Dogs in First Class

Old Jun 2, 2009, 3:58 pm
  #46  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: BRU (Belgium)
Programs: UA
Posts: 318
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.
It wasn't a threat to someones health nor on someones life... It caused some problems but AFAIK from reading the message from the OP it wasn't a threat... When it was a threat i'm sure that the OP wouldn't remain on the plane and took another flight or so.


Sorry that the dog caused problems but I remain with my previous post. Give the dog some credit, maybe you need it someday
Bralo20 is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 3:58 pm
  #47  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: IAD
Programs: No Loyalty to any airline
Posts: 2,378
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.
OP had what appears to be a relatively minor allergic reaction, to what she is assuming was the dog dander. She did not mention any shortness of breath, asthma attack or anaphylactic shock. Her experience was unpleasant and inconvenient, but not a major threat to her health.

She needs to carry more appropriate medication to protect herself in the future, as there is no way to predict a future allergic reaction.
6rugrats is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 4:00 pm
  #48  
 
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 6rugrats
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.
Well, count you and your family lucky. I'm sorry you think my personal experiences have been stupid - but it's pretty hard when you're in a foreign country, where you don't speak the language, to explain to your host that it's not that you don't want the food they're serving you (which would be considered an insult to the host), but that you can't eat it or you'll die.
tjtenor4 is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 4:03 pm
  #49  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: IAD
Programs: No Loyalty to any airline
Posts: 2,378
Originally Posted by tjtenor4
Well, count you and your family lucky. I'm sorry you think my personal experiences have been stupid - but it's pretty hard when you're in a foreign country, where you don't speak the language, to explain to your host that it's not that you don't want the food they're serving you (which would be considered an insult to the host), but that you can't eat it or you'll die.
I did not say your personal experiences were stupid; I merely pointed out this thread had nothing to do with any food allergies. We are talking about a dog on a plane. OP was not tied down and forced to stay on this flight or to eat the dog.

You are really going off on a tangent here, but I am glad you recovered from having to eat a meal that you were allergic to in a country where you did not speak the language. Perhaps in the future making a list of some common phrases explaining any medical problems would be helpful?
6rugrats is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 4:05 pm
  #50  
 
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 6rugrats
You are really going off on a tangent here, but I am glad you recovered from having to eat a meal that you were allergic to in a country where you did not speak the language. Perhaps in the future making a list of some common phrases explaining any medical problems would be helpful?
LOL talk about going off on a tangent. I obviously attempted to prepare myself for just this situation. But I'm not going to continue on this track.

The point is, allergies are threats to human health, whether life-threatening or not. If a being that is lesser than a human (i.e. a dog) is threatening human health, it's obviously my opinion that the human stays and the dog goes.

Originally Posted by cepheid
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.

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.

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.
Even if I grant you all of the points you make in this post, which I'll admit are mostly quite good, it doesn't change the OP's situation - in that case, it's quite clear there was absolutely no need (for support of human health or otherwise) for that dog to be in the cabin. In this case, the human's health should have taken precedence over the dog's presence.

Last edited by iluv2fly; Jun 2, 2009 at 4:23 pm Reason: merge
tjtenor4 is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 4:09 pm
  #51  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Greater DC
Programs: UA plus
Posts: 12,943
Originally Posted by tjtenor4
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.
I'm curious here ... the dog was a working dog and headed to a training course. How do you know that the dog doesn't have overly sensitive hearing or some other trait which makes him ideal for training but jeopardizes its health or ability to function in its job that could be damaged from being underneath? or do you just expect everyone to clear the deck for the OP and their issue? Perhaps you'd suggest drugging the animal which really could screw it up both for its own well being, as well as for its ability to work at its training course. None of that matters because - clear the decks - the OP is flying today.

When the OP owns the airline they can decide who can and cannot be on board. Until then, they have to work with the airline to find the best result. In this case, the airline offered to put them on another flight - they refused for whatever reason. The airline did its job - now its purely the passengers issue.

