Almost kicked off FLIGHT! Please help

[kaytieeldr]

but we've all given up choice parking spots so that special needs people can get into the mall easier--so that cardiac patients who are at high risk don't endanger their lives by having too walk long distances to do their grocery shopping, so that people with injured limbs aren't in extreme pain when walking to much. I

Actually, no. The purpose of a handicap parking space is to get the person out of the flow of traffic as quickly and safely as possible. It's not so eligible persons don't have to walk long distances - heck, there's a LOT more walking INside the supermarket. It's not to alleviate pain. Example: "my" credit union has its (two) handicap parking spaces at the opposite end of the building from where the door is. There are about ten parking spaces between those and the door, but that's where they legally opted to put the curb cut. That they're often the "choice" spaces is secondary - and are there really so many HP parking spaces that it can be considered a sacrifice?

As for 'giving up' money to make public buildings accessible, well, in each case it's a finite expense. You build the ramp/access, and except for the same normal maintenance provided to the entire building/grounds, there's no further/unusual cost involved. Given that the ADA's been in effect for something like eighteen years, it's unlikely there's much additional construction involved. Older buildings have been (or should have been) adapted by now, and everything built since it went into effect is designed to be accessible.

I get that you don't want to change things for people with needs.

For the record, I never said I don't want to change things for people in need. I'm asking questions or making observations.

 

[Christine]

Actually, no. The purpose of a handicap parking space is to get the person out of the flow of traffic as quickly and safely as possible. It's not so eligible persons don't have to walk long distances - heck, there's a LOT more walking INside the supermarket. It's not to alleviate pain. Example: "my" credit union has its (two) handicap parking spaces at the opposite end of the building from where the door is. There are about ten parking spaces between those and the door, but that's where they legally opted to put the curb cut. That they're often the "choice" spaces is secondary - and are there really so many HP parking spaces that it can be considered a sacrifice?

As for 'giving up' money to make public buildings accessible, well, in each case it's a finite expense. You build the ramp/access, and except for the same normal maintenance provided to the entire building/grounds, there's no further/unusual cost involved. Given that the ADA's been in effect for something like eighteen years, it's unlikely there's much additional construction involved. Older buildings have been (or should have been) adapted by now, and everything built since it went into effect is designed to be accessible.

For the record, I never said I don't want to change things for people in need. I'm asking questions or making observations.

Sorry if I misunderstood your statement of:

*I realize peanut allergies can be life-threatening - it should be pointed out that this is an extremely small percentage of the overall population, yet the remaining 98+% is expected to adapt :confused2

You admit that you are confused at the 98% of the population that has to adapt to a small few which is why I got the idea that you don't want to make any changes for them.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I understand that handicapped spaces were put in to allow people room to maneuver. They could have put them far away to do that also. I don't think for one minute that proximity to the store isn't also part of the equation. And while not ordered by the ADA, many stores in my area have also taken "primo" spaces and reserved them for mothers of young children or pregnant women. Totally voluntary on their part, just like the airlines asking for no peanuts, but no one seems to be up in arms about this accommodation either. Probably because SO many of us have walked in the shoes of a pregnant woman or a young mother trying to get into the store.

And the fact that we have used funds to allow handicapped access as being finite, I guess I don't understand the point? It's not really costing anyone anything to try to reduce the risk of an allergic reaction on a plane. It's really kind of a free thing. But it puts some people in flying rage. But they don't get into a rage about accommodations being made for other special needs.

So again, I'm just not getting the outrage. I try, I really do. There was a time when allergies were NOT a part of my life and I know I wouldn't have felt any differently.

I get the feeling that sometimes there are people (in general) who truly believe that the world was created for perfect people and that everyone else who can't fit in just needs to live in some sheltered universe because the perfect people just can't be bothered with these pesky things. I just don't understand that viewpoint. I certainly do see the point of not inconveniencing the rest of the world SO much so that you create awful hardships. I do believe that some people take it too far and those people should be called on it.

Going back to the original purpose of this thread, I'm not sure if the OP is one of those people or not.

 

[GoldieSaysMeep]

Just adding that I also think it is ridiculous and unreasonable for 98% of the population to adapt to the 2% with the issue.

Handicap parking is not the same. We're talking about the difference of walking a few feet and handcap plates are also often given to the elderly. We all get elderly.

At most of the places near me, also, there are a few rows w/ handicap spaces and a few rows without.

