Nomad98

They are accompanying their parents on the trip. WHERE does it say that they do not belong on the plane?
Specific Terms and conditions related to pets, we accept to when we purchase the ticket..Curious

Good time to start pet flights !

PTravel

Sorry, but this is a straw man argument. I've never heard anyone object to service animals (except that crazy woman in another video).

My understanding of the policy (in fact, of all airlines' policies) is that service animals will come first, as they should. Of course, that has nothing to do with anything in this thread, which is about an almost certainly fake ESA and a "plain old" pet.

Not just a better policy for removing passengers, but a better policy for resolving issues. How difficult would it have been to say,

"Look, I understand you don't want to sit near an animal. I also understand ESAs cause lots of disputes, and many people abuse the rules with respect to ESAs. We're not happy with the people who abuse the rules, either. The problem is, with respect to ESAs, there's nothing we can do -- federal law says they have the right to be here. The same with pets -- FAA rules govern their transport. What I can do, though, is find you another seat as far as possible from the animals. I'd also be happy to give you a couple of drink coupons to, perhaps, make the flight more enjoyable. Would that be okay?"

That's a far cry from:

"Oh, you have a life-threatening allergy? Do you have proof? No? Then show me a doctor's note that say you can fly with your allergy. Oh, you don't have one? Then, sorry, WN can't fly you. You need to gather your things and get off the plane now. Oh, now you want to stay on the plane? Well you can't. If you won't get off voluntarily, we'll call the police and they'll take you off. No, I won't discuss this with you. Okay, I'm calling the police."

Do I know for certain that the FA was closer to the latter than the former? No, I don't. But I do know that all but the drunk and insane can be reasoned with when treated with respect and consideration. So that's my bet.

NW.BTR.Than.The.Rest

Look, she was probably asked nicely to deplane at first, did not comply, acted out, police were called and did their job. I am so sick of companies having to apologize for their proper actions. I've not taken the time to look up rules about 'proof' of allergies, but, if they are as stated in this thread then WN did the appropriate thing. All the passengers should have been up screaming at her to LEAVE! Instead, some liberal can be heard saying, "she's trying to walk", well too bad. I certainly hope I don't hear later that the police involved are being reprimanded. Shame on you WN if you do anything for this woman other than provide transportation to her ticketed destination!

PAX62

Nor do quite a few humans.

Good for WN...ESA issues aside, there was also a legit paid for traveling pet in cabin that is allowed per WN terms. If this woman's allergy was so life threatening and did not voice that allergy to WN who has a known allowable pet policy ahead of time before boarding to make certain accommodations could be made...they she is an idiot and deserved to get booted rather than putting her life at risk and potentially diverting the whole plane.

No different than denying a drunk/sick passenger or someone who makes a false threat if that is the case.

I have zero sympathy for her.

Troopers

Several suggestions in this thread. Take a look.

LegalTender

WN stipulates the woman lacked proper medical certificate. That's irrelevant. If 3 pax spotting dogs in the gate area had revealed their pet allergies to WN would they be denied boarding? Perhaps a PA is in order going forward.

I had a boss who demonstrated a severe reaction to perfume. He said it was a toss-up whether airlines re-positioned him or the scent-laden.

mdkowals

The huge difference between this case and the Dr. Dao case in the public's eye will be the reason for the IDB.

In Dao's case it was perceived to be a matter of airline greed that they overbooked or chose flying airline employees over flying paid customers. After low balling the VDB numbers that NO ONE accetpted, they picked one passenger to pull. Just about every passenger on that plane was on Dr. Dao's side as they watched that unfold live.

In this case someone claimed a "life threatening" allergy to an animal that is quite commonly found in public spaces, including airplanes. Even practically, the allergens are from dander left behind by the animal, so removing the animal from the plane at that point might not have actually made a difference to what allergens were going to circulate in the air for the next few hours (provided she had no direct contact with the animal).

If I had to guess, a majority of the folks on that plane are going to take the side of WN if this ever plays out completely in public. This is especially true if her allergies aren't life threatening. The ESA scam may be a pet peeve of common travelers, but I don't know if it's much of an issue in the public eye. Also, "Human vs. Service Dog" doesn't play the same as "Human vs. Evil Airline" in the PR game.

(I wonder how hard some WN intern is pouring through social media right now for a picture of her and a dog).

Troopers

Agree.

Independent of the reason or who's at fault, the default procedure should not be call law enforcement to drag person off plane in front of all other paxs.

djjaguar64

Why does this only happen to USA airlines? Thats why its best to avoid these airlines.

Shombolar

"If I fly with a dog in the plane, I shall die!"

"Well, we can't remove the dogs. I'm so sorry. We'll have you exit the aircraft and reaccommodate you."

Faced with that choice, suddenly the allergy wasn't that bad after all ... yet the die was cast, and she didn't like the result.

Fleck

Please let this get wildly overblown by all those beautiful victim-identifiers on social media so I can buy the stock cheap.

Loved that UAL dip.

----

I'm a professor. I'm a big red fire engine!

ToddSpam

And I would add, I sure hope the victim club members have the opportunity to have to unload and try to reboard a plane, maybe miss connections, and take off later because some princess has a problem that requires everyone else to accomodate him or her.

THe airline did the right thing. The police were not rough with her either....if they were rough, that video would be less than 30 seconds.

SpinOn2

Oh boy here we go again, woman is entitled, thinks it's fair to kick off two people because she herself supposedly has pet allergies. Just like the people who miss a connection and demand to be put back into first and kick out the people who are already ticketed there.

But hey, we should also deplane an entire flight full of over 100 people who have places they need to be, all because one special snowflake cannot accept being rebooked on a more accommodating flight that fits her medical needs.

Then, when said person is asked to leave many times and explained it to, they refuse to follow instructions and become unlawful by refusing commands of police.... who of course will undoubtedly also become the bad guy here because they had to use force since the woman consistently was disobeying their orders.

Sadly, many uninformed people will jump to conclusions about "Fake ESAN's" and other things, without actually have any clue how the policy is and how it is supposed to work.

freeflyin

Charges have been filed. I am disappointed that WN apologized to this woman.


http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...927-story.html

DutchessPDX

Asinine argument and factually incorrect. First, this isn't a matter of valuing animals over humans, this is about accommodating someone making a claim they have a "life threatening" medical condition. Remember, ADA and the like only requires REASONABLE accommodations to passengers with disabilities. I don't think forcing multiple other passengers to deplane, causing loss of revenue for the airline due to re-routing because a single passenger has an allergy is a reasonable accommodation. Not to mention the domino effect with connections and subsequent flights. Second, please point me to the part of the COC where they guarantee their cabin to be pet free. This is public transportation, you can reasonably assume you will encounter any kind of service animal in a public place.

This is far more likely an entitled passenger who (incorrectly) thought they could bully the flight attendant into removing someone else's animal by claiming a "life threatening" medical condition. Well, it backfired. When questioned the passenger's story fell apart and they unwittingly (or knit-whittingly) painted themselves into a corner. Once you tell an FA that you have a "life threatening" medical condition they have to act appropriately. Removing that passenger was the right thing to do here.