[Gary9879]

Just wanted to file this and say that if a baby cries and screams on a flight; it will not be removed from the flight;that is what customer service stated to my wife; if a puppy yelps, you will be removed from the flight and the ticketing agent will threaten to call the police and have you thrown in jail, and you will be abandoned at the gate and customer service will say" Sorry, but there is nothing we can do"; even if your in a different city, your luggage is on the flight home and you do not know anybody in the dump off point. South West was completely unprofessional, un-caring. I paid $75.00 for the additional ticket: do we pay $75.00 for a carry on, like a computer bag which fits underneath the seat? Or puppy weighs 9 lbs. The air lines completely dropped the ball here: My wife is stranded in LV with her puppy and the flight has landed in Reno without my wife. Their attitude was appalling and unforgiving.

[jimworcs]

This is the consequence of allowing animals in the cabin. The airlines have set people up and then if there are problems, they are stranded. I do not think airlines should allow animals in the cabin, period. The animals can be placed in the hold perfectly safely. I would apply this rule to service animals also. It is not safe to have animals in the cabin for a number of reasons. In the event of an emergency, you could have loose panicked animals running around the cabin, blocking egress. There are also allergy and discomfort reasons.

Southwest took your money and then dumped you in Las Vegas, I presume because the puppy was too noisy. What do Southwest expect? It is a puppy.. of course it will make puppy noises. If they don't want that to happen, don't take the money. In this case, they should have offered to get your wife and your puppy home by placing the puppy in the hold. If that required the purchase of a special carrier, that should be at Southwests expense. The puppy was doing what puppies do. If you don't want them, don't accept them. If you do accept them, then take the consequences.

[Gary9879]

Did you understand the puppy was in a carrier? Do you understand that? How can a little puppy run amuck in an emergency situation.
And who are you anyway? A watch dog for the airline? they allowed pups on the bird to get more business: do you complain if someone coughs, sneezes, burpss or even snores? I will bet your the one who complained about my sandwich on my last flight; the smell made you sick. Bottom line; the airline allowed this practice for a reason and now they need to come up with a solution to allow the puppy to be scared as a little baby is scared at take off and landing. Holding the carrier in the lap would calm the puppy; do you hold the child when it cries? whether the puppy is stinky or the puppy is stinky and whether people have allergies is not a point of argument. Now nothing against heavy individuals but: if that individual flows over into your seat and makes you uncomfortable due to lack of room, no arm room, no leg room, do you complain?
Remember, people go to prison for abusing animals.We were not abusing the animal; it just cried just like a baby.

[The_Judge]

Jim.....look out, you're gonna get a little red label below your name.

To the OP......you have completely taken his post the wrong way. If there is anyone on this board that is more pro-consumer, I have yet to see him. Jim is on your side, believe me.

[jimworcs]

Gary,
I think you must have read my post through red mist. My point about the pet carrier was in the event of an accident..

I think airlines should carry animals.. I just disagree about where they should be carried. You think in the cabin, I think in the hold. No big deal, we just disagree.

The rest of my post was critical of Southwest.. and supporting your position that they acted unreasonably. Take a deep breath and try reading it again!

Troy..
If I get a red label, this site will be in real trouble!!

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

In this case, they should have offered to get your wife and your puppy home by placing the puppy in the hold. If that required the purchase of a special carrier, that should be at Southwests expense.

Southwest only flies pets in the main cabin accompanied by a passenger. They do not accept animals for transportation in the baggage hold.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

Jimworcs wrote...

I do not think airlines should allow animals in the cabin, period.

Jim, as you may know, Federal law prohibits an airline from barring someone with a bona fide service animal. As was discussed in a thread some months ago, since some people abuse the service animal regulations in an effort to avoid paying fees for carrying a pet aboard, there appears to be a debate about what constitutes a service animal for the purpose of "emotional support."

If a gate agent allows a customer to carry a pet aboard, and all rules are observed (fees paid, pet is not removed from carrier, no noxious odors) then the pet should stay aboard, notwithstanding any noise it may make. As Jim indicated, some pets DO make noise. If an airline can't accept this then carry-on pets should be totally banned.

