Direct flights cross country severe food allergy?

[stitchlovestink]

Sorry, but it's inconsiderate to expect a child not to eat on a flight just because of one with allergies. I know, I know, I don't understand what's it's like. I only have lactose intolerence.

I think anyone who has that extreme a view should announce the allergy well in advance so other passengers can find other food before boarding. I would be very peeved to take a sandwich onboard as my lunch and then find I couldn't have it and there's no other food on board.

As I stated before though... I'm sorry, and I know it may sound mean or cruel and I don't mean for it to, but it is not fair nor reasonable for someone else to expect others to incur additional expenses because of their 'issues'. Not everyone is traveling for vacation. Not everyone has 'extra' $$ to spend on costly airport food because of someone else's allergies. And even if they are travelling for vacation, you don't know how long they have skrimped and saved for that vacation and it is not someone else's 'right' to dictate how they should spend their additional funds. I think this does come back to if this is that extreme of an issue maybe it is time to rethink your travel arrangements. There are other modes of transportation. While they may not be as convenient or what 'you want', they may provide you the SAFETY you need!
I guess that is what I do like about SW...they won't allow a peanut allergy person's needs to trump another person's needs... say the diabetic who needs to eat the peanut butter crackers... They both have equal rights!

I was very much hesitating to jump into this one because last time this came up I got flamed for my opinion. But what I highlighted in red in this PP post was the point I was trying to make in that other thread (from who knows when). Regardless or whether or not it's right or wrong or who's sicker than who or whatever, if the issue is that severe its probably time to reconsider the arrangements. It's just unrealistic to expect every person on a flight to avoid fill in whatever allergen here. It will never be realistic unless they were to make it a law and practically strip search everyone who walks on the plane for any traces of the allergen, and that won't happen because there's always going to be other transportation options. They may be less convenient but they still exist.

EXACTLY!!!

I don't know and that is a good point. I am just going by that post, and no mention was made of the person who ingested the PB having some sort of allergy, or medical need of it. I would think that if I had a child that needed to eat PB, and it unintentionally caused another person to have a medical emergency, I would come forward and explain why I had fed my child the PB, even after being told not to.

bolding is mine...
And on the SW flights I have been on they have just announced that they will not be serving peanuts, they have not announced that you cannot consume them! They may have one one or two of them asked that anyone within a certain # of rows of 'said allergic person' please not consume peanut products or if they needed to please ask to move. But they did not declare that it was going to be a peanut free environment.
Sorry, but I don't owe anyone any explanation about my medical conditions.
If it is a SW flight, you are informed it is not guaranteed to be 100% peanut free. That is the chance you are taking when you choose to fly them. Again, not meant as rudeness...if you choose to share that info, it is fine, but others who choose not to share that should not be considered rude, that is personal information and people know the inherent risks when they chose to fly.
What amazes me is that someone would expect people to BUY different food! I guess I just don't expect the world to revolve around ME! I don't expect other people to stop their lives to meet MY needs when it comes to costing them money. That part just astounds me...

 

[maxiesmom]

I don't know, but it kind of astounds me that someone would inadvertently cause another person to have a medical emergency, and not step forward and explain why they did what they did. In part so others knew you were not just being a selfish jerk, but had a good reason for your actions.

If someone doesn't have a medical need of peanut butter, I can't understand why it is such a big deal to fly with another food item. Really? It comes off as being selfish and standing up for your rights when it isn't necessary, when it is just as easy to be kind and considerate of others and their needs. I wouldn't take only PB for food on a long flight, just as I wouldn't stinky food or hose myself down with perfume before boarding.

Being considerate of others shouldn't be so hard.

 

[Mama Who]

I don't know, but it kind of astounds me that someone would inadvertently cause another person to have a medical emergency, and not step forward and explain why they did what they did. In part so others knew you were not just being a selfish jerk, but had a good reason for your actions.

I dunno... if I am doing what is both allowed and necessary for the well-being of my disabled child, I think she has the right to some privacy. I *don't* feel that making someone else feel better about my actions trumps my daughter's dignity and announcing her disability could be humiliating for her as she gets older. If the choice is a stranger thinking I'm a jerk when I'm not and strangers knowing private things about my kid... well, selfish would be making her take the hit, KWIM?

