FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   TravelBuzz (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz-176/)
-   -   Having to sit next to a PET - Is it reasonable??? (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz/548376-having-sit-next-pet-reasonable.html)

notsoFT Apr 18, 2006 10:35 am

some women behind me the other day was traveling with a parakeet. that was weird. thought it was gonna be a long flight cause it was making noise until the f/a asked her to throw a blanket over the thing.

22wingit Apr 18, 2006 11:05 am

I've got food allergies, and I'm married to someone with several animal allergies. The fact is, when you are the one with the known allergy, it is YOUR responsibility to be proactive in avoiding the allergen, and your responsibility to carry appropriate medication in any situation where you will not be able to access immediate medical assistance. If it is a serious issue for you, you ask -- every time. In the case of an air flight, you ask when you buy the seat.

As to who changes flights, I say the first person to warn the airline gets to stay. If you tell the airline you are bringing an animal, then the airline should mark the flight as containing one. If you are allergic, you ask and avoid that flight. If you are allergic and tell the airline so, and no one has so far declared a pet, then the flight should be marked to not allow pets on that run. (This is already done with nuts.)

In the OP, the FA should have made a general announcement once the passenger made the situation known. She did not have to announce what the allergen was, but simply say something like, "we have someone in row 28 who is having a rather severe allergic reaction, and needs to change seats. If you are seated forward of row 22 and might be willing to switch with her, please ring your call bell." Then the FA could explain what the reaction is, and the volunteer could at that time decide whether or not to do it.

secretbunnyboy Apr 18, 2006 3:15 pm


Originally Posted by Mountain Trader
a pregnant gal who wants to take her new baby to Austrailia next winter in Business Class, in her lap no less. Fly next to her for 13 hours and I almost guarantee you'll ask to sit across from me and my dog next time.

That may be - but your dog is an animal, and the baby is a human. To most people, there's no moral equivalence between the two. Equally, very few people are allergic to other human beings (although I grant you that there are plenty of FTers with deep sociopathic tendencies! :D ).

The dog's a dog, put it in the hold. It certainly never killed my cat on numerous long-haul trips.

GUWonder Apr 18, 2006 4:12 pm


Originally Posted by SlickRick
I believe the APA did a survey where it found that 78% of people who said they did not like being with animals did not like people either.

People are animals too. :D

roundtheworld Apr 18, 2006 4:33 pm


Originally Posted by Ztras
I wonder what the airline can do about my allergy to small children...

Maybe you grow up....

lost*in*cyberspace Apr 18, 2006 5:04 pm


the woman had a cat, in a carrier on her lap.
This surprises me as well. I can't believe that the FA did not make this woman put the carrier under the seat in front of her, where it belonged.

The airline should have done everything in their power to change your daughter's seat. I can't believe that no one was willing to switch with her.

Mountain Trader Apr 19, 2006 12:35 am


Originally Posted by secretbunnyboy
That may be - but your dog is an animal, and the baby is a human. To most people, there's no moral equivalence between the two. Equally, very few people are allergic to other human beings (although I grant you that there are plenty of FTers with deep sociopathic tendencies! :D ).

The dog's a dog, put it in the hold. It certainly never killed my cat on numerous long-haul trips.

So a baby with a high likelihood of bothering a lot of passengers is ok, but a pet who bothers no one should be banned because it is a pet?

Not much logic there-I thought the thread was about passengers being bothered, not their right to tell other people what to do without cause.

CDTraveler Apr 19, 2006 1:48 am


Originally Posted by Mountain Trader
So a baby with a high likelihood of bothering a lot of passengers is ok, but a pet who bothers no one should be banned because it is a pet?

Not much logic there-I thought the thread was about passengers being bothered, not their right to tell other people what to do without cause.

No, it looks like this thread is about people having allergic reactions to pets on aircraft, which can be very different from being "bothered." I consider the threat of a life-threatening asthma attack sufficient cause to say pets do not belong in the passenger cabin. I've lost one family member to dog allergy, I'm not interested in repeating the experience.

