Dogs in First Class

Old Jun 2, 2009, 3:26 pm
  #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.
kenhawk is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 3:27 pm
  #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

Originally Posted by 6rugrats
We have lots of allergies in our family, but do not consider it the responsibility of everyone else in the world to be considerate of that.
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.

Originally Posted by redreeper
If it were a person with a seeing eye dog on your flight, would you have been less allergic or complained just as much? What would you have expected at that point - the blind person and their dog to move or to leave the plane?
Yes, I would have complained, and yes, I would expect that sort of response from UA and the passenger.

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.
tjtenor4 is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 3:29 pm
  #33  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,510
Originally Posted by tjtenor4
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.
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.
fly2nrt is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 3:35 pm
  #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
Originally Posted by fly2nrt
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.
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?
tjtenor4 is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 3:41 pm
  #35  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Boulder, CO
Programs: UA, AA, WN; HH, MR, IHG
Posts: 7,054
Originally Posted by tjtenor4
What makes your dog more important than my health?
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).

Originally Posted by tjtenor4
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.
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.
cepheid is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 3:43 pm
  #36  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,510
Originally Posted by tjtenor4
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 PAID for my ticket on UA. I also PAID for my dog to fly on UA. You PAID for your ticket on UA.

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?
fly2nrt is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 3:43 pm
  #37  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TUS and any place close to a lav
Programs: UA 1.6MM
Posts: 5,423
Originally Posted by FlyingUAtoday
Hi all. Haven't posted in awhile.

My husband and I were flying BWI to SAN via DEN on Friday 5/29.

[snip]

I have contacted UA Customer Service through UA's website, but have not heard anything back yet. Any advice on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated.
Let's see here. 5/29 was a Friday.

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
warreng24 is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 3:45 pm
  #38  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: BRU (Belgium)
Programs: UA
Posts: 318
Originally Posted by tjtenor4
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.
Maybe a public service or law enforcement dog isn't seen as an animal but as another law enforcement officer / firefighter / SAR personnel?

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)...
Bralo20 is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 3:49 pm
  #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
Originally Posted by cepheid
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).
You're all missing the point.

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.
tjtenor4 is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 3:49 pm
  #40  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: IAD
Programs: No Loyalty to any airline
Posts: 2,378
Originally Posted by tjtenor4
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.
I hate to be rude, but that's just stupid and has nothing to do with the OP's complaint and I don't recall saying anything about food allergies. Of course we would not eat any food that caused a life threatening reaction. And, I know of no culture that would expect you to. I'd rather be rude anyway then dead.

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.
6rugrats is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 3:50 pm
  #41  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: SNA
Programs: UA Million Mile Nobody, Marriott Platinum Elite, SPG Gold
Posts: 25,228
Originally Posted by stargold
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.
Yup, they would laugh... until called before a review. Unlike the days of old, complaints are not round-filed, but looked into, and if found to have any merit, are a part of that persons jacket forever. I have a feeling it is you who hasn't been a part of the real world recently.

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.
flyinbob is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 3:51 pm
  #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.

Originally Posted by flyinbob
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.
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
tjtenor4 is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 3:54 pm
  #43  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,510
Originally Posted by tjtenor4
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.
Yes. The allergy sufferer could've taken the next flight.

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.
fly2nrt is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 3:57 pm
  #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
Originally Posted by fly2nrt
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.
No, the dog is absolutely the issue, not the dog owner... especially in this case! In what way would it have inconvenienced the dog owner to have the dog in the hold?

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?
tjtenor4 is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 3:57 pm
  #45  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Boulder, CO
Programs: UA, AA, WN; HH, MR, IHG
Posts: 7,054
Originally Posted by tjtenor4
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.
Not only are you splitting hairs, but you are incorrect. If the dog is a service animal, getting rid of the dog is a direct threat to the health of the dog owner, exactly because the dog is a service animal. The dog could act as the eyes of a blind person, sense an imminent grand-mal seizure in an epileptic, prevent a psychotic break in an emotionally unstable person, or any other number of actions that, if missing, jeopardize 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.

Originally Posted by tjtenor4
That's why I maintain that the issue here truly is whether or not the dog is more important than the allergy sufferer.
And the above is exactly why we maintain you are wrong in that inference.

The only issue here is with the convenience of person A versus person B, not with dog versus health.

Originally Posted by tjtenor4
especially when this threat would be so clearly avoidable.
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.

Originally Posted by flyinbob
(why wasn't this dog in the hold anyway?)
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.
cepheid is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.