AArlington

I have to say I am in total agreement with your posts on this.

PTravel

Whoa! Just a minute while I check for extremely cold temperatures or flying porcines.

Dave Noble

If it takes 15 minutes to process one animal, would you be happy to stand queueing whilst 8 are processed?

It may well be a good charity and is possibly worthwhile ( though unless there is a large surplus of space in the US shelters , I am not entirely convinced ), but if it causes significant delays in check in for paying customers to an airline, then I think something needs to be addressed

e.g.

require that those travelling with these animals arrive 4 hours before departure , so that their processing has limited impact limit the number of animals per flight

If AA is reconsidering its participation, I would doubt very much indeed that it is due to a single complaint

jordyn

Hilariously, and aptly, none of these points have anything to do with actually accomplishing anything useful in the charitable work per se. Which is appropriate since there's plenty of animals to adopt in the U.S. and no particularly good reason for AA to be flying them from the Caribbean to the U.S. until that's no longer the case.

Transpacificflyer

Airlines have policies that offend or upset a large number of pax, and yet those pax, don't make a fuss;
- AA has a generous baggage allowance for active US military personnel. Some pax that pay for a bag resent the policy. There are probably more pax who disagree with some US foreign policies that resent getting bumped or having their seat selection changed in favour of military personnel. The airline has the policy because it is a good corporate citizen and knows that many other pax and personnel support the policy.
- AA has advance boarding for the disabled, elderly and families with children. I'm sure there are some pax that resent the policy because they have to wait.
- AA and other airlines are active supporters of a multitude of charities. It can be argued that those charitable endeavours detract from the corporate mission of providing air service. AA didn't check with me when it funded some charities. I bet, if AA hadn't donated, we could all have an extra olive in our salads.
- AA is a public company. If anyone has a problem with corporate policy, please buy a share in the company, and write to the company to express your sentiments. Attend the next annual meeting and let everyone know the corporate policy does not meet your approval. If the other shareholders agree, the concerns expressed will receive a rousing reception. If not, the complaint will be ignored and consigned to the bin of bitterness.

Here's a reality check: AA is a business entity and doesn't need the approval of its pax to support a charity. Allegations were made made about a delay. There is no evidence provided to suggest that the delay was a common occurrence. It may have been a one off or an infrequent situation perhaps brought on by a number of factors on the day in question. If the delay was a common occurrence, then yes the program has to be considered and adjusted. However, a policy which builds the brand image, that delivers significant benefits to employee cohesiveness and that is popular with the majority of pax is well worth retaining. The US population skews to compassion and kindness and I believe that the PAX supporting the program well outnumber the detractors. Killing the program may now cost AA more to the corporate brand than continuing the program.

Microwave

Gente reminder: please keep the topic in mind and ensure that your posts stay on it.

~Moderator

lobo411

Here's a reality check: I bet 99.9% of AA's clientele have never heard of this obscure program.

PTravel

The issue is not whether a policy "offends or upsets a large number of pax," but why I am not supportive of a specific "charitable act" that costs the airline nothing and, instead, shifts the cost to passengers without their consent.

Of course not. Corporations do what their boards of directors consider in the best interest of the shareholders. Are you suggesting that any corporate act is beyond public criticism? Are customers to simply say, "Thank you sir, may I have another?"

So what? That it is an irregular occurrence doesn't make it any more acceptable.

Or not. Now you're simply speculating. I can also speculate: maybe each and every dog brought on board this way howled its displeasure throughout the flight. And maybe not.

If a program, by design, earns good will for the airline while costing it nothing and, by design and definition, burdens only passengers without their knowledge or consent, it is a bad program. It would be an easy matter for AA to remedy this: as the burden consists of check-in delays, design the program so that participants must check-in outside the regular line.

And absolutely none of that has anything to do with the imposition on pax who just want to get home without undue delay, done in the name of a charity that they never chose to support.

As I said, it is a relatively easy matter for AA to remedy the flaws in the program -- all it takes some corporate expenditure on personnel to staff a separate check-in line. It is not the idea of rescuing dogs to which I object, but gaining "compassion credit" at the expense of passengers. TANSTAAFL.

PresRDC

If there are days when a lot of dogs are flying, why doesn't the shelter coordinate with AA in advance, so they can dedicate an agent to check in the dog transporters?

If AA truly considers this a worthwhile program, then surely the cost of an extra agent for a shift would be worth it. If AA is not willing to bear that incremental cost, perhaps the program is not as important to AA as some here might think.

ysolde

And here I thought shelters in the USVI were in the US. Learn something new every day . . .

This does seem like a good idea. An ideal solution, in fact. How practicable it is, in reality, I am not entirely sure. STT, like most Caribbean airports, usually works on "island time." This is not a criticism, just an observation. There never seems to be an excess of people working there. And those that are working there are cheerful and always happy to help out. They work at a different pace than say, the staff at JFK, for example. Which is why it is recommended that you arrive earlier than usual when flying out of STT.

jordyn

Looks like you will indeed learn something today. The USVIs are an unincorporated territory of the United States, which Wikipedia describes as:

So yeah, shelters in the USVI are governed by, but not within, the US.


Sidenote: I'm not sure JFK is the best place to pick to contrast to "island time"; certainly not based on anything related to baggage handling.

ysolde

So are you saying that people born in the USVI are not US citizens? That they have their own currency? That they use their own postal system? Can their laws be unconstitutional? Those Third Circuit judges would be so upset to find out they can's sit there in the winter, as they are wont to do (much as the First Circuit always seems to make its way to the warm climes of PR sometime around January).

These are US citizens living in a US territory under the protection of and subject to US law and the notion that the people (and animals) there are somehow not within the US is a red herring.

Dave Noble

The US Virgin Islands is not a state in the United STATES of America; if they are, then what state are they part of?

Even AA treats it as not being a domestic flight within the 50 US States in that AA operates flights with business and economy

MSPeconomist

For the record, DC is considered part of the USA (despite their Congressional representation), but they are not part of any state.

ysolde

The US has several territories; that is simply a historical fact. I really don't get what is so difficult about this concept.