ASFlyer wrote:

My second point is why would you just stand there and video the incident. Refuse to comply. Let the FA get the Captain or the agents involved. As long as you aren't creating a scene or being disrespectful, it's near impossible that anyone would agree that an animal should be put into an overhead bin.

In the current environment ANY deviation from absolute compliance can lead to incarceration or a beating. This was a mother traveling with two children. It's not cheap to have three tickets. She knew she was risking something like a thousand dollars in airfare if she refused, or perhaps risking incarceration.

You might think that animals don't belong in a passenger cabin and we can disagree because humans are animals and humans occupy aircraft cabins. The fact is that humans, babies, and animals all need to travel sometimes. In an era when airplanes are literally the only option for long-distance travel, saying "no animals on planes" is not realistic.

The F/A should face criminal animal cruelty charges. That poor dog was probably crushed between bags. If not, there may have been inadequate airflow.

But there's a bigger problem. United seems to have a cultural problem in which its employees feel that UA is too big to fail and they cannot be fired. The airline and every single employee needs to understand that there is a risk that they could lose their jobs. Int he present situation, that cannot happen. It's time for government to act to ensure that airlines *can* fail, that their employees *will* face repercussions for criminal acts (and this was one), that airlines *will* be held accountable to the contracts they make with their customers, and that their customers have rights.

A living, breathing, feeling being died on a United Airlines flight because one of United's crewmembers was cold, heartless, and uncaring. Something needs to change.

SJL wrote:

I had a look at some of the posts on United’s Facebook page - there is absolute outrage over this. I can understand the pain of the dog’s owners but I wonder how many of the people complaining eat meat or in some other contribute to the suffering of animals? I’m not promoting veganism or saying what United did was right but the furore seems extreme. United must transport tens of thousands of pets every year without incident.

The outrage is justified, because the pet's death was completely avoidable and unnecessary and arguably the result of poor judgment. Yes, it's true that certain breeds of dogs are more vulnerable to the risks of flying, but I think that almost anyone with at least an iota of common sense would agree that instructing someone to put a pet in the overhead bin is a bad idea that doesn't help the poor animal in any way whatsoever. It's an inane, fatuous and pointless deprivation of life at the hands of reckless people.

Meat as food serves an important purpose: nourishment. It also served an important evolutionary purpose--we wouldn't be here today in our current form hadn't it been for our ancestors who mastered bipedalism and gained the dexterity and aptitude to develop tools to hunt and eat animals, which increased our cranial capacity. Is it still right to eat animals? That's another discussion altogether. As you may already know, there isn't enough food to go around in the world to feed every person.

I’ve seen small dogs and cats in animal carrriers in the overhead compartments quite a few times. It doesn’t appear to be an issue in Europe. I haven’t seen a dead one yet. I guess once the animals had an autopsy and cause of death is discovered then we can start playing the blame game.

F27500 wrote:

This flight attendant "safety professional" is an absolute IDIOT. It was IAH-LGA, so they were on a Boeing (not a small RJ) and that bag in the pic is a normal sized pet duffel. Why would anyone even think the overhead bin was an appropriate place to put a dog carrier? Much less a FA?!

I'm glad to see the sympathy in UA's response to this, but this fool of a power-tripped FA needs to be taken outta the aisle and sent packing.

What a horrible story.

This FA should be fired. She is a complete moron. From the pictures it was obvious it was a soft sided pet carrier and probably obvious there was animal in it. If the FA could not figure out the pet didn't belong in the overhead she has no business being a FA.

I'm absolutely amazed that despite the numerous opportunities possible, this seemingly wasn't even addressed and nipped in the bud before the boarding door closed!

I feel horrible for the dog owner. My dog was absolutely terrified of even a five-minute drive around the corner to Petsmart. I can't even imagine being in the dark for over three hours.

Kiwirob wrote:

I’ve seen small dogs and cats in animal carrriers in the overhead compartments quite a few times. It doesn’t appear to be an issue in Europe. I haven’t seen a dead one yet. I guess once the animals had an autopsy and cause of death is discovered then we can start playing the blame game.

Just because you've seen someone else get away with risky behaviour does not make it right. Furthermore, the airline stated themselves that what the flight attendant instructed the passenger to do was not in accordance with SOP.

I stated earlier that we should move on from this digression, but I must have missed, or glanced over this gem of a post:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

You still don't get it, do you?
In your example, the word "accident" qualifies the word "killed".

Your condescension aside, a simple statement that someone was killed is technically correct in itself. While context can help make the connotation of the word more clear, it's not a prerequisite for the use of the word.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

For instance; "3 people killed in car" as a headline opens up multiple interpretations, most of them negative. I'm already seeing a man with a gun nearby. (Only in the USA of course)

"3 people dead in car" also opens up multiple interpretations too, all of which happen to be negative unless if you think there can be anything positive about dying.

AAIL86 wrote:

the only concern of the F/A should have been to accommodate the customer.