If the parent of an autistic/sensory/diabetic kid needs to feed their child the food the child will eat that will keep them safe and healthy (Ever seen a 9 year old autie trash a room because the snack didn't come when he needed it to? Imagine it in close quarters...) then it really feels unfair to ask them to hurt their kid or explain their choice not to do so. Peanut allergies are not the trump card of disabilites. I will bend over backwards to help where I reasonably can but when it comes to my kid vs. strangers and we're within the rules... my job is to protect my kid.

Air flight is almost never an absolute necessity. There's a point at which if other people existing and minding their own business on a plane is life-threatening to you, the person who needs to reconsider their plans... is you. If being on the plane with peanuts could make you die and you don't NEED to be on the plane, maybe the responsible thing to do is to keep yourself safe and make other travel arrangements. I'm a big fan of reasonable accommodations, but there is a level of personal accountability that needs to be in play too.

For the OP, you might find you generate a fair bit of goodwill and co-operation if you inform those around you of the issue and pass out a nice alternative snack "in appreciation for the inconvenience." It's a good move to both be considerate of those around you and to suddenly be seated in the middle of allies.

 

[mistysue]

If the parent of an autistic/sensory/diabetic kid needs to feed their child the food the child will eat that will keep them safe and healthy (Ever seen a 9 year old autie trash a room because the snack didn't come when he needed it to? Imagine it in close quarters...) then it really feels unfair to ask them to hurt their kid or explain their choice not to do so. Peanut allergies are not the trump card of disabilites. I will bend over backwards to help where I reasonably can but when it comes to my kid vs. strangers and we're within the rules... my job is to protect my kid.

Air flight is almost never an absolute necessity. There's a point at which if other people existing and minding their own business on a plane is life-threatening to you, the person who needs to reconsider their plans... is you. If being on the plane with peanuts could make you die and you don't NEED to be on the plane, maybe the responsible thing to do is to keep yourself safe and make other travel arrangements. I'm a big fan of reasonable accommodations, but there is a level of personal accountability that needs to be in play too.

Are you seriously suggesting that a person who at any moment could flip and become a danger to everybody near them should be given priority to ride planes vs. somebody who doesn't want you to kill them by exposing them to peanut butter? Because that seems to be what you are directly saying.
Are you listening to yourself? Just so it's out there, if you are boarding an airplane with a person who is a known risk to the others around them, you are certainly NOT within the rules.

Your suggestion that people with allergies shouldn't ride a plane because it may inconvenience somebody can just as easily be applied to the person who has any sort of condition that causes any mental or emotional instability.

As for Stitchlovestink's comment about people's "issues" we are not talking about somebody just wanting you to not eat it, the topic is people who could actually die because of it. This is not a preference thing, or a "I'm going to throw a fit if you don't give me what I want" thing... you could kill somebody and you are talking about it like it's not your problem- so you don't care if you kill somebody on purpose? Yes, knowing you could kill somebody by doing an activity then immediately doing it anyways would mean you intentionally killed them, not just that some person randomly died from some coincidence.
I am amazed that you would intentionally do something knowing you could kill somebody and have the attitude "well, I'm within the rules so it's their problem." Really?

Being legally within the law does not mean something is actually right. That sort of attitude about disabilities is why we have laws to protect people. It is going to be pretty inconvenient for people like that when allergies sufferers start getting more protections.

 

[mcraige]

DD has lots of allergies, and whenever we travel, we make sure her EpiPen handy. Her allergist has offered to give her pre-emptive allergy medication or shots just to make sure she doesn't have a reaction. Luckily we haven't needed it yet, but did have a scary event one time on DCL.

 

[Mama Who]

Are you seriously suggesting that a person who at any moment could flip and become a danger to everybody near them should be given priority to ride planes vs. somebody who doesn't want you to kill them by exposing them to peanut butter? Because that seems to be what you are directly saying.
Are you listening to yourself? Just so it's out there, if you are boarding an airplane with a person who is a known risk to the others around them, you are certainly NOT within the rules.

Your suggestion that people with allergies shouldn't ride a plane because it may inconvenience somebody can just as easily be applied to the person who has any sort of condition that causes any mental or emotional instability.

