United forces woman to put puppy in overhead bid, where it dies during flight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a terrible story and I feel for those who saw a dead puppy as they deplaned, owners included. I say this as someone who doesn't like dogs.

However, I can't help but think the current of culture of "I'll take my pet everywhere with me and invoke the law to sue you if you challenge me, be damned!" contributed to the flight attendant's thought process that resulted the dog's placement in the overhead bin. I imagine that air stewards are fed up with passengers who think the rules apply to everyone except them. I work in an industry that utilizes similar protocols as aviation (healthcare), and I can attest that visitors and patients toe the line between acceptable and non-acceptable use of animals in healthcare environments.

Pretty much anyone can claim their pet is a "support animal" nowadays, and depending on where and how they do it, they can get away with it without having to produce documentation or proof beyond the stupid vest they bought on Amazon or bogus certificate they procured on the internet.

The flight attendant made an error in judgment by asking the family to place the dog in the overhead compartment and is going to have to live with the professional and personal repercussions, even if they are needlessly severe and invasive. I'm interested in learning more about the circumstances led to that even happening.

Her incompetence and actions led directly to the death of an innocent animal. She has totally earned any professional repercussions that she gets. if she is found to have been deliberately cruel, she should face criminal charges, too.

If you're talking about the irresponsible owner, I agree.

The owner actually followed airline procedure. It was the airline employee who effed up and caused the death of an innocent animal and is now apparently lying about the extent of her involvement.....shameful.

Where is your evidence that the the airline employee is "lying?" You're hearing one extremely biased account. An no, the owner wasn't following airline procedure, if the carrier was blocking the aisle.

If the carrier was blocking the aisle then it either needed to go under the seat as required OR the owner should have been asked to disembark. Putting the dog into an airless compartment was not the proper solution. I'm guessing that the owner wasn't happy about it but had no idea that her dog's life was in danger being stowed up there. The flight attendant on the other hand absolutely should have been aware that stowing a pet up there was not a safe thing to do.

Why does a flight attendant have more responsibility and insight than the dog's owner? The owner should have gotten off the plane instead of agreeing to the move. Your animal, your choice, your responsibility.

Because the FA knows all the airlines policies and procedures, and knows what is safe and what isn't. The FA flies on an airplane all day. The passenger doesn't. If the FA said it's safe to put the dog in the overhead, then it should be safe -- after all, the FA flies all day and should know what is safe or not right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a terrible story and I feel for those who saw a dead puppy as they deplaned, owners included. I say this as someone who doesn't like dogs.

However, I can't help but think the current of culture of "I'll take my pet everywhere with me and invoke the law to sue you if you challenge me, be damned!" contributed to the flight attendant's thought process that resulted the dog's placement in the overhead bin. I imagine that air stewards are fed up with passengers who think the rules apply to everyone except them. I work in an industry that utilizes similar protocols as aviation (healthcare), and I can attest that visitors and patients toe the line between acceptable and non-acceptable use of animals in healthcare environments.

Pretty much anyone can claim their pet is a "support animal" nowadays, and depending on where and how they do it, they can get away with it without having to produce documentation or proof beyond the stupid vest they bought on Amazon or bogus certificate they procured on the internet.

The flight attendant made an error in judgment by asking the family to place the dog in the overhead compartment and is going to have to live with the professional and personal repercussions, even if they are needlessly severe and invasive. I'm interested in learning more about the circumstances led to that even happening.

Her incompetence and actions led directly to the death of an innocent animal. She has totally earned any professional repercussions that she gets. if she is found to have been deliberately cruel, she should face criminal charges, too.

If you're talking about the irresponsible owner, I agree.

The owner actually followed airline procedure. It was the airline employee who effed up and caused the death of an innocent animal and is now apparently lying about the extent of her involvement.....shameful.

Where is your evidence that the the airline employee is "lying?" You're hearing one extremely biased account. An no, the owner wasn't following airline procedure, if the carrier was blocking the aisle.

If the carrier was blocking the aisle then it either needed to go under the seat as required OR the owner should have been asked to disembark. Putting the dog into an airless compartment was not the proper solution. I'm guessing that the owner wasn't happy about it but had no idea that her dog's life was in danger being stowed up there. The flight attendant on the other hand absolutely should have been aware that stowing a pet up there was not a safe thing to do.

Why does a flight attendant have more responsibility and insight than the dog's owner? The owner should have gotten off the plane instead of agreeing to the move. Your animal, your choice, your responsibility.

