Slightly related to our plight with animals-

Basically the attendant put the puppy on the overhead amd it died during the flight.

Didn’t anyone check on it???

jalopnik.com/dog-dies-on-united-flight-after-flight-attendant-forces-1823745388

No mention of ESA.

And in other interesting airline animal news....

Love dogs and animals. Should not be allowed on airplanes -- especially not in the cabin with passengers.

There are accomodations made for people with peanut allergies in that there not served when the crew knows someones allergic. But but but alergic to aniaml hair and dander-- OH WHO cares?

How about urine? Feces?

Pets stay at home or in the kennel.

Story: we were flying out of MIA when a "comfort dog" was boarded with a family of 4. A pit bull comfort dog with no mussel..... How about the lady with parrot?

You can't really compare peanut allergies and pet allergies. For the peanut allergy exception to apply on a plane, you need to be pretty much DEATHLY allergic to them -- people that go into anaphylactic shock from eating just a tiny amount of them.

That simply isn't the case for most people allergic to "pet dander."

It's a bad analogy, sorry.

Don't get me wrong -- I dislike the fake ESAs as much as the next guy. But I disagree that PROPERLY HANDLED animals -- including paid-for pets -- shouldn't be allowed to ride in the cabin. I've been on tons of flights with cats and small dogs in proper carriers. Never had a problem. We don't need to ban all pets from planes just because of some bad apples.

- John...

Also, as for THIS story, I don't see that there is necessarily "more to it" or that it is being sensationalized. The flight attendant screwed up. By United's own policy, traveling pets are NOT to be placed in overhead bins. But the FA, against policy, forced the passenger to place the dog (in its proper carrier, I'll add) into the overhead bin for a 3+ hour flight. The FA assured the passenger that this was REQUIRED and that the dog would be fine. The FA was wrong -- it was not required (or even ALLOWED) and the dog died.

This isn't some sensationalized story. It has nothing to do with ESAs or Service Animals or anything else. United already fully admitted that their FA was wrong and violated policy. The FA made a mistake -- period.

- John...

Maybe the pet was expired already. Can't believe if it was OK owner wouldn't have told attendant.

John MI-- I think the comparison is a good one. If you would look at my grandsons eyes when he's around dog hair and then has to use his emergency inhaler. I see though it doesn't kill him like peanuts kill?

myob: Witnesses on the plane saw the puppy alive in the carrier before it went in the overhead.

I'm not sure why you think this is some conspiracy or something. United has already admitted that the FA was wrong and made a mistake and this was against policy. She thought it should go in the overhead and was wrong -- and it died.

And, we can agree to disagree on your analogy. People are simply much more likely to be killed by a severe peanut allergy than by a pet dander reaction.

Also, the other reason that the analogy doesn't work is that it is EASY to substitute pretzel for peanuts on a flight to avoid a serious health risk due to peanut allergy. It is NOT "easy" to suddenly make an entire plane free from any animals as people may have already paid for them, of course -- or have seeing eye dogs and other such animals. It isn't a simple matter of making a minor change for the safety of the allergy sufferer like it is for peanuts.

Again, they really aren't similar situations at all.

- John...

I do see it as a conspiracy. When reading the article it's the poor owner and the mean waitress. Woman traveling with 2 kids-- like that has anything to do with it.

The dog is described as being in a briefcase and put in the luggage compartment-- sure people have a vision of "luggage" compartment when in fact it was an overhead bin.

The puppy is suppose to fit in a pet carrier and from the article it was but when under the seat in front of woman it blocked the footpath. We've all been on flights-- every flight actually where there is a final inspection prior to takeoff by the "FLIGHT ATTENDANT" TO BE SURE EVERYONE IS BUCKLED UP, seats are upright, tray tables locked and the all important--- that item on the floor needs to be clear or placed in the overhead. FAA regulation.

One story had pet in backpack-- that's also illegal and she never should have been allowed on plane with animal in it.

My analogy is not for DEATH vs Sick-- but unhealthy.

Quick, let's get back to fighting over "anthem kneelers" in the NFL before this gets any worse.... (grins)

I don't think it was a conspiracy, but if you read the story at the link Brad provided it's clearly an Op-Ed piece by someone who is way too emotionally involved in other people's problems. Tons of f-bombs and s-bombs dropped everywhere.

Am I sad someone's pet died? Sure, about as sad as I'd be if someone I didn't know on FB posted it....which is to say, not very sad. I enjoy animals, but I don't get to the point of screaming on the internet about people I don't know in situations I wasn't involved in.

myob: I still don't see the conspiracy except what you seem to be injecting into it. The dog was in a proper carrier (not a "briefcase") and was put in the overhead (not the luggage compartment).

