 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Guvnor, A much more sensible way of responding, hopefully she will respond accordingly. I agree that to ban peanuts from public areas does seem a bit OTT (although obviously I understand it wont to the person in question).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Guvnor wrote: |
Want to go back to the peanut thing if I may.....
Now I can understand Vipa response to such a stupid post, but am intrigued as to where the line should be drawn. If the very presence of peanuts (or whichever allergen) can cause such a violent response, who would be liable in the event of an unfortunate event? The airline, or the peanut eater? Would the airline be within its rights to refuse boarding, as they could not guarantee the safety for the passenger? What about other modes of public transport, or public areas? Whilst I would not personally tackle a bag of KP if in the company of someone who were allergic, how would I know in say, the pub? Or the train? The tube? |
An interesting question. When you listed those that might be liable in the event of a violent response, you omitted parent/carer. Should they be totally blameless? If you are aware that exposure to a certain allergen could provoke such a response in someone for whom you are responsible - should you not do everything possible to reduce the chance of any such exposure?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
youspurs1, Exactly my point - but would the carer be 'guilty' of exposing the 'allergee', or would the airline be 'guilty' of negligence? Airlines currently don't allow passengers to travel for any number of medical ailments - are suffering violent allergic reactions something which might be added to that list ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Guvnor, I think you raise a very good point.
It must be a nightmare for anyone with a child who is (or who is themselves) so allergic to such a common item, to travel on any form of public transport or indeed go out in public. My sympathies to Vipa in this case.
It does beg the question if I were to innocently open a packet of peanuts in an airport lounge, and the person/child next to me were to suffer ill effects or even die  whose fault would it be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Axsman wrote: |
Guvnor, I think you raise a very good point.
It must be a nightmare for anyone with a child who is (or who is themselves) so allergic to such a common item, to travel on any form of public transport or indeed go out in public. My sympathies to Vipa in this case.
It does beg the question if I were to innocently open a packet of peanuts in an airport lounge, and the person/child next to me were to suffer ill effects or even die whose fault would it be? |
This is one of those rare occassions where there is no blame..... If you are in a public place you are quite within your rights to eat whatever you want.... and no-one would expect you to be aware of who is allergic to what in a room full of people.
Most airlines will not sell or serve up peanuts anymore because of the risks and, I assume the potential lawsuits if they did. They cannot and will not ban you from taking your own peanuts on board. Please remember also that aircraft are unique in the public transport world in that the air is constantly re-circulated, due to the lack of oxegen at altitude, it would cause problems to say the least using outside air! This is also the reason you are far more likely to pick up airborn infections during a flight, long haul especially. On all other modes of public transport and indeed in public places the air is pulled in from outside so the risk is almost negligible, it is her eating something contaminated with peanut protein that is the main concern normally.... (sending her to schoolfriends birthday parties is a particular nightmare as are school special events, sometimes feel like a secret service agent when we have to go in and do sweeps for any trace of peanut in the party food!!!!! Although we usually just send her with her own 'party' lunch box and she knows not to eat any other foods unless cleared by us or whoever is in charge)
As an excersize, next time you pick up any confectionary or food packet in a supermarket check out the labels, I can almost guarantee there will be a reference to peanuts or nuts on there somewhere such is the food industries concern over any of thier product being found to have peanuts in them (those that shouldn't have anyway!) Peanut allergy is thankfully quite rare but is also potentially one of the most deadly allergic reactions.
However, if we take the airline announcment example and you were made aware that a sufferer may be in the vicinity and asked to refrain then I think blame could be leveled if you blatently ignored the request, carried on opening bags of peanuts and Imogen had a rection.
In reality she would not be alone and would be carrying her little backpack with her epipens in it, she also wears a medi-alert bracelet detailing her 'issues' therefore any reaction could be (hopefully) managed for long enough to get the plane down and get her to an ICU.
Anyway, you should feel far more sorry for me...... I have a love, bordering on obsession for Hershy's Peanut Butter Cups...... I have to eat them where I buy them then pretty much de-contaminate before I can get back in the car or come home!!!!
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Thu 12-03-09 15:27; edited 6 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| youspurs1 wrote: |
| Guvnor wrote: |
Want to go back to the peanut thing if I may.....
