Travel with Pets - Dogs in First Class

Hi all. Haven't posted in awhile.

My husband and I were flying BWI to SAN via DEN on Friday 5/29. We upgraded to first using miles. We are both 1Ps. We board and take our seats. A few minutes later my eyes start watering and my throat gets scracthy. I look up and the woman getting settled in the row in front of me has a dog. I am not talking a small dog in a carrier, I am talking a full size 60lb border collie. The woman was not handicapped, blind, or anything like that. She has a "Urban Search and Rescue Task Force" T shirt on, so apparently this qualifies her to bring her dog on the plane. I do not think these dogs qualify as "service dogs" and therefore should not be allowed on the plane, but could find nothing on UA's website about this.

I am high allegeric to dog hair and dog dander. There is no way I would be able to sit on the plan for 3+ hours with this dog in front of me. I go and talk to the FA, who directs me to the gate agent. The gate agent says I can go on the next flight to DEN, but we won't be able to upgrade. The bigger problem is, that will put us into SAN almost 4 hours later, and we have cruise to catch. The flight is very full, but he offers to move us to coach, but tells us there is another service dog in coach as well. ...?:mad: Since when do non-service animals take higher priority than regular paying customers?

The GA goes down the jetway and appatently talks to the woman with the dog. The GA comes back and states, the woman works for the FBI, and the dog has training in Denver and can not possibly take a later flight. So it is up to me to either deal with the dog, or cancel our plans. We stay on the plane, I pop several claritin which does not help. I am sneezing, my eyes are watering, and my throat is very sore during the flight and over the weekend due to my being in close proximity to this dog.

I certainly did not enjoy first class and feel the miles spent to upgrade were wasted. I have contacted UA Customer Service through UA's website, but have not heard anything back yet. Any advice on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks.

The UA policy for animals in the cabin can be found at
Home > Services & information > Children, pets & assistance (http://www.united.com/page/middlepage/0,6823,1038,00.html)

In particular Service Animals (http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6722,1045,00.html) and Pets (http://www.united.com/page/middlepage/0,6823,1047,00.html)

If this was considered a "law enforcement animal", believe it is considered under the Service Animal section.

Sorry it affected your travels, but this is a difficult situation and there may be not right answer for everyone.

There is no way I would be able to sit on the plan for 3+ hours with this dog in front of me.

And yet, you did...

The UA policy for animals in the cabin can be found at
Home > Services & information > Children, pets & assistance (http://www.united.com/page/middlepage/0,6823,1038,00.html)

In particular Service Animals (http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6722,1045,00.html) and Pets (http://www.united.com/page/middlepage/0,6823,1047,00.html)

If this was considered a "law enforcement animal", believe it is considered under the Service Animal section.

Sorry it affected your travels, but this is a difficult situation and there may be not right answer for everyone.

From UA's webpage, "United Airlines and United Express welcome service animals accompanying persons with disabilities."

I can undestand service animals for those with disabilities, but I didn't find anything about "Law Enforcement animals"

My bigger problem is that there was no way to get away from the dogs on the plane. We could not move to coach, because there was a dog there also.

See: http://www.1srg.org/Contributed-Materials/Dog%20Air%20Travel.doc

For UA: POLICY: Search and rescue dogs may travel in-cabin for a $30 fee.
An e-mail from the airline is included in the appendix.*

..
I can undestarnd service animals for those with disabilities, but I didn't find anything about "Law Enforcement animals"
....

If you google "law enforcement animal airlines", you will find other airlines explicitly stating "law enforcement animal" in their "service animal policy." There does not appear to be anything on the UA site but it does appear to a be an industry practice.

Since when do non-service animals take higher priority than regular paying customers?

Since they didn't complain but you did.

See if your allergist can give you something more effective that OTC Claritin. It's very hard to avoid dogs in life.

This is a tough call. Although I personally am not allergic to dogs, I feel for the OP. In a perfect world there would be a way to include your allergy in your online profile, or notify the agent at booking, so that as soon as someone made a reservation with a dog, you would be notified and given options (e.g., reaccommodated in Y, given F seats far away from the dog, offered an earlier flight, etc.). But we don't live in that world, which means your options are, sad to say, limited.

I wish people that were sensitive to excessive perfumes and colognes were taken as seriously as those who have pet allergy issues.

I have no trouble with cats/dogs - but I start sneezing and getting itchy eyes when near co-workers who over bathe themselves in perfume...

My bigger problem is that there was no way to get away from the dogs on the plane. We could not move to coach, because there was a dog there also.

The pax in coach would not sacrifice his coach seat for a seat in first class? Hard to believe.

The bonus of course is that both dogs would have likely started to tear each others throat out causing both the dogs and their handlers to be evicted. That would be the trifecta: two fewer dogs to defecate on my lawn, a more open cabin in F, and you get your seat in F back.

EDIT: I'm pretty much allergy free, but married to someone who works in an allergy clinic. So I have lots of sympathy for people with allergies, especially peanut allergies which are derided on FT but in fact are very lethal. I know for a fact that animal allergies can be treated with the allergy shots, and unless OP has tried and failed at this, I suggest he give it a go.

EDIT: And :td: to the FBI agent for not agreeing to sit in coach and OP. Whatever happened to "Serve and Protect"? The agent is flying on OP's nickel.

It's certainly a ruffffffffffffffff situation.

There are much stronger allergy meds out there, than OTC Claritin. If you knew of the severity of your dog allergies, and the potential to be in contact with allergens a in a confined space, I would've headed to the doctor.

This is a disturbing part:

...the woman works for the FBI, and the dog has training in Denver and can not possibly take a later flight

Now here you have a public servant, told that the animal is causing grief to another passenger on the flight, and she still does nothing. I'd contact the FBI and make a formal complaint. With all due respect to "dog training", at the very least the FBI woman with the dog should have moved into Y with the other dog. What is the agent doing in F with a dog in the first place? Sorry, UA dropped the ball here. Dog lover though I am, people come first, and public servants come last.

