Refused transport because of 8.5lb dog... why?
Apr 16, 2019, 12:30 am
#76
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 706
Watched the video - I never owned any dog or understand what's okay or not for animal transportation.
What I feel is that the Sherpa is a bit small for the dog, so does any human being in Air Canada seats. Given it's such a short flight, why not?
Glad OP got her refunds.
What I feel is that the Sherpa is a bit small for the dog, so does any human being in Air Canada seats. Given it's such a short flight, why not?
Glad OP got her refunds.
Apr 16, 2019, 3:27 am
#77
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,446
https://globalnews.ca/news/5171665/d...uebec-toronto/
A small dog and his owners were denied boarding on an Air Canada flight from Quebec City to Toronto in April even though the Shih Tzu was less than half the maximum weight allowed by the airline.
A small dog and his owners were denied boarding on an Air Canada flight from Quebec City to Toronto in April even though the Shih Tzu was less than half the maximum weight allowed by the airline.
Apr 16, 2019, 4:43 am
#78
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 492
Watched the video - I never owned any dog or understand what's okay or not for animal transportation.
What I feel is that the Sherpa is a bit small for the dog, so does any human being in Air Canada seats. Given it's such a short flight, why not?
Glad OP got her refunds.
What I feel is that the Sherpa is a bit small for the dog, so does any human being in Air Canada seats. Given it's such a short flight, why not?
Glad OP got her refunds.
I think the airlines need to make it clear that exceptions will be made for short flights under say two hours. If they don’t this is going to keep on happening, probably more now than it did before because of all of the press and other unfortunate pet owners are going to be caught. And whether it’s on the out or the inbound it’s going to be a real issue
Or, make the rules clear. And apply them consistentlyAlthough getting a refund is a moral victory of sorts I’m sure it doesn’t offset really the inconvenience and anxiety caused.
Apr 16, 2019, 5:28 am
#79
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SEMM / HH Diamond
Posts: 3,160
... which says, in part:
More about the pet carrier: It must be big enough to allow your pet to stand up, turn around and lie down safely and comfortably. No part of the pet may extend outside the carrier.
I've read speculation about a mandatory 3" gap rule, but that's not described in the rules that I see for "In the Cabin" transit, and surely if we're going to apply "strict rules" then it should be explicitly listed. Extrapolation isn't exactly consistent with the application of "strict rules".
Apr 16, 2019, 6:12 am
#80
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: YYZ
Posts: 57
Curious which rule you think was violated. The only rule I can find is this one: https://www.aircanada.com/ca/en/aco/...ance/pets.html
... which says, in part:
And now we have a reporter clearly on record as saying that they observed Whiskey performing all of those behaviours.
I've read speculation about a mandatory 3" gap rule, but that's not described in the rules that I see for "In the Cabin" transit, and surely if we're going to apply "strict rules" then it should be explicitly listed. Extrapolation isn't exactly consistent with the application of "strict rules".
... which says, in part:
And now we have a reporter clearly on record as saying that they observed Whiskey performing all of those behaviours.
I've read speculation about a mandatory 3" gap rule, but that's not described in the rules that I see for "In the Cabin" transit, and surely if we're going to apply "strict rules" then it should be explicitly listed. Extrapolation isn't exactly consistent with the application of "strict rules".
The other length and width dimensions of the carrier are also at the maximum allowed by AC. Fur aside, it’s pretty safe to now see my dog is a “small “framed”. There would be very a small minority of (full grown) dogs/breeds that would be well under the maximums (let alone the extra 3 inches).
Their cabin policy overall does not make sense and needs to be updated for clarity and/or retraining is required so it is interpreted by all staff members.
Apr 16, 2019, 6:14 am
#81
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: YYZ
Posts: 57
Curious which rule you think was violated. The only rule I can find is this one: https://www.aircanada.com/ca/en/aco/...ance/pets.html
... which says, in part:
And now we have a reporter clearly on record as saying that they observed Whiskey performing all of those behaviours.
I've read speculation about a mandatory 3" gap rule, but that's not described in the rules that I see for "In the Cabin" transit, and surely if we're going to apply "strict rules" then it should be explicitly listed. Extrapolation isn't exactly consistent with the application of "strict rules".
... which says, in part:
And now we have a reporter clearly on record as saying that they observed Whiskey performing all of those behaviours.