This thread prompted me to research how many Americans are actually allergic to dogs, and I was startled to read that it may be up to 30%, and probably a very large percentage of asthmatics react on some level to dogs, as "dogs came out on top as promoting greater disturbances in pulmonary function measurements for asthmatics" according to a study presented at the American Thoracic Society's International Conference in 2003.

As for whether your dog has ever "bothered" someone: have you verifed that no one within 5 rows of your pet has had a sudden onset of allergy or asthma symptoms to any degree? If not, perhaps you are just unaware of how your dog bothered someone who did not even know what triggered their symptoms.

secretbunnyboy Apr 19, 2006 8:02 am


Originally Posted by Mountain Trader
So a baby with a high likelihood of bothering a lot of passengers is ok, but a pet who bothers no one should be banned because it is a pet?

Yes, precisely - the pet can sit in the hold. It's only illogical if you think that animals should be treated in the same way as children.

(D'oh, humans are animals too!)

MrMan Apr 19, 2006 2:30 pm

Military animals
 
Because DFW is a large military trainsit for overseas flights, I have been on many planes reciently that have military animals on. In fact I was stuck in a middle seat and had a very nice german shepard under the aisle seat next to me. (no cage) Had a great conversation with the young man. The dog goes everywhere he goes. Better behaved than most children or adults on the flight. Also very interesting when I tried to slip him some items from AA's SnAAck box he refused. Very smart dog.

Nevsky Apr 19, 2006 3:09 pm

Frankly, I am surprised there have not been many actions under the Americans with Disabilities Act (or at least that I know of). Breathing is a major life activity. Cats and dogs can severely constrict an allergy sufferers air passages.

phred Apr 19, 2006 3:19 pm

Sorry I can't picture this
 

Originally Posted by MrMan
had a very nice german shepard under the aisle seat next to me. (no cage)

it's hard enough to fit a soft backpack under a seat.

Your other comment about the snacks reminds me of a scene from a Hitchcock screwball comedy (yeah, really) "Mr and Mrs Smith" where the couple is dining in a dive and there's a cat on their table. Mr. Smith is greatly disturbed that even the cat won't try his soup.

Business as usual Apr 20, 2006 12:23 am


Originally Posted by wma
I guess my question is why are airlines so "sensitive" to peanut allergies and so insensitive to animal allergies?

Because nut allergies are more likely to cause almost instantaneous death from anaphylactic shock.

I'm not intending to be argumentative nor belittle the suffering of people who are allergic to animals but forced to sit next to them. You should not have to put up with it. But the fact is that most (not all) pet allergies are not life-threatening. Most (not all) nut allergies are.

My husband carries an autoinjector of epinephrine and adrenaline to keep his heart beating and airway open in case he accidentally ingests tree nuts. His doctor predicts that, even on the ground, there's no way an ambulance could get him to a hospital alive if he doesn't use that injector before he passes out.

And while I know some people can suffer dangerous asthma attacks and anaphylaxis from their pet allergies, fast-killing food allergies are much more common than fast-killing dander allergies. I think that's why airlines are more sensitive.

I'm sorry for your daughter's discomfort, however.

secretbunnyboy Apr 20, 2006 1:27 am


Originally Posted by Nevsky
Frankly, I am surprised there have not been many actions under the Americans with Disabilities Act (or at least that I know of). Breathing is a major life activity. Cats and dogs can severely constrict an allergy sufferers air passages.

Interestingly, ADA also ensures that people can take animals with them if they are guide/"comfort" animals. I vaguely remember someone was trying to get her tortoise accepted as a comfort animal (or something).

seoulmanjr Apr 20, 2006 1:59 am


Originally Posted by Frodosan
Sea World animals get to travel on WN

Snakes on a Plane!
Sorry. Just had to.

peace,
~Ben~


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:38 am.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.