To the airline people on here: Do gate agents, and/or cabin crew, consider the issue of emergency evacuation when seating a customer with a service animal? Also, I wonder how well a blind customer, with a service dog, would have fared in that US Airways ditching in the Hudson River?

[Gary9879]

WELL;
Someone with a bit of common sense. I didn't ask for Jim to spout his opinions when I posted here: maybe he needs to review the judges very few but true words before spouting again;
We did follow the rules. It did not pay off. Let me give JIM a little history. I work in NY with the USACE. I took the job 3000 miles away from my family due to the economy. My wife (the one kicked off the bird) was walking two dogs on leashes in NV and a Pit Bull came out of no-where and killed a 4 month puppy: now the owner will not take responsibility for this. So; in shock, when she came to NY to visit me she decided not to let a boarder have the other puppy, (the live one) so she brought him (tobi) with her: we had problems in Chicago with her trip to see me and we had problems on the way home. The first problem was with a ticket agent thinking that the dog was not suppose to be flying: no barking issues, no stinky turds, no rabid attributes. Just a agent flexing her muscles. Maybe a dog hater, I do not know. Now she is actually driving home in a rental car as of this minute from LV to Reno with the accused attitude puppy.
I sat next to a cute child with her mother once; the child was apparently scared; cried for three hours; the mother walked the child up and down the isle, but that did not stop the crying. They did not kick her off the plane; many complaints were rendered; she was not kicked off the plane. THE PUPPY WAS BARKING; all they had to do was let the mommy put the carrier in her lap; the puppy would have shut up.
Let's quit trying to be so scared and politically correct and make some common sense rules to work with all. I do not want a dog barking in my ear, but I understand that people have issues with bonding with pets; let's work it out on the airline side.
Give it up Jim: I complained about a wrong doing; I did not ask for your rhetoric and opinion. What if I farted next to you on the plane: would you have me removed?

[Gary9879]

Jim:

I have actually gone back and read your words: to a point I have jumped to a negative conclusion: sorry. I am still fuming about what happened last night.
Please accept my apology.

[PHXFlyer]

Southwest's policy is rather vague:

We maintain the right to refuse acceptance of a cat or dog exhibiting aggressive behavior or any other characteristics that appear incompatible with air travel.

(Boldface is Southwest's not mine!)

In my opinion it leaves too much open for interpretation by individual crew or ground staff. Just what characteristics are incompatible with air travel? Dogs bark. Cats meow. Babies fuss and cry. To what degree are animal noises incompatible with air travel?

With a posted policy so full of holes I would advise you to speak to an attorney Monday morning. I would also call your local TV stations in Reno and see if any of them would air your story. Southwest hates bad publicity and once they hear of your issues through the news media I'm sure they'll be swift with a settlement offer. Just ask the young woman who was made to "cover up" when she wore a short skirt and a blouse with a plunging neckline. I think she got several thousand out of Southwest and they didn't strand her at a connecting airport!

[Gary9879]

Thanks for the positive words: I have all ready gotten in touch with a few very important organizations. Although I have never filed a suit towards a organization I believe that I need to now. My wife is so scared to fly now.
Thanks

[jimworcs]

Gary,
Apology accepted, no problem... these things can really wind people up and I am sure the last thing your wife wanted was a 450 mile road trip. I can imagine your frustration.

I agree with PHX. Effectively, Southwest's current policy seems to be written so ambiguously that the passenger is left at the whim of any employee who takes a dislike to the pet or owner. It is ridiculously vague..

or any other characteristics that appear incompatible with air travel.

What the hell does that mean?

Butch,
I fully accept the the Federal Law in relation to the carriage of service animals. I have worked with people with disabilities all my life... however, I do not agree with this policy. I consider it to be dangerous to others and it is not a reasonable accommodation. It has lead to ridiculous situations of passengers travelling with "support geese". I do not consider dogs in the cabin of an aircraft to be safe. I am not anti-dog... I have a dog and understand how attached we become.

I consider someone who requires any assistance dog, should be assisted on the aircraft, the dog placed in the hold and reunited with the animal immediately on disembarkation. If necessary a carer should be allowed to travel with them. In any event, a dogs ability to assist a person with a disability in the confined space of an aircraft is severely limited, and for this and other reasons, I think it is inappropriate.

