Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was responding to a person's comment about the new policy and I provided the information that many airlines make changes in pet policies based on the number of people asking for a specific service. In this case it was people asking to be allowed to bring their pets to Hawaii in the cabin. There is no reaon for the airline to hear from those who don;t want pets in the cabin because the policyt was no pets. Now that the policy is changing, those folks can express their concern and let the airline make the final decission based on their customer needs.
If they feel they pick up 100 new passenegers a month with the policy but lost 200, they will have to weigh the pros and cons. If they get slapped with a fine 4 times the amount the collected from all pets int he cabin due to a person trying to get around Hawaii's quarantine proceduress, the airlijne will have to weightt he pros and cons.
Slight correction, all the major legacy airlines goinga llthe way back to Pan Am, once allowed pets in the cabiin on flights from the US mainland to Hawaii. Until its demissed, American Trans Air still allowed pets in the cabin although they were planning to discontinue the service. So Alaska Airlines is by far just anohter carrier that allwes it and what they are doing is nothing new. What makes it unique at this time is that this is their first go around with in cabin pets to Hawaii and they will now be the only airline that allowes it.
Now, for the record, the decision by arlines to halt in cabin pets has nothing to do with the passenegrs wanting or not wanting it, it has nothing to do with making or not making money. It has nothing to due with the gain or lost of passengers. It has everything to do with getting tired of passenegrs who try and circumvent Hawaii''s quarantine requirements. It only takes one such incident to sour an airline on alloweing pets in the cabin.
Thanks for that information... and youre absolutely right, they need to weigh the pros and the cons before making any decisions.... which is why its too early to make such assumptions. Now in regards to Hawaiis state laws and regulations with the agricultural quarantine, I by no means have any intentions to disobey the regulations, rather would hope that they keep it inforced. Strict guidlines and restrictions should not be altered by this change in policy and with this given benefit, people should not try to work around it.
Here's where I'm coming from: I'm not an animal lover, though I do have 2 cats from my wife. They flew to Hawaii in cabin on ATA and again in cargo on Hawaiian. My wife preferred in-cabin, but they did just fine in cargo, even when they took an hour to show up at ag-inspection in HNL (left somewhere by the baggage handlers). So I sort of understand why the people who treat their pets like family would be afraid of cargo (though I still don't understand the treating pets like family part :-). BTW, I used to mildly allergic to cats, would make me sneeze and cry, but my immune system adjusted after moving in with my then-fiancee (and her cats).
I do realize other people have severe allergies, and Dthraco and others make a good point about being seated near a pet. But I think jaenenoa makes a better point that people fly all the time with pets in cabin, and the attendants usually handle any problems, and there are no incidents that make the news. I can see an allergic person being bothered when seated near someone's pet, but when moved to the other side of the plane, I'd like to hear evidence that it is still a problem.
Yes, Dthraco is right to bring up his opinion, and it is his right to notify the airlines he doesn't like the policy and it impacts his choices. I do agree with jaenenoa however, that his reaction is overblown (he had several unprompted posts about it before jaenenoa joined the conversation) in light of the actual evidence. So his attempt to protest this policy and encourage others to do so looks petty and selfish, given that it makes other people feel better and he hasn't shown any evidence of it really being a burden on himself, other than perhaps having to change seats. If asthmatics or allergy-sensitive people seated at the other side of a plane with a single pet under a seat have any uncomfortable reaction, that would change this argument.
Also, if you're going to get in a letter-writing campaign to airlines, and go against animal-lovers without any organization yourself, you're going to loose. If pro-animal groups told their members to write to Alaska and support the policy, they'd realize which numbers are really larger. And being limited to a single pet per flight, they can't really gain that many customers. But if you factor in the good will of the animal lovers and activists, and advertising potential, I think that number is far greater than those who are bothered by pets on a plane, whether for medical reasons or otherwise. In fact, if Alaska realizes it is a marketing point and starts advertising it, I bet Hawaiian would follow suit just to take away that advantage (they are really competing head-to-head for exactly the same markets).
I disagree with Pacific Flights that the biggest concern is someone stowing a pet. If they are trying to hide the pet, this policy doesn't make any difference: they would try to hide it on any carrier. If they were trying to carry the pet but not declare it, that can be easily prevented by having ticketing and gate agents check pet paperwork before issuing a boarding pass or allowing the passenger to board. All pets that are declared (or discovered) are taken by flight attendants to the ag-inspection personnel at the flight door. Pets that are not declared (or discovered) are not affected by this policy (and you could be flying next to a pet, sneezing, and not knowing why). So I think the biggest concern is a passenger letting the animal out of the carrier (just couldn't resist petting it in flight) and it gets loose. That would really be a nuisance to all passengers, and a fairly big safety issue.
me think we have a shill from Alaska Airlines pumping that service nobody comes of that forceful on a subject they clearly are not familiar with if they are just "gathering information" somthing is a stinking bad
Yes, Dthraco is right to bring up his opinion, and it is his right to notify the airlines he doesn't like the policy and it impacts his choices. I do agree with jaenenoa however, that his reaction is overblown (he had several unprompted posts about it before jaenenoa joined the conversation) in light of the actual evidence. So his attempt to protest this policy and encourage others to do so looks petty and selfish, given that it makes other people feel better and he hasn't shown any evidence of it really being a burden on himself, other than perhaps having to change seats. If asthmatics or allergy-sensitive people seated at the other side of a plane with a single pet under a seat have any uncomfortable reaction, that would change this argument.
