Here ya go:

http://www.examiner.com/x-1028-Pet-News-Examiner~y2009m10d27-Pit-bull-puppy-refused-to-be-flown-by-Continental-Airlines-video

It states that they will fly any Pit Bull, Pit Bull mix, or other bully breed if they are less than six months old and under 20 lbs. However, a rescue group tried to fly a 4 month old pup from Tennessee to California and he was refused, probably because he weighs about 25lbs. They won't even take French Bulldogs over 6 months of age. I had no idea this was going on!

Here is the article about the rescue refusal:
http://www.examiner.com/x-1028-Pet-News-Examiner~y2009m10d27-Pit-bull-puppy-refused-to-be-flown-by-Continental-Airlines-video

Unfortunately, not any surprize with all the bad press that the bully breeds get now adays. We can thank people like MV (can't use his name here) & the other idiots runing around with these breeds with chains on their necks & chains for leashes to proove how tuff the breeds are, & lack of proper socialization for helping that cause along, can't we?

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?

I understand. I just think if you're afraid of vicious dogs you shouldn't allow any dog to fly. You will never be able to tell what animals are vicious. We don't have any sort of bsl out here that I'm aware of. Even in apartments. They don't specify by breed, they just don't allow any dog over 40lbs (if they don't allow large dogs, for example) I think the lack of consistency in the regulations for things like this is what bothers me. You won't make it in the corporate world with this kind of thinking (that only bully breeds are capable of being a liability to your customers and staff). Being unable to recognize a liability like any uncontrolled animal will certainly end up with a lawsuit.

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.

I understand all that. I don't have or have ever had any dog of the bully breeds, so I'm not taking any of it personally. The basis of what upsets people is that the reasoning lacks any sort of valuable evidence. I don't really care whose fault it is or isn't, the fact is that bully breeds are not any more vicious than the other breeds. That's all it's really about. It disappoints me to see a lack of research in corporate companies that have made the Fortune 500 list (though they certainly didn't make anything close to a profit). Revenue might be the bottom line, but when you look at companies like Apple and Google you can't say they aren't trying to produce the best experience possible for their customers. I understand that's what Continental thinks they're doing, but I think allowing all breeds or no breeds over 6 mos/20 lb would do them well.

That said, the reason I want to stop BSL is because eventually it will spread all over. Then those with bully breeds will not be free to choose who they do business with, where they live, etc. And a countless number of healthy, happy, well loved and non-vicious pets will be euthanized.

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

I realize I posted the same link twice instead of this one:

http://www.continental.com/web/en-US/content/travel/animals/restrictions.aspx?Mobile=1

They don't allow pits and pit mixes because of the danger they pose to the staff and customers. That's my main problem. It just seems like no other dog could pose a danger. Excluding for health risks is understandable. That's what they do with other bully breeds, but the pits are considered dangerous.

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.