Family Sues American Airlines Over Peanut-Free Flight

[Ryan Coke]

WestJet doesn't serve nuts anymore, but we never guarantee anything-as others have said, you can't control what anyone else has with them.

There is definitely some problems with the families story here--they bought a ticket, planned a trip, went to the airport, checked in, then went to the gate agent and then and only then did they insist that the flight remain nut free, and were given such a guarantee. Why didn't they ensure this much earlier, and why did they rely on one gate agents supposed guarantee (well outside her/his scope of authority) for their sons life?

Sounds like child welfare should sue the family for recklessly putting their child in harms way.

[4X4]

I wish I was allergic to crying babies.

[4X4]

This thread is so full of opinions that I want to reply to, but I can't keep track of them all. Dion, your comment about future discussions being 'fruitless', well, heh.
I guess I respect human life. I think I do. But I don't think that nuts need to be phased out of the human diet. And if a few people DIE every year due to nut related allergies, I kinda (fully) think that it's better for society as a whole. Am I cruel? Maybe. So be it.

I think it's ridiculous that people advocate the "pussification" of humanity and are willing to adapt to a diet that limits human perpetuity, bit by bit. It's anti-evolutionary. We're not talking about smoking. We're talking about a source of nourishment. If some humans can't eat it, fine. Don't foist it upon the rest of society.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Swarly

I'm not trying to be an ass here just wondering what do you call these people then? handicapped? because i've heard that used in a negative way too, "omg your such a handicap", or something to that effect. seems to me no matter what you call them it can be put as a negative.

I think the idea is to not use someone's psychological and mental impediments as an offensive slur, directed at them or not.

[fatso]

This thread is beyond awesome.

Regardless of what side one falls of 'The Great Airplane Peanut Debate of 2008', one has to agree there is some beauty material in here.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

WestJet doesn't serve nuts anymore, but we never guarantee anything-as others have said, you can't control what anyone else has with them.

There is definitely some problems with the families story here--they bought a ticket, planned a trip, went to the airport, checked in, then went to the gate agent and then and only then did they insist that the flight remain nut free, and were given such a guarantee. Why didn't they ensure this much earlier, and why did they rely on one gate agents supposed guarantee (well outside her/his scope of authority) for their sons life?

Sounds like child welfare should sue the family for recklessly putting their child in harms way.

Perhaps I read the families story incorrectly but I believe notifying and checking with the gate agent was teh THIRD person they asked and the third person to assure them they would not serve peanuts. The first was teh booking agent when they bought the ticket.

If that is indeed the case, allergy debate or not, the airline is in the wrong.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I wish I was allergic to crying babies.

I've yet to be on a flight where a crying baby has annoyed me more than some other passenger.

The worst for me is the person behind me who pulls himself/herself up using my head rest.

Not to mention the drunk guy, the person who talks too loud (that goes for people on cell phones in public places and the bluetooth head set guys), or honestly in the case of Air Canada and a few other airlines the flight attendants themselves!

[Hack&Lube]

Instead of banning peanuts we should be banning this overhygenic culture that likely spawns many of these allergies in the first place (our young immune systems have nothing to fight so they develop allergic reactions to food proteins instead).

Everybody should roll their baby in the dirt once in awhile.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I think the idea is to not use someone's psychological and mental impediments as an offensive slur, directed at them or not.

i agree with that. but then is it wrong to use the term ###### if you dont mean it in an offensive way. sometimes its just easier than saying highly functioning developmentally disabled person. yet whenever you say it people will jump all over you for it even if you had no negative tone to it. Like Dion said earlier the people he works with dont object to the term ######ed, just ######. Just hard for me to keep up with all the PC terms I guess.

[BCReefer]

What if the pilot, co-pilot and flight engineer were all alergic to peanuts?