Now I can understand Vipa response to such a stupid post, but am intrigued as to where the line should be drawn. If the very presence of peanuts (or whichever allergen) can cause such a violent response, who would be liable in the event of an unfortunate event? The airline, or the peanut eater? Would the airline be within its rights to refuse boarding, as they could not guarantee the safety for the passenger? What about other modes of public transport, or public areas? Whilst I would not personally tackle a bag of KP if in the company of someone who were allergic, how would I know in say, the pub? Or the train? The tube? |
An interesting question. When you listed those that might be liable in the event of a violent response, you omitted parent/carer. Should they be totally blameless? If you are aware that exposure to a certain allergen could provoke such a response in someone for whom you are responsible - should you not do everything possible to reduce the chance of any such exposure? |
All you can do really is be prepared to manage an incident.
To do everything possible to reduce the chance of an exposure would effectively mean her being a prisoner in her own home.... I doub't she'd thank us for that, anyway 6 years 'major' incident free..... we're doing ok.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vipa, Thanks for the explanation and again sympathies for Imogen's plight. If I heard such an announcement I would of course take heed. How could you live with your conscience otherwise? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Vipa, Hope she'll grow out of it soon - there was something on the news recently about it I recall. The children there suffered similar violent reactions to peanuts, and by gradually increasing their tolerance, they were now eating a few nuts daily to overcome the violent reaction by building up some sort of immunity. All seemed above board and was obviously strictly supervised in a medical facility....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guvnor, There was one recently about a young lad with a very intense allergy to dogs. By the end of the program he was able to stroke and play with a long haired dog with no ill effects. (as you say all done under close medical supervision).
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Guvnor, agreed, and an unsensitive remark but valid overall point or sentiment, what if i have a fatal allergy to coffee beans and coffee? could i expect an entire plane to refrain from drinking coffee? where does the responsibility start and stop, what if i was reading or listening to my ipod or sleeping when the announcement was made about peanuts? and then opened up my jumbo bag of them?
Should someone with such an allegy to peanuts put themselves in a position of being enclosed in pressurised box where the risk is massively increased, and should the parents of some one with such an allergy put their children in such situations if there are alternative possibilities of transport with a lower risk?
I know this is an emotional subject but it seems strange to increase the risk to a child in such circumstances by taking them on plane and hoping that none of the other 100 or 200 or 300 passengers were having a snooze when the announcement to refrain from eating peanuts was made 
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
Guvnor, agreed, and an unsensitive remark but valid overall point or sentiment, what if i have a fatal allergy to coffee beans and coffee? could i expect an entire plane to refrain from drinking coffee? where does the responsibility start and stop, what if i was reading or listening to my ipod or sleeping when the announcement was made about peanuts? and then opened up my jumbo bag of them?
Should someone with such an allegy to peanuts put themselves in a position of being enclosed in pressurised box where the risk is massively increased, and should the parents of some one with such an allergy put their children in such situations if there are alternative possibilities of transport with a lower risk?
I know this is an emotional subject but it seems strange to increase the risk to a child in such circumstances by taking them on plane and hoping that none of the other 100 or 200 or 300 passengers were having a snooze when the announcement to refrain from eating peanuts was made |
A valid point Ray but fornunately there aren't many allergic reactions quite like that to peanuts... bee stings are another if stung in the throat (that's the whole danger with peanuts, the lining of the throat swells to the point that the victim cannot breath so it's either adrenalin, antihisthamine (but you can't get it in em as the throat is swolenand it would take too long to work) or an emergenct trachyotamy (sp?)... but as far as food stuffs are concerned nothing comes even remotely close to peanuts (shell fish is the next nearest but it's rarely fatal AFAIK). I'm sure there are people out there with allergies to other things where they react as severely but thankfully the occurances are extremely rare... Peanut allergy is actually quite comon, thankfully not many have the issues my daughter has. Remember also that, whilst not impossible, it is highly unlikely that one person opening a solitary bag of peanuts half a cabin away would have any adverse effect. It would more than likely taske quite a lot of peanut abuse!