No, the only concern should have been the safety of the flight and all passengers. For all the faults that some F/A may have safety has to trump individual passenger "wishes" if there's a conflict. I'm not saying this was the case here, but sometimes "poor" customer service is required if "good" customer service would jeopardize safety.
I had a KLM flight recently where an aisle seat passenger was allowed to have a package wedged between her seat and the seat in front as it wouldn't fit under the seat, in the overhead and she refused to put it in the hold. She sat for the flight with her feet up on it and her knees at her chin. If I had been in the middle of window seat I would have been been pretty upset at that extra obstacle between me and an emergency evacuation. I casually asked the F/A about this while waiting to reboard. Her reply: "It's a non-issue as we weren't going to have to evacuate today and it would have been a hassle to get the packet put in the hold". Unbelievable flippant attitude!

Now what would you like? "Good" service or "safe" service?

Now getting back to this case. I suspect that nobody on this thread was there in person to actually witness this incident. Therefore we simply don't know what really actually happened and only have non-impartial claims as to this. Therefore we need to wait to see if the facts do come out. I suspect they won't in full!

HHScot wrote:

AAIL86 wrote:

the only concern of the F/A should have been to accommodate the customer.

No, the only concern should have been the safety of the flight and all passengers. For all the faults that some F/A may have safety has to trump individual passenger "wishes" if there's a conflict. I'm not saying this was the case here, but sometimes "poor" customer service is required if "good" customer service would jeopardize safety.
I had a KLM flight recently where an aisle seat passenger was allowed to have a package wedged between her seat and the seat in front as it wouldn't fit under the seat, in the overhead and she refused to put it in the hold. She sat for the flight with her feet up on it and her knees at her chin. If I had been in the middle of window seat I would have been been pretty upset at that extra obstacle between me and an emergency evacuation. I casually asked the F/A about this while waiting to reboard. Her reply: "It's a non-issue as we weren't going to have to evacuate today and it would have been a hassle to get the packet put in the hold". Unbelievable flippant attitude!

If the carrier was too big to the extent that it would pose a safety concern, then it shouldn't have been allowed in the cabin at all. If that's the case, kindly explain to the passenger that, for safety reasons, the pet is not allowed to travel in the cabin on account of the carrier exceeding size limitations. Do not coerce the passenger to put their pet in the overhead bin.

HHScot wrote:

Now what would you like? "Good" service or "safe" service?

Those two are not mutually exclusive, as many other airlines around the world demonstrate.

HHScot wrote:

Now getting back to this case. I suspect that nobody on this thread was there in person to actually witness this incident. Therefore we simply don't know what really actually happened and only have non-impartial claims as to this. Therefore we need to wait to see if the facts do come out. I suspect they won't in full!

The witnesses are telling their side of the story as a third person, not as the victim or the accused. Unless if you happen to believe that they hated the airline anyways (remember that one of the witnesses said that it was his first time flying on United) and were set out to sling mud at the airline and happened to be at the exact right place at the exact right time, I would say that it's quite impartial?
The airline also accepted full responsibility for the situation. I would imagine that this is not something that they would say lightly.

hoons90 wrote:

HHScot wrote:

Now what would you like? "Good" service or "safe" service?

Those two are not mutually exclusive, as many other airlines around the world demonstrate.

But all the time, as my example showed.

Customer is king doesn't always mean the customer is always right. Just as much as good parents don't always give their kids everything they want regardless.

HHScot wrote:

hoons90 wrote:

HHScot wrote:

Now what would you like? "Good" service or "safe" service?

Those two are not mutually exclusive, as many other airlines around the world demonstrate.

But all the time, as my example showed.

Customer is king doesn't always mean the customer is always right. Just as much as good parents don't always give their kids everything they want regardless.

When did I argue otherwise? And I don't see how your statement is relevant to the discussion when it's pretty clear that the customer complied exactly with what the flight attendant instructed her to do. At which point did the customer act out of line?

At which point did I say that? You're just being silly now!

I made it perfectly clear (to those that want to see at none of us was there and therefore know exactly 100% what happened. I am talking in general to people that think that poor customer service means the customer not getting everything they want or having to do something that they don't like.
I'm not going to comment on this anymore with the likes of you as it's a complete waste of time and energy.

I am no fan of pets. I do believe we are at a point where society continues to attempt to humanize animals. I am no fan of it to be honest.However, the animal should not have suffered the way it did. While I believed FA may have handled this poorly I don't believe she should be crucified for it. If the carrier didn't fit the fa should have asked for the CSA. The CSA would have advised the pax she had to purchase (from the airline) a pet carrier that fit underneath the seat. It is not uncommon for pax to show up to the gate with carriers that are too large for under the seat. At that point, if they wish to continue travel they must either purchase the airlines' pet carrier or be denied boarding.Simple

I understand the dog was of the inbread, snub-nosed, vareity, know for their difficulties breathing. One would, first of all, question the sanity of keeping such a pet, secondly the wisdom of bringing a breathing impaired animal onboard a flight where breathing, due to the lower pressure, will be even more difficult. Thirdly, I'd question the sanity of putting such an animal in a carrier which, obviously, was too small for the purpose.

