Could people please not eat peanuts on this plane?

Xordium said:
And that other thing may well be a problem for someone. In that case we should not serve them anything because of umpteen unknown possibilities that could go wrong. If you are old enough to be flying on a plane and eating the food on a plane then you are most certainly old enough to have been in contact with sufficient food and oils etc for your parents or yourself to know whether you have an allergy or not. Stopping people from smoking on a plane which has a direct evidence base to show it does cause harm is one thing - stopping people eating peanuts which has no evidence base whatsoever is just stupid. Not that I really give a stuff pistachios are far nicer.
Click to expand...

I guess I wouldn't be stopping anyone, I'd just serve something else that was less likely to be an issue (or failing that and although not saving anyone's health, better for my fingers, make the bags easier to open).
 
estebanrey said:
My sister died at the age 34 because of alcohol. :mad:

However I don't go around lecturing people on the dangers of alcohol and trying to ban it.

I don't get the mentality of people who have lost someone bacuse of X then go on a crusade to tell everyone else how bad X is because they lost someone close them because of it.
Click to expand...

Sorry for your loss, but I think you are comparing two different things.

Your sister would've made the concious decision to take the alcohol, but wih allergies, it can be the case that you accidentally come into contact with something fatal
 
Xordium said:
That's great and all but does not make smoking safer it makes the lack of filtration poorer. Two very different things.
Click to expand...

I never said it did (as an e-cig user I'm fully aware of the science behind the danger of smoking), I'm just saying that since smoking was banned on planes, the plane companies have stopped bothering filtering the air properly within the cabin.
 
AHarvey said:
Surely if the person is that allergic they would be wearing gloves and a mask?

I don't understand why the majority should be told they can't do something because 1 person has an allergy.
Click to expand...

Because consideration for our fellow man is one of the things that separates us from other animals.

EDIT - WELL, MOST PEOPLE ANYWAY ROLLEYES.GIF
 
estebanrey said:
I never said it did (as an e-cig user I'm fully aware of the science behind the danger of smoking), I'm just saying that since smoking was banned on planes, the plane companies have stopped bothering filtering the air properly within the cabin.
Click to expand...

So what point are you making then? You've lost me unless you just wanted to say a random related fact you know.
 
Cleeecooo said:
Sorry for your loss, but I think you are comparing two different things.

Your sister would've made the concious decision to take the alcohol, but wih allergies, it can be the case that you accidentally come into contact with something fatal
Click to expand...

I fully agree, I'm just saying that I see a lot of people using their loss to excuse their irrational fear of 'X'.

For example, how many times have you seen lower speed limits being justified on TV by them wheeling out some poor dear who lost her kid due to a boy racer?

I like to think if you wouldn't have said it before you suffered the loss, don't say it after.

(having said that, from my perspective it does annoy me when people moan about things like cannabis and how it should stay illegal whilst alcohol is stilll legal. Other than that, I still drink and try not to judge others who do as well).
 
estebanrey said:
I fully agree, I'm just saying that I see a lot of people using their loss to excuse their irrational fear of 'X'.

For example, how many times have you seen lower speed limits being justified on TV by them wheeling out some poor dear who lost her kid due to a boy racer?

I like to think if you wouldn't have said it before you suffered the loss, don't say it after.

(although from my perspective it does annoy me when people m,oan about things like cannabis and how it should stay illegal whilst alcohol is stilll legal. Other than that, I still drink and try to judge others who do as well).
Click to expand...

Cool, +1
 
Lord-Jaffa said:
What a stupid post.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think so.

If someone is so allergic to peanuts that being on a plane with someone sat 10 rows away might cause problems then they're too vulnerable to get on the plane.

If it's because they might touch something that someone who ate peanuts touched then being on a plane makes no difference.

It's not that I'm unsympathetic, I have family who have serious nut allergies. It's that I simply do not believe that eating peanuts 10 rows away can cause harm to someone who would otherwise be safe to get on the plane.
 
Dimple said:
It's of replacing have, it winds me up because I think people do it on purpose because it is so stupid.
Click to expand...

It's reasonable as to why people do it because a lot of people say could've which sounds like could have. Sure it's wrong but if you get what they mean who cares?
 
The Halk said:
No, I don't think so.

If someone is so allergic to peanuts that being on a plane with someone sat 10 rows away might cause problems then they're too vulnerable to get on the plane.

If it's because they might touch something that someone who ate peanuts touched then being on a plane makes no difference.

It's not that I'm unsympathetic, I have family who have serious nut allergies. It's that I simply do not believe that eating peanuts 10 rows away can cause harm to someone who would otherwise be safe to get on the plane.
Click to expand...

As pointed out in many posts in this thread, the closed air conditioned environment of an plane is vastly different from the environment of large open spaces. If there is a possibility of someone dying because you're eating peanuts near them, then why should it even be an issue to complain about it?