 

[GoldieSaysMeep]

I have not read this entire thread. I started reading through it and this post stopped me. So forgive me if someone has already asked this and/or you have answered this.
I am allergic to animal fur or dander or something. I have never been to an allergy doctor. I just know that when I get around animals like cats, dogs, and horses, my eyes turn red and burn/itch and tear up/run, my nose gets stopped up, I sneeze like crazy, and I start breaking out in hives. I have to get away from the animals or I am miserable. About a month ago I was on a flight where a lady brought her dog. She did not keep the dog in a crate of any kind; it was on her lap. Thankfully this was a short flight ( a little over an hour) and I was many rows in front of her. I did sneeze a few times and my nose got sniffly, but I was not miserable. I made it through the flight with no problems. Just two weeks ago I was booked on a flight where a woman brought her cat in a crate to the gate. Now, this was a long flight (over 5 hours), and I have to admit that I got very nervous about that. The flight ended up being cancelled and we had to take another plane. The lady and her cat did not fly with us. I can't help but wonder what would I do if I had to sit next to her and her cat for over 5 hours. I would be a mess. I have since started keeping Benadrayl in my carry on. I had always carried it in my checked luggage before. I know that those people have the right to have their pets onboard. Of course, I would prefer that I didn't have to breathe the recirculated air with their animal hair/dander. It is not deadly to me like it is to you so I understand that there is nothing that I can do about it other than be prepared with Benadryl. I just get very miserable. What do you do in those situations, when pets fly on planes that you are on? Do the airlines make the pets go to cargo? What do you do?

I've personally never been on a plane with a cat. I usually check the flight beforehand when I book. I usually fly SWA and I think they don't allow them anyway.

The closest answer/example I have is I am dating a person who lives in a house with 3 cats. In the year we have been together, I have never been able to stay in his house for more than 10-15 minutes before I stop being able to breathe. We make it work, he always comes to my house. The cats aren't his, thankfully. So for me, avoidance/prevention is key. Keeping my epipen & benadryl on me at all times is my second course of action and making sure wherever I am, if there is a cat present, that I will be able to get up and move away if need be, preferably outside.

If I wound up on a flight where there was a cat, I'd talk to the airline about why that happened after my noting my allergy. Then I'd book another flight. It certainly would not be worth the risk for me to fly with a cat.

 

[Nicoleclaw]

Just adding that I also think it is ridiculous and unreasonable for 98% of the population to adapt to the 2% with the issue.

Just a friendly reminder that his horrible adaptation you are asked to commit to occasionally (I've been on 16 flights and it has never happened to me once) is for a flight. ONE FLIGHT. No one is talking about outlawing the sale of peanuts.

 

[Christine]

Just adding that I also think it is ridiculous and unreasonable for 98% of the population to adapt to the 2% with the issue.

Handicap parking is not the same. We're talking about the difference of walking a few feet and handcap plates are also often given to the elderly. We all get elderly.

At most of the places near me, also, there are a few rows w/ handicap spaces and a few rows without.

You can't get a plate for being elderly. You get a plate for being disabled. I supposed at some point you'd get old and feeble enough to qualify, but not all eldery people do. We all don't get disabled. Some do and some clearly get special treatment for it. Giving up front row parking just doesn't seem to bother you but giving up food does. That's fine. Let's just be honest about it.

 

[GoldieSaysMeep]

You can't get a plate for being elderly. You get a plate for being disabled. I supposed at some point you'd get old and feeble enough to qualify, but not all eldery people do. We all don't get disabled. Some do and some clearly get special treatment for it. Giving up front row parking just doesn't seem to bother you but giving up food does. That's fine. Let's just be honest about it.

I don't really care where I park my car. If I have to park it next to the handicapped spot, 2 feet away, I could care less. Since we're being honest, I generally park my car as far away from the entrance as possible anyway, because I like the walk, it's good excercise.

As for the food, yeah. I'm particular about my food and I like to enjoy my flight. If eating a Reeses on my flight is what I'm feeling like doing, then I'm going to do so, until they make it illegal. It's not my job to look out for your health. If you don't like what I'm eating, you can move to a different seat or get off the plane and wait for another flight.

If you have an allergy to a popular snack, avoid being near that snack and places where people might consume it.

I honestly don't know how some of you people leave your houses in the morning. I have life threatening allergies too but I don't swing into hysterics expecting people to tend to my needs everywhere I go.

