PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) (https://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight-61/)
-   -   Dog dies in overhead locker on UA (https://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/606516-dog-dies-overhead-locker-ua.html)

PaxBritannica 14th Mar 2018 14:50


Originally Posted by rog747 (Post 10083333)
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 14th Mar 2018 15:12

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 14th Mar 2018 16:20


Originally Posted by BEagle (Post 10083326)
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 14th Mar 2018 16:30


Originally Posted by Chris2303 (Post 10083447)
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 14th Mar 2018 16:38


Originally Posted by PaxBritannica (Post 10083426)
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 14th Mar 2018 16:44


Originally Posted by rog747 (Post 10083282)
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 14th Mar 2018 16:59


Originally Posted by Gauges and Dials (Post 10083547)
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 14th Mar 2018 17:07

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 14th Mar 2018 17:25

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...:sad:

peterarmitage 14th Mar 2018 17:26


Originally Posted by hoss183 (Post 10083506)
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 14th Mar 2018 18:10

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....:mad:

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 14th Mar 2018 18:15


Originally Posted by rog747 (Post 10083644)
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 14th Mar 2018 18:54

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 14th Mar 2018 20:03

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 14th Mar 2018 21:21

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 14th Mar 2018 22:14

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 14th Mar 2018 22:36

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

Thud105 14th Mar 2018 22:47

" 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 14th Mar 2018 22:47


Originally Posted by Gauges and Dials (Post 10083764)
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 14th Mar 2018 22:58


Originally Posted by rjtjrt (Post 10083954)
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...

BEagle 14th Mar 2018 23:08


The FA was in a tough position and made a judgement call.
What complete and utter nonsense! Take the trouble to read the airline's apology and you might understand the truth.

I wonder whether that ignorant FA will be haunted by the thought of the terrifying last few moments of his young life that poor little 10 month old puppy suffered thanks to her actions...:mad:

What action has UA actually taken against that woman?

Turbine D 14th Mar 2018 23:12

Intruder,

It is not "lack of concern", but an ABUNDANCE of concern that the OWNER of the dog was so irresponsible!
IMHO, you are off the radar scope here. The problem was that the flight attendant apparently was poorly trained or wasn't trained at all in this aspect of the job. It wouldn't be a surprise. United combined with Continental not long ago and have struggled to bring the two cultures together. The dog was very small, the container was of a size approved by United. Maybe the continued scrunching together of seats to add revenue without changing animal carrier sizes was a contributing factor, who knows. For sure, United has done a terrible job of putting customers first, human or animal.

Your accusation is just bizarre!

Zombywoof 14th Mar 2018 23:18


Originally Posted by BEagle (Post 10083995)
What complete and utter nonsense!

So your position, then, is that the FA should have kicked the family off the flight, since they were clearly unable to comply with the conditions for pet carriage.

Do I have that right?

b1lanc 14th Mar 2018 23:19


Originally Posted by Thud105 (Post 10083966)
" 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?

Bingo - and I believe that person had the same breed - and knew they might have difficulty breathing.

Zombywoof 14th Mar 2018 23:26


Originally Posted by sptraveller (Post 10084010)
All the FA had to do was follow the airlines policy correctly.

Correct. Fifi won't fit under the seat, so you people are not flying with us today.

BEagle 14th Mar 2018 23:27

Zombywoof, try reading the full facts and you might perhaps understand that the family complied exactly with the carrier's requirements, but the ignorant FA thought that she knew better...

Meanwhile, from MarketWatch:

Dog’s death on United flight should result in family being ‘significantly compensated’, says lawyer of man dragged from flight
(by Mark DeCambre)

Demetrio says family of the dead dog should be ‘significantly compensated’
The lawyer for the man who was dragged off a United Airlines flight says family of the dog should be “significantly compensated,” for the tragic death of the pet.

According to reports, a United flight attendant insisted that a dog be placed in the overhead compartment for the entirety of the flight even though it was held in a TSA-approved pet carrier.

