Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

United mistakenly flies Kansas-bound dog to Japan (& vice versa)

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

United mistakenly flies Kansas-bound dog to Japan (& vice versa)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 15, 2018, 7:31 pm
  #91  
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 821
A change that you will like
sanfran8080 is offline  
Old Mar 15, 2018, 7:44 pm
  #92  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: STL
Posts: 1,546
I would love to see pics of the dog enjoying the hell out of the private jet ride.
t325 is offline  
Old Mar 15, 2018, 8:54 pm
  #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
bhunt is offline  
Old Mar 15, 2018, 9:27 pm
  #94  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ORD
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 16,901
Originally Posted by bhunt
Video and story of the reunification in Wichita tonight.

Dog now in Kansas after United mistakenly sent him to Japan The Wichita Eagle
The article mentions that the dogs were switched during a flight connection in DEN. Something I hadn’t known before. I guess we should all be glad the DEN catering operation is still down or they’d have been someone’s dinner.
wrp96 likes this.
milepig is offline  
Old Mar 15, 2018, 9:32 pm
  #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.
DENviaLAX is offline  
Old Mar 15, 2018, 11:31 pm
  #96  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Programs: Hertz PC
Posts: 657
Wonder if that Kennel in Denver has enough insurance to cover the cost of the mix up? lol
bhunt is offline  
Old Mar 16, 2018, 5:36 am
  #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.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old Mar 16, 2018, 9:11 am
  #98  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Programs: Hertz PC
Posts: 657
WOW!

Priced what a similar sized private jet NRT-ICT would cost... $120k one-way.
bhunt is offline  
Old Mar 16, 2018, 9:19 am
  #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
Originally Posted by bhunt
WOW!

Priced what a similar sized private jet NRT-ICT would cost... $120k one-way.
A bargain for UA compared to the bad publicity ensuing if 10-year-old Irgo had expired on the flight!
MSPeconomist likes this.
Fredd is offline  
Old Mar 16, 2018, 9:59 am
  #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!
ijgordon is offline  
Old Mar 16, 2018, 1:20 pm
  #101  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: USA
Programs: UA Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,195
Originally Posted by milepig


The article mentions that the dogs were switched during a flight connection in DEN. Something I hadn’t known before. I guess we should all be glad the DEN catering operation is still down or they’d have been someone’s dinner.
Originally Posted by DENviaLAX
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.
So the plot thickens and United is being blamed for an error made by a contract facility? It wasn't even an error by UA baggage handlers but the doggie daycare put them in the wrong carriers? Frankly, I'm not surprised; I don't trust anything out of or going through DEN.

Last edited by WineCountryUA; Mar 16, 2018 at 1:39 pm Reason: OT; OMNI content removed
ExplorerWannabe is offline  
Old Mar 16, 2018, 4:01 pm
  #102  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: SFO
Posts: 3,881
Originally Posted by Nicoolio
- still 9x more dead dogs on UA that any other airline --
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.
Troopers is online now  
Old Mar 16, 2018, 4:30 pm
  #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.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old Mar 16, 2018, 4:52 pm
  #104  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: SFO
Posts: 3,881
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist
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.
A and B can't have the same probability in your example since A serves 10x more than B.

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.
Troopers is online now  
Old Mar 16, 2018, 5:18 pm
  #105  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: LAX, ORD, DFW, SNA
Programs: AAdvantage, Emerald Club
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by Aussienarelle
I am hoping that United stops transporting pets and animals soon , with the exception of true service animals with all the appropriate paperwork. The number of pets on my recent flights is getting ridiculous (and making breathing challenging at times).
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.
jadc82 is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.