Nuts on board - a serious issue!

[drron]

Of course this new incident was a cashew nut allergy not peanut.However although cashew nut allergy is less common than peanut allergy it is more common to get severe reactions with cashew nut allergy.
A series of nut allergies from QLD-
Cashew nut allergy is associated with a high risk of anaphylaxis -- Davoren and Peake 90 (10): 1084 -- Archives of Disease in Childhood

What I find disturbing is the child obviously had a severe reaction,the plane was diverted back to Dublin and the child taken to hospital.Surely the hospital should have told the family to cancel their travel until the child's allergy was worked out.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Article said it was a crew 'request' not an 'instruction' so nothing illegal from that aspect.

In this particular case they are interchangeable.

 

[amaroo]

THE family of an Irish child - who was given adrenaline onboard a transatlantic flight earlier this month after suffering an allergic reaction - were removed from their return flight home after the cabin crew told them it was not 'a nut-free airline'.

Took awhile but the logical solution was finally enforced.

Common sense prevails - metal tubes and severe allergies don't mix!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Took awhile but the logical solution was finally enforced.

Common sense prevails - metal tubes and severe allergies don't mix!

The Canadian Transportation Agency has determined airlines must provide a nut free buffer zone for passengers giving at least 48 hours notice. The CTA has also ruled that Air Canada must specially cater meals for the buffer zone (to all passengers), which are essentially peanut free.

Air Canada had argued this would be an unfair burden, but they were overruled.

CTA ruling: https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/allergy-cases

 

[defurax]

The Canadian Transportation Agency has determined airlines must provide a nut free buffer zone for passengers giving at least 48 hours notice. The CTA has also ruled that Air Canada must specially cater meals for the buffer zone (to all passengers), which are essentially peanut free.

Air Canada had argued this would be an unfair burden, but they were overruled.

CTA ruling: https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/allergy-cases

Well the AC nut free zone would have been useless in this case (the guy was already 4 rows away):
https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/228-at-a-2011

[h=2]Order[/h][64] Taking into consideration the findings in this Decision, together with the acceptance by Air Canada to implement part of the order set out in the October Decision, Air Canada is required to, within 30 days from the date of this Decision, provide persons with disabilities due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts with the following accommodation measures:

1. when at least 48-hour advance notice is provided to it by persons with disabilities due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts, Air Canada will create a buffer zone as follows for the passenger with a disability due to allergy to peanuts or nuts:
   1. for international wide-body aircraft executive class seating, the buffer zone will consist of the pod-seat occupied by the person with a disability due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts;
   2. for North American business class seating, the buffer zone will consist of the bank of seats in which the person with a disability due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts is seated;
   3. for economy class seating, the buffer zone will consist of the bank of seats in which the person with a disability due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts is seated, and the banks of seats directly in front of and behind the person. In areas where a bulkhead is either directly in front of or behind the bank of seats in which the person with a disability due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts is seated, the buffer zone will consist of the bulkhead, together with the bank of seats in which the person is sitting and the bank of seats directly in front of or behind the person (depending on the location of the bulkhead).

 

[MEL_Traveller]

My response was in regards to the 'sensible' decision to ban passengers rather than accommodate them. That approach would not be allowed from Canada.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Well the AC nut free zone would have been useless in this case (the guy was already 4 rows away):
https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/228-at-a-2011

[h=2]Order[/h][64] Taking into consideration the findings in this Decision, together with the acceptance by Air Canada to implement part of the order set out in the October Decision, Air Canada is required to, within 30 days from the date of this Decision, provide persons with disabilities due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts with the following accommodation measures:

1. when at least 48-hour advance notice is provided to it by persons with disabilities due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts, Air Canada will create a buffer zone as follows for the passenger with a disability due to allergy to peanuts or nuts:
   1. for international wide-body aircraft executive class seating, the buffer zone will consist of the pod-seat occupied by the person with a disability due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts;
   2. for North American business class seating, the buffer zone will consist of the bank of seats in which the person with a disability due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts is seated;
   3. for economy class seating, the buffer zone will consist of the bank of seats in which the person with a disability due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts is seated, and the banks of seats directly in front of and behind the person. In areas where a bulkhead is either directly in front of or behind the bank of seats in which the person with a disability due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts is seated, the buffer zone will consist of the bulkhead, together with the bank of seats in which the person is sitting and the bank of seats directly in front of or behind the person (depending on the location of the bulkhead).