Overhead bins are not airtight in any way, shape or form. They may be crammed tightly, but there's still air to breath - for any critter with a 'normal' aspiration system that is.

I will never understand the argument 'I need to travel, so my animal need to travel as well, and travel by air is the most convenient solution'. Well, with ownership of an animal comes responsibilities, and one of those may just be that you can't travel as and when you please. If you have an animal and 'need' to travel over an ocean, you either take or boat or leave the animal behind. Or, alternatively, think before you obtain an animal and consider whether your future plans are compatible with animal ownership. But too many people think either only of themselves, or believe their self-induced problems should be solved by someone else.

INFINITI329 wrote:

While I believed FA may have handled this poorly I don't believe she should be crucified for it. I

The F/A was cruel. There is a difference between humanely slaughtering an animal for food and forcing an animal to die an agonizing and terrorizing death by being crushed between pieces of sliding luggage. She did it for her own expediency. She thought about herself before she thought about her customer or the customer's animal. The animal did not ask to be there. The animal did not purchase the ticket. That poor dog was a helpless victim of a lazy, callous flight attendant who couldn't be bothered to come up with another solution to the problem, so she violated company policy and killed a dog.

Every day, I make life and death decisions for cute little animals who cannot speak for themselves. Those animals, in my case, happen to be human. But in spite of that, I never make families give up their dogs for allergies or such. Rather, I figure out a solution that works for all. That's what this F/A should have done.

United really needs to try turning around it's reputation with dead pets. Anyone remember the world's largest rabbit?

DocLightning wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

While I believed FA may have handled this poorly I don't believe she should be crucified for it. I

The F/A was cruel. There is a difference between humanely slaughtering an animal for food and forcing an animal to die an agonizing and terrorizing death by being crushed between pieces of sliding luggage.

Doc, Could you please cite a reference that supports the cause of death you have stated, the "death by being crushed between pieces of sliding luggage."

DarthLobster wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

There should be no animals, lizards, snakes, birds, or reptiles in plane cabins.

Are lizards, snakes, birds, and reptiles not animals?

Are they ??

DIRECTFLT wrote:

DarthLobster wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

There should be no animals, lizards, snakes, birds, or reptiles in plane cabins.

Are lizards, snakes, birds, and reptiles not animals?

Are they ??

Yes they are animals. Perhaps you are thinking "mammals" which include humans...

DocLightning wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

While I believed FA may have handled this poorly I don't believe she should be crucified for it. I

The F/A was cruel. There is a difference between humanely slaughtering an animal for food and forcing an animal to die an agonizing and terrorizing death by being crushed between pieces of sliding luggage. She did it for her own expediency. She thought about herself before she thought about her customer or the customer's animal. The animal did not ask to be there. The animal did not purchase the ticket. That poor dog was a helpless victim of a lazy, callous flight attendant who couldn't be bothered to come up with another solution to the problem, so she violated company policy and killed a dog.

Every day, I make life and death decisions for cute little animals who cannot speak for themselves. Those animals, in my case, happen to be human. But in spite of that, I never make families give up their dogs for allergies or such. Rather, I figure out a solution that works for all. That's what this F/A should have done.

Doc, with all due respect, that's a load of BS. The only person responsible for putting the animal in danger was its owner. When you decide to acquire an animal, particularly one with respiratory issues, it comes with a long list of responsibilities - chief amongst which is ensuring the health and safety of the animal. Stuffing it in a too-small bag and dragging it onboard a low-pressure environment is putting your own needs and wants before that of the animal, and if anything should happen that's on you, not the airline or its employees. The fist and only priority, legally, of a flight crew member, is the safety of the flight and its passengers. Your belongings, whether it's an expensive laptop or a pet, is secondary to that.

If you value the life and safety of your pet, don't bring it onboard a flight. It cannot get any more simple than that, but if you chose to decided your 'need' or 'want' to travel by air is greater than the safety of your pet, you must accept there's a risk something goes wrong and your pet will not survive the trip. Again, that's on you as the owner, not anybody else. And I don't buy the argument 'but, travel by air is the only solution!' at all. You can always chose not to travel but, even better, consider what your travel needs are before you acquire a pet. And if something you couldn't plan for happens, which mean you must travel, then leave the pet behind at a nursery or with friends and family.

PS
I've been a dog owner and cat slave since childhood. I travelled every year with my parents on vacation, sometimes several times a year, and we never brought any of our dogs onboard an aircraft. They'd either be put in a kennel or we had them living with friends and family. When I had jobs requiring extensive travel, my desire to have a cat or dog was overshadowed by my need to be away from home for extended periods of time, so I naturally decided it was not the right time for a pet. These days I, luckily, don't have to travel that much, and am therefore in a position where I can be the preferred slave to a cat. But when we do go on vacation, we don't take her with us - we have either my daughter or one of our parents come sit the house whilst we're away.

