Could people please not eat peanuts on this plane?

wnb · 5 Jul 2012 at 23:57

estebanrey said:
What joke? Purely coincidental if a comedian did a stand up about it, can you remember who it was?

It is one of Micheal MacIntyrs Jokes.

tamzzy · 5 Jul 2012 at 23:59

i used to work with a nurse that had a nut allergy so bad that it would trigger a reaction if she typed on the same keyboard as someone who had just eaten peanuts and not washed their hands. good thing we kept a cupboard full of chlorpheniramine in a+e lol

SexyGreyFox · 5 Jul 2012 at 23:59

AHarvey said:
I thought better of you Dimple than doing the usual grammar Nazi routine those people with nothing in their lives like to do in order to give it meaning

It's of replacing have, it winds me up because I think people do it on purpose because it is so stupid.

AHarvey · 6 Jul 2012 at 00:01

Dimple said:
It's of replacing have, it winds me up because I think people do it on purpose because it is so stupid.

Nah, I don't even know why I do it but when I am really tired they just slip out.

Even silly things like weather instead of whether, purely down to my brain going on autopilot

SpaghettiOs · 6 Jul 2012 at 00:02

estebanrey said:
Why can't the other person chalk it up as bad luck that he got on a plane where other people are eating peanuts?

It wasn't my 'fault' they have an allergy so severe that even cross contamination would set him or her off. Seriously if I had something like that I wouldn't want to force my medical condition on others, and if that meant I couldn't use planes I wouldn't.

Surely it would be easier (if you're theory about air born particles not being the cause is true) if they just refrained from using the toilets during the flight (it wasn't a long flight, I didn't use the toilets for example).

Because not eating peanuts won't cause you to have a serious allergic reaction?

I don't think you'd restrict yourself to land/sea based transport if you had that allergy. What if your job required you to work overseas? What if your parents lived overseas and one was suddenly ill? There are hundreds of reasons why that person may have had to use that flight and didn't want to risk their health while doing it, even if it meant 'forcing' their illness on others.

And you never specified the length of the flight but, at the end of the day, if you gotta go you gotta go.

Edit: In fact, just thinking about it, it was probably the airlines decision to make that restriction. He/she probably had to state by law that they had a serious medical condition, and the airline was probably forced to place such a restriction for their own well being.

agnes · 6 Jul 2012 at 00:02

"Dude, lets go abroad!!" "can't fly, nut allergic".

Don't be silly guys, you are stuck in a tin can in the air. Last thing you want, it to risk getting an allergic reaction to a simple thing like a nut. Give the poor guy a break. Nothing he can do. But you can. Stash the bag away and get on with it.

No manors in people these days

EDIT: also, remember, people fill these forms out before buying tickets. or checking in. So I doubt very much he/she complained or was even aware of the bag being opened. Simply the staff taking precautions due to him putting it on the application...

Scuzi · 6 Jul 2012 at 00:04

Put yourself in their situation. You wouldn't use planes? Get ****ing real.

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 ****!

The Halk · 6 Jul 2012 at 00:07

agnes said:
Don't be silly guys, you are stuck in a tin can in the air. Last thing you want, it to risk getting an allergic reaction to a simple thing like a nut. Give the poor guy a break. Nothing he can do. But you can. Stash the bag away and get on with it.

I'll say it again, if me eating peanuts 10 rows back might cause an allergic reaction then simply going to an airport and sitting in a seat or getting on the plane itself is more likely to set them off.

agnes said:
No manors in people these days

I cannot afford a manor.

lewism · 6 Jul 2012 at 00:08

What happened to buying a sandwich on the plane? Or are you just annoyed you couldn't eat your £5 bag of peanuts until later?

AHarvey · 6 Jul 2012 at 00:15

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.

Scuzi · 6 Jul 2012 at 00:16

The Halk said:
I'll say it again, if me eating peanuts 10 rows back might cause an allergic reaction then simply going to an airport and sitting in a seat or getting on the plane itself is more likely to set them off.

Not really. Inside a pressurised hull in which the air is recycled, the likelihood of air contamination is probably a lot higher than inside a large open space such as a airport.;

SpaghettiOs · 6 Jul 2012 at 00:17

It's a case of not eating peanuts to ensure one person's health and safety, and an airline's freedom from law suits in the case of an incident. I think bringing utilitarianism into this is taking it a bit out of perspective.

agnes · 6 Jul 2012 at 00:18

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.

They cannot help it!

A bar has a ramp instead of steps, you get annoyed at the disabled person because you prefer steps?

Basically what the majority is saying here.

Total stupidity.

Nexus · 6 Jul 2012 at 00:19

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.

Because in that situation, over the sake of not eating your peanuts it might avoid the plane having to make an emergency landing or returning to its departure point, even if you don't care about the well being of another person, you must be able to see that surely?

Efour · 6 Jul 2012 at 00:21

I would have found the idiot and rubbed their face in sunpat then used a chunky version as lube on em too.

Scuzi · 6 Jul 2012 at 00:27

Look at it this way. Being stubborn and eating peanuts, in a worst case scenario, could result in the affected person becoming very ill, necessitating a diversion to the nearest suitable airfield for a medical reception, making your journey infinitely more difficult and stressful.

The Halk · 6 Jul 2012 at 00:28

agnes said:
They cannot help it!

A bar has a ramp instead of steps, you get annoyed at the disabled person because you prefer steps?

Basically what the majority is saying here.

Total stupidity.

Ah rubbish. If it was as bad as the airline said then what if someone on the plane said - I sat at the bar before I got on the plane and ate the whole bowl of peanuts.

It's ridiculous, nobody on that plane had an allergy as severe as they suggested.

Scuzi · 6 Jul 2012 at 00:35

The Halk said:
Ah rubbish. If it was as bad as the airline said then what if someone on the plane said - I sat at the bar before I got on the plane and ate the whole bowl of peanuts.

It's ridiculous, nobody on that plane had an allergy as severe as they suggested.

Possible, but why take the risk? A diversion can cost an airline hundreds of thousands.

Eriedor · 6 Jul 2012 at 00:35

The Halk said:
I'll say it again, if me eating peanuts 10 rows back might cause an allergic reaction then simply going to an airport and sitting in a seat or getting on the plane itself is more likely to set them off.

I cannot afford a manor.

a plane with recirculated air is a completely different situation to a building with free flowing air. End of the day yes I understand its annoying for those who want to eat peanuts but if you dont eat peanuts U may simply just be a bit hungry, if U do eat peanuts I could die, yes im not exagerating, it can actually kill those with severe allergies like myself, do you have so little regard for fellow humans that eating a particular snack is more important to you than their well being?

And as someone else pointed out, if you ignore the request and continue eating them and cause a reaction in the sufferer they will almost certainly turn the plane around as after epinephrine has been administered you need to be kept under observation for 6 hours minimum. Now which is more inconvenient? Potentially turning around the plane or just not opening that salty snack and trying something else instead?

Polarbear · 6 Jul 2012 at 00:40

I'm one of these annoying people!

Airlines have only really started making a fuss about it in the last couple of years.
With the joys of security these days I've got to declare the nut allergy to get the EpiPens through security (and also to the airline so that they can be in the cabin).

With these EpiPens having to be declared I think it really brought the issue to the airlines attention because this policy of not serving nuts started shortly after.

Incidentally I've only ever been asked once by cabin crew whether nuts should be served on the plane. Every other time the first I've heard about it is at the same time as the other passengers!