From time to time we hear stories about people with severe nut allergies suffering strong reactions on airplanes. In one recent case, a United Airlines flight bound for Singapore diverted after a passenger incident onboard. Sometimes diversions are not caused by humans that are nuts, but by literal ones.
United Airlines Flight Diverts To Honolulu Over Nut Allergy
Last Saturday, United flight 1, from San Francisco (SFO) to Singapore (SFO) departed slightly behind schedule at 11:47 pm. The Boeing 787-9 aircraft was operating United’s longest flight, blocked at 16 hours and 15 minutes.
About five hours into the flight a medical emergency occurred onboard and the decision was taken to divert to Honolulu, even though the Midway Atoll was closer. That made sense, though, because Midway may be able to handle a Dreamliner, but Honolulu is a United focus city with the infasttecuture in place to better handle the displaced passengers and most importantly the patient.
Reaching Honolulu, however, required a detour of over 2.5 hours. Finally, the plane touched down at Daniel K. Inouye International Airport (HNL) at 4:48 am.
It’s not like United could just drop off the sick passenger and take off again. Even with four pilots onboard, the crew became “illegal” (meaning it could not continue working per Federal Aviation Administration regulations) and therefore the flight was canceled and re-scheduled for the following evening about 18 hours later, giving the crew sufficient time to rest.
This was Labor Day in Hawaii and although United Airlines tried to book passengers in hotels, there were capacity issues and some passengers were given a $200 virtual credit card which they could use to arrange their own accommodations and meals (sidenote – I’m not sure how far $200 went in Honolulu over a busy holiday weekend marking the end of summer….).
At 12:28 am on Monday, September 5, the flight took off, landing in Singapore 11.5 hours later.
Nut Allergies Are Real…And Difficult For Airlines
While details are slim concerning the nature of the nut allergy onboard, we do know it was deemed sufficient enough for United to divert. As a general policy, United does not make special accommodations for nut allergies:
Due to the presence of food allergens in the processing environment and in meals and snacks served, United cannot guarantee an allergen-free meal or environment on its flights. Further, it is not possible to prevent customers from bringing food items on board that contain major food allergens including peanuts. If you have a severe food allergy and are traveling on flights between the U.S. and Canada, please notify a flight attendant on board the aircraft you request an allergy buffer zone so we can notify customers seated nearby to refrain from eating any allergen-containing products they may have brought on board.
For operational reasons, we cannot remove any onboard products based on individual customer requests, and we do not offer allergen-free buffer zones on our aircraft. Since we cannot guarantee allergen-free flights, we encourage customers to review any health concerns with their physicians prior to flying.
One Mile At A Time opines that “most airlines just don’t care enough” to voluntarily enact strict nut protocols, as is required in Canada, which mandates airlines to create buffer zones around passengers with nut allergies on all flights.
I think the better way to think about it than apathy is a calculated risk over liability. Carriers that promise buffer zones open themselves to liability when a passenger fails to comply. We’ve had the debate before over personal responsibility versus accommodation for those with disabilities and I don’t think we need to rehash that again.
> Read More On Nut Allergies
- Turkish Airlines Kicks Off Six-Year-Old So It Can Serve Nuts In Business Class
- Emirates Tells Passengers With Severe Nut Allergy To Sit In Lavatory…For 7 Hours
- Korean Air Ejects Passengers With Peanut Allergy. Fair?
- Woman With Nut Allergy Thrown Off American Airlines Flight Because Flight Attendants Claim They Are “Contractually Obliged To Serve Hot Mixed Nuts In First And Business Class”
I will say that allergic reactions to nuts are a lethal danger for some passengers and rather than snort at those passengers with contempt, I think it is appropriate to be mindful of their reasonable concerns. At the same time, those allergy-prone passengers must carefully weigh the risks of flying, as there is no such thing as full protection.
CONCLUSION
A United Airlines flight diverted to Honolulu after a severe nut allergy onboard. Because we don’t know the context of what it happened (and United has refused to provide specifics), it is not helpful to speculate. However, the general issue of nuts on planes with allergic passengers continues to be prescient as such allergies seem to be increasing in the western world. We will be hearing about these incidents more often in the years to come, I suspect. That makes it a good time for airlines to critically examine their approach to such issues.
shame on United. They diverted the flight, they should be responsible for booking passengers into hotels, arranging transport to/from hotel, and providing food vouchers. Anything less is just the same old mediocre United service.
As for the incident. Was the person carrying an epipen? did they use it? If not, why not. Airborne nut allergies are exceedingly rare if you actually bother to read the medical literature (the mythical person five rows back eating a nut and you inhaling it just doesn’t happen), most of these cases are due to accidental ingestion. Since i treat these patients all the time, I actually have read the med literature. Most will also reslove with one or two epipen shots.
I’m sure the woke nut mob will now descend….
