Anonymous wrote:“The following Brachycephalic breeds and breed mixtures are prohibited from flying in the cargo compartment on Alaska Airlines:

Dogs
American Pit Bull, American Staffordshire Terrier…..

Why are these breeds allowed to fly in the cabin if they are prohibited from flying in the cargo compartment?

Brachycephalic or "short-nosed" breeds are always at a higher risk of respiratory distress as compared to other breeds and careful consideration should be taken when planning travel. Should you choose to travel with these pets on an airplane, it will still be allowed under the continual care of their owner while in cabin.”

https://www.alaskaair.com/content/travel-info/policies/pets-traveling-with-pets/banfield-qa#breeds-allowed-cabin

Pitbulls are probably banned from cargo because the airlines don't want them attacking ground crew if they are agitated without their owners around.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.

Take your xanax and handle it. You have a phobia. That doesn't make a dog breed a credible threat.

Besides, this isn't even the reality being described. The dog was fine. Sorry you're not. Get help, if needed.

Don't fly with you dang pitbulls

Anonymous wrote:This nearly identical post was posted in July. I think op is just a troll. https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1215401.page

Or pitbulls on planes happen WAY more frequently than they should

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once a dog starts barking in the gate or on the flight, the owner has been outed as a fraud. Airlines need to be more punitive in banning that person from ever flying with an animal again. There needs to be some limits.

Service dogs can still bark, especially in a new situation. Dogs are allowed on planes. Its may be new and scarry to them.

Real service dogs don't make a sound unless it is part of their training to help the person with a disability

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually the dog has to fit in a carrier under the seat.

https://www.alaskaair.com/content/travel-info/policies/pets-traveling-with-pets/pets-in-cabin

Exactly. Sounds like the OP is lying.

Why would I be lying about this?? I was shocked. I'm actually going to lodge a complaint with Alaska today.

By all means, please do so. If the airline infringed its own rules, you have to complain, so they can retrain their staff.
It's very important.

But because you inserted the name of the breed, instead of just saying this dog was not in a carrier and seemed too large for the weight limit... you come across as a crazy anti-pitbull person, and you lose crediblity.

So next time, when you want to complain, only complain about actually disallowed things: weight, carrier. The breed is immaterial.

Whatever. I'd rather have a beagle sitting next to me.

You lose credibility when you embrace fear-mongering tactics. I foster dogs. The beagles were all very vocal! The pit mixes I fostered were sweet and docile. So after those experiences, I cannot say I'd rather have a beagle next to me!

The rules are there for a reason, so everyone can be treated the same and not impede other people's enjoyment of the flight. You don't need to look like an ignorant moron and whine that it's a pitbull. That won't get you anywhere. You CAN, and SHOULD, speak up if the dog isn't in its carrier or seems too heavy/large for the regulations.

How many beagles have killed children? I can show you reams of articles of pit bulls killing people.

Any dog or person can kill.

Pitbulls almost exclusively hold that honor in the dog world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually the dog has to fit in a carrier under the seat.

https://www.alaskaair.com/content/travel-info/policies/pets-traveling-with-pets/pets-in-cabin

Exactly. Sounds like the OP is lying.

Why would I be lying about this?? I was shocked. I'm actually going to lodge a complaint with Alaska today.

By all means, please do so. If the airline infringed its own rules, you have to complain, so they can retrain their staff.
It's very important.

But because you inserted the name of the breed, instead of just saying this dog was not in a carrier and seemed too large for the weight limit... you come across as a crazy anti-pitbull person, and you lose crediblity.

So next time, when you want to complain, only complain about actually disallowed things: weight, carrier. The breed is immaterial.

The breed is very material. Absolutely no one wants to sit next a pit bull and their low class moron of an owner on a cross country flight. I am very surprised Alaska Airlines allowed the most violent dog on Earth inside the main cabin considering the risk for maulings and extremely expensive litigation.

No, unless the airline has a pitbull restriction.

And no, plenty of people disagree with your assessment that pitbulls are more dangerous than other breeds. This has been discussed ad nauseam on DCUM and elsewhere. Educate yourself.

Educate yourself.

The stats don't lie.

Pitbulls cause the vast majority of dog bit deaths and trauma maulings.

The stats are irrefutable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually the dog has to fit in a carrier under the seat.

https://www.alaskaair.com/content/travel-info/policies/pets-traveling-with-pets/pets-in-cabin

Exactly. Sounds like the OP is lying.

Why would I be lying about this?? I was shocked. I'm actually going to lodge a complaint with Alaska today.

By all means, please do so. If the airline infringed its own rules, you have to complain, so they can retrain their staff.
It's very important.

But because you inserted the name of the breed, instead of just saying this dog was not in a carrier and seemed too large for the weight limit... you come across as a crazy anti-pitbull person, and you lose crediblity.

So next time, when you want to complain, only complain about actually disallowed things: weight, carrier. The breed is immaterial.

Whatever. I'd rather have a beagle sitting next to me.

