United Airlines Kills a Dog

[hopemax]

Some other TV show, maybe Inside Edition(?) got on board the same type of plane (while empty) with the same type of pet carrier. They showed that the carrier partially fit under the seat ahead, but that a section was jutting out into the feet area. It wasn't sticking out in the aisle where people walk.

I have a carry-on bag that does the same thing. Depending on which airplane I'm on, sometimes the whole bag neatly slips under the whole seat and is totally out of the way. Other times, a good 3-4 inches sticks out and I have to kind of turn my feet sideways. Depending on the FA going down the aisle, making sure that everyone's seat belt is fastened, she may or may not make me move the bag to overhead.

I've been curious about the under-the-seat configuration. I know when I've been traveling without DH, usually on Southwest, I have to cognizant of the fact that my aisle seat bag space is a couple inches narrower than the middle or window seat. We've also been on a United plane where our row had some sort of metal box under the seat in front of me, so a bag that should have fit, couldn't and we had to rearrange our stuff. Finally, we recently booked a flight on United, and I was looking at a non-United website about the best and worst places to sit. There were reports on the 777-300ERs that if you have seats E or F, you will arrive to find a support in the middle of the under the seat space, and that this is not mentioned when you are choosing your seats on United's website.

I have been wondering if the FA was a little more pro-active, if the dog could have been placed under a different seat somewhere on the plane. Either the daughter's or possibly re-seat them.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

How do you confuse Japan with Kansas City?

I wasn't sure if you got it but there were actually 3 incidents total with United:

~Dog carrier in overhead bin where the dog died

~Dogs sent to wrong location--that's the KC and Japan one. The issue was their kennels looked very similar and even the paperwork was written up incorrectly--good news though the german shepard was reunited with its owner last night--no word that I could find about the great dane that was supposed to go to Japan.

~The issue shown in the link you quote where a flight was diverted when it was discovered a dog was mistakenly put on board.

 

[Imzadi]

United messed up again! https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-new...plane-makes-unscheduled-landing-1188024387958

I wasn't sure if you got it but there were actually 3 incidents total with United:

~Dog carrier in overhead bin where the dog died

~Dogs sent to wrong location--that's the KC and Japan one.

Let's get all this straight.

Dog 1: The FA on the first United flight was either in too much of a rush too look for another SAFE place to stow the dog & carrier that wouldn't fit under the seat, or didn't want to delay the flight to take the time, which probably would have amounted to an extra 10 minutes, or just didn't care about the life of the dog, so she ordered the dog be put in the overhead bin. It suffocates to death.

Dogs 2 & 3: While it's great that a person in Denver took the time to take out the dogs and walk them together, especially as the great dane probably needed to burn off extra energy before then sitting in a kennel for the 16 hour flight to Japan, the person(s) put the dogs back in the wrong kennels. AND it was leaned that the German shepherd, which ended up going to Japan instead, didn't get any food or water for the whole 16 hour flight. (The great dane wouldn't have either. Although, being in cargo, I don't know if there is a remedy for that on any carrier. )

We also have not heard ANYTHING about the great dane and whether it finally made it to Japan and ALIVE. It could be in Florida right now. It's owners probably didn't know to contact the media with their end of the story. It had to have been upsetting for them too, to have thought their dog was at least flying with them on he same plane, in cargo. But, then, they too, discover a dog not theirs greeting them in the kennel. I'm getting worried for that pooch. I bet it didn't end up flying to Japan first class.

Now Dog 4: It was discovered during the flight that the dog is on the wrong plane. So, instead of simply putting it on the right flight once it landed wherever, that was the wrong destination, United inconvenienced about 100(?) passengers, delayed their arrivals (and possibly missing connecting flights, & getting to board meetings, etc., late,) to make sure the DOG got to it's right destination.


Who the heck is making all these ******** decisions at United? If I was as incompetent as any ONE of these people, I would have been fired from my job.

 

[Imzadi]

I think United needs to say "no animals" until they get their act together. Yes, they'll lose some business, but it can't be as much as these screw ups are costing them.

Although now that I write that, I'm guessing they have to accept "service animals" and we're back to square one.

Actually we wouldn't have been in square one, had any of these honest people had gotten one of those "service animal" vests. Each one of these dogs would have been flying right next to their owners, and ALL of them would have been safe, alive and made it to the right destinations. So much for honesty.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

With all the people saying they would've just gotten off the plane, would that even be an option? I was under the impression that once you were on the plane you couldn't change your mind and get off without it escalating to becoming a "security threat." (Similar to how once you reach a certain point you can't change your mind about going through security.) The reason being, you could've planted something while on the plane, your luggage has now been loaded into the cargo hold and you might be trying to deplane before the bomb goes off, etc. I'm not suggesting all that ran through this passenger's mind, but if it had I could understand her feeling too intimidated to tangle with airline security, especially when she's the sole traveling adult responsible for a vulnerable newborn baby.

