Direct flights cross country severe food allergy?

[EagertobeinWDW]

I remember once on a Southwest flight that they announced that they wouldn't be serving snacks of any kind because there was a person with a severe allergy and everything's been processed in a place with peanuts and for people to please not open/eat anything with peanuts for safety reasons. I heard quite a few people grumbling because there's a store in Midway airport that apparently has good nuts, but otherwise everything went well.

I think that was us. I flew out of Chicago Midway with my daughter who has had multiple anaphylactic reactions to traces of 4 foods, including peanuts. The flight attendant watched me wipe off every surface with wipes that my daughter might touch and then sit with 4 Epi Pens and albuterol on my lap. They had assured me earlier that they had already arranged not to serve peanuts on the flight. SW's backup snack, though, does contain traces of peanuts. I never said a word about their backup snack, but the flight attendants announced that no snacks would be served because of a passenger with severe peanut allergies, my daughter. Loud grumbles erupted. The flight attendant quieted the protesters sitting directly behind my daughter when she explained that they simply didn't want to have to make an emergency landing. I can appreciate simply reacting, but I also was quite touched that some of the loudest protesters who complained to the flight attendant did soon piece together that they were talking about passenger at issue was the small girl with her seat encased in a pink crib sheet directly in front of them. I was touched that they then seemed to go to lengths to express sensitivity and compassion to her and me. SW won my heart that day.

 

[lost*in*cyberspace]

I really wonder, why don't you hear more about research to cure or find out the cause for these allergies? Is there a foundation? .....

You might find this recent story in the NYT Magazine of interest:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/m...ith-severe-allergies.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[StitchesGr8Fan]

You might find this recent story in the NYT Magazine of interest:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/magazine/can-a-radical-new-treatment-save-children-with-severe-allergies.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I read that and thought it was great! Thanks for posting the link!

 

[kevschickee]

The flight did serve snacks. And I'm sorry if they had only brought pb&j along for their child, but if so they shouldn't have fed it to them. Better their child go hungry than risk a passenger have a mid air emergency, and the plane be forced to land. They are fortunate it didn't come to that.

Sorry but I disagree. If it's a long flight and that is all I brought for my child then guess what my kid is going to eat.

 

[kevschickee]

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.

Well said

 

[rainynight]

The flight did serve snacks. And I'm sorry if they had only brought pb&j along for their child, but if so they shouldn't have fed it to them. Better their child go hungry than risk a passenger have a mid air emergency, and the plane be forced to land. They are fortunate it didn't come to that.

Then people would have complained about the child crying and being in a bad mood because of hunger. Complete strangers lives shouldn't be altered because of someone else's food allergy. I think expecting someone to allow their child to go hungry is crossing a line.

 

[rainynight]

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.

Very well said!

 

[stitchlovestink]

DD has a very good friend that's father is a SW pilot. I saw him last night and had the chance to ask him about this whole 'peanut' situation. He said they will not serve them, but they will NOT stop someone else from consuming them. They will ask, but if the other party wants to consume a peanut product, they cannot and will not stop them as they are within their rights to do so. The allergic party has the right to fly another flight or not fly at all. SW will NOT guarantee a peanut free environment. It is up to the pilot as to who gets to stay on the plane!
This is from a SW pilot who has been with the company for 12 years. I'm going with his word. Now I can't speak for other airlines, but if you are that allergic to peanuts, SW appears not be the airline for you. Not saying that to pick a fight, but because it is their policy.

 

[Greysword]

Southwest airlines (and the others) put that info in their Contract of Carriage to minimize the possibility for law suits.

 

[mistysue]

Nobody has said or even suggested at any point that the airlines will ban peanuts for one person. The only issue is people saying it would be nice if people considered others and then other people are arguing that they don't want to be considerate because they only care about their own needs.
So yes, you are completely right that the policy saying you can do it, but that doesn't mean that you aren't being a jerk if somebody politely asks you to not eat one specific item for one specific snack and your response is you would rather risk their life than be nice about it. (actually specifically needing peanuts not included, and that situation is so extremely rare it is far more uncommon than a person with an allergy) Once you have even read about this issue, you know better. You do, pretending you don't is just naive.

