Profile: danielsmorgan
This is danielsmorgan's Profile page. Use it to view danielsmorgan's comments, other users' replies to these comments, and comments danielsmorgan has endorsed.
What's Happening Now
June 16, 2010 2:36 am
Thank you for your comment. You seem interested in striking a balance between competing interests and concerns. Do you think the proposed rule does a good job of this in other areas as well?
June 18, 2010 1:55 am
Thank you for your comment. How may the DOT consider FAA’s traffic practices and procedures? And, as a customer, do you think that requiring airlines to broadcast ground control/tower communications may help?
No comments
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this very sensitive topic.
DOT asked, “How likely it is that a passenger with a severe peanut allergy will suffer a reaction from peanut particles in the air on a flight?”
While I am no expert, I believe that a variety of simulations could empirically address this issue. One would need to determine the required concentration of airborne particles to spark an allergic reaction in the most medically sensitive individual – thereby setting the threshold level of airborne peanut particulate. That said, as other commenters have noted, airborne peanut particulate is not the sole cause of an allergic reaction.
I do, however, take issue with the phrasing of this question. Clearly, the genesis of the question is that allergic reactions to… more »
DOT asked: “What steps should airlines have to take, if any, to avoid this danger?”
If the danger being addressed is any and all allergic peanut reaction, the answer is “none.” If the danger being addressed is a *potentially fatal* allergic reaction, airlines should stop serving peanuts and contributing to a potentially dangerous environment. However, an outright restriction on what passengers may be permitted to bring on board is excessive and, potentially, unenforceable. Would gate agents be required to inspect passengers’ snack items to ensure that they do not contain peanuts? Transportation security challenges are already too great to include enforcement of a ban on all peanut products. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to assume that the average citizen is fully aware of the peanut content (or made-in-a-factory-that-processes-peanuts labeling) of their snack items. No all-out ban will fully eliminate a potentially fatal environment, and DOT should not encourage such a false sense of security to those travelers who might be concerned about this matter.
If the study outlined in my first response yielded a reasonable ppm threshold of peanut particulate, DOT could work with airlines and airliner manufacturers to install the appropriate systems that would alert passengers to the risk as well as neutralize that risk.
DOT asked, “Would an epinephrine auto-injector, to allow immediate treatment of an allergic reaction, be sufficient? If so, should it be the responsibility of the airline, or the passenger, to provide it?”
I cannot answer the first part. As for the second part, airlines already carry portable defibrilators. Carrying EpiPens would not be an undue burden. Airlines, however, should expect that passengers or parents would carry their own EpiPens. Airlines should not be expected to administer EpiPen treatments to unaccompanied children, and children with such allergies should not be permitted to fly unaccompanied.
DOT asked, “Should any food item containing peanuts be covered in a restriction, including e.g., peanut butter crackers and products containing peanut oil?”
See above: airlines should not contribute to an environment that endangers their passengers. However, passenger choices should not be restricted, if reasonable assurance can be given that passenger food/snack choices do not contribute to a potentially fatal environment. « less
I would like to add on to Javier’s comment. It is true that the quality of delay information is not always within the airline’s control. Often, when the FAA institutes the practice of “metering” due to weather or high volume, the airline really can’t advise the customers of the reason for a delay. In fact, in order to retain the right to take off, the airlines are required to load the plane and sit on the tarmac while the FAA figures out how to route traffic.
Furthermore, having listened to ground control/tower communications on United flights, it’s clear that the controllers can give an estimated delay, but that delay is subject to change. Again, the airline’s information is only as good as the FAA’s information – and, well, the situation… more »
To that end, DOT’s rule must consider that FAA’s traffic management practices and procedures might necessarily inhibit airlines’ ability to comply with such regulations. « less