On Sat 24 Sep 2005 06:24:36p, Ariane Jenkins wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 25 Sep 2005 00:45:27 +0200, Wayne Boatwright >
> wrote:
>>
>> As with most things, the key is "within reason" and its interpretation.
>> When such an accomodation affects 149 people out of 100, I personally
>> feel that's going too far. 'Course, my opinion never counts for much.
>> :-)
>
> Hehe. You know that saying about opinions being like assholes... <g>
>
> To me, it's also a matter of degree. If someone's got a severe enough
> allergy they could die if exposed to peanuts, then for me that takes
> precedence over even 300 peoples' rights to chow down on nasty ol'
> airplane peanuts. It may never come to that, but if it did...

Probably unarguable at best, but I firmly do not believe that the rights of
1 should ever take precedence over the rights of 300. In my "warped" sense
of fairness, that would also carry if the ration were 49 to 51. If their
problem is that serious, then they shouldn't be there.

The so-called edible offerings on airplanes these days almost makes this a
moot point. I seldom fly anymore but would be more likely to take my own
snack on anything but a puddle-jump flight. If it happened to be something
containing peanuts, then so be it. I happen to like Snickers bars, and I'm
not about to canvass a plane full of people to find out whether I can eat
it. If someone sitting next to me asked me not to eat it, I'd suggest that
they change their seat.

> On a related note, I think someone else mentioned the downsizing of
> airplane food. I've gotten packets of peanuts on flights within the
> last 5 years, but they're pathetic... maybe half a dozen measly peanuts,
> if that. And once on a Southwest flight, each passenger received a 1"x2"
> cracker (I kid you not), individually wrapped. I thought, "Why
> bother??" ;D

Indeed!

Cheers!

--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
__________________________________________________ ___

If assholes could fly, this place would be an airport.