Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 58 of 58

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

  1. #41
    Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Fixed.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	402591_b.jpg 
Views:	11 
Size:	112.0 KB 
ID:	9553

  2. #42
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	402591_b.jpg 
Views:	11 
Size:	112.0 KB 
ID:	9553
    Here's why I like flying with dogs:

    - They don't kick the seatback

    - They don't hog the armrest.

    - They don't scream the entire flight

    - They don't board wearing flipflops and then take them off.

    - They don't spill their fifth bourbon and coke on my lap.

    - They don't reach for their overhead luggage in a mad panic when the flight ends (or when the plane is on fire).

    - They don't want to tell me their life's story.

    Put me on an all-dog flight anytime. But, as much as 3WE would like it to be, this thread isn't about me...

  3. #43
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brianw999 View Post
    We also need ALL aircraft to have a pressurised hold where the animals go for any legislation to work. I may be wrong, and please correct me if I am but I think I recall that some aircraft, especially smaller aircraft do not have a pressurised hold.
    Our cargo holds are pressurized but NOT heated, hence we don't have a live animals in cargo program.

  4. #44
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    As you might surmise, the cabin of a transport category aircraft is not clearly defined as either title II or title III, thus there is no clear legal guidelines to follow.
    Indeed the ADA does not apply to the aircraft at all (although it DOES apply to airports). Accommodation on the aircraft itself is governed by a different law, namely Air Carrier Access Act (49 USC 41705).

  5. #45
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    As I'm sure you know, counselor, the Americans with Disabilities Act states that title II (State and local government services) and title III (public accommodations and commercial facilities) must permit service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas where members of the public are allowed to go. As you might surmise, the cabin of a transport category aircraft is not clearly defined as either title II or title III, thus there is no clear legal guidelines to follow. This, of course leads to confusion and confrontational situations such as that which forms the topic of this thread. There are things to consider. An aircraft cabin is a closed environment where allergens can recirculate.
    Wrong and wrong. There is more air renewal in an airplane than in any smart building, and the portion that is recirculated passes through high-efficiency filters that stop almost 100% of bacteria, virus and, yes, allergenic.

    It is a bad place for pets. Estimate range up to 15% of the population will experience pet allergies. Up to a third of those with asthma experience complications due to pet dander, and quite a few people suffer from asthma these days. Meanwhile we have a nice alloted space below the cabin where animals typically ride, in an enviable state of sedation.
    And how would putting them in the hold help with the recirculation and the closed environment, if that was your concern?

    It's time we give up this fantasy that deregulation works and restore some sort of order and dignity to the aviation industry. We need something akin to a passengers bill of rights. We need rules that everyone can understand and follow.
    Yet, with that I agree.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  6. #46
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,098

    Default

    As usual, you live in some sort of protective bubble alternate universe, and lack a certain connection to reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Here's why I like flying with dogs:

    - They don't kick the seatback

    - They don't hog the armrest. Of course not, instead they climb straight into your lap.

    - They don't scream the entire flight Ok, I agree, absolute statements are generally wrong...but they can whine and bark for very long time periods

    - They don't board wearing flipflops and then take them off. So, the problem is that humans should board barefooted? Taking off flip flops is the problem?...dogs are generally barefooted and often dogs do not smell any better than feet.

    - They don't spill their fifth bourbon and coke on my lap. Concur...but slobbering may occur in your lap and the occasional pee/poop in the aisle (or in their carriers)...

    - They don't reach for their overhead luggage in a mad panic when the flight ends (or when the plane is on fire). Except that they ARE carry-on baggage.

    - They don't want to tell me their life's story.

    Put me on an all-dog flight anytime. But, as much as 3WE would like it to be, this thread isn't about me...Correct; however your crazy view that this is some sort of incident that is 110% based on 'nut-job officials who need to satisfy over-the-top power trips' has gotten the attention of the normal forumites.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  7. #47
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Wrong and wrong.
    And how would putting them in the hold help with the recirculation and the closed environment, if that was your concern?
    I said "An aircraft cabin is a closed environment where allergens can recirculate." I should be more specific and say that allergens can recirculate if HEPA filters are not being used. There is currently no FAA or other requirement for HEPA filtration. It is entirely voluntary. It's not hard to see a penny-pinching airline looking there for a way to squeeze out a bit more profit. And they only work when they are properly maintained. Save a penny here, save a penny there, and no one is the wiser.

