Nuts on board - a serious issue!

[boomy]

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.

The cabin crew are there to help, not to give unlawful orders. If pax will start arguing with every request the crew will loose authority. This case is just another example of that.
And yes, in an extreme case if unlawful order you should not listen to anyone. That includes airline crew, police and the army. In all other cases you do as you're told.

 

[medhead]

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

Once again: it is illegal to harm someone with your actions.

It is a pretty limited view to suggest the guy can do anything legal regardless of the consequences.

 

[samh004]

Once again: it is illegal to harm someone with your actions.

It is a pretty limited view to suggest the guy can do anything legal regardless of the consequences.

Yes, but has he broken the law? No.

Anywhere that prosecuted him for eating nuts in this situation is taking things a step too far. IMO.

 

[Denali]

How would they prove that it was pax 4 rows back nuts that caused the reaction to gain a conviction? A couple of random swabs of plane seats will show they are a cess pool of germs, inc nut residue.

 

[mannej]

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.

No arguments about following crew direction, but your opinion on the man in question is based on heresay that can't be verified.
You are filling the gaps based on the mothers account of the scenario. No other witnesses commented in either article, the article in the OP even suggested the man was banned for life, yet Ryan Air have stated they don't ban passengers for life.

I am not denying the incident took place, but to suggest an article which has the child's mother as the only source of information when there were a number of parties involved lacks credibility.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Yes, but has he broken the law? No.

Anywhere that prosecuted him for eating nuts in this situation is taking things a step too far. IMO.

I would say he has potentially broken the law. There are rules regarding obeying lawful crew member instructions, which would be enough to start with in this case.

 

[UP4014]

It would seem the instruction should have been do not 'open' the packet of nuts rather than do not eat them.

I sometimes buy nuts from the supermarket self serve nut bar where you put them in the plastic bag yourself, had I taken one of my bag of snacks on this flight the girl would be ill and no one would even know why.

 

[boomy]

You are filling the gaps based on the mothers account of the scenario. No other witnesses commented in either article, the article in the OP even suggested the man was banned for life, yet Ryan Air have stated they don't ban passengers for life.

The article quoted in post #51 doesn't name the mother as the source. I'm simply filling the gaps based on what I read and based on the action taken by the airline. There is nothing so far to suggest that man was innocent in his actions.

 

[JohnPhelan]

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.

Only if there is a causal link between the guy's actions and the harm. That's the thing that's missing here.

 

[JohnPhelan]

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

He was given a direction by the crew and disobeyed it, therefore he was (technically) in breach of the law.

 

[medhead]

Yes, but has he broken the law? No.

Anywhere that prosecuted him for eating nuts in this situation is taking things a step too far. IMO.

He wouldn't be prosecuted for eating nuts. It is spurious to suggest that is the issue. I certainly haven't raised eating the nuts as the issue. The issue is the harm/potential harm that could have/did result from his actions. It would be for harming another person. Attempted manslaughter, for example. It is not correct to say he hasn't broken the law.

 

[medhead]

Only if there is a causal link between the guy's actions and the harm. That's the thing that's missing here.

As this story demonstrates he is in hot water without a causal link. He has been interviewed by police and banned from the airline. Taking him to court might require a causal link but even without it he is in trouble.

 

[Princess Fiona]

This is interesting

J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999 Jul;104(1):186-9.
Self-reported allergic reactions to peanut on commercial airliners.
Sicherer SH, Furlong TJ, DeSimone J, Sampson HA.
Source
Division of Pediatric Allergy/Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, USA.


