Air Peanuts Now Boarding

I read an article today from CTV Winnipeg, in which a mother was contending that "her daughter's spring break was ruined because of an airline policy that can't guarantee safety for passengers with severe food allergies."

I have two issues with this contention.

First of all, like it or not, airlines cannot guarantee the safety of ANY passenger. Though the incidence of medical emergency from any and all causes has doubled in recent years from 19 to 35 per 1M passengers, the increase is primarily due to the "rising number of older passengers". There are multiple safety concerns facing airlines and they cannot be expected to provide a 100% safety guarantee, short of not allowing passengers with anaphylaxis to fly.

My second issue is with the sensationalism of the statement that West Jet ruined spring break. That type of rhetoric serves only to illicit a forceful, and opposite, response from the non-allergic public. Those dealing with food allergies are best-served to remain calm and stick with facts and logic when raising their concerns.

Notwithstanding the fact that airlines cannot guarantee safety, there are precautions that travelers and airlines can take.

What can airlines do to (easily) accommodate allergic passengers?
In multiple posts I have proposed that a very simple procedure that would significantly minimize risk, without unreasonably inconveniencing other passengers.

My simple proposal:
The airline crew should announce, as a courtesy, that there is a peanut allergic passenger on board and that it would be best for people to not eat peanuts, especially in the rows in close proximity to the passenger.

I have to believe that most reasonable people, upon hearing such an announcement, would forgo their peanuts to ensure the safety of an unsuspecting allergic child.

Air Canada recently followed this procedure for us and it worked perfectly. Other passengers were more than happy to help. It was a simple, practical announcement that made sure passengers were aware without alarming them. This is relatively easy for peanuts as airlines no longer serve them, and only those passengers who brought peanuts on board would be negatively affected. This could be somewhat more difficult for a cashew allergy since Air Canada sells those in-flight.

This relatively minor concession is worth the risk. In the above-noted post I told the story of another flight (when I was traveling without my daughter) and a passenger directly behind me opened a bag of peanuts at 7am. During that flight two peanuts rolled down under my seat ... that is a significant risk factor for my daughter and if we have to make an emergency landing everybody is inconvenienced.

Continental's Drift

Most airlines now at least refrain from serving peanuts during a flight if a severely allergic passenger is on board. This is true even for Southwest Airlines who has marketing messaging built around 'flying for peanuts'. The last bastion of airborne peanut inertia seems to be Continental according to an article in the Cape Cod Times. They feel that because they cannot guarantee a peanut free environment they won't even bother trying. That's the spirit.

Here is an interesting graphic from the story. Continental must be proud of its lonely status at the bottom of the list in the category "won't accommodate peanut allergies".

As I wrote in my prior articles on airline travel, the solution is quite simple when an allergic passenger makes it known ahead of time that they are coming:
a) Don't serve peanuts.
b) Make an announcement to let other passengers know that there is a child with a severe peanut allergy on board and that it would be appreciated if all passengers refrained from eating peanuts.

It's not that complicated. I'm not looking for a guarantee. 'Safer' is fine.

Airline Policy

This week Qantas followed the NoPeanuts airline theme and announced a new peanut policy. As regular readers know, after our West Jet experience this week I have had a bee in my bonnet with respect to airline peanut policy. It was interesting to read the Qantas policy and see the same verbage all over again. Like West Jet, Qantas will no longer serve peanuts and will also try to avoid serving foods with peanut ingredients. The airline also included the standard wording about the inability to provide a peanut free plane.

To me the ‘cannot-provide-a-peanut-free-plane’ concept misses the mark. People often assume that peanut parents are expecting peanut-free environments. We’re not. We know that’s often impossible. All I am looking for is a quick announcement to other passengers to let them know that a severely allergic child is on board and that it would be appreciated if they did not eat peanuts.

I am left wondering why airlines and other passengers might deem this announcement unreasonable … here are the standard points of contention that I come across online:

Contention #1: Peanut dust inhalation does not cause anaphylaxis

In 1998 the U.S. Department of Transportation proposed that airlines provide peanut-allergic passengers with ‘peanut free’ seating areas. The proposal was denied by congress due to the lack of evidence demonstrating that peanut dust inhalation causes anaphylaxis. Many studies have shown that inhalation of peanut dust can cause a reaction for those allergic to peanut, but the reaction is typically restricted to skin and upper-respiratory symptoms and does not usually result in anaphylaxis. That being said, it has been shown that when >25 people are eating peanuts together on an airplane the reaction can be sufficiently serious to require epinephrine. That risk supports the current ban on peanuts being served in-flight as followed by many airlines.


Contention #2: It’s only 1% of the population … why should we cater to them?

The incidence is higher in young children and has doubled in the past five years. Furthermore, 50% of the cases involved oral ingestion of the allergen and the median age of those who suffered a reaction was two years!! Thus it is reasonable to infer that the most common reaction resulted from a young child eating a peanut … ie: not from inhalation!

It also appears that young children were disproportionately represented in the sample of in-flight allergic reactions. Young children do not know they are allergic. Young children also end up crawling around the floor of the plane (not exactly the cleanest of places). If a child finds a peanut on the floor it will likely end up in their mouth. You know what happens next.

Since it appears that children are the most at risk, it is worth taking the necessary precautions. Making a quick announcement to other passengers is a simple way to create a safer environment for peanut allergic children.

Contention #3: People with a peanut allergy should travel in the morning

It is common for airlines to suggest morning travel for the peanut allergic as people are less likely to eat peanuts and the planes are cleaned overnight. I think that this provides a false sense of security.

Per my Air Peanut article, we flew at 8am and the planes were far from clean. Also, though it is less common for people to eat peanuts early, it does happen. Recently I traveled to the USA and the gentleman directly behind me ripped into a large bag of peanuts at 7am.

Though traveling early is perhaps a good idea, the courtesy announcement I seek would have a greater impact on passenger safety. What happens when the gentleman behind me nods off due to the early flight and drops his bag of peanuts on the floor? He did fall asleep but I am not sure where the peanuts went …

Contention #4: Peanut-allergic passengers should just be prepared

Any parent of an allergic child would be prepared with EpiPens and Benadryl but that is not enough. The contention that passengers should be prepared makes sense for adults but remember that peanut-allergic children would likely not understand their allergy.

Furthermore, this objection requires the underlying assumption that people know they are allergic in the first place. We found out on Boxing Day that our daughter is severely allergic to peanut. Though we suspected an allergy we did not know it was this severe until we saw the anaphylaxis first hand. Unfortunately, that is commonly how severe food allergies are discovered.

There is a first time for everything and though the risk is remote, it is possible that a child could have her first anaphylactic reaction on an airplane. In many ways that would be a worst-case scenario.

Contention #5: Airlines cannot provide a peanut free plane

While this is true, it is also not what I am asking for or expecting. I know that expecting peanut-free is Utopian; however, in addition to not serving peanuts it would be very helpful if the flight crew could let other passengers know that there is a peanut allergic child on board. This will create a safer environment.

As a parent I would still not let my guard down should such an announcement be made. Even better, other passengers would now be aware. In the case of my 7am trip to the USA, I had the aforementioned passenger eating peanuts directly behind me. That would pose a significant risk to my daughter if she had been on the flight. Obviously the passenger would not know where every peanut from every hand-full ended up. Our daughter’s anaphylaxis is triggered by a fraction of a peanut and one breakaway peanut could prove fatal. Is it really worth the risk?

I contend that it is reasonable for the airline to announce, as a courtesy, that there is an allergic child on board and that it would be best for people to not eat peanut.

I have to believe that most people, upon hearing that announcement, would forgo their peanuts to ensure the safety of an unsuspecting allergic child?

West Jet told me that they could not make the courtesy announcement due to legal exposure. I feel that not making an announcement is a bigger legal risk … a carefully crafted announcement would reduce legal exposure and also make kids safer.

This is a no-brainer.

Air Peanut

Today I flew for the first time with our daughter since we learned of her severe peanut allergy. I was not really that concerned but certainly made sure I was prepared. Though I did forget the flannel crib sheet (to cover our seat) I had wipes, snacks, water and the usual assortment of snacks from home. Of course Benadryl and two EpiPens were in the bag as well.

My wife called Transport Canada and they noted that EpiPens were fine to bring through security in Canada but if we traveled to the US we would need to have a doctor’s note to bring them on board.

