what caused SW Airlines to do this?

[bicker]

You draw the line between what is more important; human life/health or someone who can't be without fido or fluffy. Flame suit on.

You misread the message. (Either that or you are saying that the rules should be such that even if one person in the United States is endangered by a specific hyper-sensitivity, the entire society must be subject to rules that minimize or eliminate that danger. If you really are saying that, then you really do need to don a flame suit, because to suggest that even one person should be able to basically be the tail that wags the dog that is the entire nation, you're putting out an outrageous perspective that practically no one would believe that even you believe.)

So please reconsider the question I asked, and please let us know what number of people or percentage of people so affected constitutes a threshold for such rules. Thanks.

 

[Tikitoi]

So please reconsider the question I asked, and please let us know what number of people or percentage of people so affected constitutes a threshold for such rules. Thanks.

I only know what is important to me and my family and that is what matters to me. I don't think that we as well should be inconvenienced by a hospital visit due to something that can be prevented.

 

[bicker]

Okay, going with your logic, then everyone would reasonably concern themselves only with what is important to them and their family, and therefore there is no reasonable expectation along the lines you asserted earlier. Your perspective is, itself, crafting a situation whereby you cannot possible get what you need or want, because it justifies people focusing only on themselves.

 

[JessicaR]

This all raises an interesting question: Where do you draw the line? There are people who basically have to shut themselves away, due to hyper-sensitivity to aspects of others -- perhaps perfume, perhaps dander, whatever. I think everyone would agree that if half the people had such a hyper-sensitivity, it would be proper to impose a rule making everyone adhere to guidelines that ensure that the hyper-sensitive half could still fly. I think most everyone would agree that if a specific hyper-sensitivity affected one and only one person in the country, that there would be inadequate basis to impose any such rules. So somewhere between 50% and 1 out of 300+ million there is a line... where is that line?

I don't know exactly where that line is and who determines it in the first place. I agree with your line of thinking. According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, of the 17 million asthma sufferers in the United States, 10 million (approximately 60%) have allergic asthma. Three million are children and 7 million are adults. The asthma/allergy prevalence is rising. I do believe it will have a bearing on petfree airline choice in the future.

Fortunately there are preventative steps that can be taken to reduce allergic reactions.

Honestly, sufferers are understandably upset. However, there ARE preventative measures that can and should be taken prior to flying. If a sufferer has severe reactions to pets then they are already taking these measures on a daily basis. Premedicate and have your rescue medications handy. If this is unacceptable don't fly.

It comes down to personal responsibility. I am in the same situation, my son is a severe asthmatic with many allergies. I am comfortable with our rescue plan and know it works. We have flown all over the world without issue. In the grand scheme of things this is not an issue that stresses me out. But, I am sorry for those that it does.

 

[bicker]

You've raised a very important point: The availability of preventive measures. The existence of such measures absolutely pushes the burden back away from society towards being more heavily placed onto the affected individuals.

 

[arminnie]

I only know what is important to me and my family and that is what matters to me. I don't think that we as well should be inconvenienced by a hospital visit due to something that can be prevented.

So prevent it. Nobody is forcing you on that plane. Heck - SWA doesn't even fly to a large portion of the US.

 

[Pinnie]

So prevent it. Nobody is forcing you on that plane. Heck - SWA doesn't even fly to a large portion of the US.

ITA! FYI, there are police dogs in many terminals as well. Driving may be the best option for those that are too allergic to fly.

pinnie

 

[monkey68]

This is not selfish for people who have a severe allergic reaction to animals. It is more selfish for people who can choose other means of transportation or care for their pets. People with allergies CANNOT control that. They have them and have to deal with them as best they can. There is more inconvenience over someone's health or possible life in this situation.

People with allergies can also choose other means of transportation. I understand where you're coming from, honestly I do, I have severe allergies to cats as well, I've also wound up in the ER with an attack after being near a cat. The thing is, you can't shelter yourself or your kids from the world, best you can do is teach them to be responsible. Carry a nebulizer with you if you need to, they make some portable ones now that don't take up too much space, and medications don't count with the liquid rule. Premedicate, have emergency meds easily available, and that's the best you can do if you have a bad allergy, no matter where you are.

As for SWA, they're a business, and it all comes down to their bottom line. Chances are, more people will pay the extra fee for a pet than will stop flying them because of the policy. You can inquire before you get on the plane if there are any animals in the cabin, and request to be seated as far away from them as possible. Explain about the severe allergy, and they'll probably let you preboard.

 

[Carly_Roach]

Driving may be the best option for those that are too allergic to fly.

I agree. And for those who ask "Why should I have to alter my schedule, lifestyle and/or be inconvenienced?" there's a simple answer:

Because you're the one with the allergy.