.
Agreed. By all means, go right ahead and state your opinions, and i'll state mine... but it doesnt make anyone "right." However, I do believe "predictions" and made up scenarios (that havent even happend to them) are being said to quickly.
Yes, Dthraco is right to bring up his opinion, and it is his right to notify the airlines he doesn't like the policy and it impacts his choices. I do agree with jaenenoa however, that his reaction is overblown (he had several unprompted posts about it before jaenenoa joined the conversation) in light of the actual evidence. So his attempt to protest this policy and encourage others to do so looks petty and selfish, given that it makes other people feel better and he hasn't shown any evidence of it really being a burden on himself, other than perhaps having to change seats. If asthmatics or allergy-sensitive people seated at the other side of a plane with a single pet under a seat have any uncomfortable reaction, that would change this argument.
.
Kauaihiker your observations are correct. Really my point was that there is ONE per per flight. and that no one has to change their minds about flying alaska airlines.... but I mean after all this talk, my new advice to them to to by all means go with a flight that has NO pet allowed in cabin policies.
I belive we have a person representing Alaska Airlines who signed up for the exclusive purpose of pumping the new service.
It's not normal for a new person to enter a forum and start bashing those who posted an opinion with such intensity while they claim its because they are just "gathering information, especially when what they do post isn't all based on facts.
I belive we have a person representing Alaska Airlines who signed up for the exclusive purpose of pumping the new service.
It's not normal for a new person to enter a forum and start bashing those who posted an opinion with such intensity while they claim its because they are just "gathering information, especially when what they do post isn't all based on facts.
I smell a rat.
lol. I have a wedding next year and would like to bring my dogs home for my wedding. I was looking all over the net for for airlines that would allow my dogs in cabin because they've NEVER traveled before, and would like to make sure they have a SAFE flight. I could care less if it was alaska airlines, or even japan airlines for goodness sake. To be frank, i HATE alaska airlines due to their high reputations on delays ive experienced visiting my brother in seattle... but for my 2 lil pooches to be with me on my wedding day, I'll suck that up and take that offer IF Alaska airlines is the ONLY one that offers this policy. If alaska airlines is the ONLY airlines that offers this policy, it should be easy for people to book flights to Hawaii.... now those in our situation, we dont have much choices, infact, this is our ONLY option so i dont understand how you guys can be so strong to try to take that away.
I belive we have a person representing Alaska Airlines who signed up for the exclusive purpose of pumping the new service.
It's not normal for a new person to enter a forum and start bashing those who posted an opinion with such intensity while they claim its because they are just "gathering information, especially when what they do post isn't all based on facts.
I smell a rat.
Oh and by the way, just because you've worked for an airlines, doesnt mean that everyone else does. Please, contain yourself. LOL
If alaska airlines is the ONLY airlines that offers this policy, it should be easy for people to book flights to Hawaii.... now those in our situation, we dont have much choices, infact, this is our ONLY option so i dont understand how you guys can be so strong to try to take that away.
Sorry, but this is my only option, and once the plane is in the air I can't just go outside if your animal is bothering me, so that's why! It is MY HEALTH at stake.
Besides, you always have the option to put them below in cargo. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you.
Besides, since virtually every other form of public transportation... buses, subways, trains... forbids animals except for bona fide service animals, why should planes be any different?
lol. I have a wedding next year and would like to bring my dogs home for my wedding. I was looking all over the net for for airlines that would allow my dogs in cabin because they've NEVER traveled before, and would like to make sure they have a SAFE flight. I could care less if it was alaska airlines, or even japan airlines for goodness sake. To be frank, i HATE alaska airlines due to their high reputations on delays ive experienced visiting my brother in seattle... but for my 2 lil pooches to be with me on my wedding day, I'll suck that up and take that offer IF Alaska airlines is the ONLY one that offers this policy. If alaska airlines is the ONLY airlines that offers this policy, it should be easy for people to book flights to Hawaii.... now those in our situation, we dont have much choices, infact, this is our ONLY option so i dont understand how you guys can be so strong to try to take that away.
it's not your ONLY option.
It's the only option if you don't want to pay a premium price. heck i just finsihed helping a couple mopve to Hawaii from Wyoming and their two dogs and 1 cat were with them in the cabin. Sure it cost a bit more than the $200 alaska charges, but if its that important, there are options.
FYI, I don;t work for an airline. I work for an air transport and management company. BIG difference!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
nobody comes of that forceful on a subject they clearly are not familiar with if they are just "gathering information" 
somthing is a stinking bad 
