Community Chat

[WenGirl42]

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@jaxs mom wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

While not condoning this ladies behavior, how many people with allergies carry doctors notes with them concerning a variety of situations.  The vast majority of flights are pet free,  why would anyone think of getting a note in order to fly.  

---

If you have an allergy that is so serious that anaphylaxis is a real possibility then you should be carrying an epipen and the appropriate documentation to travel with it. And yes I have allergies and yes I have people close to me that have life threatening allergies ( in this case peanuts). 

She should have just gotten off the plane the first time she was asked. 

---

Exactly. If a person has an allergy of any kind that is actually, truly, anaphylactic life-threatening, i.e. an extremely serious allergy, they carry both documentation of some type and an epi-pen. If it's that serious people are prepared and forearmed.

Claiming one has such an allergy when they indeed do not is self-serving and dishonest. Pet dander might make you sneeze or itch or might trigger an asthma attack, but there are medications that can be taken before a flight and during to mitigate this. If a person might have an asthma attack so severe they're afraid it might kill them, from any cause, should they be flying at all and should an airline need to be responsible for them?

The bottom line, I think, is that if an allergy you have IS life-threatening, you always come prepared because it is life or death for you. But most people will say whatever they think will get them what they want, whether it's true or not. I'm thinkin' this news story might discourage that in the future.

---

@Moonchilde This is OT from the subject of this woman/pets on planes (and I totally agree with you that the "allergy lady" was in the wrong, completely), but I wanted to comment on this issue that you and @chrystaltree brought up...people claiming allergies who don't actually have them.  I am sure it must be annoying and people are doing it for self-serving reasons that seem...well, unreasonable.  I have a different perspective based on my experience.  My husband has a strong preference about a certain type of food that is different from how it is typically served (but not at all burdensome to prepare beyond leaving out something usually included).  You would not believe how many servers argue with him, and how vehemently, about why he should just get it their way.  He had to start telling people he's allergic to the ingredient just so he doesn't have to spend time justifying how he wants it prepared every time he orders it.  It just makes me think maybe there are other cases where people are harmlessly claiming allergies just to avoid unnecessary unpleasantness or argument, not to 'get around' policies or restrictions.  But this plane situation is clearly not one of those cases!

[Moonchilde]

---

@WenGirl42 wrote:

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@jaxs mom wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

While not condoning this ladies behavior, how many people with allergies carry doctors notes with them concerning a variety of situations.  The vast majority of flights are pet free,  why would anyone think of getting a note in order to fly.  

---

If you have an allergy that is so serious that anaphylaxis is a real possibility then you should be carrying an epipen and the appropriate documentation to travel with it. And yes I have allergies and yes I have people close to me that have life threatening allergies ( in this case peanuts). 

She should have just gotten off the plane the first time she was asked. 

---

Exactly. If a person has an allergy of any kind that is actually, truly, anaphylactic life-threatening, i.e. an extremely serious allergy, they carry both documentation of some type and an epi-pen. If it's that serious people are prepared and forearmed.

Claiming one has such an allergy when they indeed do not is self-serving and dishonest. Pet dander might make you sneeze or itch or might trigger an asthma attack, but there are medications that can be taken before a flight and during to mitigate this. If a person might have an asthma attack so severe they're afraid it might kill them, from any cause, should they be flying at all and should an airline need to be responsible for them?

The bottom line, I think, is that if an allergy you have IS life-threatening, you always come prepared because it is life or death for you. But most people will say whatever they think will get them what they want, whether it's true or not. I'm thinkin' this news story might discourage that in the future.

---

@Moonchilde This is OT from the subject of this woman/pets on planes (and I totally agree with you that the "allergy lady" was in the wrong, completely), but I wanted to comment on this issue that you and @chrystaltree brought up...people claiming allergies who don't actually have them.  I am sure it must be annoying and people are doing it for self-serving reasons that seem...well, unreasonable.  I have a different perspective based on my experience.  My husband has a strong preference about a certain type of food that is different from how it is typically served (but not at all burdensome to prepare beyond leaving out something usually included).  You would not believe how many servers argue with him, and how vehemently, about why he should just get it their way.  He had to start telling people he's allergic to the ingredient just so he doesn't have to spend time justifying how he wants it prepared every time he orders it.  It just makes me think maybe there are other cases where people are harmlessly claiming allergies just to avoid unnecessary unpleasantness or argument, not to 'get around' policies or restrictions.  But this plane situation is clearly not one of those cases!