It comes down to taking personal responsibility for your life; especially if the disability means being exposed to certain elements would cause death. If being around animals is going to cause a visit to the ER, then the answer isn't that the hundreds of people around you has to change their schedules, lifestyles and/or be inconvenienced in order to accommodate you (or your children). The answer is to not put yourself or your children into situations that could possibly cause death.

We're not talking about handicapped accessible public buildings here like courthouses, post offices, public libraries, etc. We're talking about a privately owned transportation company. They may accommodate those with allergies or they may not. That's the beauty of being able to choose another carrier or simply drive in your own car.

 

[iggbees]

i've flown cross country sitting next to a woman with a small dog. i think they must have given the dog a sedative, because the dog did not make any noises for the 6 hour flight except for the initial yelp on takeoff (which was obviously due to the change in pressure, poor puppy!).

 

[bicker]

... We're not talking about handicapped accessible public buildings here like courthouses, post offices, public libraries, etc. We're talking about a privately owned transportation company. They may accommodate those with allergies or they may not. That's the beauty of being able to choose another carrier or simply drive in your own car.

All true. In addition, it is important to recognize that sometimes no supplier is willing to offer the produce or service you want in accordance with your needs. That's also a regular occurrence that people need to accept sometimes is the case. Life isn't necessarily fair.

 

[jane in DE]

I agree. Unless you have allergies, you may not understand, it is not the usually the fur, it is the dander. Just as some people have extreme allergies to even the smell of peanuts and have to fly a peanut sterile environment, some of us have the same severe reaction even if we are not in the row or near the animal.

So, it's not always as simple as some of the posters to this thread might think.

 

[bicker]

I suspect that what some of the posters to this thread might think is what some of the posters to this thread might think is not what some of the posters to this thread might think.

Think about it.

 

[Nancy]

Been on one of these flights. And I must say I felt for whoever the person was that had the allergies, since there was so much grumbling going on about not being able to have peanuts.

I don't get the whole up in arms over no peanuts on the plane. Do these up in arms people eat peanuts everyday that if they miss them on their flight their day will be ruined? Me? I'd rather have pretzels any day over peanuts.


Back to the topic. Hopefully for the OP this will not be an issue but I can certainly sympathize with you.

 

[bicker]

I don't get the whole up in arms over no peanuts on the plane. Do these up in arms people eat peanuts everyday that if they miss them on their flight their day will be ruined? Me? I'd rather have pretzels any day over peanuts.

I don't have a problem with peanut bans -- I'd rather have almonds anyway. I think, though, that some folks look at the whole situation as a symbol -- a symbol of something I alluded to earlier (which I never got a straight answer to, by the way...) How many people must suffer an affliction before it becomes (from the perspective of those people who do object to the peanut bans) everyone else's problem?

I think another contributor to their frustration is just how many different things are driving restrictions and limitations on them. They can't bring their favorite (inexpensive) soft drinks. They can't bring their favorite snacks. What's next? (they think)

 

[JessicaR]

I agree. Unless you have allergies, you may not understand, it is not the usually the fur, it is the dander. Just as some people have extreme allergies to even the smell of peanuts and have to fly a peanut sterile environment, some of us have the same severe reaction even if we are not in the row or near the animal.

So, it's not always as simple as some of the posters to this thread might think.

It is also true that some with allergies don't fully understand either. Truthfully, a plane that serves peanuts is not considered a peanut sterile environment just because it skips a flight from serving them.

Premedicating with an antihistamine would be an option for some. Take the medication an hour or two before the exposure for optimal effectiveness. Of course you will also carry your portable, injectable epinephrine in case you have a severe reaction while in flight.

 

[JessicaR]

I suspect that what some of the posters to this thread might think is what some of the posters to this thread might think is not what some of the posters to this thread might think.

Think about it.

bicker, read that again and say that again, please.

 

[sorul82?]

Grumpy Gal:

A representative from Southwest told me that if you notify them about the allergy, then anyone with an animal (excluding service animals) will be bumped from the flight.

 

[bicker]

I had to "diagram" the sentence before I posted it to make sure I was putting the words in the correct order.

 

[monkey68]

I don't have a problem with peanut bans -- I'd rather have almonds anyway. I think, though, that some folks look at the whole situation as a symbol -- a symbol of something I alluded to earlier (which I never got a straight answer to, by the way...) How many people must suffer an affliction before it becomes (from the perspective of those people who do object to the peanut bans) everyone else's problem?

I think another contributor to their frustration is just how many different things are driving restrictions and limitations on them. They can't bring their favorite (inexpensive) soft drinks. They can't bring their favorite snacks. What's next? (they think)

Well then I just won't get on a plane with you I'm fine with peanuts, but have a bad reaction to nuts. It's ok though, I don't expect the world to change to me, I adapt to the world. I just won't sit near you and I won't have to deal with you spitting almond bits at me