Dogs in First Class
#31
Join Date: Jul 2007
Programs: UA 1K MM, Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA PLT
Posts: 1,082
Perhaps renting private jet would be an effective way of guaranteeing that no person or animal affects you in any way.
#32
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Currently: DCA (+IAD/BWI). Before that: FNL (+DEN/COS). Before that: HVN (+BDL/LGA/EWR/JFK).
Programs: UA 1K, DL Gold, Hertz Five Star, NEXUS, Global Entry
Posts: 626
OP is right - his experience was truly unacceptable
My allergies don't make me less of a person than the dogs' owners - but the dogs are, by definition, not people. UA needs to change their policy ASAP to make it clear that the health of their paid, human passengers takes precedence over animals.
For UA to expect someone with a health-, or worse, life-threatening medical condition to either shut up and deal, or take the next flight, is totally unacceptable.
#33
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,510
Sorry. I travel with my dog in the cabin often enough and for you to expect that I should inconvenience myself to accomdate your medical condition is unacceptable.
#34
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Currently: DCA (+IAD/BWI). Before that: FNL (+DEN/COS). Before that: HVN (+BDL/LGA/EWR/JFK).
Programs: UA 1K, DL Gold, Hertz Five Star, NEXUS, Global Entry
Posts: 626
I backed up my statement with the fact that dogs aren't people. Any neutral observer would have to agree that the laws in this country recognize that fact, and that clearly, humans have more rights than dogs.
You're simply making an arbitrary statement that your dog (and hence your business) is more important to UA than my business, which directly implies that your dog is more important than my health. On what moral, ethical, or legal grounds would you care to stake that claim?
#35
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Boulder, CO
Programs: UA, AA, WN; HH, MR, IHG
Posts: 7,054
Nothing, but what makes your convenience (flying on this particular flight and/or in that particular seat/cabin) more important than the dog owner's convenience (flying on this particular flight and/or in that particular seat/cabin) ? That is the crux of the issue, not the dog itself.
Nobody is saying that you should jeopardize your health by flying with the dog. What people do object to is the notion that because you have a health issue, the person with the dog should be inconvenienced rather than you. Each of you wants the same thing: to fly on that flight, in that seat/cabin. One has a dog, one has an allergy to the dog, but nevertheless you both have exactly the same need/desire. Now, why should the dog owner be inconvenienced by having to take a different flight, instead of you being inconvenienced? Or vice-versa? It should be decided based upon normal rules, i.e. generally, the person refusing to fly under current conditions needs to undertake the burden of inconvenience; barring that, status/fare paid/time added to DM.
Bottom line: this isn't a question of whether the dog is more important than the human, but whether the dog owner (a human) is more important than the allergy sufferer (a human).
Your inference is absolutely incorrect. The poster was implying nothing about his/her dog. Again, it's about human versus human, not dog versus health.
Nobody is saying that you should jeopardize your health by flying with the dog. What people do object to is the notion that because you have a health issue, the person with the dog should be inconvenienced rather than you. Each of you wants the same thing: to fly on that flight, in that seat/cabin. One has a dog, one has an allergy to the dog, but nevertheless you both have exactly the same need/desire. Now, why should the dog owner be inconvenienced by having to take a different flight, instead of you being inconvenienced? Or vice-versa? It should be decided based upon normal rules, i.e. generally, the person refusing to fly under current conditions needs to undertake the burden of inconvenience; barring that, status/fare paid/time added to DM.
Bottom line: this isn't a question of whether the dog is more important than the human, but whether the dog owner (a human) is more important than the allergy sufferer (a human).
Your inference is absolutely incorrect. The poster was implying nothing about his/her dog. Again, it's about human versus human, not dog versus health.
#36
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,510
What makes your dog more important than my health?
I backed up my statement with the fact that dogs aren't people. Any neutral observer would have to agree that the laws in this country recognize that fact, and that clearly, humans have more rights than dogs.
You're simply making an arbitrary statement that your dog (and hence your business) is more important to UA than my business, which directly implies that your dog is more important than my health. On what moral, ethical, or legal grounds would you care to stake that claim?
I backed up my statement with the fact that dogs aren't people. Any neutral observer would have to agree that the laws in this country recognize that fact, and that clearly, humans have more rights than dogs.
You're simply making an arbitrary statement that your dog (and hence your business) is more important to UA than my business, which directly implies that your dog is more important than my health. On what moral, ethical, or legal grounds would you care to stake that claim?
Now we're all on board the same airplane but you're the one with the problem... so tell me, why should I have to inconvenience myself to accomodate you?
#37
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TUS and any place close to a lav
Programs: UA 1.6MM
Posts: 5,423
Today is Tuesday 6/2.
That would mean that if you sent the email to UA (via the website) on Friday, UA should have responded to you already?
Give UA awhile to get to your email. It's probably sitting in the queue. Wait a few weeks (2 to 3). If you haven't heard back, then print your email, throw a stamp on it and mail it.
United Airlines Customer Relations
WHQPW
PO Box 66100
Chicago, IL 60666
WHQPW
PO Box 66100
Chicago, IL 60666
#38
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: BRU (Belgium)
Programs: UA
Posts: 318
There is a difference between pets, service dogs and public service dogs... Pets are belonging in a carier or in the cargospace, service dogs can remain with their owner because they need them and maybe public service dogs (search and rescue dog, etc...) gains the same status as a law enforcement officer / emergency personell?
It seems that there was an ability to go to coach, and probably UA would be happy to refund your miles for the non used upgrade. Sorry for you and the allergy but it seemed that you were offered some reasonable solutions...
Have some respect for the dogs and their owners, maybe you need them one day (but let's hope not)...
#39
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Currently: DCA (+IAD/BWI). Before that: FNL (+DEN/COS). Before that: HVN (+BDL/LGA/EWR/JFK).
Programs: UA 1K, DL Gold, Hertz Five Star, NEXUS, Global Entry
Posts: 626
Let's take the most sympathetic example for the dog-owner: that it's someone who needs a service dog to get around. In this case, we have two people: the dog owner and the allergy sufferer. Both people have a medical issue. The difference is, the dog owner's remedy to his medical condition - his dog - is a direct threat to the health of the allergy sufferer, while the allergy sufferer's remedy to his medical condition - getting rid of the dog - is not a direct threat to the health of the dog owner.
That's why I maintain that the issue here truly is whether or not the dog is more important than the allergy sufferer.
#40
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: IAD
Programs: No Loyalty to any airline
Posts: 2,378
Really? So if someone in your family were allergic to, say, wheat products... and you went to a cultural event where the only food served was wheat-based, and you knew that in that culture, it was rude to refuse food when offered, you'd eat the wheat-based product? I find that hard to believe. As someone with a number of specific allergies (to both food and atmospheric allergens), some of which are life-threatening, I am incensed by the callousness of most people who have posted on this thread.
People posting here are just practical, not callous. OP had some choices. She could have moved back to Y in a seat far away from the other dog. She declined this choice. I am sure, though this was not discussed in her post, that someone in F may have traded seats with her, so she was not so close to the dog.
If OP has such severe allergies, she needs to be a little bit more proactive. She is responsible for her health, no one else. She needs to check with the airline in advance about the possibility of dogs in the cabin and see an allergist for some better medication. She has every right to complain about her experience and will probably be compensated.
#41
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: SNA
Programs: UA Million Mile Nobody, Marriott Platinum Elite, SPG Gold
Posts: 25,228
Life is unfair.
If you think that's the way it really works when it comes to "public servants", then I'm afraid that you're setting yourself up for a nasty shock... And if you ever called the FBI about something along these lines, even if they exercise the great self control not to laugh at you while still on the phone, their howling laughter after hanging up can probably be heard miles away.
Next time you're in a similar situation, perhaps walk up to the "public servant" and suggest it to him/her. And report back with how s/he reacted - I'm sure it will be comedy gold.
If you think that's the way it really works when it comes to "public servants", then I'm afraid that you're setting yourself up for a nasty shock... And if you ever called the FBI about something along these lines, even if they exercise the great self control not to laugh at you while still on the phone, their howling laughter after hanging up can probably be heard miles away.
Next time you're in a similar situation, perhaps walk up to the "public servant" and suggest it to him/her. And report back with how s/he reacted - I'm sure it will be comedy gold.
The point is, the dog impacts a human's health, the dog should go. Into the cargo hold if necessary (why wasn't this dog in the hold anyway?), or another flight. People have to come first. The agent should not have been given the right to refuse.
#42
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Currently: DCA (+IAD/BWI). Before that: FNL (+DEN/COS). Before that: HVN (+BDL/LGA/EWR/JFK).
Programs: UA 1K, DL Gold, Hertz Five Star, NEXUS, Global Entry
Posts: 626
Look, I'm not trying to start a fight here, I'm just really shocked that so many people think that it's totally OK to unnecessarily threaten someone else's health on a plane, especially when this threat would be so clearly avoidable.
Thanks, flyinbob! I'm glad at least someone agrees with me... I was starting to feel like I was the only one defending that position!
Thanks, flyinbob! I'm glad at least someone agrees with me... I was starting to feel like I was the only one defending that position!
Last edited by iluv2fly; Jun 2, 2009 at 4:21 pm Reason: merge
#43
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,510
At issue is not the dog. At issue is the OP's belief that the rest of the world (the dog owner in this case) should have to inconvenience themselves to accomodate them.
#44
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Currently: DCA (+IAD/BWI). Before that: FNL (+DEN/COS). Before that: HVN (+BDL/LGA/EWR/JFK).
Programs: UA 1K, DL Gold, Hertz Five Star, NEXUS, Global Entry
Posts: 626
As a dog owner, you should know well that you have more responsibilities to other humans, which are inconveniences to you - for example, you have to pick up after your dog when you take your dog out for a walk. Is that not an inconvenience to you, and one you must solely take to accommodate others?
#45
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Boulder, CO
Programs: UA, AA, WN; HH, MR, IHG
Posts: 7,054
The difference is, the dog owner's remedy to his medical condition - his dog - is a direct threat to the health of the allergy sufferer, while the allergy sufferer's remedy to his medical condition - getting rid of the dog - is not a direct threat to the health of the dog owner.
So, getting rid of the dog could very well be a direct threat to the health of the dog owner.
The only issue here is with the convenience of person A versus person B, not with dog versus health.
It's avoidable in two ways: the dog owner takes a different flight, or the allergy-sufferer takes a different flight. Now, again, what makes the convenience of one more important than the convenience of the other? As before, it should be decided based on the standard rules: s/he who refuses to fly shall be the one to bear the burden of the inconvenience; otherwise, status/fare/check-in time shall be the determiner.
Because the dog was a service animal, and service animals are allowed in the cabin. Travel in the hold is stressful on the animal and even animals whose service begins after the flight still need to be at peak performance.