Profile:

jim mcteigue

While creating “by-request” flights that are peanut-free is also a solution to the initial problem, this would seem to both place an undue burden on and/or lead to a fundamental alteration of services for the airlines. If someone requests a peanut free flight after most of the seats have been booked by persons under the impression that their flight was normal, wouldn’t the airlines then be obligated to let the original passengers know the conditions of their flight had been changed? It would seem that changing the nature of a flight, once booked, could be legally construed as a breach of the contract created by the purchase of the ticket. If those customers, whether through fondness of peanuts or disdain for this particular regulation, refused to accept a seat on a “peanut free” flight, imagine the chaos as the airlines attempted to place passengers on flights to the same destination, leaving and arriving at the same time as the one initially booked, but NOT designated “peanut free”. After all, air travel is not usually the end, but simply a means. Once flights are booked, other plans tend to be made. If certain flights were always designated “peanut free” or if “peanut free” flights had to be requested before anyone else booked seating, those with allergies would have to accept a much more limited option in flight choice or plan to fly FAR in advance of the average traveler, hardly acceptable under ADA guidelines, or the airlines would be forced to significantly increase the amount of flights flown each day in order to ensure that there were enough flights of both types to meet everyone’s needs. If the airlines chose the latter, this would be an undue burden, and any of the three would require the airlines to fundamentally alter the way they operate.

Creating buffer zones, while arguably acceptable by ADA standards, unfortunately does not guarantee the safety of those allergic to peanuts and may even further endanger them. Unless the buffer-zones were tightly sealed and reliant on their own independent air system (which raises questions of burden), it simply would not be possible to ensure that no dust was blown into the buffer zone by overhead fans or carried through the air system. Worse still to contemplate, but worth mentioning nonetheless, is the unfortunate fact that angry persons may intentionally violate the buffer zone to “punish” those they perceive as receiving preferential treatment or being responsible for a violation of their “rights”. The tone of some of the comments on this site themselves indicate strong feelings against providing such large-scale accommodation for such a small segment of the population, and, as of now, this is merely a hypothetical.

There is, however, a much simpler solution that, frankly, I’m surprised nobody yet has presented: airline provided surgical masks to prevent air born contamination and either thoroughly sanitized seating to prevent skin contact with oils left by previous passengers or, for those who don’t feel secure in sanitization procedure, sealed cleanroom suits available upon request. A quick Google check turned up boxes of 50 medical grade surgical masks for $22, a company named Microarray selling individually sealed cleanroom suits with hood and boots for $27.45 each, and a 40 pack of latex gloves for $6. This provides a cheap and perfectly effective solution to what is, apparently, a very occasional problem. These masks and suits are considered safe enough to avoid contamination in the most sensitive of settings: operating rooms, high technology clean rooms, etc. They should be safe enough to avoid any chance of accidental inhalation or contact with peanut allergens.

While some may not like having to wear a mask or dress in a suit to avoid having an allergic reaction the line has to be drawn somewhere. The ADA requires that persons with disabilities be accommodated but it does NOT require that they be accommodated in a fashionable manner or in a manner identical to the non-disabled. Movie theatres are required to provide handicap accessible seating, but they are not required to provide it anywhere in the theater that a disabled patron may want to sit. This is just my opinion, but I believe that it is better to have a few persons unhappy about wearing a garment than a whole country full of people angry that their ability to eat what they want has been unnecessarily restricted. The only other problem to this solution that I can foresee is young children who take off the mask or who fuss and complain about having to wear them. Fortunately, the solution to this should be with them already; their parents. The safety of a child should always be first and foremost the responsibility of their parent. If a parent has a child with a severe peanut allergy, they should already be used to maintaining vigilance over their child’s safety. In this case, that means making sure the mask is tied on tight or that the child is kept from taking it off. The wonderful and well trained flight attendants on many flights can aid in this by presenting these masks and suits to young children as though they were a rare privilege, just like those plastic flight wings. As for children fussing about their attire, well, if one reads through the comments here, one can conclude that fussing children on an airplane is simply business as usual. As those who are disabled must accept that their accommodations may not be exactly what they desire, those who are not disabled must also accept that sometimes accommodating our disabled brethren requires a bit of sacrifice on our own parts, whether it’s not being able to sit or park in the spot you want, because it’s handicap accessible, or putting up with a fussing child or paying $5 for a headset to drown them out. « less