126 replies to this topic

[TerryandMike]

So, it appears that United has changed it's pets policy, as they have the right to do, but rather than own it, they are blaming it on other things, such as foreign government policies.
Shame on United.

[mary]

So maybe United reclassified pets as cargo instead of excess baggage recently & this caused the problem?

[chuburnaman]

The executive United put in charge of Destroying their business will be getting a big raise this year.  Outrageous fares, total disregard for their customers, and now new non existing  rules.  The Continental employees have to be very upset with how this merger has turned out.

[nebinkwe]

mary, on 10 May 2012 - 05:21 AM, said:

So maybe United reclassified pets as cargo instead of excess baggage recently & this caused the problem?

That's fine, if that's what they've done, BUT, WHY lie about it and say that this 'new policy' is industry wide, when clearly it's not?
Why hide behind a non-existent 'shift in policy' when, in reality, United has to know that WHEN people coming to Mexico realize that other airline carriers are not following this 'policy', people will know that UNITED LIED!!
I wonder if my friend Dave Carroll of "United Breaks Guitars" fame would be willing to make a 4th 'United'  video?

[doble]

Yolisto-Khaki, on 08 May 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

You have been brilliant today! All of you! I had to laugh... shouldn't they have guessed that the marching, protesting young people of the 60s and 70s would someday grow into a generation of retirees who could hold their own in any situation? CasiYucateco is right - start at the top and keep the pressure on.

I absolutely agree - however, as a Canadian, I wasn't protesting the Vietnam war when I was going to University in the late 60s and 70s - I was, however, supportive of the "burn the bra" movement       .

[Joanne]

Time to use your wallets to let United know how you all feel.  Even if you don't travel with pets, it may be worth flying with a different airline just let send a message.

[whazzoo]

Got to love UNITED'S business plan

1) piss off all your customers.........check

2) piss off all animal lovers.............check

3) price gouge...................................check

4) offer no customer service............check

5) get staff angry................................check

6) repeat as required.........................check

7) lie as needed..................................check

8) when caught keep lying................check


whazzoo

[jiminchelem]

too bad that burn the bra movement didn't last.................

[doble]

jiminchelem, on 10 May 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

too bad that burn the bra movement didn't last.................

I think it was gravity that ended it -

[Pyro]

Let me throw this into the mess.

  http://blogs.federal...ted-pet-policy/

  I believe this will shoot holes in UA/CO claiming "Mexican rules".

[Yolisto-Khaki]

Joanne, on 10 May 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

Time to use your wallets to let United know how you all feel.  Even if you don't travel with pets, it may be worth flying with a different airline just let send a message.

I totally agree. Its time to form new relationships with different airlines because United-Continental obviously does not want to be in the airline business. I'm sure we and all of our friends and families can help them get out of business in an orderly fashion - but as quickly as humanly possible.

Personally, I find it offensive that they lied (repeatedly) and blamed this on the Mexican government's new regulation, when its no such thing!

and thanks Pyro... there's no telling how many groups we're ultimately going to find who have been abused by this new policy before we help United-Continental out of business.

[iowahawkeye]

When the topic was initiated, the OP believed that the "new" policy only impacted travel to Mexico and her thread of interaction with UAL seems to have supported that belief. Now we learn that the policy change is worldwide through posting on the US FSOA web site. UAL's duplicity aside, these facts futher support Whazoo's comment about UAL as a corporate citizen. However, it is foolish to expect that any corporation (in the United States at least) cares about goodwill, employee welfare or customer satisfaction. The only concern of any corporation is the welfare of the managers and the limited number of shareholders who impact the employment status of the managers. How else are multimillion dollar salaries justified?

[Pyro]

Yolisto-Khaki, on 10 May 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

I totally agree. Its time to form new relationships with different airlines because United-Continental obviously does not want to be in the airline business. I'm sure we and all of our friends and families can help them get out of business in an orderly fashion - but as quickly as humanly possible.

