Nuts on board - a serious issue!

[Moody]

However given the news article relying solely on the mother, who appears entirely deficient in duty of care, who is not impartial at the least created the publicity and the lady's facebook page had a couple of thousand hits on it suggests Ryan Air were backed into a corner.

How willingly we do not know but the police have the power and chose not to exercise it. That suggests 'beat up' by mother to me.

How was the mother "deficient in duty of care"? And how does the fact that the man was questioned but not charged by the police suggest that the whole issue was a "beat up" by the mother? Oh - I see now ... she has a FameBeg page. Must have made the whole story up then, eh? Funny how no passengers or crew has outed her for being an lame idiot and fantasist.

I am not quite so shy ...

 

[Pushka]

If my child had a life threatening medical issue that could be resolved with the use of something as simple as an epi pen then I'd make damn sure I had (more than) one on my person, packed in my luggage, and at the age of six the child would have commenced preliminary training in how to self administer. That is what happens to young Diabetes 1 sufferers. They are taught very young to administer insulin.

I'm surprised her medical team hasn't already commenced that process. Maybe they have.

I believe if the allergy was as significant as mentioned in the article then I'd seriously rethink my need to travel. If the person who sat in a nearby seat had dropped a peanut into the arm rest area (I've done it) on the flight before then the girl is already at risk. Maybe that was even the case here. Might have nothing to do with this guys packet of peanuts.

 

[Moody]

...The mother appears to have still been on holiday and expected everyone else to be responsible for her poor daughter's health.

No - the mother asked the airline, crew and fellow passengers to be mindful of the fact that her daughter has a serious health issue. All they had to do was abstain from eating peanuts, but one individual didn't care. Maybe it was George Brandis in disguise?

If the girl is really this sensitive then there must have been previous incidents. Perhaps she is not as sensitive as made out and she was given something by her sister, mother etc. The story does not ring true IMHO especially knowing parents with extremely sensitive primary school children - everyone in their families knows how to use the pens and where they are located in the home, car glove box, school bag etc.

Not as sensitive??? She lost consciousness and stopped breathing! How much more sensitive can you be??? Do you expect her to simply explode for you?

And if you have the choice of administering an epipen yourself or letting a medico do it - I know which I would choose. My wife is a school teacher and they give them training on how to use such devices, but the "failure" rate is still significant and it is not uncommon for the teacher to inject themselves.

 

[opusman]

No - the mother asked the airline, crew and fellow passengers to be mindful of the fact that her daughter has a serious health issue. All they had to do was abstain from eating peanuts, but one individual didn't care.

Maybe the nut eater had a serious health issue of his own? He could have been diabetic and in danger of a coma unless he ate something immediately, for all you know.


As I said on page one, he didn't shove the peanuts down the girls throat. If her condition is that sensitive that a peanut several metres away will set her off then she isn't going to live very long without her and her parents learning to accept responsibility and manage the situation proactively rather than expecting the rest of the world to change.

 

[mannej]

No - the mother asked the airline, crew and fellow passengers to be mindful of the fact that her daughter has a serious health issue. All they had to do was abstain from eating peanuts, but one individual didn't care. Maybe it was George Brandis in disguise?

Granted, however it has been noted that the individual in question had difficulties in understanding English. I don't know what the relevance the GB is?

 

[medhead]

Eating nuts is not illegal last time I looked.

But knowingly doing something that can kill someone is illegal. The story I read about this clearly stated that the crew were not selling nuts on the flight and the guy was told not to open the packet of nuts that he carried onto the plane.

Btw a diabetic can eat anything, they don't have to eat nuts. But to take your point, the guy should be managing his situation better if that is the case. Mention it to the crew and ask them for an alternative. Not hard really. But is there any suggestion at all that the guy was diabetic?

It is also worth noting that the story claims the A/C was the mode of exposure not the fume traveling over 4 rows.

To play devils advocate for 1 minute, where are we going to draw the line? This guys sounds like an idiot who at best didnt listen, at worst knew what he was doing and took the chance.

Is Ryanair nut free? If not then how are you going to for see a little girl getting an attack when someone does something 4 rows away. What about previous flight and cleaning crew? Are we sure that all previous fallen nuts where cleaned up? If the girl is that sensitive what is reasonable precautions?