You lose credibility when you embrace fear-mongering tactics. I foster dogs. The beagles were all very vocal! The pit mixes I fostered were sweet and docile. So after those experiences, I cannot say I'd rather have a beagle next to me!

The rules are there for a reason, so everyone can be treated the same and not impede other people's enjoyment of the flight. You don't need to look like an ignorant moron and whine that it's a pitbull. That won't get you anywhere. You CAN, and SHOULD, speak up if the dog isn't in its carrier or seems too heavy/large for the regulations.

Until the pitbull maims an innocent person

Anonymous wrote:Some service dogs will act normal and are only trained on a specific task. If the dog behaved leave it alone.

Pitbulls are not service dogs.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it was a service dog of some kind.

Pitbulls cannot be service dogs.

Their personalities are incompatible to the job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually the dog has to fit in a carrier under the seat.

https://www.alaskaair.com/content/travel-info/policies/pets-traveling-with-pets/pets-in-cabin

Exactly. Sounds like the OP is lying.

I think she is telling the truth.

Last September I picked up family at Reagan. I was waiting right where the passengers come out of security. For some reason, the plane right before her had a bunch of dogs, close to 10 of them. Most of the dogs seemed well behaved, and either carried lap dogs, or medium sized breeds on short tight leashes.

There was one younger woman who came out with a giant pitbull on a ling retractable leash that stretched almost the width of the corridor. The pitbull was pulling on the leash and using the full extended length, with an owner who seemed disinterested in controlling the beast. There is zero chance this pitbull was a service dog. He was obviously untrained, and not comfortable in the airport, with an owner who lacked the strength to intervene or control it if it did what pitbulls can do.

ALL of the other passengers, including the dog owners, gave this woman and her pitbull a very wide birth, at least 20 feet behind her and beyond the reach of the leash.

The security TSA agent even asked her what the breed was, then shook his head at she flippantly lied with "mixed breed mutt"

The dog was clearly a very large pitbull, too large for the cabin of the plane, and clearly untrained, not a service dog.

How that woman was allowed to bring that pit bull onto a crowded flight full of lap dogs really shocked me. She never should have been allowed to board that flight with that dog.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why do we have a "society" that needs to bring a pit bull on the plane? Someone explain

Why do we have a scare-quotes "society" that feels entitled to judge everyone else's lives instead of just minding your own damned business?

A hole it's everyone who was on the flight's business

Anonymous wrote:why do we have a "society" that needs to bring a pit bull on the plane? Someone explain

Why do we have a scare-quotes "society" that feels entitled to judge everyone else's lives instead of just minding your own damned business?

why do we have a "society" that needs to bring a pit bull on the plane? Someone explain

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a non-issue and I’m not sure why someone bumped such an old thread. Op didn’t even notice, clearly this dog was better behaved than most children (and perhaps adults, especially some of the rabid anti-pit pps!), so I’m not sure why the fuss.

Oh gosh, I didn’t realize this was a NEW thread that was almost identical to a previous one lol. Methinks it’s just the same person who wants to strangle all pits and pit lookalikes starting these constantly.

"Pit bull" is to dogs what "Karen" has become to women: a meaningless epithet tossed off by ignorant people who aren't capable of having a nuanced conversation grounded in any sort of cultural awareness. The sort of person using these terms is often unhinged. The whiter they are, the greater the likelihood of MAGAish affiliations

Hating pit bulls also reeks of racism, as the cultures predominantly stereotyped as having pit bulls are often non-white. Just like "Karen" in its current configuration* is misogynist.

*- this used to have a specific meaning about an out-of-line, overly-entitled white woman, often middle-aged, minding Black folks' business and calling the police to start trouble because she was a racist POS person.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABAHAHAHAHABHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

please don't ever EVER call anyone else unhinged.

(cackling PP uses Karen as a slur against white women, while being a karening white woman)

She's probably the type who thinks she's entitled because she's not white, she's "Italian" or somesuch.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a non-issue and I’m not sure why someone bumped such an old thread. Op didn’t even notice, clearly this dog was better behaved than most children (and perhaps adults, especially some of the rabid anti-pit pps!), so I’m not sure why the fuss.

Oh gosh, I didn’t realize this was a NEW thread that was almost identical to a previous one lol. Methinks it’s just the same person who wants to strangle all pits and pit lookalikes starting these constantly.

"Pit bull" is to dogs what "Karen" has become to women: a meaningless epithet tossed off by ignorant people who aren't capable of having a nuanced conversation grounded in any sort of cultural awareness. The sort of person using these terms is often unhinged. The whiter they are, the greater the likelihood of MAGAish affiliations

Hating pit bulls also reeks of racism, as the cultures predominantly stereotyped as having pit bulls are often non-white. Just like "Karen" in its current configuration* is misogynist.

*- this used to have a specific meaning about an out-of-line, overly-entitled white woman, often middle-aged, minding Black folks' business and calling the police to start trouble because she was a racist POS person.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABAHAHAHAHABHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

please don't ever EVER call anyone else unhinged.

(cackling PP uses Karen as a slur against white women, while being a karening white woman)