Because the FA knows all the airlines policies and procedures, and knows what is safe and what isn't. The FA flies on an airplane all day. The passenger doesn't. If the FA said it's safe to put the dog in the overhead, then it should be safe -- after all, the FA flies all day and should know what is safe or not right?

Except that's not what happened. The flight attended claimed she didn't know an animal was in the carrier, not that "it's perfectly safe."

Even if that was the case, an owner should know their animal's tolerance more than a flight attendant. It's YOUR animal. You make the decisions. If the owner truly felt concern, she should have left the plane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Awful tragedy. Both owner and airline were at fault- the owner should not have allowed her dog to be placed in an overhead bin. She should have had a carrier that fit under a seat. Also, don't know what she was thinking by traveling with an infant in lap, another child and a dog in a crate?
The airline should never have put the dog in the overhead- they should have figured something else out or had them get off the plane. It amazes me that that the baby in the lap is safe but a dog crate sticking out too far isn't. Also, why didn't someone get the dog out after take off? Having the aisles clear during take off and landing is the main issue with having items stick out from under the seats- no one has issue with stuff sticking out during the flight itself.

If the carrier was sticking out into the aisle during the flight, the attendants might have crushed it with the beverage cart.

[Anonymous]

I don’t understand why having the infant meant that she could not check on the dog. Since the dog was making noise, surely she could have asked somebody for help with holding the baby while she checked on the dog. I also don’t understand how they were allowed to bring the carrier onto the plane, but then it did not fit under the seat. The solution would be to put the other bags in the overhead compartment or check the other bags, not cram the dog up into the overhead compartment, for Pete’s sake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a terrible story and I feel for those who saw a dead puppy as they deplaned, owners included. I say this as someone who doesn't like dogs.

However, I can't help but think the current of culture of "I'll take my pet everywhere with me and invoke the law to sue you if you challenge me, be damned!" contributed to the flight attendant's thought process that resulted the dog's placement in the overhead bin. I imagine that air stewards are fed up with passengers who think the rules apply to everyone except them. I work in an industry that utilizes similar protocols as aviation (healthcare), and I can attest that visitors and patients toe the line between acceptable and non-acceptable use of animals in healthcare environments.

Pretty much anyone can claim their pet is a "support animal" nowadays, and depending on where and how they do it, they can get away with it without having to produce documentation or proof beyond the stupid vest they bought on Amazon or bogus certificate they procured on the internet.

The flight attendant made an error in judgment by asking the family to place the dog in the overhead compartment and is going to have to live with the professional and personal repercussions, even if they are needlessly severe and invasive. I'm interested in learning more about the circumstances led to that even happening.

Her incompetence and actions led directly to the death of an innocent animal. She has totally earned any professional repercussions that she gets. if she is found to have been deliberately cruel, she should face criminal charges, too.

If you're talking about the irresponsible owner, I agree.

The owner actually followed airline procedure. It was the airline employee who effed up and caused the death of an innocent animal and is now apparently lying about the extent of her involvement.....shameful.

Where is your evidence that the the airline employee is "lying?" You're hearing one extremely biased account. An no, the owner wasn't following airline procedure, if the carrier was blocking the aisle.

If the carrier was blocking the aisle then it either needed to go under the seat as required OR the owner should have been asked to disembark. Putting the dog into an airless compartment was not the proper solution. I'm guessing that the owner wasn't happy about it but had no idea that her dog's life was in danger being stowed up there. The flight attendant on the other hand absolutely should have been aware that stowing a pet up there was not a safe thing to do.

Why does a flight attendant have more responsibility and insight than the dog's owner? The owner should have gotten off the plane instead of agreeing to the move. Your animal, your choice, your responsibility.

Because the FA knows all the airlines policies and procedures, and knows what is safe and what isn't. The FA flies on an airplane all day. The passenger doesn't. If the FA said it's safe to put the dog in the overhead, then it should be safe -- after all, the FA flies all day and should know what is safe or not right?

Except that's not what happened. The flight attended claimed she didn't know an animal was in the carrier, not that "it's perfectly safe."

Even if that was the case, an owner should know their animal's tolerance more than a flight attendant. It's YOUR animal. You make the decisions. If the owner truly felt concern, she should have left the plane.

The FA is not being truthful. It was obvious to other passengers that there was a dog inside that carrier. The lie just makes the FA look even worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why having the infant meant that she could not check on the dog. Since the dog was making noise, surely she could have asked somebody for help with holding the baby while she checked on the dog. I also don’t understand how they were allowed to bring the carrier onto the plane, but then it did not fit under the seat. The solution would be to put the other bags in the overhead compartment or check the other bags, not cram the dog up into the overhead compartment, for Pete’s sake.

They paid the dog fee so tyipcally the carrier is measured at check-in to ensure it fits under the seat. I wonder if they were in a bulkhead row with no under-seat storage -- though people with a pet are not supposed to be booked into bulkhead or exit row for that reason. Airline's fault -- can't expect the passenger to know all these particular rules (or even what a bulkhead is).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interview with the owner just came out

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dog-owner-united-disregarded-pet-barks-article-1.3873638

Dog owner says United disregarded her pet’s barks for help before it died in overhead bin

From the interview:

Robledo tearfully recalled not being able to check on her dog, because her newborn was on her lap.

News Wire Services
Robledo tearfully recalled not being able to check on her dog, because her newborn was on her lap.
(WNJU)
A mother of two was forced to watch her French bulldog get stuffed into the overhead compartment of a United Airlines flight, begging a hostess not to put the ill-fated pooch up there.

Catalina Robledo helplessly listened to the dog, Kokito, yelp before eventually dying aboard the Houston-to-New York flight Monday, she told Telemundo.

“The dog barked and barked but I could not stand,” because her newborn baby was on her lap and the plane was going through turbulence, Robledo said in Spanish.

The flight crew, she continued, did nothing as Kokito barked.

Dog dies after being stored overhead during United flight

Kokito was reportedly in a dog carrier that the flight crew said was blocking the aisle, so a stewardess put the case in the overhead storage bin.

Robledo and people sitting nearby tried to explain there was a dog inside, passengers said.

She wasn’t able to get to Kokito until four hours later as the plane arrived at LaGuardia Airport.

Comparisons.org
Paid content by Comparisons.org

New Rule in Mclean, VA

“I grabbed him on the floor and said: ‘Kokito breathe, breathe,’” she told Telemundo in Spanish. “But he was already dead.”

The stewardess claimed she didn’t know there was a dog inside the carrier, Robledo said, and left the plane crying.

Why did she travel with the dog?

I don't think it matters why she traveled with the dog. She paid the ticket. I can't understand how the stewardess didn't know there wasn't a dog in the dog carrier. Clearly it's a lie and it makes me question everything else she says or will say. My heart breaks for this family- to see a dead puppy like that is awful. I accidentally saw that image and I can't un-see it anymore.

[Anonymous]

It sounds like the passenger had a lap baby and a dog. How did she expect to manage both within the confines of one small seat? I put most of the blame on the dog owner. The dog should've gone into the cargo area with the rest of the animals.

Maybe this incident will put a stop to having non-service animals on planes. If I were United, I would pay off the woman and then ban all non-service dogs from the main cabin. It's just not worth it. You'll never please entitled dog owners who think their animals should be treated like people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why having the infant meant that she could not check on the dog. Since the dog was making noise, surely she could have asked somebody for help with holding the baby while she checked on the dog. I also don’t understand how they were allowed to bring the carrier onto the plane, but then it did not fit under the seat. The solution would be to put the other bags in the overhead compartment or check the other bags, not cram the dog up into the overhead compartment, for Pete’s sake.

They had the dog in a soft-sided carrier, which United says should be no bigger than 18"x11"x11", but can be slightly bigger if they are collapsible and can be made to fit under the seat without blocking the aisle. It's up to the owner to confirm that they will be able to fit their soft-sided carrier into this space while still allowing their dog to stand up and turn around comfortably. So it may be that they had a carrier that was compliant because it could be collapsed down to size, but the dog might have been too big/active to allow this in practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like the passenger had a lap baby and a dog. How did she expect to manage both within the confines of one small seat? I put most of the blame on the dog owner. The dog should've gone into the cargo area with the rest of the animals.

That type of dog is not allowed to go into the cargo hold due to breathing issues. I forget the term, but their snout is shaped in a way that it's easy for them to run out of air -- which likely contributed to their death in the overhead bin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why having the infant meant that she could not check on the dog. Since the dog was making noise, surely she could have asked somebody for help with holding the baby while she checked on the dog. I also don’t understand how they were allowed to bring the carrier onto the plane, but then it did not fit under the seat. The solution would be to put the other bags in the overhead compartment or check the other bags, not cram the dog up into the overhead compartment, for Pete’s sake.

