Profile:
jetjock

This is jetjock's Profile page. Use it to view jetjock's comments, other users' replies to these comments, and comments jetjock has endorsed.

What's Happening Now

June 12, 2010 3:11 am

I could not be happier if airlines discontinue serving peanuts on flights. As a life long peanut allergy sufferer, I have always held out hope that airlines would recognize that they are providing their passengers with the #1 food allergy product. I have seen many arguments that they should be banned in restaurants, ballparks etc., however, those venues are completely voluntary (establishments that promote/provide peanuts that are shelled and thrown on the floor do not get my business) but airline travel is a closed quarters, necessity for many people. I, for one, have to contend with residue and airborne particulate from those little bags of roasted peanuts served on aircraft almost on a daily basis since I am an airline Captain. For 22 years I have been meticulous with keeping my work… more »

…environment (flight deck) safe for me by not consuming items that may contain peanuts, avoiding touching my eyes and asking my co-pilot not to consume bagged peanuts (other peanut products that don’t risk going airborne are usually ok). Unfortunately, my ability to control my environment becomes more difficult when I am assigned a reposition flight and must ride as a passenger. I advise the flight attendants and hope they remember. I have suffered mild/moderate anaphyalactic and asthmatic distress if I am unaware that someone opened a bag of peanuts. Thankfully that type of exposure is not life threatening (at least not yet) but the concern is very real. I am not a child, I am not traveling for pleasure and I don’t have the power of completely removing something that can be life threatening for me while at work so I do the best I can to continue safely performing my duties as an airline pilot. I support the ban for airlines not to serve bagged peanut products and support the requirement that a public address announcement be made for those that have brought their own on board refrain from consuming them. When traveling in the cabin, I am always aware of those around me and what they are consuming. I have come to find that my sensitivity is mostly a distance of 1 row forward and back and two seats laterally (about 5-6 feet). If I can detect the odor of peanuts then I become concerned. In case you were wondering, yes I do carry an epinephrine auto injector (never used one), Allegra and antihistamine eye drops. Not having peanuts served during a flight would be of great benefit for me and other allergy sufferers. As a side note, commercial grade, not cold pressed, peanut oil is fine for most peanut allergy sufferers. The process of extracting the oil leaves none of the offending protein. I have consumed many products prepared with peanut oil, albeit with great trepidation, and have not had any adverse reactions. « less
June 12, 2010 3:28 am

Tiffany, the DOT is just recognizing a product that is being provided by companies that pose a serious threat to a fairly large number of people. Most other products aboard flights are considered non-allergenic or do not have particulates that become airborne which is the case with the bagged peanuts. Also, finding another mode of transportation is not an option for me as I might be the Captain on your flight one day. Your suggestions are that discard 26,000 hours of flight experience and not fly or use my epipen because airlines wish to serve peanuts? I would think that suggestion is not realistic. I understand that for those who do not have that/an allergy it might seem “overblown” but I can assure you that overall, it is not. It is simply a desire to eliminate a #1 food allergy… more »

…product that can become airborne in a small, pressurized aluminum (soon to be carbon fiber with the 787!) tube. « less
June 12, 2010 3:36 am

Yes, perfumes and many other products are allergens, most would be classified as irritants and are not life threatening. Peanuts are in a unique class of allergen that is quite widespread among the general population that has airborne particulate and that can be life threatening. This is about documents risk mitigation for a voluntary product provided by a company.

June 12, 2010 3:55 am

You articulated that very, very well. Welcome to my world as a severe peanut allergy sufferer and airline Captain. I have been dealing with this for over 22 years! I am yearning for the day (to return for the airline I work for as they had discontinued serving them for a few years only to declare the substitute, almonds, was too expensive and brought back peanuts) that I do not have to tell, an incredulous, flight attendant that I need a peanut free zone if I have to travel in the cabin!

June 12, 2010 4:16 am

The problem has increased over the years with the advent of more efficient turbofan engines. It was found that excessive bleed air extraction from the engines (fresh air) consumes more fuel than recirculating the air. Unlike the “coal burners” of the past, modern jets recirculate much more of the air. Yes, they go through filters but it is quite noticeable when those filters need to be changed, airflow decreases dramatically. With airlines scrambling to make money, non safety related items take a back seat and those expensive filters, I believe, are not changed as often. Also, your point about the number of people that died aboard a flight is only part of the question. One should ask how many people reached a critical stage during flight with anaphlaxis necessitating the use of… more »

…epinephrine from the on board medical kit administered by a physician or nurse on a flight? In other words, how many times was it necessary to intervene or risk the death of a passenger? Airport Crash Fire and Rescue facilities would be a valuable asset for those statistics as they are the ones to meet a flight if a passenger was ill. « less
June 12, 2010 4:32 am

Yes, most airlines pay flight crew members scheduled flight time or actual time away from the gate whichever is more. Eg. if a flight is scheduled for 2 hours “block to block” (from/to the gate) but it takes 3 to fly it, the crew gets 3. If the flight leaves that gate and returns 2.5 hours later, most airlines only pay that crew either the 2.0 scheduled (if it cancels) or much less. For most crewmembers, the notion that 1 hour at the gate, 2.5 hours of sitting on that taxiway and only get paid for 2 is not very palatable. Whereas sitting for 2.5 hours then fly 2 totals 4.5. It is mostly the pay structure of pilots/flight attendants that poorly designed. Most people would balk at the notion of working 4.5 hours and getting paid for 2.

June 12, 2010 4:51 am

The ground delay limitation, has, well, it’s limitations. If we were in pre-regulation days where an airline was making money with only 60% of the seats filled, flights canceling due to the 3 hour limit would not be much of a problem. What is a problem is flights that are now being canceled because of the new rule and virtually no seats available on subsequent flights to accommodate those passengers. If the ground delays are due to ATC, weather, VIP movement (president in the area) then passengers will not be, as a rule, given cancellation perks since they are beyond the control of the company. If the air conditioning, and restrooms are functioning properly and there are plenty of beverages and snacks on board then that maximum number of hours should be flexible. I would be curious… more »

…to hear from people that had their flight cancel due to the 3 hour limit and how the airlines handled them after that. My guess this rule will cause greater damage to air travel then the occasional extended ground hold on an airplane with poor air conditioning or non-functioning lavatories. Here is my question…if the airplane is comfortable and exceeding the 3 hour limit would cancel the flight with no hotel or meal compensation, would exceeding the 3 hours be ok and if so what would be a reasonable number above 3 be? « less
June 18, 2010 6:51 am

Make your voice heard, Captain!


No comments