Seriously, there is no way for a reasonable person to argue that. If you even to argue that, read it again because you aren't reading it before trying to argue.

If you have a sensory issue and ask me not to stand within 4" of you, I have a right to stand there if I want to. If I have no need to stand that close but do anyways, I am still being a jerk even though I am right. Very similar issue. If you KNOW you may hurt somebody and you don't need the peanuts, that's just mean. Whether or not it's legal, whether or not it's against policy, it's mean.

Because it's being dragged up again, I did not take a crack at autism. I commented on what the PP said about her own daughter and she was so busy being defensive she was offended by her own situation.

 

[Kellykins1218]

The only issue is people saying it would be nice if people considered others and then other people are arguing that they don't want to be considerate because they only care about their own needs.

Except that goes both ways. The person who wants no peanuts is only caring about their own needs and has decided that their illness trumps my child's. I'll agree to move to another part of the plane but I will not deliberately make my child ill. It's as simple as that. The health of my child is just as important as someone with a peanut allergy. We're willing to take precautions to move as far away as possible and if that's not good enough then that's not our fault. We've tried.

 

[kevschickee]

Nobody has said or even suggested at any point that the airlines will ban peanuts for one person. The only issue is people saying it would be nice if people considered others and then other people are arguing that they don't want to be considerate because they only care about their own needs.
So yes, you are completely right that the policy saying you can do it, but that doesn't mean that you aren't being a jerk if somebody politely asks you to not eat one specific item for one specific snack and your response is you would rather risk their life than be nice about it. (actually specifically needing peanuts not included, and that situation is so extremely rare it is far more uncommon than a person with an allergy) Once you have even read about this issue, you know better. You do, pretending you don't is just naive.

Seriously, there is no way for a reasonable person to argue that. If you even to argue that, read it again because you aren't reading it before trying to argue.

If you have a sensory issue and ask me not to stand within 4" of you, I have a right to stand there if I want to. If I have no need to stand that close but do anyways, I am still being a jerk even though I am right. Very similar issue. If you KNOW you may hurt somebody and you don't need the peanuts, that's just mean. Whether or not it's legal, whether or not it's against policy, it's mean.

Because it's being dragged up again, I did not take a crack at autism. I commented on what the PP said about her own daughter and she was so busy being defensive she was offended by her own situation.

So because you eat peanut butter you would be a jerk? How about wear a mask so you don't breath in the dust? I think people are being jerks if you EXPECT people to do something.

 

[kevschickee]

Except that goes both ways. The person who wants no peanuts is only caring about their own needs and has decided that their illness trumps my child's. I'll agree to move to another part of the plane but I will not deliberately make my child ill. It's as simple as that. The health of my child is just as important as someone with a peanut allergy. We're willing to take precautions to move as far away as possible and if that's not good enough then that's not our fault. We've tried.

Well said

 

[Kellykins1218]

Well said

Thank you

 

[maxiesmom]

If you have a sensory issue and ask me not to stand within 4" of you, I have a right to stand there if I want to. If I have no need to stand that close but do anyways, I am still being a jerk even though I am right. Very similar issue. If you KNOW you may hurt somebody and you don't need the peanuts, that's just mean. Whether or not it's legal, whether or not it's against policy, it's mean.

I agree with you 100%. Some people get so worried about their rights that they forget to be decent, caring, human beings. If someone had a child on the aircraft who could only eat peanut butter, that is one thing. Having a medical need of it is different. But having it along and eating it just because it is "their right" to do so when asked not to is mean. Plain and simple.

I'm sure the instances of having a person on an aircraft with a peanut allergy AND someone who has a medical need of peanut butter are so rare as to be almost non-existent. Truth is people just want what they want.

 

[mistysue]

Except that goes both ways. The person who wants no peanuts is only caring about their own needs and has decided that their illness trumps my child's. I'll agree to move to another part of the plane but I will not deliberately make my child ill. It's as simple as that. The health of my child is just as important as someone with a peanut allergy. We're willing to take precautions to move as far away as possible and if that's not good enough then that's not our fault. We've tried.

