advice on traveling with pet as carry-on

[sgtdesi]

You shouldn't have adopted a pet knowing that you would have to fly home shortly thereafter. And it's "too bad" that I was not nearby? You want me to suffer? What kind of person are you, anyway?

You have no right to tell me what I should or should not have done. You have no idea what position I was in. It is not your place to decide whether I can have a pet or not, just because I have to fly the pet back. Unfortunate you think my suffering for 13 months is better than your suffering for 2 hours. I see what kind of person you are. Einbahn, AKA, one way, yours. Good bye

 

[geekette]

Boo hoo. Yes, there are lots of filthy people in the world. We see them all the time leaving public restrooms without washing up.

But that doesn't cause a small (but significant) part of the population to have real trouble breathing.

Why does their "I have to have my pet in my lap on the flight" trump my right to breathe?

Can anyone give me a thoughtful answer to that question that isn't a variation on "humans can be icky?" Damned straight humans can be icky. For instance, they bring their pets into the cabins of airplanes even though they know there are likely allergic people on the plane. Get a random sample of 400 people together in a jumbo jet and the odds are likely that one or two of them are allergic to cats. Why would anyone do that to their fellow man? And so gleefully, at that?

maybe because it isn't all about you.

maybe airlines can't molly coddle every possible ailment a human can have.

If you are so deathly allergic, why wouldn't you have benedryl or whatever at the ready in case you sit next to someone that was hugging their cats for hours before boarding?

 

[geekette]

You have no right to tell me what I should or should not have done. You have no idea what position I was in. It is not your place to decide whether I can have a pet or not, just because I have to fly the pet back. Unfortunate you think my suffering for 13 months is better than your suffering for 2 hours. I see what kind of person you are. Einbahn, AKA, one way, yours. Good bye

Thank you for your service. You have adopted a lucky animal. May you have many happy years together whether on the ground, in air, on water or underground.

 

[Ken555]

Could it be because you seem to be ranting and raving? Sort of like a tantrum. Chill

What about the rest of us who aren't "ranting and raving"? There have been very few thoughtful replies on this thread.

 

[ScoopKona]

What about the rest of us who aren't "ranting and raving"? There have been very few thoughtful replies on this thread.

Smurfyblue is right. "Pet love" is like a religion in this country. And apparently we dare not say anything against this religion.

If people knew what it is like to suffer from severe allergies (not the minor sneezing and sniffling sort), or had a loved one who suffers, they might show a little more empathy for their fellow man. Although I have my doubts about many people.

For instance, I know a guy who is deathly allergic to shellfish. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop making crab salad. But it does mean than I'm going to think to ask people if they have an allergy before inviting them to try any new dishes that I have concocted. Only takes a second to ask someone if they have any food allergies.

So many people are allergic to perfume that it is irresponsible to wear any if we know that we're going to be in a confined space like an airplane. Takes no effort on our part and can mean the difference between a good day and a miserable day for someone who suffers.

And it is the same thing with pets on a plane. It is irresponsible to bring them into the cabin. They belong in the special, pressurized pet area. Don't like it? Don't fly. Or such people can charter their own plane if it is so important.

At the very least, the airlines should make better arrangements for people who are very allergic. I suggest bumping pet owners to later flights. The problem with this, of course, is that EVERYBODY would claim to be "deathly allergic to animals" so that they didn't have to fly with other people's pets. Pet people just don't get it. Nobody likes flying with other people's pets (other than pet people). Non-pet people would abuse the system, just like pet owners are currently abusing the system.

Luckily, I haven't suffered through a cat flight often. Only a few times. But one time, the nitwit cat owner had the gall to tell me, "Well maybe you shouldn't be allergic," while she had the cat on her lap and I was wheezing and "machine-gun" sneezing. (Why didn't I take a Benedryl? Because Benedryl doesn't do a THING for me. That's why.)

