Dog dies in overhead locker on UA

[PaxBritannica]

Originally Posted by rog747

yes indeed hindsight is a wonderful thing - but the cabin crew let her down here thats the main issue

and PaxBritannica

no way do you ever put pet dogs in the OH lockers on that flight or any other - no idea why you make such a surmise that if she took another flight she would expect the same - they have to go under your seat
and yes agree any dog much bigger than a small JRT yorkie or a chihuahua is too much to go in a bag in the cabin - so only tiny dogs yes- and it's not uncommon in EU or the states for small dogs in the cabin as I have shown

and as for allergies - oh come on - what do you do in a train pub or a cafe or at a pals - tell the folks with dogs to leave? - what nonsense
so do you cross the road each time if you see a dog coming?
that's taking it all abit far like the onboard bloody peacock -

am very sorry to learn that you have such an extreme allergy of dogs but if you travel on public transport or go out socially then frankly the risk assessment is for you to address surely?
the onus is not on others

I think it's reasonable for the passenger to assume that the FA's request was company policy. Why wouldn't she think that another flight with the same airline would meet with the same treatment? She couldn't know that the FA was in fact contravening company rules.

Regarding your second point: it is indeed my responsibility to manage my allergy risk, but I'm curious to know what you think I can do to manage it? Antihistamine can only do so much. I'm careful not to touch dogs I encounter (much as I love dogs), I keep my distance in public encounters, I avoid anything that's been licked or whatever by a dog, and I DO leave situations where I'm beginning to wheeze. I can't do that in the constraints of a flight, if I'm seated next to a dog, if a dog is wandering around the cabin, or if the dog has potentially been sneezing on my hand-luggage.

My allergy is not rare or bizarre - many people have animal allergies, just as many people have nut allergies. I researched to find that ~6% of the UK has a food allergy (higher in children), and ~8% have dog allergies (18% have cat allergies). My question was, if airlines can refuse to serve nut-based snacks anywhere in the cabin because a single person on the flight has a nut allergy, why would an animal allergy not be respected to the same degree?

"The onus is not on others"? In most situations, I agree, but not in the peculiar circumstances of a flight. A train can at least stop at a station and shovel me onto an ambulance. It seems to me that the burden of discomfort should be on the person who wants to travel with an animal - which is an optional activity that can be managed in other ways. My very common allergy is not optional.

[Chris2303]

This gentleman is an AA B738 pilot.

This is what he says about travelling with dogs

https://jethead.wordpress.com/2017/06/20/when-dogs-fly/

[hoss183]

Originally Posted by BEagle

Astonishingly, hoss123 wrote:

No blame can be placed on the owner of this little ten month old puppy. She complied with the carrier's requirements, yet the ignorance of their Flight Attendant caused the wholly avoidable death of a much-loved pet.

I'm astonished too - You would do whatever a crew-member told you to do regardless? Jump up and down? Take your clothes off and run around naked?, Shoot yourself?
The CC is clearly partially responsible, but so is the owner.

[rog747]

Originally Posted by Chris2303

This gentleman is an AA B738 pilot.

This is what he says about travelling with dogs

https://jethead.wordpress.com/2017/06/20/when-dogs-fly/

with respect the article he wrote mainly is about dogs transported in the cargo /baggage hold not in the pax cabin as is the case here

(which was completely permissible, but here it went horribly wrong)

[rog747]

Originally Posted by PaxBritannica

I think it's reasonable for the passenger to assume that the FA's request was company policy. Why wouldn't she think that another flight with the same airline would meet with the same treatment? She couldn't know that the FA was in fact contravening company rules.

all united's rules here for all (pax and crew to see)

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con.../in_cabin.aspx

united quote
United allows domesticated cats, dogs, rabbits and household birds (excluding cockatoos) to travel accompanied in the aircraft cabin on most flights within the U.S. An in-cabin pet may be carried in addition to a carry-on bag and is subject to a $125 service charge each way.

