Dogs and cats on planes sitting with passengers.

GrannyGravy13

Regardless of mine or anyone else’s allergies, I still do not think animals of any sort should be in the cabin of an aircraft.

This.

Wheniwasyourage

Oh well, that’s fine. To pander to people who are obsessed with travelling with their pets, someone with a serious allergy can choose to have their travel plans disrupted! Why shouldn’t it be the pet owner who is offered a free change of flight? The obsession with pets is getting beyond a joke, IMO!

No pandering at all, it makes commercial sense or airlines wouldn't do it. Obviously there must be more people with pets than folk with allergies.

Wheniwasyourage

Sorry, Glorianny, but you have ignored the fact that it is possible to move carriages on a train or even to stand by an open window in some trains. There is limited scope for movement in a plane, and the smaller the plane, the less scope. Why do you feel it necessary to tell people who have problems (which you are fortunate enough not to have) how to deal with them?

I don't think I have said anything about my own problems. I seldom post personal information. It's none of your business.
I haven't said all train journeys are better or all plane journeys are better. I've said some are better.

Sorry, Glorianny, but you have ignored the fact that it is possible to move carriages on a train or even to stand by an open window in some trains. There is limited scope for movement in a plane, and the smaller the plane, the less scope. Why do you feel it necessary to tell people who have problems (which you are fortunate enough not to have) how to deal with them?

Wheniwasyourage

The high speed trains from Aberdeen or Inverness to London may not have scheduled stops between York and London, but they do go through plenty of stations. There is always staff on the train apart from the driver and so if an emergency stop was necessary for someone with an anaphylactic reaction, that could be arranged. GrannyGravy13 has given good reasons why flying is not better, and not just for people with allergies. Perhaps, Glorianny, you could allow people with severe allergies (like my DGC) to make their own decisions.

Of course they can make their own decisions.
But let's not pretend that dogs and cats are only a hazard on planes, or that the dangers on local flights are any greater than on a train. As for staff on trains they are there on long distance but many other trains only have a driver
The reasons why flying isn't better have nothing to do with the allergy subject.

Oh well, that’s fine. To pander to people who are obsessed with travelling with their pets, someone with a serious allergy can choose to have their travel plans disrupted! Why shouldn’t it be the pet owner who is offered a free change of flight? The obsession with pets is getting beyond a joke, IMO!

GrannyGravy13

Glorianny have you allergies?

You posted Why can’t you accept that sometimes flying is better

I disagree, I am extremely allergic to dogs, travelling in an aircraft cabin with a dog on board would be dangerous for me, and any other person with a severe dog allergy.

It is accepted that people have nut allergies as I have posted upthread, they are banned to protect those who are allergic. I can see absolutely no reason whatsoever that someone with a dog allergy hasn’t the same right to protection on an aircraft.

Many domestic flights in the USA allow dogs, in a carrier, under the seat.
Anyone with allergies is offered a seat away from the pet section or a free change of flight.
Many European airlines offer the same service.
Virgin Australia are following this example.

The high speed trains from Aberdeen or Inverness to London may not have scheduled stops between York and London, but they do go through plenty of stations. There is always staff on the train apart from the driver and so if an emergency stop was necessary for someone with an anaphylactic reaction, that could be arranged. GrannyGravy13 has given good reasons why flying is not better, and not just for people with allergies. Perhaps, Glorianny, you could allow people with severe allergies (like my DGC) to make their own decisions.

Regardless of mine or anyone else’s allergies, I still do not think animals of any sort should be in the cabin of an aircraft.

Glorianny

GrannyGravy13

Glorianny have you allergies?

You posted Why can’t you accept that sometimes flying is better

I disagree, I am extremely allergic to dogs, travelling in an aircraft cabin with a dog on board would be dangerous for me, and any other person with a severe dog allergy.

It is accepted that people have nut allergies as I have posted upthread, they are banned to protect those who are allergic. I can see absolutely no reason whatsoever that someone with a dog allergy hasn’t the same right to protection on an aircraft.