Later on, we hit some minor turbulence and the cat FREAKED OUT. It ran around all over the cabin, urinating on everything and generally making everyone's flight miserable.

And I'm supposed to care about the "rights" of people like that? I don't think so.

 

[geekette]

So long as the airlines allow pets in the cabin, your beef is with them, not the people following the rules allowing pets in the cabin.

It's not ok to paint everyone with the same brush so I would sure appreciate it if you would refrain from calling all pet owners ugly. No one here is calling allergy sufferers whiny babies who should just not fly.

 

[gnorth16]

Pet owners can be some of the worst people on earth.

I find that most dog owners are friendly and approachable. If you are kind enough to take in an animal and treat it like a part of your family, chances are, you are a good person.

I think the difference is the "entitled" part of certain pet owners. But I wouldn't sub class any type of entitlement any further. Chances are entitlement shifts across their entire life and not just regarding pets.

Unless absolutely necessary, I wouldn't put my dog on a plane, simply because of the stress involved. We arrange our travel based on my parents being home. This Xmas will be the first time both my parents and our family will be away at the same time....

As for planes...maybe its the airline policy that needs addressing? If someone is following the rules, maybe the rules are the problem and not the person/animal. If they are not following the rules, then let 'em have it!!!

 

[timeos2]

maybe because it isn't all about you.

maybe airlines can't molly coddle every possible ailment a human can have.

If you are so deathly allergic, why wouldn't you have benedryl or whatever at the ready in case you sit next to someone that was hugging their cats for hours before boarding?

It does seem that the need to take action is with those who know they have an issue, not with the many that don't. What if an airline is told that an allergic to peanuts flyer is traveling so they can't serve nuts. Many don't anymore anyway (boo!) so they say "fine" and that's that. So now the person in the next row or a seat away, who has no idea there may be an issue, opens their snack bag of peanuts & starts munching away. Is it their problem if it adversely affects the other flyer? Of course not - each has to do what they need to protect themselves. Expecting others to take action because someone might have a problem is nonsense.

I wouldn't travel with a pet because I'm afraid the pet wouldn't like it. And it may make us uncomfortable if it started crying (or whatever they might do) and irritate others around us & we couldn't control it. So if we take a pet we travel by car. But I like peanuts, I used to enjoy them on planes and now I may bring some with me as a snack. I don't know if someone near me will be bothered by that but I can't control it anymore than I can absolutely control any animal I travel with. It is up to those who may be affected to take whatever steps they need to - including using other transportation or moving to another seat if what others may do will threaten them.

I would never purposely inconvenience (or worse) someone for my snack or pet travel, but I can't always know what may be a problem. Those affected do & need to be the ones to take precautions IMO.

 

[ScoopKona]

So long as the airlines allow pets in the cabin, your beef is with them, not the people following the rules allowing pets in the cabin.

It's not ok to paint everyone with the same brush so I would sure appreciate it if you would refrain from calling all pet owners ugly. No one here is calling allergy sufferers whiny babies who should just not fly.

Airlines once let people smoke on board. That was their policy. Non-smokers didn't like inhaling all that nasty smoke and arriving at their destination smelling like a dirty ashtray.

"Too bad, so sad," said the smokers, who were JUST as militant then as the pet fanciers are now. "Go find an airline that doesn't allow smoking and use that instead."

So we did -- Delta.

And now all major airlines are smoke free. Cigarette smokers do not have the right to satisfy their nicotine craving. For a very long time, they claimed they did. Some still do. But society came around and decided that smokers are idiots, and their so-called "rights" are not really rights at all. They were simply being selfish and inconsiderate.

It will be the same thing with pets on board. I promise you. Airlines decided to try letting pets in the cabin. It was a bad decision. And they will eventually return to "pets in the pet cargo area only" scenario.

Why?

Litigation.

Just wait for some elderly person or a child to die of respiratory failure because of Woogums the Incontinent Cat. It'll happen. It probably already has. And eventually the airline bean-counters will realize that it's better to get the animals away from the passengers than to pay out settlements.

