Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dogs should not be traveling in the cabin. I am very allergic and I could die.

I agree completely. Human health should come before animal welfare, important though that is.

Then find yourself a dog free airline.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Ikr...The US is the only culture which has fetishize dogs to this extent. I cant imagine if someone in any other country brings a dog with them wherever they go and tells someone, "I need my dog for emotional support." People would just laugh in their face. It's ok if the dog is a guide dog or a real service animal (like for epileptics) but this whole emotional support business is getting out of hand.

+1. I believe that they have emotional problems but a dog isn't going to solve it.

+10000

Seriously, this. An animal is not a child's security blanket, and you can't just bring it with you wherever you go. You're not a champion for animal's rights that you think you are, if you think it's ok to just bring your pets on planes.

Leave your animal at home. It'll be fine without the stress of travel. Your emotional problems aren't going to be solved by bringing your pet with you everywhere.

Hey genius, some people have to move, and they can't necessarily drive to their destination.

I can say the same thing about your annoying toddler.

You could, but then you'd be equating a human being with an animal, and you'd out yourself as not so bright. But, go ahead.

+1

Also, isn't this site called DC Urban Moms and Dads? I'm sure you can find a site for dog enthusiasts somewhere if you want people to agree with you.

The point is that your toddler (and humans) in general can be just as disruptive and gross as animals.

Sorry but unless you own an airline, it's not your call to ban dogs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dogs should not be traveling in the cabin. I am very allergic and I could die.

If you have such a severe allergy, maybe you're the one who shouldn't be traveling in a confined space.

I never understand why some people place the life of a person over the convenience/happiness of another person. An allergic person should not have to choose between not flying because of a dog or their life. Ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:Dogs should not be traveling in the cabin. I am very allergic and I could die.

I agree completely. Human health should come before animal welfare, important though that is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Huh? United has the highest rate of pet deaths on flights.

United generally sucks, we stopped flying them several years ago, their entire corporate culture is a disaster.

Yup. Their fatality rate is 2%, despite all their "accommodations."

This number is a bit deceptive. United has the most accommodating policies, so a lot of pet owners who are refused by other airlines because those airlines don't feel they can safely carry the pet end up flying United instead. Since United accommodates more of these borderline cases, naturally it has more adverse incidents.

I disagree with that. United requires a specific health check for travel within ~11 days from flight. You can't sneak your unhealthy dog in a flight.

The fatality rate is NOT 2% on united. It's 2 per 10,000.

"2.24 for every 10,000 animals transported by U.S. carriers, according to Department of Transportation."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/family-accuses-united-airlines-flight-attendant-knowingly-stuffing/story?id=53732538

Anonymous wrote:Dogs should not be traveling in the cabin. I am very allergic and I could die.

If you have such a severe allergy, maybe you're the one who shouldn't be traveling in a confined space.

For all of the PPs blasting pet owners who fly with their dogs, let's take a step back. Do we actually know why this woman was traveling with her kids and her dog? Sometimes you really have no choice but to bring your dog with you.

I have 2 French bulldogs and they have each flown once because we had no other options. When we moved across the country, we had only 1 dog then, and he stayed in a soft-sided pet carrier under the seat in the cabin. The second time, we had to fly last minute due to a family emergency. We put the older dog in a kennel but our new puppy was too young to be boarded (no kennel would take her) and we couldn't find anyone to pet sit at the last minute, so she had to come with us. Again, she stayed in the carrier under the seat without any problems. Both times my dogs met the airline requirements, we paid the fee, and there were no problems.

Are there people who try to take their dogs everywhere? Absolutely. But many pet owners aren't like that. And just because you see a dog or cat on a plane doesn't mean the owner is the former.

Dogs should not be traveling in the cabin. I am very allergic and I could die.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would have walked off the plane before allowing my dog to go into an overhead bin. Common sense says there is not enough air for a puppy to breathe there.

+1
The woman should have declined to fly.

It was mid flight, dummies. Good luck walking off.

The articles I read the dog spent the entire flight in the overhead compartment, which tends to suggest that it was put up there prior to take-off, not mid-flight.

But since the articles vary significantly in the details depending on which passengers the reporter spoke to, they're all a bit suspect.

The article I just read suggest that the dog actually died mid-flight but was not discovered dead until the end of the flight. Apparently a lot of passengers witnessed the whole thing, including the owner trying to revive the dog, and it was very upsetting to a lot of people. Other passengers witnessed the FA put the dog in the overhead as the owner protested but they had no idea that there was no ventilation up there. Otherwise, the other passengers would have gotten the dog out of the overhead even if the owner hadn't.

Really a sad situation. I hope the FA is fired.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t like flying with dogs on board then DONT FLY. You dog haters can take the bus or walk. It is our right to fly with dogs, thanks to the airlines policies. And it is our right to persecute and ostracize vicious flight attendants line the one that killed the dog

Well, if any good comes out of it perhaps the airlines unreasonably liberal policy of allowing animals to travel in the cabins of planes will change and only legitimate service dogs will be allowed.

Idiot dog owners who fancy themselves Paris Hilton are the worst kind of pet owners.

Non service dogs do not belong on CONUS airplanes. Period.

I flew across the country recently and there was a GIANT St. Bernard who was an "emotional support dog." he took up all the space between the front row of coach and the wall, I don't think he could have fit anywhere else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Huh? United has the highest rate of pet deaths on flights.

United generally sucks, we stopped flying them several years ago, their entire corporate culture is a disaster.

Yup. Their fatality rate is 2%, despite all their "accommodations."

This number is a bit deceptive. United has the most accommodating policies, so a lot of pet owners who are refused by other airlines because those airlines don't feel they can safely carry the pet end up flying United instead. Since United accommodates more of these borderline cases, naturally it has more adverse incidents.

Anonymous wrote:Those people were morons. There is no way in hell I would have done that. They could have arrested me instead for not obeying if it was mid flight. And id it was not mid-flight I would have walked off.

I would be more than happy to speak to the authorities on the ground about the criminal flight attendants' intentions to inflict harm on an animal.

Those people were morons. There is no way in hell I would have done that. They could have arrested me instead for not obeying if it was mid flight. And id it was not mid-flight I would have walked off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t like flying with dogs on board then DONT FLY. You dog haters can take the bus or walk. It is our right to fly with dogs, thanks to the airlines policies. And it is our right to persecute and ostracize vicious flight attendants line the one that killed the dog

Well, if any good comes out of it perhaps the airlines unreasonably liberal policy of allowing animals to travel in the cabins of planes will change and only legitimate service dogs will be allowed.

Idiot dog owners who fancy themselves Paris Hilton are the worst kind of pet owners.

Non service dogs do not belong on CONUS airplanes. Period.

People who don’t realize that people who move bring their pets are probably too stupid to fly as well.