As for missing the announcements, when we have traveled by air as a family the airline have gone overboard with pre-boarding tannoy anouncements, bringing it up during the safety briefing (where it is assumed that everyone is paying attention) and then a request from the flight deck too... by the captain no less. Thius has been the sequence on the 4 flights we have taken with different carriers.
With reference to taking them on flights and increasing thier risk.... That goes back to my earlier comment, you can only wrap em in cotton wool so much before you make them a prisoner and as long as you are prepared to manage a major incident........ Also, the airlines make it difficult for you anyway... I'd be surprised if you saw any peanuts on the concourse let alone on the plane for sale (I may be wrong there... never checked)
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Thu 12-03-09 16:25; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vipa, thanks for your reply but the problem I see is, for example, that I personally do not pick up on back ground tannoy announcements unless i have a reason to listen for something specific (i have perforated both ear drums in the past and do not have particularly good hearing) I am likely to 'switch off' the minute I get on a plane
Also you have explained that a plane is possibly one of the worst environments for the transfer of air bourne particles that could trigger the peanut allergy reaction (submarine maybe similar?), so I am stuggling to understand why (and you do not seem to have addressed this point) you would elect to take a flight under any circumstances, and even more so, a short haul flight to the alps when alternative and safer options are available why even take the risk and rely upon others not to unwillingly put your child in danger?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Interesting point Guvnor,
I know there was a case in a food factory in Nottingham last year where some disgruntled employee scattered peanuts on the factory floor and the factory had to close down for a deep clean so that they could continue to manufacture nut free products in a nut free environment. The guy was found guilty in court... can remember the actual charge but he was guilty anyway. I think this illustrates how careful the food manufacturing indistry has to be about nuts... and how serious an allergy can be for some unfortunate souls.
So.... whilst an airline can agree to cease the sale of peanuts on a specific flight if they are made aware of an allergy sufferer on board, and they can request that passengers don't consume any nuts of their own which they may have carried on board, I'd have thought they would have to draw the line at being able to guarantee the allergy sufferers safety.... I certainly wouldn't give such a guarantee if I was an airline.. leaving yourself open to all sorts of actions. Also is it possible to actually ban someone eating peanuts.... it's not against the law as far as I'm aware, even though it clearly dangerous doing so in the vicinity of an allergy sufferer.
Obviously sensible and considerate people would refrain from eating nuts on a flight if requested to do so but there is a risk that someone may not have heard the announcement (asleep.... headphones in...??), or didn't understand the announcement because of language difficulties... or that somebody is just pig ignorant and thinks "why shouldn't I eat my nuts"...... what then??? No disrespect intended to Vipa, or the daughter. but surely it is too risky for an airline to accept a passenger with such a sensitive allergy given the possible consequences... Airlines refuse to accept passengers with all sorts of medical conditions as they aren't prepared to / able to take the risk of something happening... a cynic might say they don't want to take the risk of incurring additional cost by having to divert in the event that something did happen, whivh you can understand to a point....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I heard of one woman who discovered on her wedding night she was allergic to her husband. Well, his sperm anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| SnowGod wrote: |
| Also is it possible to actually ban someone eating peanuts.... it's not against the law as far as I'm aware, even though it clearly dangerous doing so in the vicinity of an allergy sufferer. |
I suspect that any safety order given by the captain of an airplane has similarly (iron-clad) legal authority as any order given by the captain/master of a ship (whether or not you are in that person's company or chain of command) - this may explain why the captain makes an announcement in the cases described by Vipa. I suspect there is also a condition to travelling on your ticket that states you must obey any safety instructions from cabin or flight deck crew.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
skisimon, that may or may not be be the case but it is doubtful that any instruction on a civil aircraft can impinge upon ones basic human rights, silly as it may seem, to eat peanuts, but what about if some one does not hear or understand the announcement ? it just seems like such an unecessary risk to fly in such circumsatnces and rely upon maybe 200 random strangers to confrom, knowingly or otherwise, to the needs of a single individual in a potentially life dangering circumstance, imv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
Vipa, thanks for your reply but the problem I see is, for example, that I personally do not pick up on back ground tannoy announcements unless i have a reason to listen for something specific (i have perforated both ear drums in the past and do not have particularly good hearing) I am likely to 'switch off' the minute I get on a plane
Also you have explained that a plane is possibly one of the worst environments for the transfer of air bourne particles that could trigger the peanut allergy reaction (submarine maybe similar?), so I am stuggling to understand why (and you do not seem to have addressed this point) you would elect to take a flight under any circumstances, and even more so, a short haul flight to the alps when alternative and safer options are available why even take the risk and rely upon others not to unwillingly put your child in danger? |
Because the risk is actually quite small.