DocLightning wrote:

She thought about herself before she thought about her customer or the customer's animal. The animal did not ask to be there.

Perhaps she had the safety of ALL passengers on her mind as a priority?

DocLightning wrote:

The animal did not ask to be there. The animal did not purchase the ticket. That poor dog was a helpless victim of a lazy, callous flight attendant

Substitute flight attendant with owner and it wouldn't be a wrong statement either. Where's the outrage over her judgement dragging onboard a dog breed that is notoriously known to have difficulties inflight? Where is her consideration for the animal's welfare? Isn't travelling with a baby, child on her own stressful enough?

I'm not from the US, have flown UA only few times so I don't quite understand the hate for that airline. To avoid future PR disasters perhaps they should stop accepting animals altogether with the exception of guide dog s where there is objective reason for their presence on board.

I love my dog immensely. He is my baby. He is a fully fledged family member. I also try to avoid travelling with him as much as possible, because I know how stressful travelling can be for a dog. I am hoping I will never have to make him fly. Flying is stressful enough for us humans!

Having said this, I think UA should really get their act together. Once and for all. They are a CRAP airline, with far too many horrible bitchy employees on a power trip with no clue whatsoever about regulations or any concept -or value- of customer care. If a dog carrier is TSA approved, it stays in the freakin' cabin, and does NOT go up in the bin when it contains a living pet, for god's sake! It clearly shows not only the total lack of empathy, but also how little some individuals are allowed to make use of their poor little brain while at work. Shameful. Unfortunately in the US you cannot any longer have any meaningful conversation with any F/A because you don't want to end being dragged along a cabin aisle by security personnel.... so what do you do? You comply.

The Nazi f/a needs to fired -instantly. And UA must be sued for an outrageously BIGGG amount of $$$$.

Shame on you United.

DocLightning wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

My second point is why would you just stand there and video the incident. Refuse to comply. Let the FA get the Captain or the agents involved. As long as you aren't creating a scene or being disrespectful, it's near impossible that anyone would agree that an animal should be put into an overhead bin.

In the current environment ANY deviation from absolute compliance can lead to incarceration or a beating. This was a mother traveling with two children. It's not cheap to have three tickets. She knew she was risking something like a thousand dollars in airfare if she refused, or perhaps risking incarceration.

You might think that animals don't belong in a passenger cabin and we can disagree because humans are animals and humans occupy aircraft cabins. The fact is that humans, babies, and animals all need to travel sometimes. In an era when airplanes are literally the only option for long-distance travel, saying "no animals on planes" is not realistic.

The F/A should face criminal animal cruelty charges. That poor dog was probably crushed between bags. If not, there may have been inadequate airflow.

But there's a bigger problem. United seems to have a cultural problem in which its employees feel that UA is too big to fail and they cannot be fired. The airline and every single employee needs to understand that there is a risk that they could lose their jobs. Int he present situation, that cannot happen. It's time for government to act to ensure that airlines *can* fail, that their employees *will* face repercussions for criminal acts (and this was one), that airlines *will* be held accountable to the contracts they make with their customers, and that their customers have rights.

A living, breathing, feeling being died on a United Airlines flight because one of United's crew members was cold, heartless, and uncaring. Something needs to change.

Let me tell you how the industry works. The overhead bins shuts tight so that they don't pop open during flight, That is why pets are never allowed in overhead bins, that and for the reason you mentioned shifting luggage. People seem to be hung up on the fact that the family had a F.A.A. approved pet holder. Well they come in all sizes, they needed a extra small container to fit under the seat. Their container didn't fit. You can't have it sticking out into the aisle for safety reasons. F.A.A. rules don't allow a plane to leave if the aisles are blocked. So they needed to check the pet, Now why they didn't check the pet is a mystery. However, more than likely the cargo bin was at it's max for pets already.

protocol would of then been to remove the family from the flight, and booked them on a flight that had room for the pet in the cargo hold. or have them come back and fly with a kennel that fit under their seat. However, you look at this, it's the flight attendant fault. I don't think she did it with malice, i think she did it because she didn't want to boot the family from the plane.
Regardless she has no business being a flight attendant if she can't follow rules put in place for very good reasons. I feel bad for UA. However, the blame also lies with them for not training their staff to the consequences of not following rules. Very sad.

Jouhou wrote:

United really needs to try turning around it's reputation with dead pets. Anyone remember the world's largest rabbit?

United does seem to be in the news for all the wrong reasons these days. Certainly is hurting the brand and perception but then again they do not seem to care. I certainly would not have put a dog in the overhead lockers but maybe the passenger was afraid to confront the FA due to Uniteds track record of violence against those that do.

So many things wrong with this from all parties....

