Another passenger dragged off plane

[pete_auau 1,152]

Don't  know  if  the link  will work  for  anyone  outside  oz  but   the  story  in short  was  a  passenger  said  she  had  a  deadly  allergic  conditions  with  dogs,  so happens   a  dog  was  on  board  with  another passenger,  she  wanted  the dog  removed  from the aircraft.  Since  she didn't have  a doctors  certificate  saying  of  her  condition  she  was  asked  to leave  the  aircraft  by  the  captain.  Of  course  she  refused so  authorities  were  called  aboard  to  drag  her  off,  now  she  been  charged  with a number  of  offences.  Be  interesting  to  see  what happens  Airline  was  south west

http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/09/28/08/27/woman-with-deadly-dog-allergy-dragged-screaming-off-plane

[Jude Bradley 659]

Yes, the link works Pete.

I thought dogs were supposed to be kept in the hold?

 

[pete_auau 1,152]

this  was  a companion  dog  i think  and  was allowed  to be  with her, kind  of  a guide  dog  i guess

[ErichB 3,638]

I'm a dog lover but there are certain places I don't want to see dogs at all.   There is no reason at all for a dog (guide dog or not) to accompany any person into the cabin of an aircraft.   The airline staff and ground crew are more than sufficient to take care of any onboarding/offboarding needs of any passenger who requires it.

Why people think they have the right to treat every shared public space like their personal living rooms these days is beyond me.  What's even more amusing is the indignant response when they get pulled up on it.

 

[Maarten Otto 18]

7 minutes ago, ErichB said:

I'm a dog lover but there are certain places I don't want to see dogs at all.   There is no reason at all for a dog (guide dog or not) to accompany any person into the cabin of an aircraft.   The airline staff and ground crew are more than sufficient to take care of any onboarding/offboarding needs of any passenger who requires it.

Why people think they need to treat every shared public space like their living rooms these days is beyond me. 

 

Easy to say from your couch. I work in public transport and the place I don't want to see a dog is at my butcher or bakery on the places we as a customer normally do not visit either. You don't know why the dog was there and there could be a good reason for allowing the dog in the cabin. Furthermore I doubt she is "life threatening allergic" to dogs. If this is the case, she would ABSOLUTELY carry an Epi-pen with antidote to keep her alive till she is in a hospital to receive further treatment. Same as people who are allergic to nuts. They have a doctors certificate AND carry an Epi-pen to keep them alive. Hell, I had to apply it to a customer on my train once to keep him from suffocating. So this woman is claiming a lot of things I sincerely doubt she is. 

 

Maarten Otto

International High Speed Train staff. 

[ErichB 3,638]

9 minutes ago, Maarten Otto said:

1. Furthermore I doubt she is "life threatening allergic" to dogs.

2. You don't know why the dog was there and there could be a good reason for allowing the dog in the cabin.

1. I don't disagree there.

2.  I highly doubt it.  This 'dog in the cabin' thing is quite a recent initiative - and unless the dog's owner had a life threatening separation anxiety condition (which doesn't exist) , there is no reason for it at all.

[pete_auau 1,152]

54 minutes ago, ErichB said:

I'm a dog lover but there are certain places I don't want to see dogs at all.   There is no reason at all for a dog (guide dog or not) to accompany any person into the cabin of an aircraft.   The airline staff and ground crew are more than sufficient to take care of any onboarding/offboarding needs of any passenger who requires it.

Why people think they have the right to treat every shared public space like their personal living rooms these days is beyond me.  What's even more amusing is the indignant response when they get pulled up on it.

 

dont  know  about  the  rules  of  guides  dogs  in aircraft,  but  in oz  its  against  the law  to refuse  entry  to people  with  guide  dogs

[ErichB 3,638]

52 minutes ago, pete_auau said:

in oz  its  against  the law  to refuse  entry  to people  with  guide  dogs

That I get and agree with.   Same in the UK

[W2DR 1,859]

With very few exceptions, all US airlines allow dogs in the cabin.  Here's the Southwest policy: https://www.southwest.com/html/customer-service/traveling-with-animals/index-pol.html . I have no idea what the specifics of the distressed passenger's problem might be but Southwest was right in removing her and not the dog.....Doug

[Jude Bradley 659]

Wow!, some good Q&A's there! https://www.southwest.com/html/customer-service/faqs.html?topic=pets

[Chock 17,769]

I was on a flight the other day (EasyJet A320) and they announced that they would not be serving any products with nuts in them because a passenger on board had an allergy to them. I can recall commenting jokingly to my girlfriend something like, 'aah, let em die, I want some peanuts' lol. Of course I wasn't really bothered about that, although I was bothered that they didn't have any bacon sandwiches left when I was trying to use up all the Euros I had left in shrapnel, because I really fancied a bacon sarnie, so we ended up buying loads of drinks.