It would more than likely take more than 1 or 2 people munching peanuts to cause a problem (read the Canadian article I posted near the beginning of the thread) and we are armed and ready to manage any potential incident. Marry this with the fact that the airlines have almost completely (if not totally now) stopped supplying in flight peanuts either free or for sale and go way beyond the call of duty to make other passengers aware there is a sufferer on board.
One could ask why anyone at all takes a long haul flight with the risk of DVT ever present and the incident of stress induced heart attack is also quite high on aircraft. Ask yourself.... if you had a heart condition, lets say angina, for which you carried nitroglyscerine (sp?) in case of problems, bearing in mind that that put you at much higher risk of heart attack, would you forgo your holiday? probably not... in fact if you were that 'risk-averse' what the hell are you doing skiing or boarding????
And for the record, european trips are normally taken in the car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I imagine that in the case of someone being allergic to bee stings, you may choose not to frequent gardens, or if you are allergic to seafood, you wouldn't eat in a harbourside restaurant. Peanuts is a tricky one - especially as it can cause such extreme reactions. I can see the angst it may cause, as you would want to live as normal a life as possible. Must be a difficult decision to assess the risks, especially as you cannot mitigate 100% for the others around you.....hence the question about would, in extreme circumstances, the airline refuse you boarding?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Vipa wrote: |
| rayscoops wrote: |
Vipa, thanks for your reply but the problem I see is, for example, that I personally do not pick up on back ground tannoy announcements unless i have a reason to listen for something specific (i have perforated both ear drums in the past and do not have particularly good hearing) I am likely to 'switch off' the minute I get on a plane
Also you have explained that a plane is possibly one of the worst environments for the transfer of air bourne particles that could trigger the peanut allergy reaction (submarine maybe similar?), so I am stuggling to understand why (and you do not seem to have addressed this point) you would elect to take a flight under any circumstances, and even more so, a short haul flight to the alps when alternative and safer options are available why even take the risk and rely upon others not to unwillingly put your child in danger? |
Because the risk is actually quite small.
It would more than likely take more than 1 or 2 people munching peanuts to cause a problem (read the Canadian article I posted near the beginning of the thread) and we are armed and ready to manage any potential incident. Marry this with the fact that the airlines have almost completely (if not totally now) stopped supplying in flight peanuts either free or for sale and go way beyond the call of duty to make other passengers aware there is a sufferer on board.
What I would say is that I certainly wouldn't hold anyone personally to blame for any incident.... It's one of those things.... a sad fact of life (for us anyway) and we just have to get on with it. We carry the tools to deal with a problem (which we have to declare beforehand in order to carry them on the aircraft) and we live life like anyone else. We take evey precaution we can but at some point you just have to accept that you just have to do things a little differently, as long as we ensure none of the food she eats has been contaminated by peanuts the risk of anaphalactic shock by inhalation is, whilst real and present, very unlikely.
One could ask why anyone at all takes a long haul flight with the risk of DVT ever present and the incident of stress induced heart attack is also quite high on aircraft. Ask yourself.... if you had a heart condition, lets say angina, for which you carried nitroglyscerine (sp?) in case of problems, bearing in mind that that put you at much higher risk of heart attack, would you forgo your holiday? probably not... in fact if you were that 'risk-averse' what the hell are you doing skiing or boarding????
And for the record, european trips are normally taken in the car. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well all this apart I still object to the security staff at East Midland Airport not allowing my new motorised ski bag on board.
Shame on them I say.
I have the new model with the extra ski holder on the front which may be confusing the security staff
but still, a curse on them all
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vipa, I am still struggling with the situation whereby you rely upon 200 strangers to comply with your requirements not to eat peanuts when the consequences (edit - not risk) are so great?
