This is my favorite part from the linked story above: “The comments (to a story about how April Burns son was turned away from Air Canada because of his allergy) focus on how far airlines should go to accommodate people with allergies. Some argue Air Canada had a right to deny her son a seat on the plane; others feel any accommodation was an imposition for other passengers.”
First I’d like to point out that those two points are basically the same thing—siding with Air Canada for their refusal to seat the child. Is no one on this kid’s side? What is he supposed to do, never fly because he’s allergic to peanuts?
Secondly, in what scenario would it be appropriate for a fellow passenger to kick up a stink about needing to skip his bag of peanuts (which, by the way, usually contain about 12 peanuts total, if you’re lucky) because a fellow passenger has a deadly allergy to them. How exactly would that go?
As a side note—the boy was on his way to Fiji where he was going to be volunteering for a few weeks.
As an additional side note, the boy had five EpiPens with him. One could therefore deduce that he was not placing the sole responsibility for his peanut allergy on the shoulders of Air Canada.
I feel enraged by this, but maybe that’s just me? Of course the boy would have to assume some of the risk of getting on a flight in general, knowing that other passengers may have peanut products on/with them, and that Air Canada cannot be held responsible for every single passenger on its plans. But to deny him a seat at all? That seems a bit off the mark, if you ask me.
Bis bald, friends! And don’t bother flying Air Canada if you’re allergic to peanuts!