Community Chat

[Moonchilde]

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@maestra wrote:

---

@SharkE wrote:

I just now saw this on Inside Edition and I wasn't aware that people can drag on their own animals. If I"m understanding right ? I know service animals are OK and I'm all for these working animals, but, now days can anybody bring in their cats, dogs, birds, snakes, fish, rabbits, calves, etc. ?

I don't fly any more. Has it gotten this bad ?

---

---

@SharkE wrote:

I just now saw this on Inside Edition and I wasn't aware that people can drag on their own animals. If I"m understanding right ? I know service animals are OK and I'm all for these working animals, but, now days can anybody bring in their cats, dogs, birds, snakes, fish, rabbits, calves, etc. ?

I don't fly any more. Has it gotten this bad ?

---

---

My understanding is that the animal must be crated, have all up to date shots and vet clearance and a fee is paid as well.

I don't think it's a matter of dragging an animal on board; this requires some planning.

Did the idiot w/the allergies really think that her whining and entitlement were going to overturn policy? I'm glad she got booted.

---

One of the dogs on the plane was referred to as a comfort animal.  Comfort animals are not limited to cats and dogs, are not required to be crated and are not required to provide documentation that they have been properly trained to behave in stressful situations.  Not to long ago an airline passanger was attacked and severly injured by a comfort animal.

---

Which is why each airline has their own policy as to what type of animal they will permit in the cabin. They also have attys to the max who have gone over the Federal regulations with a fine-toothed comb.

Whatever happens, whatever decision is made, is between the airline and the Federal govt; the public doesn't get to make the rules.

And the Federal govt is not budging on service and comfort animals. I live in a major tourist area and within the past few days a group of business owners were n the media, seeking solutions to the issue of comfort animal vs pet in eating establishments, and the current, hot-off-the-press response from the governmental body asked was the same as it's always been - you can't ask for proof and you basically have to let it happen unless you want to be sued/in trouble.

When push comes to shove, those who have issues with the animals are not being favored or catered to. People are just doing "la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you" about it.

[CrazyDaisy]

Funny how people like to read into things that are simply not there.

I have no problem with animals on planes.  I have no problem with people who have allergies, fears or medical conditions on planes.  Who takes precedent when the two clash and cannot coexist on the same flight. 

Some say take a pill and deal with it.  Oh well guess thst is the answer to all of lifes issues.

[Moonchilde]

Further info, and quotes from the man who shot the video.

Bill Dumas, the passenger who recorded the confrontation and posted it on YouTube, told NBC News that the woman asked for some type of injection to alleviate her allergy symptoms.

The pilot said the injection was possible off the plane, but the woman refused to exit the aircraft, Dumas said. Things escalated from there.

Dumas said he thought police were too forceful, but he also said the woman was combative.

“If you look at the police, they were being overly aggressive,” he told NBC News. “Really, she wasn’t giving them much of a choice, and the people on the plane were saying, ‘just get off the plane.’ ”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So, she "wanted the dogs gone." No compromises there.

She presumably could have gotten off the plane, had the injection and then gotten back on the plane - a matter of a few minutes - but she refused.  The airline offered her choices. They also explained the issues to her in detail:

According to a statement by Southwest, the woman told the flight crew “that she had a life-threatening pet allergy,” but she didn’t have a medical certificate with her.

The airline’s policy is that a person traveling without such a certificate can be denied boarding “if they report a life-threatening allergic reaction and cannot travel safely with an animal on board.” One of the dogs on the plane at the time was a service animal, the airline said.

Clearly, the airline values the passengers with animals just as much as their passengers with allergies. Not "more", but simply just as much. Equally.

[CrazyDaisy]

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

Further info, and quotes from the man who shot the video.

Bill Dumas, the passenger who recorded the confrontation and posted it on YouTube, told NBC News that the woman asked for some type of injection to alleviate her allergy symptoms.

The pilot said the injection was possible off the plane, but the woman refused to exit the aircraft, Dumas said. Things escalated from there.

Dumas said he thought police were too forceful, but he also said the woman was combative.

“If you look at the police, they were being overly aggressive,” he told NBC News. “Really, she wasn’t giving them much of a choice, and the people on the plane were saying, ‘just get off the plane.’ ”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So, she "wanted the dogs gone." No compromises there.

She presumably could have gotten off the plane, had the injection and then gotten back on the plane - a matter of a few minutes - but she refused.  The airline offered her choices. They also explained the issues to her in detail:

According to a statement by Southwest, the woman told the flight crew “that she had a life-threatening pet allergy,” but she didn’t have a medical certificate with her.

The airline’s policy is that a person traveling without such a certificate can be denied boarding “if they report a life-threatening

allergic reaction and cannot travel safely with an animal on board.” One of the dogs on the plane at the time was a service animal, the airline said.

Clearly, the airline values the passengers with animals just as much as their passengers with allergies. Not "more", but simply just as much. Equally.

---

While airlines will say they value all passangers, they certainty cannot say they are treated the same.  Should a passanger with an animal and one without not be able to be on the same flight, one will win and one will lose.  No one seems to know which one gets treated better and get to stay on the plane.

[Moonchilde]

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

Further info, and quotes from the man who shot the video.

Bill Dumas, the passenger who recorded the confrontation and posted it on YouTube, told NBC News that the woman asked for some type of injection to alleviate her allergy symptoms.