Whether I decide to fly with an ailment such as a heart disease, or risk DVT, is not dependant upon 200 strangers doing or refraining from something such as eating peanuts.
I am not risk averse at all whereby the risk is solely within my control or as far as it reasonably can be, - you ask me that if I am so risk averse 'what the hell are you doing skiing or boarding???? ', well in the same tone, I repectfully ask you what the hell are you doing taking your child on a plane in such circumstances and imposing your requirements on all the other passengers? Are your holidays so important to you that you require every one else on a plane to comply with your requirements, and if they do not do so, then risk the health of your child?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| halfhand wrote: |
| Vipa, you and your daughter have to learn to manage the allergy. It is not anybody else's responsibiltiy to do it for you Are£hole |
Whilst this really doesn't warrant a response........
We manage her allergy very well and, as I've already said, have got through all 6 years of her life without major incident. We don't ask others to take responsibility for managing her allergy. The last thing any airline want is a passenger suffering an immediately life threatening condition mid flight, especially long haul, so them asking you not to eat peanuts isn't just about protecting my daughter, it's equally about keeping the flight incident free and not inconveniencing other passengers with diversions etc..
Out of interest, if you ever go into a hospital and are asked to turn off your mobile phone as they can cause problems with sensitive equipment, what do you do? do you comply or think, "not my responsibility and ignore the request?"
Now be a good boy and go see if your mummy has made you a nice birthday cake in the shape of a telly tubby or something 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| one's basic human rights |
For some reason, the phrase that puts the fear of God into me... Especially with reference to eating peanuts...
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
Vipa, I am still struggling with the situation whereby you rely upon 200 strangers to comply with your requirements not to eat peanuts when the consequences (edit - not risk) are so great?
Whether I decide to fly with an ailment such as a heart disease, or risk DVT, is not dependant upon 200 strangers doing or refraining from something such as eating peanuts.
I am not risk averse at all whereby the risk is solely within my control or as far as it reasonably can be, - you ask me that if I am so risk averse 'what the hell are you doing skiing or boarding???? ', well in the same tone, I repectfully ask you what the hell are you doing taking your child on a plane in such circumstances and imposing your requirements on all the other passengers? Are your holidays so important to you that you require every one else on a plane to comply with your requirements, and if they do not do so, then risk the health of your child? |
Ray
Please, please read the Canadian medical report.... You are looking at this from the completely wrong angle. We are not relying upon 200 strangers to protect our daughter (and I can't realy believe I am having to defend myself here!)
If we tried to mitigate ALL risks associated with her peanut allergy we would have to keep her locked away. With the efforts of the food industry, the airlines and the vast majority of passengers there really is very little risk, certainly little enough not to have to worry about flying. My original reaction was to one particular person who's attitude was effectively, I don't give a stuff about your daughter, it's not going to stop me eating peanuts. not to people with hearing problems who may have already fallen asleep during the safety briefing on the plane and remain oblivious to instructions from the flight deck!
'what the hell are you doing skiing or boarding???? ' was a rhetorical question and not aimed at you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
| skisimon, that may or may not be be the case but it is doubtful that any instruction on a civil aircraft can impinge upon ones basic human rights, silly as it may seem, to eat peanuts, |
Why on earth would you imagine such a things could possibly be true?
Even if you believe there is a "basic human right" to eat what you choose under normal circumstances (which I rather doubt anyhow), there most absolutely certainly is no such right when you have chosen to put yourself in the position of being a passenger on a conveyance belonging to somebody else.
If you choose to put yourself in that position, then you put yourslef in the position of having to comply with the T&C they set for transporting you, so long as those T&C are generally legal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Vipa, I think the problem here is a conflict of interests between yourself, understandably wishing to take reasonable precautions to ensure your daughters safety without shutting her up in an oxygen tent in a back bedroom, and others defending (with varying degrees of diplomacy and tact ) their 'rights' to engage in a normally harmless activity without undue contraints or responsibilities being placed upon them.