Phx..

Southwest only flies pets in the main cabin accompanied by a passenger. They do not accept animals for transportation in the baggage hold

I realise it is cheaper to transport in the cabin, than to make the handling arrangements required for animals. However, this can be recoved in charges. I do not feel that naimals belong in the cabin...period.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

I agree with PHX.

It's not even Dec. 20, 2012 yet!

Originally Posted by jimworcs

Phx..
I realise it is cheaper to transport in the cabin, than to make the handling arrangements required for animals. However, this can be recoved in charges. I do not feel that naimals belong in the cabin...period.

I only pointed out the policy since you stated if the puppy was causing a disruption in the cabin they could have moved it to the hold. On Southwest that just isn't an option.

[AADFW]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

I do not think airlines should allow animals in the cabin, period. The animals can be placed in the hold perfectly safely. I would apply this rule to service animals also. It is not safe to have animals in the cabin for a number of reasons. In the event of an emergency, you could have loose panicked animals running around the cabin, blocking egress.

This is probably the first instance I've ever taken issue with jimworcs. My dog has traveled with me countless times in a soft-sided carrier without making so much as a whimper; in fact, when carrying her on board nobody but me even realizes she's even there at all. The only life she'd place in danger in case of an emergency would be that of her very own. Further, trained service animals aren't going to be any more panicked in case of an emergency than your average child, emotionally challenged individual, or senior citizen.

The idea that all animals should be barred from the cabin for safety's sake makes about as much sense as banning all Muslims from commercial airliners to prevent terrorism in the name of jihad. Either would be completely impractical and totally unfair.

[jimworcs]

Hi AADFW..
Happy to disagree, but your comparison with a ban on Muslims was just too provocative!!

An animal running loose in the cabin in a situation like the AF crash in Toronto could seriously impact evacuation times. I am suggesting that the animal could become loose, either from the forces involved, or because a misguided owner tried to give them a chance. There was a recent Continental incident in which passengers evacuated in an emergency, and many disregarded instructions to save their luggage... so think what they might do for an animal.

I hate to tell you this, but there are already procedures in place which do recognise that some people with mobility needs might not be evacuated. For example, a wheelchair dependent passenger would not be evacuated until all other passengers have done so. Even then, they will only be assisted out, if the assistance does not put the rescuers or cabin crew in danger. I understand in JAA training it is explictly recognised that some passengers may not have an opportunity to exit an otherwise survivable event due to problems in evacuating them.

The behaviour of the animal is not really relevant for me, it is not a particularly important reason for banning them. However, what I cannot understand is why people feel the need to have them in the cabin. The hold is pressurised and kept warm when animals are in there.. so what is the objection?

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

With regard to PHX's post #10: The rule as to who the gate agent will, and will not, allow to board is EQUALLY vague. The Contract of Carriage for American Air, and other carriers, basically, allows the gate agent to deny a customer boarding on a whim. If a given customer, truly, presents a clear and present danger to the aircraft; its crew; and/or the passengers, then a review of a gate agent's decision should be upheld if a "second opinion" was required from another employee of the same airline.

[azstar]

I think one of the points to be made here is that Southwest has a corporate culture of removing anyone or anything from their planes regardless of the consequences, whether a barking dog, an "inappropriately" dressed individual, a crying baby, etc. I've seen them remove passengers seated near an intoxicated passenger even though the passengers were not travelling together, did not know each other, and were not intoxicated themselves. It's a very cavalier attitude handed to employess who may not always have the best judgement. Their mission statement seems to be "if you don't like it, take the bus".

[AADFW]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

The behaviour of the animal is not really relevant for me, it is not a particularly important reason for banning them. However, what I cannot understand is why people feel the need to have them in the cabin. The hold is pressurised and kept warm when animals are in there.. so what is the objection?

Actually Jim, not all cargo holds are pressurized. In fact, according to the Airline Transportation Association itself at one point in the past decade, more than 5,000 animals were killed, injured, or lost on commercial flights each year due to their being treated like baggage, handled roughly, exposed to extremes of hot and cold, and/or subjected to poor ventilation and lack of oxygen.

In the month of September 2009 alone, there were four such deaths on board Northwest, Continental, and American according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. I realize that this number is low in comparison to the number of animals shipped, but it's presumably quite high compared to the number of animals that die being transported by their owners safely in the comfort of the cabin.

The bottom line is that your fears for safety in this particular instance are unfounded. If you can point out a single example in modern aviation history where an animal of any variety brought into the cabin hindered the emergency evacuation of an airplane, you'll have a much better case to bring to this forum. Otherwise, I see no reason why the practice can't safely continue.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by AADFW

Actually Jim, not all cargo holds are pressurized.

I would research that statement if I were you.

[AADFW]

Originally Posted by PHXFlyer

I would research that statement if I were you.

I have already done so PHX; there are several commercial aircraft in use with cargo holds behind the rear pressure bulkheads where pets can accidentally be placed by cargo handlers. Even pressurized environments are often kept cold or hot enough to easily kill a pet.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by AADFW

I have already done so PHX; there are several commercial aircraft in use with cargo holds behind the rear pressure bulkheads where pets can accidentally be placed by cargo handlers. Even pressurized environments are often kept cold or hot enough to easily kill a pet.

Name them please.

[AADFW]

Originally Posted by PHXFlyer

Name them please.

PHX, I'm not going to submit to your demand to footnote my well-documented claims in order to please the likes of you. There are more than enough commercial aircraft in use with areas of their respective cargo holds routinely kept hot or cold enough to kill an animal after prolonged periods of exposure and you know it. Funny how you attempt vainly to champion the self-professed puppy-killing airline industry through petty banter. How does it feel to be a tool?

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

AADFW: Most of the regular posters on here know I would be the last to defend PHX. However, it looks like PHX's point was not whether some cargo holds are lethal environments for live animals, but rather your contention that cargo holds are not pressurized. Are there, really, any "mainline"-type aircraft that do NOT have pressurized cargo holds? Possibly no pressurization in the cargo hold of some commuter aircraft may be the case.

Because of the unpredictability of some airline staff I would send my pet on Pet Airways ( http://petairways.com/ ) or, if traveling with my pet, use Amtrak.

[PHXFlyer]

Perhaps he was mistaken as normal cabin pressurization is not equivalent to that at sea level. At cruise altitudes between 35K and 40K feet the internal pressure is equal to that of about 8K feet. Some breeds of dogs and cats are not tolerant of lower air pressure which can cause respiratory distress and death. There are certain breeds which airlines will not carry because of this.

Injury to and death of animals transported on commercial airlines have to be reported to the DOT. As with people it is still safer to fly. Statistically your dog or cat is more likely to be injured, killed, or run away while you drive it to or from your destination than it is to have the same thing happen while being transported by airplane.

[jimworcs]

AADFW,
I have given you my reasons for not wanting animals in the cabin. The SiouxCity crash was an example of where unrestrained luggage, such as an animal carrier, could become a lethal missile.

The AF (Toronto) crash would be an example where speed of evacuation was critical to survival.

In both cases I would argue that having animals in the cabin could have affected the outcome for some passengers.

The fact that animals rarely travel in the cabin, so there are no documented cases of them impeding egress doesn't mean they couldn't. There are no documented cases of planes crashes as a result of inference from radio to telephone devices either..but they are banned.

On the issue of the safety of the hold, if animals are dying due to mis-handling by the airlines (ie, forgetting to heat the space, or poor handling by baggage handlers) surely the answer to that is for the airlines to fix their shoddy handling procedures. That is a legitimate argument and issue but perhaps a few stiff fines from the DOT would do it.

As far as I know, and I am far from an expert on this, so I am not challenging your knowledge, the cargo space is pressurized to the same level as the cabin. Therefore, if lack of oxygen would be an issue for an animal in the hold, wouldn't the same would apply in the cabin?

I suspect the reason people want the animal in the cabin is due to sentimentality. If the animal must remain the carrier, what difference does it really make to the animal if they are under a seat or in the hold. I do not think the risks outweigh the benefits.