There are pictures of the pet carrier out there that the puppy was in. It should have fit under the seat in front of her. And, the main point is -- IF IT DID NOT FIT UNDER THE SEAT, THEN POLICY SAYS THAT IT STILL CANNOT GO IN THE OVERHEAD BIN. Period. The Flight Attendant was WRONG to do that -- the FA told her that it was policy when the actual policy is the opposite of that. United have confirmed this in an official statement.

So I still don't see the conspiracy! The FA made a huge mistake and a dog died likely because of it. There is no sensationalism here. There is no conspiracy. Everyone involved (United, the flight attendant, the dog owners) seems to be in agreement that that is what happened.

- John...

Note that I agree with Sid that THIS particular article that Brad linked is pretty bad. But, what do people expect from Jalopnik?

The point is that there are other sources out there that confirm things and show more photos and such. There still isn't some conspiracy about what happened.

- John...

John I wasn't making it up. Those where the words from the news post on Google news. I read it just prior to responding -- seriously.

Conspiracy is contained in sensationalizing it with erroneous wording-- like put in bag bin?

quick question: plane is taxing out-- flight crew sees item blocking path-- OK can't put it in bag bin (overhead) than where do you put it? stop plane open door and toss on taxiway?

Several other passengers have posted details on the incident.

The dog was in a carrier as required by United. The woman tried to put the dog under the seat in front of her as is required and as published on United website.

It was obvious to everyone including the stewardess it was a live 9 month old puppy. The owner tried to have the dog stay under the seat but the stewardess was insisting it had to be in the overhead and assured her it would be ok. Some of the passengers almost got involved but figured that the overhead compartment must be ventilated why else would she be told to put a living creature in there.

The other passengers said the dog initially whimpered for sometime and then went silent so everyone figured the puppy had simply fallen asleep.

When the plane landed and the owner retrieved the dog she found it lifeless. Tried to give it CPR. The passengers said the woman just sat in the aisle crying and everyone was stunned especially when the stewardess who ordered the dog be put there suddenly claimed she didn't know it was a dog even though the passengers clearly heard the owner several times mention it was a dog.

Yea, Sorry. I forgot how the linked website is written by Millennials to Millennials and likes to be cool by peppering it with cursing.

Comments are even cruder.

One thing they do - they update the article as new info becomes available so what I posted might have been shorter than what someone reads later.

I fully expected someone to revel this was an ESA travelling for free.

FYI: United has accepted full responsibility and apologized.

The reason I posted: does this event have any impact or relate to how LLs manage animals?

BRAD

myob: I didn't say you were "making it up." I said that you seem to be believing that there is some conspiracy when there simply isn't one.

It is not that difficult to sort out "sensational journalism" from reality. But you seem to be hanging on to the wrong part of it.

As I said and then NC INVESTOR just restated: the facts are pretty clear. People aren't in disagreement over what happened and who was at fault. But you seem to want to still blame the passenger based on some bits of sensationalized news for some reason.

- John...

To be clear: I BLAME THE DOG OWNER 100%. They don't belong in: restaurants, in hotels, on ships, in airplanes, at a gun range or in church etc...WHEN A DOG FALLS THROUGH THE ICE i ALSO DON'T BELIEVE A HUMAN SHOULD RISK HIS LIFE TO SAVE A DOG.

They are animals. I don't want my family in a hotel room that an animal has pee'ed or done #2 on the floor or a restaurant that allows dogs or cats or whatever to be in a chair at a table drooling on the table. It's wrong.

Ok, well, I completely disagree then. Dogs certainly are allowed in planes. Again, this wasn't even an ESA or some fake thing from what we can tell -- it is a situation where someone paid their fair share to have the dog on the plane. There are things in place to make sure they are properly caged and such. No one is violating any rules here -- other than just your personal opinions that no dogs should be allowed on planes.

The reality is that people move to other parts of the world now and then who happen to have pets. They shouldn't have to leave them behind just because you've decided that dogs "don't belong" in certain places.

If you don't want to stay in a hotel room that has had a dog in the room ever, then don't stay in hotels that take pets. It simply isn't that easy for planes.

A dog in a proper carrier on a plane isn't at all like a dog in a restaurant in a chair drooling at the table. You must see that those aren't even CLOSE in comparison, right?

Someone having a dog at a table in a restaurant is nothing at all like a dog in a pet carrier on a plane. Sheesh.

- John...

I agree with myob(GA) ! Just bought a vacation home in Georgia that I'm visiting. Went to a lovely local park and one of the best things about it were all the "absolutely no dogs allowed" signs! We were in heaven and felt free to walk freely without fear of stepping in something.

So because you like dog-free areas, you think all areas that you use should be dog-free apparently? And you think that is "friendly" and "common sense"?

Sheesh. I think I'll stay out of Georgia then -- and probably Florida too. When I think of "friendly", I certainly don't think of people that don't care about other people as long as it is "just right" for themselves!

- John...

So because you like dog-free areas, you think all areas that you use should be dog-free apparently? And you think that is "friendly" and "common sense"?

