The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Peanuts and Airplanes: The New Religion Thread
Posts
Well that's what this is all about, second-hand peanuts.
I actually don't give a crap what Northwest does, and in fact I hate peanuts and would love to see them banished from the face of the earth. My problem is that the peanut hysteria in this country has reached ludicrous (speed) proportions.
Because it's a tiny fraction of their customer base?
The same is true when you eat pretzels, goldfish crackers, or gum. The issue isn't between peanuts or nothing! it's between peanuts or 'other cheap snack.' And one which the airline probably offers already. Though it wouldn't be too surprising if they just cut the snack out entirely for short hop flights due to cost. Both in terms of the actual bags and weight/fuel consumption.
Yup. It would not be hard to get rid of peanuts on airlines. Of course, you would have to institute a ban to prevent people from bringing on their own, but not hard. The question is, why? And the answer apparently is a paranoid fantasy. The pleasure of eating peanuts is not all the great, the inconvenience of having to wait until you land on the ground is pretty small. But it's not nothing. The hazards of allowing people to eat peanuts on an airplane, on the other hand, are so small that statistically we cannot distinguish them from nothing. So sorry: small convenience trumps moronic alarmism.
Some people are assuming that a hypothetical person with a horribly deadly peanut allergy that will kill them if they breathe in air that peanuts have been in does not consider their allergy enough to check with an airline or about an airline they fly on to see if that airline fits into a group that serves peanuts on their flight? Despite peanuts and airplanes having such a strong association?
How is this person still even alive to fly if their reaction is so severe and their treatment of it is so cavalier?
i actually posted something like this 3 pages ago... apparantly its because it could happen....
And? Companies do more difficult cartwheels for even smaller groups. Especially in the service sector. They aren't going to lose market share by going with pretzels over peanuts and may, in fact, increase it by some small sum. I'm just not seeing the downside.
No, the answer is because some of their customers want it and most of their customer's couldn't care less.
Maybe the peanut contract is far far more lucrative and more than offsets any potential customer loss. I don't have any research to look at, but I'm pretty sure the people who decided to switch to peanuts do. Or maybe many many more people want peanuts than pretzils, so customer satisfaction would go up. There are any number of possibilities that don't include the statistically insignificant DREAD PEANUT segment of the population.
Well, that or:
She would like to fly without being inconvenienced by a company changing its food policy and the company may (or should) accommodate her as doing so does not inconvenience other passengers.
Getting rid of the airplane peanut isn't a big deal to me, but . . . where's the cut-off point? At what point is the airplane obligated to change things for someone with allergies or disabilities and at what point can it say, "You know what, screw it, it's your problem."
(And now this brings to mind that family with the autistic kids kicked off Southwest for beign too disruptive . . . )
And they do change it if notified. As others have stated. But the response was "NO! MAGICAL SURPRISE KILLER PEANUT DUST!"
I bet she could ask them not to eat the peanuts. And hell, even if they say "NO! HAVE YOUR ALLERGIC REACTION!" I bet she could be reseated by a steward.
dude, stop with the grounded logic. some people just are too shy (hypothetically) to do that.
Not severe allergies to pet dander, no, mostly just mild. There are some cases, however, but the dander which would bring it about doesn't stick with anything but the pet itself. Do you get to carry those on the plane? I had always thought animals needed to be checked.
The above situation could be settled by saying "Hey, my wife has severe peanut allergies, could you please not open that bag? Sorry to inconvience you, but she's really allergic." That ONE person who has to wait will more than likely NOT CARE and be over it before the plane lands. If your wife's allergy is MORE severe, than do what I said a page ago and ask the airline for some help.
I just can't get over when people have to make thier issue everyone's issue. And people with peanut allergies - I understand where you're coming from! And if you see me, and I am enjoying peanuts, tell me you have an allergy and I will GLADLY stop. And do whatever I can to make the enviornment safe while we hang out. But once you leave, I'll have more peanuts. And on days you're not there -- PEANUTS FOR ALL!!
