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

Forum Index » Pets

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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.  [/quote]

If you're talking about the irresponsible owner, I agree. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics