Community Chat

[CrazyDaisy]

---

@jaxs mom wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@jaxs mom wrote:

I take allergy meds 365 days a year. And it's certainly not benadryl as there are much better quality meds now days. If your allergies are truly life threatening why wouldn't you be under the care of a board certified allergist and following his medication recommendations?

---

It is great that you have your allergies under control. 

The best advise allergists have is to avoid the trigger.  Obviously that is not always possible and emergency situations occur.  The immune system can be a tricky thing.  It is not always possible to determine how sever a reaction will be or if the medications you are carrying are sufficient.  Continued exposure, such as in a plane, may escalate the severity of the reaction.  Emergency help while in mid-air is very difficult.   

---

Which is why she should have left the dang plane. People who are in their right mind and are really scared for their health do not sit there keeping themselves exposed. They get the heck away from it ASAP, They don't play power games trying to get other people to move away from them. BTDT. 

---

Which goes back to my original question, why is she the one who needs to leave? 

Does the airline not have a responsibility to provide a safe environment for passangers?  Is she never to fly again because of the possibility a pet will be onboard? 

[Laura14]

I think she was asked to leave because of her behavior not her allergy.  

Definitely a good question about how we accommodate everyone's needs and give everyone their own way.  It's getting harder and harder, isn't it?  

[jaxs mom]

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

Further info, and quotes from the man who shot the video.

Bill Dumas, the passenger who recorded the confrontation and posted it on YouTube, told NBC News that the woman asked for some type of injection to alleviate her allergy symptoms.

The pilot said the injection was possible off the plane, but the woman refused to exit the aircraft, Dumas said. Things escalated from there.

Dumas said he thought police were too forceful, but he also said the woman was combative.

“If you look at the police, they were being overly aggressive,” he told NBC News. “Really, she wasn’t giving them much of a choice, and the people on the plane were saying, ‘just get off the plane.’ ”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So, she "wanted the dogs gone." No compromises there.

She presumably could have gotten off the plane, had the injection and then gotten back on the plane - a matter of a few minutes - but she refused.  The airline offered her choices. They also explained the issues to her in detail:

According to a statement by Southwest, the woman told the flight crew “that she had a life-threatening pet allergy,” but she didn’t have a medical certificate with her.

The airline’s policy is that a person traveling without such a certificate can be denied boarding “if they report a life-threatening

allergic reaction and cannot travel safely with an animal on board.” One of the dogs on the plane at the time was a service animal, the airline said.

Clearly, the airline values the passengers with animals just as much as their passengers with allergies. Not "more", but simply just as much. Equally.

---

While airlines will say they value all passangers, they certainty cannot say they are treated the same.  Should a passanger with an animal and one without not be able to be on the same flight, one will win and one will lose.  No one seems to know which one gets treated better and get to stay on the plane.

---

You personally consider it "treated better" - at least, that's the terminology you're choosing to use for your purposes in this thread, for whatever reason.

To the airlines it's a matter of who followed their protocol and who didn't. The passengers with the dogs, with all proper permits, followed the rules. The onus is on passenger who volunteered that she had a "life-threatening" allergy but came unprepared to prove it. 

Your "what if" and "who wins" scenarios aren't really all that relevant to the topic of the thread, which is being disruptive on an airplane. In this instance it was over "allergies" to dogs. It might well be over something else. The point is, when you think you can "take on" the airline, the Federal govt and LE, you lose. Losing, if you want to term it that way (and you seem to), is a personal choice, since she could have opted to leave the plane, get the shot and come back, or just leave. She chose to be uncooperative and confrontational. She was pushing it all the way.

Your repeated "no one seems to know" is simply a device to poke the thread. It's irrelevant. You're free to continue with it of course, but AFAIC there's no real point since I feel the line has clearly moved into game-playing. It's been game-playing from the start, it's just clear to everyone now.

---

Yep, it's clearly just trolling. No longer taking the bait. It's a waste of time. 

[CrazyDaisy]

---

@Laura14 wrote:

I think she was asked to leave because of her behavior not her allergy.  

Definitely a good question about how we accommodate everyone's needs and give everyone their own way.  It's getting harder and harder, isn't it?  

---

Definitely difficult and not always a good answer available. 

[Lali1]

---

@Suhse wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

Why is it that people who have peanut allergies have successfully had them banned on planes and in schools, yet people with pet allergies are expected to leave the plane and be inconvenienced by taking another flight.  