There clearly is a conflict, and while (as I said earlier) I would of course abide by a request not to open my packet of dry roasted for fear of causing injury to an allergy sufferer, I would (maybe just a little bit  ) feel slightly 'put out' that said sufferer had imposed their need for a nut free environment upon me, when perhaps they had other travel options. Eating a bag of peanuts on a plane is not really the moral equivalent of walking into a hospital with your mobile switched on.
The patients have no choice about their location, the allergy sufferer, or perhaps crucially to the sub text of this argument, the PARENTS of the allergy sufferer in this case clearly do have a choice.
So how do you feel about the fact that your decision to take your daughter on the aircraft has inconvenienced possibly 297 avid peanut fans, who have to endure their craving for the duration of the flight?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Axsman wrote: |
[b]
So how do you feel about the fact that your decision to take your daughter on the aircraft has inconvenienced possibly 297 avid peanut fans, who have to endure their craving for the duration of the flight? |
I have no argument with that point.... very well put accross and very valid....
All I can say is that on balance how many 'avid peanut fans' would mind not having a peanut for a few hours to allow a child and her family the chance to go on holiday by plane? Hardly a major inconvenience? After all, couldn't the same argument be applied to smoking?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Vipa wrote: |
| ............. The last thing any airline want is a passenger suffering an immediately life threatening condition mid flight, especially long haul, so them asking you not to eat peanuts isn't just about protecting my daughter, it's equally about keeping the flight incident free and not inconveniencing other passengers with diversions etc..... Out of interest, if you ever go into a hospital and are asked to turn off your mobile phone as they can cause problems with sensitive equipment, what do you do? do you comply or think, "not my responsibility and ignore the request?" |
this again is something I am struggling with because the easiest way keeping a flight free from such incident is not to request 300 (and rising) passengers to refrain from eating peanuts, but is for you to simply not take the flight with your daughter likewise patients in a hospital are there because they have no choice (in the most part), and the machines are there to treat those patients so if I am going to put my self in that environment then I am happy to comply with any safety requirements necessary, and turning my mobile off would not be a problem.............. but .............. in comparison it is you who has decided to take the flight and put your child in danger should someone willingly or unwillingly eat peanuts.
I have read your link and understand it, but you seem to consider the 'risk' off flying acceptable, but only if all the passengers comply with your requirements not to eat peanuts, whereas I have made reference to the 'consequence' of such circumstances, which as you say can be lethal.
Do not get me wrong, I would not eat peanuts if asked not to in such circumstances, but what if there were a load of kids on a school trip on the flight and they had bought some peanuts befofre getting on board? you can not guarantee that a plane will be full of responsible adults who all speak a language of the announcements. You are putting yourself in a situation that is not of your control.
Of course you should not have to lock away your daughter but I am sure she would enjoy any holiday any where by any means, but it is you who has pointed out that an aircraft vent system is one of the most efficient ways of distributing dust (peanut particles) and it is you who elect to take the flight and request that others not eat peanuts. It just seems safer and simply to avoid the risk and eliminate the consequence
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Vipa, Well I could certainly live without my peanut fix for an hour or two. The shakes don't really kick in until the second day. But others, who may be further down the path than I......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Vipa, my eldest son had a peanut allergy in infancy but we also made a "policy decision" to not wrap him up in cotton wool. Back 20 years ago, however, there was not such a public awareness of the allergy - and also his reaction was not too severe on either of the two occasions that he was knowingly exposed.
Luckily he has grown out of it (we thought he had, but weren't sure until he had a Chinese Take Away and rang me up to say, "What shall I do, I've just had chicken satay?" They observed him in Casualty for an hour and then concluded that he msut have grown out of it. Phew.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Come on rayscoops, Vipa already said they tend to take Euro holidays by car and explained that they are prepared to act if something does happen on a flight...
This is getting to be a really silly argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
| Vipa wrote: |
| ............. The last thing any airline want is a passenger suffering an immediately life threatening condition mid flight, especially long haul, so them asking you not to eat peanuts isn't just about protecting my daughter, it's equally about keeping the flight incident free and not inconveniencing other passengers with diversions etc..... Out of interest, if you ever go into a hospital and are asked to turn off your mobile phone as they can cause problems with sensitive equipment, what do you do? do you comply or think, "not my responsibility and ignore the request?" |
this again is something I am struggling with because the easiest way keeping a flight free from such incident is not to request 300 (and rising) passengers to refrain from eating peanuts, but is for you to simply not take the flight with your daughter likewise patients in a hospital are there because they have no choice (in the most part), and the machines are there to treat those patients so if I am going to put my self in that environment then I am happy to comply with any safety requirements necessary, and turning my mobile off would not be a problem.............. but .............. in comparison it is you who has decided to take the flight and put your child in danger should someone willingly or unwillingly eat peanuts.