Pilot to Co-Pilot "Sam, do you smell somthing"
Co-Pilot to Pilot "Why yes Dan, I think I do. John do you smell what I smell"
Engineer getting off the floor "sniff sniff - O MY GOD! Yes Yes Yes, I SMELL"
All 3 "PPPPEEEAAAANNNUUTTTSSS"
ARG ARG GAG GAG GAG ARRG ARRG ARG - plop plop plop
Barbie (head stewardess) "Hello anyone in there, hello.......DAN??? JOHN??? SAM???"
Barbie running down the aisle screaming "WE ARE GOING TO ALL DIE because I served peanuts to the business class"

CRASH

Headline in all the papers the next day - PEANUTS BRING DOWN A PLANE
Company spokeperson - "Well we do have a disclaimer that says peanuts or peanut by product might be served on the plane. We also say that things can change without notice and finally, you fly at your own risk. So BIG BAD AIRLINE (BBA) takes not responsability for this crash"

Hey you never know - it could happen.

[J pold]

Originally Posted by ernie

Because Peanut and nut allergies, along with shell fish allergies, tend to be extremely serious and can be quickly life threatening. We have a friend with a 2 year old boy who the first time (about 6 months ago) they gave him peanut butter he vomitted everywhere. They thought he was just sick. However, seeing as an aunt has a severe peanut allergy they delayed giving him any more until a few weeks ago.

Trip to the emergency room as he swelled up. He began to have trouble breathing by the time they made it to the hospital. It's the common way of these allergies...each exposure results in a more serious and rapid reaction.

Not according to this article, granted the numbers are from 2002 however I doubt there has been a drastic change in the last 6 years…if anything I would suspect they would only improve with medical advancement

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1888025.stm

Severe and fatal reactions in children to food allergies are rare, experts say.

In 10 years, there were just eight deaths.

Researchers from Newcastle General Hospital calculate that if 5% of children in the UK have a food allergy, the risk of that child dying because of it would be 1 in 800,000 a year

[metal_geek]

"Pussification of society"..... Gimme a break... Hello pot meet kettle...

I guess all of you complaining about the "pusification" ... don't use electricity, or live in a heated house. Good to see you've avoided the "pussification" by not drinking slurpees and extra large mocha frapachinos....

I guess you don't wear seatbelts when you drive.. and why not drink 5 beers before headin home... likely you think you're one of the good drivers on the road who can do that..... When your kids gets some terminal illness, you're not gonna give them "modern medicine" cause them being weeded out is better for society..

What make you think you are any different then every other person.. What makes your self-centric attitude better for the species, then a group-centric attitude where people sacrifice meaningless stuff for the benifit of a few.

I can accept whatever attitude you take with regards, to eating or not eating nuts in "Nut free" places, in the end it's the parents responsibility. That said, unless you can show me where you sacrificed something REAL because it was "pussification of society", you can drop that hypocritcal BS, and stop talking about "society" like you're somehow special...
________
Housewives Webcams

[ernie]

Originally Posted by J pold

Not according to this article, granted the numbers are from 2002 however I doubt there has been a drastic change in the last 6 years…if anything I would suspect they would only improve with medical advancement

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1888025.stm

Severe and fatal reactions in children to food allergies are rare, experts say.

In 10 years, there were just eight deaths.

Researchers from Newcastle General Hospital calculate that if 5% of children in the UK have a food allergy, the risk of that child dying because of it would be 1 in 800,000 a year

That has no bearing on what I said.

What I said was those allergies in particular have a tendency to be severe and get more severe after every exposure. Just because their haven't been many deaths doesn't mean it isn't a concern. Perhaps there haven't been many deaths because people with these allergies avoid contact with the things in question? Perhaps it's because when there was a reaction they got the needed medical attention in time (like my friends son a couple of weeks ago)? hmmmm.

Now we can argue whether or not the people should take the kid on the plane or not. Perhaps it wasn't bright but they did ask the necessary questions and were assured of certain things that didn't happen. That is the point of all of this.

Don't sit there and find an article that says deaths are rare and think it means that the allergic reactions to these things are not serious. Two very, very different things. 30,000 emergency room visits but a handful of deaths in the US every year paints that picture.

There is a reason you do not feed children under 1 things like nuts, strawberries and kiwis (yes kiwis). It's not because they are more allergic to things when they are younger. It's because if they do have a reaction even the most skilled emergency team has a hell of a time getting the airway open if it closes. It's a serious situation.

What I get from the aritcle is not that the allergic reactions aren't severe but rather that as a whole allergic reactions are rare so there is little need to shelter kids from these foods (once past 1 year of age) and that if they are allergic and have a reaction medical professionals and emergency treatments are effective. But as pointed be someone else, an epi pen isn't a cure-all it simply gives the person time to reach the medical personel and treatments. Something that may not be possible 40,000 feet up.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by fotze

###### has now been replaced with "Those who are minimally exceptional". Ugly people now suffer from a "severe appearance deficit".

I'll say the first sentence here was "minimally funny". And the second suffered from a "severe relevance deficit".

I hope I have now neutralized Fotze's inane post with my own.

[metal_geek]

Originally Posted by fotze

Who's that reply to?

Anyone who thinks that people making sacrifices for people with nut allergies is the "Pussification of society"
________
Prilosec lawsuit settlements

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by metal_geek

"Pussification of society"..... Gimme a break... Hello pot meet kettle...

I think you are missing the point of the word. It's not that we should go out and create dangerous situations for everybody, it's that we shouldn't all have to pander to the lowest common denominator in society.

A couple of years ago my buddy's wife freaked on me because most of my Halloween candy contained nuts; or wasn't cerified to be nut free. I did that because I buy stuff that I like because there is always extra; and I always have a nut free option available. (Although I've only ever been asked once.)

I also have food allergies, but I don't tell my co-workers not to bring those foods into work. The one that makes me ill just being around; I go somewhere else to eat. When I get on a plane, I am aware that I will quite likely be exposed, and I suck it up.

Several posts ago I brought up the poorer people. I did so because a few years ago I worked with a guy who was a single dad trying to raise his son on a minimum wage salary. I took him grocery shopping and helped him with meal planning; we were trying to feed the two of them on less than $200 per month. (1998 dollars.) Where the plan fell apart was his son wasn't allowed to bring PB&J sandwiches to school. Apparently his son was one of the few kids who doesn't like balogna, so he had to try and find something else.

Now I would be willing to bet that there are more kids who's parents are just scraping by paycheque to paycheque than there are kids allergic to peanuts. What about the rights of those parents to not have to spend money they don't have to give their kids nutrition? What about the rights of the kids to eat things they like?

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

It's not that the family demanded that the flight be peanut-free. They just wanted to ensure limited exposure. They asked multiple times whether there would be peanuts served on the flight. The airline said no. Then they went and served peanuts. Probably ran out of pretzels or something. Nonetheless the they booked a flight under the understanding that no peanuts would be served because it could potentially affect their health.

I personally can survive without peanuts as snacks. And even if I couldn't, whatever I'd bring my own damn peanuts and snack on them. I don't need the airline to provide them to me or to everyone around me. If I have to choose between a forced landing or having the munchies, I'm taking the munchies.

Originally Posted by Swarly

are you going to demand that all passangers also dont eat peanuts or PB on their toast for breakfast too? You can try to make a peanut free flight but there are still going to be risks, there is no way to guarentee safety.

for the record I dont really care either way, just saying the people with the allergy have to watch out for themselves the rest of society won't do it for them.

[J pold]

Originally Posted by ernie

That has no bearing on what I said.

Yes it does here is the first line of previous post: Because Peanut and nut allergies, along with shell fish allergies, tend to be extremely serious and can be quickly life threatening

Here is the opinion of experts from the article I posted: Severe and fatal reactions in children to food allergies are rare, experts say.

I asked the question “Why peanut allergies seem to be the only ones that people are so willing to accommodate?” your reply was (again the firstline of your previous post) “Because Peanut and nut allergies, along with shell fish allergies, tend to be extremely serious and can be quickly life threatening” which according to the article I posted (backed by medical professionals) isn’t true

So it does have a bearing, it bears that your statement was incorrect. Food allergies in children tend not to be serious and not life threatening (5% of children in the UK have a food allergy; the risk of that child dying because of it would be 1 in 800,000 a year.)

Originally Posted by ernie

What I said was those allergies in particular have a tendency to be severe and get more severe after every exposure. Just because their haven't been many deaths doesn't mean it isn't a concern. Perhaps there haven't been many deaths because people with these allergies avoid contact with the things in question? Perhaps it's because when there was a reaction they got the needed medical attention in time (like my friends son a couple of weeks ago)? hmmmm.