As for Stitchlovestink's comment about people's "issues" we are not talking about somebody just wanting you to not eat it, the topic is people who could actually die because of it. This is not a preference thing, or a "I'm going to throw a fit if you don't give me what I want" thing... you could kill somebody and you are talking about it like it's not your problem- so you don't care if you kill somebody on purpose? Yes, knowing you could kill somebody by doing an activity then immediately doing it anyways would mean you intentionally killed them, not just that some person randomly died from some coincidence.
I am amazed that you would intentionally do something knowing you could kill somebody and have the attitude "well, I'm within the rules so it's their problem." Really?

Being legally within the law does not mean something is actually right. That sort of attitude about disabilities is why we have laws to protect people. It is going to be pretty inconvenient for people like that when allergies sufferers start getting more protections.

I am sorry other people having disabilities and needs and rights is such a problem for you. I can see that the idea makes you very angry.

Unfortunately, other people exist and they matter too. Yes, even if you have a peanut allergy. I won't even comment on your cracks about autism. Some things are just too ugly to respond too.

 

[stitchlovestink]

Are you seriously suggesting that a person who at any moment could flip and become a danger to everybody near them should be given priority to ride planes vs. somebody who doesn't want you to kill them by exposing them to peanut butter? Because that seems to be what you are directly saying.
Are you listening to yourself? Just so it's out there, if you are boarding an airplane with a person who is a known risk to the others around them, you are certainly NOT within the rules.

Your suggestion that people with allergies shouldn't ride a plane because it may inconvenience somebody can just as easily be applied to the person who has any sort of condition that causes any mental or emotional instability.

As for Stitchlovestink's comment about people's "issues" we are not talking about somebody just wanting you to not eat it, the topic is people who could actually die because of it. This is not a preference thing, or a "I'm going to throw a fit if you don't give me what I want" thing... you could kill somebody and you are talking about it like it's not your problem- so you don't care if you kill somebody on purpose? Yes, knowing you could kill somebody by doing an activity then immediately doing it anyways would mean you intentionally killed them, not just that some person randomly died from some coincidence.
I am amazed that you would intentionally do something knowing you could kill somebody and have the attitude "well, I'm within the rules so it's their problem." Really?

Being legally within the law does not mean something is actually right. That sort of attitude about disabilities is why we have laws to protect people. It is going to be pretty inconvenient for people like that when allergies sufferers start getting more protections.

They would literally have to sterilize a plane in order to guarantee the it was 100% free of any contaminant whether it be peanuts or whatever...I cannot see this happening. And they would have to be sterilized every day! I mean come on...Really?? Do you expect the store you shop in to be sterilized? No, it's not a reasonable expectation. And then they would, as another previous poster stated, literally have to strip search everyone for the 'offending' contaminant. Air travel is not a right. Why do we seem to think so many things are rights we are "entitled" to? People need to start taking personal responsibility and realizing the world does NOT revolve around you or your needs. We need to assimilate to the rules, not have the rules assimilated to us.
And for the record, I live with a disability.

 

[Stinkerbe11]

DS is anaphylactic to nuts and we have flown cross country many times. Southwest will allow you to pre-board and wipe down the seat, tray table etc...They also make an announcement about nut free snacks being served and to please refrain from eating nuts. I would definitely try to take the first flight, because many times I have noticed crushed peanuts in the seats and on the floor in front of our seat. My best advice is to pre-medicate with an antihistamine, have the epi-pen available and hope your fellow passengers are understanding

 

[mistysue]

I am sorry other people having disabilities and needs and rights is such a problem for you. I can see that the idea makes you very angry.

Unfortunately, other people exist and they matter too. Yes, even if you have a peanut allergy. I won't even comment on your cracks about autism. Some things are just too ugly to respond too.

Please don't insult me. That is really inappropriate.

I did not make any crack at autism. You painted an image of a situation where your child would be a threat to other people on the plane. I responded that if your child is a threat to others, you are not in the right by being trapped on a plane with them.
The allergy situation is one where a person is asking that people please refrain from an activity that could cause them death. You are describing a situation where if everything does not go completely according to plan, your party may become dangerous for the other passengers. Certainly if that can be accommodated, it should be reasonable that somebody could ask others not to eat one single food around them.
I realize that your child likely is not usually a problem for other people, but you brought up the situation, that was not me. If you are upset maybe you should look at what you wrote before you place your anger on me.