I know it goes both ways. Multiple times, in this same thread, and even in the post you quoted from, I stated that a situation where somebody actually needs peanuts is NOT the same thing. I am not saying that somebody with an allergy "trumps" somebody who needs peanuts. The idea is that if you have other options, since you know peanuts are a item likely to conflict and that among allergens is particularly dangerous, it is just mean to take them to an enclosed area like that if you don't need to. You know. If you are responding, you now know it is a potential issue. So if you can avoid peanuts I just ask that you are a kind person and do so. If you can't, then you can't. That is all. If you can't avoid peanuts then the situation is just an unavoidable conflict. Neither person is necessarily more important, but if it's a preference I hope you can see that potentially risking the life of another may be a little more important than "snack A" over "snack B" for one single snack time. This is a situation in which actual lives can rely on the kindness of others. So please be kind if you can.

So because you eat peanut butter you would be a jerk? How about wear a mask so you don't breath in the dust? I think people are being jerks if you EXPECT people to do something.

Eating peanut butter does not make one a jerk.

Somebody saying "please don't eat that for this one snack right here and right now because you might kill me" and you saying in response "I don't care, I am going to eat it anyways" - THAT is being a jerk.
Can you say with a straight face that it isn't? Until I see it, I don't believe anybody can say that without knowing they are wrong.


Maybe it's just me, I consider other people. If I know that my actions may hurt somebody or cause a problem I try to accommodate them. Even when there is some minor inconvenience. Yes, that means I will avoid other people's allergens even though I have none. Yes, that means I learned to sign the alphabet when I had a deaf customer, started bathing without soap on my son's therapy days for the aid who is sensitive, installed new lights in my salon when ONE person had headaches from the ones we had and I move gathering dates for one sibling who can't come. I have three special needs children with completely different types of needs.
My entire life revolves around changing things for people with some special need. Yes, it can be inconvenient but the entire world does not revolve around one person- which is exactly the point. It is short sighted to turn that argument around to say "the world doesn't revolve around X person" therefore I should do whatever I want whenever and wherever without thinking of anybody. That is completely missing the argument because you are pretending the entire world revolves around you. So think twice before you say the world doesn't revolve around one person, because that includes the world not revolving around you.

Yes- with essentially 100% accuracy, you don't NEED peanuts while you are on the plane. But a fairly significant number of people NEED you to NOT have peanuts on that plane. So grow up and just take a minute to think of somebody who isn't you. Especially if you are being accommodated in some way. Avoiding peanuts for one snack is not a huge inconvenience, it is just childish to pretend it is.

 

[Kellykins1218]

With 100 accuracy my child absolutely NEEDS to have peanut butter on the plane. Not wants, NEEDS. He's under the care of a whole team of doctors and nutritionists and you have NO idea what he goes through. I am not going to choose to make my child sick, simple as that. I'm not arguing. Just telling you how it is. And you don't know why anyone else is eating peanuts either. You are just assuming. Whether they have a medical need or not, it's none of your businesses. They have no obligation to explain their reasons to you.

 

[mistysue]

With 100 accuracy my child absolutely NEEDS to have peanut butter on the plane. Not wants, NEEDS. He's under the care of a whole team of doctors and nutritionists and you have NO idea what he goes through. I am not going to choose to make my child sick, simple as that. I'm not arguing. Just telling you how it is. And you don't know why anyone else is eating peanuts either. You are just assuming. Whether they have a medical need or not, it's none of your businesses. They have no obligation to explain their reasons to you.

It is clear you are picking and choosing which parts of posts to read. So to make this completely clear:
Nobody wants your child to be sick. You said he needs peanuts. So feed the kid peanuts. I want to now point out that at no point in this thread, has anybody told you not to feed your kid peanuts. I don't want you to feel like anybody is trying to threaten your child's needs because as far as I can tell nobody is. What keeps being said is people should avoid them if they can. So again, it also follows if you can't avoid them, don't.

A situation where a person needs peanuts at all, let alone can not go on a 2-4 hour flight without them is so exceptionally rare, it's really not something anybody should assume is common. Suggesting that it is a typical situation is just silly. It is not common. That is not an assumption, that is a fact. The average person does not have a need for peanuts that can not span more than a few hours ever. How as a species would we ever survive if nobody could go more than a few hours without peanuts?