1) Dont board a plane with a Dog unless its needed (disabled reasons) - you can pay and get proper transport for your pet through a logistics company and this is the best way to do it. This way you are not inconveniencing anyone as dogs bark, poo, wee etc and also some fellow passengers could be allergic to it. This has caused other passengers, UA staff, airport workers, hygiene workers and a whole host of people a lot more work before the dog died......please think about others.
2) At least allow a periodic check on the dog every 15-30 minutes to make sure its alright.
3) If the dog was barking and nobody did anything then bam there is the issue.

As a dog owner its awful what happened but this was a shiteshow of errors from the start, the blame is spread over several different factors and unfortunately in America its United that will get the hit for something that I believe to not be entirely their fault - you never know why the dog did go yet. I am sure most dogs would survive being in an overhead compartment though.

Possibly someone might not have a job anymore, which I know the internet likes to go "its deserved" etc. However I always find it sad when people lose their jobs because its more than likely not only affecting the person losing the job but their family as well.

oldannyboy wrote:

The Nazi f/a needs to fired -instantly. And UA must be sued for an outrageously BIGGG amount of $$$$.

Talk about being hysterical...

oldannyboy wrote:

[But if it had been me, I simply would not have complied and demanded to see the Captain, gate agent, airport authorities, whatever until I ensured my dog was placed under the seat, as policy dictates, and if they insisted that wasn’t possible me and my dog are getting off the aircraft

[/quote]

And that would have gotten you thrown off the plane. Asking to see the captain, especially on a United flight, because of a dispute between you and a flight attendant, is asking for immediate expulsion from the plane. That is the culture of United. Speak out and get thrown off. Shame on United.

Here's a stat that shouldn't really surprise anyone.

ccording to Department of Transportation statistics on animal incidents on U.S. carriers, United has the highest rate of incidents involving loss, injury or death of animals during air transportation, with 2.24 incidents every 10,000 animals transported.

Also, no word yet on whether or not the flight attendant will be disciplined but knowing the way Oscar Munoz operates, he will (quietly this time) tell the flight attendant, "great job, way to go team, way to keep that dog out of the way".

In Asia, maybe airline does not allows dog onboard especially in the airport.

I thought snub nosed dogs were already banned from flying for 20 years. Strange this incident could happen.

Zaf wrote:

I thought snub nosed dogs were already banned from flying for 20 years. Strange this incident could happen.

I think that is for when they are checked? Not sure if it applies to in cabin pets.

I'd be interested if the dog was given any medication or sedatives for the travel and if it had anything to do with its passing. I'm betting a necropsy won't be done though.

jumbojet wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

[But if it had been me, I simply would not have complied and demanded to see the Captain, gate agent, airport authorities, whatever until I ensured my dog was placed under the seat, as policy dictates, and if they insisted that wasn’t possible me and my dog are getting off the aircraft

And that would have gotten you thrown off the plane. Asking to see the captain, especially on a United flight, because of a dispute between you and a flight attendant, is asking for immediate expulsion from the plane. That is the culture of United. Speak out and get thrown off. Shame on United.

Or maybe you could ask another F/A, or the purser, or try being nice to the captain??? My mom is allergic to dogs, and we had one on a plane. She needed to move as far away as she could from it, so I asked FA 1. Flight was overbooked he said, hope your mom brought medicine because she's outta luck. So I just waited 2 minutes, sneaked by him, and went up to the purser to explain. She immediately pulled me into the cockpit, introduced me to the captain, and the two of them together with the manifest figured candidates to ask to reseat so my mom and brother could stay together. All of this was done without the knowledge of FA 1, mom and brother got reseated, and off we went. Oh hey, did I mention this was on United?
I'll give you your hyperbole because this is A.net, but y'all seem to have issues discussing things rationally with airline employees. Same goes for making this dog a martyr of some sort, it's honestly really weird and I wonder, troublingly, if animals are more valuable than humans to some of you.

m007j wrote:

Same goes for making this dog a martyr of some sort, it's honestly really weird and I wonder, troublingly, if animals are more valuable than humans to some of you.

That's because most animals are nicer than a lot of humans.

m007j wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

[But if it had been me, I simply would not have complied and demanded to see the Captain, gate agent, airport authorities, whatever until I ensured my dog was placed under the seat, as policy dictates, and if they insisted that wasn’t possible me and my dog are getting off the aircraft

And that would have gotten you thrown off the plane. Asking to see the captain, especially on a United flight, because of a dispute between you and a flight attendant, is asking for immediate expulsion from the plane. That is the culture of United. Speak out and get thrown off. Shame on United.

Or maybe you could ask another F/A, or the purser, or try being nice to the captain??? My mom is allergic to dogs, and we had one on a plane. She needed to move as far away as she could from it, so I asked FA 1. Flight was overbooked he said, hope your mom brought medicine because she's outta luck. So I just waited 2 minutes, sneaked by him, and went up to the purser to explain. She immediately pulled me into the cockpit, introduced me to the captain, and the two of them together with the manifest figured candidates to ask to reseat so my mom and brother could stay together. All of this was done without the knowledge of FA 1, mom and brother got reseated, and off we went. Oh hey, did I mention this was on United?
I'll give you your hyperbole because this is A.net, but y'all seem to have issues discussing things rationally with airline employees. Same goes for making this dog a martyr of some sort, it's honestly really weird and I wonder, troublingly, if animals are more valuable than humans to some of you.

