, rather than my right to eat peanuts, or whatever, in the presence of someone who is highly allergic to them (or whatever food is in question).

Restricting your religious rights is hardly the same thing as being asked not to eat peanuts on a plane, because someone is highly allergic to them. Those are two different situations. That logic makes no sense.

 

[Mouse House Mama]

I have no problem not having certain foods on a flight if someone has a deadly allergy to them. However- if I booked a flight and packed lunches etc. for my children, got on the plane and THEN was told that they cannot eat any of it I would have a huge problem with that. If the airlines wants to restrict certain foods then they either have to let each passenger know at least a few days before their flight, ban that food all together from their airline, and/or provide in flight food selections.
I am not making light of any person's allergies but I also would not be happy letting my kids feel sick because they are not allowed to eat their meal that they brought. IMO it is up to the individual to accomodate their allergy. Now before anyone starts flaming- what I mean is that they have to make sure they keep themselves in an environment that is okay for them. They have to be prepared in case they have to change their initial plan. Also, if my child had a severe allergy to something I would never fly an airline that served that food. We do have some allergy issues and we make sure that we are prepared. If the child in question was really very allergic then cleaning the peanuts off the floor was not really going to help. They rugs would have to be vacuumed and the seats, trays etc. would have to be wiped down and then you would have to worry about the airborn allergens from the peanuts. That seems like an awful lot of risk. I would have flown another airline.

I do think the person should not have spoken to you like that though.

 

[daisyduck123]

But if I had a child with one, I really would not fly or I'd search out those airlines that do not serve peanuts.

Exactly what I would do.

 

[FireDancer]

I think I could find something more important to fight about, rather than my right to eat peanuts, or whatever, in the presence of someone who is highly allergic to them (or whatever food is in question).

Restricting your religious rights is hardly the same thing as being asked not to eat peanuts on a plane, because someone is highly allergic to them. Those are two different situations. That logic makes no sense.

It isn't the right to eat peanuts per se I am fighting for. It is the fact that I should be free to choose what I eat and what I feed my children. Making everyone on a plane or everyone in a class or everyone at a camp change what they want to consume for the benefit of one person is something I am not willing to do. I find the restriction on choice regardless of whether it is a choice of religion or choice of food to be equally appalling.

I have no problem moving to another section of the plane of having my child eat at a different table, but I do have a problem with the exception dictating the rule. I won't tell anyone else they should feel the same obligation to their rights as I do. I know I am not wrong for fighting for mine, regardless of how unimportant they may seem to someone else.

 

[ols386]

It isn't the right to eat peanuts per se I am fighting for. It is the fact that I should be free to choose what I eat and what I feed my children. Making everyone on a plane or everyone in a class or everyone at a camp change what they want to consume for the benefit of one person is something I am not willing to do. I find the restriction on choice regardless of whether it is a choice of religion or choice of food to be equally appalling.

I have no problem moving to another section of the plane of having my child eat at a different table, but I do have a problem with the exception dictating the rule. I won't tell anyone else they should feel the same obligation to their rights as I do. I know I am not wrong for fighting for mine, regardless of how unimportant they may seem to someone else.

But moving to another section of the plane may not make a difference for that person allergic to peanuts, if they can indeed be harmed bythe dust from the peanuts. So you would be ok with that person who is allergic to peanut and/or peanut dust, suffering some kind of medical problem, because of the peanut dust, from the peanuts you are eating?

I understand what you are saying about rights, but this isn't ONLY about rights, it's also about the welfare of a child (or adult, perhaps) suffering some type of medical problem.

If I go on a plane, and the flight attendants say not to eat peanuts (or whatever), otherwise someone made become very ill from the dust, then I don't think it's a big deal for me to NOT eat peanuts on that particular flight.

 

[SingingMUA]

It seems peanut-allergy is a very hot-button issue. I'm honestly not sure where I stand on the issue, as I can see both points of view. I was recently on a SWA flight, where it was announced (only after passengers were seated) that no peanut products were allowed on the flight. I was ticked because the airline didn't notify the passengers while we were waiting in the terminal that this was the case, so people could prepare and purchase alternative snacks, if necessary. I didn't have any peanut products with me, so in that sense it didn't affect me.

