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.
When she told you the box needs to be underneath the seat, you said that you tried squishing your raincoat further under the seat. So it seems like you did know what she was talking about, you were just trying to be difficult.
And this is why misunderstandings occur.
Please explain to me how, when I only have raincoat, I am supposed to move a box that I didn't have. There was NO Box.
The two responses to my raincoat story are a bit funny and poignant considering the sad overall topic of this thread.
Last edited by Standards13; 03-17-2018 at 01:51 PM..
The right of a dog not to be in a kennel is less important than the right of a baby to be with its parents. Sorry.
The dog and his owner violated absolutely no one's rights; United Airlines allowed dogs on the flight, offered in-cabin accommodation (in an approved carrier, which the dog owner had) for a fee (which the dog owner had paid). United Airlines had a rule that no animal was to be put in the overhead bin - it was the responsibility of the airline to assure that all employees were aware of that rule and followed it; it was the responsibility of the flight attendant, as an UA employee, to follow its rules. There was no legal rule obligating the dog owner to be aware of the safety, for her dog, of a place she had no expectation of its being placed - the overhead bin. She didn't pay for her dog to be placed in the overhead bin; she paid for the dog to be placed under the seat in front of her. If the pet owner had improperly placed the dog under the seats/sticking out in the aisle (I've heard varying reports), surely the UA flight attendant's proper course of action would have been to assist the pet owner in re-organizing her stuff and put the inanimate objects in the overhead bin and the dog (in its carrier) under the seat. If there was still no room for the dog, who I believe had been checked in, its carrier looked at by UA personnel (and it was an approved carrier, presumably approved by the airline), under the seat; then that shortfall was the fault of the airline; since a passenger should not be expected to know the exact measurements and structure of chairs on all planes; and they should have, for this one flight, allowed the dog owner to hold the dog in her lap in its carrier or put it at her feet.
If the airlines allow, and charge money for, the placement of dogs on flights, then there can be no violation of rights of an infant to be with its parents; if it becomes a question of either dogs or babies on a flight, then the airline is not doing its job right; since it is responsible for the physical configuration of the airplane and the seats and the spaces where the passengers with babies and/or dogs will be placed. Most responsible dog owners are not going to abandon or rehome their dogs when they move; and often they don't have time or funds to arrange travel by car or other private means for themselves and/or their pets if the move is a long distance journey.
I think this tragedy resulted from UA being quite lax in educating its own people on the rules governing the transport of animals; also the unwillingness of the particular flight attendant (or evidently any other UA person on that flight) to take responsibility for the safety of the dog once it had been erroneously placed in the overhead bin (at least one passenger other than the owner heard the dog barking) and, a distant third, the complacency of the dog owner (who apparently trusted the flight attendant when the FA said the dog would be "safe" in the overhead bin).
And given that there have been two more United Airlines screw-ups with dogs since this tragedy happened - a swap between a German Shepherd and a Great Dane, the German Shepherd being sent to Japan instead of the Great Dane; and a 500-mile turnaround in the air because UA realized the dog was somehow put on the wrong plane by their personnel (thankfully none of these dogs died) - I think that the airline should revisit its policies regarding pet transport and improve them. If the airline decides not to continue to transport pets; that is of course its own business; I am not aware of any law saying that all airlines must transport pets.
Big difference. A baby is a PERSON. A dog is an ANIMAL.
The point is that poster seems to feel bringing animals infringes in the rights of travelers and because if that, it is selfish to bring them. By THAT definition of selfish (which is not mine btw) bringing a baby would be equally selfish if not more so. By that definition it doesn’t matter if it’s a human or animal because it is judged a selfish act based on potential inconvenience to other people. Other passengers don’t care whether it’s a crying baby or mewliing puppy keeping them up.
Again not my view and I have no problems with either babies or pets in planes.
And yet again, this is not an animal rights vs human rights issue because it is people who want to transport their property safely, not a dog who wants to see the world buying a ticket.
Please explain to me how, when I only have raincoat, I am supposed to move a box that I didn't have. There was NO Box.
The two responses to my raincoat story are a bit funny and poignant considering the sad overall topic of this thread.
They are rational. She was moving past and thought she saw a box sticking out, not a coat. What is so difficult to understand. She has to watch out for a whole plane load of potential idiots who can't abide basic rules, maybe she wasn't obsessing over your particular object and just called it a box. What if she said "move the thing", would that make you happy...?
This kind of thing makes me think more and more that the FA really had no idea there was a dog in that bag. Often they are busy and distracted, and they aren't perfect.
Too many people today are selfish, take no personal responsibility and want others to solve their problems.
This kind of thing makes me think more and more that the FA really had no idea there was a dog in that bag. Often they are busy and distracted, and they aren't perfect.
Too many people today are selfish, take no personal responsibility and want others to solve their problems.
Others heard the FA being told there was a dog in the carrier. She should also be able to recognize a pet carry on bag. They are common.
Not to self: do not bring pets on the airplane. Problem solved. And something else -
Personal Responsibility.
The owner should have checked on her dog regularly. The owner should have known it might have breathing problems, being a pug.
The end.
The owner was not allowed to get up because of turbulence.
It was not a pug. It was a Boston bulldog.
The passenger relied on the [totally lacking] expertise of the FA that the dog would be safe.
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.