They would literally have to sterilize a plane in order to guarantee the it was 100% free of any contaminant whether it be peanuts or whatever...I cannot see this happening. And they would have to be sterilized every day! I mean come on...Really?? Do you expect the store you shop in to be sterilized? No, it's not a reasonable expectation. And then they would, as another previous poster stated, literally have to strip search everyone for the 'offending' contaminant. Air travel is not a right. Why do we seem to think so many things are rights we are "entitled" to? People need to start taking personal responsibility and realizing the world does NOT revolve around you or your needs. We need to assimilate to the rules, not have the rules assimilated to us.
And for the record, I live with a disability.

AGAIN, just to be clear I am not at all upset about other people having disabilities or needs.

No matter what the need is, for a person to essentially ask somebody not to kill them and get a response of I don't care about you because I don't feel like going a couple hours without one single type of food is a sad statement about the person saying it.
I do not at all expect the world to be sterilized and I am not saying anything about being entitled, but if asking people not to kill you is entitlement, what is demanding that you have the right to not switch your choice of snack? Isn't that in itself an entitlement mentality? You aren't entitled to peanut butter. People go their whole lives and never have peanut butter. It is not a need or a right. The argument that people can't be asked to just not eat the deadliest allergen there is while in an enclosed space is just based on not knowing what you are talking about.
When over 1% (and growing) of the population has the allergy and 1/3 of those people have life threatening reactions, you should realize that nearly every flight you are on has somebody who may have their life threatened by your eating it. At this point, it is a given that if you are on ANY flight and you know this information there is rarely any good excuse why you should be bringing peanuts there. Unless you truly believe that you having that one specific snack during your flight is actually more important than that other person's right to live.
If you believe that it is worth somebody dying because your want for peanuts is that strong, then there really isn't anything left to be said besides hoping that you don't hurt someone in your neglect.
I understand when people don't know, but if you know that information and brush it off you may be legally ok, but you are still not doing what is right.

 

[tinker-belle]

Hi, OP here. Thank you for those who understand and who are offering helpful advice.

Believe me, when we have a choice not to fly- we don't- haven't flown yet since his diagnosis... even opting to spend 30 plus hours to travel to disney vs. a 3 hour plane ride.

However, we do not have the option to do anything other than fly to California, when we go. Short, then renting a winnebago so we would have a kitchen with us (we are also strictly kosher, so it is very difficult to find both safe and kosher food for him to actually spend a week driving cross country).

I understand some flights would totally not be safe for him, but having done previous research I heard jet blue and southwest are really good, and will even make announcements to the other passengers. What orginally confused me, was while I learned to always take the first flight of the day when the plane is the cleanest, I didn't understand how that would work with southwest, that didn't seem to fly straight cross country without stopping is all.

We will take all precautions we possibly can, including speaking in advance with the doctors, safest airlines and the passengers; however it is very frightening idea. When you see your not even 3 year old almost die in your arms, your life is forever changed. We did change our lives around as much as we could without stepping on toes of others around us. However, if he were to God forbid have a reaction, it would cause an emergency landing as well which would definitely impact all passengers.
I wish there were a way for those to be informed in advance if they may be asked not to eat what they bring on board so everyone can be able to make arrangements for their children and take proper care of them without endangering the lives of the children as well.
Crazy world we live in, peanuts or any food should not have the ability to kill, yet unfortunately it is the new reality.

 

[stitchlovestink]

Please don't insult me. That is really inappropriate.

I did not make any crack at autism. You painted an image of a situation where your child would be a threat to other people on the plane. I responded that if your child is a threat to others, you are not in the right by being trapped on a plane with them.
The allergy situation is one where a person is asking that people please refrain from an activity that could cause them death. You are describing a situation where if everything does not go completely according to plan, your party may become dangerous for the other passengers. Certainly if that can be accommodated, it should be reasonable that somebody could ask others not to eat one single food around them.
I realize that your child likely is not usually a problem for other people, but you brought up the situation, that was not me. If you are upset maybe you should look at what you wrote before you place your anger on me.



