znke252

Perhaps folks who wish to take pets with them on flights can work towards improving conditions in the specialty cargo section.

Stranger

What seems to be getting lost in the noise, again, is that airplane air filtration is actually quite efficient. Is the issue of pet allergies real or imagination?

How does this issue differ from nut allergies, perfume allergies and the like? Why should policies differ?

Jasper2009

IMO there´s a huge difference between the allergies to you list.

E.g. a basic analysis could consist of:

1) How many people suffer from allergy x?
2) How easy is it to ban the source causing the allergy?
3) What´s the ratio of people suffering from things outside their control (not actively consuming/doing something) and those people who feel inconvenienced by the regulation?
4) Who should we invonvenience more? (3 surely is a helpful metric IMO)

The biggest difference between pet allergies and nut allergies is that people suffer from other people bringing their pets onboard while only a very few people suffer from other people eating nuts (My somewhat educated guess would be that >95% only develop symptoms if they eat nuts, but not when others eat nuts)

So without boring anyone with a lengthly analysis, the reason why the allergies should be treated differently IMO is:

a) nut allergy: reaction can be avoided by not eating nuts in the vast majority of cases
b) perfume allergies: banning or even restricting perfume not feasable
c) pet allergies: relatively large number affected by pets within x rows, ban would solve issues for nearly all people allergic, ratio of #3 likely the highest

Again, it doesn´t make sense to ban every possible cause o fallergies, but I think banning pets would make a lot of sense.

Stranger

Translation in few words: banning pets makes sense because it's easy. Easier than the other stuff.

Of course that does not address my first (and most important point): are we dealing we a problem that is real, or merely a perception? I continue expecting that efficient filtering makes the problem more or less go away.

True that different allergies may have different impact or work differently. But I still don't see a case whereby pets are worse than the other cases. The claim that nut allergies is easily dealt with does not appear to be uniformly accepted by the anti-nuts crusaders. OTOH surely the risks of nut allergies sound worse.

Finally when coming to perfumes, I fail to see why banning perfumes would not be possible. In fact it would seem to me that it's by far the easiest thing to do. Enforcement may sound difficult, but I would think that if such a ban were well-advertised when buying a ticket, then a few spectacular well-publicized boarding denials per year would do a wonderful job at convincing bimbos to avoid perfume when flying.

Jasper2009

Exactly. That and the benefit of helping some pax while inconveniencing a relative low number of pax. (pax travelling with pets: probably <0.1%, pax using perfume/deodorant/etc.: probably >90%)

I honestly don´t have any data to say either way, I can only provide my personal experience:

I can remember two instances where a fellow pax was affected by another pax´ pet. In one case it was in Y and the pax was given another seat 15 rows away, in the other case it was in int´l F and obviously there was nowhere to move and he was pretty upset. Of course some will say he could have moved to C/Y, but in that case we´re talking about valuing the perceived need to have a pet onboard higher than another pax´ comfort/health. Long story short: The problem does exist. Can I tell you how big a problem it is? No. Can anybody on FT? Probably not.

Funnily enough I fail to see how banning perfumes would be possible at all. Shall the GA sniff at all pax? Or a dog (who other pax may be allergic to )?Where do you draw the line between perfumes and deodorants? Such a policy would probably inconvenience nearly all pax and is not feasable at all IMO.

I guess we´ll agree to disagree on this topic.

morphius909

+ INFINITY!


I've never been on a flight that had an animal on it, or at least didn't know about, but the mere thought of pets on planes is just gross (other than as others have stated-service dogs which are legitimate and understandable...and no COMPANIONSHIP is not Service Dogs!!!)

Braindrain

Considering most medical researchers are PhD/MDs, I'm guessing you've never actually spoken to one.

robsaw

The biggest reason to ban pets from the cabin is that we need as a society to start pushing back on the psychological phenomenon of treating pets as family, it is an exceedingly dangerous trend that just needs to be stopped. It already has given rise to PETA, imagine what could be next.

Only half sarcasticly speaking.

Braindrain

No sarcasm needed. The PETA people are nuts. Serious nutjobs.

Jasper2009

Are you saying going to group therapy with my gold fish, talking to him for several hours each day and taking him on-board as my emotional support animal is not normal behaviour?

Ancien Maestro

Speaking with those who travel with small animals.. they put them in a cage that is specially designed for shipping.. and the crew is trained to help the animals..

I agree, to improve conditions if necessary..

rehoult

It's actually a rather painful process, mostly due to a lack of information.

For instance:

The AC website says they don't recommend shipping on 320 series in the winter as they aren't heated. Phone AC to confirm, "Yup. They aren't heated". So I went out of my way to find a routing that could go YYC-(320)-YVR-(777/767/330)-YYZ so that the dog wouldn't have to be in an unheated aircraft for 4 hours in -40 in January. Phone AC Live Cargo to book, and the guy's response is "What are you talking about. I load that plane every day and all the 320 have a bulk cargo section at the rear of the plane that's heated". Which is it?

Ancien Maestro

Sounds like there is a special section in the back that's heated..

Its a specialized transport process.. setup to be able to ship animals in comfort.. even the staff at airlines rarely know about it..

I used to pick up and send shipments directly off the plane because materials were extremely time sensitive in my publishing business.. long and behold many dog and cat lovers would show up at cargo and place the animals in the bins..

ime.. I think you'll get a straighter answer by phoning up the airline cargo department about the procedure.. and more specifically if you're able to ship animals in cold weather on the Airbus 320 cargo

Stranger

True, but this a more like a formal thing. They may well end up getting a PhD out of for instance clinical research, which is not really scientific. Merely establishing connections out of observation.

Either way, I have yet to find a medical researcher who has a real understanding of fluid mechanics.

gglave

Agreed.

First off, I'm certainly not anti-pet. We have a large, very friendly, five-year-old Golden Retriever. He'll never be travelling in the passenger cabin.

That being said, I think eventually it will come down to people having to decide what's more important -

1) Being able to regularly travel by air or
2) Having a pet as 'part of the family.'

When we travel by air our dog either goes to another family member's house or heads off to "doggy camp." (Which he loves.) We accept that travelling by air means our pet doesn't accompany us. Our daughter misses him a little, but that's just how it is.

Bottom line? If you can't be without your pet, don't travel by air.