Family Sues American Airlines Over Peanut-Free Flight

[Devils'Advocate]

I don't get this. Okay, so not many people die from peanut allergies... but I would think with 30,000 hospital visits per year in the U.S. alone we could at least forgo nuts on a plane. Oi.

Oh, and if someone takes my kid, dangles him off the side of a 10 story building, pulls him up and tells me "no harm, no foul".... is certainly in for a lot of harm and a lot of foul.

[RogerWilco]

The only mistake made here is : "American Airlines gate agent promised her that no peanuts would be served". Do gate agents even have the authority to promise that? The gate agent should be reprimanded for making a promise that the air-line can't or will not uphold.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I don't get this. Okay, so not many people die from peanut allergies... but I would think with 30,000 hospital visits per year in the U.S. alone we could at least forgo nuts on a plane. Oi.

Oh, and if someone takes my kid, dangles him off the side of a 10 story building, pulls him up and tells me "no harm, no foul".... is certainly in for a lot of harm and a lot of foul.

Peanuts are a common snack food, I don't think dangling a kid from a balcony is a common recreational activity. Comparing apples to plastic oranges here.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by Dion

How is ostrisicing the kid going to help the problem? Should we become that self centered as a society that we can't accomidate someones health problems.

Imagine how the kid would feel eating alone in a classroom.

That kid is going to feel ostrisiced anyway, all the kids in the class will know that they cant have PB&J or a Snickers because of that one kid.

I used to work at co-op and i'd get a kick out of all the people that would come by and ask if something was peanut free, well we sell nuts in the bulk section and we sell peanut butter, so no, nothing we sell is guarenteed to be nut free, not even the peanut free mars bars.

Last I heard they were planning to put up a sign by the front door to state that nothing we sell is guarenteed peanut free.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

Peanuts are a common snack food, I don't think dangling a kid from a balcony is a common recreational activity. Comparing apples to plastic oranges here.

The airline telling the parents that they would not put the kid in danger and then putting the kid in danger is the issue here. Knowing the kid had a severe allergy and seeing the nuts being passed around would scare the parents half to death.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I don't get this. Okay, so not many people die from peanut allergies... but I would think with 30,000 hospital visits per year in the U.S. alone we could at least forgo nuts on a plane. Oi.

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.

[FireFly]

I think it's funny that ######ed people are offended by the term ######ed.

Being offended by the term ######ed is ######ed.

v. tr.
To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede.

v. intr.
To be delayed.

n.

1. A slowing down or hindering of progress; a delay.

As for the peanut argument, if they were told they wouldn't be selling peanuts, they shouldn't have been selling peanuts. Don't tell someone something you are unsure of. They have the right to sue, but I doubt they'll get much.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

The airline telling the parents that they would not put the kid in danger and then putting the kid in danger is the issue here. Knowing the kid had a severe allergy and seeing the nuts being passed around would scare the parents half to death.

See my post above about if a gate agent has the authority to promise this. If peanuts are this bad for so many people the airline needs to just ban them like many schools have. Do we realy need peanuts that bad on a flight? I say no. Should the family have tried to ensure there were no peanuts on the flight way before getting to the gate? I say yes. Talking to a gate agent about what is served on a flight is like asking any worker to change company policy without going through some kind of company approval channels. The only person at fault here seems to be the gate agent who made a promise that they most likely have no authority to make.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

There you just said it -- "a" woman. One person. Is it more widespread than that?

You asked for some proof and i gave it to you

I'm not sure the information i give you will satisfy you. You keep raising objections to eveything i post. The fact that it has happened doesn't mean it's not happened elsewhere. You may disagree and that's fine.

10 seconds on the "FAAN" website tells me that they still serve food with nuts in it, they just don't give out individual bags of peanuts anymore. Passengers can bring 'em aboard.

Bla bla bla bla.

I think this "peanut allergy" scare is overblown. If it affects someone you know then I can understand being defensive or concerned about it.

I just don't see it as a major issue and nobody has demonstrated that it actually is.

It appears you and i will not come to agreement on this issue and any further discussions might be fruitless. Thus i will move on and thank you for the debate.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I think it's funny that ######ed people are offended by the term ######ed.

Being offended by the term ######ed is ######ed.

The offensive term is ###### and not ######ed.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Dion

The offensive term is ###### and not ######ed.

Really? Because I once slipped and said "Some people are so ######ed" in front of a person who works with handicapped people, and she snapped on me.

In addition, that doesn't explain then why the song "Let's Get ######ed" had to change it's words for the radio. If the offensive word is ######, then there should've been no problem with the song, right?

[fatso]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I think it's funny that ######ed people are offended by the term ######ed.

Being offended by the term ######ed is ######ed.

v. tr.
To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede.

v. intr.
To be delayed.

n.

1. A slowing down or hindering of progress; a delay.

As for the peanut argument, if they were told they wouldn't be selling peanuts, they shouldn't have been selling peanuts. Don't tell someone something you are unsure of. They have the right to sue, but I doubt they'll get much.