Abstract
Background: Allergic reactions to food occurring on commercial airlines have not been systematically characterized.
Objective: We sought to describe the clinical characteristics of allergic reactions to peanuts on airplanes.
Methods: Participants in the National Registry of Peanut and Tree Nut Allergy who indicated an allergic reaction while on a commercial airliner were interviewed by telephone.
Results: Sixty-two of 3704 National Registry of Peanut and Tree Nut Allergy participants indicated a reaction on an airplane; 42 of 48 patients or parental surrogates contacted confirmed the reaction began on the airplane (median age of affected subject, 2 years; range, 6 months to 50 years). Of these, 35 reacted to peanuts (4 were uncertain of exposure) and 7 to tree nuts, although 3 of these 7 reacted to substances that may have also contained peanut. Exposures occurred by ingestion (20 subjects), skin contact (8 subjects), and inhalation (14 subjects). Reactions generally occurred within 10 minutes of exposure (32 of 42 subjects), and reaction severity correlated with exposure route (ingestion > inhalation > skin). The causal food was generally served by the airline (37 of 42 subjects). Medications were given in flight to 19 patients (epinephrine to 5) and to an additional 14 at landing/gate return (including epinephrine to 1 and intravenous medication to 2), totaling 79% treated. Flight crews were notified in 33% of reactions. During inhalation reactions as a result of peanut allergy, greater than 25 passengers were estimated to be eating peanuts at the time of the reaction. Initial symptoms generally involved the upper airway, with progression to the skin or further lower respiratory reactions (no gastrointestinal symptoms).
Conclusions: Allergic reactions to peanuts and tree nuts caused by accidental ingestion, skin contact, or inhalation occur during commercial flights, but airline personnel are usually not notified. Reactions can be severe, requiring medications, including epinephrine.

 

[RAM]

At what point in recent history did nuts become such weapons of mass destruction?
And why stop at nuts, what about sneezing, sniffling? minimum row distances for snoring? enclosed capsules for flatlulence?

Or did you mean mass disruption?

 

[SeatBackForward]

Or did you mean mass disruption?

Hmm good question, can't say that nuts have ever interrupted, or rupted me before. In this case I'm sure the unfortunate girl and her family must have a tough time of it, but clearly her ruption seems more important her interrpution.

 

[RAM]

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 ...

The OP article said the child deteriorated over a period of time observed by the parents and sister's family.

The article ONLY quoted the mother AND relied on her version of events. She who must be obei'd perhaps?

Deficient - sat and watched her daughter deteriorate and did not administer EPI pen.

IMHO with 3 children I actively raised, I NEVER sat by and called for others to look after them while I watched. Most other parents I know are the same - they respond and take action. When my 5 month old son, sitting on my lap, had his eyeballs roll back in his head and pass out - I reacted, I didn't call on others to fulfill my parental responsibility. I held him while he had the lumbar puncture so it would minimise the risk of permanent paralysis.

The mother was critical and pointed the finger at someone else being at fault. The research article mentioned in this thread also makes it seem likely that the cause was not from the air but either eaten or touched. The old line "The lady doth protest too much, methinks!" sums it up for me.
Pinched from my previous post:
The air crew provided towels and ice.
The air crew called for help (not the parents) once the girl stopped breathing. (I would not be sitting quietly by).
Two people responded a nurse and ambo.
One of these administered the epi-pen.

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

What if the girl had been on the beach in Tenerife and stood on a dropped peanut? Or took a bite from someone's ice cream? The family should know how to use the epi-pens.

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.

 

[RAM]

Or the guy thought they were 'turning him in for consuming food not bought on the flight' and had not understood the announcements misinterpreting them to mean no non-RyanAir food.

The later stories have more detail and indicate RyanAir were backed into a corner on banning the individual BUT not for life.

 

[JohnK]

I am seriously missing a point here.

Since when did it become my responsibility to be aware of allergies other people may have?

Here we have a mother with a child with serious allergies going to Tenerife on holidays and then blaming everyone else when something happens. Totally irresponsible from where I am sitting.

If you have an allergy problem the easiest solution would be to learn how to manage it. Don't expect other people to manage it for you. And if that means no holidays in Tenerife then tough luck.

 

[medhead]

I am seriously missing a point here.

Since when did it become my responsibility to be aware of allergies other people may have?
.
.

Since never. That is why the passenger asked the airline to inform other passengers of the issue. If you were on the aircraft you would have been made aware in accordance with the responsibilities of the parent.

 

[boomy]

Or the guy thought they were 'turning him in for consuming food not bought on the flight' and had not understood the announcements misinterpreting them to mean no non-RyanAir food.

Or maybe he thought it won't harm the girl, or maybe he just didn't care. Who knows?
What we do know (based on the articles) is that he received a number of warnings from the crew and other pax and despite all that he said in English that he will open the nuts if he wants to.