Kicked off a flight for having a nut allergy?

I'm not so sure

This is a deep dive into a Twitter thread from someone claiming to have had issues with American Airlines and the company’s handling of their nut allergy. The thread has appeared on many websites this weekend.

The Independent @Independent

Woman thrown off American Airlines flight over allergy so first class could get nuts

independent.co.ukWoman thrown off American Airlines flight over allergy so first class could get nuts‘I felt totally discriminated against for a health condition I have no control over’

I’ll break it down tweet-by-tweet, you can see thread here.

Getting kicked-off an American Airlines flight because of my nut allergy (and why they are a dangerous airline for people with food allergies) ✈️🥜

A thread:

Tweet one and I’m alert for deception already. “Getting” is present tense and she’s referring to something in the past. There are no personal pronouns here that explicitly say who this happened to. This is not proof that deception is happening, but it’s a strong indicator that what is to follow may not be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Given @AmericanAir (AA) have still yet to respond to the complaint my partner submitted over a month ago, thought I’d come to Twitter to share my nightmare experience when I was meant to fly with them from @HeathrowAirport to NYC (JFK) at the beginning of December 2021 (1/16)

It is said explicitly that the reason she is tweeting is that there is no response from the airline.

She says that she is sharing is her “nightmare experience”. She is not sharing a warning, or highlighting a flaw in policies. She’s sharing an experience.

In the previous tweet, she said she wanted to highlight how dangerous American Airlines was for people with allergies. As the thread goes on, she will insinuate that the airline’s actions and policies could cause fatalities and that she wants to warn people about them. If she was convinced that she is exposing a grave danger, then it is curious that she chose only to do so after not getting a reply.

We tried to inform AA of my life threatening allergy to nuts/peanuts before flying but there is no option to inform them online. At checkin we were told to speak to airline staff at the gate — standard practice with airlines flown with in the past: EasyJet, AirCanada etc. (2/16)

One hallmark of a deceptive story is that it will flip between past and present tenses. When someone is truthfully recalling events, we would expect it all in the past tense.

Here she says she “tried” to inform the airline in the past tense but that “there IS no option” online in the present tense. This maybe factually true, but we would expect to hear “I tried to inform them, but there WAS no option online”.

The pronouns she uses to describe actions also vary through this thread. Here the actions are taking by “we”, at times she will say that “I” took actions or that her partner did.

Unraveling

However, this is where things begin to unravel. Firstly, I was met with confused looks by AA gate staff when I told them about my severe allergy. They asked if it would be okay if people around me could still eat nuts (I informed them that my allergy is airborne, so no) (3/16)

Again she moves into the present tense with “this IS where things BEGIN to unravel”.

The pronouns in this part of the story have become singular and personal, such as “I” and “me”.

Interestingly, throughout the thread, members of staff are referred to as “they” or “them”.

She has now described her allergy as both “life threatening” and “severe”, this is persuasive language. She doesn’t feel describing it as simply “an allergy” would be sufficient.

Twice in this thread she says, “my allergy is airborne”. I found this curious. Factually, the allergy is not airborne. It’s possible to be allergic to airborne substances, but the allergy itself is not airborne. Is she using shorthand to describe how her allergy works? Is she not on top of the detail of her allergy? That would be odd given how serious she says it is. Or, is her allergy not so serious that she needs to know all the details of it and this is leaking out in her words?

“So no” at the end of this tweet feels abrupt and curt. “So no” is not the language of someone looking for compromise or a discussion on the best way forward.

to which the member of staff bluntly told us “well, they’re not going to stop serving nuts on the aircraft” and “I really doubt that’s gonna happen”. That said, they agreed to walk us to the plane ahead of the queue to discuss with the pager (lead cabin crew) (4/16)

We have no idea what was said before, “I really doubt that’s gonna happen” but something must have been. We are told that the staff member had given a very emphatic “not going to stop serving nuts” before saying the less emphatic “I really doubt that’s going to happen”.