---

——

Peanut allergies can be fatal.  I’ve never heard of a fatal pet allergy, although I suppose anything is possible.  

---

@SUHsE I'm very allergic to cats. I got a cat many years ago had him for about 2 months and had an asthma attack that left me in a coma for 2 weeks. They told my husband I was not gonna live.

If she was that allergic she would have left on her own accord. Mine was from living with the cat for a long period of time. Being on a plane where one is would more than likely not be an issue. I've had issues at people's homes but that's because the animal lives there and their dander is everywhere. 

[Tinkrbl44]

I saw this on the news last night and still don't understand why she was making a fuss if she really didn't have an allergy.  Maybe she is a nut case.   Maybe she was trying to get special treatment?

All I know is, with the frequency that they throw people off planes these days, it's best to just keep your mouth shut ....  or get off the plane yourself.

[sunshine45]

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@jaxs mom wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@jaxs mom wrote:

I take allergy meds 365 days a year. And it's certainly not benadryl as there are much better quality meds now days. If your allergies are truly life threatening why wouldn't you be under the care of a board certified allergist and following his medication recommendations?

---

It is great that you have your allergies under control. 

The best advise allergists have is to avoid the trigger.  Obviously that is not always possible and emergency situations occur.  The immune system can be a tricky thing.  It is not always possible to determine how sever a reaction will be or if the medications you are carrying are sufficient.  Continued exposure, such as in a plane, may escalate the severity of the reaction.  Emergency help while in mid-air is very difficult.   

---

Which is why she should have left the dang plane. People who are in their right mind and are really scared for their health do not sit there keeping themselves exposed. They get the heck away from it ASAP, They don't play power games trying to get other people to move away from them. BTDT. 

---

Which goes back to my original question, why is she the one who needs to leave? 

Does the airline not have a responsibility to provide a safe environment for passangers?  Is she never to fly again because of the possibility a pet will be onboard? 

---

so two people and two dogs have to leave (paying customers) to accomodate one person? if she DOES have severe allergies to dogs then why would she even want to stay on that same plane after the dogs have already been on it? 

the smartest choice for her would have been to leave the plane and be booked on the next flight that DOESNT have a dog on it.

[Laura14]

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@Laura14 wrote:

I think she was asked to leave because of her behavior not her allergy.  

Definitely a good question about how we accommodate everyone's needs and give everyone their own way.  It's getting harder and harder, isn't it?  

---

Definitely difficult and not always a good answer available. 

---

@CrazyDaisy  Nope! 

We may have to, heaven forbid, bring back some of that self-sacrifice our grandparents knew how to do so well.  Can't have that though these days, can we? 

[Moonchilde]

---

@StephaniM wrote:

IF i had a life threatening allergy to animals and found there were a one or two on a flight, you wouldnt need to call security to get me off the plane, I'd leave immediately on my own accord, THEN discuss another flight.  Doesnt make sense that she doesnt carry verification from a doc with her.  She's an idiot

---

An idiot and a liar. 

[CrazyDaisy]

---

@sunshine45 wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@jaxs mom wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@jaxs mom wrote:

I take allergy meds 365 days a year. And it's certainly not benadryl as there are much better quality meds now days. If your allergies are truly life threatening why wouldn't you be under the care of a board certified allergist and following his medication recommendations?

---

It is great that you have your allergies under control. 

The best advise allergists have is to avoid the trigger.  Obviously that is not always possible and emergency situations occur.  The immune system can be a tricky thing.  It is not always possible to determine how sever a reaction will be or if the medications you are carrying are sufficient.  Continued exposure, such as in a plane, may escalate the severity of the reaction.  Emergency help while in mid-air is very difficult.   

---

Which is why she should have left the dang plane. People who are in their right mind and are really scared for their health do not sit there keeping themselves exposed. They get the heck away from it ASAP, They don't play power games trying to get other people to move away from them. BTDT. 

---

Which goes back to my original question, why is she the one who needs to leave? 

Does the airline not have a responsibility to provide a safe environment for passangers?  Is she never to fly again because of the possibility a pet will be onboard? 

---

so two people and two dogs have to leave (paying customers) to accomodate one person? if she DOES have severe allergies to dogs then why would she even want to stay on that same plane after the dogs have already been on it? 

the smartest choice for her would have been to leave the plane and be booked on the next flight that DOESNT have a dog on it.

---

How would a person know that there would not be a dog on the next one?  What is that flight was the next day and you need to get home?  What if she was trying to get to a sick relative or child?  Lots of questions, no clear answer.