Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 58

Thread: Passenger forcibly removed from plane due to dog allergy; dogs stay.

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    8

    Default Passenger forcibly removed from plane due to dog allergy; dogs stay.

    FYI: No Lufthansa flights or Boeing 747-8 aircraft were involved.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-...of-dog-allergy

  2. #2
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,098

    Default

    I like this story.

    As much as I want to bash the media for the headline, I guess they need to draw you in.

    Once in, I'll give it a newsworthy award.

    From the airline's viewpoint: They tell passengers they can bring their dogs. Then a passenger announces, "I have a life threatening dog allergy". Then the pilot thinks, crap, even IF I kick the dogs off, if this is life threatening and at 40,000 feet she goes into NEAR TOTAL ANAPHYLACTIC DISASTER!!!! because she encounters a residual dog hair on the way to the Lav...we (not_the typical we) have the responsibility to keep her safe.

    "Maam, you have to get off the plane, we cannot risk your health now that the dogs have already boarded...we are very sorry, we'll rebook you on the next flight."

    No.

    Maam, you have to get off the plane or we will have to resort to law enforcement.

    No.

    Etc.

    And, as some of the insiders will say (probably with more validity than we want to hear), Not only are there plenty of nut-jobs out there, there are people now deliberately planning these and playing the system.

    One interesting question- I would THINK WN (as the cool people call it) are quite the experts in dealing with people with life-threatening peanut allergies!

    Oh, I like 747's too. Never been on Lufthansa. Still, I prefer to call it a 747-EIGHT HUNDRED.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,409

    Default

    Of course everybody misses the point here. It's not a matter of why she was taken off the plane. It's a matter of how. Stupid brutal animalistic third-world law enforcement does not belong in a civilized society. If it was a standoff she wanted, it was a standoff she should've gotten, along with the bill and possibly the jail time. And that should have been calmly but sternly explained to her. And I'm sure she would have calmed down, become more allergic to prison time and bankruptcy and gotten off the plane, but it would have cost the airline some money and it's all about money in the end. As for the airline, can someone please tell me wtf we are thinking allowing dogs in the cabin? Dogs go in the hold. Some people are allergic to dogs, we all know that, and they usually aren't able to book a guaranteed dog-free flight. So this is bound to happen. Just stupid stupid stupid on both ends (and usually a pretty stupid person caught in the middle) and, naturally, no industry regulations to prevent it.

    What really troubles me is how people are starting to tolerate and even justify this kind of strong-arm law enforcement. It didn't have to come to this. It shames our society.

    And comfort dogs...? The end has to be near...

  4. #4
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Of course everybody misses the point here. It's not a matter of why she was taken off the plane. It's a matter of how. Stupid brutal animalistic third-world law enforcement does not belong in a civilized society. If it was a standoff she wanted, it was a standoff she should've gotten, along with the bill and possibly the jail time. And that should have been calmly but sternly explained to her. And I'm sure she would have calmed down, become more allergic to prison time and bankruptcy and gotten off the plane, but it would have cost the airline some money and it's all about money in the end. As for the airline, can someone please tell me wtf we are thinking allowing dogs in the cabin? Dogs go in the hold. Some people are allergic to dogs, we all know that, and they usually aren't able to book a guaranteed dog-free flight. So this is bound to happen. Just stupid stupid stupid on both ends (and usually a pretty stupid person caught in the middle) and, naturally, no industry regulations to prevent it.

    What really troubles me is how people are starting to tolerate and even justify this kind of strong-arm law enforcement. It didn't have to come to this. It shames our society.

    And comfort dogs...? The end has to be near...
    Mr. Procedure:

    You don't suppose the airline has a procedure to ask nicely and to avoid involving law enforcement except as a last result... for fear of bad PR (and right and wrong not withstanding)?

    You don't suppose the police also have similar procedures, saving physical removal only as a last result... and at least some fear of bad PR, even though the lost profit potential is much less?

    As usual, I don't know the type-specific procedures, but you saw the passenger interview and have no evidence that the fundamentals nor procedures were violated.

    Comfort dogs? Yeah, its rather BS, but going through the baggage system can be rather rough on Rover, too.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Mr. Procedure:

    You don't suppose the airline has a procedure to ask nicely and to avoid involving law enforcement except as a last result... for fear of bad PR (and right and wrong not withstanding)?

    You don't suppose the police also have similar procedures, saving physical removal only as a last result... and at least some fear of bad PR, even though the lost profit potential is much less?

    As usual, I don't know the type-specific procedures, but you saw the passenger interview and have no evidence that the fundamentals nor procedures were violated.