With regard to the woman being hoofed off the flight, the fact is, if you get asked to leave an aeroplane for a fairly sound reason (and one would assume if you are in an environment where the presence of something might actually threaten your wellbeing, why wouldn't you?!), and you don't do it, then all bets are off. If you have a legit ticket, the airline is duty bound to get you to your destination on the next available flight, so it's not that big a deal and you would also be compensated for your inconvenience too. If you have a condition which might require some special arrangements, it is your responsibility to inform the airline of that, and if you don't, they can hardly be expected to start sorting that out when they are busy telling people to strap in. Yelling that you are a professor, or that you have to be somewhere urgently is no excuse, you should have thought about that beforehand, because the Airline Carrier Access Act in the US does cover carrying emotional support animals. To do so, you have to have proper documentation identifying the animal as such, and presumably the person with that animal did have that, so they were almost certainly following the proper procedures. in other words, it's a case of 'tough s***' for the woman who got hauled off.

It's not a carte blanche excuse for security staff to use unnecessary force of course, but on the other hand, what are they supposed to do when someone won't follow a reasonable request to leave?

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

The whole "emotional support" animal thing is kind of getting out of hand. Its getting to the point where I'm sure people are just using it as a a way to keep their lets with them even though they don't need it. It's also getting to the point where people ha e bough farm animals on the plane with them.

As a captain, I'm not going to kick someone off the plane or their animal off the plane unless they or their animal is causing physical harm to someone (biting or attacking someone else).

It's a touchy situation. It's something I know people with actual licensed service animals are getting a little ticked off about because it's causing issues for them and their animals when they actually need their animals to function in some instances.

I think southwest was in the right here and the lady was in the wrong. I don't understand why some people feel that if they are being inconvenienced, then things should change around them and thst they shouldn't have to a do a dsen thing to help their situation.

As far as licensed service animals on my airplane, they are welcomed aboard anytime!

 

Disclaimer: these views are my own personal views and are not a representation of the airline I work for or any of its employees, it's subsidiaries, subsidiaries' employees, contractors and contractor's employees.

 

 

 

[Skywolf 992]

This one is not an issue of the airline at all.  It is very confusing at first, wait the person complains first and then she didn't have her medical papers due to her allergy, and she needs an injection or something.  Southwest did fine by removing her and probably boarding her at a different flight.  I can't believe she did not think this through.  Media is over hyping this story and in this case the customer is at fault.

 

[Chock 17,769]

10 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

The whole "emotional support" animal thing is kind of getting out of hand. Its getting to the point where I'm sure people are just using it as a a way to keep their lets with them even though they don't need it. It's also getting to the point where people ha e bough farm animals on the plane with them.

As a captain, I'm not going to kick someone off the plane or their animal off the plane unless they or their animal is causing physical harm to someone (biting or attacking someone else).

It's a touchy situation. It's something I know people with actual licensed service animals are getting a little ticked off about because it's causing issues for them and their animals when they actually need their animals to function in some instances.

I think southwest was in the right here and the lady was in the wrong. I don't understand why some people feel that if they are being inconvenienced, then things should change around them and thst they shouldn't have to a do a dsen thing to help their situation.

As far as licensed service animals on my airplane, they are welcomed aboard anytime!

 

Disclaimer: these views are my own personal views and are not a representation of the airline I work for or any of its employees, it's subsidiaries, subsidiaries' employees, contractors and contractor's employees.

 

 

 

Yup, I guess there are some people who really ought to be told to snap out of it rather than having an 'emotional support animal', but I don't doubt that there are some people for whom it is a legitimate thing to have an animal which helps them. Anyone who has animals (I've got numerous dogs and horses), will know they can indeed be very good friends which are indeed therapeutic.

I'm gonna try that next time I tip up at the airport: 'hi, this is Katie, my emotional support horse, I know she's a bit big, but she will be quiet and I'll try my best not to have her cr*p in the aisles. Have you got any carrots on board? She loves them, in fact she'll give you a kiss if you offer her one.'

[KevinAu 441]

http://usdogregistry.org/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIiqnYmf_H1gIV3bjACh3AYw3pEAAYASAAEgIRv_D_BwE

Here, any of you with a pet and $79 can have an emotional support animal and not ever have to pay extra to fly with it.  And as an added bonus, anybody else on the plane who objects to your animal for whatever reason will be dragged off the plane to boot.  No one will ever say 'no' to you and your poodle.