Personally, I find it offensive that they lied (repeatedly) and blamed this on the Mexican government's new regulation, when its no such thing!

and thanks Pyro... there's no telling how many groups we're ultimately going to find who have been abused by this new policy before we help United-Continental out of business.

  Sorry to rain on this but my contacts at the Fed. level feel this policy may be industry/world wide in the very near future.  DHS has been saying for years that terrorist's have been trying in implant bomb material inside dogs and cats.  The DHS/TSA would like to see pets flown in "cargo aircraft".  We can see the connection that if the animal is on the same aircraft it is easier for an incident to be perpetrated.

[iowahawkeye]

Pyro, on 10 May 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

  Sorry to rain on this but my contacts at the Fed. level feel this policy may be industry/world wide in the very near future.  DHS has been saying for years that terrorist's have been trying in implant bomb material inside dogs and cats.  The DHS/TSA would like to see pets flown in "cargo aircraft".  We can see the connection that if the animal is on the same aircraft it is easier for an incident to be perpetrated.

To extend this argument: There are places in this world where life is pretty cheap, particularly the lives of very young children, infants if you will. So, will HSA refuse flights for children with recent operations? Or maybe we will see more cases of infants and toddlers detained as "No Fly" risks.

[Yolisto-Khaki]

Your friend must not have a pet.

If they are afraid of terroristic threats from pets - there are enough pet owners and/or lovers to break up that little tea party in any number of ways... We could have a passport system for pets - just like we've got for people - and full body scanners work on pets just like they work on people... so they can forget banning pets from cabins.

[ChuckD]

iowahawkeye, on 10 May 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

Or maybe we will see more cases of infants and toddlers detained as "No Fly" risks.

That would probably make our flights more enjoyable

[ChuckD]

Yolisto-Khaki, on 10 May 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

Your friend must not have a pet.

If they are afraid of terroristic threats from pets - there are enough pet owners and/or lovers to break up that little tea party in any number of ways... We could have a passport system for pets - just like we've got for people - and full body scanners work on pets just like they work on people... so they can forget banning pets from cabins.

In other threads, people are bitching (dog metaphor) about high ticket/pet shipping costs.  They would get a lot higher if your ideas were implemented!   Personally, I don't feel that animals should be in the cabin with the humans. (but who cares about my opinion on this - just saying)

[yucatanhopeful]

Well now that you mention it......

Baby detained by TSA

[Yolisto-Khaki]

ChuckD, on 10 May 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

In other threads, people are bitching (dog metaphor) about high ticket/pet shipping costs.  They would get a lot higher if your ideas were implemented!   Personally, I don't feel that animals should be in the cabin with the humans. (but who cares about my opinion on this - just saying)

Chuck, actually - I agree that pets should not be in cabins with people because of the severe allergic reactions some people suffer. I actually saw an incident once, where someone had been smoking in a doctor's office after hours. The next day, a lady came through the door and almost died before paramedics could get to her. If the doctor's office hadn't been in a wing of the hospital, I don't think she would have survived.

However - unless airlines can guarantee the safety of the animals in cargo, then they will have to expect a growing backlash from the flying public. People are asked to move their families all over the world and pets are part of their family. Expats are asked to adopt dogs in other nations - to give them a "forever home" - and they willingly accept them with open arms. If pets can't come in the cabin and aren't safe in cargo - then all bets are off because I don't know of anyone who would willingly discard a pet. They'll pay the added fees until we can find a better option or fix this system.

[Dave_in_Ont]

Shirl and I have no irons in the fire about pets flying. (I think, personally, that is just plain mean to the pet. Just my opinion. If you can't live without the pet, stay where the pet is.)

We also can't boycotte the major airlines baecause we learned years ago that there are better alternatives. Long gone, for us, are the days when we paid $2000 US to Continental and Delta to fly in and out of Merida. $500-600 to Spirit or Westjet is much more sensible.