Thomas Demetrio, partner at Chicago law firm Corboy & Demetrio, who handled the case of Dr. David Dao, who was dragged from a United Airlines flight a year ago, told MarketWatch in a phone interview that “there’s clearly a legal claim, it’s just a matter of United avoiding that.”

The attorney said United Continental Holdings Inc. the parent of United Airlines, should step up with an out-of-court settlement.

“I think that the compensation should be significant. I really think so. I think this was a very traumatic experience. This dog was effectively murdered right above them,” the attorney said.

He also said that the average flier fears disobeying or questioning crew members.

“People understand much more so after Dr. Dao that you don’t mess with the flight attendant. They rule the world and if there’s controversy they will simply run to the captain” and recommend a removal from the flight, he said.

Demetrio declined to comment on how much Dao received from the airline after his well-publicized incident.

‘I think that the compensation should be significant. I really think so. I think this was a very traumatic experience. This dog was effectively murdered right above them.’ said Thomas Demetrio, partner at Chicago law firm Corboy and Demetrio.

United has since apologized: “We assume full responsibility for this tragedy and express our deepest condolences to the family and are committed to supporting them. We are thoroughly investigating what occurred to prevent this from ever happening again.”

As for the death of the dog, Demetrio explained that he was a dog lover and said “It’s really the opposite of compassion that occurred.”

“I am a dog lover, but even a non-dog lover has to be somewhat amazed that a flight attendant would think it was a good idea that the dog be placed in an overhead bin. It’s United’s obligation to a passenger carrying a dog to use common sense and to supply safety and obviously it failed to supply safety. It was really very poorly handled,” he said.

Shares of United finished the day down 2.6% in Wednesday trade.

Zombywoof 14th Mar 2018 23:33


Originally Posted by BEagle (Post 10084015)
the family complied exactly with the carrier's requirements,

Did the dog carrier fit under the seat? If it didn't, then it goes in the cargo hold. Those are the rules.

Carbon Bootprint 14th Mar 2018 23:36


The lawyer for the man who was dragged off a United Airlines flight says family of the dog should be “significantly compensated,” for the tragic death of the pet.
It wouldn't surprise me if Tom Demetrio (conveniently located in Chicago) has based his entire career on suing only United. He probably sees no need to look elsewhere -- as they say, "it's a fertile field to plow." :rolleyes:

BEagle 14th Mar 2018 23:43

Zombywoof, yet again I suggest that you read the full facts.

This was a TSA-compliant pet carrier which would have fitted under the seat.

From ABC13:

The seven-year-old daughter of the woman whose French bulldog died after being forced into an overhead bin by a United Airlines flight attendant is speaking out, saying the United employee lied about what happened during the tragic flight.

“While we were flying, the dog started barking and barking and there was no flight attendants coming. We couldn't stand up because there was a lot of turbulence so we weren't allowed to," Sophia Ceballos, speaking on behalf of her mother, Catalina Robledo, told ABC 13.

Ceballos said that attempts to inform the flight attendant of the severity of the situation during the four-hour flight from Houston’s Bush Intercontinental Airport to New York’s LaGuardia Airport were unsuccessful.

“She said, 'Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know it was a dog. I thought it was a normal bag.' But we told her it was a dog, she's lying,” the teary-eyed girl says in video footage obtained by the outlet.

Zombywoof 14th Mar 2018 23:48


Originally Posted by BEagle (Post 10084031)
Zombywoof, yet again I suggest that you read the full facts.

You'll excuse me if I don't accept the word of a seven year old with a vested interest as "the facts".

BEagle 14th Mar 2018 23:53

How about the words of another witness:


Passenger Maggie Gremminger told The New York Times:

“The pet owner was very adamant that she did not want to put the pet carrier up above,” Gremminger said. “She was saying verbally, ‘My dog is in here, no, this is my dog.’ The flight attendant, in response, really just continued to ask her to put it above because it was a hazard where it was, it was a safety emergency, someone could trip.”

Gremminger said that she and her fellow travelers were horrified to learn the animal had died later in the trip, according to People.

“A stranger offered to hold her newborn while she sat on the floor, there in the airplane aisle. She was holding her dog and rocking back and forth. Her daughter was also crying,” she told the publication about the scene following the discovery.

Gremminger further divulged that once Kokito was found dead, the flight attendant became "frazzled" and insisted she did not know there was a live animal in the carrier.

"I want to help this woman and her daughter. They lost their dog because of a United flight attendant. My heart is broken,” she wrote on Twitter, sharing a photo of the family.

"She said, 'Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know it was a dog. I thought it was a normal bag.' But we told her it was a dog, she's lying.”
Also see: United flight attendant who forced dog into overhead bin 'lying,' owner's daughter says | Fox News

Don't you have any compassion for this family and their much-loved French Bulldog puppy?

Zombywoof 15th Mar 2018 00:00


Originally Posted by BEagle (Post 10084038)
How about the words of another witness:

Your witness verifies the dog was not under the seat.

Was this flight underway or on the ground? If it's on the ground, then the correct action is to present the ultimatum, "the dog goes under the seat or you don't fly".

If it's underway and they have put the dog in the aisle because it was barking, then the correct action is, "I'm sorry but the dog has to go back under the seat".

Zombywoof 15th Mar 2018 00:05


Originally Posted by BEagle (Post 10084038)
Don't you have any compassion for this family and their much-loved French Bulldog puppy?

Of course I do. I also have compassion for the FA who is being hung out to dry. How do you know it's not the family who is lying, not the FA?

BEagle 15th Mar 2018 00:10

The FA deserves no sympathy whatsoever. As witnesses have stated, she was told that the carrier held the dog, but insisted that the carrier went into the overhead locker. Quite how anyone can be so dim-witted is beyond me.

Nevertheless, United have admitted that they were wrong, so it will now be a matter for the lawyers to secure the best possible compensation for the grieving family. I hope that they will soon have another French Bulldog to cherish, but it will be a long time before they will be able to overcome their grief over this shocking event.

tdracer 15th Mar 2018 00:40


Originally Posted by Zombywoof (Post 10084046)
Of course I do. I also have compassion for the FA who is being hung out to dry. How do you know it's not the family who is lying, not the FA?

So, the family is lying, the witnesses are lying, everyone is lying except the FA? :ugh: Far more likely the FA didn't think things through, was caught out by the tragic outcome, and is trying to cover her behind.
There are standard dimensions for items intended to fit under the seat (such as pet carriers)- however sometimes the airlines install extra equipment under some seats (IFE is common) and compliant items won't fit. Assuming the reports are correct that this was a compliant pet carrier, but it wouldn't fit under the seat in front (presumably because there was some extra equipment installed there), the FA responsibility is to find a seat that it will fit and rearrange passengers as required. It's no different than the person sitting in exit row seat that isn't willing or able to accept the responsibilities that go with that.
If an airline charged a fee to carry a dog in an on-board pet carrier, they are contractually obligated to do so, and do so without endangering the welfare of the dog.

PaxBritannica 15th Mar 2018 00:41

UA's specification for pet carriers says:


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.
This picture of the dog carrier in question looks the right size to me.

https://cdn.mamamia.com.au/wp/wp-con...-on-flight.jpg

If it didn't fit, there's presumably something wrong with UA's measurements. Or is the 'fits under the seat' assessment left to individual FAs as a judgement call?

I can see that this bag looks similar to normal luggage, but surely FAs are given some instruction on what pet carriers look like?

b1lanc 15th Mar 2018 00:42

Meanwhile,
 
UAL sends a 10 year old German Shepherd headed to KC to Japan instead and swaps that with a Great Dane that was supposed to go to Japan.

