Cdn Medical Association Wants Pets Banned from Cabin
Aug 23, 2011, 11:28 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: YYC
Programs: AC Basic, UA MP Gold, Marriott Gold Elite, SPG Gold, Amex Platinum
Posts: 3,008
Cdn Medical Association Wants Pets Banned from Cabin
First two paragraphs quoted from the following source:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...610/story.html
http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...610/story.html
ST. JOHN'S — The country's largest doctors group wants cats and other small animals banned from airplane cabins.
The Canadian Medical Association on Tuesday voted in favour of a ban on all pets, except for certified service animals, such as guide dogs, travelling inside aircraft cabins on all Canadian passenger planes.
B.C. doctor Mark Schonfeld says current federal regulations allowing major national airlines to accept in-cabin household pets are posing serious threats to people allergic to animals.
Cats and small dogs are the animals most likely to be found onboard, though some airlines allow birds and rabbits as well.
"While airlines argue that this is a great convenience for pet owners, the practice actually exposes our patients, and their passengers, to significant allergens that can make the journey very difficult — and occasionally quite seriously ill as a result," Schoenfeld said Tuesday in St. John's at the doctors group's annual assembly.
Schonfeld said allergies to pet allergens are now classified by the World Health Organization as a disability.
He said pet allergies are triggered by animal dander, saliva, sebum and fur. "These allergens are constantly shed into the air," he said, where they cling to seats, carpets and aisles and are spread by air-circulating systems.
The Canadian Medical Association on Tuesday voted in favour of a ban on all pets, except for certified service animals, such as guide dogs, travelling inside aircraft cabins on all Canadian passenger planes.
B.C. doctor Mark Schonfeld says current federal regulations allowing major national airlines to accept in-cabin household pets are posing serious threats to people allergic to animals.
Cats and small dogs are the animals most likely to be found onboard, though some airlines allow birds and rabbits as well.
"While airlines argue that this is a great convenience for pet owners, the practice actually exposes our patients, and their passengers, to significant allergens that can make the journey very difficult — and occasionally quite seriously ill as a result," Schoenfeld said Tuesday in St. John's at the doctors group's annual assembly.
Schonfeld said allergies to pet allergens are now classified by the World Health Organization as a disability.
He said pet allergies are triggered by animal dander, saliva, sebum and fur. "These allergens are constantly shed into the air," he said, where they cling to seats, carpets and aisles and are spread by air-circulating systems.
Aug 23, 2011, 11:50 am
#4
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: YYZ
Programs: SPG Gold, CX/Marco Polo Gold
Posts: 141
And lets stop them from restaurants too.
I'm cool with the guy that brings his lab to a bar patio where the dog is outside and wel behaved but I'm not sool with the purse yorkie that gets fed from the table.
PEople now get notes from medical doctors so that this chihuahuas et al are 'service dogs'. Usually the service is companionship. If you have a hard time seeing and the dog helps you cross the street, that's a sevice. You don't need your rat of a dog in the cabin of a plane etc for 'companionship'.
End mini rant.
I'm cool with the guy that brings his lab to a bar patio where the dog is outside and wel behaved but I'm not sool with the purse yorkie that gets fed from the table.
PEople now get notes from medical doctors so that this chihuahuas et al are 'service dogs'. Usually the service is companionship. If you have a hard time seeing and the dog helps you cross the street, that's a sevice. You don't need your rat of a dog in the cabin of a plane etc for 'companionship'.
End mini rant.
Aug 23, 2011, 12:03 pm
#5
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cote d'Azur, France
Programs: AC SE, AA Plat, ICS Platinum, Hyatt Platinum
Posts: 22
And I'll come at this from the other side. What about all the screaming babies, bratty kids etc who disrupt air travel for the rest of passengers?
Maybe we should put them in the baggage hold for travel as well?
Some of us don't have kids, not because we don't want them, but because we CAN'T have them.
So for people like us, our family includes pets, and yes, one of those is a "purse Yorkie". She joins us in restaurants (very happily accepted throughout most of France, and no, she doesn't get fed from the table).
She also sleeps quietly on flights back home to Toronto (has been on several), and makes less of a fuss than virtually ANY kid on the plane (she sleeps in her bag, under my wife's seat, for the entire flight).
She did pee on the jetway in Pearson her very first time there, but hey, I've been tempted to do that myself once or twice, so I really can't blame her.
What this country, and several more like it, need is not MORE regulation, but rather less government interference.
Why is it that we have to legislate to the lowest common denominator all the time, instead of letting personal responsibility and common sense prevail?
Patrick
Maybe we should put them in the baggage hold for travel as well?
Some of us don't have kids, not because we don't want them, but because we CAN'T have them.
So for people like us, our family includes pets, and yes, one of those is a "purse Yorkie". She joins us in restaurants (very happily accepted throughout most of France, and no, she doesn't get fed from the table).
She also sleeps quietly on flights back home to Toronto (has been on several), and makes less of a fuss than virtually ANY kid on the plane (she sleeps in her bag, under my wife's seat, for the entire flight).
She did pee on the jetway in Pearson her very first time there, but hey, I've been tempted to do that myself once or twice, so I really can't blame her.
What this country, and several more like it, need is not MORE regulation, but rather less government interference.
Why is it that we have to legislate to the lowest common denominator all the time, instead of letting personal responsibility and common sense prevail?
Patrick
Aug 23, 2011, 12:17 pm
#6
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SFO
Programs: *G^2, Bonvoyed, NEXUS
Posts: 3,512
And I'll come at this from the other side. What about all the screaming babies, bratty kids etc who disrupt air travel for the rest of passengers?
Maybe we should put them in the baggage hold for travel as well?
Some of us don't have kids, not because we don't want them, but because we CAN'T have them.
So for people like us, our family includes pets, and yes, one of those is a "purse Yorkie". She joins us in restaurants (very happily accepted throughout most of France, and no, she doesn't get fed from the table).
She also sleeps quietly on flights back home to Toronto (has been on several), and makes less of a fuss than virtually ANY kid on the plane (she sleeps in her bag, under my wife's seat, for the entire flight).
She did pee on the jetway in Pearson her very first time there, but hey, I've been tempted to do that myself once or twice, so I really can't blame her.
What this country, and several more like it, need is not MORE regulation, but rather less government interference.
Why is it that we have to legislate to the lowest common denominator all the time, instead of letting personal responsibility and common sense prevail?
Patrick
Maybe we should put them in the baggage hold for travel as well?
Some of us don't have kids, not because we don't want them, but because we CAN'T have them.
So for people like us, our family includes pets, and yes, one of those is a "purse Yorkie". She joins us in restaurants (very happily accepted throughout most of France, and no, she doesn't get fed from the table).
She also sleeps quietly on flights back home to Toronto (has been on several), and makes less of a fuss than virtually ANY kid on the plane (she sleeps in her bag, under my wife's seat, for the entire flight).
She did pee on the jetway in Pearson her very first time there, but hey, I've been tempted to do that myself once or twice, so I really can't blame her.
What this country, and several more like it, need is not MORE regulation, but rather less government interference.
Why is it that we have to legislate to the lowest common denominator all the time, instead of letting personal responsibility and common sense prevail?
Patrick
Aug 23, 2011, 12:19 pm
#7
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,446
Aug 23, 2011, 12:27 pm
#8
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Toronto, NYC, somewhere on planet Earth
Programs: UA 1K, AA ExPlat, Hyatt Diamond, SPG Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 8,289
And I'll come at this from the other side. What about all the screaming babies, bratty kids etc who disrupt air travel for the rest of passengers?
Maybe we should put them in the baggage hold for travel as well?
Some of us don't have kids, not because we don't want them, but because we CAN'T have them.
So for people like us, our family includes pets, and yes, one of those is a "purse Yorkie". She joins us in restaurants (very happily accepted throughout most of France, and no, she doesn't get fed from the table).
She also sleeps quietly on flights back home to Toronto (has been on several), and makes less of a fuss than virtually ANY kid on the plane (she sleeps in her bag, under my wife's seat, for the entire flight).
She did pee on the jetway in Pearson her very first time there, but hey, I've been tempted to do that myself once or twice, so I really can't blame her.
What this country, and several more like it, need is not MORE regulation, but rather less government interference.
Why is it that we have to legislate to the lowest common denominator all the time, instead of letting personal responsibility and common sense prevail?
Patrick
Maybe we should put them in the baggage hold for travel as well?
Some of us don't have kids, not because we don't want them, but because we CAN'T have them.
So for people like us, our family includes pets, and yes, one of those is a "purse Yorkie". She joins us in restaurants (very happily accepted throughout most of France, and no, she doesn't get fed from the table).
She also sleeps quietly on flights back home to Toronto (has been on several), and makes less of a fuss than virtually ANY kid on the plane (she sleeps in her bag, under my wife's seat, for the entire flight).
She did pee on the jetway in Pearson her very first time there, but hey, I've been tempted to do that myself once or twice, so I really can't blame her.
What this country, and several more like it, need is not MORE regulation, but rather less government interference.
Why is it that we have to legislate to the lowest common denominator all the time, instead of letting personal responsibility and common sense prevail?
Patrick
Aug 23, 2011, 12:32 pm
#9
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: YYC
Posts: 4,035
We've got 2 dogs and travel with them quite regular, sometime together sometime just one of us. Sometimes Y, sometimes J.
When I walk by the SD getting on, I say "I know. He stays in and under," and I get as smile. The most common comment we get is "There was a dog under there?" when we get off the plane with them.
The reality is that # of people travelling with pets > # people deathly allergic to pets. It was that fact that made AC revert to its old policy after changing it to ban pets. I don't expect this to make a damn difference, because until/unless they are ordered to ban pets from flights, AC or WS aren't going to.
Also, there is no need for the stupid 'we should ban kids' argument, as it isn't the same thing (as a human, the baby has the advantage of discrimination laws). There are plenty of better arguments. For instance that the vast, vast majority of pet allergies are controllable through medication. That AC and WS both already enforce 'pet free zones' if requested. And that people whose allergies are so bad that they can't be within 20 rows of a cat, are just as screwed with pets in the hold on a small aircraft as the air systems aren't separate.
I'm allergic to scents, smoke, grass, and pretty much everything else in the world. It means I take allergy meds every day to ensure I don't have a reaction. It's called personal responsibility. I sure as heck wouldn't think its up to AC to ensure I get on a scent/smoke/life free aircraft.
When I walk by the SD getting on, I say "I know. He stays in and under," and I get as smile. The most common comment we get is "There was a dog under there?" when we get off the plane with them.
The reality is that # of people travelling with pets > # people deathly allergic to pets. It was that fact that made AC revert to its old policy after changing it to ban pets. I don't expect this to make a damn difference, because until/unless they are ordered to ban pets from flights, AC or WS aren't going to.
Also, there is no need for the stupid 'we should ban kids' argument, as it isn't the same thing (as a human, the baby has the advantage of discrimination laws). There are plenty of better arguments. For instance that the vast, vast majority of pet allergies are controllable through medication. That AC and WS both already enforce 'pet free zones' if requested. And that people whose allergies are so bad that they can't be within 20 rows of a cat, are just as screwed with pets in the hold on a small aircraft as the air systems aren't separate.
I'm allergic to scents, smoke, grass, and pretty much everything else in the world. It means I take allergy meds every day to ensure I don't have a reaction. It's called personal responsibility. I sure as heck wouldn't think its up to AC to ensure I get on a scent/smoke/life free aircraft.
Last edited by rehoult; Aug 23, 2011 at 12:58 pm Reason: Grammar
Aug 23, 2011, 12:35 pm
#10
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: YYC
Posts: 4,035
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cabinair/index.html
Aug 23, 2011, 12:57 pm
#11
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Whitehorse, Yukon
Programs: Aeroplan Elite, Intercontinental Royal Ambassador & Priority Club Plat, Hhonors Gold, Air Miles Gold
Posts: 312
And I'll come at this from the other side. What about all the screaming babies, bratty kids etc who disrupt air travel for the rest of passengers?
Maybe we should put them in the baggage hold for travel as well?
Some of us don't have kids, not because we don't want them, but because we CAN'T have them.
So for people like us, our family includes pets, and yes, one of those is a "purse Yorkie". She joins us in restaurants (very happily accepted throughout most of France, and no, she doesn't get fed from the table).
She also sleeps quietly on flights back home to Toronto (has been on several), and makes less of a fuss than virtually ANY kid on the plane (she sleeps in her bag, under my wife's seat, for the entire flight).
She did pee on the jetway in Pearson her very first time there, but hey, I've been tempted to do that myself once or twice, so I really can't blame her.
What this country, and several more like it, need is not MORE regulation, but rather less government interference.
Why is it that we have to legislate to the lowest common denominator all the time, instead of letting personal responsibility and common sense prevail?
Patrick
Maybe we should put them in the baggage hold for travel as well?
Some of us don't have kids, not because we don't want them, but because we CAN'T have them.
So for people like us, our family includes pets, and yes, one of those is a "purse Yorkie". She joins us in restaurants (very happily accepted throughout most of France, and no, she doesn't get fed from the table).
She also sleeps quietly on flights back home to Toronto (has been on several), and makes less of a fuss than virtually ANY kid on the plane (she sleeps in her bag, under my wife's seat, for the entire flight).
She did pee on the jetway in Pearson her very first time there, but hey, I've been tempted to do that myself once or twice, so I really can't blame her.
What this country, and several more like it, need is not MORE regulation, but rather less government interference.
Why is it that we have to legislate to the lowest common denominator all the time, instead of letting personal responsibility and common sense prevail?
Patrick
Aug 23, 2011, 12:57 pm
#12
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Whitehorse, Yukon
Programs: Aeroplan Elite, Intercontinental Royal Ambassador & Priority Club Plat, Hhonors Gold, Air Miles Gold
Posts: 312
No. Common misconception that is played on, again and again and again to support bans. You're worse off in your house, office, car or any building than you are in a modern plane.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cabinair/index.html
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cabinair/index.html
Aug 23, 2011, 1:44 pm
#13
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E75, SPG Plat, HH peon-by-choice (ex Gold)
Posts: 8,090
No, my home/office/car doesn't have any pets. Can't see how being in an airplane with pets is better. Don't agree? Maybe you can write a rebuttal to the CMA.
Aug 23, 2011, 2:46 pm
#14
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: YYC
Posts: 4,035
The CMA doesn't need to (and shouldn't, I would argue) consider the practicality of their recommendations. Nor do they need to be experts in airframe design. I accept their recommendation that public health would be better off if pets were banned from all forms of public transportation. I also accept that public health would be better off if alcohol and tobacco were banned. They're good and valid recommendation to improve the health of Canadians.
It is the regulators' job to do the cost benefit analysis and determine if the health benefits of a change are worth the cost (whether in money, time or effort). As of yet, those regulators haven't found it worth banning pets from planes, or smoking, or drinking. And personally, the thought of the government stepping in to ban pets from planes/trains/buses to benefit a relatively insignificant percent of the population, while continuing to allow smoking and drinking (which kill/affect 10000x more people) is outrageous.
Aug 23, 2011, 3:24 pm
#15
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,803
They may play know-it-all with their patients, potentially with good reasons. But at the end of the day, medicine remains more witchcraft than science. They may have learnt (the hard way) a thing or two on allergies. But on air filtration?