The story I read made the point that Ryanair did stop serving nuts on this flight.

 

[boomy]

Granted, however it has been noted that the individual in question had difficulties in understanding English.

It was said that the passenger was involved in an argument and said that he will open the packet if he wants to. He understood very well that he was asked not to do it but maybe didn't understand/believe the reason.
That's exactly why when the crew ask for something, even if you don't understand the reason or don't agree with it, you do it first and ask questions later.
That passenger thought he had the right to eat his nuts and no one can tell him not to. Once the crew asked him not to, he immediately lost that right and for ignoring them 3 times the airline decided to impose the ban, hopefully he will learn that ignoring crew orders can result in extreme consequences.

 

[medhead]

If your intent is to harm someone, sure. But it's not. Merely satisfying your hunger isn't a crime. The fact it can be construed as such shows what a sad world we live in these days.

Intent only changes the level of seriousness. You are not allowed to harm someone whether intentional or not

 

[samh004]

Intent only changes the level of seriousness. You are not allowed to harm someone whether intentional or not

I could eat a snickers bar as I walk down the street, cough, particulates fly through the air and someone with an allergy walking in the other direction could have a reaction. Should I be banned from eating on the street now, what kind if nanny state do we need to become?

 

[juddles]

....The story I read made the point that Ryanair did stop serving nuts on this flight...

Maybe they did, but did they clean the plane specially for the girl´s transport? Christ, they must sell at least a dozen different snacks that contain nuts. I think they even sell Nuttella!!

Trying to link the girl´s reaction to one particular passenger is drawing an incredibly long bow. On the flight immediately before this one, the plane would have been full of happy passengeres all merrily chewing nuts, and thus filling the ¨aircon¨ system with particles.

Airborne exposure to nut protein causing anything more than mild skin irritation is almost unheard of. Far more likely that her seat and the magazines, etc in the back of the seat in front of her were riddled with food particles.

Ryanair can ban the guy for his failure to comply with (or understand?) their directives, but noone could have a hope in hell of trying to prove he caused the liittle girl´s reaction. Seems to me that the ban is an easy way for Ryanair to distract publicity from the fact that their airplanes are not clean and are riddled with nut residue.

 

[medhead]

Maybe they did, but did they clean the plane specially for the girl´s transport? Christ, they must sell at least a dozen different snacks that contain nuts. I think they even sell Nuttella!!

Trying to link the girl´s reaction to one particular passenger is drawing an incredibly long bow. On the flight immediately before this one, the plane would have been full of happy passengeres all merrily chewing nuts, and thus filling the ¨aircon¨ system with particles.

Airborne exposure to nut protein causing anything more than mild skin irritation is almost unheard of. Far more likely that her seat and the magazines, etc in the back of the seat in front of her were riddled with food particles.

Ryanair can ban the guy for his failure to comply with (or understand?) their directives, but noone could have a hope in hell of trying to prove he caused the liittle girl´s reaction. Seems to me that the ban is an easy way for Ryanair to distract publicity from the fact that their airplanes are not clean and are riddled with nut residue.

I was simply answering the question about whether Ryanair is nut free. That is all.

I could eat a snickers bar as I walk down the street, cough, particulates fly through the air and someone with an allergy walking in the other direction could have a reaction. Should I be banned from eating on the street now, what kind if nanny state do we need to become?

You can make up all the ludicrous scenarios that you like. The fact remains in this case the parents and the airline took steps to limit exposure in a specific, known and controllable situation. Someone deliberately ignored the instruction to not open the nuts despite the warnings it could harm someone. Then a person had a severe reaction, that might have killed the person.


Whether those nuts caused the reaction is not really the issue. They ignored a warning that harm might happen and then harm did happen. The guy has deliberately put himself in the firing line, no doubt based on some of the spurious arguments about rights we see in this thread. Your right to eat a snickers does not override someone's right to not die.

 

[juddles]

......Someone deliberately ignored the instruction to not open the nuts despite the warnings it could harm someone.........