Or perhaps someone will come up with a "dander-free" carrier, that minimizes transmission of pet dander, and the airlines can insist that everyone use that.

It will likely take a horrible incident like a pet chimp ripping someone's face off or a rabies transmission before airlines get the message, though.

 

[geekette]

so now everyone that smokes is an idiot? and why are we zooming back decades to establish that Once Upon A Time, something was allowed that isn't now? So you can attack smokers and lump them into the same distasteful pile where you put pet owners?

I get it, Selfish and Inconsiderate applies to anyone abiding by rules that you don't like.

 

[pjrose]

Is it still the case that the airlines only allow 1 or 2 pets per passenger compartment? And do they require that said pets be in a certain section of that compartment? And that pets remain in their carrier underfoot?

If they restrict the number of pets per passenger compartment, then if someone else calls wanting to bring a pet, do they then say sorry, no more pets on this flight?

Given that, then if someone with serious allergies calls and asks about a pet-free flight or cabin, could/would the airlines then restrict said flight or cabin, as they would if there were already 1 or 2 pets, to be no pets?

'course then there's the issue of fake requests, like the fake service animals.

I think those with serious allergies - more than a benadryl would help - should be accommodated like anyone with a disability. This is a pet-free flight, that one is a peanut-free flight. I believe a person's health should trump a pet's travel, but that means for pets AND service animals to travel should be provided.

Some flights, like some hotel rooms, could be pet free. Perhaps it should be the other way around - perhaps some flights should allow pets and be clearly labeled as same, and most should be pet free, just like hotel rooms.

How to work it out would obviously be difficult.

 

[ScoopKona]

so now everyone that smokes is an idiot? and why are we zooming back decades to establish that Once Upon A Time, something was allowed that isn't now? So you can attack smokers and lump them into the same distasteful pile where you put pet owners?

1) Yes, all smokers are idiots. And if you don't believe me, ask a cardiologist or oncologist. They may whitewash their diagnosis, but they aren't going call the habit "smart," are they?

2) You made the argument that my beef is with the airlines and their policies. I am pointing out that smoking (as recently as 1995) was once allowed on airplanes. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's ethical, polite or thoughtful.

I think those with serious allergies - more than a benadryl would help - should be accommodated like anyone with a disability. This is a pet-free flight, that one is a peanut-free flight. I believe a person's health should trump a pet's travel, but that means for pets AND service animals to travel should be provided.

Some flights, like some hotel rooms, could be pet free. Perhaps it should be the other way around - perhaps some flights should allow pets and be clearly labeled as same, and most should be pet free, just like hotel rooms.

How to work it out would obviously be difficult.

Glad there are at least a few people who get it. I absolutely hate flying because I am almost seven feet tall. I'm going to be in agony no matter what. But to have trouble breathing too, because some nitwit not only brings her cat on a plane but insists on PLAYING WITH IT in the cabin is unacceptable. "Oooh, look at me! I'm a special snowflake with a cat!"

Yes. These people are JUST as selfish and inconsiderate as the smokers once were.

 

[heathpack]

It will likely take a horrible incident like a pet chimp ripping someone's face off or a rabies transmission before airlines get the message, though.

Dogs & cats need a health certificate to fly. The health certificate verifies that the animal is vaccinated, including against rabies. It is signed by the examining veterinarian. Contracting rabies from a rabid pet on a plane is less likely than dying because the plane itself crashed.

To my knowledge, chimps are not allowed to fly in the cabin. So your face is safe on those grounds as well.

H

 

[pjrose]

A special carrier with a HEPA filter could help. I don't know if there is such a thing.....but it wouldn't seem difficult to produce, the airlines could have them, and passengers traveling with an animal could reserve one, and except in the case of a documented service animal, pay a rental fee. (All other passengers pay, there are charges for luggage, and the usage of the carrier would incur cleaning costs.)