|
|
#256681 - 11/13/09 06:14 PM
Re: Airline Embargo Against Bully Breeds
[Re: Anne Jones]
|
Melissa Thom
Leerburg Web Board User
Registered: 12/04/07
Posts: 1556
Loc: Upper Left hand corner, USA
|
Online
|
|
The place I work also doesn't allow pits for insurance reasons.
Bottom line is it's a private company, they don't have to fly dogs at all and are able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, at any time. If you don't like it find an airline that will fly a pit.
It's easy to howl about how the world is an unfair place until you realize flying isn't a right, taking your dog on a flight isn't a right, and that the ability of private companies to apply services usually have boundries related to other business details around who they are willing to supply those services to. For instance my business won't take pits, unvaccinated dogs, vicious dogs, dogs with health conditions requiring shots, epileptic dogs, hybrids, etc for liability reasons due to the constraints on our insurance. We "could" accept them anyways but why would we risk the consequences?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#256698 - 11/14/09 01:15 AM
Re: Airline Embargo Against Bully Breeds
[Re: Katie Finlay]
|
Melissa Thom
Leerburg Web Board User
Registered: 12/04/07
Posts: 1556
Loc: Upper Left hand corner, USA
|
|
Online
|
|
Vicious guidelines as applies to my business usually means aggression outside of "normal" parameters to the point where the dog is just plain unsafe to handle without a catch pole. Honestly it doesn't come up too often happily due to the client list we keep, but we have had to send a couple dogs home or to their vet for boarding simply because the dog was unsafe for us to handle. As far as airlines I would assume that vicious would make the dog fundamentally unable to be handled safely for purposes of transport, biting at kennel doors, unable to be safely loaded into a kennel, etc. I don't think it's really all that unreasonable.
But that's not the topic at hand. The topic at hand is flying with a pit. My point is simply... yeah... it's their right to refuse service because it's their airline, their insurance policy, and they make the rules for who they supply that service to, just like any other business. Just like it's your right to choose who you give your business to. Just realize it's not always the company's "fault" but rather the most cost effective insurance plan they can gather. A company after all doesn't exist to care about your pet, just your money, their money, and their ability to satisfy the gathering of that money for their shareholders.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#256701 - 11/14/09 03:18 AM
Re: Airline Embargo Against Bully Breeds
[Re: Katie Finlay]
|
Melissa Thom
Leerburg Web Board User
Registered: 12/04/07
Posts: 1556
Loc: Upper Left hand corner, USA
|
|
Online
|
|
We can debate business models service vs retail til the cows come home but the bottom line is a service industry weighs benefit vs cost in all things. Most of them ask the question does the risk in taking on a specific client group outweigh the benefit of taking on that client group. If the answer is yes then they simply don't take on that client group. That's why if your credit score sucks it's hard to get a cel phone without a giant deposit to cover the risk.
So the fastest way to change this policy is to gather groups of people who'd like to fly Continental with their currently restricted dogs. In most cases they group flat faced breeds together because of risks associated with those dogs dying in flight, and then they group animals together who have either annoying travel restrictions that they'd rather not deal with the liability of, or animals that they feel present a risk to baggage handlers. A simple letter to their corporate headquarters often yields answers to these why questions.
For instance Alaska airlines puts this reasoning in place for their policy. I'm not sure how much of it is putting a cute face on something but you get the idea.
"The health of your pet is important. Due to health risks, brachycephalic (shortnose) dogs/cats are only accepted for travel at owner's risk and excess valuation is not available. The following is a list of the affected breeds:
Dogs: American Pit Bull, American Staffordshire, Boston Terrier, Brussels Griffin, Bull Mastiff, Bull Terrier, Chow Chow, Dutch Pug, English Bulldog, English Toy Spaniel, French Bulldog, Japanese Boxer, Japanese Spaniel, Pekinese Pug, Shih Tzu, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Terrier, Bulldog, Pug, Boxer.
Cats: Burmese, Exotic, Himalayan, Persian."
http://www.alaskaair.com/as/www2/help/faqs/Traveling-With-Pets.asp
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#256709 - 11/14/09 09:12 AM
Re: Airline Embargo Against Bully Breeds
[Re: Katie Finlay]
|
Jenni Williams
Leerburg Web Board User
Registered: 10/06/05
Posts: 2712
Loc: Serena, llinois
|
Offline
|
|
For those of you that remember the Stark debacle, he flew Continental. My friend picked him up at the airport, and he heard him flipping out all through the terminal as he walked in to get him. He had to have help to get him into his truck b/c they couldn't take him out, he was so aggressive. He made several attempts to bite them through the crate. I actually couldn't get a leash on him for 3 days. He was your typical nervebag showline POS, IMO, but that's not the point.
My only point is that they frequently handle "vicious" dogs of other breeds, no problem. This is just another result of mass media scare tactics. Yes, we'll gladly take an unstable GSD, but your stable Pit is bad for business and/or our image and/or both and/or all of the above. Superb. <sigh>
Katie, unfortunately...I'm afraid this is futile. Vote with your wallet but don't expect miracles.
_________________________
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Deanna Thompson, Roni Hoff, Connie Sutherland, Will Rambeau, Ed Frawley, Kevin Sheldahl, Cindy Easton Rhodes
|
15668 Members
165 Forums
25000 Topics
262477 Posts
Max Online: 945 @ 07/29/07 04:46 PM
|
|
|