In-cabin pet kennels and carriers
A pet traveling in cabin must be carried in an approved hard-sided or soft-sided kennel. The kennel must fit completely under the seat in front of the customer and remain there at all times. The maximum dimensions for hard-sided kennels are 17.5 inches long x 12 inches wide x 7.5 inches high (44 cm x 30 cm x 19 cm). The recommended maximum dimensions for soft-sided kennels are 18 inches long x 11 inches wide x 11 inches high (46 cm x 28 cm x 28 cm). Soft-sided pet carriers may exceed these dimensions slightly, as they are collapsible and able to conform to under-seat space without blocking the aisle.

Advance reservations for in-cabin pet travel are required.
Request an in-cabin booking for your pet through united.com or by calling the United Customer Contact Center at 1-800-UNITED-1 (1-800-864-8331)

the long and short the crew and maybe the ground staff too f@@@@d up big style

[Gauges and Dials]

Originally Posted by rog747

yes spot on - i too so dont get why the pax allowed the FA to do this

Perhaps you missed the news stories a while back in which it became clear that passengers who show anything other than abject deference to UAL flight attendants tend to leave the aircraft with concussions and broken teeth.

[rog747]

Originally Posted by Gauges and Dials

Perhaps you missed the news stories a while back in which it became clear that passengers who show anything other than abject deference to UAL flight attendants tend to leave the aircraft with concussions and broken teeth.

No I did not miss them, all shocking - in my airline career since 1972 it was shameful - thank god i am well retired

sadly these days on various airlines world all over get all too quick getting into the realms of air rage which is not helpful, is it really?

The pax here was completely in the right - pre-booked in-cabin animal - which should have been on the PNR print out for the gate and crew (where was crew briefing? an in-cabin pet is basically the same as an infant but under seat not in your arms but should be on the PNR's)

pax had correct pet carrier and knew the place of stowage (under seat) but FA thought otherwise = dead dog

[Carbon Bootprint]

Not quite as tragic as yesterday's event, but today UA managed to mix up a German Shepherd bound for Kansas with a Great Dane bound for Japan. At least both dogs arrived alive.

News story here

[Turbine D]

A prospective for pets transported on United Airlines:

According to a recent report issued by the Transportation Department, last year there were 24 recorded incidents of an animal dying while being transported by a major U.S. air carrier.

Of those 24 incidents, 18 took place on United Airlines.

United do seem to have their problems be they animal or human...

[peterarmitage]

Originally Posted by hoss183

I'm astonished too - You would do whatever a crew-member told you to do regardless? Jump up and down? Take your clothes off and run around naked?, Shoot yourself?
The CC is clearly partially responsible, but so is the owner.

It's a Federal offense in the USA to not follow the instructions of cabin or flight deck crew. The passenger had not choice but to do what she was told, or be ejected from the aircraft and arrested .... something that United have a history of doing.

[BEagle]

An eye witness, also the owner of a French Bulldog (not travelling with her), reported that the cries of the little animal incarcerated in the overhead locker could be heard during the flight until he obviously gave up his struggle for life. That is so utterly distressing that the eye witness should employ one of those smart-alec US lawyers and sue the airline for the mental stress and anguish she suffered....

Are UA passengers now so terrified of UA's mentality that they won't intervene when some ignorant FA is so clearly causing animal cruelty?

Personally I would have opened the overhead and taken out the peet carrier as soon as the belt signs came off - and to hell with the consequences. But since I will NEVER travel with such an appalling airline, that's somewhat moot.

[herman the crab]

Originally Posted by rog747

sorry
i was referring to jay sata's quote about what difference does animal size make not the press usa today quote

some folk here are mixing up service animals with
in cabin pets and cargo hold pets

(all 3 categoria differ)

Thanks for clarification.

I personally don't think any animal should be in the hold, mostly they're less of an irritation to other passenger than children - maybe they should be caged in the hold together?

USA law allows 2 questions related to service animals. If it's not clear that it is is a service animal you can ask if it is, you can also ask what service it is trained to provide. My company chooses to stop at the first question to avoid any adverse lawsuits. People clearly abuse this. It's usually obvious who abuse that despit it being a felony.