So what about a train with dogs on board GG13? You might get on and sit in a seat where a dog had been, or someone might sit next to you with a dog. If the train is crowded it is sometimes difficult to move about easily. Should dogs be banned from trains?

I always have my medication to hand, I very rarely use public transport.

GrannyGravy13

Glorianny have you allergies?

You posted Why can’t you accept that sometimes flying is better

I disagree, I am extremely allergic to dogs, travelling in an aircraft cabin with a dog on board would be dangerous for me, and any other person with a severe dog allergy.

It is accepted that people have nut allergies as I have posted upthread, they are banned to protect those who are allergic. I can see absolutely no reason whatsoever that someone with a dog allergy hasn’t the same right to protection on an aircraft.

So what about a train with dogs on board GG13? You might get on and sit in a seat where a dog had been, or someone might sit next to you with a dog. If the train is crowded it is sometimes difficult to move about easily. Should dogs be banned from trains?

Joseann

I guess the bottom line is, no airline can guarantee a completely allergen free environment on board. So the passenger needs to take every precaution.
What happens if a severely allergic person sits next to someone without their dog today, but whose clothes are covered in dog hair?

That is why my medication is always in my hand luggage.

I guess the bottom line is, no airline can guarantee a completely allergen free environment on board. So the passenger needs to take every precaution.
What happens if a severely allergic person sits next to someone without their dog today, but whose clothes are covered in dog hair?

Glorianny have you allergies?

You posted Why can’t you accept that sometimes flying is better

I disagree, I am extremely allergic to dogs, travelling in an aircraft cabin with a dog on board would be dangerous for me, and any other person with a severe dog allergy.

It is accepted that people have nut allergies as I have posted upthread, they are banned to protect those who are allergic. I can see absolutely no reason whatsoever that someone with a dog allergy hasn’t the same right to protection on an aircraft.

GrannyGravy13

^Why can’t you accept sometimes flying is better^

It isn’t better for the environment Glorianny

It isn’t better for anyone who suffers from breathing difficulties.

It isn’t better for anyone who is claustrophobic.

It isn’t better for anyone who has problems with their ears.

I thought we were discussing allergies to pets and carrying them on board transport GG13. Feel free to widen the discussion but I haven't said it was better for any other reason than the exposure to allergens and the difficulties in getting assistance.
So why you are addressing those reasons to me I have no idea.
Cruise ships damage the environment as well but they are just as irrelevant to this discussion.

Why can’t you accept sometimes flying is better

It isn’t better for the environment Glorianny

It isn’t better for anyone who suffers from breathing difficulties.

It isn’t better for anyone who is claustrophobic.

It isn’t better for anyone who has problems with their ears.

I'm no scientist but isn't it all to do with oxygen concentration the higher you go? So a train travelling along at sea level has far more oxygen concentration than a plane cruising at say 30,000 feet. To me that means that an asthma attack or an allergic reaction involving breathing would be far more dangerous in the air because you would be at a disadvantage in the first place?

Rosie51

Glorianny Of course they should be taken seriously. But lumping together all flights or all train journeys and saying the risk is greater on one form of transport than another is just wrong. Good luck on trying to stop a high speed train from Newcastle between York and London. It would be difficult to do. You could signal for an emergency stop but that could leave you in the middle of nowhere with no emergency services near. Finding someone to deal with things would be difficult. The flight is shorter and staffed.

I'm not familiar with the high speed train from Newcastle via York and London. Are there no stations on that line between York and London? I have used trains that zoom through lots of stations without stopping, but never been on one where it's just straight unstationed track. I'd imagine someone could use a mobile phone to dial 999 and apprise the emergency call handler of the situation. They are very adept at solving problems including getting the air ambulance out to a train in the middle of nowhere. Does the driver not have the ability to restart the train after an emergency stop? I don't know what the safety procedures might be.
To suggest that severe allergy sufferers should fly rather than take the train as a safer option seems somewhat bizarre given the plane will have difficulty arranging an emergency landing at a local airport.

