AITAH for eating nuts next to someone with an allergy on a plane?
A pa*senger flying from Hawaii to Florida encountered a difficult situation regarding in-flight meal service.
As flight attendants distributed mixed nuts, the woman seated next to the original poster (OP) immediately informed them she had a nut allergy.
The flight attendant noted that the woman's allergy information in the system specified ingestion issues, not airborne risk, leading to a brief disagreement over the specificity required for notification.
When the woman asked the OP to refrain from eating his nuts as a courtesy, the OP explained he needed them for medication and offered to eat them elsewhere, which she reluctantly accepted.
Upon the OP's return, the neighbor was complaining about him to the crew, leading the OP to question his handling of the interaction.
Subscribe to our Newsletter
Get the latest stories delivered to your inbox.
The central conflict involves balancing the real safety concerns of an individual with a severe allergy against the reasonable expectations and needs of other pa*sengers on a commercial flight.
The OP felt obligated to accommodate a request for courtesy, even when the direct impact of his eating the nuts was unclear, leading to negative social repercussions.
The debate centers on whether the OP should have immediately complied with the neighbor's request for courtesy, or if the neighbor overstepped by demanding another pa*senger alter their behavior based on her stated allergy, especially after the crew determined an emergency landing was unnecessary.
Was the OP's refusal to simply not eat the nuts appropriate, or should he have prioritized the neighbor's comfort immediately?
This Topic Lit Up the Comments Section:
Users didn’t stay quiet — they showed up in full force, mixing support with sharp criticism. From calling out bad behavior to offering real talk, the comments lit up fast.