hughw

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/0...ogs-death.html

No details yet.

qukslvr619

Perhaps I will get flamed, but why is this even worthy of a news story? People choose to transport their pets as cargo which potentially puts the animals at risk for any number of situations which can occur in the normal course of operations. Its not like UA is purposely going out of their way to kill animals. I'd venture to say that the reason UA has such a high incidence of animals dying on their flights is because they probably are transporting more pets than other airlines because they have a dedicated pet transport program.

clubord

Great post, that's spot on.

I've seen the Pet Safe facilities in EWR, it's nicer than the pilot lounge.

jhayes_1780

I was about to call BS or go after the owners as pmUA would not even let King Charles Spaniels fly in the summer.

However, a quick search indicated they do indeed accept them for travel under some special conditions. Guessing it must have changed as the Petsafe program evolved.

Collierkr

I do not understand why people fly with their pets, especially in the cargo hold. And anyone who owns a Spaniel knows they are sensitive to heat.

I put this ALL on the owner of the pet.

IAH-OIL-TRASH

Relocation overseas? Try to understand a little more.

I had to move 3 cats and 2 dogs from Houston to Maui. I drove them from Houston to LAX to minimize the flight time for them. It was tough putting 'em on an airplane (actually two, because one could not accommodate all 5 carriers), but sometimes there's little choice. All 5 made it (and are glad to be out of Houston, even if if involved a flight - they told me so ).

The thread title is a bit over the top. I don't think United kills pets on a daily basis.

Collierkr

Good point on the move. However, I venture that scenario is in the minority. And I would have found a different method for transferring a beloved pet of the Spaniel type.

If UA is smart they will get out of the Pet cargo business. I cannot imagine they make any money on it.

chollie

Just because you personally don't understand why people fly with their pets doesn't mean there aren't perfectly acceptable reasons for doing so.

The airline offers a service. If it doesn't have the competency or will to provide reliable service, it should get out of the business.

I put this ALL on the airline for offering a service and failing to provide it. The airline is the SME in this situation. They have trained personnel and they do this regularly. A pet-owner who is flying with his/her pet for the first time should be able to rely on the airline to know what it is doing.

IAH-OIL-TRASH

Airlines provide services that help their passengers travel. I've flown hundreds of flights without my animals and one with. I am glad United provided that service. It's not just about money. United adjusted their pet rates upward significantly a few years ago, so I doubt they're losing money, but again - that's not what it's about.

Collierkr

It is PARTIALLY about money if an offered service causes a company to raise prices elsewhere. Call it a loss leader or, in this case, to make up for the lawsuits. I am thinking that a dog death won't come cheaply for UA.

Look, I am not saying that UA or any other airline is wrong to offer this service. I do feel that too many flyers today don't know what they are doing or what they are getting in to. Just because the sign on the window says - Great Haircuts - doesn't mean they offer a good service experience. End of thread for me. Thanks!

Gig103

Change pet to 'kid' and suddenly your post looks silly. The same reasons apply - you might not have six days to drive cross-country with them in a car. And yes, 6 days to cross country at about 400mi a day for comfort of the driver and the pet.

azepine00

Sadly it hurts the people who chose the honest cargo transport instead of getting fake support animal cert path.. and then everyone complains that there are too many pets in the cabin - of course any pet owner will go and get that fake cert after reading a story like this...
Its pretty awful and ua is 100% to blame here...

FlyngSvyr

While the airline is the SME, it is hard to place the blame solely on the carrier without more detailed information. It is very possible that the animal simply suffered from "a lack of will to live."

I would suggest someone create a "little black box" that can be worn as a collar for the duration of travel by the pet. It could record things like atmospheric pressure, temperature, etc. That way if someone's pet expired on the trip, they would have the data for the conditions their pet endured. I don't see UA providing it, as it probably is not in their best interest. However, a 3rd party could provide the service where you could purchase or rent depending on the situation. Just a suggestion, as it seems no one (even UA) can definitively say what the conditions were for the animal.

jhayes_1780

Actually very good thinking. And while not in "collar" form those devices already exist, and are actually quite affordable (devices that attach to the crate that note if temperature exceeds (or temps goes below) XX amount, indicates if a device is tipped over, if crate is dropped or is subjected to a specific degree of shock.

bhunt

Don't know what's worse... fake service animals or fake preboards/wheelchair people

Does airline even check if animal certified? followed lady through Security then boarding. Didn't see anyone ask about the little dog.