But isn’t this the case for all types of allergies? Dust, grass, hay, mold, latex, pet, smoke allergies all get worse with over exposure? What makes food allergies so special…why are people so willing to accommodate? It’s still a concern, however because so few people die it isn’t as big of concern as say the common flu (see jammies post). The reason why there are so few deaths is probably because people are responsible with there allergies and don’t put themselves in a position to have a reaction. These people (like me) don’t expect everyone else to accommodate there needs and realize that they may have to make sacrifices to keep out of trouble

Originally Posted by ernie

Don't sit there and find an article that says deaths are rare and think it means that the allergic reactions to these things are not serious. Two very, very different things. 30,000 emergency room visits but a handful of deaths in the US every year paints that picture.

Again I didn’t say they weren’t serious, they are, but just not a serious as you alleged too in your response to my question. What I’m saying is that they AREN’T serious enough to not let kids have peanuts or peanut butter at school, they also aren’t serious enough too influence what should or shouldn’t be served on an air plane IMO. I guess the reason I’m so un sympathetic is that I have a very rare allergy that can be fatal. I have been admitted to emergency it was because of my negligence. I also don’t walk around expecting my family, friends, co-workers, or whom ever else to bend over backwards for me, it’s my burden not theirs

[metal_geek]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I think you are missing the point of the word. It's not that we should go out and create dangerous situations for everybody, it's that we shouldn't all have to pander to the lowest common denominator in society.

A couple of years ago my buddy's wife freaked on me because most of my Halloween candy contained nuts; or wasn't cerified to be nut free. I did that because I buy stuff that I like because there is always extra; and I always have a nut free option available. (Although I've only ever been asked once.)

I also have food allergies, but I don't tell my co-workers not to bring those foods into work. The one that makes me ill just being around; I go somewhere else to eat. When I get on a plane, I am aware that I will quite likely be exposed, and I suck it up.

Several posts ago I brought up the poorer people. I did so because a few years ago I worked with a guy who was a single dad trying to raise his son on a minimum wage salary. I took him grocery shopping and helped him with meal planning; we were trying to feed the two of them on less than $200 per month. (1998 dollars.) Where the plan fell apart was his son wasn't allowed to bring PB&J sandwiches to school. Apparently his son was one of the few kids who doesn't like balogna, so he had to try and find something else.

Now I would be willing to bet that there are more kids who's parents are just scraping by paycheque to paycheque than there are kids allergic to peanuts. What about the rights of those parents to not have to spend money they don't have to give their kids nutrition? What about the rights of the kids to eat things they like?

You know that's a great post... and the fact that you have a nutfree option at halloween is fantastic and is lilkely more then anyone expected of you.

Allergys to anything sucks.. food, flowers, cats whatever, and I'm the fact that you don't impose your issues on other shows that you likely think of other people beside yourself. It's a luxury that you have being an adult. Children on the other hand don't have the same oppertunities or skills that you have to deal with thier issue. Everyday you risk getting sick, and have learned to avoid the situation. Everyday parents of Nut allergy kids send them off to school, not knowing if they are still gonna be parents at the end of the day or not...

All thoes parents ask is for an situation where their very normal kid has as safe an enviroment as possible. No enviroment is safe, 95% of the bread that makes the Ham sandwiches for the kids is not "nut safe". Parents don't ask for anything crazy.. they ask other parents do the best they can as they would likely do in the same situation for them. What about the parents with allergy kids just scraping by, it's not just hgh income familys that deal with that..

I feel bad for people who can't afford to send their kids to school with healthy meals. Your friends kid didn't like balogna, allergy parents wish they were that lucky..

Sending kids somewhere else to eat doesn't fix anything. Little billy eats a Peanut butter and Jam sandwich in isolation chamber, he walks back into the class after lunch and procceeds to play lego's. Shortly there after Ally plays with the same lego's, building her doll a magic castle. Too bad the lego's had the remnants of billys pb&j sandwich stuck to them, cause in about 15 min, a class full of 6 year olds are gonna watch little Ally turn blue and die in front of them.
________
IPAD CASES

[Dion]

^^^

Great post MG!