http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25333275/

Indeed... UA hiked their in-cabin pet fee a week (or so) ago. For flights starting 18 Aug, the in-cabin fee is $125, up from $100 (which was raised from $85 only a few months ago).

Although I'm one who normally supports add-on fees for extra services (e.g. I have no problem with baggage fees), this is one example where I feel the fee is actually ridiculously large. I wouldn't mind paying a fee, as it's an extra service - the airline does incur some extra liability by transporting the pet - but $125 each way is just a bit ridiculous, especially for in-cabin where the airline incurs only liability and no baggage handling fees (and where the pet is guaranteed to be very small).

Some airlines still charge relatively reasonable prices, but unfortunately UA is the best airline choice for me given where I live and where I fly.

Pets traveling cargo class will also be subject to the same increase — pets traveling as checked baggage in a large or extra large kennel will be charged $500 for a round trip. This is according to UA

Pets traveling cargo class will also be subject to the same increase — pets traveling as checked baggage in a large or extra large kennel will be charged $500 for a round trip. This is according to UAYeah, the large kennel fees are always double what the small kennel and/or in-cabin fees are. Even more ridiculous, I agree...

However, I think that most people who check large kennels are probably either moving (in which case the cost is probably small compared to all the other expenses) or the dog is "professional" (e.g. a dog show, in which case the fee is just a cost of doing business). AFAIK (though this is just an educated guess), the people who take their dogs on vacation (as I do) most likely have small pets and thus would incur only the in-cabin or small/medium kennel fees.

Not that this justifies doubling of the price...

I don't understand the hostility towards in cabin pets or the hostility against bringing pets into "pet friendly" hotels. I've posted about pet friendly hotels in the Hyatt forum and about the fee increase on the CO forum. A lot of the replies I've seen say that the fee is too little, or pets should not be allowed at all. I find a lot of other things more annoying while traveling.

Now, I'm not a "DOG" person, I like to think I'm a normal person who has a dog. I want my dog to go with us on vacation. Why do people have such a problem with that?

I don't understand the hostility towards in cabin pets or the hostility against bringing pets into "pet friendly" hotels.Neither do I, but there has been no such hostility displayed in this particular thread. (Yet.) Furthermore, these fees are not at all a reflection of "hostility," but just a way for the airlines to get additional revenues from people who think the fees are "worth it" to be able to travel with their pet (and/or can't avoid paying the fees, e.g. if they are moving).

So... while there's plenty of hostility around, and I also don't "get it," this thread isn't about such hostility, nor are these fees an example of such, IMHO. Given that, I don't think this thread is really the place to discuss that...

I don't understand the hostility towards in cabin pets or the hostility against bringing pets into "pet friendly" hotels. I've posted about pet friendly hotels in the Hyatt forum and about the fee increase on the CO forum. A lot of the replies I've seen say that the fee is too little, or pets should not be allowed at all. I find a lot of other things more annoying while traveling.

Now, I'm not a "DOG" person, I like to think I'm a normal person who has a dog. I want my dog to go with us on vacation. Why do people have such a problem with that?

I think it comes down to people already hating the flight experience and regarding it as "just one more thing."

A few years ago, we moved cross country and I brought our cat in-cabin for the flight. She was fine... for the first 45 minutes. The other 4 hours, 15 minutes of the flight, she mewed that horrible, pathetic cat cry that displays both her fear and annoyance at the same time. I tried to comfort her, but as pets aren't allowed out of their carriers, there wasn't much I could do. Luckily, there was an empty seat between me and the gentleman on the aisle (I did say it was a few years ago :D) and he was very understanding. But I can see how it would be a huge annoyance for someone and I did feel bad.

Then there is always the allergy problem. We have a friend who comes over to visit and no matter how much I dust and vacuum, his eyes are watering and he's sneezing within 10 minutes. I can imagine being anywhere within 5 or 6 rows of a pet on an airplane with the recycled air would be a nightmare for him.

And, finally, I think there may be a bit of one rotten apple spoiling the barrel going on too. A lot of people resent even the possibility that someone won't follow the rules or control their pet in a confined area. I've seen people take pets out of carriers on flights and even saw one woman have to chase down her dog at one point. I'm not sure of pet-friendly hotels' policies toward disruption, and I've never experienced it, but I'm sure anyone who's had to sleep next door to a barking dog probably didn't enjoy the experience. :)

All that being said, I have to say I think the amount of the fee is grossly out of sync with what it should be. I think the thing I resent the most is that I actually paid $80 for the priveledge of not being allowed my personal item as the pet carrier had to fit under the seat in front of me. I wasn't actually taking any more space or requiring any additional in-flight services, but I had to pay almost a 1/3 (again, few years ago) of a price of the regular fare to fly with that same amount of space.

All that being said, I have to say I think the amount of the fee is grossly out of sync with what it should be. I think the thing I resent the most is that I actually paid $80 for the priveledge of not being allowed my personal item as the pet carrier had to fit under the seat in front of me. I wasn't actually taking any more space or requiring any additional in-flight services, but I had to pay almost a 1/3 (again, few years ago) of a price of the regular fare to fly with that same amount of space.

This is the part that irks me the most. I am not receiving any additional space for my fare or "pet fee." I am certainly not receiving any service, other than the transport of the pet where a carryon would otherwise be. That is wrong.

As regards to the msnbc article, I particularly like the quote from the JetBlue rep: "It's unavoidable." Huh? Yes, the fee is unavoidable for me if I want to fly with my pet. It is not unavoidable for JetBlue. It is just another fee. When I did fly with my 6 1/2 lb. dog, he certainly weighed less in his carrier than many people's personal item, i.e. laptop and case.

I have seen this fee go from $50 o/w to $80 (post-9/11--why was that an excuse?) to now $100. The fee is out of line, IMO.

o2k thanks for the link to that article. ^

There are two points I would like to make.

1) Kudos to the airlines that are giving extra miles/points/free pet travel bonuses to people traveling with their pets. If they are going to chage such a high tariff we should at the very least receive something in return. @:-)

2) These increasing pets fees and all of the other ridiculous fees (checked baggage, etc.) are a poor attempt by the airlines to offset the soaring fuel costs that are killing them. IMHO, they should deal with reality and charge the correct fare that will absorb these fuel increases and not nickel and dime us to death with added fees for pets, checked luggage, changes on flights etc.

IMHO, they should deal with reality and charge the correct fare that will absorb these fuel increases and not nickel and dime us to death with added fees for pets, checked luggage, changes on flights etc.Fees for checked luggage, I can understand... the more bags you bring, the more weight you add to the plane. Fees for checked pets, I can understand, too, for the same reason (as well as to offset the liability that the airline incurs when transporting the animal in the hold), though I agree these are still fairly high.

But fees for in-cabin pets? Sure, it's a bit of extra weight (max of 20 lbs for pet, carrier, and supplies), and therefore some fee is justified. (I wouldn't begin to recommend raising fares to allow free pets, because 99.9% of passengers don't fly with pets - why should they pay for my pet to fly?) My beef is not with the fee, but the ridiculous amount of the fee, given that the airline incurs only minimal liability and essentially no added labor for in-cabin pets.

(Here's the real butt-kicker, though: since your pet counts as your carry-on, if you're not an elite member you have to pay the in-cabin pet fee and the checked bag fee. At the very least, you'd think they'd exempt you from the checked bag fee... and maybe they do, I haven't actually tried, but I doubt it.)

With the fees and fare increases recently we decided to try driving on our next vacation in August. The trips will be about 2,100 miles RT with our dog, I'm guessing it will take a long time with frequent stops. I hate driving long distances, but we're going to give it a shot and save approximately $800 vs flying even with the cost of gas. A $200 pet fee in addition to two $450 tickets each from NY to Chicago (at the times we want) is too much.

Will service animals still be free?

Will service animals still be free?AFAIK, by law, they must be free. IANAL but that's my understanding.

My friend travels with her in-cabin, 4 pound dog once a week from LAX/DEN.
This uptick in pet fares have changed her thinking. She detests these inflated charges. OTOH, I love her little dog and appears I'll be doing a lot more pet-sitting. Fine, as I love her sweetie-pie and he gets along well with my dogs. Win-win for me..not for my friend who would love her dog in the cabin. She thinks the charges are just plain crazy for this little furball.

Pet fees are among the junkiest of junk fees. Consider that I can bring an infant on my lap for free, but it's $100-ish to bring the dog under the seat.

I can see charging something, though, not to compensate the airline for extra service (since there really is none), but to deter the behavior. I think neither the airline nor the flying public wants to have a cabin full of underseat pets, and having a relatively nominal fee helps limit the number of pax who bring the pets along.

I can see charging something, though, not to compensate the airline for extra service (since there really is none), but to deter the behavior.Airlines do incur some extra liability even with in-cabin pets, in that they may have to deal with an allergy attack by another passenger (though pet allergies are rarely on that bad) and they may incur additional cleaning fees (in case of accidents, etc.)... but yes, I agree the fees are well into the unreasonable end now.

Starting yesterday, CO increased the in cabin pet fee to $125 each way / $250 round trip.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=845537

Starting yesterday, CO increased the in cabin pet fee to $125 each way / $250 round trip.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=845537

IMHO this is a poor move and will backfire on the airlines. It is bad enough that the price of tickets are skyrocketing. Now if you are a person that normally travels with your pet, you might think twice about booking your trip due to the overall high price you would have to pay for that flight.

Case in point are the many "snowbirds" that fly with their pets from the Northeast to Florida in the winter months on a weekly basis. They might be forced to cut back on some of that travel.

mke9499 just alerted me that DL has increased their in cabin carryon fee to $150 O/W and $300 R/T.:td:

In addition, they have increased their O/W fee for shipping your pet as [B]checked baggage on all flights to $275 for travel within the United States, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico and $550 for travel outside the United States, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. :td:

IMHO this is outrageous and will be unacceptable to most travelers. More people will make other arrangements for their pets and leave them at home. @:-)

More people will make other arrangements for their pets and leave them at home. @:-)Which, of course, may be DL's primary goal... transporting pets does increase their liability, whether in reality or merely perceived.

Man, if only there were a Pet Airways. The air would always be full of dander, but at least the passengers would be pleasant. ;)

If only all pets were as gracious as yours. We had a chocolate poodle onboard this evening that was not happy. Made himself quite known to the f/c cabin. Glad he eventually stopped, but made sure we all knew he was there on final approach.:D

Which, of course, may be DL's primary goal... transporting pets does increase their liability, whether in reality or merely perceived.

Considering that DL has always allowed pets onboard which includes their international servie as well as the fact that they do a large business shipping animals as cargo leads me to believe otherwise. IMHO this is a case of greed pure and simple. They probably figure that people that always travel with their pets will pay virtually anything to have them fly together. Case in point the snowbirds from the northeast that commute down to FL on a weekly basis in the winter. They always bring their animals with them for those trips. @:-)

Considering that DL has always allowed pets onboard which includes their international servie as well as the fact that they do a large business shipping animals as cargo leads me to believe otherwise. IMHO this is a case of greed pure and simple. They probably figure that people that always travel with their pets will pay virtually anything to have them fly together. Case in point the snowbirds from the northeast that commute down to FL on a weekly basis in the winter. They always bring their animals with them for those trips. @:-)


There is a limit, when competing carriers offer much lower fees for the same service.

Just booked a RT yesterday from FLL to the midwest. RT onboard pet fee on DL was $300; RT fee on FL was $138. Guess which carrier got the booking.

There is a limit, when competing carriers offer much lower fees for the same service.

Just booked a RT yesterday from FLL to the midwest. RT onboard pet fee on DL was $300; RT fee on FL was $138. Guess which carrier got the booking.

Unfortunately I don't fly on FL so my only option with DL is to not take my dog and leave her with friends. :td:

DL's loss and my neighbor's dog who now has a playmate for a few days gain. :)

RSSrsvp, Alaska Airlines has increased their fee for pets in cabin or in baggage to $100 USD each way. I don't know when it took effect, but the sticky post above still states $75.

http://www.alaskaair.com/as/www2/help/faqs/Traveling-With-Pets.asp

RSSrsvp, Alaska Airlines has increased their fee for pets in cabin or in baggage to $100 USD each way. I don't know when it took effect, but the sticky post above still states $75.

http://www.alaskaair.com/as/www2/help/faqs/Traveling-With-Pets.asp

Thanks, I have made the correction in the sticky thread.

Thanks, I have made the correction in the sticky thread.Speaking of which, you should update United's fees on the sticky, as those have gone up (effective Aug 18). IMHO, you should also link to my FT thread about UA pet info, and/or the FlyerGuide wiki article about same (http://flyerguide.com/wiki/index.php/Pets_%28UA%29).

Speaking of which, you should update United's fees on the sticky, as those have gone up (effective Aug 18).The AA entry should also be updated, as their fees are now $100 each way. I'd have posted these in the sticky thread, but it's locked... I would also recommend unlocking it, so that discussion like this can take place in that thread.

The AA entry should also be updated, as their fees are now $100 each way. I'd have posted these in the sticky thread, but it's locked... I would also recommend unlocking it, so that discussion like this can take place in that thread.

Threads like this are the appropriate place for discussing an issue like increased fares. The sticky thread will remain locked based on my experiences in the past with numerous posts cluttering up sticky threads. Please either PM me or post changes/corrections here with the link to the airline fee information and I will update the sticky.

RSSrsvp - Moderator

Speaking of which, you should update United's fees on the sticky, as those have gone up (effective Aug 18). IMHO, you should also link to my FT thread about UA pet info, and/or the FlyerGuide wiki article about same (http://flyerguide.com/wiki/index.php/Pets_%28UA%29).

Thanks, I have made the correction in the sticky thread.

The AA entry should also be updated, as their fees are now $100 each way. I'd have posted these in the sticky thread, but it's locked... I would also recommend unlocking it, so that discussion like this can take place in that thread.

Thanks, I have made the correction in the sticky thread.

The sticky thread will remain locked based on my experiences in the past with numerous posts cluttering up sticky threads.Understood, but no need to shout. ;) :D I'll continue to post on fares as I see changes...

Understood, but no need to shout. ;) :D I'll continue to post on fares as I see changes...

Whenever I sign an official post as a moderator I bold the fonts. Please keep those updates coming. Perhaps we will actually see a consumer savvy airline lower the pet fees and cause a chain reaction in the industry. @:-)

a consumer savvy airlineA what? :p

A what? :p

Sorry, I guess that was a classic example of a oxymoron. :)

Yes, I suspect the fees are designed as a disincentive to travel with your pet.
And yes, there are good reasons to charge for a pet, even if they ARE taking up space that would otherwise be occupied by your feet or your other carry-on.
Liability is a huge cost. A plane is diverted due to a severe allergic reaction. Everyone on board who is delayed demands compensation. The allergy-sufferer -- perhaps a child, perhaps someone who may not have even been aware of their condition before flying in an enclosed space with recirculated air and someone's cat -- spends days in the hospital. Could die. A dog whose owner has let it out of its bag bites or frightens someone -- maybe someone's child. The parent of that child hits or kicks the animal away. The whole cabin is in an uproar due to this kind of scenario, or just the one where the animal wanders away from the owner or decides to follow the irresponsible owner to the lav. The pet owner sues. Your animal leaves parasites or pee or poop on the plane and it has to be cleaned up before it makes someone sick, disgusts someone, leads them to trip and fall on the plane, forces them to go home with a flea or tick on their bag or coat. Your dog gets hurt during turbulence because you decided you HAD to keep it on your lap, despite being told to do otherwise. Then you sue.
Recently a United flight had to delayed/canceled due to a tick infestation discovered on board. How do you think it got there? What do you think that cost the airline and its passengers...in tangible and intangible costs?
How many flights are made miserable by baying, screeching animals under the seats? How would you like to pay a first-class fare, only to have a dog barking throughout the flight? How would you like to see a tray table with someone's dog sitting on it instead of in their carrier? (Remember, this is a creature that licks its own ... and eats its own poop, if you let it.) Every pet owner's "darling baby" (people who call their animals "babies" or "children" are offensive to me as a mother of humans) is ALWAYS dander-free, perfectly trained, hypoallergenic, never bites, etc., etc. Yes, you can say that babies and kids are MORE annoying. But they ARE human...you were once a baby, too. You were never a puppy or a kitty.
As a flight attendant it is rare that I have a pet onboard (aside from seeing-eye dogs) whose owner has not caused a problem or ignored repeated requests to keep their animal INSIDE the carriers. Anything that will persuade people to keep their pets at home -- where they are safer and more comfortable anyway -- is OK by me.
By the way, don't even get me started on people who buy fake vests and tags for their "emotional support/service animals" and browbeat their doctors into writing letters attesting to the passenger's serious mental health needs. If you're that crazy, you shouldn't be on a plane.

A plane is diverted due to a severe allergic reaction. (...) spends days in the hospital. Could die.I'm sure it exists, but I've never heard of a potentially fatal animal dander allergy. Nuts, shellfish, penicillin, yes... but not animal dander.

Have you ever heard of a flight being diverted due to an animal allergy? I sure haven't. More to the point, anyone with an allergy that severe could react to cat hair on someone's sweater, and therefore shouldn't be on an airplane anyway without a facemask and/or epipen. So... let's not blow things out of proportion, shall we?

Even more importantly, this whole discussion is OT because it's irrelevant to how or why fees are going up. The airlines often bill these fee hikes as "due to increasing fuel costs," yet the fees are going up much faster than fuel costs. If the primary purpose of the fees is to cover liability, they shouldn't increase much at all, since the liability is fairly constant (as are the costs to adjudicate such).