This is a disturbing part:

Now here you have a public servant, told that the animal is causing grief to another passenger on the flight, and she still does nothing. I'd contact the FBI and make a formal complaint. With all due respect to "dog training", at the very least the FBI woman with the dog should have moved into Y with the other dog. What is the agent doing in F with a dog in the first place? Sorry, UA dropped the ball here. Dog lover though I am, people come first, and public servants come last.

well come on now, regardless of how exactly the agent+dog got into F, if they have a right to be there by their ticket, what obligation do they have/right do you have to insist that they be downgraded to Y? What if it had been a private citizen?

Sure, it would be nice if the agent had volunteered, but maybe that didn't occur to him/her and/orwas not presented as an option? A govt. employee does not give up all and become subservient to anyone else just because they're on a plane, or anywhere else.

At what level do you have the privilege to insist that a public servant do something because it inconveniences a non-public servant?

My bigger problem is that there was no way to get away from the dogs on the plane. We could not move to coach, because there was a dog there also.

The Coach cabin is generally much bigger than F on domestic aircraft, so wouldn't it have given you the option of more space between you and the dog?

Sometimes we just have to suck up to the cards life deals us. In your case, they were crappy, and I understand your frustration. But since the alternatives were unacceptable for both parties, there's little anyone could have done.

Does UA have a limit to the number of animals allowed in one cabin? This could be why the FBI agent could not leave the F cabin. And from the sounds of it, this was a quite big dog... would there of been room for it in coach anyway, especially on a full flight?

Life is unfair.
Now here you have a public servant, told that the animal is causing grief to another passenger on the flight, and she still does nothing. I'd contact the FBI and make a formal complaint. <...> Dog lover though I am, people come first, and public servants come last.If you think that's the way it really works when it comes to "public servants", then I'm afraid that you're setting yourself up for a nasty shock... And if you ever called the FBI about something along these lines, even if they exercise the great self control not to laugh at you while still on the phone, their howling laughter after hanging up can probably be heard miles away.

Next time you're in a similar situation, perhaps walk up to the "public servant" and suggest it to him/her. And report back with how s/he reacted - I'm sure it will be comedy gold.

Now here you have a public servant, told that the animal is causing grief to another passenger on the flight, and she still does nothing. I'd contact the FBI and make a formal complaint. With all due respect to "dog training", at the very least the FBI woman with the dog should have moved into Y with the other dog. What is the agent doing in F with a dog in the first place? Sorry, UA dropped the ball here. Dog lover though I am, people come first, and public servants come last.

Isn't it possible that (a) the agent was in F with the dog because it was too big for Y and/or (b) there was already a dog in Y and UA (IIRC) has rules about how many dogs you can have in a cabin and/or (c) it was important for the handler and dog to be among the first to deplane in order because of its size/the need to get to its training on time?

I'm just saying there are angles here that don't involve an abuse of taxpayer funds.

I don't see that United should do anything about this issue, you chose to stay in F even though the dog was one row away. If you had gone back to the Y cabin, I'm sure United would have refunded your miles. In that case you would have been further from the dog, and with the air filtration system you would have felt better. I don't think United owes you anything at this point.

Sometimes we just have to suck up to the cards life deals us. In your case, they were crappy, and I understand your frustration. But since the alternatives were unacceptable for both parties, there's little anyone could have done.

Totally agree. This is public transportation after all.

OP: I think if you write an email to UA they will offer you some form of compensation. But I don't believe the UA could/should have handled your situation any differently than what you had experienced.

Totally agree. This is public transportation after all.

OP: I think if you write an email to UA they will offer you some form of compensation. But I don't believe the UA could/should have handled your situation any differently than what you had experienced.

I'll remember this, and posts of this ilk the next time someone complains about clothing worn in F.

Does UA have a limit to the number of animals allowed in one cabin? This could be why the FBI agent could not leave the F cabin. And from the sounds of it, this was a quite big dog... would there of been room for it in coach anyway, especially on a full flight?

See this thread:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-mileage-plus/749569-travel-pets-ua-tips-hidden-info.html

60 lb Border Collie? Ah I don't think so lol

In addition, United did offer you alternatives that would not have caused you to have the allergic reaction.... but you refused. At what point do we each have to take some accountabilities for our own needs and wants?

I am honestly amazed that you cut a flight so close that a four hour delay in arriving at SAN that you would miss your cruise. That is cutting it very close in this day and age.

You could not change due to wanting first class and not wanting to miss your cruise... and the person with the dog did not want to change due to their own commitment in DEN.

Of course, a complaint to Uninted may get you a travel voucher... but probably not a refund of your upgrade miles.

Hi all. Haven't posted in awhile.

My husband and I were flying BWI to SAN via DEN on Friday 5/29. We upgraded to first using miles. We are both 1Ps. We board and take our seats. A few minutes later my eyes start watering and my throat gets scracthy. I look up and the woman getting settled in the row in front of me has a dog. I am not talking a small dog in a carrier, I am talking a full size 60lb border collie. The woman was not handicapped, blind, or anything like that. She has a "Urban Search and Rescue Task Force" T shirt on, so apparently this qualifies her to bring her dog on the plane. I do not think these dogs qualify as "service dogs" and therefore should not be allowed on the plane, but could find nothing on UA's website about this.

I am high allegeric to dog hair and dog dander. There is no way I would be able to sit on the plan for 3+ hours with this dog in front of me. I go and talk to the FA, who directs me to the gate agent. The gate agent says I can go on the next flight to DEN, but we won't be able to upgrade. The bigger problem is, that will put us into SAN almost 4 hours later, and we have cruise to catch. The flight is very full, but he offers to move us to coach, but tells us there is another service dog in coach as well. ...?:mad: Since when do non-service animals take higher priority than regular paying customers?

