Topic: What are your thoughts on this?

[tenpenny]

I think I just realized how stupid internet forums are.

[safristi]

  ALLERGIC to them..................

[Ex-airbalancer]

http://www.aircanada.com/en/travelinfo/onboard/dining/nutritional.html  this air canada take

[toolatecrew]

Disclaimer: My son has a severe peanut allergy.

After reading Air Canada's policy I belive that the Airline in the OP's post was NOT being reasonable in their request that the entire plane refrain from eating peanuts.

In the example of the air canada policy they offer to set up a buffer zone around the person. This is a reasonable course of action. It enables the airline to ASK the people in the buffer zone if they mond. If they do they could change seats with someone who does not. If they mind but can't be moved the airline could accomadate them by offering them a "free" peanut free snack as compensation or other type of compesnation for their trouble.

Asking all passengers from first seat to back seat to not eat peanuts is simply not reasonable. The person with the alergy need to walk through the airport to get to the plane and there are lots of people eating peanuts ion the airport. If you can accept that then you need to be prepared to accept it on the flight. Announcing it at the start of the flight is not acceptable either. If you want to make a flight "peanut free you need to make it clear when you book so that you can CHOOSE if you wish to fly on a peanit free flight.

People need to make a reasonable accomadation ..If someone sat down next to my son with a bag of peanuts the airline would either need to move us or move the person with the peanuts. that's reasonable. A whole fligh? Not reasonable.

[rrocket]

Disclaimer: My son has a severe peanut allergy.

And likely, you've taught him not put stuff into his mouth unless he knows 100% that there are no peanuts in it.  In effect, he is responsible for keeping his allergy in check, and is not relying on others to do it for him.

Peanut allergies are not new.  You sorta wonder how all those people with peanut allergies were able to stay alive without all the peanut free school, flights, rules, etc..

[Sir Osis of Liver]

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/health/the-rising-rate-of-food-allergies-2/1513/

It doesn't help that allergies are being over-diagnosed.

“A positive blood or skin test does not equate to a true food allergy,” Riedl said. In many cases, clinical symptoms such as acute hives, asthma or diarrhea are lacking. “People have altered their diets and lifestyles in dramatic ways, but when you review their clinical history there’s nothing to suggest they’re at risk for severe allergic reaction. Much of the time, their diagnosis is inaccurate.”

[rrocket]

I would say, generally, serious allergies like peanut or shellfish aren't improperly diagnosed.

[Triple Bob]

Ron, I think a lot of the time people get misdiagnosed between an actual allergy, and an intolerance.

[rrocket]

Ron, I think a lot of the time people get misdiagnosed between an actual allergy, and an intolerance.

Ok..but generally, peanut, shellfish, bee sting allergies run on the serious side.

[dr_spock]

I think the airline was trying to avoid any liabilities.   You could test the legal waters by not complying and see what happens.

[rrocket]

I think the airline was trying to avoid any liabilities.   You could test the legal waters by not complying and see what happens.

They'd charge you for disrupting a flight and like a terrorist, you might find yourself on the No Fly list.

[tpl]

The case where a Peanut allergy sufferer sued the airline and the airline sued the peanut eater and there was  a counter suit from the peanut eater would be interesting . 

I would really like to see a Charter case in Canada of course against Air Canada ( or WestJet I suppose) by a Canadian flying between two points in Canada being on a no-fly list. Especially if they were on a list started by America because ( as happens) the flights happen to get close to American soil.  Or in terms of  this thread, for being disruptive by eating peanuts.
I suspect that the Supremes might find for the passenger and then be overridden in practice for "national security " reasons.  But who knows... they might use the overall get out of "just and reasonable".


FWIW mrs tpl is intolerant of Oysters. raw or cooked.  But not allergic, she just pukes.   

[kard00d]

I agree.

The idiot who banned peanuts on the flight is the same kind of idiot who won't be responsible for his own actions.

It could have been the Captain's call - he's ultimately responsible for safety.   Someone got an allergy? OK play it safe.   Helps avoids a (costly) diversion if there's an emergency.  Imagine the whining if that happened.

The peanut jerk is right up there with the worst of them.

People have to take responsibility for their own welfare. Folks who can't balance hot coffee should drink from a canteen and people who eat at McDonalds every day should spend some time introducing themselves to a salad. People with peanut allergies have to be responsible for removing themselves from the allergen...not making everybody else responsible.

How do we know the "peanut jerk" wasn't a little girl or something?   Maybe it was the first time they flew with this condition and are playing it on the safe side.   Seems to be this picture painted of some peanut-allergy-politically-correct-mafia fat cat trying enforce his will on the peanut addicted.

To me the PC freaks are the ones who think it's a right to never ever be inconvenienced, even to a trivial degree.   They generally huff and puff and whine when this occurs.