ExplorerWannabe

... and I think the behavior of the owner and her teenage daughter leave a lot to be desired. Whether the FA knew there was a dog in the bag is subject to debate but there's no doubt the owner and her daughter knew. Other passengers apparently knew but were idle despite apparently hearing the dog barking. Interesting that no other FA seems to have heard the barking -- even if you assume the FA in question was mean and vindictive and told the family to put the bag in the overhead despite knowing a dog was in it, I can't believe any other FA would have done nothing despite hearing barking from the overhead.
The story makes no sense. In today's litigious era, I'd have suspected fraud on the part of the passenger if there weren't "witnesses" popping up to say they knew about the dog and heard it (even if they did nothing about it and apparently had no problem with the idea of a dog possibly urinating over their heads).

ashill

I think that attitude, which a number of posters have expressed, is a gross overreaction (that, by the way, will make the emotional support animals issue even worse because that will be the only way to bring pets with you instead of just avoiding a fee). The problem here is a flight attendant who, for whatever reason, grossly neglected policy. That can certainly be dealt with without banning pets. In fact, it’s news because it’s so rare.

If you don’t like pets on board for other reasons, there’s maybe a debate to be had (though I think you’re clearly wrong), but this incident is not a sensible reason to ban pets.

PaxALotl

We are also in an era of crazed antagonism towards airlines, rampant bandwagoning on social media, and straight-up misinformation by so-called witnesses. The first thing I thought when I read this was, if this really happened as described, half the plane would have taken out their phones and recorded it.

I am not making any claims about what happened - I don't know. But I do know that there are plenty of witnesses to things that never happened, especially on airplanes.

invisible

This is taught in phycology 101

Diffusion of responsibility

zombietooth

UA makes significant money from pet transportation. In cabin pets earn them $250- rt, regardless of the length of the flight.

Your argument could just as easily be applied to people, e.g. don't allow those with heart conditions on aircraft because it is stressful and crowded, thereby increasing the risk of an adverse cardiac event.

mc0107

i have the same pet carrier and if indeed she was flying a 737-700, i can attest that the bag does not fit under the seat. i've flown nearly every plane type in united's fleet and it's the only one that gives me trouble in economy. the space is too narrow and too short under any of the three seats.

mauve

FYI, looks like both the Houston and Queens DAs are considering criminal charges. It’s not clear from the articles I’ve seen which party they’re planning on charging.

TheDudeAbides

I really don't see what algae has to do with any of this.

GadgetFreak

FreFly

If the carrier does not fit under the seat and United policy says that a dog carrier must be under thevseat, the dog should hnot have been allowed to fly. If UA knew the pet was on board, UA shoul have made sure the carries is properly stored. If the dog was smuggled, the blame is less clear.

GadgetFreak

Aussienarelle

+1

Understand the business argument that pets make good revenue for UA, but I think the claims for compensation for dead animals must soon outweigh the benefits of the additional fees.

Does anyone know if there is a domestic or international airline that does not accept animals in the cabin?

tom911

We may very well be approaching the point that UA becomes the first U.S. airline to issue body cameras to its flight attendants.

mhrb

I must really be missing something. Not really sure I follow the cause of death being related to being in an overhead bin.

There should be as much oxygen and temperature regulation in the overhead bins as in the rest of the cabin. They are part of the cabin and there is no seal, let alone a hermetic one. People suggesting there isn't enough "airflow" in the overhead bins don't seem to understand how diffusion works. Also, we know French bulldogs aren't allowed in cargo holds because they're brachycephalic and this condition is exacerbated by stress. Being shoved in a noisier area under the seat would surely be more stressful to an animal than the more quiet and dark area in the overhead bins.

RacingJunkie

The dog is a genetically defective breed. It has trouble breathing at 72 degrees at sea level, anything beyond that and the dog has issues.

With that said, you have now shoved a living creature into a confined space. Within confined spaces without adequate ventilation/airflow you can have issues with carbon dioxide build up and lack of oxygen. I'm not sure what the lung capacity of a french bulldog is and how much air it uses under a stressful situation versus a normal situation, but putting it in the overhead with other luggage was not the answer.

Fault goes all around. The FA for the initial command. The owners for not checking on the dog during the flight. Or the owners flat out refusing to put their dog in the overhead and force the hands of the FA to escalate the issue to somebody who has some brains.