David Hammond wrote:On a recent Southwest flight, we were told not only that peanuts would not be served but that peanuts could not be eaten (those peanut M&M's, hang onto them until we land). This did not seem unreasonable to me, but I'd never heard a prohibition announced.
I'm at a total loss on how this absurd ban could just be so flippantly announced, let alone that it's not unreasonable.
I agree that the sacrifice being requested (you can't eat any peanut products you brought for yourself) is minimal, but the justification for the request (potential allergic reaction to airborne particles) is dubious, and it sounds like they aren't offering any compensation (eg. large selection of unlimited free non-peanut snacks) for your sacrifice. The flight isn't free. To try and accommodate some hyper-sensitivity that isn't controllable in the vast majority of situations, with no compensation to those restrained by the accommodation, seems like the definition of unreasonable.
I wouldn't put up a scene, because nothing can be gained on the spot. But I sure as hell would be disgusted with the airline, and avoid them like the plague.
*Full Disclosure: I fly out of O'Hare because of location, having taken SWA only once, 19 years ago, never to be repeated.