What is common is a peanut allergy on a plane. Since your child can not go more than a couple hours without peanuts, you should probably be aware that close to 1% of the people you encounter every day have a peanut allergy. If you are on a plane with 100 people, it is more likely that somebody has the allergy than it is that nobody does. So if you go on a flight, you are probably going to encounter somebody with the allergy, but a person with the allergy going on a flight- has nearly a 0% chance of encountering somebody like your son who specifically needs peanuts. What are there a dozen people on the planet who can't live more than a couple hours without peanuts?

Of course nobody has an obligation to explain anything to me, I just wish people had enough decency to not endanger people's lives on the grounds that they want to point out that they can do so. That is just sickening.

 

[kevschickee]

I know it goes both ways. Multiple times, in this same thread, and even in the post you quoted from, I stated that a situation where somebody actually needs peanuts is NOT the same thing. I am not saying that somebody with an allergy "trumps" somebody who needs peanuts. The idea is that if you have other options, since you know peanuts are a item likely to conflict and that among allergens is particularly dangerous, it is just mean to take them to an enclosed area like that if you don't need to. You know. If you are responding, you now know it is a potential issue. So if you can avoid peanuts I just ask that you are a kind person and do so. If you can't, then you can't. That is all. If you can't avoid peanuts then the situation is just an unavoidable conflict. Neither person is necessarily more important, but if it's a preference I hope you can see that potentially risking the life of another may be a little more important than "snack A" over "snack B" for one single snack time. This is a situation in which actual lives can rely on the kindness of others. So please be kind if you can.



Eating peanut butter does not make one a jerk.

Somebody saying "please don't eat that for this one snack right here and right now because you might kill me" and you saying in response "I don't care, I am going to eat it anyways" - THAT is being a jerk.
Can you say with a straight face that it isn't? Until I see it, I don't believe anybody can say that without knowing they are wrong.


Maybe it's just me, I consider other people. If I know that my actions may hurt somebody or cause a problem I try to accommodate them. Even when there is some minor inconvenience. Yes, that means I will avoid other people's allergens even though I have none. Yes, that means I learned to sign the alphabet when I had a deaf customer, started bathing without soap on my son's therapy days for the aid who is sensitive, installed new lights in my salon when ONE person had headaches from the ones we had and I move gathering dates for one sibling who can't come. I have three special needs children with completely different types of needs.
My entire life revolves around changing things for people with some special need. Yes, it can be inconvenient but the entire world does not revolve around one person- which is exactly the point. It is short sighted to turn that argument around to say "the world doesn't revolve around X person" therefore I should do whatever I want whenever and wherever without thinking of anybody. That is completely missing the argument because you are pretending the entire world revolves around you. So think twice before you say the world doesn't revolve around one person, because that includes the world not revolving around you.

Yes- with essentially 100% accuracy, you don't NEED peanuts while you are on the plane. But a fairly significant number of people NEED you to NOT have peanuts on that plane. So grow up and just take a minute to think of somebody who isn't you. Especially if you are being accommodated in some way. Avoiding peanuts for one snack is not a huge inconvenience, it is just childish to pretend it is.

You don't NEED to be on a plane period. You can drive or if you need to be on the plane wear a mask just in case. If it is long flight and tat is all you brought for your kid then what you let the kid go hungry on a long flight? It may be a huge inconvenience for someone who are you to say it isn't?

 

[maxiesmom]

You don't NEED to be on a plane period. You can drive or if you need to be on the plane wear a mask just in case. If it is long flight and tat is all you brought for your kid then what you let the kid go hungry on a long flight? It may be a huge inconvenience for someone who are you to say it isn't?

There is a massive difference between being inconvenienced and being dead. You could also look at it from the other end. Maybe the child who needs peanut butter shouldn't fly. Both extremes are ridiculous.

And just how inconvenienced would you be if the plane you were on had to make an emergency stop somewhere, because Little Johnny just had to have peanut butter, even though mom and dad knew there was someone on the plane with a severe allergy?