    Comfort dogs? Yeah, its rather BS, but going through the baggage system can be rather rough on Rover, too.
    I don't know what happened prior to the video. I know what happened during the video. That "procedure" is disgraceful. The fact that we all tolerate it so that we won't be further inconvenienced is disgraceful. Manhandling a woman used to be something that people stood up to. Anyway, welcome to the future. Click Clack Smack!

  6. #6
    Senior Member TeeVee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,808

    Default

    sorry to say, this is an american as in the country not the airline) problem. our cops are such uneducated, small-penis, gun totting, ready to use force imbeciles, even the most ridiculously, innocuous situations turn into abusive nightmares.

    having said that, i suspect she probably made a bigger deal out of and refused to get off saying the dogs should be removed before her. i'm a dog person, so i would probably agree that the dogs had just as much a right to be onboard as she did, especially the non-ESA dog for which i'm sure a hefty sum was paid to be stuffed under the seat.

  7. #7
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    ***I don't know what happened prior to the video.***
    KNOW? yes I don't KNOW either. However, I'd hate for some evidence to get in the way of your preconceived shared, 100% absolute notion that ALL cops are bad, uneducated, small-penis, gun totting, ready to use force imbeciles.

    Do not deflect and dismiss that The Media has provided us with a passenger who said (paraphrase), "Yeah, she needed to be thrown off".

    While there's a slight, friendly razz at TeeVee here, I see evidence that he put that passenger comment on the same side of the "Scale of Blind Justice" that I had it on...unlike you who choose to bury facts that go against your black and white narrative.

    Actually, I'd love to see a thread of police misconduct on the OT forum. Unfortunately, the pay, and the requirements, the mindset of their 'customers', and yes, the mindset of many of the people BEFORE they ever took the job add up to some things that happen that should not happen, along with a pretty significant trend of them doing a very bad job of policing themselves.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  8. #8
    Super Moderator brianw999's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
    Posts
    11,405

    Default

    Well, at least there's no reason to talk about Lufthansa or Boeing 747's
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !


  9. #9
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    KNOW? yes I don't KNOW either. However, I'd hate for some evidence to get in the way of your preconceived shared, 100% absolute notion that ALL cops are bad, uneducated, small-penis, gun totting, ready to use force imbeciles.

    Do not deflect and dismiss that The Media has provided us with a passenger who said (paraphrase), "Yeah, she needed to be thrown off".

    While there's a slight, friendly razz at TeeVee here, I see evidence that he put that passenger comment on the same side of the "Scale of Blind Justice" that I had it on...unlike you who choose to bury facts that go against your black and white narrative.
    Do you ever READ anything I post or do you just whip out the black-and-white Evan doll with the pins in it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan
    It's not a matter of why she was taken off the plane.

  10. #10
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Do you ever READ anything I post or do you just whip out the black-and-white Evan doll with the pins in it?
    Yes, Evan, I read that...that you don't think it matters WHY she was taken off. However, I (and the passenger on TV) think differently.

    As usual, your are pretty much totally unable to comprehend that: The quote from the other passenger suggests that the WHY is that she totally refused to deplane after a polite, reasonable and legal request that she leave the dog-contaminated airplane...a process that I bet was patiently repeated first by the airline, and then again by the cops.

    A request which I bet (and have some evidence to support) she refused, and was an ass about, and which resulted in a delayed departure for a hundred or so other people who paid the airline a lot of money to 1) get somewhere on time and 2) maybe get a bag of peanuts and a coke from FA's with a ever-so-slightly better customer service attitude, and 3) yes, bring spot along since WN just LUV's our pooches too, as that is now an expected part of the customer service experience at many airlines.

    Sometimes, I do automatically pull out my black and white Evan doll just to razz you. Other times, you demonstrate it to such a high degree (like now) that there's absolutely no need to.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  11. #11
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brianw999 View Post
    Well, at least there's no reason to talk about Lufthansa or Boeing 747's
    Weren't you a Paramedic...in other words just another uniformed uneducated, small-penis, AED toting, ready to use force imbecile? You and your cop buddies do seem to be into group hugs...
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  12. #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    London United Kingdom
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Hi
    One of the dogs was supposed to be a service animal, which I believe cannot be removed from the aircraft. The other was supposed to be an emotional support dog which could mean anything, isn't the owner of said dog [emotional support dog) have paper work to back up their claims that they need the dog with them on the aircraft?. Also she did not have any paper work from her doctor to back up her claims, that she was adversely allergic to dogs. Hence the reason she was asked to leave the aircraft.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Yes, Evan, I read that...that you don't think it matters WHY she was taken off. However, I (and the passenger on TV) think differently.
    You think there there are circumstances where it's ok to FORCIBLY DRAG a problematic female customer off an airplane. Now I get you.

