7 Puppies Die After AA Flight...
#46
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,916
1. Agreed.
2. C. I am not implying anything about AA's (in)ability to transport animals nor am I saying that ground transport is inherently better. Ground transport horror stories also abound. I am saying that ultimately, the shipper has a duty to the animals. Imo it is the shipper's responsibility to transport healthy animals during optimum weather conditions. If it turns out the deaths were due to the extreme heat, both the airline and the shipper should have been aware of the danger in which they were placing those animals.
3. Agreed.
I am saying that ultimately, it is the shipper's responsibility to transport healthy animals during optimum weather conditions. If it turns out the deaths were due to the extreme heat, both the airline and the shipper should have been aware of the danger in which they were placing those animals.
2. C. I am not implying anything about AA's (in)ability to transport animals nor am I saying that ground transport is inherently better. Ground transport horror stories also abound. I am saying that ultimately, the shipper has a duty to the animals. Imo it is the shipper's responsibility to transport healthy animals during optimum weather conditions. If it turns out the deaths were due to the extreme heat, both the airline and the shipper should have been aware of the danger in which they were placing those animals.
3. Agreed.
I am saying that ultimately, it is the shipper's responsibility to transport healthy animals during optimum weather conditions. If it turns out the deaths were due to the extreme heat, both the airline and the shipper should have been aware of the danger in which they were placing those animals.
Do you believe that the 85 degree limit is too high, particularly given the post upstream that shows tarmac temperatures can be quite a bit higher? Perhaps the temperature range airlines accept animals needs to be reviewed?
I would just say if I were a shipper, who hadn't in the past had animals placed in to the care of AA die, I would feel safe assuming that AA could have shipped them safely in this case?
I don't think anybody is saying AA was malicious, but unless the animals were unhealthy to begin with, it would seem that something went wrong while they were under AA's care. If it ends up the animals died because they were exposed to either extreme heat or cold under AA's care, explain to me again how this is the shipper's fault?
#48
Join Date: Apr 2010
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 335
The original article did not say that they died as a result of the heat. There was a lot of information about temperatures and the airline's policy, but it did not say they died due to the heat. As quoted in the article by an AA spokesperson: "We won't know exactly what happened until the investigation is completed."
The second quoted article said the deaths were "mysterious".
The second quoted article said the deaths were "mysterious".
yet again 'mysterious' AApologists. ....
Yeah it's not as tragic as a war or famine, but it's still really lame. I love people blaming the shipper. The company should have said "this is unsafe we cannot do this'
People are dumb, the companies that serve the idiots shouldn't be
and yes, puppy mills are terrible
#49
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: OKC/DFW
Programs: AA EXP/2 MM
Posts: 9,999
I don't think anybody is saying AA was malicious, but unless the animals were unhealthy to begin with, it would seem that something went wrong while they were under AA's care. If it ends up the animals died because they were exposed to either extreme heat or cold under AA's care, explain to me again how this is the shipper's fault?
#50
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: STL
Programs: AA 2MM, AS MVP Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 12,966
The shipper certainly knew that there was a risk of death to the animals by shipping them on an airplane (unless the shipper has been living in a cave in Afghanisan). They chose to impose this risk on the animals to enhance their profits, and I blamed the shipper for that.
Personally, I do not feel the need for pure-bred pets, and believe in adopting from shelters, but if I did want a pure-bred pet, I would want to meet the breeder and visit the breeding premises before buying. I would never buy a pet that had been bred out of state and shipped in, this seems totally unnecessary and unwise to me.
My preference would be that airlines would not accept live animals for shipment in cargo holds unless their track record of delivering the animals alive approximates their track record of delivering their passengers in the cabin alive. The airline industry is unlikely to set this standard for themselves, the shippers are willing to accept a certain amount of "spoilage" as a risk of doing business, and the animals that have to pay the price have no say in the matter.
#51
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,916
The shipper certainly knew that there was a risk of death to the animals by shipping them on an airplane (unless the shipper has been living in a cave in Afghanisan). They chose to impose this risk on the animals to enhance their profits, and I blamed the shipper for that.
2. Are you saying shipping animals by air is cheaper than shipping by groud? Again, proof please?
Otherwise your allegations that the shipper as a business practice endangers animals by shipping them in a higher risk manner to increase the bottom line is quite unfair. I think your allegations are quite unfair to the shipping company unless you can provide us proof. I would be most interested to see your evidence as it might change my point of view.
#52
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SJC
Programs: AA EXP, BA Silver, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton diamond, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 33,526
(Then again, murder rates up there are pretty high... )
Cheers.
#53
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: STL
Programs: AA 2MM, AS MVP Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 12,966
1. Are you saying shipping animals by air is riskier than ground - i.e.- a higher ratio of deaths? Proof please.
2. Are you saying shipping animals by air is cheaper than shipping by groud? Again, proof please?
Otherwise your allegations that the shipper as a business practice endangers animals by shipping them in a higher risk manner to increase the bottom line is quite unfair. I think your allegations are quite unfair to the shipping company unless you can provide us proof. I would be most interested to see your evidence as it might change my point of view.
2. Are you saying shipping animals by air is cheaper than shipping by groud? Again, proof please?
Otherwise your allegations that the shipper as a business practice endangers animals by shipping them in a higher risk manner to increase the bottom line is quite unfair. I think your allegations are quite unfair to the shipping company unless you can provide us proof. I would be most interested to see your evidence as it might change my point of view.
