Southwest Airlines company blog


#1

Nuts About Southwest

Nuts about Southwest is all about our Employees, Customers, airplanes, and airports. We really are Nuts about Southwest and we hope that our Readers will share that passion by posting their own comments.


#2

Funny, I thought with all the allergy issues, they didn’t let nuts on board anymore.


#3

No, they still allow peanuts onboard, unless you have someone of the 0.2% of the population onboard that is allergic to peanuts then the whole plane suffers.

What’s funny is when I was on a flight with a passenger who said she was allergic to peanuts, we were served pretzels. What makes it so funny is that the pretzels were made in a factory that contained peanut dust and they themselves had peanut oil in them! So much for the so-called allergy to peanuts.


#4

I know- it was just a pathetic attempt to stretch a pun. I apparently broke it.


#5

(this is a highly edited article; you can find the full article at azcentral.com; my comments in italics.)

US Airways dropping peanuts
Dawn Gilbertson
The Arizona Republic
Jun. 3, 2006 12:00 AM

The Tempe-based airline, the nation’s fifth-largest, is bowing to concerns of travelers with severe peanut allergies. It will serve pretzels, crackers and other in-flight snacks, instead. (many of these items are produced in factories that contain peanuts!) Several other major airlines had already stopped serving peanuts after peanut allergy groups (aka peanut nazis)expressed their members’ fears of a dangerous in-flight reaction.

Tong said peanuts are by far customers’ favorite in-flight snack. (Even so, let a very, very, very, very, very,very small minority say screw you, I’m “allergic” and so you can’t have any.)

Doug Bell, a Phoenix Web site developer and graphic designer, said he couldn’t believe it when US Airways told his wife “it’s not our policy to not serve peanuts.” The couple have a 14-month-old son, Bishop, who has been diagnosed with severe peanut allergies. They had booked a flight to Las Vegas to see her parents and called several times with concerns about the infant’s allergy.

The airline employees’ attitude made him angry, he said. They simply told the family to book with another airline. US Airways also would refund tickets to those who said they couldn’t fly because of their peanut allergy.

“They weren’t really concerned about our 1-year-old,” he said.
(by the way, the brat was more than likely flying for a very high fare of $0.00)

His wife and son took the flight on Monday, and everything was fine. She just made sure to pack the shot peanut allergy sufferers take in case of an allergic reaction. (see, just because a person is allergic to peanuts does not mean just smelling peanuts will kill him.

Bell was thrilled about the new no-peanut policy.

“I think it’s great,” he said. “We don’t have to fly. But it’s so common today, if you don’t do it it’ll take forever to get anywhere.”

Peanut precautions
Even though US Airways will no longer serve peanuts, it is not forbidding passengers to bring peanut products aboard and is not guaranteeing that other snacks it serves weren’t made in facilities that also make peanuts. (see my remark above and in another posting about snacks being made in factories that contain peanut dust

Terry Furlong, chief operating officer (of the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network)said airlines that still serve peanuts and don’t offer peanut-free zones or peanut-free flights for allergy sufferers are losing business from them and their families and friends. Many of those allergic to peanuts are children.

“We think it’s foolish because there are a million and a half people in the country with peanut allergy, and in this time of tight airline margins, to make no accommodation for that many people is leaving money on the table,” he said. (sounds like a lot of people but… consider that most people taking vacations drive instead of fly. Few business trips involve children. Conservatively speaking, I would say no more than 50% of the American population flies in any given year. 50% of 1.5 million is 750,000. There were just over 745 millions passengers last year. 750,000 is 0.10067% 745 million.

What’s my point? I’m tired of itty-bitty minorities dictating to the overwhelming majority. Never have, never will take to this “me first” generation.


#6

Next they’ll have Boy Scout troops that want to tour Peanut factories where half the troop is allergic to peanuts. There’ll be a series of lawsuits and eventually the peanut factories will have to do full cleanings or provide reverse quarantine suits so that they can tour.

The only reason why the companies are changing is because they can’t afford a $70 million lawsuit from a family. $70 million could buy you a lot of fuel!


#7

I have little sympathy for these whiners. Between 1 in 100 to 1 in 130 people in the US suffer from the inability to digest wheat and wheat derived foods.

Doesn’t sound so bad until you realize this means no bread, pasta, cake, cookies, muffins, pancakes, etc., etc.

Just try getting an uncontaminated meal from an airline.


#8

Shakespeare (I think) got it right when he said “death to all lawyers.”

This is the problem today. Too many companies and organizations are willing to buckle down to shysters rather than stand up for principle. Once they start losing, perhaps the cost to society (higher prices) will go down. Perhaps lawyers, when they lost a frivolous or stupid suit, should be sent to jail instead of being allowed roam free. Remember, the cost of business is borne by the customer. More expenses mean higher prices for consumers.


#9

Beer!


#10

Yep, no beer nor any grain derived or blended liquor.


#11

Just because I am a total A-hole, I am going to make it a point to pack a PB-n-J sandwich anytime I fly SWA.


#12

For $70 million, I could learn to be allergic to peanuts, too.

I wonder if the airline has scoured the plane for latex. There are as many latex allergy sufferers as peanut allergy sufferers.

At the risk of being deemed very politically incorrect, I wonder how long it will take for us to recognize the disproportionate exercisers of economic pressure as “Special Interest Groups” and lobbyists. I guess that at long as there is no “Incorporated” in their name, no one really cares.