Nuts on board - a serious issue!

[RAM]

Surely the ¨deliberate action¨ of taking your daughter on a four hour confinement in a sealed tube where nuts are consumed in quantity every single day would amount to what some here suggest could be ¨attempted manslaughter¨ then?

OK - now you're talking!

As we enter the twilight zone of conspiracy theories.... (just highlight the entire line...)

I wonder whether they had travel insurance? If so how much accidental death cover (in front of so many witnesses)?
What the family's financial position is like? Working, debt etc?
Whether the mother has previously administered the epi-pen?
Whether the dispute with the man and passenger in front was loud enough to have been heard by her?
Why she did not administer the epi-pen?

Call the first witness for the prosecution!

 

[Moopere]

They did manage the situation!!! That's why there was a prohibition on nuts for the flight. No instead it's the parents fault that one person ignored the warnings they were given. All the parents fault.

They really didn't. This girl would have to be severely allergic ... in a way that only very few people in the world would be. Given this, and the parents simply must know by now, then full bio suit with breathing apparatus or better, private hospital grade transport would be the only reasonable way to manage the situation if we are assuming for a moment that travel was unavoidable.

Certainly, informing those involved in transport and so-on is a good risk mitigating act, but personal responsibility and good risk management does not end there.

 

[juddles]

It does endanger a person, who may become so ill that the aircraft has to divert. Adding a landing and a takeoff, increasing crew time. Landing and takeoff is the most dangerous part of a flight.

Then we get back to the question of consideration in society and consideration for another person in risking their well being.

RE the diverting the plane, etc and risk, using that argument you should not let people board with nut allergies unless you run a permanent nut-free airline.

RE the consideration issue, I absolutely agree. And I believe that IF the man understood the situation but decided to eat his nuts anyway, then he is a rude, selfish, moron. My feeling though in this case is that he is a scapegoat for other people´s stupidity.

 

[medhead]

I totally agree. But in this case that direction should have been to not let the girl board.

Simply announcing that nuts will not be sold on that particular flight is ridiculous if the plane was not scrupulously decontaminated from the peanut parties that every single flight involved prior to the girl boarding.

As drron and others have already explained, airborne particles are extremely unlikely to have caused this incident.

Next time you get on a flight, pry a Little into the creases and nooks and crannies around your seat. You will find more than nut particles.

Massive assumption. The risk can be managed, so there is no reason to claim the girl should be denied boarding. Especially when we consider your next claim that airborne particles are extremely unlikely to be the cause. Why deny boarding if it is extremely unlikely? Contradictory logic?

But on that point the paper Princess Fiona referenced had inhalation as the second most frequent cause of reaction. The abstract seemed to indicate that the reaction would be respiratory, then skin. But this case skin reaction happened first. On balance it is inconclusive, rather than extremely unlikely.

 

[Pushka]

A murder charge must prove intent to kill. Not just harm but kill. It's a key element of the crime. The prosecution must prove that the offender wanted a person to die. Not just get hurt.

 

[juddles]

..... The risk can be managed, so there is no reason to claim the girl should be denied boarding. .....

If I had a little daughter with a massive allergy to nuts, I would not take her on Ryanair and just ask them at the gate to please not sell nuts on that particular flight.

In the few articles available on this news ítem, the mother states that the daughter is now traumatized about flying, but the mother has tried to convince her to get over that fear as such fear would prevent future family holidays.

And the scorn is on the man four rows away?

 

[medhead]

They really didn't. This girl would have to be severely allergic ... in a way that only very few people in the world would be. Given this, and the parents simply must know by now, then full bio suit with breathing apparatus or better, private hospital grade transport would be the only reasonable way to manage the situation if we are assuming for a moment that travel was unavoidable.

Certainly, informing those involved in transport and so-on is a good risk mitigating act, but personal responsibility and good risk management does not end there.

Against all that we are told the exposure is extremely unlikely. Is full hospital grade private transport the appropriate response to an extremely unlikely risk? Elimination is a a very good response to the situation and the airline with their risk management processes agreed.

RE the diverting the plane, etc and risk, using that argument you should not let people board with nut allergies unless you run a permanent nut-free airline.

RE the consideration issue, I absolutely agree. And I believe that IF the man understood the situation but decided to eat his nuts anyway, then he is a rude, selfish, moron. My feeling though in this case is that he is a scapegoat for other people´s stupidity.

Or you don't let people introduce the risk into the environment. Stupidity would be getting on the aircraft with zero preparation. The parents did the best possible, and the airline assisted, to eliminate the risk.

I am unwillingly to give this guy the doubt that he didn't deliberately ignore the warning and went ahead regardless. The large number of people in this thread constantly repeating that eating nuts isn't illegal is the primary basis for my position.

I agree there is no way to know if his nuts caused the reaction.

 

[medhead]

If I had a little daughter with a massive allergy to nuts, I would not take her on Ryanair and just ask them at the gate to please not sell nuts on that particular flight.

In the few articles available on this news ítem, the mother states that the daughter is now traumatized about flying, but the mother has tried to convince her to get over that fear as such fear would prevent future family holidays.

And the scorn is on the man four rows away?

You can't have it both ways. Extremely unlikely or not?

The scorn is on the man for putting himself in that situation. He made a choice to open that packet of nuts despite the warning. This wouldn't even be a story except for his action.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

A murder charge must prove intent to kill. Not just harm but kill. It's a key element of the crime. The prosecution must prove that the offender wanted a person to die. Not just get hurt.

Correct. otherwise you're looking at a range of other potential crimes, including manslaughter.

Not sure the latter would be applicable in this case, as there's plenty of other things to use which would be potentially easier to prove (starting with disobeying a lawful crew instruction).

 

[juddles]

....I am unwillingly to give this guy the doubt that he didn't deliberately ignore the warning and went ahead regardless. The large number of people in this thread constantly repeating that eating nuts isn't illegal is the primary basis for my position......

Interesting view. I see your point.

My main problem with it though is that the only info apparently available in this case is from the mum (who was responsable for taking her child on a nut-soaked plane ride), and the airline (who accepted the cash for the fare payment from a pax who was allergic to half the snacks they sell and dont clean up after on their plane)

 

[juddles]

.....Perhaps you can answer the question - Why do you think that the police met the plane and took this man away for questioning?....

Sorry Moody, but am enjoying this thread far too much to let you get that one through.

So I answer with another question: If the pólice did question this man, and let him go without charges, what does that mean?

Clearly he was innocent of anything ilegal!

 

[medhead]

Interesting view. I see your point.

My main problem with it though is that the only info apparently available in this case is from the mum (who was responsable for taking her child on a nut-soaked plane ride), and the airline (who accepted the cash for the fare payment from a pax who was allergic to half the snacks they sell and dont clean up after on their plane)

We constantly hear how rude and arrogant and selfish the world is becoming, how airline travel is going to the dogs, especially on LCCs. There are a number of examples in this very thread of people who think there is no bigger consideration than their right to eat whatever the hell they want. Yet somehow it is unreasonable for me to think that a passenger on an LCC didn't just do whatever they wanted?

Given your statement about extremely unlikely I'm struggling to see your point about a nut soaked plane. If the fume from the packet 4 rows away didn't do anything, then fume from the stale nut contaminants should do nothing. That leaves us with the child eating a stale nut found on the floor or playing with one. Is it reasonable to think parents that have bothered to ask the airline to not sell nuts, haven't fully informed their child of the dangers?

Ryanair doesn't strike me as an airline that would have a problem with denying boarding, and keeping the money, if there was a risk to profit.

 

[juddles]

Guys and gals,

my last post in this thread, as it could go on for ever.

1.- The entire discussion is based on a tabloid news article with almost no hard content. This is always an excellent starting point for a vigorous internet debate
2.- Having been a member of other online fórums (tech, etc) I truly enjoy that in AFF, despite us all having some very different views on a subject, we keep debate to a healthy and dignified level. That is NOT the norm on average in online fórums. It says a lot about the general calibre of people who love flying.
3.- There is noone in my immediate family with severe allergies. But I enjoy that my awareness of this issue has been raised by the thread.
4.- Thanks for everyone for their participation.
5.- And last thing, thank you to Medhead, who managed to prove me fundamentally and completely wrong in my belief that ¨attempted manslaughter¨was a ridiculous notion. It exists!! We dutch are usually always right, so it was refreshing to be wrong for once.

Cheers,
juddles.

 

[medhead]

Sorry Moody, but am enjoying this thread far too much to let you get that one through.

So I answer with another question: If the pólice did question this man, and let him go without charges, what does that mean?

Clearly he was innocent of anything ilegal!

Or there was no point given the lack of lasting harm, considering the inability to prove the cause.