I wonder if everyone from both sides of the debate would have the same feelings if the allergy in question were something more common and harder to avoid... like wheat. There are people who are asthmatic/anaphylactic to wheat.

It seems easy to assign blame and responsibility in instances where the substance is something that is "easy to avoid" or "easy to live without", but how about when the offending item is a lot harder to avoid?

 

[lillygator]

I think if the airline is not notifed until take off, the people who were responsible for lettign the airlines know should have to take a different flight.

If my child were that allergic, you would never see me put them in harms way by a flight that serves the very thing they are allergic to. You can't control what others bring on but knowing that they are in fact on the plane in the first place, well I just couldn't do it.

 

[Christine]

It seems peanut-allergy is a very hot-button issue. I'm honestly not sure where I stand on the issue, as I can see both points of view. I was recently on a SWA flight, where it was announced (only after passengers were seated) that no peanut products were allowed on the flight. I was ticked because the airline didn't notify the passengers while we were waiting in the terminal that this was the case, so people could prepare and purchase alternative snacks, if necessary. I didn't have any peanut products with me, so in that sense it didn't affect me.

I wonder if everyone from both sides of the debate would have the same feelings if the allergy in question were something more common and harder to avoid... like wheat. There are people who are asthmatic/anaphylactic to wheat.

It seems easy to assign blame and responsibility in instances where the substance is something that is "easy to avoid" or "easy to live without", but how about when the offending item is a lot harder to avoid?

I honestly cannot think of anything that I couldn't avoid during a 2-, 4-, 6-, or even 14 hour plane ride. Anything. For a temporary situation, I can make do with whatever I have to deal with to get through the flight. No wheat--fine, no milk, fine. However, we're getting into hypotheticals here that probably don't matter. Peanuts and tree nuts have the ability to become airborne and recirculate on a plane due to the nature of the the "nut" itself. These nuts also have oils that get on peoples' hands and, until they wash their hands, will get all over everything. The nature of peanuts, cashews, almonds, etc, is that they have a sticky, adherent residue.

Now, there are people who can die from exposure to milk and wheat; however, the nature of these food items is "not sticky" "not airborne" etc. You would almost have to dump a carton of milk on top of the allergic passenger for the reaction to occur. A hundred people drinking a their milk is not going to go airborne. A hundred people eating a cracker is not going to go airborne. But, even with that said, if someone was 30,000 feet in the air and my not eating wheat or drinking milk would make them feel better, I'd do it in a heartbeat. There is always something I can get by on.

 

[SingingMUA]

. However, we're getting into hypotheticals here that probably don't matter.

Now, there are people who can die from exposure to milk and wheat; however, the nature of these food items is "not sticky" "not airborne" etc. You would almost have to dump a carton of milk on top of the allergic passenger for the reaction to occur. A hundred people drinking a their milk is not going to go airborne. A hundred people eating a cracker is not going to go airborne. But, even with that said, if someone was 30,000 feet in the air and my not eating wheat or drinking milk would make them feel better, I'd do it in a heartbeat. There is always something I can get by on.

I did pose a hypothetical situation, and you're right, it probably doesn't matter. However, I was only trying to give each side of the argument a different perspective to see if their thoughts/feelings might change. Perhaps it would help someone better understand the other person's side.

As far as being airborne, I'm not sure what would make the proteins/allergens in peanuts more likely to be "airborne" than the proteins in wheat, but I believe a cracker (just using your example) could pose just as much problem as a stray peanut, for someone who is allergic. I would think that as crackers and other wheat products are crumbly and sometimes flour-y (think bread that has a "dusting" of flour on top of it that is frequently served with sandwiches), the likelihood of a wheat product that is "airborne" would cause just as much problem as a peanut product that is "airborne". I think it would have the same potential to do just as much damage to the person that is allergic.