But there are certainly lower-risk ways to do this. One lower risk manner would be to send each puppy with an employee in the cabin. Presumably, the reason they don't do that is cost (and its effect on profits). Instinct tells me that there are other, safer ways to ship animals, but I don't have statistics. I do know that I would not ship a pet of mine in the cargo hold of an airplane, and I would advise friends against doing that also.
I suspect that other FT members will split on this issue. Some will regard these animals as I believe the shipper does, as "product" which must be gotten to the market where it will fetch the highest price. Businesses will accept a certain amount of product spoilage in shipping as a cost of doing business, and pass that cost along to the end customer. These FT members will be most interested in the actual cause of death of these animals, whether AA was negligent and can be held liable.
Other FT members will view these animals in the light of our own pets, past and present. They will look at this whole business model of pet production, distribution, and retailing as not making much sense, imposing unnecessary hardships on the animals and not really adding any value. I am in this group. I have found shelter-adopted pets to meet my pet needs, and I think almost everybody would find the same. Millions of pets are killed every year because people buy these mass-produced animals instead of getting their pets from a shelter. I look on the resources used to produce, transport, and market this "pet product" as wasted resources.
We probably won't convince each other to change our minds on this issue. The first position is being well expressed in this thread. In expressing the second position, it is not my desire to make those holding the first position to feel attacked, just to present another viewpoint for consideration.
#54
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 526
Actually AA limits pets in cabins to 5 per flight in economy and you have to have an advance reservation--so it may take a long time to get them all on flights accompanied with people.
We probably will never have all the facts--but something went wrong in that cargo hold.
Puppies do not die from 85 degree heat at 6 am in the morning and were in the cargo hold in the air longer than on the ground and the entire time span is just a few hours.
We probably will never have all the facts--but something went wrong in that cargo hold.
Puppies do not die from 85 degree heat at 6 am in the morning and were in the cargo hold in the air longer than on the ground and the entire time span is just a few hours.
#55
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2001
Programs: DL 1 million, AA 1 mil, HH lapsed Diamond, Marriott Plat
Posts: 28,190
2. One would assume from a shipper's perspective if the carrier (ground or air) accepts the animals that they believe they can ship them safely?
Do you believe that the 85 degree limit is too high, particularly given the post upstream that shows tarmac temperatures can be quite a bit higher? Perhaps the temperature range airlines accept animals needs to be reviewed?
Do you believe that the 85 degree limit is too high, particularly given the post upstream that shows tarmac temperatures can be quite a bit higher? Perhaps the temperature range airlines accept animals needs to be reviewed?
You presume that the 85F carrier limit for passengers taking pets in the cargo hold applies for pets shipped as cargo. I do not. If AA has published restrictions for pets as bulk cargo it would help frame the argument.
It is curious to see how standards of evidence and burden of proof are applied in this thread.
#56
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: AUS
Programs: BAEC Gold, AA PPro, Hyatt Globalist, Amex Plat
Posts: 7,024
Regards
#57
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: OKC/DFW
Programs: AA EXP/2 MM
Posts: 9,999
AA put these puppies on the airplane in violation of their own policy of not accepting animals when the forecast for the origin/connection/destination locations is above 85 degrees. We do not know if this was a factor in the deaths, but AA certainly put these animals at risk. We also don't know if this was done as a mistake by an AA employee (more likely) or as a conscious corporate decision to disregard their own policy in this instance. I blamed AA for the unacceptable high risk imposed on these animals, not for their deaths.
The shipper certainly knew that there was a risk of death to the animals by shipping them on an airplane (unless the shipper has been living in a cave in Afghanisan). They chose to impose this risk on the animals to enhance their profits, and I blamed the shipper for that.
The shipper certainly knew that there was a risk of death to the animals by shipping them on an airplane (unless the shipper has been living in a cave in Afghanisan). They chose to impose this risk on the animals to enhance their profits, and I blamed the shipper for that.
Until the cause of death is known, we can't be sure that heat was a factor, but assuming the article was correct about the temperatures that day, then I agree that both the airline and the shipper put those puppies at risk.
OT: Fwiw I also agree with gemac that it is unfortunate that millions of animals are being mass-produced while millions of others must be destroyed because no one wants them. Since we have no need for registered dogs and cats, and because there are too many homeless animals in this country, our pets have always been animals which have been rescued. Some have found us; we've adopted others from the local shelter. Through the years, they have been wonderful companions for my family and me.
Edited to add:
Agreed. This is the point I attempted -and failed - to make last night. You have expressed it more clearly than I.
#58
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: RBKC
Programs: AA EXP and Eurostar Carte Blanche
Posts: 3,848
Also, in my experience, they have considered the forecast. I sent my dogs from ORD to BOS early one spring morning, and the temperature in BOS was below the minimum. However, it was forecast to quickly rise above the minimum, so once the AA Cargo rep checked the forecast, I got the green light.
This was for cold temperatures, though...
#59
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: STL
Programs: AA 2MM, AS MVP Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 12,966
I think we (you and I, at least) are in general agreement on the major issue here, mass production of pets in a society that has an overabundance of pets. I don't understand why a demand for these animals persists, but it does.
#60
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: PHX
Programs: AA Peon Gold
Posts: 2,915
I would respectfully disagree with that. My fully grown Boston Terrier has issues any time she's outside for more than 10 minutes when it's above 80 degrees because of her flat nose. That being said - I could easily see a flat nosed breed puppy, who is already stressed out as it is - having problems.