This really seems like a stupid argument to me. If one can save another’s life by not eating a peanut, the soultion seems simple. Besides, how do you think someone going into anaphalitic shock (a life threatening condition btw) would effect your travel plans? Here’s how, the plane would have to make an emergency landing and that person would need to be brought to the hospital (Yes, this needs to happen quickly, even with benadryl and an epi-pen.). Your travel plans would be all messed up because you could not go the flight with out a peanut.

I would NEVER trust an airline in today’s environment to promise that a flight was peanut-free. You’re lucky if they can get you from point A to point B with your luggage reasonably on time, forget about feeding you or making sure what they do feed you doesn’t have any peanut products.

It’s the old story: the rights of the group vs the rights of the individual.

@ Regina: “This lawsuit is typical of what is going on in our society…another person who thinks the world revolves around her.”

I think Regina hit it right on the nose here.

The bottom line is what is a reasonable accomodation? I can’t think of a feasible way that the airline can GUARANTEE that a flight is completely peanut free. Passengers bring peanuts and other food types on the airplane all the time. There are patients who are so severely allergic to peanuts that a trace of peanut dust from days ago will cause them to go into anaphylaxis. Therefore, these patients simply just should not fly. Yes, it sucks, but thats life!

I know these are a little extreme, but
- Maybe we should black out the sun, because patients with xeroderma pigmentosa will become very ill when exposed to the sun
- Maybe we should pave a wheelchair ramp to the top of Mt Everest, for everyone in a wheelchair who wants to “climb” Everest
- Maybe the airline should rip out a row of seats to accomodate someone in a body cast

The bottom line, airlines should take REASONABLE precautions. Guaranteeing that an airline is peanut dust free in my opinion is IMPOSSIBLE!

In spite of telling the airline four weeks before and four days before flying the cabin staff knew nothing and peanuts were in the food served.

There are some simple and inexpensive steps an airline can take to fulfil its duty of care that they must surely accept when told of a peanut allergic passenger.

1) Establish a foolproof system for the information to reach all relevant departments and staff. They already have a worldwide IT system for booking and tracking of passengers and luggage so this should be easy
2) Provide a nut free meal or snack to the passenger where food is a normal part of the service. Catering suppliers can batch freeze special meals and exclude prepacked ‘may contain’ articles and label the meal as a ‘Nut Free Meal’
3) Inform all passengers by an announcement prior to serving snacks of the presence of a peanut allergic passenger on board and exclude peanut service in a zone they know to be safe for the passenger affected.
4) Ensure medical response to anaphylactic shock is part of the standard crew training and include an adrenaline injection in the standard medical kit.

Nut Allergic Passengers have a similar duty of care.

1) Ensure they have informed the airline in sufficient time for them to respond.
2) Always carry their injection in an easy accessible place and wear a meditag if travelling alone.
3) Double check with the cabin crew on boarding.
4) Explain to neighbouring passengers in a friendly and reasonable manner if they endanger your life. If they refuse ask the cabin crew to arrange a swap.
5) Read the ingredient lists of packaged foods served on the airline – even the best systems are people operated.

To all potential neighbouring passengers who believe that nut eating is a God given right and insist on eating them next to a sufferer I suggest they consider the following stupidly dangerous idea.

1) What if they took a friend on a drive to place that is three hours from a hospital.
2) What if they wrapped a belt round their own throat and asked the friend to tighten it ’slowly’ over the period of five to ten minutes.
3) If they were silly enough to do this when they can no longer breath they will then be experiencing the full anaphylactic shock suffered by highly peanut allergic passengers and if the friend were then to leave the belt tight until they are sufficiently unconscious so that when he released the belt he has between thirty minutes and two hours to get ‘the sufferer’ to hospital that will be similar to a nut allergic passenger using his adrenaline injection and then seeking essential medical aid when halfway into a transatlantic flight.

Thank you to all who understand and are helping peanut allergic people to lead a normal and safe life. It need cost you nothing more than goodwill and common sense.

The only justification for legal action is when there is wilful neglect and failure of duty of care that results in an anaphylaxis event. Then the airline and if there is an ignorant nut eating passenger should be in a civil court or if death results then the police must seriously consider charges of manslaughter against all parties involved.

I take strong exception to Jane K’s comments and I hope that she would really wouldn’t eat peanuts next to a kid with a severe peanut allergy. However, that being said, I think that J.L. attack was uncalled for and mean-spirited.