gooselee

My original statement:
You'll note the "perhaps" in there right at the opening, which is my acknowledgement that I know nothing of your experiences, and then my opinion, which is that pet owners tend to be rather understanding and considerate people. No construction of a story about you in there, just a curiosity about where your opinions came from.

In my general understanding of human nature, I've found that when an individual holds such strong opinions as the negative ones you generally have of pet owners, they are usually have some basis in past experience. If you have formed these opinions devoid of a past experience, then I would love to know upon what basis you are making these claims and illustrations of pet owners or "animal lovers":
Next:
My opinions and claims, as I've stated in this thread, are based completely in the words you have chosen to post here. As I do not feel that my posts represent being "trapped in [my] confines" in any way, I'm rather comfortable with you continuing to spew your ungrounded accusation.

I wonder, actually, if you know whether or not I have pets myself, and if so, if I have ever chosen to travel with them. I'd be curious as to what you believe about me, and on what grounds you have formed those beliefs.

Then:
Again, just my opinion, but I don't usually feel that acts of vandalism are equated with courage.

Finally:
Clearly I have not. But I am quite enjoying this exercise in extemporaneous debate. His/her rebuttals have been quite interesting and unexpected.

weero

What a bizarre argument! If dog and cat owners cared for animals they would not have a predator as a pet. Very obviously you guys give a damn about the animals they devour. So save your "we love animals more" superiority claims for Sunday school where you might find a still uninitiated victim who believes that stuff.

I have birds as pets and hence see the "cat & dog" crowd in a different light than they see themselves. But at least I am somewhat aware of my own myopia.
Cells??? There is not one insanity under the sun which isn't supported by some quick-and-dirty science out there. After all even the most nonsensical hogwash can be published if the crap collected has been fed to a mass spectrometer at some stage.

Unlike measurements of "carbon atoms from doggies" animal fur allergies are real and hence it makes a lot of sense of transport domestic animals in their traveling containers on a plane.

ysolde

It's not the animal fur people are allergic to, actually. It's the dander, a protein present in the animal saliva. I should think that if, like me, you are allergic, you would know that. Of course, I have found that, after a lifetime of sharing my home with cats and dogs, I have more or less overcome my allergies (with the help of Flonase).

weero

I can accept that. But it doesn't change the fact that it still looks as if you tried to construct an ad hominem rather than staying on subject.
But that is a vain question - first I haven't offered a opinion on the matter other than the viewpoint that enforcing rules helps. And second I have explicitly stated where my views on animal owners comes from. Not that it is relevant in any matter but it's right there in this very thread.
If you read that thread again at face value, this ought to strike you as a very odd remark. My stereotypical views of pet owners comes from the fact that I am pet owner. And I always learn the hard way that other people don't see my darlings the way I do.
They are not unfounded, I gave you my reasoning right there.
I hold no such opinion. The personality of a poster i strongly disconnected from the apparent validity of their arguments and that is a good thing.
That is a strong generalization but still in the end what kept me from dealing rogue justice: I could not clearly enough associate the relationship of the painting with the perpetrator lady. Clearly she deserved some harsh punishment for her deeds but I found it difficult to hold the painting accountable. Much alike I find it difficult to hold a pet or child accountable for the ways they get abused by their owners.

SuperFlyBoy

+1.

Maybe you can then approach LH to allow you to bring your parakeet in the cabin next time as an emotional support bird!

The reason probably is that I have seen many a passenger weeping at baggage claim at the expiration of a pet after delivery of the pet's container/cage...

I would agree with only in F, not C or Y.

Don't you love LH?

+1. The characters who put up their bare feet on the bulkheads are ones to bar entry to on board...

Glad to hear this!

5khours

Anybody actually have any experience with this on LH. I travel a lot (mostly Int'l F) and would get a small dog in an instant if it could travel with me (especially if the FAs weren't too picky about the dog staying in the cage/container). Unfortunately most airlines don't allow pets in the international F because of the lack of storage space under the seat.

Rambuster

I had a dog in the F seat next to me some time ago.
I believe it slept quite well during our flight to the US!
(I posted it in one of the dogs in F threads)

SuperFlyBoy

Breed?

gooselee

Please help me understand. You are using your own experience as a pet owner as a basis for your earlier posts about:
a) Pet owners being unable to fathom issues with their pets,
b) pet owners having a much higher threshold than the average person for the boundary between good and bad behavior, and
c) the idea that pet owners are not human, thus by definition do not have common sense, and believe their pet is the "son-of god-on-a-leash".

So...if this is how you stereotypically percieve pet owners, and you are a pet owner, and this perceptions comes from your own experience as a pet owner...this is how you perceive yourself?

If this comes across as an ad hominem argument, I do hope you'll consider that in the very post of yours that I am referencing, you do make some very strong statements characterizing the qualities and beliefs of those who own pets. As I tend to NOT characterize pet owners in the ways above, by disagreeing with you, I am actually trying to paint you in a somewhat more positive light, being that you are, in fact, a pet owner.

Moreover, I'm just trying to understand the full thought process admittedly subjective arguments. As such, understanding the basis upon which our opinions have been formed seems relevant. Referencing your past experiences was not an attack on your personal character, but rather an interest or exploration into the factors underlying the conclusion that you came to reach.

I'll offer my own as an example. My opinion is that pet owners and animal lovers are fully able to fathom issues with their pets. I agree that we may have a higher threshold for pet behavior than non-pet owners. I believe that pet owners are still human beings with common sense. And, I do not believe that either of my pets are spiritual beings in any sense.

How did I come to these conclusions? From my own experiences:
1) As a pet owner, I will not travel by air with my pets because I do not want them to ride in the cargo hold. I will not take them into general passenger areas because they are rescue animals and their behavior in unfamiliar places, which I understand as their owner, can be erratic and perhaps uncomfortable to others. I understand the issues my pets may present to others, and I adjust my own behavior accordingly.
2) I know many other pet owners who take the same approach to traveling with their pets as I do. I know many pet owners who do travel with their pets as well, but they seem to be far outnumbered, at least within the population of people I know.
3) I am a pet owner, and last time I checked, I am a human being. I can say without hesitation that I do not believe any of my pets are spiritual entities in any way. I feel like I do have common sense, though I'll admit, I may not be an authority on that.

It seems to me that presenting those experiences that have informed my opinion helps to enrich our discourse, and not distract from it.

Finally, I 100% agree that rules should be adhered to. Quickly scanning back upthread, I didn't see, and I'm not personally familiar, with what the specific rules are regarding pets in the LH FCT or lounges. If there are rules in place, certainly they should be followed. But this thread quickly took the direction not as to the enforcement of the rules, but rather what those rules ought to be.

Rambuster

I think it was one of those Paris Hilton Handbag dogs, perhaps a little larger.
Could have been used nicely for a Chinese soup!

seat 1a

Yes , many times on both LH and LX F , very easy . Have to keep it in the travel bag though.

seat 1a

@weero & gooselee

The rule is that dogs are allowed on board and in FCT .
So as entertaining as you guys might be , a lot of words about nothing

gooselee

Thank you for posting the rule.

As for the bolded part, I aim to please.

5khours

Where does the travel bag go during take off and landing?

weero

I believe that you fell victim to your own need of interpretation.

None of us has disputed that pets are allowed on board or that they should not be allowed on board. The question is in what form they ought to be allowed to travel.

And the fact that some people set their beast free in the aircraft doesn't make it rule compliant.