Should people with allergies not be allowed to try and lead a normal life, or be allowed to travel to places around the world? Maybe they should just all stay at home so you can have some nuts in your mouth.
 
Lord-Jaffa said:
As pointed out in many posts in this thread, the closed air conditioned environment of an plane is vastly different from the environment of large open spaces. If there is a possibility of someone dying because you're eating peanuts near them, then why should it even be an issue to complain about it?
Click to expand...
Because there isn't such a possibility. As I've already said in the thread... if I get on the plane after having a few drinks and eating the bowl of bar peanuts, or a couple of packs, as I am wont to do when flying, and they make that announcement am I going to have to get a stewardess and confess to them? Won't the guy be already dead by that point? Are they going to throw him off the plane?

If it was that serious they'd have known ahead of time and could contact all the passengers and ask us not to eat nuts prior to flying or take them with us. I'd happily comply to that.

I'll say it yet again, if it's so serious that someone can't eat peanuts 10 rows back then it's so serious it's fantastically dangerous for that person to be on the plane at all, or out in public.

Lord-Jaffa said:
Should people with allergies not be allowed to try and lead a normal life, or be allowed to travel to places around the world? Maybe they should just all stay at home so you can have some nuts in your mouth.
Click to expand...
Is it your quest in life to intentionally misunderstand me? My disagreement is not that disabled people should be accommodated. My disagreement is that ludicrous and false instructions should be challenged.
 
Scuzi said:
Put yourself in their situation. You wouldn't use planes? Get ****ing real.
Click to expand...

this really.... tis in the interests of all passengers that a medical emergency/unscheduled landing doesn't take place. LOL at anyone's rights to eat peanuts being infringed for a few hours.....

It happens on a regular basis but it's one of my smallest gripes related to air travel. The influx of "assistance animals" on flights in the US, i.e. people bringing their dogs and cats on-board for emotional support. I **** you not. The last time I was sat next to one of these fruitcakes, the chow or whatever it was was scared out of it's mind and filled it's crate with urine and faeces. So what does the retard do? HE takes it out of the crate and puts it on his knee. The thing was covered in **** and ****!
Click to expand...

that's brilliant - I'd always thought of assistance animals as being for the blind/disabled but typical to the USA you can get them fora broad range of reasons (just as anyone can get a diagnosis requiring a medical marijuana card in California). Seems in some states apartment blocks that ban pets can't ban 'assistance animals' so its an easy loophole for some - just bung a psychiatrist some $$$.... free market healthcare f.t.w....
 
The Halk said:
Because there isn't such a possibility. As I've already said in the thread... if I get on the plane after having a few drinks and eating the bowl of bar peanuts, or a couple of packs, as I am wont to do when flying, and they make that announcement am I going to have to get a stewardess and confess to them? Won't the guy be already dead by that point? Are they going to throw him off the plane?

If it was that serious they'd have known ahead of time and could contact all the passengers and ask us not to eat nuts prior to flying or take them with us. I'd happily comply to that.

I'll say it yet again, if it's so serious that someone can't eat peanuts 10 rows back then it's so serious it's fantastically dangerous for that person to be on the plane at all, or out in public.


Is it your quest in life to intentionally misunderstand me? My disagreement is not that disabled people should be accommodated. My disagreement is that ludicrous and false instructions should be challenged.
Click to expand...

You realise that trace amounts of peanut residue can cause attacks right? So if you had eaten peanuts then touched a door handle or surface, left peanut oil or dust on it, then the allergic person touches it then they can potentially have a life threatening attack.

The instructions are most certainly not false, and you have no idea how badly the person on the plane might react to even trace amounts of peanut dust in the air. For someone with supposed nut allergy family members, you are quite ignorant.
 
Lord-Jaffa said:
You realise that trace amounts of peanut residue can cause attacks right? So if you had eaten peanuts then touched a door handle or surface, left peanut oil or dust on it, then the allergic person touches it then they can potentially have a life threatening attack.
Click to expand...
Of course I realise. That's the point you seem unable to grasp. If it's that bad then the poor guy is going to die on that plane, even if nobody eats peanuts after they're told.

Lord-Jaffa said:
The instructions are most certainly not false, and you have no idea how badly the person on the plane might react to even trace amounts of peanut dust in the air. For someone with supposed nut allergy family members, you are quite ignorant.
Click to expand...
I'm not ignorant, you're just unable to grasp a concept.

If it's dangerous for me to eat peanuts on the plane 10 rows back, then it's dangerous for them to get on the plane in the first place.

What if someone had a Snickers before they got on? He's dead. There's 200 people on that plane. What's the chances of nobody having eaten a snickers bar in the 30 minutes before getting on? Those are his odds to survive the flight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom