Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UA has really suffered in the PR dept. Didn't they drag off a passenger last year that went viral? And now this?

Yes, but it doesn't matter. United will be fine. Congress has allowed there to be only THREE major airlines in America. There's not enough competition for a terrible company like United to be forced to improve.

The airline industry was deregulated in the 1970s. What law allows there to be only 3 airlines? Southwest, which transported more passengers than United last year (but fewer than American and Delta) would beg to differ.

I said major. Recently there were 6. Now there are 3. That hurts consumers.

Sorry, I don't understand how you can get a dog and not know what you're getting into. Your breed, its limitations, issues faced when traveling, and going above and beyond to make sure you go in fully informed. It's your animal, and you can't expect the world to accommodate you or know your animal and its tolerances.

That seems to be a problem with a lot of pet ownership these days - people want a dog as a status symbol, for companionship, because they think they're "fun" or cute or whatever. They jump into it with such negligent ignorance on the responsibility. You can't expect others to care/know more about your dog than you do.

Anonymous wrote:United has gone out of its way to make itself more accommodating of people who want to travel with their pets than pretty much any other airline. You have to wonder if incidents like this will make them rethink their policies on this and make them more restrictive.

My husband receives many points on United due to business travel. So, we are stuck using them for personal.
I can’t imagine how aweful and traumatized for life that poor family is. Not to mention the others who were on that plane. I do know people consider their animals part of the family.

I find it rare to experience a flight attendant who is having a good day. I like to politely ask a rude flight attendant their name and write it down in front of them. You could also ask them to remind you of the flight number. The thought that someone would put in a complaint about them gets their attention.
As a side, I am highly allergic to dogs and cats and traveling can be torture for me (there are NO hyperallergnic dogs or cats). I have NO rights and, on a good day they will let me move from my seat in the front of the plane to the back. Yea, that’s more than annoying.
I think pets traveling on planes has gone too far. As mentioned, owners are responsible and the reality is they give up their rights when they board a plane. All things considered, I don’t think it’s right or safe to bring your beloved pet on a plane. Wouldn’t it be better, for everyone, if you had a friend or a professional take care of your pet while you travel? This excludes REAL service dogs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UA has really suffered in the PR dept. Didn't they drag off a passenger last year that went viral? And now this?

Yes, but it doesn't matter. United will be fine. Congress has allowed there to be only THREE major airlines in America. There's not enough competition for a terrible company like United to be forced to improve.

The airline industry was deregulated in the 1970s. What law allows there to be only 3 airlines? Southwest, which transported more passengers than United last year (but fewer than American and Delta) would beg to differ.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:United just lost my business. What monsters.

Many on DCUM claimed they'd never fly United again after their Dr. Dao dragging incident last year. I checked United's numbers for the following 2 quarters and both revenus and numbers of passengers were up. People only care about the lowest price.

Yup

Anonymous wrote:United just lost my business. What monsters.

Many on DCUM claimed they'd never fly United again after their Dr. Dao dragging incident last year. I checked United's numbers for the following 2 quarters and both revenus and numbers of passengers were up. People only care about the lowest price.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh – it’s a dog, whatever. Maybe stop bringing your effing “emotional support” animals everywhere.

I work at UMD and have a student who served YOU in Afghanistan, went through horrors, came back with a Purple Heart and a therapy dog who goes to class with him, and everywhere else.

Did you know therapy cats comfort the elderly in nursing homes, and patients in chemotherapy lounges?

Educate yourself.

Right I’m sure that was the case here. Not done entitled b—— who wanted her dog on vacation with her. Whatever. Buy a new one and leave it home.

She paid for the dog to have a ticket, per the airlines guidelines and standards. They took her money = they should provide the proper service she paid for.

If they can't handle animals, they shouldh have a no animals policy, point blank period.

My response was in your sarcastic use of "emotional support" animals. You seem to think they don't serve a legitimate purpose--they do. But that is beside the point of this story.

Anonymous wrote:UA has really suffered in the PR dept. Didn't they drag off a passenger last year that went viral? And now this?

Yes, but it doesn't matter. United will be fine. Congress has allowed there to be only THREE major airlines in America. There's not enough competition for a terrible company like United to be forced to improve.

Anonymous wrote:Well the flight attendant should be fired. However, people really should not fly with brachycephalic dogs at all. Their shortened snouts cause all sorts of breathing problems and there’s a reason why many airlines don’t allow them to fly in cargo anymore. Flying in the cabin is safer but really, just leave them home.

+1

PP here. Agree with this. Much safer to leave animals home, where they are happy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Supposedly the flight attendant said she thought the carrier didn’t have an animal in it.

Then why did she reassure the passenger that the dog would be safe up there? And did she think itt was the empty carrier that was barking and whining? So sad.

+1

If the flight attendants don't want to deal with animals, the airline should have a "no animals" policy, across the board. Deliberately killing an animal is not the answer. Of course the airline is guilty, and of course the airline reps will deny the crime they obviously committed - in front of several credible witnesses (the airline passengers are not partners in crime, they are strangers).

UA has really suffered in the PR dept. Didn't they drag off a passenger last year that went viral? And now this?

Anonymous wrote:Flight attendant is a moron and a liar.

That is quite evident, despite all the sticklers who like to argue for the sake of arguing.

Legally, the airline is completely at fault.

Ethically, the dog-owner shares a small portion of the blame, because brachycephalic breeds really shouldn't fly and there was always the option of refusing to board in these conditions.

There is no training or diploma required to become a dog-owner or parent, unfortunately.

United has gone out of its way to make itself more accommodating of people who want to travel with their pets than pretty much any other airline. You have to wonder if incidents like this will make them rethink their policies on this and make them more restrictive.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

After-the-fact narratives when everyone wants to avoid looking complicit are not necessarily reliable. I'm open to the possibility that the FA did know, but I don't think we have enough evidence yet to draw firm conclusions on that.