    However, the closed (and close) environment is more the issue. Let's not forget that a Southwest AIrlines 737 is a sardine can of profit-seeking industry. No 737 ventilation system is going to be able to overcome allergens from the dog sitting next to you in a 12-foot wide metal tube, especially during boarding with the engines down.

    If you suffered from asthma the way you suffer from bruised knees, you might find another reason to dread the aircraft cabin.

  8. #48
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ATLcrew View Post
    Our cargo holds are pressurized but NOT heated, hence we don't have a live animals in cargo program.
    AIrcraft?

  9. #49
    Senior Member TeeVee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    As I'm sure you know, counselor, the Americans with Disabilities Act states that title II (State and local government services) and title III (public accommodations and commercial facilities) must permit service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas where members of the public are allowed to go. As you might surmise, the cabin of a transport category aircraft is not clearly defined as either title II or title III, thus there is no clear legal guidelines to follow. This, of course leads to confusion and confrontational situations such as that which forms the topic of this thread. There are things to consider. An aircraft cabin is a closed environment where allergens can recirculate. It is a bad place for pets. Estimate range up to 15% of the population will experience pet allergies. Up to a third of those with asthma experience complications due to pet dander, and quite a few people suffer from asthma these days. Meanwhile we have a nice alloted space below the cabin where animals typically ride, in an enviable state of sedation.

    The industry neglects to address the issue. The same industry neglects to inform passengers at the time of booking when pets will be present in the cabin. If further neglects to provide a dignified cabin environment, instead creating a stressful and uncomfortable one for the sake of profits.

    Add it up. No clear ruling on the legality of pets in the cabin. No means to warn those with allergies at the time of booking. A declining cabin environment that inspires frustration and stress for both passengers and cabin crew. Now bring a couple dogs into the arena, along with a passenger having a serious dog allergy. And watch the fur fly.

    It's all very predictable and disgraceful and downright disturbing. We need to govern this industry before it devolves into chaos. It's practically there now. Respectable people are getting dragged off planes by uniformed barbarians as a result. It's time we give up this fantasy that deregulation works and restore some sort of order and dignity to the aviation industry. We need something akin to a passengers bill of rights. We need rules that everyone can understand and follow.
    wow! just wow! i think i will actually buy you the soapbox upon which you can stand to preach to EVERY airline in the country about which you know so much and they so little.

    oh, and evan, when you have a second, read this: Title 14 CFR Part 382

    i'll accept apologies afterwards.

    EDIT: ATLcrew beat me to it and i hadn't read his post.

  10. #50
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ATLcrew View Post
    Indeed the ADA does not apply to the aircraft at all (although it DOES apply to airports). Accommodation on the aircraft itself is governed by a different law, namely Air Carrier Access Act (49 USC 41705).
    Ok, I wasn't aware of the ACAA. They do indeed provide guidance for this issue. I wonder how well FA's and flight crews are made aware of it. The guidelines are still quite subjective on what constitutes a serious allergy that is threatening and represents a disability but it does recommend that the passenger with the allergy either be reseated to a place distant enough to prevent an onset or to rebook that passenger. Personally, I think it's a bit ill considered, as it makes no direct mention of people with pet-allergy triggered asthma and for the most part downplays the risks. By comparison, if the service animal is obstructing an exit or cannot be placed with the owner, they recommend placing it in the cargo compartment.

    The basic criteria is:

    To determine whether an animal is a service animal and should be allowed to accompany its user in the cabin, airline personnel should:
    1. Establish whether the animal is a pet or a service animal, and whether the passenger is a qualified 73 individual with a disability; and then
    2. Determine if the service animal presents either a “direct threat to the health or safety of others'.
    Attached to that criteria is a footnote:

    * If a passenger provides credible verbal assurances, or medical documentation, that he or she has an allergy to a particular sort of animal that rises to the level of a disability (e.g., produces shock or respiratory distress that could require emergency or significant medi cal treatment), and there is a service animal of that kind seated nearby, the carrier should try to place as much distance as possible between the service animal and the individual with the allergy.
    A bit foolish and naive I think.

    Did they do this? I would like to know.