Of course there are stations, and it is possible that someone might call the emergency number for you. However word would still have to be got to the driver and a spot chosen for a rendezvous. These trains carry hundreds of people with few staff .
A flight takes 1hr 15mins. Less time, less exposure to allergen more staff to care for you and organise help.
Why can't you just accept sometimes flying is better?

Glorianny Of course they should be taken seriously. But lumping together all flights or all train journeys and saying the risk is greater on one form of transport than another is just wrong. Good luck on trying to stop a high speed train from Newcastle between York and London. It would be difficult to do. You could signal for an emergency stop but that could leave you in the middle of nowhere with no emergency services near. Finding someone to deal with things would be difficult. The flight is shorter and staffed.

I'm not familiar with the high speed train from Newcastle via York and London. Are there no stations on that line between York and London? I have used trains that zoom through lots of stations without stopping, but never been on one where it's just straight unstationed track. I'd imagine someone could use a mobile phone to dial 999 and apprise the emergency call handler of the situation. They are very adept at solving problems including getting the air ambulance out to a train in the middle of nowhere. Does the driver not have the ability to restart the train after an emergency stop? I don't know what the safety procedures might be.
To suggest that severe allergy sufferers should fly rather than take the train as a safer option seems somewhat bizarre given the plane will have difficulty arranging an emergency landing at a local airport.

GrannyGravy13

Glorianny

Rosie51

Glorianny

GrannyGravy13

Glorianny

Do people with allergies never travel on buses or trains? They allow dogs and cats, with no cage or holder. As the air on them isn't filtered like on planes aren't they more dangerous?

It is possible to get off of a train or bus at the next stop along with opening a window, both of which are impossible on an aircraft.

You can't open windows on modern trains and some have longish journeys between stops. Local flights are quite often shorter. Fly Newcastle to London in 1hr 40mins.
Trains stop at Durham and York then straight to London 2hrs 09 mins.
I am just wondering about allergies and not trying to be difficult. Perhaps trains need dedicated coaches a Pet Coach, like the Quiet Coach???

The trains round here still have opening windows but whatever, trains and buses are able to make unscheduled stops. They can radio ahead to the next station to alert to a medical emergency so an ambulance is called. Planes don't have that immediate response available to them.

Yes but who is going to do the calling ahead and the reporting? Many trains now only have a driver. That's fine for inner city journeys, but with longer ones with no guard, someone taken ill relies on other passengers to notify someone. At least on a plane there are cabin crew (and the pilot can request an emergency landing if he needs to)

The longest train journey I am ever likely to take is 45 minutes into central London.

The longest distance time wise between two stops is 10 minutes.

In the time it takes a plane to radio for permission for an emergency landing, assuming they are not in the middle of an ocean, anyone experiencing a severe allergic reaction has a small chance of surviving.

Like I said upthread, I take my medication complete with letter from my doctor into the cabin, it is placed under the seat.

Allergies are not to be sneezed at (excuse the pun), enything and everything should be done to lessen the chance of an allergic reaction, peanuts and their products are not allowed in schools or on flights for this reason. Accurate food labelling is essential, we have seen young people needlessly die due to inaccurate information either on labels or given by staff.

Animals allergies and all other allergies should be taken just as seriously.

Of course they should be taken seriously. But lumping together all flights or all train journeys and saying the risk is greater on one form of transport than another is just wrong. Good luck on trying to stop a high speed train from Newcastle between York and London. It would be difficult to do. You could signal for an emergency stop but that could leave you in the middle of nowhere with no emergency services near. Finding someone to deal with things would be difficult. The flight is shorter and staffed.

I understand the concerns about allergies, I really do - my GS has a nut allergy and a friend has a very severe seafood allergy - but with the best will in the world, you cannot eliminate everything from a plane journey which is likely to cause an allergic reaction to someone. And again, I stress that I would not take my dog on a plane, nor do I think it's a good thing to have a dog in a plane cabin under the circumstances described, either for the poor animal itself, or fellow passengers.