AGAIN, just to be clear I am not at all upset about other people having disabilities or needs.

No matter what the need is, for a person to essentially ask somebody not to kill them and get a response of I don't care about you because I don't feel like going a couple hours without one single type of food is a sad statement about the person saying it.
I do not at all expect the world to be sterilized and I am not saying anything about being entitled, but if asking people not to kill you is entitlement, what is demanding that you have the right to not switch your choice of snack? Isn't that in itself an entitlement mentality? You aren't entitled to peanut butter. People go their whole lives and never have peanut butter. It is not a need or a right. The argument that people can't be asked to just not eat the deadliest allergen there is while in an enclosed space is just based on not knowing what you are talking about.
When over 1% (and growing) of the population has the allergy and 1/3 of those people have life threatening reactions, you should realize that nearly every flight you are on has somebody who may have their life threatened by your eating it. At this point, it is a given that if you are on ANY flight and you know this information there is rarely any good excuse why you should be bringing peanuts there. Unless you truly believe that you having that one specific snack during your flight is actually more important than that other person's right to live.
If you believe that it is worth somebody dying because your want for peanuts is that strong, then there really isn't anything left to be said besides hoping that you don't hurt someone in your neglect.
I understand when people don't know, but if you know that information and brush it off you may be legally ok, but you are still not doing what is right.

For the record, I don't bring peanut butter or peanuts with me. I will however, eat the peanuts if offered on the flight. Now, here is where my issues lie with this problem and this is where I think the problem will grow if they were to allow the actual ban of peanuts/peanut butter. This is my opinion to which I am entitled... But once they try to ban actual peanuts and peanut butter, those allergic wouldn't be 'happy' they would want more. The next step would be to ban any product containing any peanut remnant or peanut trace no matter how small, which could be a peanut oil... or a product that is listed as being manufactured in a plant where cross contamination could have ocurred because it was manufactured with other peanut products. That list is exponential!! That is where my issues lie. The bottom line is where would it end? I know some of the snacks I do bring are manufactured in plants with cross contamination. Oreos for DH are manufactured in a plant subject to cross contamination. I am astonished as the number of products which list that they may be subject to cross contamination! I sometimes do bring Chick Fila onboard with me. That is prepared in peanut oil. I know for a fact that people allergic to peanuts will not set foot in a Chick Fila! But I buy my food before going thru security at MCO. So, sorry, but I will NOT be throwing out that food because of someone else's allergy. I need to eat at regular intervals too and need to attend to my own needs and be proactive for myself. Just as the person with the food allergy need to be proactive for his/herself which may or may not include choosing alternate transportation. My intention is NEVER to cause harm to someone else, but they are putting themselves at risk when they choose to board a plane knowing that a company such as Southwest has advised them that they cannot guarantee a 100% peanut free environment. It really is as simple as that.

 

[maxiesmom]

Air travel is not a right. Why do we seem to think so many things are rights we are "entitled" to? People need to start taking personal responsibility and realizing the world does NOT revolve around you or your needs. We need to assimilate to the rules, not have the rules assimilated to us.
And for the record, I live with a disability.

I would say eating peanut products is not a right either. So you can look at this exactly the same from both sides. The world does not revolve around people having the right to eat peanuts and peanut butter either.

Btw, I don't have a peanut allergy. But I do think it pretty ridiculous that others would still eat their peanut butter if asked not to. I don't think anyone's peanut butter sandwich is more important than another person, and many people seem to think it is. Which is a sad statement on today's society. Where people care more about their right to a food product than they do other people.

 

[Beccabunny]

Peanut allergies are not the trump card of disabilites.

Neither is autism. And I say that as the mother of a child with autism, a peanut allergy, and a lot of medical conditions that limit what she can eat, so I understand where everyone is coming from. Why are we telling people with peanut allergies to utilize other methods of transportation, yet we have to accommodate the child with autism who, in your own words, would "trash a room" because he can't have a particular snack?

 

[Mama Who]

Neither is autism. And I say that as the mother of a child with autism, a peanut allergy, and a lot of medical conditions that limit what she can eat, so I understand where everyone is coming from. Why are we telling people with peanut allergies to utilize other methods of transportation, yet we have to accommodate the child with autism who, in your own words, would "trash a room" because he can't have a particular snack?