BTW - this is a law enforcement dog -- sorry, but I'd rather have that dog be properly trained whether its helping a LEO or finding someone in wreckage more than the OP getting to their cruise when they failed to provide enough of a cushion for any delays in their own travel plans. My two cents, clearly.

ps and your example above is BS - you totally don't understand the relationship between the dog and owner (e.g. seeing eye, etc) and more clearly, don't care. Drive the next time, you'll be able to control who is sitting next to you and in front/behind you, too.
GoingAway is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 4:12 pm
  #52  
 
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
s/he who refuses to fly shall be the one to bear the burden of the inconvenience
Again, I have made clear the problem I have with this situation: if the dog's presence is medically necessary for the dog owner, then the dog owner's presence on the flight (and the dog's resulting presence thereon) is directly threatening the health of the allergy sufferer; however, the allergy sufferer's presence on the flight is not directly threatening the dog owner (indeed, unless the dog owner notices the sniffling, etc, from the allergy sufferer, AND makes the connection that it's the dog that's causing the sniffling, the dog owner would not even be aware of the allergy sufferer's presence on the flight). Therefore, saying that the burden of the inconvenience falls on the one refusing to fly is inherently unfair: the dog owner has no reason to refuse to fly, since the allergy sufferer's presence doesn't affect him - but the allergy sufferer DOES have reason to refuse to fly, and so by default, every time, it's going to be the allergy sufferer who is inconvenienced.
tjtenor4 is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 4:13 pm
  #53  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Programs: N/A (kid =! no travel :( )
Posts: 236
Ok few points overall I feel. First you keep claiming your life is more important then a dogs, or more importantly a service animal in training. I would disagree. This dog maybe undergoing very important training which could end up saving many lives over its lifetime, while you are more then likely not going to. Now people might say putting the dog in the cargo hold would work but I disagree. Training/human contact is very important for any service animal, and if they are constantly shoved into the dark away from people, they will become useless in certain situations. When out in a public area and someone with a dog is nearby do you tell them you are more important then the dog so they need to leave? Or do you leave? Or suck it up? The plane is a form of public transport as previously stated and while the dog isnt human, the handler it is with is, making it of equal importance (at least) to you.
Now you go off the allergy standpoint of it being possibly dangerous to you. I am sorry but this is something you, personally, must handle. Get medication, ask for FA move, or if nothing possible its your job to wait for the next flight. If you are allergic to peanuts and traveling pretty much anywhere in the developing world, are you going to tell all the people there to stop eating peanuts because they might kill you? Or if Hindu are you going to ask all people to stop eating beef? Jews telling others to stop eating pork? Give me a break, nope. Learn to plan better, to take medication, and most importantly to adapt. Otherwise Darwin may take you.
pattermj is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 4:14 pm
  #54  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Boulder, CO
Programs: UA, AA, WN; HH, MR, IHG
Posts: 7,054
Originally Posted by tjtenor4
it doesn't change the OP's situation - in that case, it's quite clear there was absolutely no need (for support of human health or otherwise) for that dog to be in the cabin.
First, if you knew your arguments had absolutely no relevance to the OP's situation (as they did not), you should not have brought them up.

Second, as I mentioned previously, service animals need to be at peak performance and travel in the hold is stressful on the animal. There may not have been an immediate need in terms of support for human health, but if this were a search-and-rescue dog on its way to look for survivors in a collapsed building, there would most certainly be a need in terms of support for human health... just after the fact.

Originally Posted by tjtenor4
In this case, the human's health should have taken precedence over the dog's presence.
And if, as above, the dog were going to look for survivors in a collapsed building, or any number of other search-and-rescue operations, would the allergy sufferer's health take precedence over the lives of those who might have been saved by the dog, but who would potentially be overlooked by a now-tired dog stressed from travel in the hold?

For any service animal, you cannot make the distinction that your health is any more or less important than the health of those people who may be helped by the animal (whether the animal's owner or other beneficiaries of the animal's service). In the OP's case, the animal was a service animal.

Your argument would be much more valid regarding pets in the cabin, but it does not apply in this case.

Originally Posted by tjtenor4
Again, I have made clear the problem I have with this situation
You are right that it will almost always be the allergy sufferer who will make the complaint. Unfortunately, that's life. Anyone with a medical condition generally has to bear the burden of that condition.
cepheid is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 4:14 pm
  #55  
og
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SYD
Programs: QF WP/LTG | UA P
Posts: 13,515
Originally Posted by flyinbob
This is a disturbing part: .... Now here you have a public servant, .... ... Dog lover though I am, people come first, and public servants come last.
A truely disturbing post indeed. Very sad attitude.
og is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 4:15 pm
  #56  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,510
Originally Posted by tjtenor4
Even if I grant you all of the points you make in this post, which I'll admit are mostly quite good, it doesn't change the OP's situation - in that case, it's quite clear there was absolutely no need (for support of human health or otherwise) for that dog to be in the cabin. In this case, the human's health should have taken precedence over the dog's presence.

We're going to just have to disagree. I travel with my dog once per year internationally. I fly 1 particular carrier because they allow dogs in the cabin. If I had paid for my ticket and had paid for the dog's "ticket" and then an agent come up to me to let me know that another passenger had a dog allergy - I would gladly change seats or do whatever I could to help the other passenger. But I am not taking a later flight. I am not going to voluntarily downgrade myself to economy. And if anyone even so much as suggests putting the dog in the cargo hold I will unleash a fit of rage the likes of which you can't even imagine. (OK - bit dramatic there. )

I've worked for airlines before and I see what happens to dogs in the cargo hold... no way in hell is my Fido going down there.
fly2nrt is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 4:23 pm
  #57  
 
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
Without quoting specific people since I'm very clearly not interested in personal attacks and flamewars (despite having been personally called out as "bs" and other such things by some of you in this thread), some of you are now bringing up the argument that the dog may actually be more important than the human from a societal standpoint; i.e., the dog may be a SAR dog and may save numerous human lives trapped beneath a building, and thus it's more important than another human's health.

Effectively, what you're arguing is, the rights of society are greater than individual rights. Since the dog can help multiple people, it's a greater benefit to society than a single human's health, and its presence takes precedent regardless of the resulting infringements on individuals.

My disagreement with that argument aside, I'm pretty sure posts like that belong in the "OMNI" forums. Y'all had a decent enough, relevant argument when you were talking about comparing the rights of two individuals... but clearly we're off that track now.

On that note, I think I'm done on this thread... My points have been made; those of you who are going to agree with me probably did before I even wrote a single word, and those of you who don't aren't going to no matter what, so really, what's the point? It's like arguing politics in high school... it's all a load of BS, and you're never going to persuade anyone else anyway.
tjtenor4 is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 4:36 pm
  #58  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Boulder, CO
Programs: UA, AA, WN; HH, MR, IHG
Posts: 7,054
Originally Posted by tjtenor4
I'm pretty sure posts like that belong in the "OMNI" forums.
I agree with that. But:

Originally Posted by tjtenor4
Y'all had a decent enough, relevant argument when you were talking about comparing the rights of two individuals...
If the service animal is medically necessary for a single human, then it's between two individuals. If the service animal is necessary for multiple humans, it becomes a different question. Both arguments are valid and because of this, for any service animal, this argument becomes moot: no one human's imperative need takes precedence over that of one or multiple others.

If this were about pets, I would not be making such an argument (although I do travel with my pet in-cabin, so I'd probably be making some argument, but from a completely different standpoint), but it's not; it's about service animals.

Of course, the whole argument is irrelevant, anyway. The airline and the government enact policies and laws to deal with these situations, and if you don't like how it's handled, you need to take it up with them, not with the passengers who are merely complying with existing policies/laws.
cepheid is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 4:40 pm
  #59  
 
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
Of course, the whole argument is irrelevant, anyway. The airline and the government enact policies and laws to deal with these situations, and if you don't like how it's handled, you need to take it up with them, not with the passengers who are merely complying with existing policies/laws.
Oh, I completely agree with you! You'll please note that in my first post, I said, "UA needs to change its policy," not, "you should all never take your dogs on an airplane!"

I have not once in this entire chain directly attacked another passenger (or at least, forum poster), complying with policy or not, despite the fact that the same courtesy has not been extended to me. I have no problem with people following the rules; I have no problem with people taking advantage of the rules. I just think the rules should be changed in this case... though obviously, many of you disagree with me. Ah well!
tjtenor4 is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2009, 4:46 pm
  #60  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Boulder, CO
Programs: UA, AA, WN; HH, MR, IHG
Posts: 7,054
Originally Posted by tjtenor4
You'll please note that in my first post, I said, "UA needs to change its policy," not, "you should all never take your dogs on an airplane!"
True, you did say that. United's policy regarding service animals is, AFAIK, dictated by federal law, though... specifically by the ACAA. I'm not entirely sure about non-personal service dogs, e.g. law enforcement or SaR dogs, though I would be surprised if there weren't a law mandating their easy passage on common carriers, as well. I think you'll find that every domestic airline has a similar policy with regards to service animals - even those that prohibit in-cabin pets.

Originally Posted by tjtenor4
though obviously, many of you disagree with me. Ah well!
If we all agreed, the world would be so boring!
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.