    You're right. I think differently.

  14. #14
    Super Moderator brianw999's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
    Posts
    11,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Weren't you a Paramedic...in other words just another uniformed uneducated, small-penis, AED toting, ready to use force imbecile? You and your cop buddies do seem to be into group hugs...
    You got the small penis bit right......although it was sufficient to satisfy ME !
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !


  15. #15
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
    ***she did not have any paper work from her doctor to back up her claims, that she was adversely allergic to dogs. Hence the reason she was asked to leave the aircraft.***
    Just discussing- should paperwork have any bearing at all on this?

    She verbally claimed she had a life-threatening allergy: Airline response: Wow, if that is true be better get her off of here- we do not want to risk her health, better safe than sorry, REGARDLESS of documentation (and I repeat that wouldn't there be a life-threatening risk of contamination from residual dog hair/whatever)

    Versus

    If she DOCUMENTED that she had a life-threatening allergy: Airline response: Wow, [if deleted] we better get her off of here NOW- we do not want to risk her health, better safe than sorry, what if there's a risk from contamination of dog hair/whatever.

    There's not much practical difference in the risk management of these two versions.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  16. #16
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    You think there there are circumstances where it's ok to FORCIBLY DRAG a problematic female customer off an airplane. Now I get you.

    You're right. I think differently.
    Like I said, sometimes your pure black and white thinking is a thing of wonder. Absolutely never?...not even if she has a sharp object and making threats, flailing and striking other passengers...cuz that's exactly what you said and those activities are kinda problematic.

    And yes, I stand by my belief that deliberately and maliciously delaying the departure of 100+ law-abiding, cash-paying customers while violating the law, violating right and wrong and violating common sense and being an ass....you ask her nicely a few times, but that's it.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  17. #17
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Absolutely never?...not even if she has a sharp object and making threats, flailing and striking other passengers...
    Did she? No. Was she? No. How about making a relevant argument for once...

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    And yes, I stand by my belief that deliberately and maliciously delaying the departure of 100+ law-abiding, cash-paying customers while violating the law, violating right and wrong and violating common sense and being an ass....you ask her nicely a few times, but that's it.
    Did she, a woman with a serious dog allergy, deliberately board a plane with dogs on board? I'm guessing not. And you might want to look up the word "malice' while you're at it.

    But I get you. You think you should ask nicely (demand nicely, let's be real here) a few times and then, if that doesn't work, bring in the barbarians. I favor a more civilized, albeit costlier and less directly efficient approach.

    Actually, what I favor most is a preventative approach, and this one could have been prevented if the airlines tried some wisdom.

  18. #18
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brianw999 View Post
    You got the small penis bit right......although it was sufficient to satisfy ME !
    Well darn... I thought it was AED-toting I was correct about.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Did she? No. Was she? No. How about making a relevant argument for once...
    Your earlier post indicated you thought force was never justified to remove someone from a plane... his post was 100% relevant to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Did she, a woman with a serious dog allergy, deliberately board a plane with dogs on board? I'm guessing not.
    She deliberately boarded a plane that *could* have dogs on board, as Southwest like many airlines allows dogs in the cabin. And actually even if a dog were in the cargo hold, if air is being recirculated, allergens could make it into the passenger cabin. A responsible person with a serious allergy would inquire if there were any dogs (or other animals... many pet allergies aren't limited to just one species) on the aircraft before boarding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I favor a more civilized, albeit costlier and less directly efficient approach.
    Could I trouble you to tell us what approach you *do* favor?

    Don't get me wrong... I'm very strongly against unnecessary violence. But you can't expect the airline staff to stand there asking nicely, without result, until they die of asphyxiation either.
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

  20. #20
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Did she? No. Was she? No. How about making a relevant argument for once.
    Who was it that said ALL WORDS MATTER?

    I kind of doubt that she was making a physical threat...but as Eric pointed out, 1) You were being absolute and 2) Not everyone thinks like you- there are a few additional situations that warrant physical intervention.

    I have evidence to support that she was unlawfully, unethically, and nonsensically and pretty much absolutely refusing to leave the plane AND being an ass about it. Absolute irrefutable evidence, no, but it's a lot more evidence that you have that it was total out of control officials needing a fix of abusing innocent citizens. Nice that continue to dismiss and not mention this...what 3X now?

    For me (and some other people) the refusal to obey a legal, correct and reasonable order (and being an ass) enables 'officials to' Ask nicely a few times and then resort to physical means.

    One other issue, Mr Total Black and White: You can think whatever you want...but I ALSO* think you are very much in the minority that there is 'almost' never a time for physical removal.

    *"ALSO" means in addition to being wrong from legal, ethical and common sense analysis of the situation.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •