An EWR-STL flight diverted to Akron, Ohio after a checked pet was mistakenly loaded onto the flight.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/16/us/unite ... index.html

Well, stupid error, but UA went old school and dropped it off on the way. Quick thinking, though costly.

And another one will be mishandled tomorrow. Who cares?

Unless you're relocating to another state or country for extended work assignment,
why can't people leave their pets at home? I'm a dog lover myself but I leave
town, the dog stays with a friend or gets boarded. It's going to get to a point where
UA and others carriers say EFF THIS!!!!!! No animals allowed

jetero wrote:

And another one will be mishandled tomorrow. Who cares?

Apparently CNN thinks someone cares -- a total of five people contributed to the linked report.

I think some credit is due to United for making this right as soon as they realized the error. Diverting a flight and giving passengers compensation isn't cheap (even if it was only 33 passengers).

And to be fair, it was the third pet in four days, starting with the French bulldog on Monday.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Well, stupid error, but UA went old school and dropped it off on the way. Quick thinking, though costly.

As a huge UA detractor myself, I agree with you. The reaction by UA in this case deserves praise. Too often UA puts the bottom line above doing the right thing. This shows promise of improving their track record.

einkleinerknabe wrote:

jetero wrote:

And another one will be mishandled tomorrow. Who cares?

Apparently CNN thinks someone cares -- a total of five people contributed to the linked report.

What a standard. That’s more than the number of killed/mishandled dogs.

Sooner787 wrote:

Unless you're relocating to another state or country for extended work assignment,
why can't people leave their pets at home?

Because there's nobody to take care of them? or the owner can't afford kenneling for the duration? or the toddler can't sleep without his friend? just for starters.

I don't travel with my dog, but I can think of any number of reasons why someone might not just want to, but need to take a pet along. The lack of imagination and empathy on this topic astonishes me.

What’s next? An article from CNN for every bag United loses? But to those interested, the reason the plane was diverted to CAK was because the dog was supposed to be on UA4091 EWR-CAK.

MatthewDB wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Well, stupid error, but UA went old school and dropped it off on the way. Quick thinking, though costly.

As a huge UA detractor myself, I agree with you. The reaction by UA in this case deserves praise. Too often UA puts the bottom line above doing the right thing. This shows promise of improving their track record.

Praise? UA only did that as they are under the microscope now. If they hadn't killed (most likely) the dog on Monday, and sent the second one to Japan and tried to offer the family in Kansas a different dog, there's no way in hell they'd stop in Akron en route to STL and pay landing fees to Akron and additional crew time. they'd say, screw the dog--the customers will just deal with it--as we have a monopoly on flights out of newark--so they owners have no real choice. I wouldn't call this praise--remember they delayed all the 33 pax onboard--who knows if anyone on board had an emergency that had to get in STL---this is just UA foregoing everything else to minimize what is apparently some major gross incompetence/negligence going on with them regarding handling of animals. Remember, only 2 animals died on us airlines last month--both on UA. Based on USDOT 2017 data, an animal has 3x as greater chance of dying or being injured on UA than it does on AA, and more than 4x as likely than on DL.

This is actually their FOURTH error--not third. 1-overhead compartment; 2-dog sent to NRT instead of MCI; 3-dog sent to MCI instead of NRT; 4--delaying all pax and crew to stop in Akron to drop off a pet that was supposed to be on a different flight.

greenair727 wrote:

This is actually their FOURTH error--not third. 1-overhead compartment; 2-dog sent to NRT instead of MCI; 3-dog sent to MCI instead of NRT; 4--delaying all pax and crew to stop in Akron to drop off a pet that was supposed to be on a different flight.

The NRT/MCI mixup was one error. The kennel mixed up the dogs and put them in the wrong crate. Just because it involved 2 dogs, that doesn’t make it 2 separate errors. It is the same error.

MatthewDB wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Well, stupid error, but UA went old school and dropped it off on the way. Quick thinking, though costly.

As a huge UA detractor myself, I agree with you. The reaction by UA in this case deserves praise. Too often UA puts the bottom line above doing the right thing. This shows promise of improving their track record.

What exactly deserves praise? They were paid a fee to deliver a dog to Akron and they delivered a dog to Akron.

I fail to understand how doing what you were paid to do deserves any praise at all.

I wonder how long before we’ll be seeing a job posting for director of PetSafe programs on the United website. I remember when an US Air employee replied to a customer with a picture of a model 777 pleasuring a woman. Within a day the airline was looking for a new social media director.

ual763 wrote:

greenair727 wrote:

This is actually their FOURTH error--not third. 1-overhead compartment; 2-dog sent to NRT instead of MCI; 3-dog sent to MCI instead of NRT; 4--delaying all pax and crew to stop in Akron to drop off a pet that was supposed to be on a different flight.