I don't think it's as easy as saying, "Nevermind, I'm just going to leave now!"

 

[LSUmiss]

With all the people saying they would've just gotten off the plane, would that even be an option? I was under the impression that once you were on the plane you couldn't change your mind and get off without it escalating to becoming a "security threat." (Similar to how once you reach a certain point you can't change your mind about going through security.) The reason being, you could've planted something while on the plane, your luggage has now been loaded into the cargo hold and you might be trying to deplane before the bomb goes off, etc. I'm not suggesting all that ran through this passenger's mind, but if it had I could understand her feeling too intimidated to tangle with airline security, especially when she's the sole traveling adult responsible for a vulnerable newborn baby.

I don't think it's as easy as saying, "Nevermind, I'm just going to leave now!"

I agree & see why she could have been intimidated. But I would have refused to put the dog in the bin, so that would have probably escalated it to being kicked off the plane.

 

[PollyannaMom]

Now Dog 4: It was discovered during the flight that the dog is on the wrong plane. So, instead of simply putting it on the right flight once it landed wherever, that was the wrong destination, United inconvenienced about 100(?) passengers, delayed their arrivals (and possibly missing connecting flights, & getting to board meetings, etc., late,) to make sure the DOG got to it's right destination.

If that had been the only incident, I'm sure taking great care of the dog at the wrong destination and then flying him to the right one would have been the expected (and logical) response. I just think that coming on the heals of the PR nightmare of the other two incidents, they panicked and reacted toward who they felt the public would sympathize with - the dog. (I'm sure they bent over backward to reschedule/compensate the passengers, but I still think they're doomed to a huge loss of business anyway.)

 

[RedAngie]

If that had been the only incident, I'm sure taking great care of the dog at the wrong destination and then flying him to the right one would have been the expected (and logical) response. I just think that coming on the heals of the PR nightmare of the other two incidents, they panicked and reacted toward who they felt the public would sympathize with - the dog. (I'm sure they bent over backward to reschedule/compensate the passengers, but I still think they're doomed to a huge loss of business anyway.)

Doubtful. In the short term people are outraged and bookings may temporarily decrease. In the longer term when United's fares and schedules meet their needs, people will choose it.

 

[Snowysmom]

I have seen a lot on this story over the past few days. I really wish someone could start an airline that just transports pets. There could be crates and maybe vet techs instead of flight attendants. If I win mega millions or powerball maybe I will look into it. It would involve a lot of planning and maybe a major city in each area of the country but it is obvious that the mainstream airlines have no idea how to deal with pets, especially United. I won't even fly on United airlines after all their issues. I would certainly not let my dog. It bothers me that the owner and the other passengers heard the dog crying but did absolutely nothing to help the poor dog. I would have opened the bin and taken the dog out. Arrest me if you want. I would get a vet to be an expert witness at my trial. And United really needs to fire that flight attendant. I am disgusted that they won't.

 

[jdb in AZ]

Doubtful. In the short term people are outraged and bookings may temporarily decrease. In the longer term when United's fares and schedules meet their needs, people will choose it.

Other airlines have problems too -- they seem to take turns upsetting people. If you only fly the "perfect" airlines you'll end up staying home.

 

[Pacolovestacos]

Other airlines have problems too -- they seem to take turns upsetting people. If you only fly the "perfect" airlines you'll end up staying home.

Virgin America was the perfect airline. Unfortunately they were bought out.

 

[lifesavacation]

With all the people saying they would've just gotten off the plane, would that even be an option? I was under the impression that once you were on the plane you couldn't change your mind and get off without it escalating to becoming a "security threat." (Similar to how once you reach a certain point you can't change your mind about going through security.) The reason being, you could've planted something while on the plane, your luggage has now been loaded into the cargo hold and you might be trying to deplane before the bomb goes off, etc. I'm not suggesting all that ran through this passenger's mind, but if it had I could understand her feeling too intimidated to tangle with airline security, especially when she's the sole traveling adult responsible for a vulnerable newborn baby.

I don't think it's as easy as saying, "Nevermind, I'm just going to leave now!"

I don’t know what the actual rules are, but I’ve been on a flight that someone was let off after boarding.