---

@WenGirl42, I would have no issue (as I assume most people wouldn't) with a situation such as your husband's that affects no one but your husband.  But as far as this woman, and as far as animals in public places in general, I feel that saying/doing "to avoid unnecessary unpleasantness or argument" for them at the expense of inconvenience and unpleasantness for others is very wrong. It's the whole "I'm going to force people (even if I have to lie through my teeth) to give me what I want" (and everyone else be d*mned) thing that I, and others, find offensive, not to mention dishonest. IMO when it inconveniences others just because you don't want to be inconvenienced, it crosses a line.

[Tinkrbl44]

---

@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.

---

@sunshine45

That makes perfect sense, BUT doesn't guarantee that that dog-free flight didn't have several dogs and cats in the previous flights that same day.

If this woman was telling the truth, she should have seen her doctor to work out a treatment protocol with meds, etc, to combat coming into contact (or near-contact) with animals.   Physician letters plus a few epi-pens, or whatever.    She could have had a dog-free plane but been near a few animals in the airline terminal that could have triggered her allergies.   

All possibilities need to be considered with serious allergies.

As a side note .....  I'm quite allergic to shellfish, and always mention it when ordering food in restaurants.  Once I had an allergic reaction to a chicken dish that the chef had put oyster sauce in "for extra flavor" .... it wasn't on the menu, and the waiter didn't know.  Good thing I had an epi-pen with me.

[Laura14]

@Moonchilde  Just out of pure curiosity and nothing else, you have someone with a true allergy and a person traveling with a pet.  Who would you take off the plane if you couldn't put enough distance between the two to not trigger the allergy?

Would you really ask someone to drug themselves rather than the pet owner just getting off and grabbing the next flight?   

Not the case in this particular circumstance and a really rare event but I would expect myself as a former pet owner to absolutely acquiesce to a true medical issue everytime.  

[WenGirl42]

@Moonchilde ITA.

And from what I've gleaned about this story (just from what I've read here), once the woman claimed the serious allergy, the onus was absolutey on her to prove to the airline's satisfaction that she could safely take the flight. It would have been irresponsible of them to let her fly otherwise.

[juperier]

---

@WenGirl42 wrote:

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@jaxs mom wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

While not condoning this ladies behavior, how many people with allergies carry doctors notes with them concerning a variety of situations.  The vast majority of flights are pet free,  why would anyone think of getting a note in order to fly.  

---

If you have an allergy that is so serious that anaphylaxis is a real possibility then you should be carrying an epipen and the appropriate documentation to travel with it. And yes I have allergies and yes I have people close to me that have life threatening allergies ( in this case peanuts). 

She should have just gotten off the plane the first time she was asked. 

---

Exactly. If a person has an allergy of any kind that is actually, truly, anaphylactic life-threatening, i.e. an extremely serious allergy, they carry both documentation of some type and an epi-pen. If it's that serious people are prepared and forearmed.

Claiming one has such an allergy when they indeed do not is self-serving and dishonest. Pet dander might make you sneeze or itch or might trigger an asthma attack, but there are medications that can be taken before a flight and during to mitigate this. If a person might have an asthma attack so severe they're afraid it might kill them, from any cause, should they be flying at all and should an airline need to be responsible for them?

The bottom line, I think, is that if an allergy you have IS life-threatening, you always come prepared because it is life or death for you. But most people will say whatever they think will get them what they want, whether it's true or not. I'm thinkin' this news story might discourage that in the future.