Which brings us back to the likelihood that the passenger consuming the nuts on the Ryan Air flight, whilst clearly disobeying either of a request or instructions from the crew was made a scapegoat by the media for the serious allergic reaction of the little girl.

 

[amaroo]

My response was in regards to the 'sensible' decision to ban passengers rather than accommodate them. That approach would not be allowed from Canada.

Of course it's sensible.

Stuck in a metal trap is the last place any sensible person would want to be......

 

[chunkz]

I very much wonder whether everyone's reactions would be the same if the person with a nut allergy was a middle-aged man.

To be honest, I don't think it'd even make the news.

 

[Moopere]

I very much wonder whether everyone's reactions would be the same if the person with a nut allergy was a middle-aged man.

To be honest, I don't think it'd even make the news.

I agree with you. Not sure it would matter if it were a man or woman, perhaps it might, but I suspect there would be a lot more focus on the personal responsibility of the allergic traveller.

 

[chunkz]

I agree with you. Not sure it would matter if it were a man or woman, perhaps it might, but I suspect there would be a lot more focus on the personal responsibility of the allergic traveller.

Personal responsibility is a thing that seems to be disappearing nowadays....

I personally think it is the mother's fault (because a 4 year old child is unlikely to be able to weigh up the risks) much more than the nut-eating passenger - Simply because she would have been the only one who understood the seriousness of her child's condition the most and the risk she was taking by having her child in such an environment. Any reasonable person would not expect the plane (and even the areas leading up to getting on the plane) to be completely free of nuts - whether it's from a previous passenger or a passenger on the same flight. There could've been better planning to minimise risks on her end - instead, she was relying on everyone else.

I highly doubt the man would've opened the bag of nuts had he known that such a serious reaction could occur. This may be due to lack of understanding of the condition (which again, only the mother had a good level of, so she should've excercised good judgement).
The reason for the man opening the bag of nuts could've been anything from the man's lack of english to the flight crew just making casual announcements to end their duty of care obligation (rather than going around making it real clear to everyone the reason).

It is almost like running out across a busy highway expecting all the drivers to be able to swerve around you. You know the risks and the drivers don't want to hit you, but still... sometimes you'd make it all the way across and sometimes you won't. If you don't make it across, you cannot blame the driver for not being able to swerve in time.
A sensible person would minimise those risks and perhaps cross at a traffic light.

 

[RAM]

Personal responsibility is a thing that seems to be disappearing nowadays....

I personally think it is the mother's fault ......

........ A sensible person would minimise those risks .

That appears to be the issue - common sense and personal responsibility.

Large bank in early 90s - every time something went wrong - "It's not my responsibility" was the refrain.

I stayed but a short time as I could not learn that tune, instead I kept singing "What can we do to fix it!"

 

[JohnK]

I very much wonder whether everyone's reactions would be the same if the person with a nut allergy was a middle-aged man.

To be honest, I don't think it'd even make the news.

I agree. But I think it wouldn't have been newsworthy if it was any man not just a middle aged man.

 

[opusman]

I agree. But I think it wouldn't have been newsworthy if it was any man not just a middle aged man.

Unless he'd been seated next to a child in which case he could quite safely be labelled a paedophile as well as an evil nut murderer.

 

[JohnK]

Unless he'd been seated next to a child in which case he could quite safely be labelled a paedophile as well as an evil nut murderer.

It is quite clear who is in charge these days.

 

[mannej]

Unless he'd been seated next to a child in which case he could quite safely be labelled a paedophile as well as an evil nut murderer.

Don't get me started on that topic...

 

[TheRealTMA]

Don't get me started on that topic...

Would that make him an ENMP?

 

[Moody]

Personal responsibility is a thing that seems to be disappearing nowadays....

It is almost like running out across a busy highway expecting all the drivers to be able to swerve around you. You know the risks and the drivers don't want to hit you, but still... sometimes you'd make it all the way across and sometimes you won't. If you don't make it across, you cannot blame the driver for not being able to swerve in time.
A sensible person would minimise those risks and perhaps cross at a traffic light.

Good analogy. The mother did just this - she pushed the "no nuts please" button and the traffic all came to a stop so that her daughter could cross safely, and then some cretin decided to run the red light and nearly killed her (allegedly).

Let's all give the cretin (sorry - freedom fighter) another round of applause and then we can get back to blaming the victim.

 

[Borisdog]

As a heterosexual non-religious white male with no special needs or allergies I feel as though no-one repects my life choices anymore.

 

[opusman]

Running red lights is illegal, eating nuts isn't.

(circles, they go round and round, circles, they go round and round....)