I've read speculation about a mandatory 3" gap rule, but that's not described in the rules that I see for "In the Cabin" transit, and surely if we're going to apply "strict rules" then it should be explicitly listed. Extrapolation isn't exactly consistent with the application of "strict rules".
Just saw this story on our local news with our very own Blondie85. I won’t post a link as it uses her full name and I don’t want to out her here unless she chooses to do so herself but she comes off very well; calm and level-headed with her facts in order. It shows Whisky going in and out of the Sherpa and while it does look to be a bit of a tight squeeze, he is a furry pooch and his fur likely makes it seem tighter than it probably is. Hopefully, this will put some pressure on AC to reimburse her costs.
& yes we just adore him.
Apr 16, 2019, 6:47 am
#82
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 492
Curious which rule you think was violated. The only rule I can find is this one: https://www.aircanada.com/ca/en/aco/...ance/pets.html
... which says, in part:
And now we have a reporter clearly on record as saying that they observed Whiskey performing all of those behaviours.
I've read speculation about a mandatory 3" gap rule, but that's not described in the rules that I see for "In the Cabin" transit, and surely if we're going to apply "strict rules" then it should be explicitly listed. Extrapolation isn't exactly consistent with the application of "strict rules".
... which says, in part:
And now we have a reporter clearly on record as saying that they observed Whiskey performing all of those behaviours.
I've read speculation about a mandatory 3" gap rule, but that's not described in the rules that I see for "In the Cabin" transit, and surely if we're going to apply "strict rules" then it should be explicitly listed. Extrapolation isn't exactly consistent with the application of "strict rules".
I am not saying it’s right or wrong - but IATA rules are not what the manufacturer espouses. They measure height differently. I am merely saying that AC will likely use IATA as a defence.
And it needs to be clarified and consistently applied going forward
For the record I think the management was inappropriate and have said that.
But when rules are not consistent in interpretation and application this sort of thing happens.
I
Apr 16, 2019, 7:01 am
#83
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SEMM / HH Diamond
Posts: 3,160
https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/cargo/...ges/index.aspx
I am not saying it’s right or wrong - but IATA rules are not what the manufacturer espouses. They measure height differently. I am merely saying that AC will likely use IATA as a defence.
And it needs to be clarified and consistently applied going forward
For the record I think the management was inappropriate and have said that.
But when rules are not consistent in interpretation and application this sort of thing happens.
Now, even if we were to assume that IATA rules have applicability over Air Canada, I still don't see which strict rule, Whiskey violated. Perhaps I'm missing it, but all I read on the IATA page talks about the minimum internal container dimensions being A + ½ B = Length C x 2 + Width D = Height ... do we know that Whiskey & carrier are not in compliance with those guidelines (their word; guideline, not rule)?
Look, I'm personally not a big fan of pets in the cabin; I'll admit to being one of those people who does a silent eye-roll when I see someone boarding with a dog carrier on my flight. But Air Canada has decided to make them legal, Air Canada set the rules for acceptance, and so I think that Air Canada should follow their own rules and not make things up on the spot.
Apr 16, 2019, 7:17 am
#84
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: YYZ
Posts: 57
https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/cargo/...ges/index.aspx
I am not saying it’s right or wrong - but IATA rules are not what the manufacturer espouses. They measure height differently. I am merely saying that AC will likely use IATA as a defence.
And it needs to be clarified and consistently applied going forward
For the record I think the management was inappropriate and have said that.
But when rules are not consistent in interpretation and application this sort of thing happens.
I
.... and where the problem is that IATA themselves do not clearly spell out conditions for “soft sided carriers” for passengers travelling IN the cabin. They claim the animal must move around comfortably (sit / stand / turn around).
As per the link provided from IATA they group pets with larger livestock and even show photos of hard sided carriers that are NOT permitted in passenger cabins. They even go on to talk about two dogs sharing a bag (which from my understanding is NO pers in the cabin).
I also have tried to find a credible source (besides ANY manufacturer) on how to properly measure a dog to find a suitable soft sided container. Besides major pet stores (Petsmart/ Petsco) and numerous blogs written by veterinarians etc the only other information I could find without bias is on the American Kennel Club website (I cant post links yet). Their explanation and measurement guidelines are what I am using as credible source without any bias.
Apr 16, 2019, 12:45 pm
#86
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,399
Did the GA ever seriously look at the dog to check whether it could or could not stand and turn around in the carrier? My impression is that the GA just saw the dog and declared something to be "inhumane" without trying to observe or measure the dog, and without looking at the OP's documentation.