And now the DoT is launching an investigation into the death of the puppy.

megan 15th Mar 2018 01:08


The family deserves the bulk of the sympathy
Absolutely no sympathy at all, given the breed of dog, and place absolutely no blame at the feet of the unfortunate FA embroiled in the aftermath. Sympathy aplenty for the unfortunate animal being owned by people who have no understanding of the breed or its proclivities.

Banned by Many Airlines, These Bulldogs Fly Private - The New York Times


Airlines have always had varying restrictions on animal travel. There are a few carriers, like Alaska Airlines, Frontier Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines and Sun Country, that still allow brachycephalic breeds to fly in cargo. And most animals are generally allowed to fly in the passenger cabin if they weigh less than 20 pounds, as some French bulldogs and many pugs do.

But the clear trend among commercial airlines is toward an outright ban on brachycephalic breeds.

American Airlines banned brachycephalic breeds of dogs and cats shortly after four bulldogs died on its planes in a three-month period in 2010. Delta stopped accepting French, English and American bulldogs this year, after three bulldogs died from January to March.

United and Continental Airlines, which had two bulldogs die in their care this spring, banned brachycephalic dog breeds from flying during the summer, lifting the restriction on Sept. 16, when temperatures began to drop.

According to the federal Agriculture Department, 189 animals died on commercial flights from June 2005 to June 2011; of those animals, 98 — more than half — were brachycephalic breeds.

The breeds, which also include Persian and Himalayan cats, have smaller openings to their noses and elongated soft palates on the roofs of their mouths, which make breathing more difficult for them, veterinarians said. Those breathing problems can be magnified in stressful situations like air travel, and further exacerbated in extreme heat.

The airlines’ growing no-fly lists have set off a debate between pet owners and veterinarians about whether these dogs should fly at all.

Some veterinarians who have operated on the dogs to open up their nasal passages said that surgery could help somewhat with breathing and perhaps make flying safer. Other veterinarians refuse to sign medical paperwork allowing the dogs to fly in cargo.
The reason they are banned is because of the difficulty they have breathing. A 8,000 foot cabin altitude is sure going to help in that regard.

Zombywoof 15th Mar 2018 01:41


Originally Posted by BEagle (Post 10084051)
The FA deserves no sympathy whatsoever.

Ok. Imagine you are the FA. The flight is underway. There is a dog in the aisle. You are responsible for keeping that aisle unobstructed. The people put the dog in the aisle because it was barking when under the seat. (I have some doubts about this story, but anyway...).

So if you make them put the dog back under the seat, which is your duty, the dog will bark and drive everyone nuts. What will you do? That dog has to be removed from the aisle. How will you solve this?

Obviously putting the dog in the overhead bin is unacceptable. You wouldn't do it, I wouldn't do it, and it's hard to believe anyone would do it.

If the flight is still on the ground prior to departure, it's a whole different ball of wax. Again, you are the FA. The dog is in the aisle, and it has to be removed. The people resist. Do you call security and have a mother with two kids removed? Do you try to come up with a way to allow them to stay?

No matter how you slice it, putting the dog in the bin is ridiculous. Nobody is arguing that point. I'm just saying, whether in the air or on the ground, the FA was in a sticky situation. Sometimes under pressure people make bad decisions.

There was another bad decision made here.... the decision of the owner to leave the dog in the bin. If it's me, I'm taking that dog out of there the minute the FA leaves, and if I get any more static about it I'm holding that dog tight and asking for the Capt.

This lady did nothing. Yet she wears a halo while the FA wears devil horns.

tdracer 15th Mar 2018 01:44

Megan
The question you're avoiding is:
Would the dog have died if it hadn't been placed in a minimally ventilation overhead? Something the FA improperly and in violation of the rules of carriage forced the woman to do?
Ok, the dog breed in question doesn't breath very well - something that placing it sealed inside a minimally ventilated overhead almost certainly made considerably worse.
BTW, just returned from a ski vacation in Breckenridge - altitude 9,600 ft. Pet dogs are very common there - and I saw a couple bulldogs during our visit.


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:04.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.