Brit forced to go on 26-hour BUS ride after ‘getting kicked off 2-hour flight Watch

Leviathan1611
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#1
https://www.thesun.co.uk/travel/1015...t-nut-allergy/

that sounds a bit entitled, no one can have nuts just because you're allergic to nuts.
0
reply
AJ126y
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 weeks ago
#2
It does sound entitled. Making somebody travel 1100 miles just because you want some nuts. Honestly. Eat something else.
15
reply
Leviathan1611
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by AJ126y)
It does sound entitled. Making somebody travel 1100 miles just because you want some nuts. Honestly. Eat something else.
so if a passenger was allergic to water, should everyone else just thirst for the whole flight?
0
reply
Greywolftwo
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by Leviathan1611)
https://www.thesun.co.uk/travel/1015...t-nut-allergy/

that sounds a bit entitled, no one can have nuts just because you're allergic to nuts.
It’s not entitled, it’s safety. I know someone who’s sister died from an allergic reaction. It’s serious and stop calling them entitled
5
reply
Leviathan1611
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by Greywolftwo)
It’s not entitled, it’s safety. I know someone who’s sister died from an allergic reaction. It’s serious and stop calling them entitled
I didn't call her entitled, I'm calling the situation entitled (if that even makes sense).
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by Leviathan1611)
so if a passenger was allergic to water, should everyone else just thirst for the whole flight?
That's not an equivalent. It's also exceptionally rare - and doesn't have the same potentially fatal consequences.

Nobody needs peanuts to live. It's not an uncommon or unreasonable request.
4
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by Leviathan1611)
https://www.thesun.co.uk/travel/1015...t-nut-allergy/

that sounds a bit entitled, no one can have nuts just because you're allergic to nuts.
Have you seen someone with severe allergies? There are some people that can have shocks from the slightest whiff of nuts in the air. It was a 2 hour flight, so I dont understand why they could not tolerate it.
2
reply
Leviathan1611
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Drewski)
That's not an equivalent. It's also exceptionally rare - and doesn't have the same potentially fatal consequences.

Nobody needs peanuts to live. It's not an uncommon or unreasonable request.
I think it is, everyone must be in discomfort because of just one person. what if a passenger is allergic to dairy? now no one can have any drink or milk on the flight they paid for because of someone else. that means no tea, no coffee, no lasagna, no cheese with your crackers.
4
reply
AJ126y
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by Leviathan1611)
so if a passenger was allergic to water, should everyone else just thirst for the whole flight?
They could drink something else? It's not exactly being entitled to not want to die.No you're wrong on this one. Nobody needs nuts to live.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by Leviathan1611)
I think it is, everyone must be in discomfort because of just one person. what if a passenger is allergic to dairy? now no one can have any drink or milk on the flight they paid for because of someone else. that means no tea, no coffee, no lasagna, no cheese with your crackers.
You don't fly much, do you?

Not having peanuts for 2 hours isn't a discomfort. If you think it is, you're the entitled one.
10
reply
Leviathan1611
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by Wired_1800)
Have you seen someone with severe allergies? There are some people that can have shocks from the slightest whiff of nuts in the air. It was a 2 hour flight, so I dont understand why they could not tolerate it.
I know I read it in the article, she can't be in a place where there are nuts being eaten.

passengers pay for their flight, therefore they should have the full experience they paid for, it should not be limited because of one passenger.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by Leviathan1611)
I know I read it in the article, she can't be in a place where there are nuts being eaten.

passengers pay for their flight, therefore they should have the full experience they paid for, it should not be limited because of one passenger.
It's called empathy and caring for others.

As someone who pretends to be religious I'd have thought that you might understand that concept.
0
reply
Leviathan1611
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by Drewski)
You don't fly much, do you?

Not having peanuts for 2 hours isn't a discomfort. If you think it is, you're the entitled one.
no I don't.

but it might be a discomfort to someone else. I'm not talking about myself, I don't even like peanuts.

I'm just wondering where you draw the line, what if she was allergic to dairy, is the airline now not supposed to serve any dairy products to all passengers?
0
reply
AJ126y
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by Leviathan1611)
I know I read it in the article, she can't be in a place where there are nuts being eaten.

passengers pay for their flight, therefore they should have the full experience they paid for, it should not be limited because of one passenger.
I imagine she also paid for her flight. Presumably they didn't let her on for free. Surely its a basic human right to not die on your flight. This sounds like a real first world problem tbh
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by Leviathan1611)
no I don't.

but it might be a discomfort to someone else. I'm not talking about myself, I don't even like peanuts.

I'm just wondering where you draw the line, what if she was allergic to dairy, is the airline now not supposed to serve any dairy products to all passengers?
Sometimes playing devils' advocate is a good move.

Sometimes it's just stupid.

Welcome to the latter category.
1
reply
Leviathan1611
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by AJ126y)
They could drink something else? It's not exactly being entitled to not want to die.No you're wrong on this one. Nobody needs nuts to live.
almost every drink has water though. so the only options I can think of is right now is milk and juice, now what if they have diabetes and are lactose intolerant🤷

again, I'm not calling the lady herself entitled, just the situation.
0
reply
1st superstar
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by Leviathan1611)
https://www.thesun.co.uk/travel/1015...t-nut-allergy/

that sounds a bit entitled, no one can have nuts just because you're allergic to nuts.
true
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by Leviathan1611)
almost every drink has water though. so the only options I can think of is right now is milk and juice, now what if they have diabetes and are lactose intolerant🤷

again, I'm not calling the lady herself entitled, just the situation.
What are you talking about?

Being lactose intolerant doesn't mean nobody else can drink milk, just means you can't.

I don't think you understand the medical effects going on here, which makes this whole conversation pretty dumb.

The situation is a relatively normal one. Happens a lot and is pretty common in the civilised world.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 weeks ago
#19
I get where the OP is coming from.. its a balancing act between the many and the individual..

At what point is a bigger right of an individual worth more than the smaller right of many?

In this case, given that was the only food on the plane, the choice was:

1 person can fly, but no one can have food
Or
1 person misses their flight, but everyone gets their food

Its a subjective judgement. For me, I'd side with the individual in this case - mainly because its only a short flight, meaning the inconvenience for others is pretty small.

Were it a 5+ hour flight where the only food provided was going to be stopped because of 1 person? Maybe that tips the scales and the Id side with the masses.. but for 2 hours, I think the inconvenience of the masses is so so small, that its best just to do whats right for the individual.

---

Ignoring the Morals, the airline has a simple business decision, whats worse: The potential bad publicity of kicking her off.. or the bad reaction from customers who are told they wont get the only food provided for them? Again, id say that probably its best to go with the individual.. far more people are going to see this bad article, than would have been impacted by not giving those flying some nuts.
0
reply
Leviathan1611
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by Drewski)
It's called empathy and caring for others.

As someone who pretends to be religious I'd have thought that you might understand that concept.
well I wouldn't mind if there were no nuts on my flight, (I don't even like nuts). or even no dairy, I'll just sit through the flight without my preferred meals just for one person with a severe allergy, barely a problem.

but not everyone is like that and we shouldn't have to force them to do that.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you registered to vote?

18-20 years old (yes) (260)
54.28%
18-20 years old (no) (62)
12.94%
20-25 years old (yes) (80)
16.7%
20-25 years old (no) (9)
1.88%
25-30 years old (yes) (25)
5.22%
25-30 years old (no) (0)
0%
30-40 years old (yes) (24)
5.01%
30-40 years old (no) (3)
0.63%
40+ years old (yes) (9)
1.88%
40+ years old (no) (7)
1.46%

Watched Threads

View All