HTC

[Fore_right]

Second the view of an earlier poster that this thread seems to have diverted into a lot of discussion about anything and everything (allergies, emotional support animals, defecating pigs, etc, etc) apart from the despicable actions of the flight attendant. He / she clearly messed up and messed up big time. Messed up is probably an understatement.. An overlooked point here perhaps, but what were the other passengers and FAs doing while all of this was unfolding? Have we truly become that selfish and self absorbed to not step in and intervene on behalf of someone in distress? And apply some basic common sense?!

[Gauges and Dials]

Does anyone on this thread dispute any of the following?

1. United offers a service for a fee, namely transporting small pets in carriers in the cabin for $125.
2. Given that this is a service United chooses to offer and advertise, discussions of whether pets should be in the cabin or not are not germane to this case.
3. This was not a case of a bogus emotional support animal, but instead a case of a customer who paid for the service offered by United, and complied with all of the applicable rules related to that service.
4. Given the above, discussions of the (obvious) abuse of the "emotional support animal" loophole are not germane to this case.
5. The airline's published policy clearly states that pets in approved carriers go under the seat in front of the passenger.
6. Given this, the airline, in compelling the passenger to place the animal in the overhead bin, was violating its own published policies.
7. United has demonstrated a willingness to use violence against passengers who do not comply with requests that are, upon examination, unreasonable.
8. Given this, it is understandable why the passenger did not push back very hard against the airline's demand that the animal be placed in the overhead baggage compartment.

[Intruder]

HOWEVER, it IS the owner's fault that she NEVER checked on the dog inflight! She NEVER attempted to bring the dog down under the seat after takeoff. SHE was responsible for the dog. She even admitted later that she was distracted by her infant.

THE OWNER was responsible. SHE was the one who decided she could take care of 2 kids AND a dog on the flight. It was obviously beyond her capability in the end.

[evansb]

Indeed. She was seated within a few feet of where her dog was stowed.

Cats have been known to be packed and shipped in a van and arrive days later in fair health.

Did her dog have any known pre-exisiting ailments? (Perhaps already discussed)

By the way, in the landmark United Airlines ejected passenger case, it was on a Republic airlines flight with Republic crew operating a United sector. A United gate agent requested the passenger be removed. Airport security, not United, physically removed the passenger, but hey, don't let facts get in the way of your epic saga.

Many, many passengers have been known to over-sedate their pets for a flight. i.e. "if two pills are too many, three is just enough".

I am not a United Airlines apologist but given they carry 150 million passengers a year with a fleet of over 1,200 aircraft, statistically they will have some noteworthy incidents.

[rjtjrt]

The lack of concern for the plight of this dog amoungst so many posters on this thread is appalling.

[Thud105]

" the cries of the little animal incarcerated in the overhead locker could be heard during the flight." Why the hell didn't THAT person (who apparently is also a dog owner) say something? Rather than reporting it later, why did that person not consider doing something then? Surely someone should have said something?

[Zombywoof]

Originally Posted by Gauges and Dials

The airline's published policy clearly states that pets in approved carriers go under the seat in front of the passenger.

Correct. The flight attendant should have told the dog owner "you cannot keep the dog in the aisle. If it won't fit under the seat, you have to get off this airplane".

And I believe the FA would have done exactly that if the owner was traveling alone, BUT she had two kids with her.

The FA didn't want to kick a mother with two kids off the plane, so he/she came up with what he/she thought was a reasonable compromise to allow them to fly.

As it turned out, that was a bad decision, but I can understand why it was made. The FA was in a tough position and made a judgement call.

[Intruder]

Originally Posted by rjtjrt

The lack of concern for the plight of this dog amoungst so many posters on this thread is appalling.

It is not "lack of concern", but an ABUNDANCE of concern that the OWNER of the dog was so irresponsible! Obviously the lawyers and PR hacks will blame the Flight Attendant and the airline, since they have deeper pockets and a reputation to regain...