There is a jump in time here. We are not being told what happened, or what was said to move the member of staff from an decisive stance to a less decisive one. This is another indicator that deception could be taking place.

Once more, the pronouns are joint ones such as “we” and “us”.

I believed the pager on the aircraft would understand, after all, it’s hardly a unique situation. Apparently, I was far too optimistic because they were not at all accommodating. They said “we are contractually obliged to serve hot mixed nuts in first/business class” (5/16)

and “it was against company policy” to make an announcement about any food allergies on the aircraft. I was absolutely stunned that in 2021, with the number of fatal instances from nut allergy surfers flying, that this was their heartless policy. (6/16)

(Side note, I believe she intended to say “nut allergy sufferers” rather than “surfers”)

“The number of fatal instances from nut allergy sufferers flying” is an awkwardly worded phrase. Perhaps because there is no number of fatal instances of nut allergy sufferers from flying. It is extremely rare and perhaps non-existent. I would expect someone with a severe and life-threatening nut allergy to be aware of this and the real life risks rather than the scare stories.

There is an indication she may be aware of this. She doesn’t say the number is a high number or a rising number. She freely uses persuasive language elsewhere (such as “heartless” policy in this tweet) but knows she can’t exaggerate the number because it wouldn’t be true.

Not getting the point

Then they quickly tried to row back, offering scraps of reassurance including “well, we don’t serve peanuts though” and “we don’t serve mixed nuts in Economy” (not getting the point that I am allergic to tree nuts as well as peanuts) and that the allergy is airborne). (7/16)

There is another jump in time here. This is the second time we are told that a member of airline staff has made an emphatic declaration followed by a less emphatic declaration with nothing to say what prompted the softening.

“Not getting the point” feels patronising and curt here. Once more, we are seeing language which not typical of people who are looking for compromise or a mutually agreeable solution.

Twice now I’ve seen this softening in stance followed by a remark I’ve labelled curt and uncompromising. It is possible that what is being hidden from us is some curt or uncompromising exchanges.

When asked about risks from recirculating air in the aircraft and the possibility of a passenger opening a bag of nuts next to me they simply responded “we can’t do anything about that”. (8/16)

I wonder who asked this question. There are no pronouns at all here.

At this point both my partner and I were getting really concerned at how blasé they were being, leading to him straight-up asking what would happen if I went into anaphylaxis over the Atlantic. After a “he knows how to use your epi-pen, right?” (9/16)

“Straight up asking” stands out in this tweet. It’s a phrase we use when someone is being incredibly blunt or forward. For example, “he was straight up asking me if I’d stolen the money” or “he was straight up asking me if I’d slept with my boss”.

The question “what would happen if I went into shock” is a fair one and not particularly blunt or forward. What made it “straight up”? It could be the way it was worded or the manner and tone with which it was asked.

So far, we have been given the impression that the airline staff are not very aware of nut allergies. Earlier they gave “confused looks”, she implies the pager should have been understanding because she would have experienced this before, but the pager wasn’t. She says the staff were “blasé”.

However, it is revealing that here it is the staff who raise the epipen, which would suggest they have more knowledge of allergies than has been conveyed by this story.

Discomfort

We were told in no uncertain terms that our discomfort was, in turn, making them uncomfortable. Without further discussion, they were already on comms getting our luggage was removed from the flight and we were escorted off the plane. (10/16)

If you are told something in “no uncertain terms” it implies a directness and a bluntness. It’s often used as a euphemism to cover up swearing and threatening language. For example, “I told him in no uncertain terms where to go”.

Airline staff are professionals at dealing with discomfort. What were these “no uncertain terms” that they resorted to? Again, something is being hidden and here it is the very crux of the matter, it is the reason they were removed from the flight.

Even if we take the words at face value, something happened to make the flight crew uncomfortable, and we are not being told what it was. The mention of staff feeling “discomfort” does follow the use of “straight up asking” so I wonder if there was an aggression or rudeness to the way the couple were speaking to the flight crew.

“Already on comms” feels like it comes from someone who is very familiar with the airline industry and its workings. There are other examples of this internal airline jargon throughout, such as “pager”. This could indicate anything from the woman being a frequent flyer to having inside knowledge of the airline industry.

I broke down in tears. I felt totally discriminated against for a health condition I have no control over. Luckily some different AA staff were incredibly sympathetic and walked us to the BA transfer desk to get us reallocated flights. (11/16)

She “felt” totally discriminated against, she doesn’t say she was discriminated against at this point. This is another indicator that the reason for her removal from the flight was around more than a nut allergy.

There’s another jump in details. We’re not told where the sympathetic airline staff came from or how they got involved.

Fantastic

In contrast, on our rescheduled BA flight hours later, the BA staff were fantastic. They stopped serving all nut products, made multiple announcements about there being a passenger with a nut allergy, and personally spoke with all passengers within a number of rows of me (12/16)

In this tweet, she sounds delighted to be at the centre of attention. BA changed what they sold, announced her allergy to the entire flight and spoke with every one around her about it.

Working with the BA crew/staff was a complete juxtaposition to how I had been treated by AA. Sadly, due the flight change, toiletries bought in the airport were thrown-out as we had to go through security again, we arrived late to NYC and our luggage (of course) got lost (13/16)

“Working with” the BA staff is odd in this context. Does that tally into the observation that she has used some internal airline speak elsewhere? Or does it indicate that she felt BA co-operated with her more than American Airlines did?

In this story, I would have expected “flying with BA” or “the treatment from BA staff” or similar. “Working with” jars in this context.

We’re now in a series of sentences about the inconvenience of switching flights, this part has nothing to do with allergies or highlighting how “dangerous” American Airlines are (in her opinion). We can conclude from the inclusion of this detail that her main motive for this thread is to complain about the inconvenience of being removed from her original flight, not to highlight potential dangers to others.

Until now, the story has been told in chronological order. This tweet jumps back in time. Tweet 12 in the series is set on board the BA flight, tweet 13 goes back to highlight the time before the flight then jumps to landing in New York.

In NYC we spent hours on the phone with @bookingcom who we booked the flights through to change our flights home. They didn't understand the reason for needing to change flights & denied responsibility. Finally we got rebooked with BA direct after many hours also on hold (14/16)

I’ve shared my experience to warn those with nut & other food allergies about @AmericanAir. Their discriminating company policy forbids them making allergy announcements which protect you. Also being told that they contractually HAD to serve nuts in 1st/Business class (15/16)

There is an inconsistency here again, previously she complained that American Airlines is a “dangerous airline for people with food allergies”. Now they simply are “discriminating”.

@BritishAirways, thank you and your staff for taking food allergies seriously. However, please consider your trans-Atlantic joint venture with @AmericanAir. Your policies on food allergies are incompatible (16/16)

And she finishes off with more airline industry talk.

Once I’ve looked at people’s words, I like to ask, “what’s missing?”. Here she does not mention the return flight with BA that was booked. If her experience on that flight was as perfect as the journey to New York, I would have expected to hear something about that. It would further help her argument that American Airlines aren’t good for people like her. That she does not mention the return journey is interesting.

Conclusion

There are enough indicators of deception to conclude that we are not being told the full story here. The words she uses strongly suggest that there was either a rudeness or something else around the couple’s attitude towards airline staff that caused them to be removed from the flight.

She has overstated the consequences of nut allergies to make a point and used nut allergies as a cover to raise her unhappiness with American Airlines.

From her use of airline industry terms, I believe there maybe another, hidden, reason for her animosity towards American Airlines.

As ever I make these posts free to read, so if you get something from this please share, recommend or hit like to help spread the word.

If there are any words you’d like me to take a look at, leave them in the comments below

More deceptive complaints

One-Star Restaurant Review - Genuine?

A tale of two halves