We also called ahead to West Jet. The woman on the phone was helpful but noted that they ‘couldn’t guarantee a peanut free flight’. West Jet does not serve peanuts but passengers could bring peanuts on board. She also said to make airline staff aware of the allergy at check-in time so that I could board early. In addition, she said that the inflight crew could make an announcement to other passengers letting them know that a peanut allergic child was on board and that it would be appreciated if people refrained from eating peanut snacks.

I was impressed that West Jet would be so accommodating … however, it seems that these policies did not make their way to the airport.
When I arrived at YVR I let the check-in staff know of our daughter's allergy. I was met with a look of ‘what would you like me to do?’ and the stock ‘we can’t guarantee a peanut free flight’ statement. I told her that I was just letting her know as customer service thought it would be a good idea.

I let it go and moved on.

After convincing my daughter that our baggage would return to us even though I sent it down the belt, we went through security. I found it ironic that security was more concerned with the bottle of Benadryl we had than the two EpiPens. Liquids are the concern of the day it seems.

We arrived at the gate just prior to boarding. I went up to the gate agent and explained to her that our daughter had a severe peanut allergy and I was told to let the staff know. She gave me the same look of ‘what would you like me to do?’ and the stock ‘we can’t guarantee a peanut free flight’ speech. With a note of condescension she added, ‘tell the flight crew; there’s nothing I can do’. Then she turned away and went back to work.

Again, I let it go and moved on.

We boarded early and I pulled out the wipes to clean the surfaces around our seats. During a stopover, cleaning crews pick up visible garbage and recycling but do not have time to clean surfaces. I am not sure what the cleaning schedule is but I was appalled today at the layer of grime that covered the windows, meal trays and the console buttons. Given that my daughter apparently needs to press her face to the window to see the mountains, this is a concern for all kids and especially those with allergies.

I also informed the flight staff of the allergy. The attendant noted the allergy and again started in on the 'we can't ensure a peanut free flight' speech ... I told her I knew and that I understood but I was told to let her know.After the first series of announcements did not include a mention of our peanut allergy, I motioned for the flight attendant as she walked past. I mentioned that customer service noted that she could make an announcement. Again I got the ‘we can’t guarantee a peanut free flight’ which was followed up by ‘if we announce anything about peanuts then we have legal exposure’.

So there it was. West Jet’s policy on accommodating a peanut allergy is to warn us four times that they cannot guarantee a peanut free flight and then do nothing else for fear of a lawsuit should an allergic reaction occur.

I was really disappointed with their service. I expected better from West Jet given that their brand is based on being friendly. When it comes to peanut allergy they really missed the mark. I was not really asking for anything special. The expectation of an announcement was due to our conversation with customer service, and frankly the announcement would be a good idea.

Instead, they did nothing to accommodate my daughter’s allergy and made me feel as though I was being a ridiculous ‘peanut parent’. Nothing could be further from the truth.

West Jet needs to do more than simply not serve peanuts.

I think that it would be great if they made sure that no peanuts were consumed in the three rows on either side of an allergic child. I also think that a simple announcement does not have to create supposed legal exposure … wouldn’t this work? … “Passengers are advised that there is a child on board who is severely allergic to peanuts. We ask that passengers in rows 22-28 refrain from eating peanuts and suggest that remaining passengers avoid peanut snacks as well in the interest of safety.” Nothing invasive there. Shouldn’t create any lawsuits.

As a condition of making the announcement, I would be willing to sign a waiver discharging the airline’s liability should a peanut brought on board by a passenger cause an anaphylactic reaction. I would trade my right to sue for a safer environment any day.

This doesn’t just apply to nuts. Though nuts pose a greater risk due to their ability to roll away, if a child is allergic to milk then the people sitting in the immediate seats around the child should perhaps avoid milk to prevent an accident. This just makes sense doesn’t it?

The peanut risk is this … kids play on the floor of the plane. If you drop a peanut it could easily roll 5+ rows away. Kids also play peek-a-boo with the people in the seats behind them. Today I was terrified that the kids behind us might pass a ‘peanut snack’ through the seats to my daughter and I had visions of her eating it before I could stop her. These are not unreasonable or imaginary risks.

Today West Jet made me feel like I was being ridiculous. Ridiculous would be if the people behind us rolled a peanut under our seat, my daughter ate it and the plane had to make an emergency landing due to an anaphylactic reaction.