Glorianny

Rosie51

Glorianny

GrannyGravy13

Glorianny

Do people with allergies never travel on buses or trains? They allow dogs and cats, with no cage or holder. As the air on them isn't filtered like on planes aren't they more dangerous?

It is possible to get off of a train or bus at the next stop along with opening a window, both of which are impossible on an aircraft.

You can't open windows on modern trains and some have longish journeys between stops. Local flights are quite often shorter. Fly Newcastle to London in 1hr 40mins.
Trains stop at Durham and York then straight to London 2hrs 09 mins.
I am just wondering about allergies and not trying to be difficult. Perhaps trains need dedicated coaches a Pet Coach, like the Quiet Coach???

The trains round here still have opening windows but whatever, trains and buses are able to make unscheduled stops. They can radio ahead to the next station to alert to a medical emergency so an ambulance is called. Planes don't have that immediate response available to them.

Yes but who is going to do the calling ahead and the reporting? Many trains now only have a driver. That's fine for inner city journeys, but with longer ones with no guard, someone taken ill relies on other passengers to notify someone. At least on a plane there are cabin crew (and the pilot can request an emergency landing if he needs to)

The longest train journey I am ever likely to take is 45 minutes into central London.

The longest distance time wise between two stops is 10 minutes.

In the time it takes a plane to radio for permission for an emergency landing, assuming they are not in the middle of an ocean, anyone experiencing a severe allergic reaction has a small chance of surviving.

Like I said upthread, I take my medication complete with letter from my doctor into the cabin, it is placed under the seat.

Allergies are not to be sneezed at (excuse the pun), enything and everything should be done to lessen the chance of an allergic reaction, peanuts and their products are not allowed in schools or on flights for this reason. Accurate food labelling is essential, we have seen young people needlessly die due to inaccurate information either on labels or given by staff.

Animals allergies and all other allergies should be taken just as seriously.

Rosie51

Glorianny

GrannyGravy13

Glorianny

Do people with allergies never travel on buses or trains? They allow dogs and cats, with no cage or holder. As the air on them isn't filtered like on planes aren't they more dangerous?

It is possible to get off of a train or bus at the next stop along with opening a window, both of which are impossible on an aircraft.

You can't open windows on modern trains and some have longish journeys between stops. Local flights are quite often shorter. Fly Newcastle to London in 1hr 40mins.
Trains stop at Durham and York then straight to London 2hrs 09 mins.
I am just wondering about allergies and not trying to be difficult. Perhaps trains need dedicated coaches a Pet Coach, like the Quiet Coach???

The trains round here still have opening windows but whatever, trains and buses are able to make unscheduled stops. They can radio ahead to the next station to alert to a medical emergency so an ambulance is called. Planes don't have that immediate response available to them.

Yes but who is going to do the calling ahead and the reporting? Many trains now only have a driver. That's fine for inner city journeys, but with longer ones with no guard, someone taken ill relies on other passengers to notify someone. At least on a plane there are cabin crew (and the pilot can request an emergency landing if he needs to)

Glorianny

GrannyGravy13

Glorianny

Do people with allergies never travel on buses or trains? They allow dogs and cats, with no cage or holder. As the air on them isn't filtered like on planes aren't they more dangerous?

It is possible to get off of a train or bus at the next stop along with opening a window, both of which are impossible on an aircraft.

You can't open windows on modern trains and some have longish journeys between stops. Local flights are quite often shorter. Fly Newcastle to London in 1hr 40mins.
Trains stop at Durham and York then straight to London 2hrs 09 mins.
I am just wondering about allergies and not trying to be difficult. Perhaps trains need dedicated coaches a Pet Coach, like the Quiet Coach???

The trains round here still have opening windows but whatever, trains and buses are able to make unscheduled stops. They can radio ahead to the next station to alert to a medical emergency so an ambulance is called. Planes don't have that immediate response available to them.

nanna8 that sounds like something from a horror movie!