There was a mechanical issue with the plane and it couldn’t turn on cool air until in the air. We sat there on the tarmac for a really long time and it got horribly hot inside. They really should have deplaned us. A mom with her infant finally had enough and demanded they let her off, which they did. Obviously different circumstances but it’s possible to get off after everyone has boarded.

 

[cruiser21]

https://www.avma.org/public/PetCare/Pages/Short-nosed-Dogs-and-Air-Travel-FAQs.aspx
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but flying is not recommended for these types of dogs.

 

[asta]

I have seen a lot on this story over the past few days. I really wish someone could start an airline that just transports pets. There could be crates and maybe vet techs instead of flight attendants. If I win mega millions or powerball maybe I will look into it. It would involve a lot of planning and maybe a major city in each area of the country but it is obvious that the mainstream airlines have no idea how to deal with pets, especially United. I won't even fly on United airlines after all their issues. I would certainly not let my dog. It bothers me that the owner and the other passengers heard the dog crying but did absolutely nothing to help the poor dog. I would have opened the bin and taken the dog out. Arrest me if you want. I would get a vet to be an expert witness at my trial. And United really needs to fire that flight attendant. I am disgusted that they won't.

I wish someone would start a pet transport airline so that the rest of us would not have to put up with dogs around us when we fly. That would make me happy.

 

[Imzadi]

I really wish someone could start an airline that just transports pets. There could be crates and maybe vet techs instead of flight attendants.

Someone did do that several years ago. I think it went out of business as it was too costly. There wasn't enough flights going to enough destinations, so they actually had to board the pets overnight somewhere, at some central hubs, before completing the flights. They claimed to have people watching the pets overnight while being boarded, where they'd walk the dogs, play with them, & feed them. They weren't left alone overnight.

Sorry, but if a flight takes a human 6 hours, I want my pet at the end of those 6 hours, not boarded somewhere that is not in the city I'm in or going to. To me, that's as bad as flying my dog to Japan & back.

 

[QueenIsabella]

I have seen a lot on this story over the past few days. I really wish someone could start an airline that just transports pets. There could be crates and maybe vet techs instead of flight attendants. If I win mega millions or powerball maybe I will look into it. It would involve a lot of planning and maybe a major city in each area of the country but it is obvious that the mainstream airlines have no idea how to deal with pets, especially United. I won't even fly on United airlines after all their issues. I would certainly not let my dog. It bothers me that the owner and the other passengers heard the dog crying but did absolutely nothing to help the poor dog. I would have opened the bin and taken the dog out. Arrest me if you want. I would get a vet to be an expert witness at my trial. And United really needs to fire that flight attendant. I am disgusted that they won't.

It's a nice idea, but I doubt enough animals fly to make this a viable business. For one thing, I don't think such an airline could hit every minor city that regular airlines do--sure, you could fly a pet from, say NY-Denver, but how many pets fly into Cheyenne, Wyoming on your average day? Or Islip, NY or Cincinnati, OH? Are there really thousands of pets flying on a daily basis, like there are people?

I also think it would be quite pricey. When we got our dog, she flew from Iowa (Rapid City, maybe?) to Hartford, in cargo, for ~$150. The breeder only ships on Delta, because they give the best care (in his opinion, but he ships pups out a lot).

 

[Imzadi]

NY senator, Marisol Alcantara, has introduced a law called "Kokito's Law," named after the pup that was placed in the overhead bin & suffocated to death.

https://nypost.com/2018/03/18/senator-introduces-law-for-pooch-killed-on-united-flight/

"Alcantara insisted her bill was headed for the floor of the state senate. Should it pass, Kokito’s Law would bar pets from being placed in overhead bins, ensure pet passengers have the same rights as human passengers, demand that cargo areas are pressurized, ventilated, and climate controlled, and hold airlines to a number of other basic safety standards."
​

The article also states something where weren't aware of before:

"United Airlines — which last year had the highest rate of animal deaths per airline carrier, with 18 animals killed and 13 injured"​

(Although, as someone else stated, an important point we don't know is the statistics overall as to how many animals they fly vs. other carriers.)

What the NY Post article doesn't state, that a different local NYC news states, is that the basic safety standards include that pets should receive food, water and any vet meds they might require during flights.

Unfortunately, I now forsee that the last requirement will cause NEW problems as long as United Airlines cannot seem to put dogs on their proper flights. That German shepherd that accidentally ended up in Japan needed meds. Since there currently is no law in effect, and the owner never fathomed that her dog would end up flying 16 hours somewhere else, she didn't require that the German shepherd needed any meds during, what she thought would be a short, few hour flight.

