ExplorerWannabe

I had read that post but looking at other sources, they apparently flew in 23 B&C. Their fee to United stipulates that the carrier will go under the seat in front. Even if the underseat area was non-standard, they void the contract if the carrier doesn't fit there. The New York Post pictures give a better view of the carrier than the New York Times and it's not a particularly long carrier so it should have fit but here's the seat map:



Seats 23 B&C above should have had room. It's not Economy Plus but they are contiguous seats, not just the aisle seat and I don't believe row 22 had in-seat power so there shouldn't be any electrical boxes in front of them.

Seat map for UA 1284


FlightAware record of UA 1284 on 13 Mar

There was also a claim that they had turbulence the entire trip. I can see pretty decent turbulence for the last half of the trip but the dog was supposedly barking for the first 2 hours when the skies look pretty darn clear. Again, why didn't someone get out of their seat to attend to the dog?
So many people are in a rush to blame the FA and make sure she's fired immediately and never flies again. I believe she told the family to put the bag in the overhead but I very much doubt she heard them say or understood them to say it had a dog inside. I also question why the mother and daughter didn't do something after take-off when the sky was apparently clear and they should have been able to get out of their seats. It looks to me like the family made some bad decisions which were compounded by the FA not understanding them as she tried to get the plane ready for take-off but they're playing the "woe is me" card because everyone loves beating on United.

chrisl137

Next time you fly, bring something smelly (it doesn't have to be a bad odor - it could be flowers) in your bag and put it in the closed overhead, then compare the strength of the odor in the cabin and in the overhead after about 3 hours. The OHB isn't sealed, but it's not designed for good exchange with the cabin, either.

Consider also that with a dog its respiration is consuming oxygen and emitting CO2 - it leaves the static pressure of the OHB constant while changing the composition so it's only the only the partial-pressure difference (or chemical potential, depending on how you like to do things) driving the gas exchange. There's effectively no convection. Now add in that the oxygen partial pressure is already reduced by about 30% in the cabin compared to sea level. So the O2 level could easily drop to about 60% or less of the sea level value that the dog is used to. Add in that the dog may be panicked and respiring faster than normal, plus it has restricted airways and doesn't breathe all that well to start and it's a recipe for a bad outcome.

Italian_Kayaker

Actually, it's United which loves beating [up] everyone -- passengers, dogs, you name it.

Interesting aspect: assuming that the FA was negligent, and with no intent to harm the animal, would animal cruelty laws come into play?

HMO

My vet (ok, my pet's vet) told me she, as an animal lover, believes Frech bulldogs should be extinct because their existence is a crime.
But as a vet, running a business, she welcomes more and more people having these problematic dogs - more work for her.
And it is very hard to conciliate both sides...

fly18725

I think any prosecution of the FA and/or United would depend on 1) proving the FA had knowledge there was a dog in the carrier and/or placing the carrier in the OHB herself, and b) a member of the crew prevented the passenger from removing the carrier from the OHB and/or checking on the welfare of the dog during the flight.

Otherwise, I think prosecutors (and legislators) are trolling for votes by looking at this case.

Kacee

The Texas animal cruelty law (Texas PC § 42.092) penalizes reckless conduct. Reckless is more than negligent. Recklessness is defined under the Texas Penal Code as "consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk." So the prosecutor would have to establish the FA knew there was a dog in the bag.

New York's animal cruelty laws are rather archaic and less clear. But misdemeanor cruelty can be established based on negligence. There is a detailed discussion of the law here: http://www.potsdamhumanesociety.org/...PCA_NYlaws.pdf

mc0107

i own the same carrier and a couple pages back, i commented that the economy seats in the 737-700 is the only plane in united's fleet in which the bag won't fit. it's a soft bag and even folding down the sides just doesn't work. the measurements united has on its website are accurate and generous, but not for this plane. when i was trying to fit this bag under the seat in front of me a few months back (i think on the very same flight #), i was informed i was upgraded. but if i weren't, i would have deplaned and figured out another option. so, spread the word to those who travel with pets to avoid united's -700 in economy.

iahphx

An inquisitive reporter might ask the dead dog's owner whether she knew anything about the breathing problems of French bulldogs. Does anyone just randomly buy such a breed, or would you typically go into it with your eyes wide open? If it's something you'd know, it seems insane (instead of just stupid) that you'd put your dog in an overhead bin and forget it for 3+ hours. I mean, really.

Nice research, Explorer. I'm pretty sure most reporters aren't interested in asking this question. But it's a pertinent one. The evidence would suggest that the dog's owner wasn't very interested in checking on her dog. If you're inclined to be sympathetic, maybe she was "terrified" of crossing the flight attendant -- who she presumably thought was making her keep the dog in the bin. That the type of bad choice that often leads to these weird situations. Regardless, it's certainly an odd fact pattern, and the dog owner (or her daughter, I can't remember which) is exaggerating about the turbulence.

geo979

Good point about cost/benefit. Due to all the issues/potential litigation around pets flying, perhaps airlines should raise the fee to accept a pet to a more reasonable amout...like $500 each way.

ashill

It's not at all uncommon for pilots on US airlines to leave the seat belt sign on for a long time after takeoff, either saying nothing at all or saying "there might be a bump somewhere within 500 miles of us, so please stay seated". Infrequent fliers often take that seat belt sign seriously. I don't think it's at all fair to say that the passenger should have ignored crew member instructions (either direct verbal instructions to put the bag in the overhead bin or the seat belt sign). It was obviously wrong with 20/20 hindsight, but that doesn't say much. And dealing with an infant in flight isn't easy.

Annalisa12

oooh. Hermes.

iahphx

If you had a dog breed with a known breathing problem (a puppy no less), would you do nothing just because the seat belt sign was on? Sure, it's possible, but honestly, this woman was a fool unless she somehow knew nothing about type of dog she owned. I'm always inclined to be sympathetic to infrequent flyers and their woes, but this is nuts. I'd also note that the family's claim was turbulence, not a seat belt light. I guess you could give her the benefit of the doubt about "word choice," but then why is nobody giving the flight attendant the benefit of the doubt?

EDIT: BTW, do we know that the dog owner was actually an infrequent flyer? To think that she is just because she was a Spanish speaker with a baby seems to be stereotyping. And I assume this dog would be an expensive breed?

Kacee

Very easy for you to say with internet anonymity.

Blame the victim reaches new lows.

GadgetFreak

iahphx

Do you think otherwise? Wouldn't this be the equivalent of taking your grandma who has breathing trouble up a 12.000 foot mountain without taking precautions? Or walking across a busy highway without looking for traffic?

I mean, it's not hard to reach a conclusion that terrible choices were made here (assuming, as I said, that she knew anything about the dog breed she owned).

And despite your theatrics, I'm not "blaming the victim." The big mistake was made by the flight attendant, who didn't listen to the passenger. But had the passenger not, apparently, acted foolishly, her dog would likely still be alive. In the law, of course, you take your victims as you find them (the famous "eggshell plaintiff").