fumje

Not sure if more relevant to this thread or the other.

WSJ: 'United Suspends Cargo Program for Pets' (paywall)

mozilla

On a related note, the WSJ's aviation columnist openly advises against taking pets on flights in today's paper. While he refers to the recent UA events, his advise holds against any airline.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/on-your...ome-1521551262 (WSJ Paywall)

"Flying on airlines with your four-legged family members really isn’t a smart idea."
"There isn’t a good way to take your pet on an airplane. "

wxman22

News is that UAL will stop flying any dogs as cargo.United Airlines suspends cargo-hold pet transport after bad publicity

Mar. 20, 2018 9:37 AM ET|By: Carl Surran, SA News Editor United Airlines (NYSE:UAL) says it will stop the shipment of pets in airplane cargo holds at least until May 1 while it reviews the program, after the death of a puppy and mistakes in handling other dogs last week prompted a wave of negative publicity.

The move does not affect travel for pets flying in-cabin, which was placed under review after the death last week of a dog placed in an overhead bin at the order of a flight attendant on a Houston-to-New York flight.

United had 18 pets die in 2017 while being shipped in the cargo hold under its "PetSafe" program, 3x as many deaths as American, Delta and Alaska airlines combined, according to data from the U.S. Department of Transportation.

MrTemporal

The reality is that airplane pasenger cabins were not designed for pets.

The fix is simple. Have special pet flights. The pet flight would be a pet lovers paradise. They would probably enjoy it a lot more than a normal flight. Think of all the advantages: Other pets for your pet to play with, special pet announcements and pet movies on the entertainment system, pet food for snacks and meals, and, of course, many other pet owners who will not be bored to death when you tell them about little Snoopy's exploits at the dog park.

Since it is a Pet Flight, non pet owners on the flight would have no rights to complain. And, of course, pet owners will have no right to expect that their pet can be on a non pet flight.

Fredd

It's hard to tell with no fewer than three active canine threads. I was wondering about the need for a UA sub-forum, maybe titled The Doghouse, but hopefully UA will get its act together.

arisaa

Inhumane. For passengers in Y and dogs in cargo alike.

geo979

Hopefully we will see more pet incidents and, especially, lawsuits. Once United and other airlines determine it is more costly to accept pets than to refuse pets, significant changes will be made.

Often1

Or, like BA with its UM program, the carrier finds that doing it the right way cannot be justified by the cost and thus eliminates the program entirely. Kids under 14 can't fly alone on BA anymore.

jamesinclair

So people who are moving need to leave their pet behind?

And no, driving from Houston to Sao Paulo isnt an option.

fly18725

Importing a pet into a foreign country in not usually a good option.

dmurphynj

This is FlyerTalk; you're going to be told you should charter a private jet or a zeppelin. Someone will suggest buying your own yacht is the only feasible solution.

Of course you're right - there needs to be a way to move pets around, safely. Clearly, PetSafe has issues, but there needs to be something to replace it.

geo979

Pet adoption is a good solution.

IAH-OIL-TRASH

I moved back to Hawaii with 2 dogs and 3 cats. Later, I had to move my elderly mom back with her two cats. Not going abandon pets.

UA should institute system where passenger fills out multi-copy personal info form at cargo check-in and sticks it to carrier. Passenger takes one copy. 2nd copy is removed once loaded and handed to passenger. 3rd, 4th, 5th copies stay on carrier and used as needed. That way, passenger knows carrier is on plane and it's the right carrier. If owner is not travelling with carrier, photo of carrier and pet in hold should be transmitted to owner (trickier here for owner to be assured on correct flight). Just a couple of simple ideas that UA might consider.

Each time I travelled with pets, I was a bit obnoxious about getting assurances that the carriers were aboard. In each case, I was pretty confident that the positive response was because they actually checked.

mahasamatman

Not if it also means pet abandonment.

That has to be the single most insensitive statement ever on FT.

geo979

An even simpler solution would be to charge $1,000 each way to transport a pet. Total number of pets moved would be probably 10-15% of what it is today and total revenue would be unchanged. Less issues and lawsuits due to drastic reduction in pets moved. You'd still have a segment of fliers who would pony up the $1,000 for their precious cargo.