Pets again welcome in cabin?
 

Frontier today announced pets will be welcome in-cabin; I assume this applies to flights currently flying as Midwest, as well.

http://frontierair.tekgroupweb.com/a...rticle_id=5191

http://www.frontierairlines.com/fron...g-with-pets.do

MostlyAir...can you confirm same policy applies? If so, will the number be limited to a max of two per flight, as previously? I can see more than two creating some problems.

There are interesting posts, both pro and con, on JSOnline.
http://www.jsonline.com/business/93593639.html

These policies span across the whole network no matter if the plane is Midwest or Frontier branded. The airline is Frontier, so when an announcement is sent out that says Frontier airlines, it also is for the Midwest flights.

Here's the rule for the amount of pets you can carry on-board:

Make advance reservations as no more than ten pet containers (or two containers on Q400 aircraft operated by Lynx Aviation) will be accepted per flight and no more than one pet container may be carried per person.

So you can personally carry on one pet in a container and place it under the seat in front of you. No more than 10 carry on pets are allowed per flight expect for Lynx which is 2. So if you can find friends you can carry on more pets, but they would have to carry on the pet and store it for you.

Hope this helps.

Ten pet containers? I cannot find any other airline which allows up to ten. Most allow 4-6 in the main cabin and two in First Class. FL allows a total of six.

This seems like way too many, and I believe this high limit will discourage many potential customers.

It would seem to make sense to limit the number of pets based on aircraft size/number of seats, which varies within the fleet. I did notice that Lynx is limited to two.

Does this mean than ten pet carriers would be allowed on an E135, which has only 35 seats? That could equate to almost one pet carrier per row of seats.

Yes, they're two different airline policies. Republic allows up to 10 pet containers on their aircraft while Lynx's policy only allows 2. So there could be 10 pet containers on a E35.

While this does seem high for a E35 I think the pet limit is probably one of the lowest priority items that goes into a flight purchase decision. Just because there is a limit doesn't mean it will get used, but it makes sense for Frontier to be seen as animal friendly don't you think?

Read the replies on JSOnline for some very fervent opinions (some are very funny, some fairly obnoxious):

http://www.jsonline.com/business/93593639.html

The previous policy allowed small dogs; the new policy allows a menagerie of animals. There are people out there (not me) who have health issues related to pet allergies and animal dander, causing difficulties in breathing, which is not so funny, when you are 35,000 feet in the air.

When a customer books, there is no way of knowing how many animals will be in the cabin; the more animals onboard, the more difficult to move all of those animals away from the affected passenger.

Ten yapping small dogs on a flight would drive me nuts.

I think that number is very unlikely, I've only seen one since YX began the program.

How about ten birds chirping? I hope they comp tv on those flights so passengers have something else to listen to.

I don't know which would be worse.

It is interesting that the re-introduction of this program is getting the comments that it is getting...I dont believe the general public knew that the old Midwest had the "Premiere Pet Program"...where they gave you a care package for your pet along with allowing your pet to accrue frequent flyer miles towards a free ticket.

Besides...most airlines already have one of these in place...In fact Airtran has a similar program...So the negativity of this is bewildering.

I have even heard this brought up on talk radio and the calls have almost entirely been negative...people complaining about allergies and the smell of feces...Comparing a dog on board to someone bringing their baby...There was even a suggestion that terrorists could stow a device inside an animal they were carrying on...Craziness!

People, these types of programs have been around forever.

It seems that when one of these programs is announced for an airline that it will always get a negative rap. Especially when it comes to people inside the cabin that have allergies. Same thing happened when Southwest announced their pet program last year.

I don't believe that we will actually see 10 pets in the cabin. When I was flying during the summer and the PPP was still in place it was about 1/3 flights had 1 small dog on the flight and they didn't make any noise or cause any trouble.

Granted, there have been some crazy comments about in-cabin pets, but there are some serious concerns, which must be taken into consideration.

The PPP was much smaller scale; originally it allowed only small dogs, and I believe, toward the end, also allowed small cats. I also recall that only two or three were allowed in the cabin, per flight.

My objection concerns the maximum allowable, per flight, without regard to the size/capacity of the aircraft...whether it's an Airbus with 136 seats or an E135 with 37 seats; I believe that there should be a logical formula, not just a flat number for any flight.

Also, until you have actually seen someone having an allergy/asthma attack, which critically affects their ability to breathe, do not downplay the health risk. It can be a life-threatening situation.

If most airlines are notified that a passenger on a particular flight has a severe pet allergy, they will try to make accommodations to move the pet and its owner away from the passenger who has the allergy; some will even go as far as asking the passenger traveling with the pet if they would be willing to take a different flight, if need be.

Obviously, this is a very touchy topic, but there must be a happy medium; IMO, this new program can use some modifications.

I like animals, too...I've had my share of pets. But, a law called ADA must be taken into consideration. Asthma and allergies are considered disabilities under the ADA.

If I may play devil's advocate for a moment, flowers and peanuts and perfume and all sorts of other allergens aren't banned carry-on items so why should animals be given separate consideration?

Allergic reactions to peanuts can also be a very serious life-threatening issue. Those who have read newspaper accounts or seen broadcast news reports of school incidents are well-aware of the problem.

This is not just a matter of a few sneezes or itchy eyes for being exposed to allergens, such as flowers.

Southwest will swap out their peanut snack for a different snack on a flight when they have been informed that a passenger has a serious allergy to peanuts. They also recommend that passengers with peanut allergies book a first-out flight of the day, and they will make a special attempt to completely clean the aircraft of peanut dust.

If Southwest can be both accommodating and successful....?

Again, we are talking about serious health risk, here, not just a matter of someone not liking animals or being afraid of a little extra noise or "unusual" aroma in the plane. This should be treated just as seriously as a physically-challenged passenger, who is unable to board an aircraft without the assistance of a wheelchair down the jetway or an aisle chair to their seat.

Well aware of the peanut threat, and the very example I hoped would be raised.

Regardless of catering, it's about what pax bring on board that is my point. Airlines don't gate screen for allergens because if they tried they'd never really get to the bottom of it without unduly inconveniencing or alienating pax.

Aroma is irrelevant. Flowers and perfume are allergens, mild to serious depending on the individual.

What is essential about the allergen argument is not the source but the fact that these substances are microscopic, omnipresent and particular to individuals -- therefore, impossible to screen out 100%. IOW, where does an airline draw the line? Many assume animal dander and peanuts are somehow orders more serious or life-threatening than other allergens. That simply isn't true. Severity of reaction is relative to individuals rather than an intrinsic property of an allergen itself.