It’s getting to the point where terrorists aren’t lining their plastic-explosive undergarments with ball bearings and nails, but with goobers.
No, because the “small number in the traveling party with the peanut sensitive person” is, in the vast majority of cases, zero. The probability of there being any person that sensitive to peanuts on the plane is so close to zero that it is rational to ignore it. Heck, the probability of there being anyone that sensitive anywhere in the same state as the airplane is close to zero.
Asking people to not eat anything that’s a potential allergen isn’t even close to zero cost, because all foods are potential allergens. To all of the folks saying that the airlines should just serve pretzels instead, what then do you do about people with wheat allergies? If you’re going to ban peanuts because some people are allergic to them, then you have to ban all foods.
Again, people really don’t realize just how rare peanut allergies, and especially the sorts of extreme peanut allergies that lead to this hysteria, are.
I’m a big believer in not announcing any rules that are uneforceable. Asking a plane full of people, many of whom are not even paying attention, not to eat peanuts is a unenforceable rule.
I’m also a big believer in not abiding by pointless rules. Asking a plane full of people not to eat peanuts, when there will be no negative impact for the person with the allery is silly. If the risk was really so great to the person with the allergy, they would never have survived the cab ride to the airport and the walk through the terminal.
For my own child’s mild peanut allergy, I do think prohibiting passengers from eating their own peanut snacks is overkill. But I do appreciate peanuts not being served in my row because she could easily be cross contaminated by empty peanut bags, dirty hands, etc.
In my experience, it is NOT the passengers requesting these accomodations. It is the airlines or flight attendants trying to limit their own liability by prohibiting it for everyone.
The kid/person/passenger has just walked thru an airline terminal with countless sources of peanut and peanut like stuff - that plane is the least of their concerns.
Its unreasonable (save for immediate vicinity passengers) - if the alergy is that severe, the passenger or caretakers of said passenger should understand the risk level and potential exposure - if the risk of airline travel is too great - find another way.
I personally love that in the latest bag of peanuts I got on a flight - the bag contained a warning that they may have been produced in a facility that works with peanuts.
And when those people make a request to not have something served, the airline can make their own cost-benefit analysis for each one and decide on a case-by-case basis
As I understand it, wheat allergies only happen when the food is eaten, not in proximity. Still, I would treat it the same way as peanut allergies if I’m mistaken
False dichotomy. No need to have an all-or-nothing policy. The policy can be fluid to accommodate the realities of the present
A few years ago I was on a very long flight where they announced that someone with a peanut allergy was on board and they wouldn’t be serving peanuts and asked people not to eat stuff containing peanuts. I didn’t think much about it.
Four hours later I was feeling a little peckish and remembered that I had some trail mix (with lots of peanuts) in my bag, so I pulled it out and grabbed a handful. After I finished it I remembered the announcement. I wasn’t knowingly defying it–I just forgot about it. Neither of the other people in my row, to whom I offered the trail mix, said anything about it either.
So if they’re truly concerned about a single stray molecule of peanut essence getting into the atmosphere, just telling people once at the beginning of the flight isn’t really sufficient. They’re always going to have people who didn’t listen, don’t care, or just forget.
The same is true of peanut allergies.
You, sir, are worse than Hitler.
Southwest Airlines serves peanuts.
I usually ask for pretzels when I fly SWA, actually. That’s immaterial though; the point is that the parents (or allergic person) are trying to externalize their problem and make everyone else deal with it.
Like multiple people have said, they need to assess the risk appropriately and plan accordingly, not try and force the remedy of their problem onto everyone else.
What do you think the response would have been in 1965 if someone had suggested that nobody on the flight smoke because their lungs had problems? They’d have been told not to fly, in all likelihood. This is no different.
This is not about eating a few grams of peanuts. It is about subjecting an entire plane of passengers to the disruption if an emergency occurs and the plane has to make an unscheduled landing. Every Southwest Airlines plane is lousy with peanut particles; they hand out hundreds of bags of peanuts on every flight. Anyone with a severe peanut allergy is placing the travel plans of 150 passengers at risk just by boarding the plane, not to mention a significant cost to the airlines.
If their allergy is so severe they cannot tolerate airborne traces of peanuts, they should avoid all modes of public travel, unless they are dressed in isolation garments and breathing apparatus.
I checked the pretzel bags on my flight; they prominently declare, “May contain traces of peanuts from processing machinery”.
I like this post, only for future reference I’d substitute “cellphones” for “peanuts” and “jabbering” for “eating”. 
Thanks for the link. It does say this:
Asthma to food inhalation has been reported in non-occupational settings. Through a telephone survey, Sicherer et al [15] described patients who had adverse reactions to peanuts aboard commercial flights. In 33% of patients, the reaction was by inhalation. In the majority of patients, the symptoms were rhinorrhea and wheezing. No anaphylaxis was reported.
Of course that doesn’t mean it might not have happened somewhere. But I’ll suggest that unless someone can find a case of anaphylaxis from inhalation in a non-occupational setting, then the entire cost-benefit discussion is irrelevant, because there actually isn’t a problem that needs to be solved.
Quoted for emphasis. If one person is extremely sensitive to things that don’t bother other people, then that one person is the one who should take whatever precautions they need to take. They can’t go through life with a loudspeaker proclaiming “Please! No peanuts withing 100 yards of me!”
Roddy
(Bolding mine.)
Unless you’re sitting next to me, I’m not gonna worry about eating my peanuts.
Totally different set of nut problems.
There are also medications available which can help moderate allergies. Granted, long-term use can have side effects, but use of them for a day or two for a trip is hardly “long-term” and in my opinion a wise precaution… but it seems the medical profession disagrees.
Unless you were promised peanuts as part of your airline ticket I don’t see any argument. The airlines can serve something else instead.
The airlines also requested that passengers refrain from eating peanuts, they did not demand or require it. So sort of OK, except for the short notice, which is problematic.
Person should be allowed to fly and allowed to make the request, airlines should be given the option to honor the request, as well as passengers.