---

@Moonchilde This is OT from the subject of this woman/pets on planes (and I totally agree with you that the "allergy lady" was in the wrong, completely), but I wanted to comment on this issue that you and @chrystaltree brought up...people claiming allergies who don't actually have them.  I am sure it must be annoying and people are doing it for self-serving reasons that seem...well, unreasonable.  I have a different perspective based on my experience.  My husband has a strong preference about a certain type of food that is different from how it is typically served (but not at all burdensome to prepare beyond leaving out something usually included).  You would not believe how many servers argue with him, and how vehemently, about why he should just get it their way.  He had to start telling people he's allergic to the ingredient just so he doesn't have to spend time justifying how he wants it prepared every time he orders it.  It just makes me think maybe there are other cases where people are harmlessly claiming allergies just to avoid unnecessary unpleasantness or argument, not to 'get around' policies or restrictions.  But this plane situation is clearly not one of those cases!

---

I do think its possible that she truly does not understand what an allergy is. The symtoms of a reaction and a true allergy overlap. She may have had a reaction in the past and didn't want to be stuck in an airplane if it happened again. Or she may simply not like dogs, or be terrified of them (had a co-worker who was; poor man was still literally shaking several minutes after encountering another co-worker's dog; dog didn't have a mean bone in it's body, nor did it's owner). As you say, it might make sense to this lady to simply say she has a severe allergy. Unfortuntely, the world doesn't revolve around her. If she truly had an allergy, I can't imagine her traveling without appropriate medication.Plus, I certainly wouldn't be standing there resisting leaving the plane.

Depending on the plane and the type of air filtration it had, she might well be ok seated away from the dogs. But even if there were no dogs on her flight, how could she be sure that the previous passenger in her seat didn't leave dog dander all over it?

Her actions just don't fit with her story and I personally don't think her behavior deserves any "reward" from the airline. But in today's world, the airline pretty much has to make the offer or look like the bad guy. As to who should have been asked to leave, if she would have acted in a more appropriate manner, and no agreement with the other passengers involved could be reached, I would assume the normal procedure when a passenger must be bumped would be applied. 

[sunshine45]

---

@Laura14 wrote:

@Moonchilde  Just out of pure curiosity and nothing else, you have someone with a true allergy and a person traveling with a pet.  Who would you take off the plane if you couldn't put enough distance between the two to not trigger the allergy?

Would you really ask someone to drug themselves rather than the pet owner just getting off and grabbing the next flight?   

Not the case in this particular circumstance and a really rare event but I would expect myself as a former pet owner to absolutely acquiesce to a true medical issue everytime.  

---

@Laura14

if a person has a true life threatening allergy then they would be carrying everything they could with them to prevent an acute attack.

that same person should make sure at checkin OR at the gate that there will be no animals on board. if there were, then that person should probably take another flight.

as another has said, how would anyonek now if a dog had been on a previous flight that day in the same airplane? even THAT could trigger an attack.

being proactive is crucial.

[Laura14]

@sunshine45  That's an honest opinion. 

I guess I really am surprised that the person with a legitimate medical reason would be inconvenienced rather than the other person whose only reason is I want to travel with my pet.   

Most people book well advance.  There's no way to know if a flight will be pet free that I know of.  Kind of tough to be proactive unless the airlines start flagging their flights at all booking sites to let you know an animal has been booked to travel.

Interesting...I guess I better have my stuff completely together even more so when I fly around with all of you.  

[sunshine45]

---

@Laura14 wrote:

@sunshine45  That's an honest opinion. 

I guess I really am surprised that the person with a legitimate medical reason would be inconvenienced rather than the other person whose only reason is I want to travel with my pet.   

Most people book well advance.  There's no way to know if a flight will be pet free that I know of.  Kind of tough to be proactive.

Interesting...I guess I better have my stuff completely together even more so when I fly around with all of you.  

---

i dont know the specific details of what happened yesterday, but BWI is a major hub for southwest. the persons and the dogs could already have been on the plane from another city and were just picking up more passengers.

if she was worried about it then she could easily have called to see if any pets were booked on that flight the day before or early that morning. someone traveling with a pet wont have the ease of asking the airline if anyone on the plane has a severe allergy.

i am lucky and dont have any allergies, but i am positive that most people with SEVERE allergies come prepared and are more proactive in their flying choices than this woman was......and maybe some dont fly at all.

[Laura14]

@sunshine45  Totally agree.  Severe allergies are a whole other ball game as opposed to someone like me who has to be on top of the allergen to get a miserable reaction from it.