Now, instead, let's switch the situation around. Say, the great dane, which should have been on the Japan flight needed meds instead. No one realizes that the German shepherd is in it's place, and there is a law enacted, so whatever dog is in that kennel has to be given the meds, as ordered according to some printed piece of paper the animal attendant is handed before flight. You guys see where I'm going with this? The poor German shepherd, not only is on the wrong flight, but he is given, say, heart meds that he doesn't need. He ends up dying due to an induced heart attack from unnecessary meds.

As long as United Airlines remains incompetent and not able to put dogs onto the right flights and get them where they should go, there will be problems. You can't fix stupid.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I can't tell you how many dogs I've read about over the years dying on flights. Which is why, unless absolutely necessary, I wouldn't put my dog on a plane. Up until recently, I've always had large dogs that would have to go in the cargo hold in an airline approved (i.e. hard) crate. Dogs in cargo holds can be subject to extremes in temperatures, extremes in noise, banging, jostling, and are often terrified of what's going on around them, and even traumatized. So just no way unless necessary.

Now that small dogs are allowed in carriers under seats, and I have a small dog, I've though maybe it's a possibility. I've been on flights recently where I didn't even know a dog was on board until deplaning. I do think it's important to have a well-behaved dog and to keep the dog away from others and under control at all times, as not everyone appreciates the dog being there. But if it's a service the airlines allow, then they have a right to be there.

My gut sense on this issue is that the dog's death was primarily the fault of the FI. I believe, based on witness statements, that she was aware there was a living being in the carrier. She knows what a dog carrier looks like. And even if she didn't, hearing the dog whimpering and crying, she could've rectified the situation once she did. The dog's owner was probably overwhelmed with the care of her infant and child, had a language barrier, and was attempting to be cooperative, which so many of us on flights are.

I think the owners should sue the airline. The beloved dog can never be replaced, and they'll have to live the rest of their lives with the knowledge of what a horrible death their innocent little dog suffered at the hands of the negligent, uncaring and unfeeling people at United. United needs to not let this happen again, and set an example in the industry. If they're going to allow dogs on flights, they need to treat them carefully and safely, just as they do the rest of their paying passengers.

 

[sam_gordon]

NY senator, Marisol Alcantara, has introduced a law called "Kokito's Law," named after the pup that was placed in the overhead bin & suffocated to death.

https://nypost.com/2018/03/18/senator-introduces-law-for-pooch-killed-on-united-flight/

"Alcantara insisted her bill was headed for the floor of the state senate. Should it pass, Kokito’s Law would bar pets from being placed in overhead bins, ensure pet passengers have the same rights as human passengers, demand that cargo areas are pressurized, ventilated, and climate controlled, and hold airlines to a number of other basic safety standards."
​

The article also states something where weren't aware of before:

"United Airlines — which last year had the highest rate of animal deaths per airline carrier, with 18 animals killed and 13 injured"​

(Although, as someone else stated, an important point we don't know is the statistics overall as to how many animals they fly vs. other carriers.)

What the NY Post article doesn't state, that a different local NYC news states, is that the basic safety standards include that pets should receive food, water and any vet meds they might require during flights.

Unfortunately, I now forsee that the last requirement will cause NEW problems as long as United Airlines cannot seem to put dogs on their proper flights. That German shepherd that accidentally ended up in Japan needed meds. Since there currently is no law in effect, and the owner never fathomed that her dog would end up flying 16 hours somewhere else, she didn't require that the German shepherd that her dog needed any meds during, what she thought would be a short flight.

Now, instead, let's switch the situation around. Say, the great dane, which should have been on the Japan flight needed meds instead. No one realizes that the German shepherd is in it's place, and there is a law enacted, so whatever dog is in that kennel has to be given the meds, as ordered according to some printed piece of paper the animal attendant is handed before flight. You guys see where I'm going with this? The poor German shepherd, not only is on the wrong flight, but he is given, say, heart meds that he doesn't need. He ends up dying due to an induced heart attack from unnecessary meds.

As long as United Airlines remains incompetent and not able to put dogs onto the right flights and get them where they should go, there will be problems. You can't fix stupid.

Can a state pass such a law that applies to the airlines? I think it would be easier for an airline to say "no pets".

 

[TipsyTraveler]

I'm all for providing a safe environment and safe handling for animals on flights, but the inclusion of administration of meds is a terrible idea for everyone involved. I'm trying to picture a baggage handler accurately dosing and injecting insulin into a fractious cat or a flight attendant trying to get a pill down an aggressive dog's throat and... yeah, this has disaster written all over it.