Sheesh. I think I'll stay out of Georgia then -- and probably Florida too. When I think of "friendly", I certainly don't think of people that don't care about other people as long as it is "just right" for themselves!

- John...

Oh John,

>>When I think of "friendly", I certainly don't think of people that don't care about other people as long as it is "just right" for themselves!<<

John,

J,

Exactly! Woke up this morning in the Georgia mountains to the sounds of birds chirping. No garbage from the neighbors house in our yard either. Heck, we can't even hear their music. We actually can open the windows here.

My other half proceeded to imitate what we'd hear at home......morocylces fired up, ad naseum dog barking for the next half hour (once one starts the others start and nobody stops them regardless of time of day), and then there is the domestic violence/bipolar etc....house across the street which gives us continual police presence at least.

It's no wonder we want to sell everything and stay here. So good for the soul. The nice polite people are just icing on the cake.

I am completely aware (and angered) by the incredibly entitlement mentality out there. The faking of ESAs, for example, drives me nuts.

But, in this case, we're talking about people arguing that ALL pets should be banned from planes. That they "don't belong" there EVER regardless if people paid their fees for them and might be moving across the country for a new job or something.

That has NOTHING to do with entitlement mentality. That is paying a fee for something that they need.

I just don't think this was an example of any such "entitlement" attitude.

And, yes, courtesy does go both ways. Asking people to NOT fake an ESA and to PAY for their pet to fly and use a PROPER carrier is what is being courteous. Telling those people that they simply aren't allow to do it because you don't think pets should ever be allowed to fly is NOT showing "courtesy", sorry.

- John...

John, we really don't disagree.

I don't have a problem with people following the rules. Even cases where I do t care for the rules. If I don't like the rules I can act to try and change them or I can choose not to take a particular mode of transportation or eat at a particular place.

In this case the lady was following the rules. Ok, fine.

ESA's are Kinda like Redneck Neighbors, with Fireworks.

LisaFL: I can agree that it is just an "opinion" to never allow pets in the cabin on planes. I was just saying that I didn't think it was a "friendly" or "common sense" opinion. :)

- John...

That would completely depend on which side you're on.

It's also an opinion that animals don't belong in shopping carts. Most people would feel that is only being courteous and showing common sense. Yet just go to the store and look around.

I don't think it does depend on which side you are on, I guess. I think that it is unreasonable (and unfriendly) to suggest that people with pets cannot move them to other locations.

Sometimes, a mild inconvenience for others outweighs the other factors.

So, to me, it would not be "friendly" to say that people with pets can't move them across the country in a plane at all. That seemed to be what was being said here -- and I disagree that that is a reasonable "solution" (and it certainly isn't a "friendly" or "common sense" once to me).

"Common sense" would dictate, in my opinion, that a reasonable compromise would be the "friendly" thing to do. Not an all-out ban on pets on planes.

(Again, we're not even talking about ESAs here. We're talking about family pets were the family need to move across the country.)

- John...

Also, to clarify, I think your shopping cart example fails as a good analogy here. We're not talking about people taking their pets on a plane for a joy-ride or where there is some other easy solution to "just not take them" like you would say about a shopping cart.

We're talking about situations where people need to move across the country -- thousands of miles -- where there is no other good alternative. I don't think those people should be disallowed to take their pets with them when they move.

Finally, while I agree with you that the "majority" of people would probably think that pets don't belong in shopping carts or restaurants -- I would actually DISAGREE with you when it comes to planes. I think the "majority" of people would see that it is just common sense that some people with pets need to move across the country. I think most people would agree that paying for a pet to travel and having it in a proper/approved carrier is not unreasonable.

So, if we need to agree to disagree on that, so be it.

- John...

John,

Do you honestly think the majority of the animals seen today in airplane cabins are due to people moving with their pets across country? Because I'd suggest that's pretty far out there.

Most people moving across country don't take an airplane.

I think your last sentence says it perfectly -- I think your opinion of legit people taking pets on planes (that they PAID for) is being clouded by your opinion of cheating the system with ESAs.

I simply have no problem with people that paid for their pet to fly and followed proper procedure. I don't think they are showing disrespect to anyone for doing that.

- John...

I've been on planes traveling in this country and to other parts of the World where I was seated next to an animal(dog)

The theory is that due to no circulation in the overhead bins, that there is a limited oxygen supply. Even though it doesn't seal air-tight, there is still not enough air flow (apparently) to provide enough oxygen to live on.

Note that United has released a statement that the flight attendant is NOW saying that she didn't know there was a dog in the carrier. Even though the family told her and numerous witnesses nearby confirmed that they told her, she says that she "didn't hear them" and thought that she was just putting a normal bag in the overhead.

United has announced that, in the future, all pet carriers will have bright colored bag tags so that FAs can tell right away that they have live animals in them and, of course, not to put them in the overhead.

- John...