The pilot said the injection was possible off the plane, but the woman refused to exit the aircraft, Dumas said. Things escalated from there.

Dumas said he thought police were too forceful, but he also said the woman was combative.

“If you look at the police, they were being overly aggressive,” he told NBC News. “Really, she wasn’t giving them much of a choice, and the people on the plane were saying, ‘just get off the plane.’ ”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So, she "wanted the dogs gone." No compromises there.

She presumably could have gotten off the plane, had the injection and then gotten back on the plane - a matter of a few minutes - but she refused.  The airline offered her choices. They also explained the issues to her in detail:

According to a statement by Southwest, the woman told the flight crew “that she had a life-threatening pet allergy,” but she didn’t have a medical certificate with her.

The airline’s policy is that a person traveling without such a certificate can be denied boarding “if they report a life-threatening

allergic reaction and cannot travel safely with an animal on board.” One of the dogs on the plane at the time was a service animal, the airline said.

Clearly, the airline values the passengers with animals just as much as their passengers with allergies. Not "more", but simply just as much. Equally.

---

While airlines will say they value all passangers, they certainty cannot say they are treated the same.  Should a passanger with an animal and one without not be able to be on the same flight, one will win and one will lose.  No one seems to know which one gets treated better and get to stay on the plane.

---

You personally consider it "treated better" - at least, that's the terminology you're choosing to use for your purposes in this thread, for whatever reason.

To the airlines it's a matter of who followed their protocol and who didn't. The passengers with the dogs, with all proper permits, followed the rules. The onus is on passenger who volunteered that she had a "life-threatening" allergy but came unprepared to prove it. 

Your "what if" and "who wins" scenarios aren't really all that relevant to the topic of the thread, which is being disruptive on an airplane. In this instance it was over "allergies" to dogs. It might well be over something else. The point is, when you think you can "take on" the airline, the Federal govt and LE, you lose. Losing, if you want to term it that way (and you seem to), is a personal choice, since she could have opted to leave the plane, get the shot and come back, or just leave. She chose to be uncooperative and confrontational. She was pushing it all the way.

Your repeated "no one seems to know" is simply a device to poke the thread. It's irrelevant. You're free to continue with it of course, but AFAIC there's no real point since I feel the line has clearly moved into game-playing. It's been game-playing from the start, it's just clear to everyone now.

[sunshine45]

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

Why is it that people who have peanut allergies have successfully had them banned on planes and in schools, yet people with pet allergies are expected to leave the plane and be inconvenienced by taking another flight.  

---

they are not banned on planes or in schools......airlines do serve peanuts and you can buy peanuts BEFORE you get on the plane. if someone on the plane has a peanut allergy they usually make an announcement that they will not be serving peanuts on the flight. i often buy peanut m and m candies and eat them unless they ask us to not consume them.

in schools, they have "peanut free" tables to sit at if you have a severe allergy.

[BirdieGal]

I wonder how that woman would have reacted if there had been a handcuffed prisoner seated in the back bulkhead seat. 

DH is a Capt. for AA. 

AA serves pretzels in coach and warm mixed nuts without peanuts in first class.

[NYC Susan]

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@jaxs mom wrote:

Bottom line, don't be uncooperative with security at airports or law enforcement. Period. 

---

And yet people never seem to get this message. There will always be those "special" people who think the airline should cater to them. Being disruptive or causing a disruption on an airplane just doesn't fly any more (pun intended).

---

Exactly.

My BIL is a pilot for a large commercial airline. Uncooperative passengers must be removed to ensure the safety of everyone else on a flight.   If someone is uncooperative and disruptive on the ground, the flight cannot take off because dealing with those situations once the plane is up in the air is a whole different ballgame and potentially very dangerous.  

If asked to leave a flight, it's best to leave.  Always.  If force has to be used, it will be used without a doubt because the safety of everyone else on board is the top consideration.   As it should be.

(If I had an allergy like that and I was traveling, for sure I would have documentation with me every step of the way.  It's not as though she's allergic to aliens from Mars.  The odds are good she'll run into animals somewhere along the way.)

[NYC Susan]

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

While not condoning this ladies behavior, how many people with allergies carry doctors notes with them concerning a variety of situations.  The vast majority of flights are pet free,  why would anyone think of getting a note in order to fly.  

---

I'm not sure if it's true that "the vast majority of flights are pet free", but if I had a severe allergy, I most certainly would not roll the dice and assume there would be no pets on my flight.  I would ask about this ahead of time, I would educate myself about the policy, and absolutely I would carry documentation with me.  

When it comes to a life-threatening allergy, you'd better believe I would have my ducks in a row before boarding.  (And the last thing I would do if I felt my life was in danger would be to refuse to leave the plane!)

[SUHsE]

---

@SharkE wrote:

I just now saw this on Inside Edition and I wasn't aware that people can drag on their own animals. If I"m understanding right ? I know service animals are OK and I'm all for these working animals, but, now days can anybody bring in their cats, dogs, birds, snakes, fish, rabbits, calves, etc. ?

I don't fly any more. Has it gotten this bad ?

---

——-

How is it bad?  There is a limit to how many pets can be on a flight.  They have to meet certain criteria, and be contained. 

If I had a life threatening pet allergy, I would first of all, make my reservation with an agent, explain I had documentation, and needed to be on a petless flight..

I would  carry documentation and whatever medical prescription was needed.  I would be removing myself from the flight, as quickly as possible, and dealing with the situation, back in the terminal.