5.- And last thing, thank you to Medhead, who managed to prove me fundamentally and completely wrong in my belief that ¨involuntary manslaughter¨ was a ridiculous notion. It exists!! We dutch are usually always right, so it was refreshing to be wrong for once.

Cheers,
juddles.

Ummm, do you mean voluntary manslaughter?

 

[harvyk]

I totally agree. But in this case that direction should have been to not let the girl board.

Disagree that the girl shouldn't be allow to fly, however perhaps a the girl should have worn a mask or something along those lines to protect her a little better.

Next time you get on a flight, pry a Little into the creases and nooks and crannies around your seat. You will find more than nut particles.

Yeah, I'm going to pass on that, I quite honestly don't want to know what might have gone down there... :shock:

 

[juddles]

....Ummm, do you mean voluntary manslaughter?

fixed!

 

[RAM]

Guys and gals,

my last post in this thread, as it could go on for ever.

1.- The entire discussion is based on a tabloid news article with almost no hard content. This is always an excellent starting point for a vigorous internet debate
2.- Having been a member of other online fórums (tech, etc) I truly enjoy that in AFF, despite us all having some very different views on a subject, we keep debate to a healthy and dignified level. That is NOT the norm on average in online fórums. It says a lot about the general calibre of people who love flying.
3.- There is noone in my immediate family with severe allergies. But I enjoy that my awareness of this issue has been raised by the thread.
4.- Thanks for everyone for their participation.
5.- And last thing, thank you to Medhead, who managed to prove me fundamentally and completely wrong in my belief that ¨attempted manslaughter¨was a ridiculous notion. It exists!! We dutch are usually always right, so it was refreshing to be wrong for once.

Cheers,
juddles.

Humility, a rare encounter...

 

[JohnK]

yes, the crew does have the right to tell you to stop eating nuts on a plane. Crew can issue lawful instructions relating to the safety of those on board. A person with a severe nut allergy is entitled to have a direction made in those circumstances.

you have an opinion, but if that opinion is undoubtedly wrong, and not reflected in the law, it is important to correct it the event it might influence the behaviour of others.

I don't agree with your opinion.

A person with severe nut allergies should not be travelling on public transport and expect everyone to abide by their request.

Now the fantastic thing about this discussion is you have no idea how I would react to the request. I would be considerate and wouldn't eat the nuts.

But I don't want to be put in the situation of my basic rights to consume food is taken away. First an aircraft cabin. Next the trains. Then the workplace. And then the streets.

And you keep quoting law. I don't share your passion for the law. It is incapable of holding the right people accountable. The corruption is so deep it is beyond repair. But you keep believing that justice is being done and we can all sleep better at night.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Massive assumption. The risk can be managed, so there is no reason to claim the girl should be denied boarding. Especially when we consider your next claim that airborne particles are extremely unlikely to be the cause. Why deny boarding if it is extremely unlikely? Contradictory logic?

But on that point the paper Princess Fiona referenced had inhalation as the second most frequent cause of reaction. The abstract seemed to indicate that the reaction would be respiratory, then skin. But this case skin reaction happened first. On balance it is inconclusive, rather than extremely unlikely.

The paper I posted also said that the patients with inhalational exposure reported at least 25 passengers on the aircraft eating peanuts at the time.

 

[Moody]

Sorry Moody, but am enjoying this thread far too much to let you get that one through.

So I answer with another question: If the pólice did question this man, and let him go without charges, what does that mean?

Clearly he was innocent of anything ilegal!

Still you refuse to answer a simple question ... I wonder why. (Actually I don't).

But I will answer your question (and in doing so answer my own). The police charge people when there is at least a fair chance of prosecution. All your favourite cretin had to do was say "Sorry - my english is not so good and I didn't understand the crew's repeated requests and thought that the man beside me was a weirdo for not wanting me to eat my nuts." Too many witnesses would need to be called to disprove that defence, so the police wouldn't bother. So they left it to the airline to take action.

Now why did Ryanair call the police in the first place? Because the flight crew informed them of a serious incident on board, potentially caused by a pax disobeying an explicit instruction. How did they finger the offending pax? It could only be because the adjacent passenger dobbed him in, and they decided that it wasn't a case of misunderstanding but a deliberate act of arrogance and bloody-mindedness. (There's a lot of it about.)

Ryanair have made their own judgement and on balance decided that the pax deliberately put the girl's health at risk and so banned him.