Originally Posted by
texashoser
Screaming babies have long been a point of contention for frequent fliers and there really is no good answer. However, there are examples of parents and their kids getting booted off flights due to unruly or extreme behavior, so it's not like airlines don't have any options here.
The difference between a cat/dog and a baby is that the airlines are allowing those pets to fly in the cabin and can end that program at any time and can deny boarding to a PAX and their pet because it's at the airlines' sole discretion whether to let a pet fly or not. They don't have that same discretion when it comes to babies. By law, airlines can't institute a policy that denies boarding to all passengers under a certain age or allows them to remove any and all babies that cry before takeoff.
Well there is sort of a way for airlines to get around the baby issue, require ALL passengers in first class to have a paid seat and not allow lap held infants and not allow non-revs travelling with infants in first. While it wouldn't solve the problem totally, it would mean a lot fewer kids in first if the parent had to pay $ or miles instead of the kid flying up there for free. It would also mean some person wouldn't get stuck sitting beside a solo flyer with a baby.
There is nothing in their policy on your pet being denyed if someone has an allergy:
http://www.southwest.com/html/custom...index-pol.html
Seeing that it appears the passenger followed all the rules there was no excuse for this to happen. Just like I know there is a possiblity of being beside a screaming kid, the PAX should have been aware there could be pets on board.
If the persons allergies were truly that bad (and I have never heard of anyone having such bad allergies that a cat in the opposite end of a plane would make it impossible for them to fly), they should have called the airline ahead of time.
The pax with the allergies was aware there could have been a cat on board. If they would have called ahead of time, I am sure the agent could have told them if there were any pets on board or not. Seeing you have to call WN if you are bringing a pet, it seems like it would be easy enough for there to be a system in place alerting the agent there is someone with a severe pet allergy on board.
It would have made more sense for WN to have offered the person with the allergy the option of flying on that flight or later. They could have probably avoided the IDB compensation that way seeing they offered the PAX the opportunity to stay on board.
In this case, I don't see how WN could get out of paying IDB compensation. Seeing WN is strict about not refunding the pet fee, I hope in addition to the IDB cash they also refunded the pet fee as well and if they didn't the PAX booted contested the charge with their credit card company.