You raise a point which underscores the reasons why such bans are inappropriate. People who have such conditions (and/or their parents/caretakers/etc.) have the ultimate responsibility to themselves to determine risks to their unusual sensitivities, and to be prepared to deal with the consequences of exposure should they decide to accept those risks. Your “disability” does not give you the right to infringe indiscriminately upon others. Too often people seem to think they are “special” and deserve more consideration and privilege than the “normal” masses. Your rights end where mine begin.
You do not have the right to keep me off a flight because I have a cat and its dander may be on my clothing, due to your rare sensitivity. You should make whatever… more »
…travel arrangements are necessary to accommodate your unusual needs.
You do not have the right to keep me off a flight because I had peanuts for lunch and their dust may be on my clothing, because you have a rare allergy. You should make whatever travel arrangements are necessary to accommodate your unusual needs.
If we start down this road eventually we will all have to fly naked, freshly showered, and hungry. What about latex? What about the myriad other substances which might be triggers?
Why should the DOT single out certain sensitivities and not others?
What if I have a heart condition and a severe phobia of red-haired men which can trigger a fatal heart attack? Do I have the right to demand that red-haired men not be allowed to fly on a plane with me? That they either shave their head, dye their hair, or fly somewhere else? After all, it’s only a little inconvenient to dye your hair, versus the risk to my life, right? Give me a break.
Your needs are YOUR responsibility.
The DOT should allow airlines to voluntarily accommodate if they so choose (and if they do, they are responsible for notifying all other passengers and offering compensation to those who, for example, may not be able to travel without their service animals), but not require any bans.
You raise a point which underscores the reasons why such bans are inappropriate. People who have such conditions (and/or their parents/caretakers/etc.) have the ultimate responsibility to themselves to determine risks to their unusual sensitivities, and to be prepared to deal with the consequences of exposure should they decide to accept those risks. Your “disability” does not give you the right to infringe indiscriminately upon others. Too often people seem to think they are “special” and deserve more consideration and privilege than the “normal” masses. Your rights end where mine begin.
You do not have the right to keep me off a flight because I have a cat and its dander may be on my clothing, due to your rare sensitivity. You should make whatever… more »
You do not have the right to keep me off a flight because I had peanuts for lunch and their dust may be on my clothing, because you have a rare allergy. You should make whatever travel arrangements are necessary to accommodate your unusual needs.
If we start down this road eventually we will all have to fly naked, freshly showered, and hungry. What about latex? What about the myriad other substances which might be triggers?
Why should the DOT single out certain sensitivities and not others?
What if I have a heart condition and a severe phobia of red-haired men which can trigger a fatal heart attack? Do I have the right to demand that red-haired men not be allowed to fly on a plane with me? That they either shave their head, dye their hair, or fly somewhere else? After all, it’s only a little inconvenient to dye your hair, versus the risk to my life, right? Give me a break.
Your needs are YOUR responsibility.
The DOT should allow airlines to voluntarily accommodate if they so choose (and if they do, they are responsible for notifying all other passengers and offering compensation to those who, for example, may not be able to travel without their service animals), but not require any bans.
K « less