As is usual in these sort of stories, there is bugger all reliable information on what occurred. So the ¨deliberately ignored¨accusation could be either correct or incorrect. Just a few possibilities:

1.- The Zimbabwean guy´s language barrier. It is very usual that people who can ostensibly speak a second language, also have more difficulty understanding it when delivered via p.a. systems, etc.
2.- ¨Most¨ passengers don´t listen to most announcements.
3.- Ryanair sell snacks. It appears this bloke may have taken his own on board. ¨If¨someone had a go at him for eating them, he may have thought that was because they were not purchased on board. Knowing the prices they charge for their snacks, he could have got agro because he refuses to pay their prices. Again, a communication issue, not a ¨deliberate ignoring¨of instructions.
4.- I bet their were forty seven pax with their mobile phones on the whole flight, yet none get banned for disobeying directions.

Or, the guy may really just be a cough.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I could eat a snickers bar as I walk down the street, cough, particulates fly through the air and someone with an allergy walking in the other direction could have a reaction. Should I be banned from eating on the street now, what kind if nanny state do we need to become?

no, you cannot be banned for that. You need to adapt your behaviour to the specifics of the situation. Behaviour may or may not be acceptable depending on the circumstances.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

That's exactly why when the crew ask for something, even if you don't understand the reason or don't agree with it, you do it first and ask questions later.

no. This is an example of where obeying crew instructions was a necessity.

it is not the definitive argument that everyone must start obeying all crew instructions, even if those instructions are unlawful.

 

[medhead]

As is usual in these sort of stories, there is bugger all reliable information on what occurred. So the ¨deliberately ignored¨accusation could be either correct or incorrect. Just a few possibilities:

1.- The Zimbabwean guy´s language barrier. It is very usual that people who can ostensibly speak a second language, also have more difficulty understanding it when delivered via p.a. systems, etc.
2.- ¨Most¨ passengers don´t listen to most announcements.
3.- Ryanair sell snacks. It appears this bloke may have taken his own on board. ¨If¨someone had a go at him for eating them, he may have thought that was because they were not purchased on board. Knowing the prices they charge for their snacks, he could have got agro because he refuses to pay their prices. Again, a communication issue, not a ¨deliberate ignoring¨of instructions.
4.- I bet their were forty seven pax with their mobile phones on the whole flight, yet none get banned for disobeying directions.

Or, the guy may really just be a cough.

Agreed the information is sparse. But it does say the guy was asked to not open the nuts he had with him by the crew. That suggests knowledge he, as an individual, had nuts and a direct request not to open them. (1 and 2)

3) but apparently they stopped selling certain snacks in this case.

4) critically those 47 pax on their phone have benefitted from not having the alleged effect happen to the aircraft. Warning, ignoring the warning but no consequence.

In this case, IMO it really is as simple as warning, ignore warning (for whatever reason) and consequence. Once the harm happens the person ignoring the warning is in hot water.

Or the guy thought he knew better (they're 4 rows away it can't possible hurt) and/or that he has a right to eat his nuts.

 

[medhead]

no, you cannot be banned for that. You need to adapt your behaviour to the specifics of the situation. Behaviour may or may not be acceptable depending on the circumstances.

That analogy would be more relevant if it included that there were big warning signs around the person not to eat a snickers and they went ahead and coughed on them regardless. In that situation they certainly would be in hot water.

 

[opusman]

he has a right to eat his nuts.

He does have a right to eat his nuts. Eating nuts is not illegal.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

He does have a right to eat his nuts. Eating nuts is not illegal.

no he didn't. Eating nuts is not illegal, but the right to eat those nuts was withdrawn because of the consequences of doing so.

the two concepts can co-exist.

 

[opusman]

the right to eat those nuts was withdrawn

The right to eat nuts cannot be withdrawn.

 

[drron]

Some fairly inaccurate thoughts being provided here.Go back and read my post 54.As I said there I have a personal interest in this subject with a granddaughter having life threatening allergies including to peanuts.hence I did research this subject.So I will give a couple of links to research in this subject.unfortunately the non medicos will probably not be able to see the full journal articles but a link where summaries can be seen.

first a prominent reseacher in the field is Professor Scott Sicherer who I alluded to in my previous post.He is the Professor of Paediatrics,Allergy and Immunology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt.Sinai,NYC.His major trial was The Immunology of Peanut Allergy and it's Treatment.
Scott H Sicherer - The Mount Sinai Hospital

Here is a link to many abstracts of articles he has been author or co author of-
Food allergy. [J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

Click on the 160 records to get the links to his other articles.