The NRT/MCI mixup was one error. The kennel mixed up the dogs and put them in the wrong crate. Just because it involved 2 dogs, that doesn’t make it 2 separate errors. It is the same error.

Fine---fourth PET, third INCIDENT. I guess you could also say, THIRD pet to survive this week's UA errors.

jetero wrote:

And another one will be mishandled tomorrow. Who cares?

Probably the owners of the pets, UA's PR team, maybe PETA? I could come up with a few more.

As a dog owner I would never travel with my two labradors. When I do travel. I have found an amazing place in NJ (tribecapetservices.com) where the dogs are alway happy to go. In the '90's I took my dogs to MCO to visit my folks and the TW L-10 scheduled for our flight went MX. We arrived aboard another L-10 after 6 hours delay, but the dogs were clearly not happy with being kept on the ramp or wherever, for that amount of time. Even after this week, and if I could bring my labs on board, I wouldn't. If I moved to LA I would drive, but going on vacation for a week trust me your dogs will be happier at an amazing dog-boarding facility that allows them to run outdoors freely, than coming with you to some destination where they still have to be placed in an unfamiliar and scary environment. Dogs have no sense of timing, so even if you have to be gone a month find a '2nd family' boarding facility that is decent to amazing. They will be happier, you will be happier, and the airline will be happier!

One of the most balanced and thorough articles on the topic is this one: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... story.html

Airlines like United should look more closely at how the competition handles pets, as well as regularly scan for any updates to competitive policies. It's a complicated line to be in, apparently.

Sooner787 wrote:

Unless you're relocating to another state or country for extended work assignment,
why can't people leave their pets at home? I'm a dog lover myself but I leave
town, the dog stays with a friend or gets boarded. It's going to get to a point where
UA and others carriers say EFF THIS!!!!!! No animals allowed

Pets are now less important than people. Delaying 1 pet is more egregious in today's environment than delaying 33 people. I won't be surprised if this happens to a fully loaded 777 flying to Europe or a p.s. 752 on a Monday morning. Hmm, delaying 200 relatively premium transcon passengers and taking a good chunk of their workday from them, or deliver 1 pet to Bumpkinville? Next stop Bumpkinville, sorry folks.

Or better yet, sent a pet on a private jet across the Pacific: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/united- ... japan.html

As a 1K, I have gotten delayed dozens of times, but as a human being UA never sent me a private jet. I got stuck in Bahrain once because the sole remaining UA (contractor) agent on a cancelled flight felt like going home (UA doesn't pay me to stay longer) after handling the vouchers of half the plane's passengers. I don't recall UA ever doing a private jet there for me or the others. Not even a chartered 737. Maybe a ticket transfer to LH in coach, after two hours of calling back to the U.S.

While I appreciate the sudden and overwhelming hug that UA gives to pets, Irgo flying like Oscar, I doubt they would do that for me and my 2 year old daughter on our next TATL flight if something were to go seriously wrong with the plane. I recall a motel last year in Elizabeth NJ with a take it or leave it attitude (15 minute shuttle ride, 5am shuttle fully booked, wait for 530am shuttle, worn out shocks, midst of winter, super cheap RON kit from the EWR transfer counter and only got that after specifically asking for one) when the EWR Marriott (big marketing relationship with UA) is right across the terminal but perhaps $100 more and UA didn't think a 1K is worth it. I guess I'll see if times have changed for humans (and not just pets) next time I get to RON as a result of a serious delay.

This business model is quickly turning toxic and I can't imagine it being too profitable given the considerable brand damage that it can and does bring. What used to be considered just plain wrong but fixable with a $175 travel certificate now brings about criminal charges, senatorial inquiries, the Animal Passenger Bill of Rights, multi-million dollar lawsuits and very costly brand damage that also takes millions to fix.

Terminology changes drastically as well. No more ownership, that's like a slavery term. The former owners are now parents. Let's give the pets a vote in the next election, any dog over 2 years and any cat over 1.5 years. Let's give them full passenger rights. Let's file criminal charges for murder or manslaughter. If so, we might as well also require pet parents to fully pay insurance, room, board and tuition for their pets, consider the pets lineal descendants in inheritance matters, and fully emancipate them by finally allowing them to open their own bank accounts without the consent of their parents.

ual763 wrote:

I wonder how long before we’ll be seeing a job posting for director of PetSafe programs on the United website. I remember when an US Air employee replied to a customer with a picture of a model 777 pleasuring a woman. Within a day the airline was looking for a new social media director.