I think the more likely mob to descend on here are those saying this person should have excused themselves to the bathroom and died quietly as to not inconvenience anyone else because we should be bending to the needs of the unfortunate.
just to be clear, i don’t have an issue with the diversion if the person had an allergic reaction. I’m not saying let him/her die at 30k feet. But assuming they didn’t take basic precautions (epipen, not eating food with nuts in it) then they should also shoulder some of what I can imagine is the significant cost of all of this….just as a drunk who caused a diversion would.
Imagine deciding on the cost of a plane ticket or the cost of an epipen to save your life. Plane ticket was cheaper by the way. Imagine criticizing someone’s decisions without ever knowing their financial situation. Imagine believing everyone can afford a single epipen at the cost of $700. Ignorance sure is bliss. How about we blame those who cause the rise in life saving medical. People like you.
Dying quietly in the bathroom would be a huge inconvenience as you would have an inaccessible bathroom.
I’m pretty sure Billy Bob meant specifically a bathroom in the coach cabin.
The needs of the many outway the needs of the few. Isn’t that what all you Marxists say?
Fascists like you say the nds of your fuhrer are paramount. Your point dew nonce?
If you’re gonna insult me at least write something that doesn’t sound like an inner city public school student wrote it.
Outweigh, not outway.
shame on United? & if this afflicted passenger croaked then big lawsuit (is better)? every passenger must be responsible for their own actions. ws he/she FORCE-FED a nut? if 2 risky to fly..don’t. ur issues do not belong to everyone. the passenger should b held responsible, not raging @ the airline.
I’ve been to Midway and while the 787 could land there, there isn’t any fuel, food or lodging, so Honolulu was a far better place for the passengers
If I was a passenger with a major allergy to a common food item I would carry at least one Epi Pen aboard to avoid exactly this situation.
An airline can certainly not serve nut based foods, but the fundamental issue is that airlines cannot reasonably prevent a passenger from enjoying a nut based snack that they bring on the plane, especially if the announcement to refrain from eating a nut-based snack is made at the gate or once onboard. Now, I suspect most passengers, if asked not to eat a nut based snack, would comply, but it is never going to be a guarantee and the nut allergic person will be taking some risk.
And it’s not just something that’s obviously nut-based, like a Snickers bar or bag of trail mix. It’s been stated here that anything prepared with a trace of nuts – even if it’s not “obviously” a nut snack – could contain the allergens. I think it’s disingenuous to expect that a passenger could know the danger which his or her innocently-packed treat could cause, even if it was practical for the airline to announce and request compliance.
Remember that you have to actually EAT nuts to have an allergic reaction. “Airborne” nut reactions are not real.
https://www.aaaai.org/allergist-resources/ask-the-expert/answers/old-ask-the-experts/peanut-air-travel
Very true, but that’s just one vector. The other two – aside from actually eating a peanut – are 1. Items processed in a facility that also processes nuts, and 2. Unrefined or cold-pressed peanut oil used in cooking. The former can be spotty for reactions but is highly dependent upon the person allergic and may very well be the reason. The latter, though, can be dangerous since the difference between highly refined (no reaction as proteins have been removed) and unrefined (basically super viscous peanut butter) is not known to many. And if unrefined oil is used for cooking to add essence/taste but isn’t considered a primary ingredient, it may not be reasonable to expect everyone to know the truth, especially since most people are accustomed to hearing that peanut oil doesn’t cause allergic reactions. I wonder if that’s what happened on this flight. That said, if you’re allergic to peanuts and you’re scarfing down Pad Thai or a bahn mi, then that’s totally on you. But there are definitely instances where it’s possible nobody could’ve reasonably known, whether the allergic passenger or the crew.
Huh? Why would an airline avoid serving nuts? That’s ridiculous. The rest of the world doesn’t have to suffer just because of the allergies of a few people. If you have a medical condition – whether it’s a nut allergy or claustrophobia or something else – it is your responsibility to ensure you can coexist in an airplane environment without causing a disruption BEFORE you board the plane. Sorry, you gotta take responsibility for yourself.
I don’t know why anybody with a nut allergy would travel to Asia. Those cultures use nuts in everything.
United’s recent catering choices have featured loads of tree nuts, integrated in ways that make it impractical for one to exclude them. It will be interesting to see if any meaningful details of this event emerge.
Using an Epi-Pen does not magically cure you of being allergic. It instantly helps regulate and improve your breathing, with blood pressure, and reduce swelling. It does save lives. But sometimes those symptoms that made you use an epi-pen in the first place can return — especially if the allergen is continuously present. So sometimes people need more than one dose of epinephrine. And it doesn’t end there: Some of us who carry epi-pens for emergencies should immediately seek medical care afterwards because the allergic reaction needs further professional monitoring. I’ve always seen an epi-pen as buying me more time to seek medical care. It is has never been the solution.
I’m guessing the person they diverted for was simply not improving after the initial epi-pen dose and that in itself was enough to call for the diversion.