Because the rules of the provider allow the child with autism to be accommodated easily and do not allow the peanut-allergy sufferer to control what other people eat. We accommodate the person who complies with the rules, minds their own business and doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.

When two needs conflict, someone loses out. There is no way to set up the world to accommodate everybody. That autistic kid can't demand that nobody shout in line for example, or that the one effect on Fantasmic that freaks him out be shut off for the showing he attends. Other kids have the right to make noise and live their lives and if the disabled kid can't cope, the disabled kid loses.

If flying on a plane with other people minding their own business and obeying the rules could KILL my kid... I cannot imagine what would be worth me taking that risk. I have a potentially fatal cigarette smoke allergy myself and if a place allows smoking I don't go there. My "right" to insist that nobody smoke where smoking is allowed is allowed is not something I am comfortable risking my life on, nor do I feel that it's responsible to place that in someone else's hands. The idea that I would get on a flight that allowed smoking is simply utterly outside my scope of reasonable. "Everyone should just not smoke for 6 hours" is not a good plan to keep me alive.

 

[Braden's Momma]

I am sorry other people having disabilities and needs and rights is such a problem for you. I can see that the idea makes you very angry.

Unfortunately, other people exist and they matter too. Yes, even if you have a peanut allergy. I won't even comment on your cracks about autism. Some things are just too ugly to respond too.

This ^^^^^

 

[Talking Hands]

I would say eating peanut products is not a right either. So you can look at this exactly the same from both sides. The world does not revolve around people having the right to eat peanuts and peanut butter either.

Btw, I don't have a peanut allergy. But I do think it pretty ridiculous that others would still eat their peanut butter if asked not to. I don't think anyone's peanut butter sandwich is more important than another person, and many people seem to think it is. Which is a sad statement on today's society. Where people care more about their right to a food product than they do other people.

If my choice is to eat my peanut butter and bread or continue to have my blood sugar drop, I will be eating it. Since I often don't feel it until it is already dangerously low I have to treat it or I will end up in insulin shock and that too would require an emergency landing of the plane. When I say low, I mean below 40 (lowest was 25) Insulin shock if not treated can cause brain damage and even death. I am not taking that risk. You tell me what I can carry that will not spoil without any dairy products, shellfish, cashews or mango that contains both carbs and protein because I require both to treat low blood sugar.

 

[maxiesmom]

If my choice is to eat my peanut butter and bread or continue to have my blood sugar drop, I will be eating it. Since I often don't feel it until it is already dangerously low I have to treat it or I will end up in insulin shock and that too would require an emergency landing of the plane. When I say low, I mean below 40 (lowest was 25) Insulin shock if not treated can cause brain damage and even death. I am not taking that risk. You tell me what I can carry that will not spoil without any dairy products, shellfish, cashews or mango that contains both carbs and protein because I require both to treat low blood sugar.

I stated before, that people with a medical need of PB are a whole different thing than those who just want to eat it, and will, no matter what. I'm referring to the latter, not the former. Which I have tried to make clear, but I must be failing at that.

 

[Kellykins1218]

I stated before, that people with a medical need of PB are a whole different thing than those who just want to eat it, and will, no matter what. I'm referring to the latter, not the former. Which I have tried to make clear, but I must be failing at that.

But how do you tell the difference? There's nothing that requires someone to declare a medical need, so you really don't know if they need it or not.

 

[maxiesmom]

But how do you tell the difference? There's nothing that requires someone to declare a medical need, so you really don't know if they need it or not.

For the sake of the discussion I was pointing out I think there is a difference. And because there were posters who seem to not have a medical issue, but still would place their want of peanut butter, and their right to have it, over the health of a fellow flyer.

 

[Kellykins1218]

For the sake of the discussion I was pointing out I think there is a difference. And because there were posters who seem to not have a medical issue, but still would place their want of peanut butter, and their right to have it, over the health of a fellow flyer.

Ah gotcha. I thought maybe you had experience with someone who had done that. My son has to have it but I can't understand anyone insisting on it if they could have something else. I personally detest the stuff!