A 777 in US Air livery? Or was it a 777 from a competitor? Should have sent A330 pic, no?

As for the PetSafe program, if it's now such a sensitive topic, they shouldn't leave things up to kennel vendors and do a much better job getting their express business in line. Much of the recent (and frequently regurgitated) PR damage doesn't seem to be UA mainline. David Dao happened on Republic and it seems a good chunk of pet incidents (AKR, STL, MCI) occur on Express as well.

gatibosgru wrote:

jetero wrote:

And another one will be mishandled tomorrow. Who cares?

Probably the owners of the pets, UA's PR team, maybe PETA? I could come up with a few more.

Certainly all the pax on board who were delayed while UA diverted to quickly fix the pet error before their pet-handling-incompetence became an even bigger issue.

ua900 wrote:

As for the PetSafe program, if it's now such a sensitive topic, they shouldn't leave things up to kennel vendors and do a much better job getting their express business in line. Much of the recent (and frequently regurgitated) PR damage doesn't seem to be UA mainline. David Dao happened on Republic and it seems a good chunk of pet incidents (AKR, STL, MCI) occur on Express as well.

It doesn't matter whether it is mainline or express the public doesn't care nor should they care because the name on the side on the aircraft says United. This latest pet mishandling once again shows that UA employees need to start caring about what they are doing when they are at work and understand that we are in the service industry we are here to sever the customer. This latest situation there was a last minute plane change the original aircraft going to STL was on maintenance the aircraft going to AKR was right next door but AKR was scheduled to leave later than STL so to get both aircraft out onetime EWR operations swapped aircraft. The ramp loaded STL bags on the flight and then loaded a dog with multiple tags( a freight tag and a bag tag) both stating AKR onto an aircraft where they had just loaded over 20 STL bags. We have to get to the point where we stop seeing this job as just a paycheck and start caring abut what we are doing. Before you load an aircraft whether mainline or express you have paperwork that tells you what to expect for your flight including whether or not live animals have been checked in. One thing policy UA has and has never changed is this if it isn't on your paperwork do not load it on the aircraft. Not only was the dog not on his paperwork the dog crate had multiple stickers showing the final destination of AKR. At least the lead who was loading AKR cared enough to ask what happened to the dog that he/she was expecting to load on their aircraft because that is when the mistake was noticed. Although the dog arrived in AKR before its scheduled arrival time the passengers on the STL flight arrived at their destination over 2 hours late because of the diversion. One person one UA employee who could care less about the job they were doing caused a diversion and subsequent 2 plus hour delay for 33 passengers.

Jesus Christ, United, this isn't rocket science.

Are people not reading the kennels? Not scanning the bagtag? Not having a two-person verification to ensure correct flight loading?

This is unacceptable. Just ridiculous. UA can never catch a break, but I'm wondering if they deserve it after this continued utter incompetence.

jayunited wrote:

ua900 wrote:

As for the PetSafe program, if it's now such a sensitive topic, they shouldn't leave things up to kennel vendors and do a much better job getting their express business in line. Much of the recent (and frequently regurgitated) PR damage doesn't seem to be UA mainline. David Dao happened on Republic and it seems a good chunk of pet incidents (AKR, STL, MCI) occur on Express as well.

It doesn't matter whether it is mainline or express the public doesn't care nor should they care because the name on the side on the aircraft says United.

Exactly, so my outsourced / contracted loaders, gate agents, pilots, flight attendants, dog handlers, etc should be trained and held to UA standards, not whatever Republic, Mesa, Menzies or whoever do as standalone companies. I had a Mesa flight attendant two weeks ago who didn't hang coats proactively and didn't even return coats before or after landing. The copilot had to do that once we were at the gate. Blocking the aisle during deplaning in the process of sitting there with a bunch of coats. Nothing was seat tagged either. It was a free for all. 10 random coats, who wants one? I was handed someone else's and had to swap with someone else. I can't imagine people behind us feeling good about having to stand by for that, and neither did we. Avoidable, one would think.

I'm not a big fan of unions, but I think some of this behavior also comes down to take home pay. So if $27 / hr for a pilot isn't enough to prevent 410 club shenanigans, if $15 / hr isn't enough to encourage coat hanging, if $7-10 / hr an hour isn't enough to encourage proper loading, then it's also up to the airline to remove any doubt that a proper job that's well done should be done within a "classic" framework rather than a patchwork of contractors where the can is always kicked down the road. If that requires adding 5 minutes of block time, fewer basic economy tickets, better pay and/or fewer contractors, then it may still be better for the airline than endless bad PR and the associated millions that they loose there.

jetero wrote:

And another one will be mishandled tomorrow. Who cares?