Your example is nice but the flip side to that, which is what most people are fearful of, is complaining to another flight attendant or directly to the captain and getting booted off the plane for nonsense. I think the culture that UA has become, most people will simply listen to the FA as opposed to be bounced off the flight.

She should have purchased a Basic Economy ticket so she could not use the overhead bins.

L410Turbolet wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

The Nazi f/a needs to fired -instantly. And UA must be sued for an outrageously BIGGG amount of $$$$.

Talk about being hysterical...

No, he's right. UA's representative (the F/A) failed to follow UA's policies. Her behavior was cruel and she was negligent. Don't give me "well, the owner shouldn't have been traveling with a dog." You don't know why the owner was traveling with the dog. The fact is that UA offers (for a pretty penny) the privilege of traveling with a FAA-approved pet carrier in the cabin. The blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the F/A. The owner is not an A.netter who reads the CoC for fun.

Moreover, it could be argued that her behavior was criminally negligent and constitutes cruelty to an animal. As an animal lover, I'm hoping a DA in a relevant jurisdiction throws the book at her. Forcing another being to suffer unnecessarily is the very definition of cruelty. There is nothing hysterical about that.

I'm a physician. Were another physician (or nurse) to behave in such a manner, I would not defend him/her. Why are people so quick to defend bad crewmembers?

DocLightning wrote:

Moreover, it could be argued that her behavior was criminally negligent and constitutes cruelty to an animal. As an animal lover, I'm hoping a DA in a relevant jurisdiction throws the book at her. Forcing another being to suffer unnecessarily is the very definition of cruelty. There is nothing hysterical about that.

Is this paragraph for the FA or the pets owner? Because it could be argued for either. Not checking on a dog, especially a breed that has trouble breathing at ground level, for 3+ hours seems to be on the cruel side also.

B777LRF wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

While I believed FA may have handled this poorly I don't believe she should be crucified for it. I

The F/A was cruel. There is a difference between humanely slaughtering an animal for food and forcing an animal to die an agonizing and terrorizing death by being crushed between pieces of sliding luggage. She did it for her own expediency. She thought about herself before she thought about her customer or the customer's animal. The animal did not ask to be there. The animal did not purchase the ticket. That poor dog was a helpless victim of a lazy, callous flight attendant who couldn't be bothered to come up with another solution to the problem, so she violated company policy and killed a dog.

Every day, I make life and death decisions for cute little animals who cannot speak for themselves. Those animals, in my case, happen to be human. But in spite of that, I never make families give up their dogs for allergies or such. Rather, I figure out a solution that works for all. That's what this F/A should have done.

Doc, with all due respect, that's a load of BS. The only person responsible for putting the animal in danger was its owner. When you decide to acquire an animal, particularly one with respiratory issues, it comes with a long list of responsibilities - chief amongst which is ensuring the health and safety of the animal. Stuffing it in a too-small bag and dragging it onboard a low-pressure environment is putting your own needs and wants before that of the animal, and if anything should happen that's on you, not the airline or its employees. The fist and only priority, legally, of a flight crew member, is the safety of the flight and its passengers. Your belongings, whether it's an expensive laptop or a pet, is secondary to that.

If you value the life and safety of your pet, don't bring it onboard a flight. It cannot get any more simple than that, but if you chose to decided your 'need' or 'want' to travel by air is greater than the safety of your pet, you must accept there's a risk something goes wrong and your pet will not survive the trip. Again, that's on you as the owner, not anybody else. And I don't buy the argument 'but, travel by air is the only solution!' at all. You can always chose not to travel but, even better, consider what your travel needs are before you acquire a pet. And if something you couldn't plan for happens, which mean you must travel, then leave the pet behind at a nursery or with friends and family.

PS
I've been a dog owner and cat slave since childhood. I travelled every year with my parents on vacation, sometimes several times a year, and we never brought any of our dogs onboard an aircraft. They'd either be put in a kennel or we had them living with friends and family. When I had jobs requiring extensive travel, my desire to have a cat or dog was overshadowed by my need to be away from home for extended periods of time, so I naturally decided it was not the right time for a pet. These days I, luckily, don't have to travel that much, and am therefore in a position where I can be the preferred slave to a cat. But when we do go on vacation, we don't take her with us - we have either my daughter or one of our parents come sit the house whilst we're away.

The airline takes money for allowing pets into the cabin. The line that pets having nothing to do in the cabin is absolute BS. You can address that line to the airline, but not the customer if the service is on offer. It is completely uninteresting that you never traveled with a pet.

The moment an airline offers some service, it has to be done right.

In this case there are two possibilities only. The owner smuggled the pet on board and did not pay for the service and therefor aloud the dog to be placed in the overhead bin, I tell that unlikely.
The other possibility is that the owner paid the price for the service and was aloud on board with the carrier and the dog. In that case the responsibility is 100% on the FA and the airline as her employer. No excuses.

The professional here on A.net claim that every passenger should know all the rules in and out and the responsibility lays with the passenger if something goes wrong, he should have read and understood all the fine print in regards to the rules. But there is little pressure the professionals put on themselves when things go wrong, than it is suddenly everybody can make a mistake.
If UA does not teach there FAs how to handle pets sensible on board, than they have to set up courses where there are taught the rules. When the FA should have know the rules, she/he should be thrown to the wolves, because this is simply cruelty to an animal.

The idea that the owner should have defied the FA and for example called for talking to the captain is complete BS. There are ample examples for passenger getting beat up or being forbidden to fly for any refusal to follow the direction of the crew. Calling on the captain is absolutely without sense, as it has amply been explained here on A.net that a captain always backs up his FAs whatever the occasion.

DocLightning wrote:

I'm a physician. Were another physician (or nurse) to behave in such a manner, I would not defend him/her. Why are people so quick to defend bad crewmembers?

This is an excellent point.

This poor passenger thought she was dealing with an airline professional that knew what she was doing. Someone with whom she could trust. We are all quick to judge the passenger's actions, but only because we are well acquainted with airline operations and passenger's options. We know that an overhead bin is not a safe place for a live animal. Sadly this woman did not. And sadly, when dealing with someone pretending to be a knowledgeable professional, she trusted her.

Using Doc Lightning as an example. If one were to take their child to a pediatrician and he suggested treatment which sounded questionable ... likely we would still trust him. Because we were in an environment where he was the knowledgeable professional and we would have to accept his word. We would not stand up, stomp out with our child, declaring "I'll take the next Physician".

So why would we judge this woman for trusting a Flight Attendant. In a perfect world, the Flight Attendant would know what she was doing ... she did not and an innocent dog suffered.

I do respect United though. They did not make excuses, they did not lay blame. They accepted full responsibility for the actions of one of their (inept) employees.

I am a big supporter of the SPCA in my area. Toronto region. I just received an email this morning suggesting we no longer fly with United. It is getting a lot of press in the Toronto area. Honestly, I don't know how United will deal with this PR fiasco ... again.

Seems thru lots of practice they have gone to a very quick apologize, admit fault, and hope other news takes over the headlines approach. After Dr David Dao I bet they hired lots of firms and this is what they recommend. United seems to be an airline that needs a strategy for when the next problem happens. They would rather penny pinching and crises manage after then solve real problems , Oscar is only watching the stock price he doesn't care about the employees or customers.

Has it been determined yet that being in the overhead killed the dog, or did the dog have some other issue unknown to the owner?

Honest question that I hope can be answered without hyperbole or being overly emotional. What is the range of potential discipline that the FA could face? Obviously, disciplinary actions are typically confidential, but in a case like this what is the range of actions that he/she may be subjected to? Retraining? Suspension? Just curious. Perhaps some of the FAs or airlines professionals on the board could chime in.

DocLightning wrote:
I'm a physician. Were another physician (or nurse) to behave in such a manner, I would not defend him/her. Why are people so quick to defend bad crewmembers?

Concur. I'm in a unionized profession and we do usually defend our members due to the nature of our work. However, in serious cases we typically do not, as least not on a private basis. There is often a knee jerk reaction to things when in truth, a little bit of perspective should enter into things, both pro and con.

DocLightning wrote:

You don't know why the owner was traveling with the dog.

Irrelevant. I thought animal's wellbeing is the utmost priority for alleged pet lovers or is it not? Or it depends?

DocLightning wrote:

fact is that UA offers (for a pretty penny) the privilege of traveling with a FAA-approved pet carrier in the cabin.

The breed of dog plays a major role in this case, imho.

DocLightning wrote:

The owner is not an A.netter who reads the CoC for fun.

Irrelevant since the days of Ancient Rome.

DocLightning wrote:

As an animal lover, I'm hoping a DA in a relevant jurisdiction throws the book at her. Forcing another being to suffer unnecessarily is the very definition of cruelty.

Her who? As I said before, this could be easily applied to the owner as well. Calling someone nazi for being negligent at worst IS hysterical.

DocLightning wrote:

I'm a physician.

Yeah, I know. You keep bragging about it in every other post.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

DarthLobster wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

There should be no animals, lizards, snakes, birds, or reptiles in plane cabins.

Are lizards, snakes, birds, and reptiles not animals?

Are they ??

Really?!?

L410Turbolet wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

The Nazi f/a needs to fired -instantly. And UA must be sued for an outrageously BIGGG amount of $$$$.

Talk about being hysterical...

No Let, not at all my friend, I am not hysterical, and I stand by what I said. This person needs to go, and UA needs to take a long hard look at the way they handle animals, both as 'hold luggage' as well as cabin pets... You see, I am simply an animal lover, and a dog owner who loves his dog very very dearly. Dogs are the sweetest beings you could ever imagine: they only deserve the very best treatment and utter respect.

Psychological studies show a very strong and positively indicative correlation between animal cruelty and violent/abusive behaviours towards humans. Put in other words, those who will not be empathic to [the suffering of] a dog will highly likely not show any empathy to [the suffering of] a human being either. The same studies further show that children who are known to inflict pain/suffering to animals, particularly to dogs, have an extremely high risk -disturbingly so, I would say- of becoming violent or abusive adults, and consistently show very poor life outcomes. . .
I cannot imagine a person -f/a or otherwise- who suggests to shut a living creature in such a dark, confined space being a very empathic or sensitive person.

In addition please kindly note that the incriminated f/a DID NOT act according to any rule or to any UA guidance. She just came up there and then with a very stupid 'safety recommendation' she made herself, and that ultimately killed the dog.

blueheronNC wrote:

nine4nine wrote:

As much as I love animals they belong at home not on planes. If you have a genuine health issue and have a certified service dog that’s one thing. But household pets and “therapy animals” do not belong on planes period. This new generation of entitled wimps who have to have therapy pets is insane. People have travelled by air just fine for decades without them, if it’s that severe then ask for Dr for Xanax. If you can’t live without your pet for a few days then either stay home, take Greyhound, or use Amtrak.

I'm moving across the country (West to East Coast) one a one-way flight next week with two cats. I can either do a 5-hour nonstop or drive the cats for 42 hours broken up over 5-6 days in a confined space in a car. You still think I shouldn't fly them?

Drive or transport them in the lower hold. I'm moving from California to Texas with a 70 lb golden retriever next month. I'm driving. Big deal. It's crazy that we feel entitled as a individuals to impose our logistic hardships on everyone else around us.

Pets in the main cabin has been a terrible policy. Set aside that this poor pup died. It's making people stupid. It's causing fights. It's causing people to question their sanity. We were better before the policy changed. We need to change it back.

longhauler wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

I'm a physician. Were another physician (or nurse) to behave in such a manner, I would not defend him/her. Why are people so quick to defend bad crewmembers?

This is an excellent point.

Using Doc Lightning as an example. If one were to take their child to a pediatrician and he suggested treatment which sounded questionable ... likely we would still trust him. Because we were in an environment where he was the knowledgeable professional and we would have to accept his word. We would not stand up, stomp out with our child, declaring "I'll take the next Physician".

.

That.

Think about this: It's the very same scenario that is presented to uninformed mothers who have just given birth and are still in bed, barely able to talk after labour and giving birth, when they are pressured by doctors and hospital staff to have their baby sons brutally circumcised for no reason, only to deeply regret it once their baby son is returned to them pale, sweaty, bloody and so utterly shocked that he might refuse the mother's breast...
People will automatically TRUST those who should be there to guide us and be responsible for our own safety and good. And particularly so at times of stress.

DocLightning wrote:

L410Turbolet wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

The Nazi f/a needs to fired -instantly. And UA must be sued for an outrageously BIGGG amount of $$$$.

Talk about being hysterical...

I'm a physician. Were another physician (or nurse) to behave in such a manner, I would not defend him/her. Why are people so quick to defend bad crewmembers?

Because, like you we don't know all of the facts. Based on what we do know, yes, she should be fired for not complying with SOP. But, we don't know the circumstances, and we don't know all of the facts. So I don't think that it is right for you to keep calling for her head to be charged with animal cruelty charges. You seem adamant that the dog was crushed. Do you know this for a fact? Do you know that the dog asphyxiated for a fact? No, you don't. Maybe the dog just had a panic attack, which btw, this dog is known to have.

bob75013 wrote:

It appears that the original article has been updated with United's response:

"This was a tragic accident that should never have occurred, as pets should never be placed in the overhead bin. We assume full responsibility for this tragedy and express our deepest condolences to the family and are committed to supporting them. We are thoroughly investigating what occurred to prevent this from ever happening again."

Looks like United is clearly accepting blame. Not quite sure why some are trying to put it back on the passenger.

Pets in the main cabin has been a terrible policy. Set aside that this poor pup died. It's making people stupid. It's causing fights. It's causing people to question their sanity. We were better before the policy changed. We need to change it back.

I disagree. Nothing is completely black and white. I've flown in planes where there were pets aboard, and everything was fine, no worries, no muss, no fuss. The pets flew in the approved carrier, everything worked, and we all landed just fine, no riots, no vicious chihuahua attacks, no cat fights.

The bottom line is that blanket statements don't really hold up. There are grey areas in nearly all areas of life. The existing "pets in the cabin" rules seem to work when applied consistently. That was the issue here - the FA didn't apply United's existing rules properly and consistently; he/she simply invented a protocol on the spot with tragic results.

Sooo the dog didn't bark the entire flight? And if the flight attendant stated that she didn't know there was a dog in there, than that would mean the dog made no fuss at all. I'm willing to bet the dog was dead before it even boarded the flight!