What would you have done? (asked to swap E+ aisle seat)
Aug 10, 2006, 1:05 pm
#31
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: IAD, DCA
Programs: UA-Plat, Marriott-Plat, AAI, AAII
Posts: 3,758
I can't believe someone has not brought up the service pig that went ape on US story from a few years back.
Aug 10, 2006, 1:10 pm
#32
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 17,769
Originally Posted by gre
I can't believe someone has not brought up the service pig that went ape on US story from a few years back.
I think it was actually a "comfort" pig.
Aug 10, 2006, 1:12 pm
#33
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: IAD
Programs: United 0, HH Gold
Posts: 2,827
I think the dog might have been UGS....
Aug 10, 2006, 1:13 pm
#34
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: DCA
Posts: 888
Wasn't there an odd allowance accepted by the FAA a few years ago that allows companion pets with a doctor's note from the passenger saying that the pet is required to calm them? I know it sounds like BS, but I remember laughing about it. I'll try to find a link...
Aug 10, 2006, 1:18 pm
#35
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,245
Originally Posted by Uniter
I think the dog might have been UGS....
Aug 10, 2006, 1:59 pm
#36
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn
Programs: Delta Diamond, Bonvoy something good; sometimes other things too
Posts: 5,050
Originally Posted by LuckyStrike
It could have been a service dog-in-training. Getting it used to airplanes.
And I would think that if the dog were any sort of service dog, the GA would have told the OP to move, not asked--UA would be required to accommodate a handicapped person.
Aug 10, 2006, 2:18 pm
#37
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Denver CO
Posts: 3,682
I think a lot of posts are missing the real point.
A regular 50 lb. dog is not allowed to travel in cabin on UA. UA's rules clearly state that an animal must fit in an approved travel container, defined as one the animal can turn around in. The container size limits (also in UA's rules) amount to a size that must fit under the seat in front of you. Also, the animal must in fact travel under the seat in frontof you, which means no bulkhead seats.
Since this episode as conveyed by the OP would have violated at least 2 of UA's rules (size of animal & bulkhead), my guess is that this animal, or his guardian, were some special case such as service. Even then, it's hard to see how they would allow a bulkhead seat since the issue there is the animal in its case can't be a loose object for take-off and landing.
A regular 50 lb. dog is not allowed to travel in cabin on UA. UA's rules clearly state that an animal must fit in an approved travel container, defined as one the animal can turn around in. The container size limits (also in UA's rules) amount to a size that must fit under the seat in front of you. Also, the animal must in fact travel under the seat in frontof you, which means no bulkhead seats.
Since this episode as conveyed by the OP would have violated at least 2 of UA's rules (size of animal & bulkhead), my guess is that this animal, or his guardian, were some special case such as service. Even then, it's hard to see how they would allow a bulkhead seat since the issue there is the animal in its case can't be a loose object for take-off and landing.
Aug 10, 2006, 2:41 pm
#38
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hiding under the trees in Denver, CO
Programs: UA 1K 2.5MM, Marriott Lifetime Titanium Elite, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 4,306
Obviously, it would have been nice of the OP to change seats, but it also would have been nice of the gate agent to provide some equal-or-better seating arrangement for the OP. It was correct of the gate agent to ask, but not press the issue when the OP refused.
I wouldn't have given up my seat.
I wouldn't have given up my seat.
Aug 10, 2006, 4:37 pm
#39
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: California
Programs: UA
Posts: 610
Dog belongs in the hold, period. Stupid little dogs barking under seats _should_ be in the hold or sedated IMO.
Aug 10, 2006, 4:43 pm
#40
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 17,769
Originally Posted by PanAm916
Dog belongs in the hold, period. Stupid little dogs barking under seats _should_ be in the hold or sedated IMO.
Aug 10, 2006, 4:48 pm
#41
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: California
Programs: UA
Posts: 610
Well, while we are at it... morbidly obese people should also be banned, as well as people that engage in loud theological debates since they bother me. 
Aug 10, 2006, 4:56 pm
#42
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by BenjaminNYC
What about children? . . . Should they too be forced in the hold?
Aug 10, 2006, 5:07 pm
#43
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SJC/SFO/OAK
Programs: BD Gold (and future SEN), 0.2MM AA EXP, HHonors Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 3,107
All right, I got it. Before every flight, they call up all the 1Ks and UGS, and tell us who we're sitting next to for the flight. We get to decide whether we want the seatmate(s), or for them to go down in the cargo hold, and cargo strapped into the seat instead.
Aug 10, 2006, 5:43 pm
#44
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn
Programs: Delta Diamond, Bonvoy something good; sometimes other things too
Posts: 5,050
I think a no-children, no-animals airline could prove immensely popular.
Aug 10, 2006, 5:53 pm
#45
Join Date: Jul 2003
Programs: UA1K 3MM, AS MVP 75K Gold
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by colerc
I think a no-children, no-animals airline could prove immensely popular.