Another one miishanded...on a UA flight. You left out thosse 4 words. Who cares? You dont see a problem here? The same airline, United, mishandles a total of 4 pets in under a week. There are major systemic problems at United lately. If they cant get this right, what can they get right? If they keep this up, they will have mishandled roughly 350 pets in a 12 month period.

I so think United deserves praise here. They caught the error and did smart thinking to stop at Akron on the way.

United doesn't fly from STL to Akron and the stop was on the way. It was the best reasonable option as this looks like they care. If they flew the dog to STL they would have had to pay for someone to drive the dog. This was probably more but reasonable and saves some media negativity. United is in the middle of PR crises so this was a good move and everyone ends happy. United doesn't connect in STL and they probably checked their was no rare connection.

United did the only reasonable thing here, expensive but any option was once they messed up. The media would have invaded STL airport to take pictures of the dog looking sad. Glad the dog got home safe and it all ended well.

I personally never travel with my dogs but there are some people who move, long term assignment etc. It's very expensive I don't think people do it for vacations.

jumbojet wrote:

jetero wrote:

And another one will be mishandled tomorrow. Who cares?

Another one miishanded...on a UA flight. You left out thosse 4 words. Who cares? You dont see a problem here? The same airline, United, mishandles a total of 4 pets in under a week. There are major systemic problems at United lately. If they cant get this right, what can they get right? If they keep this up, they will have mishandled roughly 350 pets in a 12 month period.

What are the figures for other airlines?
Maybe 350 mishandled in a 12 mth period makes United one of the better performers. That would put a dent in your hate campaign.

But why let facts get in the way of a chance to bash this airline or that airline.

ps I won $100 on the lottery yesterday. Can we extrapolate that to show that over a 12 mth period I should expect to win $36,500 ?
Of course not - that would be stupid. What we need is statistically significant data, like four events over four days, which is what you have used.

It rained yesterday, and the three days before that. I guess using your approach that means it's going to rain for the next 365 days?

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

jetero wrote:

And another one will be mishandled tomorrow. Who cares?

Another one miishanded...on a UA flight. You left out thosse 4 words. Who cares? You dont see a problem here? The same airline, United, mishandles a total of 4 pets in under a week. There are major systemic problems at United lately. If they cant get this right, what can they get right? If they keep this up, they will have mishandled roughly 350 pets in a 12 month period.

What are the figures for other airlines?

You should know the figures for the other airlines; you made your equally inane comments when given those figures in the topic regarding one of UA's other pet mishaps... that time when the pet died. Remember?

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Senator Kennedy from Louisiana has sent a letter to the President of United demanding action:
https://www.kennedy.senate.gov/public/p ... A3D59FE43B Does anyone have a source for his claim that 18 of 24 animal deaths on planes last year were on United? If true, that is indeed horrendous and much worse than just bad PR, it would indicate a systemic error in how United treats animal lives.

Drew77 posted this table a couple of pages back
Here ya go.

That data certainly looks bad for UA. Unfortunately I don't have the underlying links so that we could view the source data and see beyond the headlines.

Does that remind you now?

jordanh wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Another one miishanded...on a UA flight. You left out thosse 4 words. Who cares? You dont see a problem here? The same airline, United, mishandles a total of 4 pets in under a week. There are major systemic problems at United lately. If they cant get this right, what can they get right? If they keep this up, they will have mishandled roughly 350 pets in a 12 month period.

What are the figures for other airlines?

You should know the figures for the other airlines; you made your equally inane comments when given those figures in the topic regarding one of UA's other pet mishaps... that time when the pet died. Remember?

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Senator Kennedy from Louisiana has sent a letter to the President of United demanding action:
https://www.kennedy.senate.gov/public/p ... A3D59FE43B Does anyone have a source for his claim that 18 of 24 animal deaths on planes last year were on United? If true, that is indeed horrendous and much worse than just bad PR, it would indicate a systemic error in how United treats animal lives.

Drew77 posted this table a couple of pages back
Here ya go.

That data certainly looks bad for UA. Unfortunately I don't have the underlying links so that we could view the source data and see beyond the headlines.

Does that remind you now?