    But here is the most relevant part:

    * It is unlikely that the mere presence of an animal in the same cabin would, by itself, even if located at a distance from an allergic passenger, produce a severe allergic reaction rising to the level of a disability. However, if there was strong evidence that this was the case, it could be necessary to rebook one of the passengers on another flight. Since one disability does not trump another, the carrier should consider a disability-neutral means of determining which passenger would have to be rebooked (e.g., which passenger made the earlier reservation).
    Most everyone feels sympathetic to people with obvious disabilities requiring service animals. People with allergies tend to be get less sympathy and are often ridiculed or perceived as a nuisance. I wonder how much that played a role in this. The ACAA makes a good point about remaining "disability-neutral" but in practice I doubt that neutrality exists between a blind person and a person with a hidden allergy.

    But, most importantly, as I said at the beginning of this thread, it's not the why that deeply troubles me here, it's the how. When we end up using brute force to drag people of planes, there is most likely a larger problem to be dealt with than the individual. Evolved societies will investigate that and take steps to ensure that it will only happen in the most extreme circumstances. It's becoming the new normal and that should be very troubling to us all.

  11. #51
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    ...as I said at the beginning of this thread, it's not the why that deeply troubles me here, it's the how. When we end up using brute force to drag people of planes...Evolved societies...It's becoming the new normal...
    Ok, so you refuse to acknowledge that there will ever be any valid reason to remove anyone. I know you never say exactly that, but you really are suggesting that...repeatedly and fairly clearly.

    So, you don't like how we remove people who resist being removed?

    Ok, how would you do that? (I think someone asked you that already):

    -Tazer them?
    -Shoot them with tranquilizer darts?
    -Offload everyone and fill the cabin with a gentle, FDA-approved, non-allergenic, no-side-effect anesthetic?
    -Totally back off and just let them live in the plane as long as the nuts and cokes and toilet paper hold out? (do we keep the AC and electricity on too?)
    (Good luck with all of those alternatives).

    Is it getting worse? Yeah probably. Does the airline customer service model fuel it- yes, some, but do the (growing faction of) customers being lying, cheating assholes also fuel it?

    I do concur that I worry about our society, and it ain't particularly civilized any more. But I disconcur that WN and their agents and the airport police get much blame here.

    And do not agree with your vehement objection that passengers who are truly non compliant to fully reasonable and fully lawful and fully common sense orders to get off the plane and are an ass and refuse to do so...be forcefully removed.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  12. #52
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    -Totally back off and just let them live in the plane as long as the nuts and cokes and toilet paper hold out? (do we keep the AC and electricity on too?)
    On second thought, I do like this option. I've always wanted to sit in the captain's seat, crank the wheel, and flip switches and make a PA announcement in my best deep voice.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  13. #53
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    AIrcraft?
    A320 Series. Our newly-built ones come without cargo heaters, while the ones we have that came with them originally have had them deactivated.

  14. #54
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Ok, I wasn't aware of the ACAA.
    Oh my.

  15. #55
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ATLcrew View Post
    A320 Series. Our newly-built ones come without cargo heaters, while the ones we have that came with them originally have had them deactivated.
    The aft cargo compartment is still heated though. The A320 aft cargo compartment is fed heated cabin air as the extraction fan moves it to the outflow valve. How can you do this without heating the compartment in the process?

    The 737 works the same way.

  16. #56
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    The aft cargo compartment is still heated though. The A320 aft cargo compartment is fed heated cabin air as the extraction fan moves it to the outflow valve. How can you do this without heating the compartment in the process?
    Temperature control is the issue. At least, that's what we're told.

  17. #57
    Senior Member TeeVee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,808

    Default

    Most severely allergic people carry epi-pens. If not, sux to be them. People with service animals don't really have another option.

  18. #58
    Super Moderator brianw999's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
    Posts
    11,405

    Default

    Quoted by someone here.....

    To determine whether an animal is a service animal and should be allowed to accompany its user in the cabin, airline personnel should:
    1. Establish whether the animal is a pet or a service animal, and whether the passenger is a qualified 73 individual with a disability; and then
    2. Determine if the service animal presents either a “direct threat to the health or safety of others'.

    So now cabin crew will have to be first aid trained, food and drink service trained, emergency exit management trained......and a veterinarian as well. ? One thing is for sure, in my experience a service dog is generally the most docile creature you can come across. That's one of the reasons that they get to be a trained service dog in the first place.

    All this bollocks about airborne pathogens is just that....plain bollocks. The air in an aircraft has the life, and any associated pathogens filtered out of it. Provided the allergic person doesn't scratch the dogs fur there isn't going to be a problem. What makes me smile is that these "people with an allergy" happily spend as much as 6 hours in the airport in close proximity to thousands of other people many of whom will be carrying pathogens on their bodies and luggage.
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !


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
  •