Recently a United flight had to delayed/canceled due to a tick infestation discovered on board. How do you think it got there?Ticks don't always travel on animals; they are mobile by themselves and seek out sources of heat, just FYI. They also travel on humans and/or on or in baggage.

How many flights are made miserable by baying, screeching animals under the seats?I've never been disturbed by an animal on any flight, much less had a flight "made miserable." On the other hand, I've had plenty of flights made miserable by crying babies, and I'd argue that parents changing dirty diapers on the seat or tray table (which happens far too often) is a much bigger health concern than stray animal dander. That doesn't mean I'm advocating against babies on planes.

As a flight attendant it is rare that I have a pet onboard (aside from seeing-eye dogs) whose owner has not caused a problem or ignored repeated requests to keep their animal INSIDE the carriers.Really? Maybe because the ones who don't cause any problems are entirely forgettable, if you even knew they were there. When I bring my pets on board, as I disembark, almost every flight attendant says, "Wow, I didn't even know you brought a dog!" These were flight attendants who personally served me during the flight, mind you.

By the way, don't even get me started on people who buy fake vests and tags for their "emotional support/service animals"No need to get you started, since you seem to have gotten yourself started already.

I'd kindly ask you NOT to turn this thread into a discussion about how miserable pets are, how they should never be allowed on planes, how it's OK for babies to make people miserable just because they're human, or any other pet-bashing intolerance. This thread is about airline fees, whether or not they are rising, and what effect that has on the traveler. It is not for spouting inflammatory opinions about whether or not pets should be allowed on the flight.

It's quite clear you don't like dogs (and possibly cats) whether or not they're on the plane. Like it or not, many airlines allow pets on planes, and I don't think these fee hikes are because they want to increase the disincentive to bring pets. If airlines truly wanted fewer people to bring pets on board, they would simply forbid on-board pets. If you're really that anti-pet, there are airlines who don't allow on-board pets (e.g. WN). The free market is a wonderful thing...

Oh, and welcome to FT. :p

So, what's the consensus on the best/cheapest airlines for pets?

I read through the FAQ, but it seems a bit outdated. I just sent the moderator a note regarding the Virgin America fees which seem to be $100 on their website and not the $50 as was previously posted.

What are your experiences?

So, what's the consensus on the best/cheapest airlines for pets?I think NW remains the "cheapest" at $80 at the moment, but that will probably change once they merge with DL.

For my money, I think UA is the "best" for in-cabin pets, although certainly not the cheapest, and this is entirely because of Economy Plus. The extra few inches really do help with an in-cabin pet, because they allow you to place the pet under the seat more easily and to still have some legroom during the flight. On short flights this may not be an issue, but most of my flights are transcons, where sufficient legroom is imperative. If you aren't an elite on UA, though, you'd have to buy up to E+, either one-time or an annual membership, so that obviously increases your costs.

Folks, please stay on topic!

Once again the topic is the increased pet fees being charged by the airlins and nothing else.

Thanks for your understanding and consideration in this matter.
RSSrsvp - Moderator

Pet fees are among the junkiest of junk fees. Consider that I can bring an infant on my lap for free, but it's $100-ish to bring the dog under the seat.

I can see charging something, though, not to compensate the airline for extra service (since there really is none), but to deter the behavior. I think neither the airline nor the flying public wants to have a cabin full of underseat pets, and having a relatively nominal fee helps limit the number of pax who bring the pets along.

Checking recently, I noticed many airlines only along 1 in cabin pet per flight. So there's no risk of a cabin full of woofers and meowers.

Pet fees are among the junkiest of junk fees. Consider that I can bring an infant on my lap for free, but it's $100-ish to bring the dog under the seat.

I can see charging something, though, not to compensate the airline for extra service (since there really is none), but to deter the behavior. I think neither the airline nor the flying public wants to have a cabin full of underseat pets, and having a relatively nominal fee helps limit the number of pax who bring the pets along.

Checking recently, I noticed many airlines rules allow 1 in cabin pet per flight. So there's no risk of a cabin full of woofers and meowers.

Checking recently, I noticed many airlines only along 1 in cabin pet per flight. So there's no risk of a cabin full of woofers and meowers.UA allows 2 or 3 in the Y cabin, and 1 or 2 in domestic F (for narrowbodies and widebodies, respectively). Last time I checked, AA allowed up to 5 pets in the Y cabin. Regardless, this discussion isn't really about pet fees going up...

My husband and I are traveling to see our family tomorrow. He recently returned from his second tour overseas (he is in the service) and we are excited to see family.

When I went to delta's website today and after calling customer service several times I was notified that for my small 5lb dog to travel it would cost more than our airfare. The price (for him to travel) since our initial purchase of our tickets has gone up in price 100% (org. price $75, current price $150). Is this fair? Our dog will be under my seat, he doesn’t take any additional room or assistance from any of the crew members. Is it right to charge $300 or $200 for our dog to fly when our airfare was $240 each; and we actually have a seat on the plane.

I understand with the cost of everything going up in the world Delta has to see where they can make profits, but how can the company do this to regular families? Our dog is part of the family; we would like him to be with us, but at a reasonable cost. We are a military family on a military income, if we knew the price for him to travel was going to be so outrageous we would of looked at other options. I don't understand how the airlines can do this to people, don't they understand what it is to have a family?

It has nothing to do with cost of service. Airlines have said that they want to discourage people traveling with pets. Raising pet fees also are hidden costs which do not effect most people, so they can get away with huge increases.

I think you should have booked your at the time you booked your ticket.

Over the summer went on our trip from NYC to Chicago to visit family and decided this year that it was much cheaper to drive than fly.

I was told by delta customer support, delta charges the extra pet airfare when you check-in. CO charges you when you book your ticket. I wish they would have charged me when I booked my ticket. It just seems completely unreasonable.

I was told by delta customer support, delta charges the extra pet airfare when you check-in. CO charges you when you book your ticket. I wish they would have charged me when I booked my ticket. It just seems completely unreasonable.

I didn't know that. That sucks. I hope it doesn't go up again before your trip!

My husband and I are traveling to see our family tomorrow. He recently returned from his second tour overseas (he is in the service) and we are excited to see family.

When I went to delta's website today and after calling customer service several times I was notified that for my small 5lb dog to travel it would cost more than our airfare. The price (for him to travel) since our initial purchase of our tickets has gone up in price 100% (org. price $75, current price $150). Is this fair? Our dog will be under my seat, he doesn’t take any additional room or assistance from any of the crew members. Is it right to charge $300 or $200 for our dog to fly when our airfare was $240 each; and we actually have a seat on the plane.

I understand with the cost of everything going up in the world Delta has to see where they can make profits, but how can the company do this to regular families? Our dog is part of the family; we would like him to be with us, but at a reasonable cost. We are a military family on a military income, if we knew the price for him to travel was going to be so outrageous we would of looked at other options. I don't understand how the airlines can do this to people, don't they understand what it is to have a family?


I recommend that you write to DL's CEO and express your outrage. If enough people do, they might take notice.

Is this fair?No, this is most certainly an outrageous increase. $50 is acceptable; $75 is livable; $150 is ridiculous. But... there's really not much we can do about it besides complain and vote with our wallets. Unfortunately, the only airline still offering "reasonable" prices for in-cabin travel is NW, and even that is still $80 each way.

BTW United also charges only at check-in.

This is out of control... On UA and CO, our dog will actually most times have a more expensive than us :confused:

And when you want to buy a ticket for the dog so she at least can earn miles, that's not possible either...

And when you want to buy a ticket for the dog so she at least can earn miles, that's not possible either...I assume you've asked? If a cello can have a seat, why not a pet?

BTW, since my last post in this thread, UA has once again raised their pet fees... any tickets purchased on or after Oct. 2, for travel on or after Nov. 10, are subject to a $175 fee per pet per direction! Now that is outrageous! At $125/pet/way I was peeved but grudgingly accepted it; it was still roughly break-even with kennel costs for a trip of ~7 days. Now, at $350 per round-trip per pet, I can board my dog at a luxury pet hotel and still end up paying less!

Come next winter, we will be looking very hard at other carriers besides UA for our annual Xmas trip to see the family. UA will never notice, of course, but they have potentially lost over $1300 in revenue now ($400 airfare + $250 pet fee, x2) rather than just "losing" $200 (by not hiking the pet fee). Miniscule, I know - not even a molecule in the bucket - but I'm sure I'm not alone in this sentiment. There does come a price point where people do finally stop grudgingly accepting increases and actually stop paying...

Of course, it may be unlikely that we'll find significant savings at any other airline... :(

It has nothing to do with cost of service. Airlines have said that they want to discourage people traveling with pets.

can you provide a link, please?