What I don’t get is how can American, the World’s largest airline, only fly 34k animals a year, and Alaska, a whole lot smaller, fly 114k? That’s almost 25k more than Delta and American combined. Are Delta and American charging a hell of a lot more than United and Alaska?

ual763 wrote:

jordanh wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

What are the figures for other airlines?

You should know the figures for the other airlines; you made your equally inane comments when given those figures in the topic regarding one of UA's other pet mishaps... that time when the pet died. Remember?

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Drew77 posted this table a couple of pages back
Here ya go.

That data certainly looks bad for UA. Unfortunately I don't have the underlying links so that we could view the source data and see beyond the headlines.

Does that remind you now?

What I don’t get is how can American, the World’s largest airline, only fly 34k animals a year, and Alaska, a whole lot smaller, fly 114k? That’s almost 25k more than Delta and American combined. Are Delta and American charging a hell of a lot more than United and Alaska?

Do American and Delta allow pets to be checked as baggage, or do they require them to be shipped via cargo instead? We no longer allow pets as checked baggage, and once we started them to be carried through the cargo department the number fell greatly.

That could be the reason for the differences, if AA and DL have different policies than AS and UA.

jordanh wrote:

ual763 wrote:

jordanh wrote:

You should know the figures for the other airlines; you made your equally inane comments when given those figures in the topic regarding one of UA's other pet mishaps... that time when the pet died. Remember?

Does that remind you now?

What I don’t get is how can American, the World’s largest airline, only fly 34k animals a year, and Alaska, a whole lot smaller, fly 114k? That’s almost 25k more than Delta and American combined. Are Delta and American charging a hell of a lot more than United and Alaska?

Do American and Delta allow pets to be checked as baggage, or do they require them to be shipped via cargo instead? We no longer allow pets as checked baggage, and once we started them to be carried through the cargo department the number fell greatly.

That could be the reason for the differences, if AA and DL have different policies than AS and UA.

That’s probably the reason. I would expect United to make that change after this.

jordanh wrote:

ual763 wrote:

jordanh wrote:

You should know the figures for the other airlines; you made your equally inane comments when given those figures in the topic regarding one of UA's other pet mishaps... that time when the pet died. Remember?

Does that remind you now?

What I don’t get is how can American, the World’s largest airline, only fly 34k animals a year, and Alaska, a whole lot smaller, fly 114k? That’s almost 25k more than Delta and American combined. Are Delta and American charging a hell of a lot more than United and Alaska?

Do American and Delta allow pets to be checked as baggage, or do they require them to be shipped via cargo instead? We no longer allow pets as checked baggage, and once we started them to be carried through the cargo department the number fell greatly.

That could be the reason for the differences, if AA and DL have different policies than AS and UA.

It's quite possible DL (and other airlines) have different policies in place...oh and those statistics may or may not be accurate. As an example that cat with the broken hip DL had to pay $50 for is not listed as an injury in DLs DOT 2015 stats.

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/do ... d_2015.pdf

jordanh wrote:

You should know the figures for the other airlines; you made your equally inane comments when given those figures in the topic regarding one of UA's other pet mishaps... that time when the pet died. Remember?

Oh, that table ! You mean the one that I re-posted and specifically referred to when somebody else asked for data just a few days ago? The one that seems to prove that jumbojets' 350 incidents per year is ridiculous by a factor of 1000%, maybe because his assertion was based on very limited data that suited his warped agenda. Gee, thanks for "reminding" me of something I hadn't forgotten. But on the upside it means you are also of the opinion that jumbojet is way off target. Quite how that equates to you claiming I'm the one responsible for inane posts, is so illogical it beggars belief. (unless you believe in shooting the messenger because he's posting inconvenient truths?)

Anyways....
Assuming you have read the small print preface to that table, we should ask if a mishandled animal is automatically also a "reportable incident"?
In this case; is a dog that is loaded onto the wrong a/c, but arrives at the proper destination entirely healthy and in a timely manner, a reportable incident?
It's not Dead (column 2), Injured (column 3) or Lost (column 4).
Arguably it was mislaid for a short while, but never lost. For instance I mislaid my car keys the other week; it turns out my daughter had borrowed the Lotus, and knew exactly where the keys were all the time. They were never lost.

So it appears that this mishandling doesn't quite fit into that table of Reportable Incidents.

And even if you somehow find that it does, then you must admonish jumbojet for his gross exaggeration;

jumbojet wrote:

If they keep this up, they will have mishandled roughly 350 pets in a 12 month period.

Either way, kindly retract your misplaced comment about inane posts; such ad hominem attacks are poor at the best of times, but doubly so when it is you who have got your facts twisted.