United mistakenly flies Kansas-bound dog to Japan (& vice versa)
#93
Join Date: Feb 2012
Programs: Hertz PC
Posts: 657
Video and story of the reunification in Wichita tonight.
Dog now in Kansas after United mistakenly sent him to Japan | The Wichita Eagle
Dog now in Kansas after United mistakenly sent him to Japan | The Wichita Eagle
#94
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ORD
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 16,901
Video and story of the reunification in Wichita tonight.
Dog now in Kansas after United mistakenly sent him to Japan The Wichita Eagle
Dog now in Kansas after United mistakenly sent him to Japan The Wichita Eagle
#95
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Denver
Posts: 451
The dogs were overnighted in DEN, and in such cases are picked up by an offsite dog daycare place that United contracts. It was there that they were placed in the wrong kennels before being dropped back off for their flights the next day.
#97
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,413
Maybe dogs will no longer stay overnight in Denver, at least in that kennel.
#99
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SEA/YVR/BLI
Programs: UA "Lifetime" Gold, AS MVPG100K, OW Emerald, HH Lifetime Diamond, IC Plat, Marriott Gold, Hertz Gold
Posts: 9,490
#100
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 27,234
Kind of scratching my head why a family would send the dog as cargo with an overnight connection? Surely they would have had to have known the timings.
Driving (25 hours per Google Maps, so 2-3 days) would seem to have been a more prudent choice, for the dog. Would also save on the costs of shipping at a car!
Driving (25 hours per Google Maps, so 2-3 days) would seem to have been a more prudent choice, for the dog. Would also save on the costs of shipping at a car!
#101
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: USA
Programs: UA Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,195
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Mar 16, 2018 at 1:39 pm Reason: OT; OMNI content removed
#102
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: SFO
Posts: 3,881
Could this be due to (binomial?) probability? The number of deaths is NOT linearly proportional to the number of pets flown. The probability of a pet death increases with higher number of pets flown. A person driving 200 miles daily is more than 2x more likely to get a ticket than if he drove 100 miles daily.
#103
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,413
HUH? Suppose two airlines, A and B, have the same probability of killing a pet, but airline A serves ten times as many pets per year. Let's suppose that the expected number of dog deaths per year on A is ten while it's only one on B. Now suppose that, due to random errors, one more dog dies on each airline. It looks like the probability of a pet death has risen by only 10% for A while it has doubled on B, the smaller airline.
#104
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: SFO
Posts: 3,881
Airline C flies 100,000 pets annually, 2 dies. Airline D flies 5x more pets, or 500,000. Based on 2 deaths per 100,000 flown on C, you may think that 10 deaths would be expected (linearly proportional) for airline D, but that's incorrect per (binomial?) probability theory. Airline D should expect more than 10 deaths, say 16, because of the greater number of pets flown.
Vaguely remember learning in school but it was a long time ago and I may have been asleep.
#105
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: LAX, ORD, DFW, SNA
Programs: AAdvantage, Emerald Club
Posts: 67
These preventable mistakes which have been publicized will likely increase pets in the cabin - owners will understandably be using these incidents as excuses to justify why pets should be with them in cabin.