WN Asks Pax to Stop Recording BWI Ejection
Sep 28, 2017, 3:53 pm
#181
Join Date: Oct 2001
Programs: LTP, PP
Posts: 8,698
Sep 28, 2017, 4:18 pm
#182
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
I have zero problem with saying that a service animal or pet in cabin can not be accommodated on a particular flight due to the issue at hand IF the passenger on that flight makes their needs known FIRST upon booking and gives the airline a chance to make proper accommodations to block those out...otherwise tough cookies.
Sep 28, 2017, 4:43 pm
#183
Join Date: Jun 2015
Programs: VX Gold/WN Companion
Posts: 682
Understood...but part of my point was pets in cabin are paid for and booked like any other passenger and completely allowable. If already booked, they should not be the ones displaced if another passenger has an issue that had yet to be disclosed.
Sep 28, 2017, 4:56 pm
#184
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: SFO
Posts: 3,879
No. It's like saying shoplifters should be fined/jailed but they shouldn't have their hands cut off. We live in a civilized society.
Sep 28, 2017, 5:02 pm
#185
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: SFO
Programs: OZ Diamond/*G, IHG Diamond Amb, Hilton Gold
Posts: 2,239
Yep, we only know what we know based on what's made available to us. That's why WN should make a statement and they did. Problem is WN did not say "we explained the situation, offered her an alternative flight, offered a seat away from the dogs, and offered an alternative flight to the paxs w dogs. However, those reasonable options were not feasible to any of the parties. We exhausted all possible solutions before we called law enforcement." But WN didn't do those things except explain and then call the cops. If WN did do those things, I'm sure they would have stated so.
I'm not defending the lady. Lady was at fault for her behavior and WN handled the situation piss-poor. It's poor customer service, and that's why they apologized to her. It could have and should have been handled better.
I'm not defending the lady. Lady was at fault for her behavior and WN handled the situation piss-poor. It's poor customer service, and that's why they apologized to her. It could have and should have been handled better.
Sep 28, 2017, 5:12 pm
#186
Join Date: May 2009
Location: EUG
Programs: AS MVP, AA MM, HH Diamond, MR Gold
Posts: 8,220
It would not surprise me at all if the lady were told that she wouldn't be flying due to her pet allergy and also wouldn't be getting a refund so she should just go home. If WN offered to accommodate her, they would've said so. It's surprisingly common that people are removed from aircraft for non-legitimate reasons (not saying this one wasn't legitimate, but there are lots of non-legitimate removals of passengers from aircraft) and not offered re-accommodation or even a refund, which might be a reason why people behave irrationally when they are asked to leave the aircraft.
Sep 28, 2017, 5:23 pm
#187
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
I understand your point. I just don't agree with it. I know what you've described is airline policy, but I don't think it should be.
Sep 28, 2017, 5:52 pm
#189
Join Date: May 2009
Location: EUG
Programs: AS MVP, AA MM, HH Diamond, MR Gold
Posts: 8,220
That makes no sense. If she says at the gate, "I can't fly if there are any dogs on board because I have a LTA"...(and there were)...why was she ever allowed on the plane at all?
It's the classic case of make a scene, have it go viral, get handsomely compensated. Disgusting.
It's the classic case of make a scene, have it go viral, get handsomely compensated. Disgusting.
Sep 28, 2017, 7:36 pm
#191
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SAN
Programs: 1K (since 2008), *G (since 1990), 1MM
Posts: 3,218
I have zero problem with saying that a service animal or pet in cabin can not be accommodated on a particular flight due to the issue at hand IF the passenger on that flight makes their needs known FIRST upon booking and gives the airline a chance to make proper accommodations to block those out...otherwise tough cookies. It is selfish and irresponsible of that individual to assume their needs will be or could be accommodated otherwise for a published and allowable transportation policy of animals in cabin.
There is a previous poster that indicated there is no where online to note that...well if a phone call is too much of a problem to make you must not have that serious of a problem that need accommodation IMO.
There is a previous poster that indicated there is no where online to note that...well if a phone call is too much of a problem to make you must not have that serious of a problem that need accommodation IMO.
This WN incident again highlights the need for a better process. The airlines know in advance when animals will be in the cabin but not people with allergies.
Sep 28, 2017, 8:06 pm
#192
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Programs: UA, BA Avios, AMEX Plat
Posts: 497
Nope. I'm not suggesting lady receives higher priority than the paxs with dogs. The issue is how WN handled/resolved the problem that the lady created. Again, there are other reasonable options before the cops were needed...why didn't WN offer alternatives to the lady or the paxs w dogs? Do you see where WN failed?
The lady deserved to be fined/banned but doesn't deserved to be dragged off the plane.
Seems the only other solution anyone else has mentioned is to de-plane everyone and then re-board or re-book? So you just move the "scene" to the gate and inconvenience 100s of people. Tough situation for the airlines.
Sep 28, 2017, 8:09 pm
#193
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Programs: UA, BA Avios, AMEX Plat
Posts: 497
I believe I am the previous poster you refer to, and I have previously been informed by the airline (when I have called) that I can call and they can make a note on the reservation but that does not mean anyone looks at it. Please do not make assumptions about my allergy and my attempts to notify the airline. The only thing I am able to do is to be proactive with the GA if I see an animal. However, I try to use the restroom at the airport and not those on the plane so I guess you are saying my fault if I miss seeing the animal if the owner has been walking the animal and I miss seeing it in the boarding area.
This WN incident again highlights the need for a better process. The airlines know in advance when animals will be in the cabin but not people with allergies.
This WN incident again highlights the need for a better process. The airlines know in advance when animals will be in the cabin but not people with allergies.
Sep 28, 2017, 8:19 pm
#194
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 5,509
Southwest Airlines official policy states that Southwest is required "by law" to transport assistance and service animals. They do not require a passenger traveling with a service animal to inform them ahead of time. However, they will try to seat the allergy sufferer away from the animal if given enough notice.
Sep 28, 2017, 8:29 pm
#195
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,975