Thank you for stating this. Two of our kids have nut allergies. They’re fortunate though in that their reactions are just shy of moderate, and not severe. We have epipens in every vehicle and all over the house and multiple any time we travel. So many imbeciles, commenters here included, seem to think epipens provide the same relief as adrenaline did for Uma Thurman in that famous Pulp Fiction scene. It’s not like you just “snap out of it” and everything’s okey-dokey artichokey. It does exactly as you said: It provides time to get to the hospital to seek medical attention. In some cases the epipen is all that’s needed, but it should never be assumed that’s all that is needed.
We have yet to take the kids on a flight longer than 8 hours as we’re more Europe-focused at the moment, but it will absolutely be our responsibility to ensure we route to Asia appropriately to avoid this sort of situation. So there certainly is a level of personal reliability that was not taken in this instance. But the constant refrain of “Hurr durr, why didn’t they just have an epipen?” is a statement of the ignorant, usually willfully so.
Isn’t there a company making fake nuts> Like the ones who make fake meat? I think it was called Dees Nuts…
Beyond nuts. I think it’s made of meat.
Medical diversions happen. And when they do, the other passengers will just need to cope so the sick passenger can be treated. However, I think that must involve material compensation and best efforts at accommodation, especially on long haul flights.
At the same time, if someone could die if they touch a peanut, they should stay off planes. Period. It seems cruel to put this person on a plane.
On the same note, are we supposed to give them our medical history so they know what to expect, maybe a diversion for another medical reason?
… “Captain, I have a heart condition, please divert me to the nearest hospital. Thank you.”
Not a good reason to divert in my view. Perhaps flight attendants should have some medical authorization, such as the training of an ambulance paramedic, so as to be able to administer an anti-allergy epinephrine medication. Of course, we would have to pay them more.
Be sure to let the Captain know that you think this was not a good reason to divert. S/he is waiting to hear your opinion especially because you were on the flight in the immediate proximity of the patient and know exactly what transpired, right?
As DCAWABN stated, an epi-pen is an emergency measure and is meant to be followed up by medical supervision. That diversion was needed regardless of Eli-pen administration (assuming that we can agree that even if someone with an allergy didn’t have an epi-pen with them, we would still agree the diversion should happen?)
Also, considering how pitifully inadequate United’s meal descriptions have been of late, there is little way except by sight to notice nuts in a dish. That brown sauce on the beef? Good luck getting a flight attendant to confirm whether any nuts are present. That raspberry mini-tart? Ground almonds could easily have been used in the batter. People with these allergies do tend to ask before they eat; it’s not out of the realm of possibility that the crew either couldn’t confirm, or did confirm but incorrectly, regarding the presence of nuts. It’s also possible the person took the menu at face value and chose a dish which turned out to have nuts even though they weren’t listed in the description. Since the accuracy of the United descriptions and the actual dishes served nowadays is 50% at best, I can see such a thing happening. Or, I suppose it’s possible the passenger didn’t ask or consider the danger and just ploughed ahead, but that would be the least likely scenario. Diversions are a huge pain for everyone, but consider all the possibilities before saying things like “people with nut allergies shouldn’t fly”.
I took nuts on film because I needed the money at the time, but I have compassion for those with nut allergies. This was a bad situation for everyone involved and no winners. Especially those who got $200 and were expected to find a hotel, no chance they found one even close to that.
People with that kind of well known and easily treatable health problem should be responsible for any and all losses incurred due to their personal weakness and failure to carry the required medications.
Easily treatable? I’d like to see you obtain venous access, prepare and administer an adrenaline infusion and perform endotracheal intubation in a grossly swollen airway. Even better maybe try it at 36000 feet
Glad they had the necessary infasttecuture (sic) in place.
First and foremost I respect and have syphaties to ppl. affected by any allergies..having said that.. a full secured environment against any kind of allergies during a commercial flight is almost impossible! It is up to you to decide and prepare properly in how to organise your trip without landing in the ER. You have medicines and shots to counter any allergic reactions to a full blown one.
It is upsetting to all..either to UA which has lost a lot of money or to the fellow paxs who have to endure an unwilling stayover in Hawaii. So be prepared or stay at home if you cannot gurantee yourself a safe travel and be a burden for everyone else. Thank You!
“Nuts”
General Anthony McAuliffes’ reply to a German surrender ultimatum, Battle of the Bulge
Each traveler is responsible for their own actions. If they felt so threatened by a variety of foods onboard/they need bring their own. The person who caused this disruption is at fault/NOT the airlines. Don’t fly if u feel that u may suffer & cause others to suffer due to your own health issues.
Years ago on a Southwest flight prior to pushback, a request was made that all PAX surrender any peanut food items because a boy was onboard with a severe peanut allergy. This included Baby Ruth bars with chocolate coated peanuts. As compensation, a free drink was offered. From what I could see, all complied.
However, I found this odd since peanuts were the primary snack item for Southwest at the time.
This is a huge expense for UAL & inconvenience for hundreds of people. People with these allergies should bear the cost of flying private or the cost of another mitigation.
My husband’s flight diverted because a first class passenger with a severe nut allergy was eating mixed nuts. This was a year or two ago but seriously?