I have read your link and understand it, but you seem to consider the 'risk' off flying acceptable, but only if all the passengers comply with your requirements not to eat peanuts, whereas I have made reference to the 'consequence' of such circumstances, which as you say can be lethal.
Do not get me wrong, I would not eat peanuts if asked not to in such circumstances, but what if there were a load of kids on a school trip on the flight and they had bought some peanuts befofre getting on board? you can not guarantee that a plane will be full of responsible adults who all speak a language of the announcements. You are putting yourself in a situation that is not of your control.
Of course you should not have to lock away your daughter but I am sure she would enjoy any holiday any where by any means, but it is you who has pointed out that an aircraft vent system is one of the most efficient ways of distributing dust (peanut particles) and it is you who elect to take the flight and request that others not eat peanuts. It just seems safer and simply to avoid the risk and eliminate the consequence |
I understand your viewpoint but I think you are missing the point that there is very very little real risk....
The facts:
Airlines no longer distribute or sell peanuts
Airlines and Captains will ask passengers not to eat peanuts if there is a sufferer on board
99.999% of passengers will either comply or, in reality will not have any peanuts on thier person as they are like rocking horse poo to get hold of in airports and peanuts are not as fasionable as they once were
So taking the above into account there is very little risk, certainly not enough for me to not fly with my daughter..
It is not ME asking the airline to make the anouncements, it is thier policy that sufferers make themselves known, they could choose to refuse carriage, instead they choose to ask the proportionately tiny number of peanut eaters to not eat peanuts for the duration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Vipa wrote: |
I understand your viewpoint but I think you are missing the point that there is very very little real risk....
|
So maybe this was a mild over reaction ?
| Vipa wrote: |
No.... you ar5ehole... not just in case my daughter is affected..... just in case my daughter DIES!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| alex_heney wrote: |
| rayscoops wrote: |
| skisimon, that may or may not be be the case but it is doubtful that any instruction on a civil aircraft can impinge upon ones basic human rights, silly as it may seem, to eat peanuts, |
Why on earth would you imagine such a things could possibly be true? Even if you believe there is a "basic human right" to eat what you choose under normal circumstances (which I rather doubt anyhow), there most absolutely certainly is no such right when you have chosen to put yourself in the position of being a passenger on a conveyance belonging to somebody else. If you choose to put yourself in that position, then you put yourslef in the position of having to comply with the T&C they set for transporting you, so long as those T&C are generally legal. |
because I do not think that any one should be allowed to restrict any of my rights with out my agreement unless it is against some law or regulation (or I have agreed to it) - you can not smoke on flights or use certain electrical gadgets and that would be a 'fair cop' if I tried, and last time I looked I have not seen any flight T&C that has said I can not eat peanuts, or wagon wheels, or any other such things, but it was the principle I was really referring to and not the specific, which is why i called it silly  Maybe there is a T&C that says that you have to comply with any instruction if the captain of the plane ................ but how far would his authority go ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
horizon, actually no, it is not even an argument, as Masmith quotes above, Vipa initially suggested there was a huge risk, he/she said 'No.... you ar5ehole... not just in case my daughter is affected..... just in case my daughter DIES!!!!!!! ' and 'So... a) the peanut isn't quite as humble as you think and b) damned right you'll refrain from eating peanuts on any aircraft my daughter happens to be on' , and now the risk seems to be minimal yet still requires the entire plane not to eat peanuts
Vipa, lets face it, you want to take a flight because it suits you and allows you to have the holiday you want, and if that means taking your daughter on a flight then, using your words 'damned right you'll refrain from eating peanuts on any aircraft my daughter happens to be on'. I am sure it is not your daughter deciding where to go and booking the flights 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