 

[Doe]

I think I may have been around a couple people on this thread on an airplane, in a sports arena.
Were you the man sitting behind us at the indoor college football game who kept throwing your peanut shells under my daughters seat getting all over her shoes and when I politely and discreetly asked you to please stop because my daughter is severely allergic to peanuts you looked at me like as if to say "I don't give a crap, it's my right to sit here eat my peanuts and too bad for you"? Or were you the women on the plane who said when the flight attendant asked all passengers to refrain from eating peanuts/tree nuts on the flight "oh please, here we go again" then told her kids not to worry about it eating anything with peanuts in it?

I wonder for those of you who are so adamant that you will not go out of your way for those with food allergies, were my daughter sitting next to you on a plane and you couldn't change seats, would you still open up your bag of nuts? Or would you just say, "hey, not my problem." ? I mean really, to the poster who thinks that that person should get off the plane, are you serious?

My daughter has LIFE THREATENING allergies to peanuts/some tree nuts, fish, shellfish and kiwi. And it totally sucks and as a mom scares the hell out of me. But we don't let her live in a bubble and the girl just got done with two weeks in a row of attending volleyball camps, goes to sleepovers, movies, sporting events, fields trips, you name it.
Not all of us parents of children with food allergies goes into hysterics when it comes to dealing with it. The only concessions ever made for my daughter was a peanut/tree nut free classroom and a safe table in the lunch room. The few times she's flown we only alerted to flight attendant (on flights where peanuts/tree nuts weren't served) just double checking and every time they chose to make the announcement. We didn't ask, they just did it (Frontier Airlines by the way)

 

[OceanAnnie]

I think I may have been around a couple people on this thread on an airplane, in a sports arena.
Were you the man sitting behind us at the indoor college football game who kept throwing your peanut shells under my daughters seat getting all over her shoes and when I politely and discreetly asked you to please stop because my daughter is severely allergic to peanuts you looked at me like as if to say "I don't give a crap, it's my right to sit here eat my peanuts and too bad for you"? Or were you the women on the plane who said when the flight attendant asked all passengers to refrain from eating peanuts/tree nuts on the flight "oh please, here we go again" then told her kids not to worry about it eating anything with peanuts in it?

I wonder for those of you who are so adamant that you will not go out of your way for those with food allergies, were my daughter sitting next to you on a plane and you couldn't change seats, would you still open up your bag of nuts? Or would you just say, "hey, not my problem." ? I mean really, to the poster who thinks that that person should get off the plane, are you serious?

My daughter has LIFE THREATENING allergies to peanuts/some tree nuts, fish, shellfish and kiwi. And it totally sucks and as a mom scares the hell out of me. But we don't let her live in a bubble and the girl just got done with two weeks in a row of attending volleyball camps, goes to sleepovers, movies, sporting events, fields trips, you name it.
Not all of us parents of children with food allergies goes into hysterics when it comes to dealing with it. The only concessions ever made for my daughter was a peanut/tree nut free classroom and a safe table in the lunch room. The few times she's flown we only alerted to flight attendant (on flights where peanuts/tree nuts weren't served) just double checking and every time they chose to make the announcement. We didn't ask, they just did it (Frontier Airlines by the way)

This thread is just sad. I can't imagine a child's life is less important than the snacks that people hold so dear.

 

[Christine]

I don't really care where I park my car. If I have to park it next to the handicapped spot, 2 feet away, I could care less. Since we're being honest, I generally park my car as far away from the entrance as possible anyway, because I like the walk, it's good excercise.

As for the food, yeah. I'm particular about my food and I like to enjoy my flight. If eating a Reeses on my flight is what I'm feeling like doing, then I'm going to do so, until they make it illegal. It's not my job to look out for your health. If you don't like what I'm eating, you can move to a different seat or get off the plane and wait for another flight.

If you have an allergy to a popular snack, avoid being near that snack and places where people might consume it.

I honestly don't know how some of you people leave your houses in the morning. I have life threatening allergies too but I don't swing into hysterics expecting people to tend to my needs everywhere I go.

No one is in hysterics but you. I'm quite calm about allergies and my son flies with no problem, has lunch at the same table with kids who eat peanut butter and what not. No one here is making demands or saying that but you seem to want to make it seem that way.

Your personal agenda against peanut allergy is very obvious. It is also clear that you rate different special needs by your own personal view of importance. Loud and clear but illogical and not convincing.

 

[LaurenLC]

I feel bad for the OP BUT......

I would suggest you fly airlines that no longer serve peanut products.

We have severe allergies (peanuts as well) & you have to realize that many people bring nuts onboard as a snack so you can never control the situation.

If your child has a contact allergy you need to be proactive & wipe down the arm rests & ray table. If it is an allergy only when ingested fly with Benydryl & an Epi-pen.

The letter is a good idea but it needs to stick to the facts. What solution are you seeking?

I was wondering if this poster's question was ever answered, because I think it's a great one..... What soloution are you seeking?

 

[NEVERENOUGHWDW]

I was wondering if this poster's question was ever answered, because I think it's a great one..... What soloution are you seeking?

The OP has disappeared~

 

[LaurenLC]

The OP has disappeared~

Not surprising...... Thanks for acknowledging my question though!

 

[edk35]

I think I may have been around a couple people on this thread on an airplane, in a sports arena.
Were you the man sitting behind us at the indoor college football game who kept throwing your peanut shells under my daughters seat getting all over her shoes and when I politely and discreetly asked you to please stop because my daughter is severely allergic to peanuts you looked at me like as if to say "I don't give a crap, it's my right to sit here eat my peanuts and too bad for you"? Or were you the women on the plane who said when the flight attendant asked all passengers to refrain from eating peanuts/tree nuts on the flight "oh please, here we go again" then told her kids not to worry about it eating anything with peanuts in it?

I wonder for those of you who are so adamant that you will not go out of your way for those with food allergies, were my daughter sitting next to you on a plane and you couldn't change seats, would you still open up your bag of nuts? Or would you just say, "hey, not my problem." ? I mean really, to the poster who thinks that that person should get off the plane, are you serious?

My daughter has LIFE THREATENING allergies to peanuts/some tree nuts, fish, shellfish and kiwi. And it totally sucks and as a mom scares the hell out of me. But we don't let her live in a bubble and the girl just got done with two weeks in a row of attending volleyball camps, goes to sleepovers, movies, sporting events, fields trips, you name it.
Not all of us parents of children with food allergies goes into hysterics when it comes to dealing with it. The only concessions ever made for my daughter was a peanut/tree nut free classroom and a safe table in the lunch room. The few times she's flown we only alerted to flight attendant (on flights where peanuts/tree nuts weren't served) just double checking and every time they chose to make the announcement. We didn't ask, they just did it (Frontier Airlines by the way)

VERY WELL SAID!!!!!! I feel just like you. Our kids do not live in bubbles either. Our kids go to sleepovers, overnight camps, parties and sporting events. I have 3 children severely allergic to peanuts and one of them is also tree nut. I had a mom pitch a fit when my 15 year old was in kindergarten. The teacher politely asked parents to refrain from sending in snacks with peanut butter. This was a 1/2 day program, so the kids brought in a snack and drink each day. She kept saying "my son eats a peanut buttter sandwich every day for snack". She was so upset that the poor child might starve if he didn't get it. People don't get food allergies at all. It angers me that they can't adjust for something so life threatening. I mean...will you die if you can't have a darn packet of nuts while flying?? NO!!! People who smoke can't smoke on planes anymore and they do just fine, so I think people who love eating their packet of 20 nuts can wait until they are off the plane. Airlines need to just stop serving nuts period.

 

[edk35]

I don't really care where I park my car. If I have to park it next to the handicapped spot, 2 feet away, I could care less. Since we're being honest, I generally park my car as far away from the entrance as possible anyway, because I like the walk, it's good excercise.

As for the food, yeah. I'm particular about my food and I like to enjoy my flight. If eating a Reeses on my flight is what I'm feeling like doing, then I'm going to do so, until they make it illegal. It's not my job to look out for your health. If you don't like what I'm eating, you can move to a different seat or get off the plane and wait for another flight.

If you have an allergy to a popular snack, avoid being near that snack and places where people might consume it.

I honestly don't know how some of you people leave your houses in the morning. I have life threatening allergies too but I don't swing into hysterics expecting people to tend to my needs everywhere I go.

I am glad we have never sat by you on a flight. So far we have only had one person take out nuts to eat during a flight. However our daughter mentioned that she and her brother were allergic and he was very nice and put them away. He seem very concerned and we were very gracious for his act of kindness. He could have eaten them but he didn't.

 

[FireDancer]

I get that you don't want to change things for people with needs. But we accommodate people's special needs all the time. I don't know the percentage of handicapped people out of the whole population, nor do I know the amount that are scamming the system, but we've all given up choice parking spots so that special needs people can get into the mall easier--so that cardiac patients who are at high risk don't endanger their lives by having too walk long distances to do their grocery shopping, so that people with injured limbs aren't in extreme pain when walking to much. I remember a time when we didn't have handicapped spaces and how, in the early days, some people were put out because they couldn't park up front. We still have people who think they are above the system and will illegally park in a spot designed for special needs. We use taxpayer dollars to build ramps and easy access into public buildings and schools for people in wheelchairs, so that they may try to live a normal life.

I think the difference between ADA accommodations and forcing people to give up something that is legal is a bit different. There is an elevator in our building so that people who can't take the stairs have a way to get to the 2nd floor. I am not forced, however, to take the elevator, I can take the stairs. Therefore, there is zero impact on my life even though the elevator is there. We also have low counter teller windows but able-bodied people are not forced to get down in a crouch position to use them. The ADA accommodations are not forced upon those that don't need them.

As far as all the "it is only one plane ride" argument goes, who cares. It doesn't matter to me what the circumstances are, someone else's problem should not effect me.

If you take the specifics out of it and just look at the overall argument I make it looks something like this:

Person A is unable to partake in event B for reason C. Person D is fully capable of partaking in event B, which is a legal activity or product. Person A can have an alternative to event B, but there should be no restriction what so ever on person D partaking in B regardless of reason C.

So whether you plug in walking to event B and being a paraplegic into reason C or you plug eating a peanut into event B and allergies into event C makes no difference to me. It still comes down to the fact that person D should be able to do event B regardless of what C is. A reasonable alternative should be given to person A, like wheelchair access or an alternative shack and a reasonable buffer of a number of rows. But forcing person D to not eat a peanut snack in this scenario is analogous to not allowing them to use their own legs when you take the specifics out of it. Event B is still something person D can and should be able to do even though person A can not.

When it is broken down to the generic instead of the specific it seems kind of silly to ever ban B from the majority for any length of time.

 

[LaraK]

Anyone who is thinking that parents of kids with food allergies get a kick our of inconveniencing you...come walk a mile in my shoes for one week. Get a grip...our kids have a disorder that can kill them.

Thankfully my kid will not stop breathing if he is exposed. Instead each exposure slowly closes his throat more and more and it does not get better. I can't imagine having the fear that my child will stop breathing mid-flight. My kid will just vomit on you.

 

[Nicoleclaw]

Anyone who is thinking that parents of kids with food allergies get a kick our of inconveniencing you...come walk a mile in my shoes for one week. Get a grip...our kids have a disorder that can kill them.

Thankfully my kid will not stop breathing if he is exposed. Instead each exposure slowly closes his throat more and more and it does not get better. I can't imagine having the fear that my child will stop breathing mid-flight. My kid will just vomit on you.

It seems like the people who feel they are being greatly inconvenienced for their 2 hour flight do not realize that we (the PA moms and dads) are inconvenienced on a daily basis.

The puking....I guess that is one way to get them to put the peanuts away!

 

[NEVERENOUGHWDW]

Nobody seems to want to answer this but do you carry EPI-Pens?

 

[Nicoleclaw]

As far as all the "it is only one plane ride" argument goes, who cares. It doesn't matter to me what the circumstances are, someone else's problem should not effect me.

If you take the specifics out of it and just look at the overall argument I make it looks something like this:

Person A is unable to partake in event B for reason C. Person D is fully capable of partaking in event B, which is a legal activity or product. Person A can have an alternative to event B, but there should be no restriction what so ever on person D partaking in B regardless of reason C.

So whether you plug in walking to event B and being a paraplegic into reason C or you plug eating a peanut into event B and allergies into event C makes no difference to me. It still comes down to the fact that person D should be able to do event B regardless of what C is. A reasonable alternative should be given to person A, like wheelchair access or an alternative shack and a reasonable buffer of a number of rows. But forcing person D to not eat a peanut snack in this scenario is analogous to not allowing them to use their own legs when you take the specifics out of it. Event B is still something person D can and should be able to do even though person A can not.

When it is broken down to the generic instead of the specific it seems kind of silly to ever ban B from the majority for any length of time.

Would it make any difference to you if it were not a stranger and a girlfriend, sibling, child, or friend of yours?

It seems with your cut and dry A,B,C,D situation that you have taken all possible personalization or emotion out of it.