They had the dog in a soft-sided carrier, which United says should be no bigger than 18"x11"x11", but can be slightly bigger if they are collapsible and can be made to fit under the seat without blocking the aisle. It's up to the owner to confirm that they will be able to fit their soft-sided carrier into this space while still allowing their dog to stand up and turn around comfortably. So it may be that they had a carrier that was compliant because it could be collapsed down to size, but the dog might have been too big/active to allow this in practice.

Again, these are airline rules. Maybe the owner had never been on a plane with that carrier and just assumed that it would be o.k. because the airline checked it and approved it.

Regardless, the dog should not have been placed in an airless compartment like that. I think that there are even warning stickers inside those compartments, but I may be mistaken. It's been a while since I've flown.

[Anonymous]

Flight attendant is a moron and a liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a terrible story and I feel for those who saw a dead puppy as they deplaned, owners included. I say this as someone who doesn't like dogs.

However, I can't help but think the current of culture of "I'll take my pet everywhere with me and invoke the law to sue you if you challenge me, be damned!" contributed to the flight attendant's thought process that resulted the dog's placement in the overhead bin. I imagine that air stewards are fed up with passengers who think the rules apply to everyone except them. I work in an industry that utilizes similar protocols as aviation (healthcare), and I can attest that visitors and patients toe the line between acceptable and non-acceptable use of animals in healthcare environments.

Pretty much anyone can claim their pet is a "support animal" nowadays, and depending on where and how they do it, they can get away with it without having to produce documentation or proof beyond the stupid vest they bought on Amazon or bogus certificate they procured on the internet.

The flight attendant made an error in judgment by asking the family to place the dog in the overhead compartment and is going to have to live with the professional and personal repercussions, even if they are needlessly severe and invasive. I'm interested in learning more about the circumstances led to that even happening.

Her incompetence and actions led directly to the death of an innocent animal. She has totally earned any professional repercussions that she gets. if she is found to have been deliberately cruel, she should face criminal charges, too.

If you're talking about the irresponsible owner, I agree.

The owner actually followed airline procedure. It was the airline employee who effed up and caused the death of an innocent animal and is now apparently lying about the extent of her involvement.....shameful.

Where is your evidence that the the airline employee is "lying?" You're hearing one extremely biased account. An no, the owner wasn't following airline procedure, if the carrier was blocking the aisle.

If the carrier was blocking the aisle then it either needed to go under the seat as required OR the owner should have been asked to disembark. Putting the dog into an airless compartment was not the proper solution. I'm guessing that the owner wasn't happy about it but had no idea that her dog's life was in danger being stowed up there. The flight attendant on the other hand absolutely should have been aware that stowing a pet up there was not a safe thing to do.

Who would look at a small dog in a soft carrier with no structural support wedged in between people's roll-on suitcases and not realize there was a risk the animal would be injured/killed if it got crushed between the bags during turbulence. The daughter admitted that the people behind them told the family they shouldn't let the dog be put up there because it wasn't safe.

I think it's plausible the FA didn't know it was a dog because I suspect FAs routinely deal with people who protest having their bags put overhead, gate checked, etc., because there's something special about them that means they shouldn't have to follow the rules, and over time some of them may come to simply tune out the protests and focus on getting the plane ready to do go. This isn't okay because there may occasionally be someone with a truly legitimate concern, but I can absolutely see where the daughter might have been saying it's a dog, the FA isn't paying attention to her because she's a kid and there are two other passengers asking her for things at the same time plus whatever task brought her through there to begin with. This would be compounded by the fact that mom apparently doesn't speak much English and the daughter was speaking for her, so when the FA didn't hear the adult object, she assumed it was fine and moved on. So yeah, small lapses to address, but not some malicious action on the part of the FA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think it's plausible the FA didn't know it was a dog because I suspect FAs routinely deal with people who protest having their bags put overhead, gate checked, etc., because there's something special about them that means they shouldn't have to follow the rules, and over time some of them may come to simply tune out the protests and focus on getting the plane ready to do go. This isn't okay because there may occasionally be someone with a truly legitimate concern, but I can absolutely see where the daughter might have been saying it's a dog, the FA isn't paying attention to her because she's a kid and there are two other passengers asking her for things at the same time plus whatever task brought her through there to begin with. This would be compounded by the fact that mom apparently doesn't speak much English and the daughter was speaking for her, so when the FA didn't hear the adult object, she assumed it was fine and moved on. So yeah, small lapses to address, but not some malicious action on the part of the FA.

According to the accounts from others on the plane, multiple passengers told the FA a dog was in there when the FA tried to put it up in the bin.

[Anonymous]

United just lost my business. What monsters.