I don't think it's a definitional issue. I think it's considered an offensive term because it's historically been deployed as a way to belittle and marginalize those with developmental disabilities. It's obviously pejorative when people use it as a way to slight others who are not, in fact, disabled.

THe point here isn't to prove it's the linguistically correct usage. I think it has more to do with groups rights to self-definition and to be active in determining the labels and identities that the public uses to discuss them. Doesn't mean you have to capitulate to it, or agree with it, or use it yourself. But to suggest they're '######ed' because they don't know their definitions is misguided at best.

[8 Ball]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

The airline telling the parents that they would not put the kid in danger and then putting the kid in danger is the issue here. Knowing the kid had a severe allergy and seeing the nuts being passed around would scare the parents half to death.

Thats the problem. Why would the parents of a kid that has severe allergies to something that common put them at risk. The airline can't guarentee the passengers sitting near them haven't spent the last two hours in Peanuts Pub before the flight.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Dion

You asked for some proof and i gave it to you

You've proven it happened to one person. Is that enough to justify a "ban"? Is it enough to justify doing anything?

Originally Posted by Dion

I'm not sure the information i give you will satisfy you. You keep raising objections to eveything i post. The fact that it has happened doesn't mean it's not happened elsewhere. You may disagree and that's fine.

I've got no stake in this and I'd be easily satisfied by anything anyone can show me that says being in the same airplane as an open bag of peanuts is an issue for even a tiny percentage of the population. Nobody has done that yet. Not even close.

I've got allergies myself. I can appreciate the sentiment, but it just doesn't seem to be based in reality.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Really? Because I once slipped and said "Some people are so ######ed" in front of a person who works with handicapped people, and she snapped on me.

In addition, that doesn't explain then why the song "Let's Get ######ed" had to change it's words for the radio. If the offensive word is ######, then there should've been no problem with the song, right?

I wasn't aware that some were offended by the term retarted. That's something new to me.

Also my bias comes from the kids and young adults i volunteer with.

As for the song, you're right it doesn't make sense.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You've proven it happened to one person. Is that enough to justify a "ban"? Is it enough to justify doing anything?

The potential for others having a similar incident is justification in my eyes. I guess it comes down to wether one wants to be proactive or reactive when a similar situation arises. If there hadn't been an airport close enough, you risk the passenger dieing before they can get medical help. The woman could have been on some transatlantic flight and died.

I've got no stake in this and I'd be easily satisfied by anything anyone can show me that says being in the same airplane as an open bag of peanuts is an issue for even a tiny percentage of the population. Nobody has done that yet. Not even close.

I've got allergies myself. I can appreciate the sentiment, but it just doesn't seem to be based in reality.

No disrespect but you're a hard person to satisfy. All it takes is one Anaphylactic shock during a flight to create a huge problem. And it doesn't have to happen on a mass scale. There's the cost to the airline for having to make an unscheduled stop over, and all the compensation/vouchers they will have to give other passengers for the inconveinece and trouble - not mention missed conections and all.

[Helen Bedd]

I work for an airline and not only do we not guarantee nut-free flights, but the meals we serve are not guaranteed either. We do offer special meals, but nut-free is not an option. There are just way too many products that 'may contain traces of...' So to protect the passenger (and, yes, ourselves) we just won't make that promise.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Dion

All it takes is one Anaphylactic shock during a flight to create a huge problem.

I realize that, I just don't think that it happens often enough for there to be a big stink raised over it. If it does then by all means, get rid of the offending legume.

Heart attacks, drunkenness and panic attacks reroute more flights per day than a reaction to an open bag of peanuts does in a year, I'm sure of it.

I'm not talking about force-feeding a bag of cashews to some guy on a plane , I'm just saying that if you are allergic, don't eat the peanuts. Almost every person will be fine if they follow that simple rule.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by fatso

I don't think it's a definitional issue. I think it's considered an offensive term because it's historically been deployed as a way to belittle and marginalize those with developmental disabilities. It's obviously pejorative when people use it as a way to slight others who are not, in fact, disabled.

THe point here isn't to prove it's the linguistically correct usage. I think it has more to do with groups rights to self-definition and to be active in determining the labels and identities that the public uses to discuss them. Doesn't mean you have to capitulate to it, or agree with it, or use it yourself. But to suggest they're '######ed' because they don't know their definitions is misguided at best.

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.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I realize that, I just don't think that it happens often enough for there to be a big stink raised over it. If it does then by all means, get rid of the offending legume.

Fair enough.

Heart attacks, drunkenness and panic attacks reroute more flights per day than a reaction to an open bag of peanuts does in a year, I'm sure of it.

Maybe i should ask for some statstics like you keep asking from me. Seriously i think you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of people with peanut allergies flying. Most probably use other means of transportation to avoid a possible serious reaction..

I'm not talking about force-feeding a bag of cashews to some guy on a plane , I'm just saying that if you are allergic, don't eat the peanuts. Almost every person will be fine if they follow that simple rule.

I wasn't talking about force feeding anyone either. I made mention earlier of peanut dust in enclosed areas of a plane and provded a link for it also.