I'm not positive, never done it myself, but I think the animal in the carrier is carried on instead of the usual allowed carry-on bag. Some airlines don't allow this and require all animals to go into the cargo hold.
Well, first you'd have to be aware that they had peanuts to know you needed to notify them. Northwest never had before, and asking Delta to continue that practice rather than putting the onus on its frequent flyers doesn't justify the response of 'zomg takin' mah freedoms!!!!'
They have a deadly allergy to breathing air in which peanuts have been eaten and they're not checking to see if the airplane they're riding on is one of the typical airlines that serves peanuts in your situation? That's really where you're going with this?
Asking a company to re-change its policy in a way that would be unnoticeable to most people is making their issue into everyone's issue? Geeze, it's a good thing I've never spoken to a manager as apparently I'd be a scourge on the local Target.
Yes but you're assuming that someone with an allergy so severe that if they breathe air in which peanuts have been eaten they will die is going to be one of the "many people" who doesn't keep track of if they will be served peanuts on an airline, despite Airlines having peanuts being a really famous association.
If I had a deadly allergy to something incredibly commonplace, I would be checking to sees if that thing was places I was going to.
Northwest was apparently a freak airline (which is appropriate given that they're apparently catering to freak customers) that never served peanuts before. So unless you're got a Peanut Information RSS feed...
And who cares if it's deadly or not? It's needlessly unpleasant. If they used vinyl seats that constantly stuck to your clothing would it be some horrendous blight upon humanity if people asked that they change over to cloth fabric? Ignoring the fact that not ordering your next batch of peanuts is easier than changing out all your seats by several orders of magnitude. Uh oh, that fabric is stealin' my God given right to slide in my seat at 40,000 feet.
If peanuts killed me I probably would have a peanut information RSS feed.
If they made my life hell while exposed I'd still probably keep pretty good track of them.
And you people keep on bringing up the "GOD GIVEN RIGHT" opposition as if I'm making it. I'm not.
I'm saying the idea of a person who has a horrible allergy to peanuts that is triggered by nothing more than breathing in air that has had peanuts eaten in it, which is the only reaction where a very simple choice or comment could fix the situations presented, not caring one whit about if they could be exposed to peanuts on a form of travel that historically serves peanuts is stupid and not worth considering.
I think you either missed the point of what I was saying, or I didn't say it properly. What I was saying was - you talking to your manager at the local Target about a concern you have while you were shopping would be a great thing, and very pro-active on your part.
You saying that every Target should be prepared at all times for you to enter without warning and accomodate your situation is stupid.
People with peanut allergies are in the minority, and if they're willing to give you a buffer zone, I'm sure if you had a really really super severe one that even the 3 row buffer zone couldn't combat, I'm sure they'd be willing to have an all non-peanut FLIGHT for you if you really needed it. But asking the airline as a whole to stop serving peanuts when the odds would say that more than half the flights are 100% peanut eaters is silly, especially when they've shown they're willing to accomodate.
I bet the number of people who have no allergy to peanuts but like eating them far outnumber the number of people who have peanut allergies that would be set off without eating peanuts.
You're using the "MAGICAL KILLER DUST" proposition as if I'm making it. So we're even.
And Northwest has historically not served peanuts. Which is how this is an issue in the first place. People who fly Northwest and who have/know people with peanut allergies are asking that they change the policy back. How...horrible?
northwest hasn't, delta has. northwest has now merged with or been bought by delta?
They got merged with Delta.
I'm using the MAGICAL KILLER DUST proposition because the alternative things that could set off the allergies are fixed by a: not eating peanuts, or in extreme cases b: being seated in the peanut-safe area that Northwest has said they will survive. Therefore it's not an issue at all unless the person is supremely retarded or has a crippling social disorder where they can't even bring up their allergy while booking a flight.
The number of people who would actually give much more than five seconds thought to actually not having any peanuts to eat, however, is going to be nearly nonexistent.
I always enjoy a snack while flying. A lot of airlines have been cutting back on in-flight snacks, and I do notice it during flights.