The GA goes down the jetway and appatently talks to the woman with the dog. The GA comes back and states, the woman works for the FBI, and the dog has training in Denver and can not possibly take a later flight. So it is up to me to either deal with the dog, or cancel our plans. We stay on the plane, I pop several claritin which does not help. I am sneezing, my eyes are watering, and my throat is very sore during the flight and over the weekend due to my being in close proximity to this dog.

I certainly did not enjoy first class and feel the miles spent to upgrade were wasted. I have contacted UA Customer Service through UA's website, but have not heard anything back yet. Any advice on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks.

Are you taking time to post this while on your cruise?

We have lots of allergies in our family, but do not consider it the responsibility of everyone else in the world to be considerate of that. You really need to see an allergist and get some better medication as the world is full of dogs. And, the way planes are "cleaned" you never know if the seat in which you are sitting on the next flight, is full of dog dander on the floor from the flight before!

I don't see where UA owes you anything as you had other choices, but did not want to take them, and they were clearly following their stated policy. However, because of your complaint, I am sure as a 1P you will receive an e-cert for $200. You will not receive your miles back; you flew in F. Expect to wait several days for an answer.

Also, this is OT, but highly advise you to fly in the day before when taking a cruise!

I'll remember this, and posts of this ilk the next time someone complains about clothing worn in F.

I speak for myself. There have been plenty of occurrences when I was annoyed by a fellow passenger, like last week when there was a guy in ps C across the aisle wearing a cutoff tank top. What the rest of my "ilk" thinks about the situation may or may not agree with my understanding of my own place in the world, but what does that have to do with how UA offered to accommodate a service dog and a passenger with dog allergies on the same flight?

I have a "working" dog who becomes a service dog if called upon in times of national disasters. If called upon, we will be on a plane, most likely in first. My dog weighs 90 lbs so we need a little bit of room to maneuver. Hopefully, you won't ever see me.

If it were a person with a seeing eye dog on your flight, would you have been less allergic or complained just as much? What would you have expected at that point - the blind person and their dog to move or to leave the plane? Why do you board public transportation with such severe allergies and the definite possibility of a service animal being aboard without proper medication for such an event?

And btw: I think you should definitely call the FBI and complain :D

See this thread:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-mileage-plus/749569-travel-pets-ua-tips-hidden-info.htmlTo be clear, that thread references the policy for pets... service animals are a completely different story. To my knowledge, there is no limit on the number of service animals allowed in the cabin, because they are not subject to the same restrictions as pets... but I'm not sure about this.

I am honestly amazed that you cut a flight so close that a four hour delay in arriving at SAN that you would miss your cruise. That is cutting it very close in this day and age.

I'm glad someone said it! This is not about the dog or your allergies this is about your inflexibility and your ability to plan ahead.

Perhaps renting private jet would be an effective way of guaranteeing that no person or animal affects you in any way.

We have lots of allergies in our family, but do not consider it the responsibility of everyone else in the world to be considerate of that.

Really? So if someone in your family were allergic to, say, wheat products... and you went to a cultural event where the only food served was wheat-based, and you knew that in that culture, it was rude to refuse food when offered, you'd eat the wheat-based product? I find that hard to believe. As someone with a number of specific allergies (to both food and atmospheric allergens), some of which are life-threatening, I am incensed by the callousness of most people who have posted on this thread.

If it were a person with a seeing eye dog on your flight, would you have been less allergic or complained just as much? What would you have expected at that point - the blind person and their dog to move or to leave the plane?

Yes, I would have complained, and yes, I would expect that sort of response from UA and the passenger.

My allergies don't make me less of a person than the dogs' owners - but the dogs are, by definition, not people. UA needs to change their policy ASAP to make it clear that the health of their paid, human passengers takes precedence over animals.

For UA to expect someone with a health-, or worse, life-threatening medical condition to either shut up and deal, or take the next flight, is totally unacceptable.

For UA to expect someone with a health-, or worse, life-threatening medical condition to either shut up and deal, or take the next flight, is totally unacceptable.

Sorry. I travel with my dog in the cabin often enough and for you to expect that I should inconvenience myself to accomdate your medical condition is unacceptable.

Sorry. I travel with my dog in the cabin often enough and for you to expect that I should inconvenience myself to accomdate your medical condition is unacceptable.

What makes your dog more important than my health?

I backed up my statement with the fact that dogs aren't people. Any neutral observer would have to agree that the laws in this country recognize that fact, and that clearly, humans have more rights than dogs.

You're simply making an arbitrary statement that your dog (and hence your business) is more important to UA than my business, which directly implies that your dog is more important than my health. On what moral, ethical, or legal grounds would you care to stake that claim?

What makes your dog more important than my health?Nothing, but what makes your convenience (flying on this particular flight and/or in that particular seat/cabin) more important than the dog owner's convenience (flying on this particular flight and/or in that particular seat/cabin) ? That is the crux of the issue, not the dog itself.

Nobody is saying that you should jeopardize your health by flying with the dog. What people do object to is the notion that because you have a health issue, the person with the dog should be inconvenienced rather than you. Each of you wants the same thing: to fly on that flight, in that seat/cabin. One has a dog, one has an allergy to the dog, but nevertheless you both have exactly the same need/desire. Now, why should the dog owner be inconvenienced by having to take a different flight, instead of you being inconvenienced? Or vice-versa? It should be decided based upon normal rules, i.e. generally, the person refusing to fly under current conditions needs to undertake the burden of inconvenience; barring that, status/fare paid/time added to DM.

Bottom line: this isn't a question of whether the dog is more important than the human, but whether the dog owner (a human) is more important than the allergy sufferer (a human).

You're simply making an arbitrary statement that your dog (and hence your business) is more important to UA than my business, which directly implies that your dog is more important than my health.Your inference is absolutely incorrect. The poster was implying nothing about his/her dog. Again, it's about human versus human, not dog versus health.

What makes your dog more important than my health?

I backed up my statement with the fact that dogs aren't people. Any neutral observer would have to agree that the laws in this country recognize that fact, and that clearly, humans have more rights than dogs.

You're simply making an arbitrary statement that your dog (and hence your business) is more important to UA than my business, which directly implies that your dog is more important than my health. On what moral, ethical, or legal grounds would you care to stake that claim?

I PAID for my ticket on UA. I also PAID for my dog to fly on UA. You PAID for your ticket on UA.

Now we're all on board the same airplane but you're the one with the problem... so tell me, why should I have to inconvenience myself to accomodate you?

Hi all. Haven't posted in awhile.

My husband and I were flying BWI to SAN via DEN on Friday 5/29.

[snip]

I have contacted UA Customer Service through UA's website, but have not heard anything back yet. Any advice on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated.

Let's see here. 5/29 was a Friday.

Today is Tuesday 6/2.

That would mean that if you sent the email to UA (via the website) on Friday, UA should have responded to you already? :confused:

Give UA awhile to get to your email. It's probably sitting in the queue. Wait a few weeks (2 to 3). If you haven't heard back, then print your email, throw a stamp on it and mail it.

United Airlines Customer Relations
WHQPW
PO Box 66100
Chicago, IL 60666

What makes your dog more important than my health?

I backed up my statement with the fact that dogs aren't people. Any neutral observer would have to agree that the laws in this country recognize that fact, and that clearly, humans have more rights than dogs.


Maybe a public service or law enforcement dog isn't seen as an animal but as another law enforcement officer / firefighter / SAR personnel?

There is a difference between pets, service dogs and public service dogs... Pets are belonging in a carier or in the cargospace, service dogs can remain with their owner because they need them and maybe public service dogs (search and rescue dog, etc...) gains the same status as a law enforcement officer / emergency personell?

It seems that there was an ability to go to coach, and probably UA would be happy to refund your miles for the non used upgrade. Sorry for you and the allergy but it seemed that you were offered some reasonable solutions...

Have some respect for the dogs and their owners, maybe you need them one day (but let's hope not)...

Bottom line: this isn't a question of whether the dog is more important than the human, but whether the dog owner (a human) is more important than the allergy sufferer (a human).

You're all missing the point.

Let's take the most sympathetic example for the dog-owner: that it's someone who needs a service dog to get around. In this case, we have two people: the dog owner and the allergy sufferer. Both people have a medical issue. The difference is, the dog owner's remedy to his medical condition - his dog - is a direct threat to the health of the allergy sufferer, while the allergy sufferer's remedy to his medical condition - getting rid of the dog - is not a direct threat to the health of the dog owner.

That's why I maintain that the issue here truly is whether or not the dog is more important than the allergy sufferer.

Really? So if someone in your family were allergic to, say, wheat products... and you went to a cultural event where the only food served was wheat-based, and you knew that in that culture, it was rude to refuse food when offered, you'd eat the wheat-based product? I find that hard to believe. As someone with a number of specific allergies (to both food and atmospheric allergens), some of which are life-threatening, I am incensed by the callousness of most people who have posted on this thread.


I hate to be rude, but that's just stupid and has nothing to do with the OP's complaint and I don't recall saying anything about food allergies. Of course we would not eat any food that caused a life threatening reaction. And, I know of no culture that would expect you to. I'd rather be rude anyway then dead.

People posting here are just practical, not callous. OP had some choices. She could have moved back to Y in a seat far away from the other dog. She declined this choice. I am sure, though this was not discussed in her post, that someone in F may have traded seats with her, so she was not so close to the dog.

If OP has such severe allergies, she needs to be a little bit more proactive. She is responsible for her health, no one else. She needs to check with the airline in advance about the possibility of dogs in the cabin and see an allergist for some better medication. She has every right to complain about her experience and will probably be compensated.

Life is unfair.
If you think that's the way it really works when it comes to "public servants", then I'm afraid that you're setting yourself up for a nasty shock... And if you ever called the FBI about something along these lines, even if they exercise the great self control not to laugh at you while still on the phone, their howling laughter after hanging up can probably be heard miles away.

Next time you're in a similar situation, perhaps walk up to the "public servant" and suggest it to him/her. And report back with how s/he reacted - I'm sure it will be comedy gold.

Yup, they would laugh... until called before a review. Unlike the days of old, complaints are not round-filed, but looked into, and if found to have any merit, are a part of that persons jacket forever. I have a feeling it is you who hasn't been a part of the real world recently.

The point is, the dog impacts a human's health, the dog should go. Into the cargo hold if necessary (why wasn't this dog in the hold anyway?), or another flight. People have to come first. The agent should not have been given the right to refuse.

Look, I'm not trying to start a fight here, I'm just really shocked that so many people think that it's totally OK to unnecessarily threaten someone else's health on a plane, especially when this threat would be so clearly avoidable.

The point is, the dog impacts a human's health, the dog should go. Into the cargo hold if necessary (why wasn't this dog in the hold anyway?), or another flight. People have to come first. The agent should not have been given the right to refuse.

Thanks, flyinbob! I'm glad at least someone agrees with me... I was starting to feel like I was the only one defending that position!

Look, I'm not trying to start a fight here, I'm just really shocked that so many people think that it's totally OK to unnecessarily threaten someone else's health on a plane, especially when this threat would be so clearly avoidable.

Yes. The allergy sufferer could've taken the next flight.

At issue is not the dog. At issue is the OP's belief that the rest of the world (the dog owner in this case) should have to inconvenience themselves to accomodate them.

At issue is not the dog. At issue is the OP's belief that the rest of the world (the dog owner in this case) should have to inconvenience themselves to accomodate them.

No, the dog is absolutely the issue, not the dog owner... especially in this case! In what way would it have inconvenienced the dog owner to have the dog in the hold?

As a dog owner, you should know well that you have more responsibilities to other humans, which are inconveniences to you - for example, you have to pick up after your dog when you take your dog out for a walk. Is that not an inconvenience to you, and one you must solely take to accommodate others?

The difference is, the dog owner's remedy to his medical condition - his dog - is a direct threat to the health of the allergy sufferer, while the allergy sufferer's remedy to his medical condition - getting rid of the dog - is not a direct threat to the health of the dog owner.Not only are you splitting hairs, but you are incorrect. If the dog is a service animal, getting rid of the dog is a direct threat to the health of the dog owner, exactly because the dog is a service animal. The dog could act as the eyes of a blind person, sense an imminent grand-mal seizure in an epileptic, prevent a psychotic break in an emotionally unstable person, or any other number of actions that, if missing, jeopardize the health of the dog owner.

So, getting rid of the dog could very well be a direct threat to the health of the dog owner.

That's why I maintain that the issue here truly is whether or not the dog is more important than the allergy sufferer.And the above is exactly why we maintain you are wrong in that inference.

The only issue here is with the convenience of person A versus person B, not with dog versus health.

especially when this threat would be so clearly avoidable.It's avoidable in two ways: the dog owner takes a different flight, or the allergy-sufferer takes a different flight. Now, again, what makes the convenience of one more important than the convenience of the other? As before, it should be decided based on the standard rules: s/he who refuses to fly shall be the one to bear the burden of the inconvenience; otherwise, status/fare/check-in time shall be the determiner.

(why wasn't this dog in the hold anyway?)Because the dog was a service animal, and service animals are allowed in the cabin. Travel in the hold is stressful on the animal and even animals whose service begins after the flight still need to be at peak performance.

Look, I'm not trying to start a fight here, I'm just really shocked that so many people think that it's totally OK to unnecessarily threaten someone else's health on a plane, especially when this threat would be so clearly avoidable.

It wasn't a threat to someones health nor on someones life... It caused some problems but AFAIK from reading the message from the OP it wasn't a threat... When it was a threat i'm sure that the OP wouldn't remain on the plane and took another flight or so.


Sorry that the dog caused problems but I remain with my previous post. Give the dog some credit, maybe you need it someday ;)

Look, I'm not trying to start a fight here, I'm just really shocked that so many people think that it's totally OK to unnecessarily threaten someone else's health on a plane, especially when this threat would be so clearly avoidable.

OP had what appears to be a relatively minor allergic reaction, to what she is assuming was the dog dander. She did not mention any shortness of breath, asthma attack or anaphylactic shock. Her experience was unpleasant and inconvenient, but not a major threat to her health.

She needs to carry more appropriate medication to protect herself in the future, as there is no way to predict a future allergic reaction.

I hate to be rude, but that's just stupid and has nothing to do with the OP's complaint and I don't recall saying anything about food allergies. Of course we would not eat any food that caused a life threatening reaction. And, I know of no culture that would expect you to. I'd rather be rude anyway then dead.

Well, count you and your family lucky. I'm sorry you think my personal experiences have been stupid - but it's pretty hard when you're in a foreign country, where you don't speak the language, to explain to your host that it's not that you don't want the food they're serving you (which would be considered an insult to the host), but that you can't eat it or you'll die.

Well, count you and your family lucky. I'm sorry you think my personal experiences have been stupid - but it's pretty hard when you're in a foreign country, where you don't speak the language, to explain to your host that it's not that you don't want the food they're serving you (which would be considered an insult to the host), but that you can't eat it or you'll die.

I did not say your personal experiences were stupid; I merely pointed out this thread had nothing to do with any food allergies. We are talking about a dog on a plane. OP was not tied down and forced to stay on this flight or to eat the dog.

You are really going off on a tangent here, but I am glad you recovered from having to eat a meal that you were allergic to in a country where you did not speak the language. Perhaps in the future making a list of some common phrases explaining any medical problems would be helpful?

You are really going off on a tangent here, but I am glad you recovered from having to eat a meal that you were allergic to in a country where you did not speak the language. Perhaps in the future making a list of some common phrases explaining any medical problems would be helpful?

LOL talk about going off on a tangent. I obviously attempted to prepare myself for just this situation. But I'm not going to continue on this track.

The point is, allergies are threats to human health, whether life-threatening or not. If a being that is lesser than a human (i.e. a dog) is threatening human health, it's obviously my opinion that the human stays and the dog goes.

Not only are you splitting hairs, but you are incorrect. If the dog is a service animal, getting rid of the dog is a direct threat to the health of the dog owner, exactly because the dog is a service animal. The dog could act as the eyes of a blind person, sense an imminent grand-mal seizure in an epileptic, prevent a psychotic break in an emotionally unstable person, or any other number of actions that, if missing, jeopardize the health of the dog owner.

So, getting rid of the dog could very well be a direct threat to the health of the dog owner.

And the above is exactly why we maintain you are wrong in that inference.

The only issue here is with the convenience of person A versus person B, not with dog versus health.

It's avoidable in two ways: the dog owner takes a different flight, or the allergy-sufferer takes a different flight. Now, again, what makes the convenience of one more important than the convenience of the other? As before, it should be decided based on the standard rules: s/he who refuses to fly shall be the one to bear the burden of the inconvenience; otherwise, status/fare/check-in time shall be the determiner.

Because the dog was a service animal, and service animals are allowed in the cabin. Travel in the hold is stressful on the animal and even animals whose service begins after the flight still need to be at peak performance.

Even if I grant you all of the points you make in this post, which I'll admit are mostly quite good, it doesn't change the OP's situation - in that case, it's quite clear there was absolutely no need (for support of human health or otherwise) for that dog to be in the cabin. In this case, the human's health should have taken precedence over the dog's presence.

You're all missing the point.

Let's take the most sympathetic example for the dog-owner: that it's someone who needs a service dog to get around. In this case, we have two people: the dog owner and the allergy sufferer. Both people have a medical issue. The difference is, the dog owner's remedy to his medical condition - his dog - is a direct threat to the health of the allergy sufferer, while the allergy sufferer's remedy to his medical condition - getting rid of the dog - is not a direct threat to the health of the dog owner.

That's why I maintain that the issue here truly is whether or not the dog is more important than the allergy sufferer.
I'm curious here ... the dog was a working dog and headed to a training course. How do you know that the dog doesn't have overly sensitive hearing or some other trait which makes him ideal for training but jeopardizes its health or ability to function in its job that could be damaged from being underneath? or do you just expect everyone to clear the deck for the OP and their issue? Perhaps you'd suggest drugging the animal which really could screw it up both for its own well being, as well as for its ability to work at its training course. None of that matters because - clear the decks - the OP is flying today. :rolleyes:

When the OP owns the airline they can decide who can and cannot be on board. Until then, they have to work with the airline to find the best result. In this case, the airline offered to put them on another flight - they refused for whatever reason. The airline did its job - now its purely the passengers issue.

BTW - this is a law enforcement dog -- sorry, but I'd rather have that dog be properly trained whether its helping a LEO or finding someone in wreckage more than the OP getting to their cruise when they failed to provide enough of a cushion for any delays in their own travel plans. My two cents, clearly.

ps and your example above is BS - you totally don't understand the relationship between the dog and owner (e.g. seeing eye, etc) and more clearly, don't care. Drive the next time, you'll be able to control who is sitting next to you and in front/behind you, too.

s/he who refuses to fly shall be the one to bear the burden of the inconvenience

Again, I have made clear the problem I have with this situation: if the dog's presence is medically necessary for the dog owner, then the dog owner's presence on the flight (and the dog's resulting presence thereon) is directly threatening the health of the allergy sufferer; however, the allergy sufferer's presence on the flight is not directly threatening the dog owner (indeed, unless the dog owner notices the sniffling, etc, from the allergy sufferer, AND makes the connection that it's the dog that's causing the sniffling, the dog owner would not even be aware of the allergy sufferer's presence on the flight). Therefore, saying that the burden of the inconvenience falls on the one refusing to fly is inherently unfair: the dog owner has no reason to refuse to fly, since the allergy sufferer's presence doesn't affect him - but the allergy sufferer DOES have reason to refuse to fly, and so by default, every time, it's going to be the allergy sufferer who is inconvenienced.

Ok few points overall I feel. First you keep claiming your life is more important then a dogs, or more importantly a service animal in training. I would disagree. This dog maybe undergoing very important training which could end up saving many lives over its lifetime, while you are more then likely not going to. Now people might say putting the dog in the cargo hold would work but I disagree. Training/human contact is very important for any service animal, and if they are constantly shoved into the dark away from people, they will become useless in certain situations. When out in a public area and someone with a dog is nearby do you tell them you are more important then the dog so they need to leave? Or do you leave? Or suck it up? The plane is a form of public transport as previously stated and while the dog isnt human, the handler it is with is, making it of equal importance (at least) to you.
Now you go off the allergy standpoint of it being possibly dangerous to you. I am sorry but this is something you, personally, must handle. Get medication, ask for FA move, or if nothing possible its your job to wait for the next flight. If you are allergic to peanuts and traveling pretty much anywhere in the developing world, are you going to tell all the people there to stop eating peanuts because they might kill you? Or if Hindu are you going to ask all people to stop eating beef? Jews telling others to stop eating pork? Give me a break, nope. Learn to plan better, to take medication, and most importantly to adapt. Otherwise Darwin may take you.

it doesn't change the OP's situation - in that case, it's quite clear there was absolutely no need (for support of human health or otherwise) for that dog to be in the cabin.First, if you knew your arguments had absolutely no relevance to the OP's situation (as they did not), you should not have brought them up.

Second, as I mentioned previously, service animals need to be at peak performance and travel in the hold is stressful on the animal. There may not have been an immediate need in terms of support for human health, but if this were a search-and-rescue dog on its way to look for survivors in a collapsed building, there would most certainly be a need in terms of support for human health... just after the fact.

In this case, the human's health should have taken precedence over the dog's presence.And if, as above, the dog were going to look for survivors in a collapsed building, or any number of other search-and-rescue operations, would the allergy sufferer's health take precedence over the lives of those who might have been saved by the dog, but who would potentially be overlooked by a now-tired dog stressed from travel in the hold?

For any service animal, you cannot make the distinction that your health is any more or less important than the health of those people who may be helped by the animal (whether the animal's owner or other beneficiaries of the animal's service). In the OP's case, the animal was a service animal.

Your argument would be much more valid regarding pets in the cabin, but it does not apply in this case.

Again, I have made clear the problem I have with this situationYou are right that it will almost always be the allergy sufferer who will make the complaint. Unfortunately, that's life. Anyone with a medical condition generally has to bear the burden of that condition.

This is a disturbing part: .... Now here you have a public servant, .... ... Dog lover though I am, people come first, and public servants come last.

A truely disturbing post indeed. Very sad attitude. :o

Even if I grant you all of the points you make in this post, which I'll admit are mostly quite good, it doesn't change the OP's situation - in that case, it's quite clear there was absolutely no need (for support of human health or otherwise) for that dog to be in the cabin. In this case, the human's health should have taken precedence over the dog's presence.


We're going to just have to disagree. I travel with my dog once per year internationally. I fly 1 particular carrier because they allow dogs in the cabin. If I had paid for my ticket and had paid for the dog's "ticket" and then an agent come up to me to let me know that another passenger had a dog allergy - I would gladly change seats or do whatever I could to help the other passenger. But I am not taking a later flight. I am not going to voluntarily downgrade myself to economy. And if anyone even so much as suggests putting the dog in the cargo hold I will unleash a fit of rage the likes of which you can't even imagine. (OK - bit dramatic there. :D)

I've worked for airlines before and I see what happens to dogs in the cargo hold... no way in hell is my Fido going down there. :p

Without quoting specific people since I'm very clearly not interested in personal attacks and flamewars (despite having been personally called out as "bs" and other such things by some of you in this thread), some of you are now bringing up the argument that the dog may actually be more important than the human from a societal standpoint; i.e., the dog may be a SAR dog and may save numerous human lives trapped beneath a building, and thus it's more important than another human's health.

Effectively, what you're arguing is, the rights of society are greater than individual rights. Since the dog can help multiple people, it's a greater benefit to society than a single human's health, and its presence takes precedent regardless of the resulting infringements on individuals.

My disagreement with that argument aside, I'm pretty sure posts like that belong in the "OMNI" forums. Y'all had a decent enough, relevant argument when you were talking about comparing the rights of two individuals... but clearly we're off that track now.

On that note, I think I'm done on this thread... My points have been made; those of you who are going to agree with me probably did before I even wrote a single word, and those of you who don't aren't going to no matter what, so really, what's the point? It's like arguing politics in high school... it's all a load of BS, and you're never going to persuade anyone else anyway.

I'm pretty sure posts like that belong in the "OMNI" forums.I agree with that. But:

Y'all had a decent enough, relevant argument when you were talking about comparing the rights of two individuals...If the service animal is medically necessary for a single human, then it's between two individuals. If the service animal is necessary for multiple humans, it becomes a different question. Both arguments are valid and because of this, for any service animal, this argument becomes moot: no one human's imperative need takes precedence over that of one or multiple others.

If this were about pets, I would not be making such an argument (although I do travel with my pet in-cabin, so I'd probably be making some argument, but from a completely different standpoint), but it's not; it's about service animals.

Of course, the whole argument is irrelevant, anyway. The airline and the government enact policies and laws to deal with these situations, and if you don't like how it's handled, you need to take it up with them, not with the passengers who are merely complying with existing policies/laws.

Of course, the whole argument is irrelevant, anyway. The airline and the government enact policies and laws to deal with these situations, and if you don't like how it's handled, you need to take it up with them, not with the passengers who are merely complying with existing policies/laws.

Oh, I completely agree with you! You'll please note that in my first post, I said, "UA needs to change its policy," not, "you should all never take your dogs on an airplane!" :)

I have not once in this entire chain directly attacked another passenger (or at least, forum poster), complying with policy or not, despite the fact that the same courtesy has not been extended to me. I have no problem with people following the rules; I have no problem with people taking advantage of the rules. I just think the rules should be changed in this case... though obviously, many of you disagree with me. Ah well!

You'll please note that in my first post, I said, "UA needs to change its policy," not, "you should all never take your dogs on an airplane!" :)True, you did say that. :) United's policy regarding service animals is, AFAIK, dictated by federal law, though... specifically by the ACAA. I'm not entirely sure about non-personal service dogs, e.g. law enforcement or SaR dogs, though I would be surprised if there weren't a law mandating their easy passage on common carriers, as well. I think you'll find that every domestic airline has a similar policy with regards to service animals - even those that prohibit in-cabin pets.

though obviously, many of you disagree with me. Ah well!If we all agreed, the world would be so boring!

uh oh. This is getting into dangerous territory.
Next we'll be talking about stopping 200 pax from eating peanuts because someone has a peanut allergy...

HHHHmmmm.... do you think that pet owners who pay and bring their pets into the cabin actually carry extra carriers? How would you suggest the pet travel in the hold? Airlines do not have carriers for use at all.

No, the dog is absolutely the issue, not the dog owner... especially in this case! In what way would it have inconvenienced the dog owner to have the dog in the hold?

As a dog owner, you should know well that you have more responsibilities to other humans, which are inconveniences to you - for example, you have to pick up after your dog when you take your dog out for a walk. Is that not an inconvenience to you, and one you must solely take to accommodate others?

Next we'll be talking about stopping 200 pax from eating peanuts because someone has a peanut allergy...Sarcasm? :) Of course, we know this has happened, and somewhat often, in the past. However, in minor defense of peanut allergy sufferers, peanut allergies are, on average, much worse [potentially deadlier] than dog allergies and also more easily triggered. But yes, I agree with the premise that those with special needs need to bear the burden of those needs, including whatever pre-planning is necessary (epipens, masks, whatever).

But, this is a forum for pets, not peanuts... ;)

Airlines do not have carriers for use at all.Quite true, and this is a major issue. Some airlines actually do have carriers available for sale, though, for a similar reason... some people just don't bring the proper carriers and airlines can make some minor revenue by selling them. This may more for in-cabin pets, since some people will just carry them in a handbag, whereas most people checking their pets will have the proper container, though. In general, however, I believe the carriers are only for sale outside security, i.e. at the ticketing/check-in area, and not at the gate, which is where this kind of exchange ("I'm allergic;" "You must check your dog") would be happening.

It is my understanding that on US airlines pet cannot be shipped in the baggage area, only as cargo, between 5/15 and 9/15 but please correct me if I am wrong. I do not beleive that I am wrong. That may answer your question as to why the animal was in the cabin and not checked as baggage, besides that fact that the dog does not, by law, need to be checked as baggage or shipped as cargo.


As for the allergies - again, you have an allergy that you can take a pill for or avoid the situation; a person with a "public" service dog that has been called into service usually does not have the luxury of options; in most cases it is an immediate reponse to other people in need and at the risk of being blunt, your allergies are really not that important to me at that moment - in fact, if you see me working, chances are your allergies are really low on my list of concerns. Oh - and here's a great idea - lets take someone who has seizures with a seizure dog and put their dog in baggage for the duration of the flight!

The whole "wheat" analogy was far out. Who would knowingly and willingly eat food they were allergic to at any cost? You could die. Don't do that.

It is my understanding that on US airlines pet cannot be shipped in the baggage area, only as cargo, between 5/15 and 9/15 but please correct me if I am wrong.You are wrong, yes. Certain breeds of pets cannot be shipped in in the hold at all during the summer months, yes... but the restriction is limited only to certain breeds (short-nosed breeds who could have trouble with hot weather) and is for both checked baggage and cargo (they both go in the same place).

That may answer your question as to why the animal was in the cabin and not checked as baggageNot in this case, since based on the description the dog was normal- or long-snouted, which is usually the case for service dogs.

Ah. You are correct sir/madam, my mistake. My experience is with Delta - now I see it differs with each particular airline. Found an interesting site:

http://serendipityairedales.tripod.com/FLYdogs.html

IMHO I would be hesitant to fly a non-service dog in baggage if I didn't have to anyway. I transported a blood-donor dog from SAN-EWR in baggage (no option due to his size) and let me tell you the dog was definitely stressed and messed when he landed. Really, what is a blind person going to do with a stressed out and soiled seeing eye dog at the airport when they land? :confused:

Wonder what the ground temps were on the offending flight?

Didn't mean to start a fight or flame war among my fellow FTers. :eek:

The flight from BWI to DEN was very full. The GA could not offer us two seats together in Y and only had middle seats avail. We wanted to seat together.

I do have stronger allergy meds. The problem is the knock me out and I feel groggy for the next day or so, depending on how many I take.


Yes, we should have allowed more time to make it too our cruise. Unfortunately, not everyone gets unlimited vacation days at work, and we have to take them carefully in this economy. Our cruise was a 3 dayer to Baja, Mexico as part of our high school reunion. So rescheduling the cruise really was not an option.

Maybe 60lbs was overstating it a little bit. It was a border collie and was significantly bigger than the teacups, toy, Paris Hilton type pups that most passengers bring on board.

My point in posting was trying to get advise on how to get my miles refunded. I would not have upgraded if I knew we would be sitting behind a dog. I did not realize United's policy on this. I did not think to call UA before the flight to inquire about dogs on the plane, because frankly, this is the first time I have encountered any type of service animal in F.

Thanks for all your replys. I will post a follow-up if I hear anything from UA.

FlyingUAtoday,

It will take a while for UA to get back to you. They went to all email customer service... so it could take a few weeks before you hear anything.

I have to admit I am shocked that there would not have been two people in coach sitting together that would not have been more than happy to trade seats so you could sit together in coach.

Now here you have a public servant, told that the animal is causing grief to another passenger on the flight, and she still does nothing. I'd contact the FBI and make a formal complaint. With all due respect to "dog training", at the very least the FBI woman with the dog should have moved into Y with the other dog. What is the agent doing in F with a dog in the first place? Sorry, UA dropped the ball here. Dog lover though I am, people come first, and public servants come last.

I am a public servant who travels on official business. When the government sends you on a trip, that is part of your job. You are told where you need to be, how to get there, and what time to be there. This employee probably did not have the option to change her flight, seat, etc. During official travel, you are not allowed to relinquish your seat in most cases, and this was not one of them.

I am a public servant who travels on official business. When the government sends you on a trip, that is part of your job. You are told where you need to be, how to get there, and what time to be there. This employee probably did not have the option to change her flight, seat, etc. During official travel, you are not allowed to relinquish your seat in most cases, and this was not one of them.

As a fellow public servant, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point. We have always been given significant leeway in our travel plans - as long as any requested changes to the "official" schedule do not increase the cost to the government and/or are paid for by the traveler him/herself (and, obviously, as long as they don't interfere with the timing of official business - i.e. you can't miss your conference to get a VDB on the way there), the federal government couldn't care less. I'm not going to go any further on this topic (i.e. revealing what branch of the government I'm in, etc) because that would start to get personally identifiable, and perhaps it's different for your branch and/or department, but it has always been my experience as a public servant that I can request changes to the official travel schedule as long as they don't interfere with gov't business or increase the cost to the gov't.

A Border Collie! Would have come in handy if you needed someone else to fly the plane in an emergency - those things are smart! :D

I found the thread very interesting from my stand point, someone who does have a working/PT service dog. Ironically the amount of times I've been an inconvenience to a person due to allergies is minimal as compared to the amount of times I was an inconvenience due to a persons fear of dogs. Some peolple are just deathly afraid of dogs, and my dogs are very big, and it is a waste of time trying to convince the person the dog is completely non-agressive - they just don't beleive it and I am respectful of that. SO.. if you're afraid of dogs or severely allergic I think its a good idea to find out if there are any canines on the flight (pet or service) and do your best to avoid.

I have no use for the people who turn these issues into "people are more important than dogs" - that was never the issue and while I prefer the company of my dogs to a few people I know I also know that in life/death people always come first, no matter how self-righteous and self-centered the person in the scenario might be. Those who need affirmation of this are probably just insecure. As far as comfort - if I'm there first, I'm legal, and I don't have any options to make you more comfortable its basically "tough luck". And to expect a person with a service animal who is handicapped to stow the animal is just plain heartless in my opinion; these animals are the persons link to a "somewhat" normal and safer life and they shouldn't have to lose that link because someone might get drowsy if they take a pill.

And as long as I'm up on my soap box... just a reminder that hurricane season is here and you should go over your pet emergency supplies! Here is a link to a list - don't forget to have those proof of rabies vaccination papers on hand (some shelters will not admit the animal without it)and a picture of you WITH your pet, especially if its a high-end animal:
http://www.hsus.org/hsus_field/hsus_disaster_center/resources/disaster_preparedness_for_pets.html#Disaster_Suppl y_Checklist_for_Pets

I take one day off from FT and come back to find this thread. :td:

Let me refer everyone to the sticky thread located on top of this forum, http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-pets/821818-welcome-travel-pets-forum.html

In it I was extremely clear as to the posting rules for the forum.
Please don't post here if you have a problem with pets in the cabin, staying at your place of lodging or just don't like animals in general. Your thread will be considered off topic and disruptive and it will be deleted. FT's rules and guidelines for posting will be enforced in this forum. If you violate the TOS, you may be sent to "THE DOG HOUSE"!


I am closing this topic to any further discussion.

RSSrsvp - Moderator