Posted on 06/22/2009 6:50:10 AM PDT by Schnucki
The flag carrier, and its regional airline Jazz, will allow customers to book a space under their seats for a pet for travel from July 1. They will pay $50 (£30) for a domestic flight in North America or $100 for international flights.
Owners must stow pets in leakproof carriers weighing in total no more than 10kg (22lb). A maximum of four pets will be carried per flight. An Air Canada spokesman said it would consider the needs of passengers with allergies when allocating seats. The carriage of pets is not allowed on flights to or from Britain.
Next month sees the launch of Pet Airways, an airline that will fly cats or dogs between five US cities. Pets will travel in a Beechcraft 1900 that can hold 50 animals, two pilots and one pet attendant.
An increasing number of Britons plan on taking their dogs on holiday this summer. Bookings from Britons wanting to holiday with their pets are up by 150 per cent at the hotels of Best Western, which offers customised dog-beds and fine dining options from its canine menu. In Britain, the Pet Travel Scheme (Pets) allows pets entering or returning the country to pass freely without having to undergo the usual six-month quarantine period.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
It always amazes me how disrespectful animal owners are of others.
They are animals, they don't belong on planes, or in hotels.
Sorry, but transporting a dog 700 miles for someone is like going overseas to adopt a child when a kid next door is an orphan.
The airlines being talked about don’t have a problem with small pets in the passenger compartment, and are prudent in the size and placement of said critters while aboard. The critter is expressly NOT allowed out of its kennel. Any pet dander that *might* affect a sensitive passenger is more likely to come from another passenger’s clothing.
Why do you have such a problem with pets anyway? Also, since you don’t know the circumstances of the emergency transport of the pup, who are you to judge?
I treat my dogs so they know they are dogs, but they also are with me ALL the time if I am not at work. It’s a “pack” thaing, and top dog has to stay that way.
Unless you have allergy problems, if you don’t want my dogs to come visit, I’m not coming either.
It’s been said that you can tell a lot about a person by their attitude towards and treatment of domestic animals. The strong hostility towards travelling with our canine companions shown by some here is quite disturbing. I suppose these folks also get bent out of shape when you come across a seeing-eye or hearing ear dog, too. Both of these working dogs are allowed aboard aircraft and in all public places, and they are a danged sight larger than any animal that can fit (in their kennel) in the space under the seat in front of you!
What about therapy dogs, or monitoring companions for the disabled?
The airlines are careful and prudent with where, when, and which flights they allow small animals to travel in the passenger compartment, and they have studied the situation a LOT more than you or I.
Rather than second-guessing these folks, and simultaneously trying to force your opinion of and disdain for our furry friends on your fellow traveller, why not just request that you are on a pet-free flight?
I disagree. You can tell about a person or a society by how they treat their fellow humans. Not their animals.
Dogs have their place (law enforement, therapy, Seeing or hearing). But humans should always come first.
I don't have a problem with pets as long as they are kept away from me or anyone else that does not was a animal near them.
An emergency for a dog? I don't think so. A human, yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.