Apr 16, 2019, 12:53 pm
#87
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: YVR
Programs: AC SE 2MM; UA MP Premier Silver; Marriott Bonvoy LT Titanium Elite; Radisson; Avis PC
Posts: 35,255
- my veterinarian also has given a written statement that this carrier is appropriate to give my dog adequate space to sit up and move around.
- The manufacturer (Sherpa) has been wonderful and although they can’t compensate us has also given a written statement pointing out why the dog should not of been denied boarding (They asked I provide photos with my dog next to ruler and some other documents).
- I have spoken with head of security at YQB and also have written documentation. They claim AC requested their assistance and wanted us removed. As we are calm and rational I wanted to ensure that there was no fabrication that we were being rude/yelling. The document confirms this and also that being denied boarding would not result in an escort out of the terminal by security.
- I have also collected information from the American Kennel Club on the guidelines on how to select a carrier (can provide a link as it wouldn’t let me post it)
- As my dog is registered with the CKC (and again I had paperwork on hand to prove this). His height and weight are within the breed standard (he is just over 10 inches- my carrier is 10.5 inches high).
- AC’s policy is that the carrier can not exceed 11inches high. So based on the above I was denied on the basis of another 0.5 inch (there was no measurements taken and the only language used was for my denial was “inhumane”)
- AC’s policy allows dogs up to 22lbs in the cabin but clearly they can’t be taller then 11 inches (which makes no sense a square peg round hole argument?). My Shih Tzu among only a few other breeds are safely within this guideline. A 22lb small(er) dog then mind would have hard time under a seat for reasons other then their height!
- IATA sets general guidelines for safe transport of pet’s which are altered based on airline preferences/aircraft configuration and based on destination. I could not find info on IATA’s website relating to soft sided carriers. I have also been in touch with them and actually confirmed that the my carrier is well recognized by airlines and popular among travellers (gate agent said he had never seen a bag like mine).
- Our flight was supposed to leave at 19:15 and given the photos I have passengers were still boarding at 19:16. The aircraft doors closed around 19:30 (15 minutes past scheduled departure). The incoming flight landed only 6 minutes late. There were other passengers who sat in our seats next to my family.
Several have alluded to the first bullet point above (I've included the other bullet items because I admire the OP's due diligence) regarding what the vet documented. I guess the GA is/was a vet too and has the power to determine such things while working as a GA. Armchair vets are fun too.
Apr 16, 2019, 12:55 pm
#88
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: YYZ
Posts: 57
Did the GA ever seriously look at the dog to check whether it could or could not stand and turn around in the carrier? My impression is that the GA just saw the dog and declared something to be "inhumane" without trying to observe or measure the dog, and without looking at the OP's documentation.
Second agent took a look and immediately went on the website to read me (word for word) the pet policy. SMH.
Apr 16, 2019, 1:16 pm
#89
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 492
I agree
.... and where the problem is that IATA themselves do not clearly spell out conditions for “soft sided carriers” for passengers travelling IN the cabin. They claim the animal must move around comfortably (sit / stand / turn around).
As per the link provided from IATA they group pets with larger livestock and even show photos of hard sided carriers that are NOT permitted in passenger cabins. They even go on to talk about two dogs sharing a bag (which from my understanding is NO pers in the cabin).
I also have tried to find a credible source (besides ANY manufacturer) on how to properly measure a dog to find a suitable soft sided container. Besides major pet stores (Petsmart/ Petsco) and numerous blogs written by veterinarians etc the only other information I could find without bias is on the American Kennel Club website (I cant post links yet). Their explanation and measurement guidelines are what I am using as credible source without any bias.
Hopefully it will be clarified. If it isn’t will continue to happen.
Apr 16, 2019, 1:17 pm
#90
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: YOW
Programs: AC E75K *G
Posts: 7,107
https://globalnews.ca/news/5171665/d...uebec-toronto/
A small dog and his owners were denied boarding on an Air Canada flight from Quebec City to Toronto in April even though the Shih Tzu was less than half the maximum weight allowed by the airline.
A small dog and his owners were denied boarding on an Air Canada flight from Quebec City to Toronto in April even though the Shih Tzu was less than half the maximum weight allowed by the airline.
It was a good article that focused on the facts, marred only by the inclusion of Gabor Lukacs' baseless allegation that the flight might have been oversold.
Good luck to OP.